Lord Advocate

My Lords, this Government acknowledge there is a live debate about the dual role of the Lord Advocate in Scotland. The Scottish Labour manifesto in 2024 committed to splitting the role of legal adviser to the Scottish Government and head of the system of criminal prosecutions in Scotland, and that remains our position. The UK Government would of course consider any proposal brought forward by the Scottish Parliament.

My Lords, I warmly welcome the Minister to her post on the Front Bench. The dual role of Lord Advocate as both the chief legal adviser to the Scottish Government and the head of the prosecution system in Scotland has become increasingly difficult to justify, not least in light of recent events and the potential for conflicts of interest. The current Prime Minister has acknowledged this as a problem. However, any changes to the status quo of course require UK Government legislation. Given that the Labour Party has long supported separating the Lord Advocate’s roles, will the Minister now commit to bringing forward legislation to do just that?

I thank the noble Lord and recognise his position as a former Scotland Office Minister and his knowledge and experience on this matter. He is of course right to emphasise that this has become a very significant issue of public debate in Scotland at the moment, given very high-profile criminal cases. It is a matter that demands attention. The UK Government of course have a significant interest in this, and the Prime Minister has acknowledged that this is a serious issue. The noble Lord will know that the Law Society of Scotland has recently suggested that there should be widespread consultation on this matter and has acknowledged that this is a complex matter. We recognise that the Scottish Government also have a strong interest in this and would welcome co-operation between the UK Government and the Scottish Government to pursue this matter.

My Lords, I too congratulate my noble friend on her well-deserved appointment to the Front Bench. On this occasion, however, I agree—for once—with the Opposition spokesperson.

Oh!

It had to happen some time. We should not wait for the Scottish Government to ask for the legislation to be changed. This is a responsibility of the UK Government and the UK Parliament. There are other areas, such as the Murrell controversy—that embezzlement. Now, there is £1.2 million of Yes Scotland money that has gone missing, and two legal actions against the Scottish Government—and they have had many in the past. We have a responsibility for ensuring good governance in every part of the United Kingdom, including in devolved Governments, and I hope that my noble friend will persuade the Secretary of State for Scotland to take some action on this.

I thank my noble friend for that question—I think. Of course, he is right on so many things, and I will listen very closely to what he has to say. He makes reference to the Peter Murrell case. Here, I must emphasise to noble Lords that this is a matter of great scandal in Scotland, and there are very serious concerns about what this has meant for Scottish politics and governance. So, I take very seriously these points and recognise what has been said. I commit to having that discussion with the Scottish Secretary and will of course communicate his views, and those of the Opposition, as forcefully as he has put them.

My Lords, we welcome the outline position taken by the Minister. But formally, and uniquely in the United Kingdom, the Lord Advocate is both head of the Prosecution Service in Scotland and a Government Minister who attends Cabinet. This duality, as has been said by everyone, has long been criticised. It has caused considerable public unease, particularly in relation to the Peter Murrell case. So, when will the Government separate and clarify the two roles, probably with the Solicitor-General responsible for prosecutions and the Lord Advocate for advising the Scottish Government on the law? That is the position in Wales with the Counsel General, and I suggest it represents a sensible position that everyone can support.

I recognise the depth of the argument that the noble Lord has put forward and understand the issues at stake, which are live in Scotland. We also have to acknowledge that this has implications for the Scottish Government, because they are responsible for the justice system and for prosecutions in Scotland. I am sorry to repeat the point, but the best way forward, I believe, is for joint co-operation between the UK Government and the Scottish Government. But, believe me, this is a live issue for the UK Government; it is one that is on our agenda and which we will pay attention to.

I also welcome the Minister to her seat. The conflicts that have been described are particularly bad for political party and election law. The Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, which applies to the whole of the United Kingdom, has an enormous raft of criminal offences. If you look down that list of criminal offences and compare them with the facts in the Murrell mess, you will see that there are quite a lot of things that may well come up and would present a terrible conflict straight away to the Lord Advocate. Given that the political party concerned there is one that operates nationally and is represented in our Houses, it is a UK Government thing and therefore I very much support what the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, has just said. One way to do something about it now would be to say that at the next interministerial group this will be the number1 item on the agenda and the group will not move on to the second item on the agenda until there is a satisfactory conclusion to something which is potentially so damaging to our democracy.

What an interesting suggestion. I thank the noble Earl for putting that forward. I will take that back to the department. I draw his attention to the Scottish Government-commissioned McMillan report which looked into these roles. It was a very limited report and was not required to make any recommendations, but even so it highlighted some of the conflicts of the job and some of the political tensions that are there. So I can commit to making sure that I have that discussion with the Secretary of State.

My Lords, recent events engulfing the SNP with the Murrell conviction crystallise the conflict of interest. The Lord Advocate, Scotland’s independent chief prosecutor, felt able to share information only with her client, the Scottish Government. A chief prosecutor either shares information with everyone or shares it with no one. I am comforted by the response from the Minister, to whom I also extend a welcome to her place. I think she is picking up from this House that there is an overwhelming unease that the duality of this role has run its day and change has to be made.

I pay tribute to the noble Baroness as well, who commands great respect in Scotland across the political divide. Her comments therefore are of great significance. I repeat that I will take that back, because if someone of her standing is making that point, I regard that as significant.

In the spirit of good will, I start by agreeing with the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes. If we are to look again at this Scotland Act, that requires primary legislation, and if we are going to have primary legislation opening up the Scotland Act again, which I think we should, can we further look at Schedule 5? Schedule 5 to the Scotland Act is everything that was a reserved matter, and anything that was not on Schedule 5 back in 1998 was not a reserved matter. Since then, many things have come to pass: AI, hydrogen gas and other things. I would be happy to give the Minister a list. I think it is important we look again at Schedule 5 and review all the things that should be reserved to this Parliament.

Again, as a former Secretary of State for Scotland, I pay tribute to the work of the noble Lord and recognise his status within these discussions. I would not want to be in a position where I contradict many of the things that I have recently said about Scottish politics, and I do not dismiss or undermine any of the points that have previously been made. But in Scotland there is a real appetite to talk less about the constitution and more about the interests of ordinary Scots, the standards of public services and some of the failures of the SNP Government. I will be honest with the noble Lord and say that that is my priority going forward.