House of Commons

Monday 8th June 2015 Commons Chamber

Monday 8 June 2015

The House met at half-past Two o’clock

Prayers

Monday 8th June 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions

Monday 8th June 2015 Commons Chamber

The Secretary of State was asked—

[Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)]

1. What the timetable is for the strategic defence and security review.

[The Secretary of State for Defence (Michael Fallon)]

I hope you will allow me, Mr Speaker, to welcome the new Minister for the Armed Forces and the new Minister for defence personnel and veterans, the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes North (Mark Lancaster), to their places.

Work has now begun on the 2015 strategic defence and security review, led by the Cabinet Office, and we expect the review to report towards the end of the year.

[Diana Johnson]

But before we had seen any timetable for the SDSR, the Chancellor last week announced £500 million-worth of defence cuts. Leaving aside our NATO commitments and the fundamental importance of keeping this nation safe, should we not assess our security needs first and then set the budget?

[Michael Fallon]

The savings announced last week were in-year savings that do not affect the core baseline defence budget, from which we will negotiate spending for the next three years; they do not affect manpower numbers; they do not affect our commitment to increase the equipment programme by 1% ahead of inflation; and they will have no effect on current operations. The strategic review on which we have now embarked will be, quite properly, aligned with the spending review, because defence, to be deliverable, has to be affordable.

[Sir Gerald Howarth (Aldershot) (Con)]

Surely my right hon. Friend must accept that, as the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) made clear, we need to establish the security requirements—the strategic prospects for the United Kingdom in a very dangerous world. I am extremely alarmed, as others are, at the prospect of another Treasury-driven review, at a time when we face a much more dangerous world than we did in 2010.

[Michael Fallon]

My hon. Friend speaks with great experience on these matters, as a former Defence Minister. Let me be clear with the House: this is a strategic defence and security review. It is not a Treasury-led review. It is a review across the whole of government to assess the threats to our country—and the future threats to it that may emerge; the capabilities we need to address those threats; and, of course, the resources we need to finance those capabilities.

[Chris Evans (Islwyn) (Lab/Co-op)]

19. The Secretary of State will know that the defence industry contains 300,000 jobs, 55,000 of which are reliant on exports. Will he guarantee that the impact on employment will be included in the SDSR?

[Michael Fallon]

Absolutely. This five-yearly review gives us the opportunity to look again at our defence industry to see how it is competing with our major defence competitors and whether enough is being done to advance those exports in certain markets, and to ensure that our smaller and medium-sized companies also enjoy the benefit. The defence industry is a major employer and this will be a key part of the review.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

In 2010, the SDSR largely neglected the threat from Russia. That situation has now changed. It was also not able to address the upheavals in the middle east, because they had not happened, but we now face a serious threat emanating from the middle east. Will my right hon. Friend assure me that those two factors will be clearly placed as assumptions in the next SDSR?

[Michael Fallon]

I can reassure my hon. Friend on that. We are building on the foundations of the 2010 review, much of whose analysis holds good, but, as he has told the House, it did not predict the sudden rise of ISIL in the middle east or the return of Russian aggression, with the attempt to change international borders by force in Europe. Let me assure him that both those threats will be a key part of this review.

[Brendan O'Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)]

In the forthcoming SDSR, what cognisance will the Secretary of State give to the fact that in last month’s general election a clear majority of the Scottish electorate voted for parties that put opposition to Trident at the forefront of their manifesto and that 57 of 59 Members returned from Scotland do not want Trident renewal to go ahead? What cognisance will he give to the fact that the Scottish Parliament, the Scottish Churches and the Scottish trade unions are also opposed to Trident—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. We are immensely grateful to the hon. Gentleman.

[Michael Fallon]

Successive Governments have supported the renewal of our nuclear deterrent that has helped to keep this country safe, and we are committed to replacing all four Vanguard submarines with new submarines that will serve this country until at least 2060. The deterrent is a major employer. Thousands of jobs are at stake in Faslane, in the hon. Gentleman’s own constituency, so I hope that he will consider the consequences of his policy on his own constituents.

[Brendan O'Hara]

Given that there was precious little strategy involved in the 2010 SDSR and that it was in fact little more than a cost-cutting exercise, will the Minister ensure that the process of renewing and purchasing United Kingdom maritime patrol aircraft will be undertaken immediately and that those aircraft will then be based where they should be historically and logically—in Scotland?

[Michael Fallon]

The 2010 review necessarily involved some tough decisions because we had to balance the budget as a result of the mess that we inherited from Labour. Let me assure the hon. Gentleman that we will be looking again at all these different capabilities and at the importance of Scotland. I hope that he noted that I was able to be on the Clyde this morning cutting the first steel on our very latest warship, HMS Medway, which is being built on the Clyde to defend the whole of the United Kingdom.

[Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)]

When the SDSR finally arrives, it must incorporate three promises: the Prime Minister’s promise during the general election campaign that there will be no cuts whatsoever in the regular forces; the promise that the Prime Minister made shortly after the last election that there will be real growth in defence spending; and the promise recently reiterated by the Secretary of State about the 1% increase in real terms in defence equipment spending from now onwards. Given those three commitments—leaving aside for a moment the 2% commitment to NATO—where will the Secretary of State find any cash at all to save if he is asked to by the comprehensive spending review?

[Michael Fallon]

My hon. Friend is right that he and I were elected on a mandate to replace the nuclear deterrent with four new nuclear ballistic submarines; to maintain the current size of the regular armed forces; and to increase our spending on the equipment programme by inflation plus 1% each year. It is our task now in this review to ensure that those commitments are held to and that our armed forces have the equipment and the resources that they need.

[Vernon Coaker (Gedling) (Lab)]

I congratulate the Defence Secretary on his reappointment and wish him and his ministerial team well for the future. I also pay tribute to all the crew on HMS Bulwark who are doing such a fantastic job in the Mediterranean at this time.

Owing to a lack of transparency—almost secrecy—nobody outside a small inner circle in the Government has a real clue about what is going on with respect to the forthcoming strategic defence and security review. At a time when Britain is being accused of resigning as a world power, should the Government not get a grip, abandon warm rhetoric and set out a clear timetable for discussing how we address our role in the world and the military capability that we need to match it?

[Michael Fallon]

I am grateful to the shadow Defence Secretary for what he said and congratulate him on hanging on in there, at least for the moment. I thank him for his tribute, which I hope the whole House will echo, to the crew and the air crew on HMS Bulwark. I visited Bulwark myself on Saturday afternoon and saw at first hand how the crews were preparing to cope with this extraordinary number of migrants who need rescuing from the sea.

As far as the strategic review is concerned, I have set out the timetable to the House today, and the scope and the ambition of the review, which has already started and will be concluded towards the end of this year. We will also consult key external voices, such as academics and those in other areas who have something to contribute to the review. I hope that will include the hon. Gentleman.

[Vernon Coaker]

That answer really shows just how complacent the Government are. Just yesterday, the US President spoke to the Prime Minister. The US Defence Secretary said that our actions seemed to indicate disengagement. I ask the Secretary of State again: when will the Government set out their plans to discuss, with Parliament and the rest of the country, the threats we face, our global role and the military capability we need? For example, when will they discuss the lack of a maritime patrol aircraft and what the availability of two aircraft carriers actually means—just two examples of the decisions facing the country? This is the Defence Secretary’s chance to launch a wide-ranging debate about the forthcoming SDSR. Will he do it?

[Michael Fallon]

Yes, of course we will engage with Parliament and I look forward to engaging with the newly established Select Committee on Defence. However, the hon. Gentleman has chosen two rather odd capabilities to put on the table. We are addressing the gap in maritime patrol aircraft because the previous Labour Government were supposed to deliver 23 Nimrods but, when we came into office in 2010, the programme was eight years behind schedule, £800 million over budget and not a single Nimrod had been delivered. He then went on to mention aircraft carriers, but it is this Government that are building two aircraft carriers and this Government that are committed to sailing them both.

[Mr David Jones (Clwyd West) (Con)]

2. What steps his Department is taking to counter ISIL in Iraq.

[Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)]

15. What steps his Department is taking to assist Iraqi forces in countering ISIL.

[The Secretary of State for Defence (Michael Fallon)]

The UK contributes significantly to the coalition against ISIL by providing sophisticated aircraft such as Tornado, Reaper, Rivet Joint and Sentinel from across the middle east and Cyprus to support Iraqi ground forces. We lead the coalition’s counter-improvised explosive device training programme and have trained more than 1,400 Iraqis in counter-IED and other infantry skills. Yesterday, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd West (Mr Jones) will have heard, we offered to expand that counter-IED and other training to additional coalition training sites.

[Mr David Jones]

Major General Tim Cross, who was the senior British officer involved in post-war planning in Iraq, attributed the fall of Ramadi to a lack of will or, as he put it, “moral cohesion” on the part of Iraqi forces. What is my right hon. Friend’s Department doing to help promote that moral cohesion in an Iraqi army that frequently heavily outnumbers its ISIL opponents?

[Michael Fallon]

The partners in the coalition and Prime Minister al-Abadi recognise that the Iraqi security forces need support to help them take the fight to ISIL on the ground. That is why we are contributing not simply to air support but to the building partner capacity programme, which aims to boost the capabilities and confidence of the Iraqi security forces.

[Neil Carmichael]

It is certainly correct that the Iraqi forces need strengthening. What further measures does the Secretary of State have in mind to do exactly that, as it is the long-term guarantee of security?

[Michael Fallon]

As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced at the weekend, we have offered a further 125 troops to join the coalition troops training the Iraqi security forces, including more than 60 counter-IED trainers. Those additional troops will be the first UK personnel deployed to training sites outside Irbil or Baghdad and, subject to the needs of the coalition, will take our presence in Iraq to more than 275 troops. As well as further counter-IED trainers, we are offering specialist training in areas such as medical skills, equipment maintenance, manoeuvre support and information operations.

[Ms Gisela Stuart (Birmingham, Edgbaston) (Lab)]

Building and strengthening partner capacity is happening not just in Iraq but in neighbouring countries. Will the Secretary of State say a little more about what we are doing with Jordan and whether we are expanding our capability there?

[Michael Fallon]

We have begun the training of moderate Syrian forces in bases outside Syria and a number of people are contributing to that training. Progress will depend on identifying suitable moderate forces that are prepared to take the fight to ISIL, particularly in the north of Syria, and ensuring that once they are trained they are ready to rejoin that fight. We are making that contribution to the training effort being led by the Americans and proposed for four different sites, all outside Syria.

[Ms Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh (Ochil and South Perthshire) (SNP)]

What steps is the Department taking to work with other Departments, particularly the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Department for International Development, to ensure that measures being taken to counter extremism include aid to support education, not just military action?

[Michael Fallon]

The hon. Lady is quite right. The effort has to be spread across diplomatic activity, political activity and communications activity. We have to make efforts to deradicalise extremists in our societies, so we have to take measures across the board. ISIL cannot simply be defeated militarily, and I can assure her that this is an effort that is spread across the Whitehall Departments to which she referred.

[Ian C. Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)]

Will the Secretary of State clarify, with the additional deployment, how many UK troops will serve in Iraq? Will he confirm that they are working not just with the Kurdistan Regional Government and in Baghdad but with the very varied ethnic groups in Iraq whose support is essential to a successful coalition effort?

[Michael Fallon]

The number involved, as I told the House, is about 275, but it will vary as the training forces begin and end service. The significance of the announcement at the weekend is that we will—[Interruption.] Two hundred and seventy five is the number that I have given the House. The significance of the announcement at the weekend is that some of those trainers will train at the building partner capacity bases outside the Kurdish areas.

[Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con)]

3. How many people have been recruited to the reserve forces in each of the last three years.

[Karen Lumley (Redditch) (Con)]

10. What assessment he has made of recent trends in recruitment of reservists.

[Sir Nicholas Soames (Mid Sussex) (Con)]

13. What assessment he has made of recent trends in recruitment of reservists.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Julian Brazier)]

Six thousand eight hundred and ten personnel joined the reserves in financial year 2014-15, a rise of 65% on the previous financial year. For 2012-13, the only statistics available are for the Army reserve, with 3,960 joining that year. We have made significant improvements to the recruiting process, the offer to reservists and the support we give to employers. We continue to look at further improvements to build on this considerable growth.

[Pauline Latham]

I thank the Minister for his reply. Can he explain what plans his Department has to celebrate reserves day later this month, and will he encourage hon. Members to support it in their constituencies?

[Mr Brazier]

Reserves day is an important opportunity for colleagues in the House to support the reserves. It was called uniform to work day, and a number of hon. Members took part in it. Reserve forces and cadets associations will tell colleagues about opportunities to support the event, including an opportunity in the House of Commons for Members and researchers, both existing members of the reserves and those who are interested in joining.

[Karen Lumley]

The 37 Signal Regiment reservists, who are based in my constituency, do an amazing job and have been awarded the freedom of our borough. Will my hon. Friend inform the House how future reserve proposals will help the regiment to continue its brilliant work?

[Mr Brazier]

I join my hon. Friend in her tribute to the 37 Signal Regiment, which has deployed personnel on operations to Afghanistan, as well as on recent exercises in Belize, Gibraltar, Germany and Cyprus, and has provided essential work to the civil authorities in the UK. Army reserve units are paired with, and train alongside, regular units and, when required, may deploy with them—in 37’s case, with 16 Signal Regiment, as she knows. Reserves have the same access to equipment and technology as their regular counterparts, and receive high-quality, challenging training, including more opportunities to exercise overseas.

[Mr Speaker]

I see the right hon. Member for Mid Sussex (Sir Nicholas Soames) has perambulated to a different part of the Chamber, and is not where we are accustomed to seeing him—but I can still see him.

[Sir Nicholas Soames]

May I first congratulate my hon. Friend on his tremendous support and enthusiasm for the reserves, which is very well taken? He is aware of my connection with the Royal Yeomanry, but is he aware that it is the best recruiting regiment in the reserves? That is not just because it has made good use of what the central facility provides but because it does a lot of it itself, and takes a lot of trouble over recruiting. Will he emphasise to all the other reserve units that they can do a great deal themselves to encourage people in their regimental family to get more people into the reserves?

[Mr Brazier]

I am always delighted to take a question from my right hon. Friend, whose illustrious grandfather was a long-serving member of the Territorial Army. He is quite right about the Royal Yeomanry’s achievements. I visited it twice in the past year, and in many ways it is a trailblazer. The key point that he makes about empowering units to do more to help themselves, including devolving some of the marketing budgets—something that we have begun to do—is very well taken.

[Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab)]

What is the average age of recruits to the reserves?

[Mr Brazier]

I do not have the exact age of reservist recruits, but the current average of the Army Reserve is 37. If the hon. Gentleman is thinking of joining, I am sure we can put him in touch with somebody.

[Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)]

14. Recent personnel statistics show that nearly a third of the armed forces are dissatisfied with military life, so what provisions are in place to ensure that this troubling figure is reduced?

[Mr Brazier]

There is no single bullet. The armed forces have come through a difficult time, with a combination of downsizing of the numbers in the Army as a result of the £38 billion black hole, and the end of operations in Afghanistan, which for many young men and women was an attractor. But measures ranging from the purchase of new equipment to an almost unparalleled number of overseas exercises, together with a fresh look at the terms and conditions of service, are all designed to address the issue that the hon. Gentleman points to.

[Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)]

I welcome the Minister back to his position and congratulate the two new members of the Defence team. In the run-up to the election the Prime Minister pledged that regular personnel numbers would not be reduced, but we heard last week about the first down payment from the Defence budget as a result of the Chancellor’s cuts. Can the Minister give an assurance that the target set by the previous Government for reservists will be met and funded?

[Mr Brazier]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his welcome, and the same applies to him. It is always a pleasure to spar across the Dispatch Box. The Conservative manifesto was clear about expanding the number of reservists across the three services to 35,000. The funding is there through the £1.8 billion that was provided over a 10-year period, and the current strengths are running ahead of schedule in all three volunteer reserve services.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. At this point I appeal for slightly snappier questions and answers because we have a lot to get through.

[Mr Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con)]

4. When he expects to complete negotiations on the sale of the Defence Storage and Distribution Agency in Ashchurch; and if he will make a statement.

[The Minister for Defence Procurement (Mr Philip Dunne)]

I know that my hon. Friend takes a keen interest in the Ministry of Defence presence at Ashchurch in his constituency. I am pleased to be able to inform him and the House that a land sale development partnership contract was signed with Vinci St Modwen in March this year to promote the site through the planning process and ultimately to enable its redevelopment, subject to planning consent. We expect to commence transfer of the site to our development partner in phases from early 2018.

[Mr Robertson]

I thank the Minister for that response and for the interest he has taken in the site. He will be aware that the threat of closure has hung over employees on that site for very many years. Can the redevelopment be moved along as quickly as possible with due regard to the future of those employees?

[Mr Dunne]

My hon. Friend rightly takes a great interest in the site for the welfare and future prospects of the employees from his constituency there. The 160 former employees and 80 agency staff within the Defence Support Group at Ashchurch were all transferred under the TUPE process across to Babcock on completion of that transaction on 31 March, and we have continuous and regular engagement with the trade union representatives to make sure that they are all fully informed.

[Derek Thomas (St Ives) (Con)]

5. What assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the contribution of the armed forces to tackling the spread of Ebola.

[The Minister for the Armed Forces (Penny Mordaunt)]

I would like to make the House aware that I have a declarable interest as a member of the Royal Navy Reserve. The Navy is investigating the most appropriate way for me to remain a reservist for the duration of my appointment as Minister for the Armed Forces. I will update the House in due course.

I thank my hon. Friend for enabling me to pay tribute to our armed forces who have served on Operation Gritrock, one of the most challenging operations in recent times, during which our medical professionals demonstrated tremendous skill and courage. Recent statistics show just 12 new cases of Ebola a week, well down from the more than 500 in November last year. The World Health Organisation currently assesses that Sierra Leone will be free from Ebola in a matter of weeks, and I am sure the whole House will want to join me in thanking our armed forces and our MOD civilians for all they have done in achieving that.

[Derek Thomas]

The Minister will be aware that personnel from RNAS Culdrose in my constituency sailed with RFA Argus last year as part of the Government’s reaction to the fight against Ebola. What assurances can she give that RNAS Culdrose will continue to be adequately resourced so that it can play a similar role in future crises?

[Penny Mordaunt]

Culdrose is certainly resourced for similar crises. In fact, only recently we deployed further personnel and three helicopters from there to assist in our operations to deal with the migrant crisis in the Mediterranean, where they are providing valuable information to the search and rescue operation. My hon. Friend is absolutely right to champion them.

[Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)]

I welcome the Minister to her new post, but may I gently remind her that the British Army’s capacity to intervene, even in helping with the Ebola crisis, will become more limited as time goes on, as America retreats as a pushy world power and we are more on our own in Europe and the world? The fact of the matter, as she knows, is that we could fit the whole of our defence forces into Wembley stadium, yet still she is in favour of cutting defence spending to below 2% of GDP.

[Penny Mordaunt]

As I speak, we have over 3,600 personnel deployed on 21 operations across 19 countries. We are actually doing more operations, although they might not have the profile of some recent operations, so our armed forces are still incredibly busy. We are also regenerating capability that was lost under the Labour Administration.

[Bridget Phillipson (Houghton and Sunderland South) (Lab)]

6. What plans the armed forces have to commemorate VJ Day.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mark Lancaster)]

As this is my first Defence Question Time, I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Although I remain a member of the Army Reserve, I have requested that I be placed on the unposted list for the duration of my appointment as a Defence Minister.

The MOD will be supporting the national commemorative and thanksgiving events that will take place in central London on Saturday 15 August. The Government are committed to providing their full support to those events, which will provide an opportunity for the public, and the nation at large, to honour and pay their respects to those who fought during the far east campaigns.

[Bridget Phillipson]

I am grateful to the Minister for that answer and welcome him to his new post. Men such as my late grandfather fought in the east, enduring the harshest conditions, and of course many never returned home. Will the Minister commit to working with colleagues across the Government to ensure that schools, organisations and communities have all the support they need to recognise the bravery and commitment of our veterans?

[Mark Lancaster]

I am delighted that the hon. Lady clearly shares my passion and determination to ensure that this year’s events will be a fitting tribute to veterans and their families, such as hers, who will be very much the focus. We are committed to marking the 70th anniversary of VJ Day and ensuring that veterans of the far east campaigns have a national event that provides an opportunity for the public and the nation to pay their respects and offer their gratitude. I will be delighted to work with any Member of the House who wishes to pursue that.

[Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)]

Last year I received a very moving letter from a veteran in Goole, Edgar Sheppard, whom I subsequently visited in his care home. He told me how concerned he was that young people did not know the sacrifice that he and his Burma veterans had endured. Can we ensure that our cadet forces and the Ministry of Defence work with the Department for Education to ensure that the school children of today know about the sacrifices of yesterday?

[Mark Lancaster]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. He will be aware of the Government’s commitment to the cadet forces expansion programme. We increased the number of cadet forces by over 100 during the previous Parliament, and we are committed to increasing it to 500. I am a great fan of the cadet force, having previously been a member of it, and am determined that we should expand it.

[Mr Keith Simpson (Broadland) (Con)]

7. Whether his Department’s budget will meet the NATO target of spending 2% of GDP on defence in each year to 2020.

[The Secretary of State for Defence (Michael Fallon)]

We will be spending 2% of GDP on defence this financial year. Spending beyond that will be determined in the spending review. The Government were elected with a mandate to maintain the size of our regular armed forces, increase the equipment budget in real terms every year and replace our four nuclear ballistic submarines. Those commitments will secure the shape and power of our armed forces throughout this Parliament.

[Mr Simpson]

I thank the Secretary of State for that answer, but I think he is aware from the comments already made that there is deep concern on both sides of the House about the fact that the Prime Minister, having asked other NATO countries to commit themselves to spending 2% of GDP on defence, is unable to commit to that beyond 2015-16. I hope we will all urge the Secretary of State to make certain that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is aware of that concern, given the threats that have been outlined and the fact that our capacity to deal with them is stretched pretty thin.

[Michael Fallon]

Let me assure my hon. Friend that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is fully aware of the commitments that were made at the NATO summit and has been even more fully aware during recent negotiations over the in-year savings, which have not taken us below 2%. It is important to note, though, that seven of the 28 NATO members do not even spend 1% on their defence and 20 of the 28 do not even spend 1.5%.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

As NATO now requires us to pay 2%, and apparently other member states the same, and has since 2006 given itself a global role, whose interests is it defending worldwide, and is it demanding that we replace the Trident nuclear missile system, or is that a self-grown decision?

[Michael Fallon]

The purpose of the alliance is to defend its members. That is why our troops were exercising last week in Estonia and will shortly be exercising in Romania and the Baltic sea, and why our Typhoons are flying with the Norwegians to protect the skies over Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania in the face of Russian aggression. We are one of the nuclear members of the NATO alliance, and that nuclear shield helps to protect all members of the alliance.

[Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

When the Secretary of State is next having a word in the shell-like ear of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, will he mention that it does not make a lot of sense for any Government to say that defence is the first duty of Government if they protect other Departments’ spending but not defence spending?

[Michael Fallon]

I know of my right hon. Friend’s long-standing commitment to defence and to defence expenditure. He is right, of course, that the first duty of Government is to defend our country and our people. I reminded him earlier of the commitments in the manifesto to protect the size and power of our armed forces right through this Parliament. However, I note what he has said. Those commitments are for the remaining three financial years, from 2016-17 onwards. These are matters for negotiation in the autumn.

[Martin John Docherty (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)]

Given the £500 million of cuts announced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer last week in this House, will the Secretary of State advise us whether they will affect Trident replacement? If not, will that mean a cut to conventional forces?

[Michael Fallon]

Let me assure the hon. Gentleman that the in-year savings that we have been asked to find for the current financial year are way below the original demand of the Treasury. They do not affect the 2% target that we are continuing to meet, they will have no effect on manpower numbers or on current operations—I have just explained to the House that we are extending one of our current operations in Iraq—and they will have no effect on the baseline of defence expenditure before the negotiations begin in the autumn. These savings will fall on some in-year expenditure on travel costs and on consultancy, and we will defer some spending on infrastructure and equipment from this financial year to the next—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. We are deeply obliged to the Secretary of State, but the answer is too long. We have to move on.

[Richard Benyon (Newbury) (Con)]

We are all waiting for the National Security Council risk assessment that the Government are carrying out at the moment. Can my right hon. Friend assure me that there will be an intellectual and coherent thread from that through to the strategic defence and security review, and from that to the comprehensive spending review?

[Michael Fallon]

Yes, I can. The review will be based on the risk assessment that is now being updated from the 2010 assessment. That will take us through the work that is being done under the review, which is being undertaken at the same time as the spending review, so all these things come together in identifying the threats we face and the capabilities we need to address them.

[John Woodcock (Barrow and Furness) (Lab/Co-op)]

Given the lack of success by the leader of the free world at the G7 in extracting the 2% commitment that he desired from the Prime Minister, I am realistic about my own chances, but will the Secretary of State at least accept that if the UK falls below 2%, it will do significant damage to our standing in NATO and our defence relationship with the United States?

[Michael Fallon]

It is nice to hear so many Opposition Members championing the cause of 2%. I did not hear that quite so loudly during the general election; perhaps I was listening to the wrong people, and perhaps the Opposition were due to explain exactly how they would finance it. Let us be clear what was agreed last September. In response to the threats from Russian aggression and the rise of ISIL—direct threats to us here in western Europe—the United States wants European members of NATO to shoulder a greater proportion of the burden.

[Byron Davies (Gower) (Con)]

8. What plans he has to strengthen the armed forces covenant.

[Nicola Blackwood (Oxford West and Abingdon) (Con)]

9. What plans he has to strengthen the armed forces covenant.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mark Lancaster)]

The armed forces covenant is one of this Government’s most important priorities; I will endeavour to drive it forward with the same passion and commitment as my predecessors. This year sees the implementation of a permanent commitment to the covenant through a £10 million per annum fund. Over the coming months, we will focus on how best to communicate the aims of the covenant and continue to work with industry and the voluntary sector to ensure that it goes from strength to strength.

[Byron Davies]

Ensuring that our servicemen and women can buy their own homes is, rightly, a priority for this Government. How many people have benefited from the Forces Help to Buy scheme so far?

[Mark Lancaster]

Forces Help to Buy gives service personnel the opportunity to get on the housing ladder, not only giving them and their families stability during their military service but helping them form a foundation for future life. I am pleased to say that since April 2014, more than 3,500 service personnel have received funds totalling £53.7 million. A further 1,800 service personnel have had their applications approved fully and are awaiting the completion of property purchases.

[Nicola Blackwood]

More than 20,000 skilled men and women, to whom we owe a debt of gratitude, leave the armed forces each year. What steps are the Government taking to ensure that local skills and economic strategies work effectively to realise the full potential of that highly trained, well disciplined and adaptable workforce?

[Mark Lancaster]

All those who join as junior ranks receive key skills training and complete professional apprenticeships. All personnel can access routes to higher and further education, are provided with some financial assistance and are given time to study. All personnel leaving the armed forces—about 20,000 a year—are entitled to resettlement provision to help their transition into future careers.

I am sure that my hon. Friend is rightly proud that Oxfordshire has led the way in delivering on our community covenant by being the first local authority to change its schools admissions policy to make it easier for the children of service families to secure school places by using base addresses before their postings. I know that she has played a key role in driving that forward, and I thank her for it.

[Conor McGinn (St Helens North) (Lab)]

I am sure that the Minister agrees that support for our veterans is fundamental to the armed forces covenant. There are 500,000 veterans in the north-west of England, many of them in my constituency, but not one penny of the £40 million veterans accommodation fund went to any organisation in the north-west. Will he ensure that funding for veterans organisations is fairly distributed across the country, and that there are mechanisms in place to do so?

[Mark Lancaster]

Yes, of course. The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that over the past three years, some £150 million of LIBOR funding has been used for the military covenant. I am determined that that should be spread equally across the country, and I will look into the matter that he has raised.

[Yvonne Fovargue (Makerfield) (Lab)]

I too welcome the Minister to his post, and I welcome his support for the armed forces covenant, but does the rhetoric match the reality on the ground? My local authority in Wigan is investing £500,000 to provide a veterans hub to create a single point of contact for veterans, in recognition of the current, confusing patchwork of provision. What is the Minister doing to ensure that such good practice is recognised and resourced throughout the country, ending the current postcode lottery for veterans?

[Mark Lancaster]

The hon. Lady will be aware that all local authorities in Great Britain have signed the community covenant. In my new role, I am very keen to ensure that best practice is spread across the United Kingdom. This is a partnership between the Ministry of Defence and, indeed, other Government Departments. If the hon. Lady feels that her own local authority has best practices that can be shared more widely, I shall be delighted to talk to her.

[Heather Wheeler (South Derbyshire) (Con)]

What steps is the Minister taking to implement our manifesto commitment to address hearing loss among veterans?

[Mark Lancaster]

The Royal British Legion was recently awarded £10 million LIBOR funding over five years to address long-term hearing issues. Work has already started with key stakeholders, and the Legion aims to launch the fund in early autumn. From summer 2015, the MOD will introduce new hearing protection measures for UK armed forces personnel, which will reduce the number of veterans with service-attributable hearing issues.

[Jack Lopresti (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Con)]

11. What progress has been made on the creation of a NATO very high readiness joint task force.

[The Secretary of State for Defence (Michael Fallon)]

Significant progress has been made on the very high readiness joint task force. The interim force is established and the operational force will be ready by the Warsaw summit next year. We will contribute a battle group to the Spanish-led task force next year, and we will lead a fully operational task force brigade from January 2017. Our contribution that year will increase from 2,500 to 3,000 personnel.

[Jack Lopresti]

Given reports in recent days of attacks against Ukrainian forces by Russian forces and separatists backed by Russia, what is NATO doing to deter such aggression, and could a rapid task force play an important role in that?

[Michael Fallon]

We are continuing to press for sanctions to be upheld against Russia. We are helping Ukrainian armed forces with trainers at six different sites in western Ukraine, training and improving the capacity of the Ukrainian armed forces. We have troops exercising in eastern Europe—in Romania and the Baltic—and our Typhoons are flying every day this summer to help to protect Baltic airspace.

[Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con)]

23. The need for the development of a NATO very high readiness joint task force is reflected in the deteriorating wider security situation, particularly with the Russians. That is not wholly consistent with relying on 30,000 reservists as part of our armed forces. If the wider security situation continues to deteriorate, will the Secretary of State review that reliance?

[Michael Fallon]

We have not yet got to the stage where Future Force 2020 has been completed. We have time enough to ensure that our total of 30,000 reservists is reached, but my hon. Friend will recall our manifesto commitment of no further cuts in the size of the regular armed forces.

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

12. What progress his Department has made on the introduction of Type 26 frigates.

[The Minister for Defence Procurement (Mr Philip Dunne)]

As my hon. Friend knows, in February this year the Prime Minister announced the awarding of a contract for the demonstration phase of the Type 26 programme, valued at £859 million, to complete the detailed design for the ship and engage the maritime supply chain to procure essential long-lead items. This is an incremental programme and detailed discussions with the contractors continue. We intend to award a contract for the manufacture phase next year.

[Richard Graham]

That is welcome news for many manufacturers and specialist engineers. Can my hon. Friend confirm that there is no danger of falling behind our manifesto commitment for a 1% plus inflation equipment plan for our defence, and that that will not fall victim to any deferring of expenditure referred to by the Defence Secretary?

[Mr Dunne]

The current contract is completely taken into account in the equipment plan, which, as my hon. Friend rightly points out, is due to increase by 1% a year in excess of inflation for each of the next five years, and we have planned for it to do so during the currency of the 10-year plan.

[Julian Knight (Solihull) (Con)]

T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

[The Secretary of State for Defence (Michael Fallon)]

My immediate priorities are: our operations against ISIL; the strategic defence and security review; and delivering our manifesto commitments to maintain the size of the armed forces, build four successor ballistic missile submarines and increase the equipment budget every year, ensuring the shape and power of our armed forces to keep Britain safe.

[Julian Knight]

Given the recent naming of the TS Royalist—the sea cadets’ flagship—what importance does the Secretary of State attach to our cadet forces in providing training and discipline to young people? Will he join me in visiting one of the cadet centres in my constituency?

[Michael Fallon]

Let me congratulate my hon. Friend on his election to this place. I am delighted that Her Royal Highness the Princess Royal recently named training ship Royalist. Cadet forces are hugely influential in the development of young people and in raising awareness of the armed forces. That is why I increased funding for 100 new cadet units in schools last year, and why we have committed to increasing the total number to 500 by 2020. I would be delighted to join my hon. Friend one day on a visit in his constituency.

[Vernon Coaker (Gedling) (Lab)]

The Defence Secretary recently attended a conference in Singapore, where the ongoing tensions in the South China sea were discussed. I recently visited Japan, where concerns were also raised. Does he agree that Britain has considerable interests in this area of the world, and that we all need to work together to defuse potential problems before they escalate? Is it not yet another example of where we need to be clear about what the Government’s actual strategy is in dealing with a very real potential problem?

[Michael Fallon]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman. Nearly half the world’s trade passes through the South China sea. When I spoke at that conference, I called on all those involved in land reclamation, not simply China, to exercise restraint, to pursue these claims through proper legal frameworks and to avoid the danger—the very real danger—of some local miscalculation that could escalate. He is right: this is a very serious issue, and this is a part of world in which we have a very strong commercial interest.

[Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)]

T3. What help is being given by our forces to aid reconstruction in Nepal? May I commend members of the Gurkha regiment and the Gurkha welfare scheme for overseeing the excellent water project that I and other members of the International Development Committee saw this spring? Will Ministers liaise with their counterparts to discuss supporting additional, desperately needed projects?

[The Minister for the Armed Forces (Penny Mordaunt)]

I thank my hon. Friend for again allowing me to pay tribute to the work not just of the Gurkhas—the Royal Gurkha Rifles and the Gurkha engineers—but to the superb job done by the RAF in transporting 148 tonnes of aid and equipment. We are funding the engineers who remain in Nepal supporting the Gurkha communities, and we are working closely with the Gurkha Welfare Trust to deliver further reconstruction work in the area. We are very clear that we are there for the long haul.

[Mr Speaker]

I call Alex Cunningham. Not here.

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

T4. Will the Defence Secretary clarify something he said earlier about the number of boots currently on the ground in Iraq? He said 250 troops were currently deployed, whereas The Guardian reports that the deployment of an additional 125 troops will take the number of“UK military personnel involved in Iraq-related missions to 900.”The Daily Telegraph and The Independent mention similar figures. Will he clarify why those press reports are different from what he told the House earlier?

[Michael Fallon]

Let me explain to the hon. Gentleman. The figure of 900 relates to the total mission—all those involved in helping to defeat ISIL—which of course includes our air crews in Akrotiri in Cyprus and at other bases in the Gulf. We expect the numbers on the ground in Iraq to reach about 275, with the increase that was announced at the weekend. As he said, the total mission will then involve about 900 people.

[Stephen Phillips (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)]

T5. Further to the question from my right hon. Friend the Member for Broadland (Mr Simpson), my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will know that post-conflict reconstruction and renewal costs borne by his Department do not currently count towards the 2% of GDP spending. Does he have any plans to lobby the OECD and/or NATO on this, and what is the Government’s position?

[Michael Fallon]

My hon. and learned Friend makes a fair and interesting point. We need to look at where expenditure from the defence and development budgets is security expenditure in the round. Where it is preventing conflict, helping to stabilise countries and avoiding the future commitment of British troops, there is a very strong case for looking at all these things together. The House will know that a sizeable part of our operation in Sierra Leone and indeed the humanitarian work in Nepal, to which the Minister for the Armed Forces referred, is classified as humanitarian assistance to those two countries and will be recouped from the overseas aid budget.

[Alex Salmond (Gordon) (SNP)]

Given that hairline fissures and radioactive leaks from the test reactor at Vulcan have necessitated the expenditure of several hundred million pounds to render the current Trident submarine fleet safe, how can the Government possibly justify going ahead with another generation of nuclear weapons without a test reactor? Has not that cavalier attitude towards the safety of the Scottish population resulted in 57 of the 59 Scottish MPs being against the renewal of Trident?

[Michael Fallon]

I absolutely reject that. The safety of the reactors is paramount and is consistently assessed at every stage of their life, from design and build through to operation and disposal. That is independently regulated in accordance with the law and by our own independent nuclear regulator.

[James Morris (Halesowen and Rowley Regis) (Con)]

T6. Does the Secretary of State agree that some of the most severe threats we face emanate from cyberspace, and that the strategic defence and security review should include our cyber-security capability to ensure that we have both offensive and defensive cyber capability?

[Penny Mordaunt]

I agree with my hon. Friend. Following the 2010 strategic defence and security review, the Government put in place a national cyber-security programme backed by £860 million of Government investment up to 2016. It is for the current SDSR to decide where cyber sits in the overall prioritisation of security threats and responses. However, we have been clear that we will continue to invest in our cyber-defence capabilities, partly because, as he knows, it is a rapidly developing area and we need to keep up.

[Angela Smith (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)]

We all know that the French navy is being used to plug gaps in military operations in the Gulf, and that in that context the US military has taken to describing our country as “Great shrinking Britain”. Surely the Secretary of State is concerned about that view of this country. What is he going to do about it?

[Michael Fallon]

I must tell the hon. Lady that HMS Kent was recently part of the carrier screen around the Charles de Gaulle in the Gulf. We have worked with the French to help lift their troops into Mali, and the French in turn help us. That is part of the alliance—France, the United States, ourselves and the Norwegians work together on these threats.

[James Heappey (Wells) (Con)]

T8. After the announcement last week of further troops to train indigenous forces in northern Iraq, and with the possible opportunities to stem the flow of economic migrants through Libya by building capacity in the security forces there, will my right hon. Friend confirm what resources are being made available to the Army so that it can develop that increasingly important capability?

[Michael Fallon]

I congratulate my hon. Friend not just on his election but on his magnificent maiden speech last week, in which he brought his own regimental experience to the House’s attention.

As my hon. Friend the Minister for the Armed Forces told the House, our personnel are engaged in some 21 operations around the world in 19 different countries, and we are ready to expand those operations where necessary. Just this weekend, we have announced an enlargement of our mission and our work in Iraq, and I have today told the House of an enlargement of our contribution to the very high readiness task force. We are able to do that only because we have balanced the defence budget and set out the right priorities for it.

[Robert Flello (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)]

How does the Secretary of State reconcile his warm words about veterans with the fact that one of my constituents, whose hearing was profoundly damaged during his time in the Army, cannot get any financial support because the support available for the armed forces is very different from that for people who work in, say, a factory, and have their hearing damaged there? How can that be right?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mark Lancaster)]

The hon. Gentleman will be aware of the investment that we mentioned earlier of £10 million for veterans with hearing loss. I am unaware of the details of the specific case he mentions, but I would be delighted to meet him to discuss it.

[Mrs Anne-Marie Trevelyan (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (Con)]

T9. Will the Minister meet me to discuss the gap in provision in Northumberland to support the growing number of veterans on my patch who are suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder?

[Mark Lancaster]

I would be happy to discuss any cases my hon. Friend has in mind, but I am not aware of any gaps in service provision in the Northumberland area. A wide range of services is available to those suffering from PTSD in that region, including the Veterans Wellbeing Assessment and Liaison Service, run by the local NHS foundation trust, which provides outreach and assessment workers and utilises existing community, primary and secondary care mental health services across the north-east.

[Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)]

I am incredibly proud of the work carried out by local government, especially by the Greater Manchester authorities and the combined authority in my city region, to implement the armed forces covenant at a local level, but may I urge the Minister to speak to his colleagues in government to ensure consistency across all Government Departments? Too many decisions are still being taken by Government Departments and Government agencies that are not consistent with the principles of the armed forces covenant.

[Mark Lancaster]

The hon. Gentleman is right to highlight the fact that the community covenant is the responsibility of not just the Ministry of Defence but all Government Departments. That is precisely why the Government have instigated a new working group that cross-cuts Government Departments to address the very issues he raises.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. May I very gently point out that we are not in the reading room of the Bearsden public library and that hon. Members should not read a newspaper unless it relates to the matter currently under consideration by the House? I say that in a jocular spirit to the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire (John Nicolson), who is a literate fellow. I am sure he will savour his enjoyment on a subsequent occasion.

[Kevin Brennan]

He was reading his horoscope. [Laughter.]

[Mr Speaker]

I would not want to suggest that the hon. Gentleman was reading his horoscope. I do not think he was doing anything of the kind—that is a calumny!

[Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)]

Defence diplomacy is a major component of Britain’s soft power. What steps are the Government taking to foster and encourage this aspect of our international relations?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Julian Brazier)]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right: defence engagement is of pivotal importance. We are in the process of “upgunning” the role of defence attachés worldwide, with more language training and a proper career structure to make it more attractive. That is part of a wider attempt to raise the importance of defence diplomacy. Soldiers, sailors and airmen can so often reach parts of our allies that others cannot.

[John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)]

Will the Secretary of State give the total cost of Trident replacement so far? Could he confirm whether this House has approved every element of that expenditure?

[Michael Fallon]

This House voted on the renewal of Trident with an overwhelming majority back in January—I think the largest majority for some years. I am very happy to set out in the House the details of the current expenditure. I think about £3 billion has been earmarked so far. I think, from memory, about £1.5 billion has been spent so far, but if I am wrong I will write to the hon. Gentleman.

[Mark Spencer (Sherwood) (Con)]

T10. What military assistance is being provided by the Department in the Mediterranean and north Africa to help with humanitarian disasters?

[Michael Fallon]

HMS Bulwark and three Merlin helicopters are conducting search and rescue in the Mediterranean. To date, they have rescued 2,909 migrants from the sea. I hope the whole House will pay tribute to the professionalism and bravery of those involved in this extraordinarily large rescue mission. As well as rescuing those at sea, we now need to address this problem further back by tackling the trafficking gangs who are making money out of this misery, and discouraging people from leaving their countries to make this long and very dangerous journey.

[John Woodcock (Barrow and Furness) (Lab/Co-op)]

May I tell the Secretary of State how much I enjoyed our exchange of letters during the election campaign—less so the 20,000 letters he sent to my constituents? Now that he has finished unsettling the carefully constructed supply chain, will he give a statement on the timetable for maingate? Is there a prospect of bringing it forward?

[Michael Fallon]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on surviving the election campaign. It is good to see him back in his place; indeed, it is good to hear him championing the renewal of the nuclear deterrent. I hope he will continue to do so throughout this Parliament. We expect the maingate decision to be taken in this Parliament—next year, I hope.

[Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)]

The Secretary of State set out the importance of cadet forces around the UK, but cadets in Heanor, in my constituency, report that they lack the funds to get the full experience they want and deserve. Is there a way of squeezing out more money so that cadets can get the experience they need?

[Mark Lancaster]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his commitment to supporting the community cadet force in his constituency. The Army Cadet Force receives £81 million a year distributed between the various detachments across UK counties. Derbyshire has a vibrant cadet representation. All three detachments in his constituency—Alfreton, Ripley and Heanor—see healthy attendance and are funded appropriately.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I am sorry to disappoint remaining colleagues, but we must now move on.

Protection of green spaces at Capstone Valley and areas around Otterham Quay Lane (Gillingham and Rainham)

Monday 8th June 2015 Commons Chamber

Mr Speaker

- Hansard - - Excerpts

I am genuinely sorry that the Chamber is marginally less packed than it previously was, but that is no reflection on the hon. Gentleman or the quality of his petition.

Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)

- Hansard - - Excerpts

I am very grateful, Mr Speaker. I wish to present a petition about the protection of green spaces at Capstone Valley and areas around Otterham Quay Lane in Gillingham and Rainham.

The petition states:

The Petition of residents of Gillingham and Rainham,

Declares that the Petitioners believe that the importance of Capstone Valley and the green lungs east of Rainham around Otterham Quay Lane should be protected from development.

The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to protect these much valued important green areas.

And the Petitioners remain, etc.

[P001527]

Clandestine Migrants (Harwich)

Monday 8th June 2015 Commons Chamber

15:35

[Mr Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Home Secretary to make a statement about the discovery and detention of 68 clandestine migrants by Border Force at Harwich international port on the night of Thursday 4 June.

[The Minister for Immigration (James Brokenshire)]

Last Thursday evening, Border Force officers at the port of Harwich detected and intercepted 68 migrants seeking to enter the UK illegally and clandestinely. The discovery came after four lorries were selected for examination and for searching through Border Force’s normal operating procedures. Among the 68 migrants were two pregnant women and 15 children. Seven migrants complained of chest pains and nausea and were taken to hospital as a precautionary measure. All four drivers of the lorries involved were arrested on suspicion of facilitating illegal immigration. They have been bailed but remain under investigation by law enforcement bodies, including the National Crime Agency.

Of the 68 people found, 35 were Afghans, 22 Chinese, 10 Vietnamese and one Russian. None of those taken to hospital, including the two pregnant women, was found to have a substantive medical condition of concern. Some of the individuals have claimed asylum, and UK Visas and Immigration is considering their claims, including suitability for the “detained fast track” process. Two of the asylum seekers are unaccompanied minors and have been placed in the care of Essex social services. We have already begun the work to seek the removal of the remaining migrants from the UK, and 15 have already been successfully removed. If we can show that those claiming asylum have also claimed in another EU member state, we will seek to remove them under the Dublin regulations. The Government are clear that the EU’s approach to migratory flows must include the proper management of the external border, the prompt return of those not in genuine need of protection and action to tackle the efforts of the smugglers and traffickers who profit from human misery.

I am aware that my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin) visited the port, which is in his constituency, on Friday, and I endorse and echo his positive words about the work of Border Force. It conducts rigorous checks, on a targeted basis, on lorries and other vehicles as they arrive at UK ports of entry, as was the case at Harwich on Thursday evening. Such checks are undertaken by skilled officers who have the expertise to identify individuals often well hidden in vehicles and they involve the use of state-of-the-art scanning and X-ray technology. Thursday night’s incident at Harwich comes on the back of several other good results for the Border Force team at that port. Among other successful operations in recent years, the team has made some significant seizures, including 15 kg of heroin in December, 17 kg of cocaine in May and 2.9 million cigarettes in March.

On the specific problems of clandestine immigrants, Border Force concentrates significant resources at the juxtaposed ports in northern France, where the vast majority of illegal border crossings are attempted. All lorries undergo enhanced screening at these locations, but our approach is flexible and intelligence led. Border Force can and does move its resources around on the basis of threat to ensure we keep one step ahead of the criminal gangs that exploit vulnerable people and try to circumvent our immigration laws.

The important work that Border Force officers carry out, detecting and intercepting those who attempt to enter the UK illegally, in conjunction with law enforcement agencies in the UK and internationally, is vital in the fight against organised criminal networks engaged in people smuggling. These gangs show a callous disregard for human life and seek to make a profit out of other people’s misery. I commend Border Force for its discovery last week and the work it does day in, day out to protect the UK’s border, and I commend this statement to the House.

[Mr Jenkin]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement. Can he confirm that this is, in fact, one of the largest discoveries of clandestines ever at a port of entry into the UK? I join him in his praise for Border Force and the effectiveness of its operation. I also join him in underlining what a pitiful sight these individuals were and in remembering that they are the victims of people traffickers as much as they are seeking to exploit the system themselves.

Does the Minister share public concern about the immediate implications of this discovery, which perhaps arise under three main issues? How much does this incident demonstrate the increasing pressures on Border Force and the UK authorities, and do they have adequate manpower and equipment? Harwich international port is able to stop and search only about 6% of the 250,000 commercial vehicles entering the UK at Harwich each year. It does not know and cannot know how many unchecked vehicles might contain undetected clandestines. Seeking out illegal entrants is not its first priority, which is to swipe passports of known passengers and carry out anti-terrorist measures.

Secondly, although Border Force was able to reassure me that it has effective working relationships with its counterparts in Holland and elsewhere across the continent, the UK does not have an agreement with Holland on what is known as—the Minister referred to it—juxtaposed controls, similar to those with France, which enable the UK authorities to operate on the ground at Calais and other French channel ports. Without criticising the Dutch Government in any way, this incident raises the question of whether arrangements at Hook of Holland need to be reviewed?

Thirdly, what signal does this send? Yes, we found these individuals, and I am delighted that the Minister has been able to tell us that 15 of these clandestine migrants have already been deported, but out of the 68, what is the likelihood that many will end up achieving what they wanted and be allowed to stay here? Why do clandestines cross continents of free countries to claim asylum here? While we must honour our obligations under the tightly defined criteria for asylum claims laid down in the 1951 Geneva convention, how much does the way that we adjudicate on the much wider provisions of the European convention on human rights unreasonably inflate asylum claims so that the UK attracts people to claim asylum here rather than elsewhere, and what should be done about that?

[James Brokenshire]

I thank my hon. Friend for the manner in which he has approached this issue. I know of the direct stance he has taken in visiting the port and ensuring that he represents his constituents effectively. He makes a powerful point about the pitiful sight of those discovered in these four lorries and about how those seeking to exploit migrants really have no care or consideration—even at times as to whether these people will live or die. That is the callous and harsh reality of the organised crime groups to which we are responding. That is also why it is right that we have enforcement activity both in this country, leveraging with the work of the National Crime Agency, and with other European partners.

My hon. Friend highlights his concerns about the immediate aftermath of the detection, and this has certainly been a very significant detection of illicit migrants, although we have worked hard across the whole of the juxtaposed and other port controls, with just over 39,000 detections being made last year. That shows the vigilance and hard work of Border Force—both in country and elsewhere.

My hon. Friend highlights the need to work internationally, which is certainly what we are doing with the Dutch and others, and asks why people are claiming asylum here rather than in other countries. I would point to the fact that, last year, there were 200,000 asylum claims in Germany—much more than the approximately 30,000 we saw in this country—and 81,000 in Sweden and 63,000 in France. A large majority of asylum claimants are thus going to other European countries rather than here. I can certainly assure my hon. Friend on the work that Border Force is undertaking and the work we will continue to do to secure our border, using technology and flexibly deploying our resources in respect of intelligence where we need it, and ensuring that we are doing all we can to secure our border.

[Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

First, may I thank you, Mr Speaker, and the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin) for raising this important issue here today? It remains one of the most serious humanitarian issues facing not just this Government but Europe as a whole. We must ensure that we maintain, as the Minister wants to do, the integrity of our borders. The people found at Harwich this weekend are as much victims of criminal gangs as those found on boats in the Mediterranean, or indeed at the border in Calais. As the Minister has said, we need concerted UK and EU action to ensure we stop this trade in human beings at source.

We on this side of the House warned in October that the removal of Operation Triton would lead to further pressure on European borders, and the lack of effective action taken in Calais by the French authorities and their failure to identify and to remove correctly those at the French border is leading to attempts at other borders, including those in Holland. The measures taken earlier this year by the Government and European Governments are welcome, and I also pay tribute to the armed forces for their help in the Mediterranean, but some questions remain.

First, will the Minister outline in detail what steps he is taking with our European partners and Europol to establish where the people traffickers are operating from, to follow the money raised by payment to these individuals back to source, and to establish further intelligence-led operations to close down this business? How many prosecutions of people traffickers have taken place in the past 12 months both in the UK and internationally? Will he now arrange an urgent meeting of the EU police forces and Ministers to look at this issue again, and to track, identify and prosecute those involved in this trade? Might we look particularly at the issues of north Africa and the middle east, and the Governments and regimes there, to help stop this trade at source?

Like the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex, I briefly want to look at what we are doing in the UK. We need to intensify the checks on vehicles, particularly lorries at UK ports of entry. Can the Minister confirm what percentage of lorries and containers are routinely checked at UK ports of entry, and say whether the figure of 6% for Harwich is accurate? Can he confirm whether the statement of the former inspector of borders, John Vine, at the weekend that

“good intelligence and experienced staff were critical, but a lot of experienced staff were leaving and not being replaced”

is true?

Can the Minister confirm whether Border Force funding is ring-fenced from the £30 million Home Office cut announced by the Chancellor last week? A further reduction in funding, even in these hard times, will put pressure on Border Force staff. Will he indicate, if not now then in writing in the Library of the House, how many staff were in post in May 2010 and how many staff are in post now? Does he accept that the pressures on Calais and the work done is Calais are now displacing people to other ports, as we warned last year? Will he look at the issue of the Dublin convention to make sure arrangements are put in place so that those whose first port of entry is not in the UK are dealt with elsewhere?

Finally, as the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex has asked, will the Minister indicate what steps he is taking to work with the Government of Holland in particular, but also those in Belgium, Spain and Ireland who have direct sea routes to the UK, to put in place stronger mechanisms, as we have in France, to stop the traffickers in mainland Europe?

This is a criminal trade, and the people at Harwich are victims. We need to make sure that the UK Government work hand in hand with our European partners because we need, collectively with the support of the Opposition, to close down this vile trade.

[James Brokenshire]

The right hon. Gentleman has asked a series of questions. I may not be able to answer all of them in the time available, but I welcome his constructive approach.

The right hon. Gentleman highlights the need to work jointly with other European countries, and I agree. That is why we have a dedicated UK taskforce in Dover which provides real-time intelligence and investigation response to all operations. For example with links to France and Belgium, 32 live investigations and 22 organised crime groups have already been disrupted since February 2014, and the total custodial sentences to date is 148 years. I hope that answers his question about the body of work.

The right hon. Gentleman highlights the work that we have rightly undertaken in Calais with the French authorities—the £12 million joint investment with the French Government to strengthen security at that port. That is on top of additional investment in screening and other detection equipment, which underlines our strong, practical response.

The right hon. Gentleman talked about the number of Border Force officers—there are around 8,000. They are deployed flexibly, by which I mean that it is dependent on the intelligence that we see for a particular port at any one time. Therefore, it is not appropriate to give the breakdown or percentages that he seeks, but we rightly take a responsive stance to deal with such issues.

The right hon. Gentleman also highlighted the need to ensure adherence to the Dublin regulations that allow us to return people who may have been able to claim asylum in other countries. We take that responsibility seriously and we continue to press other European countries in that regard.

One of the key things is to ensure that those who arrive in the European Union are properly fingerprinted and that we identify those who come to our shores. More work needs to be done on that and we will continue to press other European countries to fulfil their responsibilities.

[Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

Will the Minister assure us that the traffickers, if convicted, will not be allowed to use any of the legal procedures under the Human Rights Act or the charter of fundamental rights to avoid immediate deportation?

[James Brokenshire]

My hon. Friend makes an important point about the work that the Government have done through the Immigration Act 2014—to put in place clarification of article 8, for example, on the right to a family life, to ensure that it is properly balanced—so that we can seek removal. I am sure that such issues of fundamental and human rights are ones that we shall return to during the course of the Parliament.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Unfortunately, the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin), the Minister and the shadow Minister all significantly exceeded their allotted time. I am keen to accommodate the very proper interest of colleagues, and I will try to do so, but I am also conscious—I hope that the House will be sensitive to the fact—of an important Second Reading debate to follow, which is well subscribed and of which I must therefore take proper account.

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

The Minister has one of the toughest jobs in Government. I congratulate him on being the first Immigration Minister to be reappointed after a general election.

I fully support what Charles Montgomery and his team have done at the border. They do an excellent job, as does Wagtail UK, which is celebrating its 10th anniversary. This is fundamentally an EU problem, in terms of not only tackling the human traffickers, but protecting the border. Will the Minister ensure that Frontex is made to do the job that it is supposed to do, which is to protect the external border of the EU so that people such as those caught in the containers are not allowed to be treated in that way?

[James Brokenshire]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his kind comments. I fully recognise the importance of this work, of EU action and of the role that Frontex has to play. This is certainly something that the Home Secretary has continued to advance at Justice and Home Affairs Council meetings. Indeed, there were discussions at the G6 last week, when the Home Secretary spoke to a number of her European counterparts. I assure the right hon. Gentleman of the importance that we attach to the work of Frontex and to ensuring that the external border is strengthened.

[Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)]

It is slightly alarming that it is now public knowledge that clandestine migrants have a 94% chance of getting in through Harwich. When the Home Affairs Committee in the previous Parliament visited Calais, we saw all lorries routinely subject to carbon dioxide sensors, motion sensors, sniffer dogs and X-rays. When will similar thoroughness be applied to Harwich, where clearly displacement has happened?

[James Brokenshire]

We have those controls juxtaposed at ports where we see the majority of the problem. Clearly we keep under review the way in which we apply our resourcing to particular ports. I do not comment on specific percentages or ways in which resources are deployed. The right thing to do is to look at the intelligence and the threat and to ensure that we are doing our utmost. That is precisely what we are doing.

[Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)]

Reports suggest that the migrants had been stowed for a long time, with many tired and dehydrated. The Minister said that they included two pregnant women and 15 children, and that some were taken to hospital as a precautionary measure but none was found to have a substantial “medical condition of concern.” What assurances can he give that those migrants who remain in the UK have continuing access to appropriate healthcare? What updates can he provide, particularly on the condition of the pregnant women and children reported to have been among their number?

[James Brokenshire]

I thank the hon. and learned Lady for her question and welcome her to her place today. I have given the House an update on the medical condition of the children and the others rescued at Harwich. Obviously, continuing medical support will be made available should it be required, but, again, I am pleased to say that no further intervention was needed.

[Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con)]

I congratulate Border Force on this operation. Given that ports and lorries are rather obvious methods of entry into the United Kingdom, what others are being used and how widespread are they?

[James Brokenshire]

As I hope my hon. Friend will recognise, it would not be appropriate for me to identify or set out alternative routes for others to take. I can say to him that Border Force is vigilant and is always looking at different ways in which those who seek to get to this country may stow away or hide themselves. The real concern is the extent to which people are prepared to put their lives at risk, sometimes in really dangerous conditions. We take that extremely seriously, in terms not simply of trying to identify individuals but of ensuring that they are safeguarded.

[Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab)]

The Minister has talked about how some people who have been smuggled are being returned and how the drivers of the lorries have been arrested, but he has not told us what has happened to the organisers of this operation. In preparation for this question, I looked to see how many criminal gangs that are smuggling people into Britain had been prosecuted. The Minister said he is disrupting their operations, but is he going to prosecute any of them?

[James Brokenshire]

When the right hon. Lady looks back at a previous answer I gave about the work of operation groundbreaker, she will see that prosecutions have been achieved, with a significant number of years’ imprisonment secured against those involved.

As I said in my statement, the National Crime Agency is involved in this area, working with immigration enforcement. The hon. Lady rightly says that this is about going against the trafficking groups—the organised crime groups—and looking overseas to where the facilitation is taking place. This is a pernicious and appalling trade, which is why we are fusing intelligence and working jointly with European partners to go after those responsible for putting people in such dangerous conditions.

[Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend recognise the importance of immigration removal centres? The whole House has recognised that the people involved at Harwich were clearly the victims. As the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry) said, it is important that there is somewhere safe and secure for people to be held and looked after, which is why the IRCs are important.

[James Brokenshire]

I recognise and support the need for detention as part of a removals policy, and IRCs play an important role in ensuring that that takes place in a safe manner. Obviously, we are concerned to ensure that detention in an IRC is for the most limited period possible and that appropriate welfare is provided, but it is absolutely right that we have our IRCs to do the job on facilitation and removal.

[Ms Gisela Stuart (Birmingham, Edgbaston) (Lab)]

Given that these were intelligence-led operations, may I return to John Vine’s comments about Border Force? His concerns were that too many staff with long experience have been lost and that although we may have the numbers, these people are not sufficiently experienced. Will the Minister return to the issue to satisfy himself that that is not happening?

[James Brokenshire]

The success of Border Force is clear to see, with more than 39,000 attempts to cross the channel illegally having been stopped in 2014-15. Indeed, its successful work last week underpins its activity. We continue to strengthen the security at our border to stop those who have no right to enter the UK, and our highly trained staff in Border Force are doing that precise job.

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

Helping fragile states is expensive, but helping failed states is even more expensive in terms of blood, treasure and mass migration—often illegal mass migration. Although these clandestines are arguably not from failed states, many more who come to this country are. Does that not underline the importance of the Government’s commitment to the Department for International Development budget, particularly in doing more for conflict prevention and conflict resolution?

[James Brokenshire]

My hon. Friend makes an important and powerful point. Our international and regional development assistance plays a key part in providing long-term solutions to help prevent the flows of people across continents and in confronting and combating the traffickers who are engaged in this pernicious trade. Yes, he is correct, and we certainly do want to see that focus on international development assistance to support our own domestic priorities.

[Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)]

As the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin) said, only 6% of vehicles are stopped. We know that there is an issue around infrastructure as well as around resources at ports. What conversation is the Minister having with the ferry companies, which often plead commercial pressures as well, to ensure that there is space and willingness to engage with the Border Force to tackle this issue?

[James Brokenshire]

As I have already told the House, it is not correct to talk about any specific percentages at any one port given the very flexible way in which resources are directed to meet the threat, but we continue to discuss the matter with the maritime and other sectors. Indeed the round-table discussion that I had with the hauliers in March focused on how we could work with them, the need for greater security and the support they need to help them with their role. We will certainly continue those discussions.

[Mary Robinson (Cheadle) (Con)]

Will the Minister remind the House of the actions taken by this Government to give asylum to the most vulnerable cases?

[James Brokenshire]

This country should be proud of its record of granting asylum to those who are fleeing persecution and those whose lives would be at risk if they were returned to their countries of origin. This Government have taken significant steps to improve the way we process asylum cases and deal with the backlogs. We now have a six-month service standard for processing straightforward claims. Obviously, we remain vigilant against those who abuse our asylum system and our hospitality, which is why we are following the Dublin regulation and ensuring that those who are coming here not for asylum are processed effectively and removed if they have no right to be here.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

I ask the Minister to think quite deeply about this issue. Those poor people who were taken into Harwich are but the tip of an iceberg. There are hundreds of thousands of people around the world who are victims of war, oppression, and human rights abuses. Apparently, many of them come from Afghanistan, which we have occupied for the past 14 years. Does he not think that there is a worldwide humanitarian crisis here that we should be addressing to save lives? It is fine to condemn people traffickers—we can all do that—but we must look at the consequences for those desperate and very poor people.

[James Brokenshire]

The hon. Gentleman will have heard what I said in relation to a previous question on the use of international and regional development assistance, and I believe very strongly in that. It is an end-to-end approach that we need here. Yes, of course we have the immediate issue that we were confronted with on Thursday of those who have arrived on our shores. Equally we need to look at the external border in dealing with Frontex and some of the other European institutions. But it is also about stopping people making these journeys. It is not only about confronting the organised crime groups; it is also about regional assistance and development and ensuring that we have solid states so that people do not need to make those perilous journeys.

[Tom Pursglove (Corby) (Con)]

Caring for trafficked children is putting a great financial strain on local authorities, including Northamptonshire. Are Ministers making additional resources available in this dreadful case to help that process?

[James Brokenshire]

Certainly, we recognise that a number of areas around the UK are under significant pressure from migration. That is why the Prime Minister has said that we are examining the creation of a special fund to make money available to those areas of the country that are particularly affected. Certainly, that is something that we are considering further, and we will come back to the House with further information in due course.

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

Will the Minister set out what co-operation is being undertaken with the Dutch authorities to ensure that checks on lorries take place at the earliest possible opportunity to reduce the risk to migrants? What percentage of checks are taking place in Holland and what investment is planned to ensure that, as has been illustrated in Calais, early intervention reduces the risks?

[James Brokenshire]

The relationship with the authorities in the Netherlands is particularly strong and has resulted in a joint action plan that will embed regular data and intelligence sharing between Border Force and its Dutch equivalent. Intelligence is already being shared that is helping to improve Border Force targeting and in the future we plan to run joint operational activities on common threats in the Netherlands to enhance security. The strong joint working that we see already will be enhanced.

[Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)]

Earlier this year, a case was reported of a failed asylum seeker whose application had been refused in 1997 but who, incredibly, was still here in 2015, mainly owing to the Human Rights Act. Will the Minister please confirm that all the illegal immigrants found at Harwich will be returned within 18 days, never mind 18 weeks, 18 months or 18 years? If that is not possible because of the Human Rights Act, it will be yet further evidence of why we urgently need to review our human rights legislation.

[James Brokenshire]

It is right that any asylum claims should be appropriately considered, and that is what will happen. As I have already said, the Government have done a great deal to speed up and improve the process of examining those claims. My hon. Friend has a good point about the ability to appeal. We believe that further steps are needed on various different routes, so that appeal rights can be maintained, but out of the country. That is what we have done with foreign national offenders and we want to extend it further into other routes.

[Stephen Phillips (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)]

Stopping this revolting trade requires action at source and my right hon. Friend has spoken about the importance of the use of our international aid budget. What discussions has he had with Foreign Office Ministers about taking concerted action across the globe?

[James Brokenshire]

We have joint action on this and the Home Office does not simply work in isolation. We work with the Department for International Development and Ministers from the Foreign Office, so I can certainly assure my hon. and learned Friend that the Government take our responsibilities in combating this issue seriously. That requires work overseas as well as in this country, and Foreign Office Ministers are certainly playing their part.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

rose—

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

What a delicious remaining choice. I call Mr Philip Hollobone.

[Mr Hollobone]

Given that only 6% of lorries are being searched at major ports such as Harwich, is it not time to recruit more personnel from the increasing reservoir of former police officers and armed forces personnel so that more searches can be undertaken? Is it not now time to make it absolutely clear that this country will not accept fresh asylum claims from those who have travelled through many other safe countries before arriving at our shores?

[James Brokenshire]

My hon. Friend has rightly raised the effective use of the Dublin regulation on a number of occasions. We want it to be strengthened further, which is why I made the comment earlier about ensuring that we fingerprint those who arrive within the EU. I have already dealt with how Border Force uses its resources. It is right that it should do that. We certainly remain focused on the clandestine threat as well as on other threats to the UK border and on how we use Border Force resources and technology to meet those threats.

[Mr Bone]

It is quite clear that human traffickers are evil, brutal gangs, but one problem that we came across when I was chairman of the all-party group on human trafficking was that illegal immigrants were coming through the porous eastern borders of the European Union and travelling across the EU unchallenged, partly because of freedom of movement and partly because there are no border checks. The main reason, however, was that there were no incentives for those countries to intervene and stop those people because they would then become their problem. What discussion has the Minister had with his European Union colleagues to correct this problem?

[James Brokenshire]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on all the work that he did in the last Parliament to highlight the trafficking of human beings. His work was instrumental in shaping the Modern Slavery Act 2015, for example, and ensuring that we take this issue as seriously as possible. We underline those themes, and one of the Home Secretary’s priorities at European Council of Ministers meetings is the need to confront and combat trafficking—that pernicious trade, which is exploitative, has no regard for individuals’ welfare or wellbeing, and sees them transited across countries to make money for people. It is utterly sick, and it is an issue that we shall retain as a priority. I can assure my hon. Friend that we will return to it on future Justice and Home Affairs Council meetings, given the importance that we rightly attach to it.

Scotland Bill

Monday 8th June 2015 Commons Chamber

[Relevant document: The Ninth Report from the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee, Session 2014-15, on Constitutional Implications of the Government’s draft Scotland clauses, HC 1022.]

Second Reading

[Mr Speaker]

The amendment has not been selected.

16:10

[The Secretary of State for Scotland (David Mundell)]

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

May I begin by offering my warmest congratulations to all new MPs from Scotland on winning their seats? This Government respect the results from Scotland in the general election, just as we respect the result of the referendum last year. As the Prime Minister said, this is a one-nation Government. That is why one of our chief priorities is to bring the four nations of our United Kingdom together. The Bill is an important part of a package of measures that we believe does just that. If the House agrees to give the Bill a Second Reading it will be subject to four days of line-by-line scrutiny on the Floor of the House. I am happy to have my feet held to the fire, and for the Bill to receive full scrutiny, because I am confident that it delivers the Smith commission recommendations in full, but that does not mean that we will not listen carefully to contributions as it is debated.

[Alex Salmond (Gordon) (SNP)]

rose—

[David Mundell]

Let me progress a little.

Let us not allow bluff and bluster to obscure the fact that there is already substantial agreement on the most significant aspects of the Bill. The UK and Scottish Governments agree on the devolution of income tax, representing £11 billion in revenue, and on the principle, if not yet the detail, of devolving £2.5 billion in welfare.

[Alex Salmond]

Has the Secretary of State seen today’s edition of the Daily Record, in which there is an excellent eight-page supplement? The paper, after all, offered the vow, and more than any other newspaper, was influential in securing a no vote in the referendum. In its editorial today, the Daily Record describes the Bill as “unacceptable” for not implementing the promises of the Smith commission. Why does the Secretary of State believe that the Daily Record describes his Bill as unacceptable and accuses him of reneging on the Smith commission’s recommendations?

[David Mundell]

I am afraid that that is the right hon. Gentleman’s interpretation. There is an excellent piece, which I commend to him, by Professor Adam Tomkins, in that very edition, in which he sets out the argument that the Bill clearly meets the Smith commission recommendations.

[Alex Salmond]

rose—

[David Mundell]

Let me continue. We are going to debate the Bill in full. We are going to scrutinise, over four days, every line and every clause. I am satisfied that the editor and readers of the Daily Record will be confident that the Bill meets the Smith commission recommendations in full when we complete that process. [Interruption.] No, we have dealt with that issue. [Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. We cannot have argument by gesticulation. The right hon. Member for Gordon (Alex Salmond) is a seasoned observer—he does not have the excuse that he is a newcomer to the House—and he has a sort of cheeky chappie countenance, but I am afraid that it will not wash at this stage. He will have to try his luck later.

[David Mundell]

I fear there is a lot of cheek still to come.

Over 18 years, the devolution of power and decision making from this Parliament to the Assemblies of Wales and Northern Ireland and to the Parliament in Scotland has changed the constitutional make-up of the United Kingdom fundamentally. I was proud to be elected as a Member of the new Scottish Parliament at its inception in 1999—indeed, I was the first MSP to ask a question in that Parliament on the opening day, so I draw from my experience of the Scottish devolution settlement as I take this Bill forward.

Even though some had doubts at the time, few would now deny that devolution has been a success story for Scotland. It has ensured that decisions affecting our homes and our families, from schools to hospitals to our police service, have been taken closer to the people they affect. As today’s Bill makes clear, the Scottish Parliament is a permanent part of the UK’s constitutional arrangements. The Bill recognises that, and rightly so.

[Mr Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)]

To what extent does the Bill represent a full and final settlement for the future of the United Kingdom? How stable will it be?

[David Mundell]

I anticipate that the Bill will be a very stable settlement for Scotland as it was signed up to by all five of the political parties represented in the Scottish Parliament, including the Scottish National party.

That does not mean that the devolution settlement is or ever was perfect. From the start the settlement contained an imbalance, with a Scottish Parliament responsible for spending money which another Parliament—this one—was chiefly accountable for raising. It is one of the most important features of the Bill that it seeks to redress that balance. I will go into that in more detail later in my remarks.

[Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP)]

With reference to the Minister’s comments on responsibility, can he confirm to the House that this Bill is so inadequate that it does not even allow the Scottish Parliament to raise all the money that it spends?

[David Mundell]

In my opening comments, I mentioned that there had been a referendum in Scotland last year in which the people of Scotland voted to remain within the United Kingdom as part of this United Kingdom Parliament, but with a strong Scottish Parliament. The Scottish National party was part of the Smith commission which signed up to the tax powers. I find it interesting that the Scottish Government made a 61-page submission to the Committee in the Scottish Parliament about this Bill. How many lines were dedicated to the £11 billion of tax measures? Two lines, because the Scottish Government agree with those measures.

[Mrs Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con)]

Can my right hon. Friend confirm that the measures that he is putting forward will make the Scottish Parliament one of the most powerful devolved Parliaments in the world?

[David Mundell]

Indeed. I hope these measures will allow the debate to move from process to action and policy, and that we can finally hear from the Scottish Government how they intend to deploy the significant powers that are provided in the Bill and in the Scotland Act 2012.

[Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)]

The hon. Member for Dundee East (Stewart Hosie) said that the deficiency of the Bill is that it does not allow Scotland to raise all the money it spends. I am confused. I thought the SNP did not want full fiscal and financial autonomy because that would get rid of the Barnett formula. Is the Secretary of State any the wiser?

[David Mundell]

I think the hon. Gentleman, like me, looks forward to amendments to the Bill being tabled, setting out the SNP position on full fiscal autonomy. I have heard that issue raised on numerous occasions but I am still not absolutely clear what it means in the SNP’s terms. The Institute for Fiscal Studies identifies a black hole of between £7 billion and £10 billion in Scotland’s finances.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

With respect—[Interruption.] Actually, I am going to make a point that might be quite positive. With respect to my right hon. Friend’s arguments, what worries me is that this might not be the end of the story, because it does not get to the kernel of the problem, which is that the Scottish Parliament will raise only about 50% of what it spends and, therefore, will be fundamentally a spending Parliament, not a tax-raising Parliament. There is a good Conservative case to be made for full fiscal autonomy, because it would breed responsibility.

[David Mundell]

I do not believe that there is a Conservative case, or indeed any case, to be made for an outcome that would leave Scotland with a gap of between £7 billion and £10 billion in its finances, which would affect every school, every hospital and every person in Scotland.

The independence referendum on 18 September 2014 was a truly historic moment, and I am proud that the people of Scotland voted decisively to remain part of our United Kingdom. The debates were passionate, as many here today will attest, and extensive, and the level of participation was a credit to Scotland. The result was clear and decisive. It represented the sovereign will of the Scottish people. In voting no on independence, we Scots, for the first time in our history, made the positive, conscious and collective choice to pool our sovereignty with our neighbours in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. We made the positive choice to enjoy the best of both worlds. We chose to continue to share the benefits of being part of a strong United Kingdom while enjoying the benefits of a strong devolved Parliament in Edinburgh delivering Scottish solutions to Scottish issues. However, a no vote was not a vote for no change. The Conservatives, Labour and the Liberal Democrats all published extensive proposals for more powers for the Scottish Parliament in the months before the referendum.

[Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP)]

The SNP accepted the result of the Scottish people but, during the referendum campaign, when Gordon Brown spoke on behalf of the Conservative, Labour and Liberal parties, we were promised that we would get as close to federalism as possible; that we would have home rule in the spirit of Keir Hardie. We hear about respect. The SNP won the election in Scotland conclusively. We stood on a mandate of powers for a purpose. Why does the Secretary of State not deliver what the people of Scotland voted for: a powerhouse Parliament with full economic powers?

[David Mundell]

I have heard the hon. Gentleman make his points before. The facts of the matter are that the SNP took part in the Smith commission after the referendum, signed up to a package of measures set out in the commission’s report and then, during the election, argued that its MPs would come to this Parliament to ensure that it was delivered.

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

Can the Secretary of State outline whether any of the fiscal arrangements that will be changed as a result of the Bill will affect Northern Ireland in any way?

[David Mundell]

It will clearly be the case that the Scottish Parliament will have significantly greater powers over income tax and welfare than it has now, but the Scottish Parliament is currently able to introduce policies that are significantly different from policies that are adopted in Northern Ireland. That is the nature of devolution and the devolution settlement.

[Ian Paisley]

I will put it the way a Ballymena man would: how much will it affect Northern Ireland?

[David Mundell]

It will depend on the policies that are pursued in the Scottish Parliament. For example, were my colleague Ruth Davidson to become First Minister of Scotland, we would see taxes reduced in Scotland, which I think would have a positive effect in Northern Ireland, because it would be an incentive to see business done in a compatible manner. But devolution is about taking decisions in the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly and the Northern Ireland Assembly, and increasingly in different parts of England.

[Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that, at a time when we are devolving more powers to Scotland and other parts of the United Kingdom, we also need a fair and equitable settlement for the people of England, starting with English votes for English laws?

[David Mundell]

As my hon. Friend is aware, that proposal was in the Conservative party manifesto and it will be brought to this Parliament. [Interruption.] I think we have concluded on the issue of what devolution means throughout the United Kingdom.

The Conservative-led coalition Government passed the Scotland Act 2012—the biggest single transfer of fiscal responsibility to Edinburgh in 300 years. They also oversaw significant further devolution to Wales and Northern Ireland, as well as groundbreaking work on city deals and a step change across England with the work towards the creation of the northern powerhouse. The Bill before the House today represents a further step forward in the governance of Scotland and our United Kingdom.

The settled will of the Scottish people is now that Scotland should remain part of the United Kingdom. As such, this Bill demonstrates the Government’s determination that the Scottish Parliament should be made more powerful, more accountable yet autonomous, and better equipped to serve the people of Scotland. It is the fulfilment of our manifesto commitment that the all-party Smith commission agreement should be implemented in full. The fact that the Bill was introduced on the first day after the Queen’s Speech and that its Second Reading is taking place at the first opportunity since the general election speaks volumes for the Government’s determination to honour that manifesto commitment and get on with the job.

[Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)]

I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on his new position and on beating off the opposition that he no doubt had in getting it. Does he not have cause to reflect that, whereas the previous Government in which he served as a Minister had the support of about a quarter of the elected Members of this House from Scotland, he is now this Government’s sole representative in Scotland? Does not that place on him a moral obligation to discuss with the elected representatives of the people of Scotland how to take forward this Bill? Is he not concerned that the all-party group in the Scottish Parliament that considered his draft proposals says that they do not equate to the proposals made by the Smith commission?

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Interventions must be brief.

[David Mundell]

I was intending to cover a number of the points that the hon. Gentleman raises. I have met the Scottish Parliament committee that was set up in relation to the Bill, and I am going to appear before it to give evidence directly on 25 June. I am in ongoing and constant dialogue with the Scottish Government in relation to this Bill. This very morning, I had a very cordial meeting with John Swinney, the Deputy First Minister, who is responsible for constitutional matters. During the four days when the Bill will be debated on a line-by-line basis, I will be very pleased to hear the suggestions and proposals that come forward from the hon. Gentleman’s group and, indeed, from any Members of this House.

[Tommy Sheppard]

What, then, is your observation on the fact that an all-party group of the Scottish Parliament, including members from your own party, has come to the conclusion that the proposals before us do not put into effect the Smith commission proposals? What is your reflection on that?

[Mr Speaker]

Order. All these things take some acclimatisation, but debate must always go through the Chair. The concept of “you” does not arise, because “you” means me—and I have no views on these matters.

[David Mundell]

The hon. Gentleman will see that there have been significant changes to the draft Bill—[Interruption.] There have been. If he goes through the Bill in detail, he will see that there are significant changes. [Interruption.] Well, I do not regard the power to give the Scottish Parliament the right to top up all welfare benefits in Scotland as some minuscule change; I regard it as a very, very significant clause in the Bill. It is one of a number of changes that have been made. We have made it very clear that throughout the Committee stage of the Bill we will look at proposals for changes to it. The Scottish Government published some proposed changes to the Bill yesterday—it was nice to see them—and no doubt we will have a greater chance to debate them in detail.

[Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)]

I do not think that I have ever seen such a shambling Front-Bench performance. Why does the Secretary of State believe he should have a veto over certain issues decided by the Scottish Parliament?

[David Mundell]

I had thought that being part of a larger number might change the hon. Gentleman’s habits, but he remains as ungracious as ever. The Bill contains no vetoes, as he will be well aware if he has read it in detail. What it contains are mechanisms to allow two Governments to work together on matters of shared interest and application. To me, the meaning of a veto is that when someone says they want to do something, someone else has the capacity to say, “No, you can’t.” Not a single provision of the Bill relates to such a proposal.

[Martin John Docherty (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)]

Does the Secretary of State fundamentally believe that the decisions of a democratically elected Government sitting in Edinburgh, who have 56 of the 59 Scottish Members in this House, should be challenged by him or any other Government Member with a veto?

[David Mundell]

I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman did not hear what I said in response to the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart). There are no vetoes in the Bill. The hon. Gentleman and others will see that clearly when we scrutinise it line by line.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[David Mundell]

I need to make a little progress.

Let me turn to the all-party Smith commission agreement, achieved under the chairmanship of Lord Smith of Kelvin. The morning after the decisive no vote in the referendum, the Prime Minister announced that all-party talks should take place to ensure further devolution to Scotland. The remit was defined by the referendum result: keeping the UK together and keeping Scotland a strong part of it. All four parties represented in this House, with the addition of the Scottish Green party, took part in the process, and all five parties signed up to the final agreement without caveat.

[Jo Stevens (Cardiff Central) (Lab)]

Does the Minister not agree that the Prime Minister gambled with the Union to sweeten the SNP, and that that sweetness has now turned sour? The Prime Minister is in chaos over Scotland, as he is over Europe.

[David Mundell]

I do not quite get the hon. Lady’s multiple metaphors. I am sure that there are some SNP Members who are sweet, and there are certainly some who are sour.

The central aim of the Smith commission was to address a flaw that had existed in the devolution settlement from the outset by making the Scottish Parliament more accountable for raising the taxpayers’ money that it spends. The significance of that point should not be overlooked, and we have alluded to it already: before fully implementing the Scotland Act 2012, the Scottish Parliament controlled almost 60% of public expenditure in Scotland, yet it was responsible for raising only about 10% of the funding. I did not believe that that was sustainable, and neither did the people of Scotland. For Holyrood to be the powerhouse Parliament that it rightly aspires to be and that this Government want it to be, it must be accountable to the people of Scotland for raising more of the money that it spends. The Bill is about ensuring that that missing link is fixed.

A second key aim of the Smith commission was to ensure that more decisions about welfare policy can be taken in the Scottish Parliament, so that specifically Scottish circumstances can be taken into account. The timetable set for the talks was that an agreement should be reached by St Andrew’s day. It was a challenging deadline, but it was met with a few days to spare—another commitment delivered to the people of Scotland on time.

I pay tribute to the 10 members of the Smith commission who represented their parties with skill and tenacity and worked constructively and co-operatively throughout the duration of the commission. They should be proud of what they have achieved for the people of Scotland. Again, I pay particular tribute to Lord Smith of Kelvin, who chaired the talks. He brought to the task his characteristic blend of good humour, insight and hard work. Of course, the occasional bout of strong-arming was also needed, but he says such bouts were mercifully rare.

Key to the success and the credibility of the talks was the fact that Lord Smith made sure that the voice of civic Scotland was heard loud and clear as the negotiations progressed. More than 18,000 people made submissions to the commission on what powers should be devolved to Scotland, and more than 400 individual organisations the length and breadth of Scotland submitted their views on the way forward.

[Dr Eilidh Whiteford (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)]

I am sure it will not have escaped the Secretary of State’s notice that the five parties that signed up to the Smith commission are the same ones that are involved in the Scottish Parliament’s Devolution (Further Powers) Committee, which has stated that the Government’s Bill does not live up to either the substance or the spirit of the Smith commission. Why will he not now go back to the drawing board and listen to what was said by the Smith commission, as well as by the 60 organisations that have called for welfare powers to be devolved, and actually deliver it?

[David Mundell]

I have made it clear, and the hon. Lady is aware, that significant changes have been made to the draft clauses, which were published ahead of the Scottish Parliament committee considering them. I have told the House that we look forward to seeing amendments and proposals. Yesterday the Scottish Government produced some draft clauses, which we most certainly will look at as part of our ongoing discussions with them. If the hon. Lady and others feel that the Smith commission is not met in full by the exact terms of the Bill, there will be plenty of opportunities for debate and discussion in this House. As I have said, there will be four days of line-by-line scrutiny of the Bill.

[Alex Salmond]

rose—

[David Mundell]

I have a quote from the current First Minister, so perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will wait until I have reminded him that last week she said that

“compromise isn’t…the same as concession.”

Compromise was made by all parties in respect of delivering the Smith agreement. This Bill is not about reopening those issues.

[Alex Salmond]

I know that the Secretary of State would never knowingly mislead the House, but earlier he said that the Daily Record was behind him in saying that the Bill implemented the proposals of the Smith commission. I have had an opportunity to consult today’s editorial, which says that

“there are serious concerns the proposed Scotland Bill does not fully implement what was proposed…This is an unacceptable situation that must be rectified quickly as the Bill makes its way through Westminster.”

Does the Secretary of State hold to his previous statement, or does he accept the concerns that he has not implemented what Smith proposed?

[David Mundell]

I do not think the right hon. Gentleman listened to my response, because I made it very clear that I felt that, after today’s debate and four days of detailed scrutiny of the Bill in Parliament, the Daily Record, its readers and, indeed, the people of Scotland will be satisfied that it meets the full recommendations of the Smith commission.

The coalition Government committed to bringing forward draft clauses to implement the Smith commission agreement by Burns night 2015: they did so on 22 January —another commitment met in full and on time. When the Prime Minister went to Edinburgh on that day in January, he gave assurances that he would listen to the views on those draft causes and, as I have set out to a number of Members, we have done so. Since January, the Government have engaged extensively with interested parties in Scotland. Hundreds of people have attended events, from the north-east to the borders, giving their views on the clauses and how they could be refined further.

Of course, work remains to be done during our deliberations on the Bill and we will listen to proposals. The Smith commission recommended, for example, that the Scottish Government should be able to create new benefits in areas of devolved responsibility. We are working closely with the Scottish Government to examine whether new powers, if any, are required to implement that recommendation.

I am proud that the Bill has already benefited from significant input from people and groups across Scotland. This Government will continue to listen to views from all parts of Scotland and from those in all parts of the Chamber as we take forward the Bill and refine its provisions to ensure that the spirit of Smith can be met in full.

[Danny Kinahan (South Antrim) (UUP)]

The Secretary of State has partially answered my question by saying that he will listen to all angles and to everyone in the Chamber, but will he set up some commission or congress so that the other parts of the Union have the chance to have their say before this all goes ahead and we find we are on a roll into the future that we cannot stop?

[David Mundell]

This Government are committed to deliver the Smith commission recommendations, and that is what we will do. We are bringing forward a Bill to implement the Stormont House agreement. Proposals that anyone makes in relation to their own parts of the United Kingdom, or indeed their say on other parts of the United Kingdom, will always be capable of being debated in this House. If, however, the hon. Gentleman is asking whether I support the idea of a constitutional convention, the answer is that I do not.

[Stewart Hosie]

The Secretary of State has now been on his feet for more than half an hour. Will he actually speak about the contents of the Bill today, or will he continue to waffle until he sits down and lets others speak?

[David Mundell]

As you are well aware, Mr Speaker, the hon. Gentleman would have been equally critical of me had I chosen not to take the numerous interventions. I have done so because I want this to be a debate and for me to be held accountable to Members of the House.

I am grateful to the Scottish Parliament’s Devolution (Further Powers) Committee for its work. I am due to meet its members shortly. In getting us to this point, my officials have worked extensively behind the scenes with their Scottish Government counterparts to listen to their views, and they will continue to engage actively with them throughout the process on this Bill.

[Heidi Allen (South Cambridgeshire) (Con)]

I thank my right hon. Friend for taking my intervention. So much of what I am hearing is a lack of trust—[Interruption.]—and my point is that that has to change. There is nothing that we cannot achieve together if we have a little bit of trust. I am very new to politics, as many Members will know, but I would not stand behind a Government who I felt just wanted to play their part and play the game. I think all that Members are hearing is just noise. [Interruption.] My question is: can we not take the Secretary of State at his word, go through the Bill line by line and find a route through this together, rather than assume that there is no trust and no will to give the Scottish people what they want? Unless we are presented with that mindset, we will achieve nothing.

[David Mundell]

I very much welcome that contribution, and I hope that that is the spirit in which we can proceed. Many people who saw the Smith commission agreement signed at 8 o’clock on a Tuesday evening were disappointed when, at 8 o’clock the following morning the now Deputy First Minister suggested that there were parts of it that he did not like. I hoped that the agreement could and will be a comprehensive settlement for Scotland.

[Mr David Anderson (Blaydon) (Lab)]

Why are the Secretary of State and his party denying the people of England the right to have a constitutional convention, given that over the past two decades the Scots have had two referendums and the Welsh, the Northern Irish, the people of London and the north-east have had referendums? Why is he denying the rest of the people of England such a right, and fobbing them off with an idea drawn up by the Chancellor on the back of a fag packet?

[David Mundell]

We have had a general election in which the issues were debated extensively across the United Kingdom. What the Government are committed to do in relation to Scotland is to deliver the Scotland Bill.

You have not selected the amendment, Mr Speaker, but, as the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) stated, it mentioned a veto, and I want to clarify the issue of so-called vetoes. The Smith agreement is clear that matters such as the mechanism for paying universal credit across the UK and the Jobcentre Plus network will remain reserved. That was an important argument during the referendum and was endorsed by the majority of Scots. In order to deliver, we need a system that allows the Scottish Government to take responsibility for benefits, including by being able to top them up, but allows the reserved universal credit payments mechanism to carry on working effectively. That is what the Bill does.

It is wrong to call that a veto—as I said earlier, a veto means that someone can prevent something from happening if they do not like it. The Bill does not give the UK Government that power. In fact, it explicitly says that consent for a change cannot be unreasonably withheld.

[Mike Weir (Angus) (SNP)]

But that does mean that it can in fact be withheld, because a Minister here in Westminster will have to give agreement to when a change will take effect. That Minister is not obliged to give any agreement, so consent could be withheld and it is effectively a veto.

[David Mundell]

I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman’s analysis at all. The provision is not even about agreement to a decision. It is a timing arrangement as part of the systems that need to operate. It will work the other way, too; the UK Government will need to consult the Scottish Government when they want to make changes to devolved universal credit flexibilities that will have an impact on Scotland. Other clauses, such as those on transport and elections, also require the UK Government to consult Scottish Ministers before acting.

[Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

It is helpful that the Secretary of State has said on the record in this Chamber what the intentions are in relation to the clauses in question. What will happen in the event of a dispute about the outcome of such a consultation process? Where will disputes be decided?

[David Mundell]

There are existing dispute reconciliation mechanisms in the Joint Ministerial Committee. There have inevitably been a number of disputes between the Government of the United Kingdom and the devolved Administrations, and most of them have been able to be resolved through that process.

To respond to the hon. Member for Dundee East (Stewart Hosie), I will turn to the provisions of the Bill. It is a wide-ranging Bill that will bring about a transfer of responsibility to Holyrood that will touch just about every aspect of Scottish life, affect every pay packet in Scotland and have the potential to deliver real and tangible benefits to the people of Scotland.

I turn first to the provisions on taxation. Central to the Bill is the devolution of income tax. Although the definition of income tax will remain reserved, the Scottish Parliament will have full control over rates and bands. That builds on the tax devolution set out in the Scotland Act 2012, which provided for significant powers over income tax that will come into effect next April.

One notable change to the Bill, compared with the draft clauses published in January, is the confirmation that the Scottish Parliament will be able to set a zero rate of income tax on earnings if it so chooses. That effectively gives it the opportunity to reduce the individual’s tax burden significantly if it can afford to do so and makes appropriate spending cuts or tax rises elsewhere. Of course, the reverse is true—if the Scottish Government want to spend more, they will be able to do so by taxing more, and they will be accountable to the Scottish taxpayer for it.

Alongside the devolution of income tax sits the assignment of half of Scotland’s VAT revenues. Members will recall that it is against EU law to have differential VAT rates within a member state, so the devolution of VAT would not be legal.

[Geraint Davies]

Will the Secretary of State give way?

[David Mundell]

No, I have already taken an intervention from the hon. Gentleman.

Instead of the devolution of VAT, the Smith commission recommended that half the VAT revenues raised in Scotland should be assigned to the Scottish Parliament, thereby further linking Holyrood’s funding to the performance of the Scottish economy. The more the Scottish economy grows, the greater the revenue from VAT that Holyrood will be able to keep. That is an incentive to achieve growth.

[Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

[David Mundell]

No; let me make a little progress.

The devolution of income tax on earnings and the assignment of VAT revenues, when taken together with the devolution of air passenger duty and the powers under the 2012 Act, mean that the Scottish Parliament will have important decisions to make. The Scottish Parliament is now responsible for raising about only 10% of what it spends, but under the Bill Holyrood will be responsible for raising more than 50% of what it spends. It will truly be one of the most powerful devolved legislatures in the world.

[Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)]

May I take the Secretary of State back to the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon (Mr Anderson) and the hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) on the impact of changes on the rest of the United Kingdom? Air passenger duty is a case in point. Regional airports in the north of England will undoubtedly feel the impact of any changes to air passenger duty in Scotland. Is that not yet another reason why, as we proceed with devolution arrangements, we need to have a proper constitutional convention so that all measures can be considered across the whole of the United Kingdom?

[David Mundell]

I have made my views on a constitutional convention known. Other hon. Members have raised the issue of air passenger duty. The Treasury has established a group to look at the impact any changes to air passenger duty in Scotland could have on airports in England.

On welfare policy, there will also be a highly significant transfer of responsibility. While the social security reservation remains in place, part 3 of the Bill means that the Scottish Government will be responsible for welfare, which last year accounted for around £2.5 billion of spending in Scotland. The Scottish Parliament will be able to make provision for a number of types of social security benefit, discretionary payments and employment support. The Bill also contains provision to transfer executive competence to Scottish Ministers to allow them to vary certain aspects of universal credit. It will give the Scottish Parliament more responsibility for benefits paid to carers, disabled people, those who are ill, those who require help with winter fuel costs, funeral payments and maternity payments. As a result of the Bill, when people most require help the Scottish Government will be able to tailor that help to particularly Scottish circumstances.

[Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

The new powers are clear. Is it not time we heard what the SNP will do with the new powers?

[David Mundell]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. As ever, I have been working very closely with the Scottish Government. I am looking forward to speaking tomorrow with Alex Neil, the Cabinet Secretary responsible for welfare matters, and to taking forward the work of the joint ministerial welfare group. I have made it clear, in relation to that group, that we want to put in place transition arrangements to allow the powers to be transferred as quickly as possible. However, we need to know what we are transitioning to and so need clarity on the Scottish Government’s position in relation to the operation of those powers.

[Alex Salmond]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. There is a rumour sweeping the Benches that Conservative Members have been provided with a prompt sheet on questions to ask the Minister. If such a disgraceful thing had happened, would that be within the rules of the House?

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I will deal with the right hon. Gentleman first.

I always enjoy the theatrical performances of the right hon. Gentleman, the last of which was marred only by the sudden emergence of a puckish grin on his face as he was making his point. The answer is that there would be nothing disorderly about that. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, there are very few novelties in this place. There is usually a precedent for everything.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker.

[Mr Speaker]

I am not sure that a further point of order is required, but let us hear whether the knight has something new to say.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

For some reason, my Whips Office has not given me a prompt sheet. [Laughter.]

[Mr Speaker]

I think the hon. Gentleman knows the answer to that: they gave up on him some time ago.

[Mr Jenkin]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. You are incredibly indulgent.

There have been reports that some Members have been required to sign a piece of paper undertaking not to disagree with those on their Front Bench as a condition of being Members of this House. Would that be in order?

[Mr Speaker]

I gather it has been denied. I must say, I would not have lasted long in the House had I been required to sign any such paper. I am innocent of such matters. It is the first I have heard of it and I doubt it will last.

[David Mundell]

Thank you, Mr Speaker.

The Smith agreement does not stop at powers over tax and welfare. The Scottish Parliament will receive a transfer of legislative competence in a range of significant policy areas. I cannot list each power in detail now—as I have said, the House will have ample opportunity to scrutinise them in Committee—but I will provide some examples. The Bill will enable the devolution of the management of the Crown Estate’s economic assets in Scotland to the Scottish Parliament and of the management and operation of reserved tribunals to designated Scottish tribunals. The Scottish Parliament will also have additional responsibility over roads, speed limits, road signs and the policing of railways in Scotland, as well as powers over onshore oil and gas extraction—

[Ian Blackford]

rose—

[David Mundell]

I have already taken a small speech from the hon. Gentleman.

The Bill provides the Scottish Parliament with powers over gaming in new premises and for additional duties on the UK Government to consult Scottish Ministers on functions carried out by a range of important public bodies. It will also enable public sector bodies to bid for rail franchises in Scotland; provide for the ability to state how schemes related to fuel poverty and energy efficiency are run; and increase the ability of the Scottish Parliament to require certain bodies to give evidence before it. In addition, part 1 will take forward in full the Smith agreement that the permanence of the Scottish Parliament be recognised in UK legislation and that the so-called Sewel convention be put on a statutory footing.

[Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)]

Under the Bill, this Parliament will retain an incredibly broad power to legislate on devolved matters, even without the Scottish Parliament’s permission. Why is that, and will the Secretary of State provide examples of when he thinks such action would be appropriate?

[David Mundell]

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that since the coming into existence of the Scottish Parliament, the UK Parliament has legislated in devolved areas only with the agreement of the Scottish Parliament, under the Sewel convention, and that the Bill will put that convention on a statutory footing.

[Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)]

On income tax, what will happen if someone is resident in Scotland but works over the border for an English company? If the income tax rates are different, will that not add to the compliance costs for that business? Who will compensate that small business in England for the additional compliance costs of the income tax variation?

[David Mundell]

That point was debated in full during the passage of the Scotland Act 2012, which introduced the Scottish income tax rate. In simple terms, for the hon. Gentleman’s purposes, it will be done by way of a tax code generally containing the letter S, allowing businesses to operate the PAYE system as they would normally do and without additional expense. There is a designation of “Scottish taxpayer” that is dependent on residence—and, as a point of fact for new colleagues, all Scottish MPs are resident in Scotland for Scottish tax purposes.

Finally, the Scottish Parliament will find itself largely responsible for how it runs itself, how it is elected and the people who can vote to elect it. I am pleased to confirm that we have already agreed to a request from the Presiding Officer to take action to ensure that the 2020 UK general election date and the Holyrood election date do not clash.

It is clear that a significant range of powers will be devolved to the Scottish Parliament and that the onus is now on the Scottish Government to be clear with the electorate about how they will use them.

[Robert Flello (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)]

My constituents in England will no doubt be listening to what powers are being devolved, but they are also waiting to hear what is happening to the block grant and the Barnett formula, for example. They will be interested to hear how the money is flowing. Will the Secretary of State say something about that?

[David Mundell]

The hon. Gentleman’s timing is impeccable, because I was just coming on to the so-called fiscal framework that underpins the transfer of tax and welfare powers to Holyrood. Alongside the Barnett formula, the framework will deliver a fair and lasting financial settlement for Scotland and the rest of the UK. The framework will provide the Scottish Government with the means by which they can determine a mix of taxation and spending specific to Scotland, but which fits with the UK Government’s overall fiscal plan.

This means that Scotland will continue to benefit from the pooling of risks and resources across the whole of the UK, but the Scottish Government will soon be responsible for raising substantial amounts of its revenue through taxation. As a result, it will be more accountable to the Scottish Parliament and to the Scottish people. The Scottish Government will in future be responsible for more than 50% of their funding. Changes in the Scottish Government’s funding will therefore be increasingly determined by changes to Scottish taxation.

The detail of the Scottish fiscal framework will be agreed between the UK Government and the Scottish Government on the basis set out in the Smith agreement. Discussions on the framework have already begun with the aim of reaching an agreement alongside the passing of the Scotland Bill. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has met the Scottish Government Deputy First Minister, John Swinney, today. This timetable demonstrates the Government’s determination to make quick progress on the fiscal framework.

[Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)]

Will the Secretary of State clarify whether the final say on social security levels will rest with the Scottish Parliament?

[David Mundell]

The Scottish Parliament will have the capacity to top up welfare benefits. It could be said that it would have the final say on the level of benefit. UK benefits will obviously be determined in this House, but the Scottish Parliament will have the opportunity to top them up, as is clearly set out in the Bill.

[Callum McCaig (Aberdeen South) (SNP)]

Does not the notion of “topping up” benefits suggest that in and of themselves they are deficient?

[David Mundell]

What I think it suggests is the requirement for responsibility. If the Scottish Government believe that benefits are not at the level they should be, they will be able to ask the Scottish taxpayer for the funds to increase them. That is what I would regard as responsibility within a Parliament.

[David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con)]

A few minutes ago, my right hon. Friend described the fiscal framework of the Barnett formula as long-lasting and fair. Surely that would be the case only if the Barnett formula were based on need rather than on a historic anomaly. It is a formula that results in my constituents getting £1,600 less per person per year than they would get if it were based on need, which one would think a progressive party would wish to be the case.

[David Mundell]

My hon. Friend is a long-standing critic of the Barnett formula, and I acknowledge the point he makes. The Prime Minister, the then Leader of the Opposition and the leader of the Liberal Democrats made it absolutely clear that their parties had no intention of changing the Barnett formula. That certainly remains the position on the Government side.

[Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State has acknowledged the point, but can he justify why English constituents will get £1,600 less?

[David Mundell]

I did not know that that was the policy of the Labour party. I had understood that it supported the Barnett formula, and I can reiterate the continuing support of Government Members for it.

One issue closely linked to the fiscal framework is the much talked-about issue of full fiscal autonomy. This issue was raised a number of times today and during the general election campaign, and some SNP Members have talked tirelessly about it. My party and the Government have made it clear that we will strongly oppose full fiscal autonomy for Scotland. As the analysis by the independent and respected Institute for Fiscal Studies told us, full fiscal autonomy would leave Scotland with a £7.6 billion black hole in its finances this year and almost £10 billion by the final year of this Parliament. This Government will never support a policy that leaves one part of the UK in such a perilous financial situation: we are members of a social union, too. However, given that the SNP set such store by the issue in its election campaign, I look forward to SNP Members bringing forward amendments on full fiscal autonomy in Committee. That is to be welcomed, because apart from anything else, such amendments would mean the people of Scotland might actually get to see what the definition of full fiscal autonomy is.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Is not the lesson of the euro that fiscal autonomy needs to go with monetary autonomy, and that if Scotland has fiscal autonomy it must also have its own currency?

[David Mundell]

That is a very good point and I think my hon. Friend and the right hon. Member for Gordon (Alex Salmond) will be able to spend hours debating it.

[Sir Gerald Howarth (Aldershot) (Con)]

The Secretary of State is being remarkably generous in giving way—very much like the SNP is with other people’s money. The Secretary of State said it would lie within the power of the Scottish Government to top up—I think that was his expression—welfare benefits. We know how they like being generous with other people’s money, but if they overspent at the end of one year—because of course benefits are demand-led—who will pick up the bill, the British taxpayer or the English taxpayer?

[David Mundell]

In relation to matters for which the Scottish Parliament is responsible, it will be the Scottish taxpayer who has to pay. So if the Scottish Parliament and Government want additional spending, the Scottish taxpayer will have to pay.

I wish to conclude my remarks, but I have sought to take as many interventions as possible because part of the Bill is about accountability. The Bill represents the fulfilment of a promise to the people of Scotland that a no vote in the referendum was not a vote for no change. It delivers on the all-party Smith commission agreement, as the Law Society of Scotland and many others have already made clear. The Government and the Smith Commission engaged extensively on the agreement, and on the draft clauses since January, and the Bill before us today is all the stronger for that extensive engagement. It will benefit further from four days of full line-by-line scrutiny in this Chamber. The challenge will then be for the Scottish Government to finally set out what they will do with the new powers they will receive. Now is the time for the Scottish Government to stop acting and start doing. I commend the Bill to the House.

17:08

[Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)]

May I start by offering my congratulations to you, Mr Speaker? This is the first time I have been at the Dispatch Box since you were elected as Speaker. It is a tremendous pleasure to see you back in the Chair, especially after the events on the last day of the last Parliament.

I also congratulate the right hon. Gentleman the new Secretary of State, and not on his Castroesque speech—he spoke for nearly an hour—but because he has always been helpful, courteous and kind. I hope we will continue in that spirit now he is Secretary of State. The House may not know this, but we share something in common. We both share the distinction of being the most difficult choices that our party leaders had when choosing someone for our respective roles. I hear the Prime Minister mulled over the list of potential candidates for Secretary of State for hours before deciding on the right hon. Gentleman, but I am sure he will be a wise choice.

It would be remiss of me not to extend my congratulations to the Scottish National party Members on their unprecedented result in Scotland. There is a heavy weight on their shoulders—by the looks of it, on the end of their third Bench as well—to deliver the considerable promises that they made to the Scottish people during the election campaign. I say this sincerely to them: the political enemy in this place is on the Government Benches, and I hope that they will remember that in the coming years. Where we agree, I will endeavour to work with them and I hope that they will reciprocate; where we do not, and where scrutiny and principled opposition are required to hold the SNP Government to account in Holyrood, I will be a strong voice in such scrutiny. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart), who is chuntering from a sedentary position, does not seem to be starting off on the right footing.

I want to pay tribute to my many colleagues and friends who lost their seats in Scotland at the general election. They should all be thanked for their unstinting commitment to serving their constituents; they will be a big loss to this place and I wish them all well. No one epitomised that dedication to public service more than my predecessor as the Opposition’s spokesman, Margaret Curran. She worked day and night in this place and beyond to stand up for the interests of Scotland and her constituents. We all owe her a debt of gratitude for that strong voice and for the position we are in today with the Bill.

Today marks a momentous point in Scotland’s devolution journey. Whatever the outcome of the general election, the Bill would have been in the first Queen’s Speech, regardless of who was sitting on the Treasury Bench. In 1997 one of the first acts of the new Labour Government was to present a Bill to the House to deliver the referendum that gave us the Scottish Parliament. That was a promise made then and kept then; we should bear that in mind when debating the Bill today. The Labour party is and always will be the party of devolution.

“There will be a Scottish Parliament”—the words of the father of Scotland, Donald Dewar. When he uttered those words, however, it signified a journey in devolution. That journey has seen Scotland recently travel through an extraordinary democratic process. The referendum was a once in a generation—once in a lifetime, depending on who is speaking—experience, marking a defining choice about Scotland’s membership of the United Kingdom. It was a no vote, but it was not a vote for no change. We can draw a constitutional lesson from that: Scotland wants to be in the United Kingdom, but it wants to be unique and able to make its own political choices.

Labour argued passionately for Scotland to remain in the UK and we won the argument. Perhaps we sacrificed our own party’s interests in doing so, but it was certainly the right thing to do. It is important to understand what the agreement was, why Scots chose to stay in the UK and why it is so important for the Bill to deliver for Scotland. It is therefore worth putting the Bill in its constitutional context.

Over the past year we have had a debate about Scotland’s place in the world and how, in an uncertain international environment, Scotland’s interests are best served as part of a larger country and stable Union; a debate about Scotland’s economic interests, with more opportunities for jobs, for businesses and for investment as part of the wider UK; a debate about sharing economic and financial crisis risks, whether in the rebuilding of the Scottish-domiciled banks or the shared risks from the ups and downs in the oil price; a debate about shared tax and spending resources, about how Scotland can take greater control over tax and spending while maintaining the UK-wide pooling and sharing of resources that guarantees pensions and benefits, and safeguards Scotland’s public services; and, most importantly from a Labour point of view, a debate about social solidarity, about sharing across the territory of the United Kingdom so that together the nations of the UK can work together for the benefit of everyone who lives here.

In the end, this is about our sense of belonging: we are not simply Scots on our own, but part of a wider family of nations in the United Kingdom. The lesson of the referendum campaign is that those links remain powerful and valued by most Scots. However, it is clear that securing Scotland’s place in the UK is simply not enough. That is why the Bill really matters, because it guarantees not only economic benefits and UK social solidarity, but the scope under devolution to do more, to make different choices and to set a different course for Scotland, distinct from a UK agenda that might not always be—today certainly is not—in accordance with the public opinion of Scotland.

The Bill will make the Scottish Parliament one of the most powerful devolved Parliaments in the world—not my research, but that of the Scottish Parliament itself—with responsibility for more than 40% of tax revenues and more than 60% of public spending. Critically, the Bill provides more accountability. Lord Smith said that the agreement had the potential to increase financial discipline, promote greater budget transparency and enhance the debate on fiscal policy in Scotland. That is important, because the Scottish Parliament already has devolved responsibility for many of the areas that are critical to the day-to-day life of Scots: health, education, housing, justice, transport, economic development, local authority and business rates, 10p of income tax and all immovable taxes, borrowing powers and much more besides.

The problems in Scotland with accident and emergency waiting times, lower educational attainment and a crisis in housing show that the more important debate in this House is about how powers are utilised, rather than where they lie. After this Bill is passed, the Scottish Government, as the most powerful devolved Government on earth, will have immense power to change our society for the better—to create a fairer Scotland and a fairer country—but the Bill will also ensure that Scotland continues to benefit from the pooling and sharing of resources across the United Kingdom.

What is required now is the imagination and political will to deliver on that potential. That political will has always been a Labour priority, as demonstrated through the Calman and Smith commissions, to deliver progressive change for Scotland. The question becomes: will it be the SNP’s priority to start using new powers as a responsible Government or will it continue with a politics of grievance and blame? It appears to me from today’s exchanges that the SNP is desperate to be disappointed before the Bill has even started its passage through this House.

Labour has always been committed to ensuring that the infamous vow, negotiated by the cross-party Smith commission, was delivered in full. May I take this opportunity to thank Lord Smith of Kelvin and the 10 commissioners for their sterling work in getting us to where we are today? The Bill meets the commitment on the timetable and Labour will ensure, through the Bill’s passage in this House, that the legislation promises are also met in full, both in substance and in spirit. The original purpose of devolution was to keep the social solidarity that comes from being part of something bigger while recognising the uniqueness of Scotland’s role in the UK.

[Ian Paisley]

Does the shadow Secretary of State agree that one secret of devolution, and of this kingdom, has been parity for all of our peoples across all of the nations that share this kingdom and that the break-up of parity in social welfare payments alone has had the most destabilising impact in Northern Ireland? Indeed, more interest is given to the levels of disability living allowance than to the levels of IRA activity in Northern Ireland. Will the change to welfare payments affecting Scottish people also have a destabilising impact, not only on Scotland’s place in the Union, but on our place together as a people?

[Ian Murray]

I am grateful for the intervention, because the hon. Gentleman is describing devolution—that is how it works. It is up to individual Parliaments to make the choices, within the powers they have, on how they want to serve. Under a democratic system, the people will decide at the ballot box whether or not those decisions are ones they wish to vote for. Unfortunately, when there is devolution there will be disparities across the nations of the United Kingdom, but the important point is that the United Kingdom stays together.

[Mr Anderson]

I do not want to fall out with my hon. Friend, but it feels like the people of England will not get the choice to take any position in a democratic vote, because we are being told, “If you want devolution, you have to sign up to a regional mayor, whether you like it or not.” Without any debate, we are told, “If you don’t do that, you can’t get any money.” That is not devolution. He has talked often about social solidarity, but where is the social solidarity for us in England when this is being done without our chance to have a real debate in this country?

[Ian Murray]

I am grateful for that intervention. The Scottish referendum debate demonstrated that when there is a proper constitutional debate, under a framework for proper constitutional debate, the results are there for all to see. The overall position of the constitutional convention that we were proposing in our manifesto would have been the way to take some of these issues forward. Colleagues across England would be significantly upset to see that the devolution structure across the UK is progressing quickly while they are being hamstrung with what is being offered to them. The Government really do need to get a grip of this whole constitutional settlement across the UK, so that England does not seem as though it is losing out.

[Geraint Davies]

On that point, does my hon. Friend think it bizarre that this Government are giving Scotland the right to increase and decrease its income tax, while legislating so that England and Wales cannot increase income tax? Is that not a bit strange?

[Ian Murray]

I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s intervention, because one key question for the Treasury Minister wrapping up today’s debate will be: if the Government legislate for not increasing VAT, national insurance or income tax, what are they going to increase to cover the £23 billion of promises they made during the general election? I suppose the direct answer to my hon. Friend’s question is to say that that is the way devolution works and it is up to the different legislators to decide what they wish to do. This Bill allows Scotland a settlement where the responsibility and the accountability goes straight to the heart of politics in Scotland.

I was saying that as this Bill makes its passage through the House, Labour will ensure that legislation promises are fully met both in substance and in spirit. The original purpose of devolution was to keep the social solidarity that comes from being part of something bigger while recognising the uniqueness of Scotland’s role in the United Kingdom. But we in the Labour party want to go further. We have been calling for more powers for some time and included most of them in our manifesto, so this is not a knee-jerk response to the general election result as some would say, but a continuation of the devolution commitment.

[Alex Salmond]

I have been listening carefully to the hon. Gentleman, and he is not saying anything that was not said by Labour during the general election campaign. In many other areas, the Labour party is undergoing fundamental reassessment of policy. Having lost 40 out of 41 seats in Scotland, is there any new policy with which the hon. Gentleman wants to enlighten this House and Scotland?

[Ian Murray]

If the right hon. Gentleman wishes me to make some progress, I will come on to those very issues. Let me remind him that the devolution settlement was agreed to by all five parties on the Smith commission. The Bill that is in front of us is to ensure that the Smith agreement is put forward in full, and we want to ensure that it is put forward in full both in spirit and in substance, as I have said twice already. [Interruption.] I hear someone chuntering, “It doesn’t” from a sedentary position. Well, we are going through this parliamentary process and will seek to amend the Bill precisely because we want to ensure that it does fulfil everything in the Smith agreement, but we also want to go further.

We will seek to amend the Bill to go beyond the Smith agreement without compromising on the pooling and sharing of resources across the UK that guarantees the Barnett formula and the UK pension system for Scots. On welfare, we will ensure that the final say on benefit levels remains in Scotland by giving the Scottish Parliament a wider power to top up all reserve benefits. We will ensure that the Scottish Parliament can introduce new benefits in devolved areas funded from Scotland to meet Scottish circumstances; bring employment and welfare policy together with a positive vision for tackling the low skills, numeracy and literacy problems that hold back adults trapped in long-term unemployment; fully devolve housing benefit; and ensure double devolution by devolving job creation powers to local communities, providing real opportunities, as my private Member’s Bill demonstrated at the tail end of the previous Parliament.

[Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making a very good speech. Will the ability to top up social security payments enable the Scottish Parliament to get rid of welfare vouchers that were introduced earlier this year?

[Ian Murray]

That goes to the heart of some of the discussions that we will have in this Chamber during the five days we will spend considering this Bill, as some of the choices that the Scottish Parliament have made fly in the face of its rhetoric both of being anti-austerity and of looking after the most vulnerable. With the £444 million underspend in the Scottish Parliament budget last year, many of the questions just raised by my hon. Friend will be asked by ordinary Scots up and down the country.

[Robert Flello]

I am delighted to see that at least my hon. Friend is in his place. Sadly, all too many of our colleagues are not. On the devolution Bill and these proposals, is there not a danger that if things go really well, the SNP will take all the credit, but if things go badly, Westminster will get the blame?

[Ian Murray]

My hon. Friend raises the fundamental principle of nationalist politics. I remember the former First Minister, the right hon. Member for Gordon (Alex Salmond), taking great credit when unemployment fell in Scotland, and then blaming everyone else when unemployment rose, and that was a regular trend throughout the time of his premiership in Scotland. [Interruption.] I can hear him chunter “Shameful” from the Back Benches. People just have to look at the record and determine the facts for themselves.

[Pete Wishart]

I would go further than my right hon. Friend the Member for Gordon (Alex Salmond). The result for Labour a few weeks ago was catastrophic, and we have heard nothing thus far from the hon. Gentleman’s contribution that suggests that he is addressing those problems. What will he do? Will we hear a new story from Labour? Will it work with us on a progressive agenda across Scotland so that we can take on the Tories, address austerity and deal with the menace of Trident?

[Ian Murray]

Well, if my mathematics is correct, I have been on my feet for 15 minutes, and it is quite obvious that the hon. Gentleman has not listened to the first eight pages of my speech. It was about social solidarity and some of the changes that we want to see in this Bill. Let me put it on the record that I have just seen a tweet from him claiming that Labour will not vote on the SNP amendment tonight. Well, I understand that the amendment has not been chosen, so perhaps he would like to correct the record on his Twitter feed rather than yet again spreading mistruths in this House for political gain. This is a serious Bill that is trying to develop the constitutional settlement for Scotland.

[Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)]

The point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Robert Flello) was that if things go right in Scotland, the SNP will claim credit, but if things go wrong it will always be Westminster’s fault—[Interruption.] If this Bill is not good enough in terms of what the Scots Nats want, why are they not going down the route proposed in their “Stronger for Scotland” document, which was a move to full fiscal responsibility?

[Ian Murray]

When my hon. Friend made his point about the SNP claiming credit when things go well and blaming others when things go badly, the right hon. Member for Gordon shouted, “Sounds like a good narrative.” We are talking about people’s lives, and if we rule our country simply on a narrative we are in trouble.

My hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) is absolutely correct, because it was in the SNP manifesto that they would deliver full fiscal autonomy for Scotland. In fact, the First Minister said that all the MPs elected to Westminster under the SNP banner would vote for it this year. It seems to me that there is back-pedalling on that at the first opportunity. Perhaps we will get some enlightenment on their current position on full fiscal autonomy when the hon. Member for Moray (Angus Robertson) speaks, but it certainly was not mentioned in the amendment.

[Mr Jones]

Is my hon. Friend not concerned and confused by the fact that the incoherent amendment tabled by the Scots Nats contains no mention whatsoever of what has just been suggested?

[Ian Murray]

Nothing in the amendment addresses the question of full fiscal autonomy, but perhaps during our consideration of the Bill we will find out whether that is a goal that the SNP wants to promote—[Interruption.] I hear chuntering again from the right hon. Member for Gordon from just behind my left shoulder. The level of public respect for politicians is pretty low and we are only a few weeks away from everyone having voted in the general election. When the party that won 56 out of the 59 seats in Scotland—as it consistently trumpets—dumps its manifesto just a few weeks afterwards, there is little wonder that there is so little respect for politicians in this country.

[Tommy Sheppard]

The SNP remains committed to a situation in which the Scottish Government will have full financial control over their own affairs and be able to raise their own revenues. We want that to be done in a responsible way that does not disadvantage the people of Scotland. During the election campaign, we were treated by your party to a grotesque caricature of our proposals. I point out to you and ask you to reflect on the results of that election campaign, when people rejected what you said. You said that if they voted SNP they would bring on themselves some sort of economic Armageddon. The people did vote SNP and rejected your view.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I do not have a party and I did not say any of the things that have just been attributed to me, but I know that the hon. Gentleman will become a seasoned practitioner before very long.

[Ian Murray]

I certainly hope that the hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Tommy Sheppard) becomes a seasoned practitioner very quickly, because he might have forgotten that I went through the general election campaign as well. At hustings all over the Edinburgh South constituency, the SNP candidate was consistently asked his position on full fiscal autonomy and, as I have just said, the answer was that the SNP would vote for full fiscal autonomy in this Parliament. This is a legislative opportunity to bring that manifesto commitment forward and if we do not see it, people will rightly ask why.

We are promoting the additional powers on welfare because more devolution can protect the most vulnerable in Scotland from the worst of the Conservative Government. The major new powers coming to Scotland give us the chance to do things differently so that never again can a Government impose things such as the bedroom tax on Scotland’s most vulnerable.

We will also seek to strengthen the Bill in other areas. I shall not give an exhaustive list. This might be a Scotland Bill, but it has implications for other parts of the UK so we will look for a UK-wide constitutional convention as part of it. Equalities are a significant part of it and we shall look to strengthen the relevant clauses to improve on gender equality in Scotland. Lord Smith heavily underlined the importance of improving relationships between the Scottish and UK Governments to provide greater scrutiny of Scottish Ministers and the need to devolve powers from the Scottish Parliament, so we shall seek amendments in that regard. The Bill offers an opportunity to deal with outstanding issues with employment tribunals and the permanence of the Scottish Parliament. Let me re-emphasise that we will ensure that Smith is delivered in full, to the letter, in both substance and clauses.

We must be vigilant as the Bill makes progress through the House, as the worst case scenario for Scotland would be an SNP asking for its top manifesto priority of full fiscal autonomy and a majority Conservative Government delivering it for them. There will be common ground on amending the Bill, and we will work together to achieve that, but I will defend Scotland night and day from the plan to cut Scotland off from UK-wide taxation and spending with full fiscal autonomy. Some people may not recognise the policy, because the SNP does not really want to talk about it now that the general election is over. First it was full fiscal autonomy; then it was full fiscal retention. It was adapted to full fiscal responsibility, and yesterday on Sky the hon. Member for Moray called it full fiscal manoeuvre. Indeed, this lunchtime, the hon. Member for Dundee East (Stewart Hosie) confirmed that the SNP may amend the Bill to demand full fiscal autonomy. The picture is not clear, and Scots deserve an answer on this fundamental broken promise in their manifesto.

The SNP is uncomfortable with the name, because it is uncomfortable with the policy. It knows that the consequences of such a policy would be severe for Scotland. It is a source of great shame that it simply is not honest about it, and it has five days on the Floor of the House to explain it. Recent analysis by the impartial experts at the Institute for Fiscal Studies showed that by the end of the debacle the black hole in Scotland’s finances could be as much as £10 billion, which would mean spending cuts or tax rises to fill the gap. That is over and above the cuts already imposed by this Government. That means austerity max.

I will not shirk from holding the Government in Scotland to account for their policies at the Dispatch Box regardless of how much SNP Members chunter. If there was no pooling and sharing of resources across the UK, there would be no secure extra spending coming north—extra spending that has built the schools and hospitals that educate our children and care for our grandparents. It would mean an end to the UK pensions system at a time when the proportion of pensioners in Scotland is set rapidly to outgrow the proportion of people in work, paying the taxes that fund the pensions system. It would mean an end to the UK welfare state—the idea that if someone has paid into the UK system they get at least the same basic minimum back regardless of where they live. In short, it would mean an end to the social solidarity that makes Britain what it is today. That is not a left of centre or even a progressive case. It is a recipe for disaster.

[Ms Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh (Ochil and South Perthshire) (SNP)]

Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that this is the place where we hold the UK Government to account?

[Ian Murray]

We are debating the Scotland Bill on Second Reading, and I am making the Labour party’s position clear. We will fight night and day to prevent full fiscal autonomy because it would be bad for the Scottish people. That is our job as a credible Opposition, and we will amend the Bill to make it better for Scotland, regardless of what other parties want to do in this place. If the hon. Lady is so confident about full fiscal autonomy I look forward to her tabling an amendment so that we can debate it on the Floor of the House.

Only last year, we were told that independence could be delivered in just 18 months. A 300-year old Union could be disentangled in a year and a half. We could apply to be an EU member state in 18 months. [Interruption.] I am sure that we received legal advice on that from the person who is chuntering behind my left shoulder again. We could set up our own treasury and foreign office; establish our own navy, army and air force; create intelligence and security services.; develop a separate welfare state; and write a new tax code. All of that, we were told, could be achieved in just 18 months, but we are now being told that full fiscal autonomy is not achievable in the short term. [Interruption.] Again, the chuntering says, “Oh yes, it can be achieved”. Well, if it can be achieved in the short term, we look forward to amendments being tabled, and we can debate them on the Floor of this political House.

There is another danger: the Conservative Government having a clumsy and short-sighted approach to the wider constitutional issues of the United Kingdom. They talk of one nation, but I am not sure which nation they are talking about. As the sun was rising over Downing Street on the morning after the referendum, the Prime Minister linked the question of English votes for English laws with the referendum result. He said that just as the Scottish Parliament would vote separately on issues of tax and spending, so too would England. Linking these two issues could have unintended and undesirable consequences, weakening the very Union that Scotland voted to maintain. Devolution of power to England and its regions is essential, and we proposed a radical approach during the election. However, we must make sure that reform is coherent and that we understand the consequences.

It was rash and unwise of the Prime Minister to use the referendum result in Scotland, not to reach out, but to continue to divide the nation. It was equally dangerous for the Prime Minister to stoke division and grievance between the nations of our United Kingdom during the election campaign.

[Andrew Gwynne]

My hon. Friend is making the case for a UK-wide constitutional convention, which is important for my constituents in Greater Manchester, where we are being offered a form of devolution by this Government. Is it not also about the city regions in Scotland? Should there not be devolution from Holyrood to the cities and regions of Scotland?

[Ian Murray]

My hon. Friend is right. Over the past eight years or so we have seen the Scottish Parliament become one of the most centralist Parliaments in the world, sucking up power from local authorities and ensuring that local authorities cannot raise their own taxation. What we want to see—we will table amendments to this effect—is double devolution so that we will devolve powers from Westminster to Holyrood and ask Holyrood to devolve those powers out to local communities, which are best placed to deal with the problems facing Scottish communities.

I was talking about the clumsy way in which the Prime Minister has dealt with the UK constitutional settlement. In our manifesto we called for a full and proper constitutional convention which would be able to examine some of these issues so that we could have a more coherent and sustainable approach to the way that the UK operates.

We will not oppose Second Reading today. We will seek to improve the Bill in Committee and I have set out some aspects of it where we will try to do that. This is a real opportunity to provide a stable and durable devolution settlement to create a fairer, more prosperous Scotland. When this Bill is passed and these new powers make their way to the Scottish Parliament, we look forward to the debate moving on to how the powers will be used, rather than who will use them. That is the real debate and the one that the Scottish Labour party will relish in its historic fight for social justice, fairness and equality both in Scotland and across the United Kingdom.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Laing)]

Order. The House will be aware that there are a great many colleagues who seek to catch my eye and that we have limited time available. I am therefore obliged to put a limit of eight minutes on Back-Bench speeches.

17:36

[Mr Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)]

I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State not only on his appointment as Secretary of State, but on surviving his election, with some glory to himself.

I commend the hon. Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray) for his performance at the Dispatch Box because he did the House a great service just now: he put the Scottish National party on the spot. Let SNP Members put down that amendment in favour of full fiscal autonomy. The hon. Gentleman may oppose it, but he may find quite a number of Conservative Members voting for it. It might go through. We know that the SNP is calling for what it does not really want because it would leave the Scottish Government with a deficit in their budget of at least half the health service spending in Scotland. We want less of that kind of dishonest politics in the House. I commend my new hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Heidi Allen), who called for more trust in this debate. That needs to come first from the SNP, whose whole purpose is not to trust but to promote distrust so that it can break up the Union.

I am bound to ask the Secretary of State whether this Bill is really “it” for the future of Scotland. Is this the full and final settlement that will stabilise the Union of the United Kingdom? I hae ma doots. I will certainly support the Bill, but it comes with a number of problems. It is based on the vow during the closing stages of the referendum. We read that vow on the front page of the Daily Record, which, I say to the right hon. Member for Gordon (Alex Salmond), hardly represents the fount of learning and wisdom from which we would expect him to learn. Would he commend The Sun in England, for example, as our Bible, any more than I would commend the Daily Record as his Bible? [Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman should not be provoked.

What did that vow mean? Interpreting that extraordinary vow has been part of the difficulties of the Smith commission.

[Alex Salmond]

rose—

[Mr Jenkin]

I will give way in a moment.

We already have a devolution settlement that is pretty opaque, and this Bill will make it yet more opaque, more difficult to hold to account, and more difficult to explain to voters who does what. On the question of spending, the situation is now perverse. We have SNP Members, who do not think that they should be in this House because they want a separate country, seeking to use the funding mechanism—the outdated Barnett formula—as a pretext for interfering in decisions that should now be wholly determined by MPs representing English constituencies.

[Alex Salmond]

rose—

[Mr Jenkin]

I will give way to the right hon. Gentleman if he will declare his unwavering and unflinching support for full fiscal autonomy for Scotland.

[Alex Salmond]

I have done that many times. On the subject of the Daily Record, the Prime Minister seemed very happy to use it last September, so is it not quite reasonable to quote what it is saying today? Also, if I remember correctly, the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin) once stood for election in Scotland. Will he remind the House how he got on?

[Mr Jenkin]

I beat the SNP candidate into fourth place—[Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”]—and Tommy Sheridan into fifth place. At least I stood in a Scottish general election, unlike the current SNP leader. She seemed to take part in the general election as if she were a candidate, even though she was not; it was a rather odd way of conducting a general election campaign. I noticed that the right hon. Gentleman did not call for full fiscal autonomy. He is now in retreat from that demand, because he knows that it is not what he wants.

[Alex Salmond]

rose—

[Mr Jenkin]

I have given way to the right hon. Gentleman once already. On the question of taxation—[Interruption.] I am tempted, so I will give way.

[Alex Salmond]

The acoustics of the House must require attention. I did, I do and I will continue to call for full fiscal responsibility. With regard to the First Minister, is it not remarkable that she emerged as the unanswered star of the general election campaign without contesting a seat?

[Mr Jenkin]

I hope that the House noted that the right hon. Gentleman has retreated from full fiscal autonomy to full fiscal responsibility. People do not like politicians playing with words, which is exactly what he is doing. The fact is that he does not want full fiscal autonomy because he knows that it would result in dramatic cuts to public spending in Scotland.

On the question of taxation, the hon. Member for Edinburgh South ought to reflect on the fact that one of the problems identified by his hon. Friend the Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies) is that Scotland would be setting tax rates and having effects that English voters do not have for their own tax rates, which is exactly the same argument that we made against the Scotland Bill in 1997-98. He might reflect on how we have got into that situation. [Interruption.] Oh yes, because the Scotland Act 1998 allowed the Scots a 3% variation in income tax. They never used it, but it set up the very anomaly that the hon. Member for Swansea West complained about.

[Geraint Davies]

rose—

[Mr Jenkin]

The hon. Gentleman will forgive me, but I have given way several times and used up half my time already.

The point is that more than one intervention from the Opposition Benches has underlined what a mistake it was to believe that setting up a Scottish Parliament would resolve the grievances of people in Scotland. We now know—we can see it very graphically in this House—that it has just been a platform for those grievances, and it explains how we have got to this point today. I say to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that to describe the referendum, with its promise of yet more powers, as truly historic is almost an understatement; it was a near-death experience for one of the most successful nation states the world has ever seen. I do not think that we should describe the devolution process, which has become never-ending, as a great success.

What we need first of all is an atmosphere in which we can build more trust, instead of fuelling mistrust. How can we generate that trust? We need some cross- party forum, outside the hurly-burly of daily politics, in which to start building up a consensus on what a full and final settlement for the whole United Kingdom might look like. We need a cross-party agreement, in principle, that we are going to establish such a full and final settlement and put an end to this never- ending process of instability and uncertainty about the relationships between the four parts of the United Kingdom.

I would go so far as to suggest that we need a new, 21st-century Act of Union to be ratified by a referendum in all four parts of the United Kingdom that the SNP would be quite free to campaign against if it wished—and if it won, then Scotland would be an independent country; let the SNP dream that dream. We ought to conduct that referendum on the basis of a coherent and agreed offer, not a rush job published on the front page of a tabloid newspaper after a failed ex-Prime Minister has been shouting down the phone at the Prime Minister in Downing Street, as occurred with the previous referendum. Such a new Act of Union would aim to provide a balanced and equal settlement of powers across the four parts of the United Kingdom—with respect to my hon. Friends on the Northern Ireland Bench—and a mechanism such as a new council for the Union for distributing UK tax resources on the basis of need and unanimous agreement rather than an outdated formula that was designed to equalise spending between England and Scotland but has actually determined precisely the opposite.

The House should not carry on like this, as though we have not suffered the near death of one of the most successful nation states the world has ever seen, and without an atmosphere of contrition and seriousness about what we have all got wrong in the relationship between our four great nations in this great country. Unless we approach this in a new spirit, I fear for the future. I am standing for the chairmanship of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, and I promise that I will approach these matters with the utmost seriousness and determination—[Interruption] —and with a mind to seeking the maximum consensus, even from those who are now scoffing and laughing at such an idea.

17:47

[Angus Robertson (Moray) (SNP)]

I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin) and his unique job application for the votes of the 56 Members from the Scottish National party.

Let me begin by thanking the voters of Scotland, because it is they who have put so much pressure on this place to deliver further devolution. The lesson of history about Scottish devolution is that when the SNP does well, Scotland’s powers are strengthened.

I congratulate the Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell). In the previous Parliament he was one of 12 Government Members out of 59 Members from Scotland; now he is the only Government Member from Scotland, so he is uniquely qualified to speak on behalf of the Conservative party in Scotland. The hon. Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray) is similarly qualified to speak for the Labour party.

In the spirit of co-operation—it is sometimes not fashionable to say this in politics—we will make common cause on many matters, perhaps even on this Bill, and I would welcome that. I look forward to the amendments on full financial autonomy, which SNP Members will be voting for. I suspect that the hon. Member for Edinburgh South will be voting with the Tories as he worked so closely with them through the two years of the referendum campaign.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

If the hon. Gentleman is committed to full fiscal responsibility, why is there no mention of it in his ham-fisted attempt to amend the Bill?

[Angus Robertson]

The hon. Gentleman is usually assiduous in his research on these matters, but he has obviously not read to the end of the reasoned amendment tabled by the SNP, which I commend to Members across the House. It proposes that we would move

“to a position in the medium term where the Scottish Parliament and Government are responsible for all revenue raising”.

Clearly the Labour parliamentary research unit overlooked that point when sending round its briefings earlier.

[David Mowat]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Angus Robertson]

I would like to make a bit of progress, and then I will be delighted to give way to the hon. Gentleman, whose interventions thus far have been tremendously helpful to the SNP.

I feel a sense of déjà vu as we discuss the contents of yet another Scotland Bill driven once again by the success of Scotland’s independence movement and party. The previous Bill, now the Scotland Act 2012, was the Government’s response to the Calman commission recommendations; the Calman commission, of course, was a response to the SNP’s first election victory in the Scottish Parliament in 2007, which enabled us to form an historic first minority Government. In 2011, though, the SNP had an even more dramatic and significant victory in Scotland. As Members will be aware, we broke the electoral system, gaining a majority in a proportional representation system designed explicitly to prevent that eventuality.

The constitutional response to the first majority pro-independence Government in Scotland in more than 300 years was the agreement to hold last September’s referendum. That is how we have got here today. The Bill’s genesis was in the referendum, and it flows from the desperate promises of the final few days of the campaign. The legislation before us comes from the vow made then, which was followed by the Smith commission and the five-party Smith agreement, albeit in watered-down form.

[Johnny Mercer (Plymouth, Moor View) (Con)]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the UK Government have met every single deadline imposed during the process of delivering power to Scotland? The Bill must be viewed in the context of the no vote that the SNP finds it so difficult to accept.

[Angus Robertson]

First, to correct the record, the SNP recognises the result of the referendum. We were in favour of a yes vote, and we did not secure it, but 45% of the electorate voted for Scottish independence, and a considerable number of those who voted no did so on the basis of the vow that was given. That is why this discussion is so important.

The interventions and heckling from Conservative Members—and, sadly, from Labour Members as well—throughout this debate will inform the voters of Scotland of one thing: those Members have learned absolutely nothing since the general election, in which the Conservative party suffered its worst defeat in 100 years, making it, as far as I am aware, the worst performing centre-right party in the industrialised world to date. If Conservative Members took cognisance of that fact, they might not intervene in the way that the hon. Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Johnny Mercer) did a moment ago.

[Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)]

On the issue of full fiscal responsibility, a lot of the SNP’s economic prospectus was based on an increasing oil price and the much vaunted arc of prosperity. How did the hon. Gentleman get on with that?

[Angus Robertson]

How we got on with it is that we won 56 out of 59 seats.

[Mr Jackson]

indicated dissent.

[Angus Robertson]

The hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but it is a statement of fact. The Scottish National party won almost every single seat in Scotland, and it did so on the basis of the argument conducted during the general election. I advise Conservative Members, who apparently are in favour of the maintenance of the Union, that they should respect the views of the electorate that returned SNP Members in such great numbers.

[Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Angus Robertson]

I would like to make some progress, and then I will give way to the hon. Lady.

I will return in much more detail to the watering down of the Smith agreement in the Bill, because righting that wrong will be a central priority for the SNP. As we know, the vow was a direct response to the growing momentum of the yes campaign, in which the Better Together parties—Labour and Tory, which had worked closely for two years—descended into breathless panic and promised the earth. More accurately, they promised “home rule” and as close to federalism as possible. At least they had the nous not to carve those particular promises on an eight-foot block of stone. There is no doubt whatever that the Bill does not match the pledges of the campaign or the spirit and letter of the Smith deal. On that issue, I give way to the hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry).

[Emily Thornberry]

As I understand it, the Scottish National party’s position is for full fiscal autonomy. There is a difference between autonomy and responsibility, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman would agree. Autonomy means a great deal. The amendment that was not selected states

“as Scotland moves to a position in the medium term where the Scottish Parliament and Government are responsible for all revenue raising”.

Does he agree that that is not full fiscal autonomy?

[Angus Robertson]

That is interesting. A moment ago, Labour Members intervened to say that there was no mention of our support for fiscal autonomy; now we are told that we did mention it, but the hon. Lady is not happy with the wording. I opened my contribution by saying that I look forward to the SNP amendment on full fiscal autonomy; I expect to see Labour Members trooping through the Lobby and voting with the Tories yet again on governance in Scotland. I suggest that if they want to retain their only seat there, they should think twice about pursuing that course of action.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Angus Robertson]

I want to make some progress, but I will give way to the hon. Member for Edinburgh South.

[Ian Murray]

To be clear, can the hon. Gentleman confirm that he is saying that the SNP will introduce an amendment to deliver full fiscal autonomy for Scotland, and that the Labour party should support a measure that would put a £10 billion black hole in Scotland’s finances? It is not about walking through the Lobby with anyone; it is about standing up for Scotland’s interests.

[Angus Robertson]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for letting me intervene in his second speech in this debate. He needs to consider closely the impact of his party’s collaboration with the Tories for two years on the independence referendum campaign. He can say whatever he likes about full fiscal autonomy, which the SNP supports and which the other parties oppose. They have this in common: they are unbelievably unpopular in Scotland, and it will take a while for them to learn the lessons from that.

The hon. Gentleman had the opportunity in his speech from the Front Bench to outline any new thinking, new ideas or anything else that the Labour party did not say in the Smith commission proposals. There was not a peep; not one new idea. That, along with his party’s ongoing co-operation with the Conservative party, will consign Labour to the opposition position that it deserves in Scotland.

[Ian C. Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Angus Robertson]

I have taken many interventions, and I will now make progress. There is no doubt that the Bill does not match the pledges of the campaign or the spirit and letter of the Smith deal. The Bill falls short and, more importantly, it has also been overtaken by another election—the general election of a few weeks ago—in which the SNP had overwhelming and unprecedented success.

[Ian C. Lucas]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Angus Robertson]

For the second time, I will not. I want to make progress.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Laing)]

Order. The hon. Gentleman is not giving way. We must not waste time arguing about it; there is much to be said this evening.

[Angus Robertson]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. The people have spoken, and it is clear that they want more power for Scotland than the Bill offers. I ask the Secretary of State: will the Government listen?

I am not usually given to quoting the traditionally Labour-supporting Daily Record, but I recommend that the Secretary of State and other Members look at today’s issue. Across the front page is a headline that reads, “Failure to fully deliver all the new powers promised to Scotland will seriously damage your Union”.

[Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Angus Robertson]

No, I am making progress. The editorial that follows states:

“there are serious concerns the proposed Scotland Bill does not fully implement what was proposed…This is an unacceptable situation that must be rectified quickly as the Bill makes its way through Westminster.”

Much of what we have heard so far today has been an attack on the SNP by both the Government and Labour. As the effective Opposition in this Parliament, we will ensure that we make progress with the Bill. The Government can be assured that strengthening the legislation so that it begins to satisfy the aspirations of the people of Scotland and organisations across Scotland will be another priority for SNP Members.

Both the convenor of the Scottish Parliament’s Devolution (Further Powers) Committee and the Law Society of Scotland have urged the UK Government to ensure that the Bill proceeds in a way that will enable the Scottish Parliament to influence and shape it.

I endorse their view and ask the Secretary of State to confirm today that the Government will accept the cross-party changes proposed by the Scottish Parliament’s Devolution (Further Powers) Committee to bring the Bill into line with the Smith agreement.

It might help colleagues who have not read the report if I highlight the fact that the committee’s conclusions were reached unanimously on an all-party basis. The committee’s deputy convenor is one Duncan McNeil of the Scottish Labour party and it also includes one Alex Johnstone of the Scottish Conservative and Unionist party, Alison Johnstone of the Scottish Green party and Tavish Scott of the Scottish Liberal Democrats.

[Huw Merriman]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Angus Robertson]

I want to make some more progress.

This is a cross-party committee, and as its convenor Bruce Crawford MSP said when launching the interim report in May,

“the current proposals do not yet meet the challenge of fully translating the political agreement reached in the Smith Commission into legislation.”

This is really important. If all the political parties in this House believe that this Bill should deliver on Smith, and if all our colleagues in the Scottish Parliament say it does not fully do so, the Government must listen and they must act.

The errors that those in the Scottish Parliament seek to address go to the heart of what was agreed in the Smith commission. First, on welfare, the Bill as it stands retains a UK veto over changes to universal credit, among other things. That is unacceptable. The Secretary of State denied that there is a veto right in the Bill. I do not know how many Members present have read the Bill, but I invite them to turn to clause 24(4) on page 26, which states:

“The Scottish Ministers may not exercise the function of making regulations to which this section applies unless…they have consulted the Secretary of State about the practicability of implementing the regulations”.

The veto rights are there in black and white. [Interruption.] I hear someone from the Labour Benches say, “So?” Do they think it is a problem or not? Their colleagues in the Scottish Parliament think it is.

[Ian C. Lucas]

rose—

[Angus Robertson]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree with his colleagues in the Scottish Parliament that the Smith proposals should be delivered?

[Ian C. Lucas]

I am not giving way at this point.

[Angus Robertson]

There was I being hectored and accused of being frit and not taking interventions, but when Members are put on the spot as to whether they support their own colleagues in the Scottish Parliament, they run away.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way on the extremely important issue of a veto. An ordinary reading of clause 24(4) shows that it clearly says that “such agreement” is

“not to be unreasonably withheld.”

That means that it is not a veto and that it would be justiciable in front of the courts if an unreasonable decision were made by the Secretary of State.

[Angus Robertson]

The key point is that it does not have to be given. The hon. Gentleman will no doubt make contributions during the Bill’s Committee stage, but I ask hon. and right hon. Members across the House: have they read what their colleagues in the Scottish Parliament have concluded, and will they act on it or not?

[Stewart Hosie]

The hon. Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg) talks about reasonableness, but how on earth can we trust this Government or any Secretary of State to be reasonable when they have just implemented £177 million-worth of in-year cuts to the Scottish budget?

[Angus Robertson]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point. I was struck by the fact that the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Heidi Allen), who is not in her place, made an appeal for trust in this process. I totally agree with her. I look forward to the Government delivering everything that was promised in the Smith commission and more, because we all—every party—stood on manifestos of constitutional change, and the three UK parties were all defeated.

The Prime Minister has said that he will listen to what the Scottish Government have to say on more powers. I will take him at his word. The Secretary of State for Scotland has said that he is open to ensuring that the wording of the Bill is optimal to deliver on the Smith commission proposals. It is absolutely crucial that that takes place and that the trust mentioned by the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire is delivered on. When a committee of our colleagues in the Scottish Parliament concludes, on a cross-party basis, that the Government’s Bill does not fulfil that, the Government must listen.

[Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

Does it follow from what the hon. Gentleman has just said that, if the amendments that SNP Members will inevitably table are voted down, they will accept the consequences of the amendments not going through and their not getting the massive powers they seek?

[Angus Robertson]

I am not entirely sure whether the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that he and his colleagues should vote against his party colleagues in the Scottish Parliament. Is that what he is suggesting? The point I am trying to make is that all our political parties signed up to the Smith commission and all of our political parties in the Scottish Parliament have concluded that the Bill does not fully deliver on it. Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that his party should not support our colleagues in the Scottish Parliament?

[Sir William Cash]

I am asking a very simple question about this House. The SNP has won a victory in Scotland and its Members have come here, so they are obviously bound by the circumstances that apply within the Westminster Parliament. If they are voted down, will they accept that?

[Angus Robertson]

I asked the hon. Gentleman for clarification, but unfortunately he did not give it. There is a central point—[Interruption.] I am getting heckled by Labour Members in relation to Tory interventions—again! We are very used to this in Scotland. We are used to “project fear”—the Labour party and the Tories working together.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

rose—

[Angus Robertson]

No. I have given way very generously, both to Labour and to Tory Members, and I will now make some progress.

In addition to the points that have been raised thus far, the Smith recommendation for a power to create new benefits in devolved areas has not been adequately reflected in the Bill. Similarly, the ability to top up reserve benefits has been watered down. The Scottish Parliament would also be prevented from creating additional benefits to mitigate the impact of welfare sanctions and conditionality, which, as Members will know, are among the main causes of poverty. Their use has seen tens of thousands of people forced to rely on food banks, a scandal that should make Government Members hang their heads in shame. As the Devolution (Further Powers) Committee pointed out, the Bill contains unwarranted restrictions on the payment of carers’ benefits.

Secondly, on the constitution, the Bill as it stands fails adequately to guarantee the permanence of the Scottish Parliament. As the Devolution (Further Powers) Committee made clear, this Parliament should not be able to abolish Scotland’s Parliament against the wishes of the people. The consent of the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish people is a necessary addition to fulfil the Smith agreement’s promise of permanence.

Equally, as the Bill stands, the Sewel convention will not be translated effectively into law. It is not given full statutory footing in the Bill, as the Smith commission proposed. It is not good enough, as the Bill currently stands, simply to recognise the existence of the Sewel convention. The Bill’s clauses are vague and, as drafted, do not in fact require Scottish Parliament consent for UK Government legislation in devolved areas. That is not acceptable.

In the Committee stage, we will explore the gaps in the Bill more fully, but I will provide the House with one final example of its shortcomings in the area of employment. The Bill does not include the full range of employment support services currently delivered by the Department for Work and Pensions, contrary to both the letter and the spirit of paragraph 57 of the Smith agreement. That, too, needs to change.

[Mr Jenkin]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Angus Robertson]

I am still making progress.

These are matters of substance: shortcomings identified and agreed by all parties in the Scottish Parliament. The Scottish Government have helpfully provided new clauses to the Devolution (Further Powers) Committee on those and other gaps in the Bill—amendments that would deliver on the Smith agreement in full. Will the Secretary of State agree now to introduce them as Government amendments? If he cannot offer that guarantee, I am happy to confirm that the Scottish National party will do so, so that the Bill can be given these most basic and essential improvements during its Committee stage.

In that respect, I want to remind the Secretary of State of the Government’s stated policy with regard to England, as set out in the Queen’s Speech, and to replace the word “England” with “Scotland” to create what I hope can be a new principle for the passage of this Bill—perhaps we can call it the Mundell principle— as follows: “That decisions affecting Scotland can be taken only with the consent of the majority of Members of Parliament representing constituencies in that part of our United Kingdom”. That means that if the majority of Scottish Members of this House, representing the views of the Scottish Parliament, desire a change to the Bill that affects only Scotland, his Government must not and should not stand in our path.

The Scottish Parliament and Government have set out the steps that must be taken to ensure that this legislation delivers on the Smith agreement. The Bill is a response to the referendum, but we now need an adequate response to the general election and the clear mandate for more powers that was delivered. I agree with the words of the Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations in its briefing to Members on the Scotland Bill:

“As it stands, the Scotland Bill fails to recognise the sea change of opinion in Scotland and the wish for further devolution.”

That failure must now be remedied. If the Government are unwilling to give the people of Scotland what they want, the SNP will table the necessary amendments.

The manifesto on which I and my colleagues were elected was one that secured the support of more votes in Scotland than the Conservatives, the Labour party and the Liberal Democrats combined. We have been clear on our priorities for more powers, stating that

“we will prioritise devolution of powers over employment policy, including the minimum wage, welfare, business taxes, national insurance and equality policy—the powers we need to create jobs, grow revenues and lift people out of poverty.”

Those priorities will be the focus of our amendments in Committee and on Report. I hope that the Government will accept such changes as reflecting the clearly expressed will of a majority of Scottish Members on issues that affect Scotland only.

With meaningful powers over working-age benefits, we can protect Scottish society from the ideological attacks on our welfare state being undertaken by this Government. With responsibility for a full range of economic levers, we can work to support the job creators in Scotland. We can do more to create the wealth and share it more fairly. We can make more of our natural competitive and comparative advantages, boost exports and encourage innovation as we work to make Scotland’s economy more competitive and more productive. These are more powers for a very clear purpose: to deliver policy that works better for the people of Scotland—policy for the many, not just for the few. As our manifesto made clear, we will seek to amend the Bill so that the Scottish Parliament can become responsible for all revenues raised in Scotland as part of a wider financial arrangement that includes borrowing powers. That is also part of our mandate.

The people have spoken, and the UK Government should respect their choice. We know that the UK Government blocked the devolution of many new powers during the very last hours of the Smith negotiations. They were wrong to do so, as the election result has made very clear. Press reports have revealed that very late drafts of the agreement, as negotiated between the Scottish parties, included

“proposals to devolve income tax personal allowances, employers’ National Insurance contributions, inheritance tax, and the power to create new taxes without Treasury approval.”

We are also told that Labour representatives on the Smith commission blocked plans to devolve additional powers on employment law, including the national minimum wage. I hope that the Labour party, in particular, will now shift its stance so that we can ensure that minimum wage levels are set by the Scottish Parliament, not by this Tory Government. I look forward to the Scottish Labour party adding its voice and vote in Committee to SNP amendments to devolve the minimum wage.

The delivery of substantial new powers for our Parliament has become the settled will of the Scottish people, as expressed in elections and opinion surveys. People want the devo-max that was promised in the final days of the referendum. Scotland deserves nothing less.

[Huw Merriman]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Angus Robertson]

I am just concluding.

As a recent study by the Economic and Social Research Council has revealed, 63% of people in Scotland support the full devolution of both taxes and welfare benefits, including unemployment benefit. Our guiding principle should be that the people of Scotland get the form of government that they want. For almost two thirds of our fellow citizens, that is a Parliament in Scotland with substantially stronger powers than we have today and substantially stronger than are on offer in this Bill.

As our amendment on the Order Paper makes clear, we wish the Bill to progress into Committee so that it can be improved. Change is necessary, and I hope Government Front Benchers accept that reality. SNP Members will work with the Scottish Parliament to deliver the improvements to the Bill that are required—improvements that will first deliver the Smith agreement in full, and then give us the new powers Scotland needs to enable us to create more jobs and boost economic growth, to increase wages and opportunities across society and to deliver higher living standards for hard-pressed households.

The Westminster system has delivered growing inequality. The gap between the super-rich and the rest is growing at an unacceptable rate. We are among the most unequal societies anywhere in the world. Westminster is not working for the majority of people in Scotland—or arguably for the rest of the UK, either—and that is why there is such a clamour in Scotland for a new way of doing things and for the powers, in our own hands, to make a difference.

The UK Government have promised that this Bill will deliver the Smith commission in full, and that it will include proposals from the Scottish Government that were endorsed by the electorate in the general election. In the weeks ahead, the House of Commons will debate amendments that can strengthen the Bill. I hope that the Government will deliver on the vow, accept the verdict of the electorate and ensure that the Bill does deliver what the Scottish people require.

18:16

[David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Moray (Angus Robertson), although it would certainly have been more of a pleasure if he had taken my intervention earlier. I will ask the question that I would have asked then. He made the point that the end of the SNP Members’ amendment says that they want full fiscal autonomy “in the medium term”. Would he care to tell the House when the medium term is? They were talking about a period of 18 months when the referendum was taking place.

The hon. Gentleman did say something that was correct: the people have spoken. The people spoke in the general election, and there is absolutely no question but that there is a mandate for the Bill before us. It is absolutely right that Members from both sides of the House move forward with the vow and all it means in a way that shows trust and good faith, and we will do that.

I will make a number of observations about the fiscal framework, and I would be interested to hear Ministers come back on those points. In his initial remarks, the Secretary of State used the phrase that the solution had to be long lasting and fair, which are big words. My concern is that a solution based on a fiscal framework that is not fair will not be long lasting. I do not believe that the use of the Barnett formula, as it is currently envisaged—even with changes through the devolution of certain revenue-raising powers—is fair on my constituents, or indeed those in Wales or in other parts of England. The flawed Barnett formula settlement is unfair on middle England, and as a result, this whole settlement may unwind.

Let me say a few things about the Barnett formula on which we need to be clear. The first is that it does not represent a subsidy to Scotland, or it has not over the past 25 to 30 years. I have never said that it did. Broadly speaking, the extra money that Scotland gets—£1,600 per head—has been paid for by the proceeds of Scotland’s oil. We can look at the analysis year by year, but the Institute of Directors analysis has said that that, roughly speaking, has been the case over the past 25 to 30 years. It is not a question of subsidy, but of fairness and of need. When we are allocating public spending across our state, there should be cognisance of where that money is required to be spent to have the biggest impact. Indeed, a progressive party—we are continually told that the SNP is progressive—should surely be at the forefront of wanting a formula based on need.

[Debbie Abrahams]

Will the hon. Gentleman therefore explain why he has taken £254 per household from my constituency in Oldham and given it to an affluent area in Surrey?

[David Mowat]

I have not taken any money from anyone, or given any money to anyone. The hon. Lady’s constituents in Oldham receive roughly £1,600 a year less from public spending than they would receive if they had the same demographic profile and lived north of the border. That is an anomaly, and it is an anomaly that causes a potential risk to a settlement that is necessary and right.

Conservative Members do not question the fact that there is a Scottish Government now, and that that Government have entitlements.

[Stewart Hosie]

The hon. Gentleman is knowledgeable about this matter, and he was right to say that no subsidy is implied by Barnett. Unlike most of his colleagues, he looks at both sides of the balance sheet. However, he spoilt that by talking about a needs-based assessment. Does he recognise that that would imply a £4 billion cut in Scottish funding, right now?

[David Mowat]

I recognise that a needs-based assessment —that is, an assessment that will result in public money being spent where it is most needed—is fairer. However, I am not saying that it should be introduced immediately, as it would be with full fiscal autonomy, and as it would have been had the hon. Gentleman’s party won the referendum. Such things can be done over a period of, say, 10 or 20 years. There can be a target for the achievement of fairness.

As I was saying, no one questions the right of the Scottish Government to provide free prescriptions and free tuition—if that is their priority—and to make different arrangements for social care. However, if such provision is predicated on a baseline of funding that is unfair and wrong, it is reasonable for us to question it, and not to let the Scottish Government get away with saying that they can take such action because it is progressive. That is neither fair nor right.

We are talking about a formula that is based on need, and a formula that the late Joel Barnett was desperate to get rid of. A House of Lords Select Committee made the position very clear. Moreover—this is not mentioned often enough—the Holtham commission identified the serious underfunding of Wales as a consequence of the Barnett formula. That problem will have to be addressed in Scotland. It is true that public spending must reflect sparsity, and must reflect the fact that Scotland’s population is more spread out. However, it also needs to reflect relative ageing and relative measures of deprivation.

[Alex Salmond]

The hon. Gentleman is making an interesting speech, but at its heart is something of a contradiction. He says that we must implement the vow, but scrap the Barnett formula. Is he aware that the Barnett formula features in paragraph 6 of the vow?

[David Mowat]

Yes, I am completely aware of that. My point is that the whole settlement will be at risk if it is not perceived as being fair in, for want of a better phrase, “middle England.” I represent a constituency that is in the north but also in the middle, depending on where you start.

[Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[David Mowat]

No, I will not. I need to make some progress.

It is not right for my constituents to have £1,600 a year less than those who live north of the border. One solution that has been mooted is full fiscal autonomy, which one imagines is something in which nationalists believe. According to their amendment, they believe in it “in the medium term”, which was not the case when they fought the general election. That is indeed a possible solution, but it would result in a black hole. I think that we should be sympathetic, and deal with the problem in a way that would be fair to my constituents and those of the right hon. Member for Gordon (Alex Salmond).

Another possible solution would be a proper, need-based review of public spending in this country that was fair to Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and England. That would take a while to achieve, and I am not suggesting that it would be easy or should be implemented immediately.

[Dr Whitford]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[David Mowat]

No. I have given way twice, and I need to make some progress.

A needs-based review must be something that I would be delighted to accept if I came to Westminster representing a progressive party. Surely my progressiveness would not allow me simply to say, “We will have all we can get in Scotland”—which, as we heard from the right hon. Member for Gordon, is what was on the front page of the Daily Record. A progressive party should say, “We are not going to take all this money, because we are progressive. The settlement needs to be fair to Wales and to parts of England, where there is a great deal of deprivation.”

[Mr Jenkin]

And that would be a step towards full fiscal autonomy.

[David Mowat]

Indeed. I understand that full fiscal autonomy would take the problem away, which is, of course, why we are now seeking to implement it “in the medium term”, whatever that means.

Of course I support the vow. Of course I support the mandate that SNP Members have achieved through their spectacular election victory. It is right for us to implement this settlement, and I will vote with the Government tonight and in the future to ensure that that happens. However, I must ask the Secretary of State to reflect on the phrase that he used in his speech—“fair and lasting”—and to ask himself whether he really believes that a fiscal settlement that is absolutely and clearly not based on need can ever be described as fair and lasting. That may yet cause us problems.

18:25

[Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)]

As one who has always believed in devolution, I welcome an historic Bill that devolves further powers to Scotland, granting real powers that local people have clearly demanded. Today, however, we heard the hon. Member for Moray (Angus Robertson) elevate victim mentality to a new art form.

It is fine for SNP Members to stand here in the House and say that what is on offer is not good enough, but to hear them speak, both in the House and outside, one would think that they had been no part of the Smith commission whatsoever, and that it had somehow been imposed on them from outside. They sound a bit like the Eurosceptics who claim that Brussels dictates what the United Kingdom does. Nothing could be further from the truth. SNP Members were part of the Smith commission, they agreed to the process, but then, on the following morning, they said that it had had nothing to do with them. We heard a continuation of that argument today, when it was suggested that what had been promised by all the parties who agreed to the Smith commission would not be in the Bill. Briefing from the House of Commons Library clearly states that

“there are no substantial differences between the tax powers that the Smith Commission proposed devolving and those contained in this Bill”.

We must recognise that the general election result caused a substantial change in the politics of Scotland. However, the SNP must recognise that in the vote on independence the people of Scotland voted to be part of the United Kingdom. I think that that puts working people in Scotland in a better position. We should consider the SNP’s record. Earlier today, the hon. Member for Moray shouted at one of my hon. Friends, suggesting that we were in cahoots with the Conservatives “yet again”. Given that his party was propped up by the Conservatives in the Scottish Parliament from 2007 onwards, we will take no lessons from him.

[Ian Blackford]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Jones]

No, I will not.

The hon. Member for Moray set the tone. We keep hearing from the SNP that if something is said, it is actual fact. I think that the movement towards full fiscal autonomy is one thing that the SNP wanted and actually did mention in their manifesto. I hope that they will table amendments, because it would not be in the interests of working people in Scotland. It might be in their interests with Barnett in place, but it is clear that Barnett would eventually wither away, and, given the demographics and economics of Scotland, there would then be a black hole.

[Tommy Sheppard]

Does the hon. Gentleman not accept that the working people of Scotland were consulted on this matter, that they cast their votes in the general election, and that they voted for our party? Not only did they give us the majority of seats, but more than 50% of the electorate voted for us. Does the hon. Gentleman not respect that decision by the working people of Scotland?

[Mr Jones]

I do, and I expect the hon. Gentleman to respect their position in relation to how they voted in the referendum. [Interruption.] Hon. Members from the SNP say they do, but they conveniently forget that.

[Tommy Sheppard]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Jones]

No, I will carry on.

The important point is that we need a system that is not only fair to the people of Scotland but, as the hon. Member for Warrington South (David Mowat) said, fair to the people of the United Kingdom. We cannot have the devolution in Scotland that the Bill proposes without it affecting my constituents in North Durham and the constituents of many other Members.

Devolution raises many practical issues. One example is air passenger duty. Newcastle airport is a great example of the local council, five local authorities and the private sector working together to ensure for the region a vibrant airport with international links. It employs 3,500 people directly, with a further 8,000 people employed in the region.

[Andrew Gwynne]

My hon. Friend’s point about Newcastle airport could be made equally about Manchester airport and many other airports in the north of England. Is this not precisely why we need to have a UK-wide look at the devolution settlement? We need to ensure that parts of England, particularly those in the north which are closest to Scotland, are not adversely affected by devolution?

[Mr Jones]

We do. I am not holding out a great deal of hope, however, because the Government seem to think that somehow, with this power being devolved to Scotland, competition will ensue. I do not think that is going to work. I agree with my hon. Friend totally, but it goes beyond that issue. On landfill tax, a commendable initiative—the zero waste strategy, which has been much trumpeted in Scotland—aims for 70% of waste to be recycled by 2025. That is a very good policy; indeed, it is the only progressive policy I can think of that the SNP has introduced.

[Stewart McDonald]

(Glasgow South): Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Jones]

No, because I only have two or three minutes left.

If the Scottish Government choose to increase landfill tax, there will be a movement of waste across the border into England where people will be paying lower rates of landfill tax. That is already happening. In 2014, the Scottish Government introduced the Zero Waste Plan, which means that businesses and individuals now have to separate out their waste. There is clear evidence that in some cases it is not being enforced, and that some unscrupulous individuals and large companies are collecting separated waste and shipping it across the border into England where the Scottish Government have no jurisdiction. Those are just two of the practical issues that need to be considered during the passage of the Bill.

I look forward to the amendments that will be tabled by the SNP, but I have one plea. There is no difference whatever between the interests of the working people in my constituency and of those in the constituencies of SNP Members. I would just say that they should make sure that what is brought forward is not just in the interests of the constituents they represent but mine as well—they have a lot in common. We need to ensure a settlement that the people of Scotland want. They want to be part of the United Kingdom, although I accept that the SNP does not. We need a system that works not only for the benefit of the people of Scotland, but for the rest of the UK too.

18:34

[Alberto Costa (South Leicestershire) (Con)]

Thank you for calling me to give my maiden speech to the House, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is a particular pleasure for a current Scottish solicitor to be called by a former Scottish solicitor.

I want to thank the voters of South Leicestershire for giving me the opportunity to represent them in this great House of Commons. I follow in a distinguished line of Conservative MPs who have served my wonderful constituency with such passion and dedication. My immediate predecessor, Andrew Robathan, has served our country for over 40 years. He began in the British Army serving in the Coldstream Guards, reaching the rank of major. He was elected in 1992 as MP for Blaby, as my constituency was then known, succeeding another distinguished Conservative MP, the former Chancellor the right hon. Nigel Lawson. Andrew served as Minister of State in the Ministry of Defence and, later, in the Northern Ireland Office. But he was also Opposition deputy Chief Whip, and the skills gained in the British Army were put to excellent use in maintaining party discipline, earning him the nickname Robocop. We wish Andrew and his family every success for their future.

South Leicestershire is a truly delightful constituency, a semi-rural constituency, with much of the population in commuter towns and villages clustered close to Leicester itself, both in the suburb of Braunstone Town, including the large modern development of Thorpe Astley, and commuter villages such as Enderby, Narborough, Whetstone, Blaby, Glen Parva and Countesthorpe. The largest settlement to the south is the old market town of Lutterworth where Sir Frank Whittle, inventor of the jet engine, developed some of the world’s first jet engines. The engine for the UK’s first jet aeroplane, the Gloster E.28/39, was produced in Lutterworth and a statue of the plane stands in a roundabout south of the town as a memorial. Nearby is Magna Park, one of the largest distribution centres in Europe. As you travel west, Madam Deputy Speaker, you pass through wonderful villages such as Bitteswell, Ullesthorpe, Ashby Parva, Claybrooke Magna, Frolesworth and Leire. Further north, there are quintessential English villages such as Dunton Bassett, Broughton Astley, Sapcote, Stoney Stanton, Croft and Cosby.

To the east, there is Bruntingthorpe aerodrome, with one of the longest runways in the UK, where on Sunday 28 June, weather permitting, we hope to see one of the final flypasts of the British Vulcan bomber aircraft. The whole House is invited. Around Bruntingthorpe, there are more beautiful villages, such as Ashby Magna, Willoughby Waterleys, Peatling Magna, Peatling Parva, Arnesby, Shearsby, Walton, Gilmorton and Walcote. To the very south, we cannot forget Cotesbach and, where the M1 and the M6 meet, Swinford, Shawell and Catthorpe.

I would not be here today without the excellent assistance from my agent Ruth and my marvellous campaign manager Ann, who, along with members and supporters from my local Conservative team, led us to an increased majority. As well as Leicestershire County Council, South Leicestershire has two district councils. At the election, we succeeded in holding control of Blaby District Council, under the new leadership of Councillor Terry Richardson, as well as maintaining control of Harborough District Council, which covers the southern parts of my constituency, returning excellent councillors such as Neil Bannister. I will be supporting all three of my local authorities in calls for fairer funding.

Today, we are debating the Scotland Bill. It is perhaps worth noting my own background. As the son of Italian immigrants, I was born in England but raised in Scotland. As a dual qualified Scottish and English solicitor, I have worked across our United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. I am proud to call myself British.

Those on the Government Benches are honouring the so-called vow to the Scottish people made during the Scottish referendum. It is right that we do this. It is also right, however, that we remind the House of another promise given by a senior member of the yes campaign, the former First Minister, the right hon. Member for Gordon (Alex Salmond). During last year’s Scottish referendum, he said there would be no second referendum, stating:

“this is a once in a generation, perhaps even a once in a lifetime, opportunity”.

On this side of the House, we will ensure that that pledge—call it a vow, even—is honoured to the people of South Leicestershire and to the whole of our United Kingdom. The Scottish voters decided to remain part of the UK, and all British people are entitled to constitutional stability, at least for a lifetime.

As the Secretary of State said clearly and sincerely, the Scotland Bill is designed to implement the Smith commission agreement, the objective of which was to provide a durable but responsive constitutional settlement for the governance of Scotland. The Bill states:

“A Scottish Parliament is recognised as a permanent part of the United Kingdom’s constitutional arrangements.”

That is designed to ensure that the House accepts the permanence of the Scottish Parliament, while maintaining the ultimate sovereignty of the UK Parliament, of which the Scottish people voted to stay a part. However, having heard other hon. Members, particularly on the Government Benches, I think it is also right that we recognise the need to complement the Bill in due course with further changes in the House of Commons—if you like, English votes for English laws. It is a cry not for English nationalism, but for fairness to ensure that decisions affecting England can be taken only with the consent of a majority of MPs representing English constituencies.

Finally, those of us committed to keeping Britain intact —as one successful, secure, strong, sovereign country—will, I am confident, work towards a fair settlement, and in so doing, whichever party we happen to be members of, I am sure that together we can proudly maintain the integrity of our United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

18:41

[Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (SNP)]

I thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to make my maiden speech and to take part in this important debate. I congratulate the hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Alberto Costa) on his interesting maiden speech, and I am sure he will work hard for his constituents over the next five years. I also congratulate my hon. Friends on their wonderful maiden speeches. I am sure they will also work extremely hard over the next five years.

It is a privilege and an honour to stand here today as not only the first SNP Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West, but the first female Member, although parts of the constituency—Blantyre and Hamilton West—had the pleasure of being served by the great Winnie Ewing back in 1967. I thank my constituents for placing their trust in me to represent them, and will work hard to repay that trust over the next five years.

My early days in the House have been, in equal measures, interesting and challenging: there is a lot to learn, not just about how to act in the Chamber, but about how not to act. However, I am sure that my hon. Friends will join me in saying that since we have arrived the staff have been more than helpful and attentive to our needs. The Doorkeepers have been particularly charming, keen to remember the names of all new Members. It is clear how much they love and take pride in what they do.

As is customary, I would like to mention my predecessor, Tom Greatrex. He was a Labour and Co-operative Member between 2010 and 2015, and was born on 30 September 1974 in Ashford, Kent. He held various posts within his party, before latterly taking on the post of shadow Energy Minister. I hope to represent my constituents as diligently as he did, and I am sure that whatever the future holds for him, it will be a successful one. Perhaps now he has more time, he can enjoy spending it with his wife and twin daughters and supporting his beloved football club, Fulham.

Rutherglen and Hamilton West is diverse in every sense. Rutherglen received the status of royal burgh in 1126 by royal charter from King David I of Scotland. Cambuslang has a long history of coalmining, iron and steel making. Halfway, where I have made my home for the last 15 years, was given that name because passengers would stop there to change their horses and rest on the journey from Glasgow to Hamilton. The district has the older name of Gilbertfield, where a castle still stands, owned once by Hamilton of Gilbertfield, a friend of our national bard, Robert Burns. Blantyre was the birthplace of David Livingstone, the 19th-century explorer and missionary, whose former house is now a museum—to this day, Blantyre has strong ties with Malawi, one of the countries Livingstone explored. Last but by no means least, there is Hamilton, originally known as Cadzow. Many notable people have connections with Hamilton, including the blonde bombshell, as she was known, the late Margo Macdonald.

There are affluent areas in my constituency but also communities crying out for regeneration, investment, and love and attention. Within these communities, we are blessed with truly selfless, hard-working people contributing to our society daily, volunteers in many organisations, charities and community councils—these are the unsung heroes who make the larger community of Rutherglen and Hamilton West what it is. It will be a great pleasure to work with all these people over the next five years, and I look forward to meeting many of them during my tenure as their MP. I will do my very best to serve them with honesty and integrity.

The legacy I wish to leave my constituents is one of positive change for the communities we all live and work in. I have been elected to be their voice in Parliament and to speak up for those with no voice: the mother forced to visit the local food bank; the father in low-paid, zero-hours-contract employment; the carer who looks after a family member for no reward; the refugee reaching out for help in their time of need.

On 7 May, the SNP was given a resounding mandate by the people of Scotland to be their strong voice here in this Chamber. Why were we elected? It was because we listened to the people of our nation—and we will continue to listen to them. We will be the real Opposition, the real social democrats. We were told by Labour and the Conservatives during the independence referendum that we were a family of nations, and more recently one nation. If they truly meant those words, they will listen to our contributions in the Chamber and in the Committees.

There will be many important pieces of proposed legislation over the next five years, but I am particularly proud to be making my maiden speech in a debate on more powers for Scotland and the Scotland Bill. It has the potential to be much better than it currently is, and my party will take every opportunity to improve it, first by calling for full implementation of the Smith commission and then by adding additional powers over our economy and society. I hope that Labour Members will back us as we seek to take welfare out of Tory hands and into the hands of the Parliament and people of Scotland.

Walking within these corridors of power, I can see that it would be easy to fall under the spell of Westminster Palace—there is no denying the history and ornateness of the building, and the archaic customs have a certain seductive charm—but that is why it is important constantly to remind ourselves of why we are here, who sent us and how long we will be here for. This, my hon. Friends, is but a moment in time. Our heads cannot be turned. Our rightful place is back in that place we all call home, Scotland.

All of us might have difficult choices to make within this Chamber, but we must stand up and be counted. We cannot shy away from making decisions that might have profound implications for our constituents. I will do my best to question each decision I make with careful consideration, and I am sure that my hon. Friends and I will scrutinise each and every piece of proposed legislation carefully, opposing any unfair policies or decisions from the Tory Government.

It is fitting that our day in Parliament starts with prayers. Our task is not an easy one, and divine intervention is welcomed, but ultimately one is responsible for one’s own conduct and moral compass. It will be an interesting five years for me and my 55 hon. Friends. We relish the challenges and opportunities that lie ahead of us, and I hope that we can make progressive alliances across the Chamber, working together in a spirit of collaboration. Let us find common cause, let us respect one another and let us be guided always to do what is right, not for ourselves, but for those we serve. Saor Alba.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Laing)]

Order. The passion of today’s debate has been such that speeches have taken a little longer than they might otherwise have done—perfectly properly, given the many interventions—so I am afraid that I have to reduce the time limit to seven minutes.

18:49

[Antoinette Sandbach (Eddisbury) (Con)]

It is an honour to follow the maiden speech from the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Margaret Ferrier), who spoke powerfully on behalf of her constituents. It is a great privilege for me, too, to address this House on behalf of my constituents in Eddisbury. I arrived ready to be a serious politician, but almost immediately, the first thing that happened to me was being selected for the ladies’ tug-of-war team! I hope this parliamentary debut will not lead to my being flat on my backside.

I am acutely conscious that Eddisbury has been represented by a number of illustrious Members of Parliament, the most recent of whom was Stephen O’Brien, who served the constituency with distinction and dedication for the last 16 years. His commitment to his constituents has been accompanied by his achievements in office as a Minister for International Development between 2010 and 2012, as well being the Prime Minister’s envoy for the Sahel. Stephen will bring substantial experience to his new role in the United Nations as Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs. That experience will prove invaluable in the light of the challenges of the humanitarian crises that beset Syria and Nepal and the consequences of the conflict with ISIL. Members from all sides will want to wish him well.

The difficulties of others suffering the consequences of humanitarian disaster can sometimes feel a long way away from the delights of the Eddisbury constituency in south-west Cheshire. Beautiful canals that criss-cross the landscape in Wrenbury can be enjoyed on narrow boats that can be hired for relaxing holidays.

The Cheshire plains form the bedrock of the dairy industry in the constituency, whose importance is recorded as far back as 1125 by William of Malmesbury. Concerns about the milk price do not quite go back that far, but the fact that it is cheaper to buy a litre of milk than a litre of water was as true 15 years ago as it is today, and it is something on which we need to take action if we want to ensure that British family farms survive. Farm diversification is strong in Eddisbury, and that can be seen with the milk being turned into one of the oldest of English cheeses—Cheshire cheese.

Scottish Members will be interested to know of the link to St Boniface, who founded over 150 churches in Scotland in the seventh century. We have the church of St Boniface in Bunbury. In the 18th century, the Reverend Butler recorded:

“St. Boniface, by preaching the word of God, reformed the manners of the people in the provinces of Angus, Marris, Buchan, Elgin, Murray, and Ross”.

Witnessing “Seatgate” in this House over the last few weeks, I am not certain that the reformation of manners he described was a lasting one.

Eddisbury is also home to the oldest church in Cheshire, which was built in 1190 in Shocklach. If quiet contemplation is not one’s style and people prefer big engines and racing, they should come to the Cholmondeley “pageant of power”, which is on this weekend, or watch the racing at Oulton. Bolesworth park provides top-quality international eventing for those with a love of horses—and all these can be enjoyed over the next few weeks.

The real strength of my constituency, however, is the people who live within it, and their generosity of spirit can be seen in Winsford. St Luke’s hospice, one with a history of being small, punches above its weight in terms of innovation and working with others. The Wingate centre provides life-enriching experiences to children with disabilities and provides respite care for those who need it. Then there is the neuro-muscular centre that provides unique help for those with muscular dystrophy—not just for people from my constituency, but for many others, too.

I got involved in politics as a single parent, having struggled to access childcare in the rural area in which I lived. Single parents come in all shapes and sizes, as can be seen. Many have jobs, and childcare is crucial to allow parents to make the most of themselves and their children. The Family and Childcare Trust has pointed out the particular lack of provision in rural areas. This Government’s commitment to 30 hours of free childcare provides an opportunity for local councils to ensure appropriate provision during the school holidays and wrap-around care, which is vital for working parents and single parents in particular. Improvement of provision is crucial if we are to make the most of talented women and men who want to work, but often face barriers because of the high cost of childcare.

In the numerous villages scattered throughout the constituency, small local businesses typify the determination of those who are employers, employees and business owners—whether they be a high street shop, a local farm or a business located on one of our many industrial sites. Hard work is clearly evident in Eddisbury, and there is a quiet but steely determination for people to “get on”, to strive and to achieve. That can be seen in the streets of Alpraham, Kelsall, Farndon, Malpas, Tarvin, Tarporley and Tattenhall.

My constituents voted Conservative so that they could build on those hopes for themselves and their families in Cheshire. Aspiration and achievement are admired, yet my constituents watch as policies that could help them are placed under threat by MPs from nations that make their own decisions on childcare, health services and education. That cannot be right, so the West Lothian question needs to be addressed to ensure English votes for English laws.

It is important that we recognise the strong links we have in our area. Speaking as someone who has both English and Welsh roots, I have been accused of being too English in Wales, and too Welsh in England. I make no apology for being British, and we should perhaps reflect that what unites us is stronger than what divides us. Having experienced devolution at first hand, it is clear that if decision making is taken closer to those affected by it, people will benefit. That is the benefit of the northern powerhouse to my constituents. This is the principle that we should perhaps bear in mind when considering the impact of the European Union referendum. It seems a contradiction that the SNP seeks independence, yet is apparently happy to cede sovereignty to Europe.

I will be a strong voice for my constituency in Westminster, and look forward to speaking up for my constituents in the years to come.

18:57

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to follow three exceptionally fine maiden speeches. As convention demands, I should like to say a few words about them before the hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Alberto Costa) leaves his place. As one former Scottish solicitor to another, I welcome him to the House. Maiden speeches always teach us something new that we did not know about a certain part of the world before. I confess that I always thought the world’s longest runway was at Machrihanish, but I say that only because the hon. Gentleman went on to give an impressive list of community names—villages and towns within his constituency. I am sure that the sound we might have heard in the background was the silent sobbing of Hansard writers trying to get the full list from him. He will soon learn, I have no doubt, that such lists bring a swift note from the Hansard writers.

The hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Margaret Ferrier) has obviously already learned one important thing about the House of Commons—that if one wants to get on here, one has to keep in with the Doorkeepers. She, too, delivered her first speech with passion and humour. Knowing the part of the world she represents, as I do, I have no doubt that she will need both these qualities as she represents her constituents in the years ahead.

Finally, we heard from the hon. Member for Eddisbury (Antoinette Sandbach), who spoke first of all for her farming constituents. As a farmer’s son representing a farming constituency myself, I am pretty sure that we will all recognise elements of common concerns shared by her part of the world and mine. I was particularly impressed by the way in which she brought in her own wider life experience. She gave a thoughtful maiden speech, and she will always be listened to in this House.

Let me add my welcome for this Bill on Second Reading tonight. It is not yet fully nine months since the Smith commission was established. In that time, there have been a series of deadlines which, as the Secretary of State indicated, have all been met or exceeded and today’s is just one of the long line. It is worth remembering that we had a report—the heads of agreement—from Lord Smith and his commissioners by the end of November. There was then the publication of draft clauses and the Command Paper by the end of January. Then there was a commitment in all three manifestos to bring forward legislation in the first Queen’s Speech and an early introduction of the Bill. I commend the Government for having brought it forward today, and I wish it a swift passage.

This Bill has already been the subject of some substantial and detailed scrutiny. Other hon. Members have spoken about the report of the Scottish Parliament special committee on the extra powers to the Scottish Parliament, and professional bodies such as the Law Society of Scotland have also given the Bill careful consideration. The nine-month gestation process in the context of these discussions has been undertaken at breakneck speed. If we consider how long it took us to get through the constitutional convention in the 1990s, or the time taken in the Calman commission and then in bringing forward the Scotland Bill which became the Scotland Act 2012, we can understand that to have got to this point within nine months is a considerable achievement. I pay tribute to the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State and his officials in the Scotland Office for the work they have done.

As a general principle, I would rather have things right than quick, but we have to appreciate that this is one of those occasions when we are going to have to have both. To do that requires of us all a particular effort and for us all to proceed in good faith and with goodwill on all sides. I hope the debate we have in the coming weeks will allow the widest possible range of opinions that reflect the issues discussed in the referendum and general election campaigns in Scotland. As the hon. Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray) said from the Opposition Dispatch Box, the SNP’s very significant achievement in returning 56 of the 59 MPs must be recognised and I hope they will bring forward amendments that reflect full fiscal autonomy or responsibility—whatever term they choose to employ—and they will tell us the detail of what they mean by the medium term.

The hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Tommy Sheppard) said in an intervention that in the course of the election campaign his party’s policy had been the subject of grotesque caricature. If that is the case, as an elected representative he now has the opportunity in this place to put that right, and I hope he and his colleagues will introduce amendments so we can have a proper debate. My objection to full fiscal autonomy remains that, in my view, it constitutes effectively independence by the back door, and therefore it does not respect the decision we reached as a nation last September.

The words of caution I give tonight are not directed only at the SNP. They extend to those in the Labour and Conservative parties who would seek to use this debate as some sort of bidding war between those on different sides of the border. I am short of time tonight but this is my word of caution: remember always that within this great family of nations that is the United Kingdom it is possible to break the Union from either side of the border. We have always proceeded on the basis that we are a family where we give in and take out in different ways at different times. I hope the Bill we have tonight will be the next stage in the evolution of that family, and I look forward to taking part in its consideration in the weeks to come.

19:04

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

It is an honour to follow the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) who, apart from being a thoroughly nice bloke who is held in great regard in this House, was a most distinguished Scottish Secretary.

I want to make the Conservative case for as much fiscal autonomy, and therefore responsibility, as is possible. This is a big subject. It needs big positive gestures. We are talking about the future of the nation. We should frame our response to the general election not in the pettifogging detail of the civil service brief, but in the tradition of the great national declarations of the past. I call for nothing less than full home rule for Scotland—or self-rule as I prefer to call it.

The Smith commission really is a dog’s breakfast. No one understands it, and it addles the brain of anyone who tries to read it, as I have done. We have to get out of this love affair with commissions of the great and the good. We are politicians. We must have the vision in this House, as politicians—and, dare I say it, as statesmen—to look at the overall picture.

The election changes everything. We have to come to terms with the sad fact that the SNP has just won all but three of the seats in Scotland. We cannot go on as if we have just had the referendum. We won the referendum, but it was nine months ago. We have had a general election since then and we have to respond to that. The Smith commission was in response to an earlier panicky scare, which led to the vow, and I think the vow has, in a sense, produced an inadequate response.

If we do nothing now—if we do not move forward—we will fall into the same trap as the disastrous response to Irish nationalism. We are about where Ireland was in the 1880s. We now know our response to Ireland was too little, too late. We were wrong to abolish the Irish Parliament in 1801. We were wrong to delay granting Catholic emancipation. We were wrong not to listen to Gladstone in the 1880s. We were wrong not to implement home rule in 1914.

If we are to keep Scotland in the United Kingdom, which is my primary aim as a Unionist, I believe we should move towards full fiscal autonomy for Scotland so that, in broad terms, the Scottish Parliament spends what it raises, with only foreign affairs, defence and pension liability—and the ultimate liability for financial shocks like that in 2008—remaining at the UK level.

I do not argue for fiscal autonomy as some kind of cheap trap: “Ha ha, get rid of the Barnett formula, the oil is slowly running out, make them poorer and they’ll behave.” Aside from the obvious immorality of such a position, nationalism cannot be defeated by imposing poverty—quite the opposite.

The Union is asymmetrical. The English have 85% of the population, and we must be generous. We are never going to get some perfect federal solution. We are better off with the Union. It makes for a larger spirited nation, and it is in our interests as English Members of Parliament to be generous. That means, certainly, English votes for English laws in the very few cases where we are passing laws that only affect England, but Scottish MPs must be part of the discussion. It is a sensible compromise that grants them a role in that discussion but with an ultimate double-veto.

There are several arguments against full fiscal autonomy. First, there is the argument that we must keep something in reserve. That is a Machiavellian argument, but it does not work. If we must keep something so that we have a bargaining tool, what happens when we have just one chip left? If it cannot be given away, it has lost its effectiveness as a bargaining tool, and if it can be given away, the argument fails completely, so I do not accept it.

Secondly, there is the matter of tax competition. We are warned that Scotland will lower its corporation tax or other taxes—we have heard about airport passenger duty—but so what? We should have the confidence to accept competition in tax policy.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

I totally agree with my hon. Friend. If Scotland has full fiscal responsibility, it can decide what taxes it sets and how much it takes, and it must have responsibility for spending as well.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend.

As Conservatives, we believe in responsibility and I believe that we have created in the Scottish Parliament a grievance Parliament. Even after these proposals, the Scottish Government will be able to spend only about 50% of what they raise. They will always be able to blame the United Kingdom Parliament for what goes wrong. Give the Scottish people responsibility and, ultimately, the wheel turns—it always does. The more responsibility one gives to people, the more difficult the decisions they have to take. For example, they might want to increase taxes, but that might lessen productivity; they might want to cut spending on social security, but that might make them more unpopular. Those, however, are decisions for a real Parliament, and they are what we should give to the Scottish Parliament.

It is argued that the EU will not allow us to give value added tax decisions to the Scottish Parliament, but that is something else that the Prime Minister can argue for. If he does not succeed in that negotiation, perhaps some Scottish people will form the view that there might be life outside the EU, but that is for another day.

I do not claim any expertise in the Scottish psyche and I might have got this wrong, but I think we can have closure if we give people ultimate responsibility and if we reassure Scottish people that this is not a trick and that we will keep pension liability within the United Kingdom, as well as the liability for great financial shocks such as those we saw in 1929 or 2008. We have heard about the £7 billion black hole and I understand the Secretary of State, but we can surely carry on having the discussion. We can also carry on discussing social security. People argue that we cannot give away social security, because we have to have a larger pot to help the poor, but that is something for an enabling Bill and to discuss with our colleagues in the Scottish Parliament. If they do not want to take full fiscal responsibility now, that is their choice and they must be allowed to make it. We should at least look at the Bill in an atmosphere of co-operation and toleration for each other’s views, with a determination on the Government Benches—the Unionist Benches—to make things work, to have some sort of closure on the issue, and to re-create people’s faith in our United Kingdom Parliament, because I believe that the result of the referendum showed that that faith is still there.

After the failure of his 1886 and 1889 Home Rule Bills, Gladstone warned:

“We are bound to lose Ireland in consequence of years of cruelty, stupidity and misgovernment and I would rather lose her as a friend than as a foe.”

No one is arguing that we are in that position, but we might still lose Scotland if we create an unsustainable situation, which we are in danger of doing, so let us use these four days in constructive debate. The referendum showed us that Scotland has not yet given up on us; nor should we give up on it. If we want things to stay as they are, things will have to change; we must move forward in a spirit of co-operation.

19:12

[Vicky Foxcroft (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab)]

It is an honour to make my maiden speech in this important debate. I spent some time in Scotland on the referendum campaign and one of my lasting memories is how engaged 16 and 17-year-olds were, which is a point that I will come back to.

On the campaign trail, one of the things that came up on the doorstep was that politicians too often use language that people do not relate to. In my maiden speech and in future contributions to the House, I will ensure that I use language that the people of Lewisham, Deptford can relate to—not policy speak, buzz words or jargon, but plain, simple language.

I am not normally one for following convention, and I have to be honest that my short time here as an MP has shown me that Parliament has a lot of conventions, but one that is easy for me to follow is paying tribute to my predecessor. Joan Ruddock was a hard-working MP for Lewisham, Deptford for more than 28 years. She also worked extremely hard to reform this House. She was quoted as saying that this place had some of the worst working conditions that she had ever encountered. Some Members will remember the days when 40% of Parliament’s sittings were beyond midnight, allowing them little time in their constituencies. She rightly felt that that was not what people expected of their MP. Through her work with Members in all parties she got friendlier sitting hours, although I know she would say that things are still not ideal.

The people of Lewisham, Deptford were important to Joan, and they are important to me. Locally, we have a strong sense of community, which we are proud of. That can be seen in our successful campaign to save Lewisham hospital. Thousands of people took to the streets, signed petitions, put up posters and did whatever it took to save our local hospital. Ultimately, under the previous Government, we had to take the Secretary of State for Health, the right hon. Member for South West Surrey (Mr Hunt), to court, where we won. I hope that we do not have to do the same again, but if we do, I know that we have the strength, the resolve and the passion to fight again to protect our local hospital and our community.

We are not only fighters in Lewisham, Deptford, we are creators as well. We have a vibrant community arts base: the Albany; the Brockley Jack Theatre; Midi Music; the Laban; the Second Wave; Goldsmiths, University of London; Crofton Park and New Cross community libraries; Lewisham Arthouse; and street festivals, such as Hither Green, Deptford X and Brockley Max, to mention a few. There is much, much more.

The creative side is important to the community and to me. I studied performing arts at college; I did not get any A to Cs in my GCSEs when I was at school, but further education was my second chance. Further education must be properly supported and properly funded. Lewisham and Southwark College is my local college and I want it to thrive. I want it to receive the support that it had under a Labour Government.

Some might say that learning drama and performing arts was a perfect training ground to be an MP, but if anyone had said to me when I was 17 that I would be an MP, I would not have believed them because, quite honestly, politics was just not for the likes of me. That is still the opinion of too many young people, and it has to change. We need every young person—every person—to recognise that politics is not only for a political class, but for everyone. That is why I will continue to meet with young people from our schools, colleges and youth groups to get them involved in politics. Their voice matters; they are the future.

For that reason, I want to use the opportunity afforded to me by winning a place in the ballot for private Members’ Bills on a Bill calling for votes for 16 and 17-year-olds. I only secured 16th place in the ballot, but my voice must be heard, just as 16-year-olds should have their voices heard and their votes counted. They were rightly given the opportunity to vote in the referendum in Scotland. The future of their country was at stake and they turned out to vote. Is it right that they can fight and die for their country, pay tax, contribute to the economy and get married, but that they cannot have their views reflected at the ballot box?

In Lewisham we have a Young Mayor, Liam Islam, from Deptford Green school. I will work with him, his team and advisers, and any other groups that wish to join our campaign. I would love the Government to work with us to deliver it, but if they do not work with us, we will not be quiet about seeking to ensure that 16 and 17-year-olds have their voices heard in the EU referendum and beyond.

I am deeply concerned about the next five years and the detrimental impact that the Government will have on the people of Lewisham, Deptford and the country as a whole. I will, however, do everything that I can to protect the most vulnerable in our society from the Government. I will fight tooth and nail against whatever attacks fall on our public services, our housing and the people of Lewisham, Deptford.

As someone famous once wrote on a train to New Cross in 1889:

“So raise the scarlet standard high

Beneath its shade we’ll live and die,

Though cowards flinch and traitors sneer,

We’ll keep the red flag flying here.”

Some Members may recognise those words from Jim Connell’s song “The Red Flag”. I invite any of the Government Members to come on a train to New Cross; bring pen and paper, and you never know what might happen.

19:20

[Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to follow that inspiring speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Vicky Foxcroft). It is also a pleasure to hear so many initial contributions from so many fine hon. Members.

I speak today as the new Member for Cambridge, and let me start by saying a few words about my predecessors. Dr Julian Huppert is a knowledgeable scientist and a committed defender of civil liberties, who argued hard in this House and well in the Select Committee on Home Affairs, where he won many friends. He has been a passionate advocate for cycling and for environmentalism, and he is extremely well regarded in the constituency, having fought hard to improve the funding situation for our local schools and to raise the status of mental health. But my predecessors in Cambridge set a very high bar. Some here will remember David Howarth, another Liberal Democrat MP who was also very well regarded in this House. Before that, we had my dear friend Anne Campbell, a Labour MP from 1992 to 2005, who has been a source of huge support and great wisdom for me.

I suspect that not every Member gets elected to this House at their first attempt. For some it will take two attempts, whereas for others it takes three or four. I am on my fifth, but I am here at last. I suspect that those who have followed a similar course may well have reflected early in their career on the merits of enthusiasm and youth. As one’s career progresses, one recognises the benefits of experience and perhaps a little wisdom—one hopes.

I also suspect that many Members are full of enthusiasm and optimism when they are first selected—I was first selected to fight a rural seat in Norfolk—and find themselves writing their maiden speech. When I reflect on that speech from 20 years ago, I see that quite a lot of it is still valid today: I see a Conservative Government, a Labour Opposition and much talk of Europe. The biggest thing that has changed for me has been moving back to the fine city of Cambridge 10 years ago—it has been the biggest change in my life. What I have seen in Cambridge over those years is a city on the cusp of a technological revolution; the number of jobs in the knowledge-intensive sector is phenomenal. For me, there is the link with today’s discussion about Scotland and devolution, because what our hugely successful companies such as ARM and the Babraham Institute need are more flexibilities, and people in Scotland are arguing for the same. As someone who has argued for many years for devolution to the English regions, I think we need to sort these issues out in a sensible way, which is why I did support the idea of a constitutional convention, as proposed by the Labour party at the last election.

Cambridge is also, like so many other places, a tale of two cities; the challenges our city faces are partly the challenges of success, but we also have divisions. Our businesses need an answer to the traffic problems and the appalling housing crisis we have. A terraced house in Cambridge costs £450,000 and our average rents are double those in England for most homes. Our housing benefit bill has doubled in the past five years—why? It is because 12,000 people in the prosperous city of Cambridge are earning below the living wage—it is not always the way we imagine it. We need different solutions in different places.

I am glad to say that Cambridge now has a Labour council and it is trying to tackle those issues, but it is hard to do. The biggest issue is affordable housing, and I see fellow hon. Members here who have been involved in these debates with me over many years. The biggest problem we have is that although we have a valuable housing stock, we are not allowed to borrow against it. The city deal is welcome, but it is a drop in the ocean compared with what we really need to turn Cambridge into the economic driver that could so help our economy, right across the UK.

When we look at those issues, we ask: why can we not borrow? Some 18 months ago, there was a chink of light from the Treasury, when people began to talk about “tax increment financing”—I apologise for the jargon—or the possibility of borrowing against that value. What happened? The usual forces of conservatism in the Treasury won out yet again, as has happened to Governments of both complexions. I say to both Front-Bench teams: we need to think imaginatively if we are to solve these huge challenges facing not only cities such as Cambridge, but our whole country and our other nations as well.

Creating the kind of tolerant, diverse city that people in a place such as Cambridge want will mean balancing a range of complicated and difficult issues, and recognising that even within a city such as Cambridge there are many different Cambridges. Cambridge has not only the university we all know and love so much, but three other universities: Anglia Ruskin University, which is doing so well; the University of the Third Age; and the Open University—my mother was pleased to be one of the first people to go to it back in the ‘60s. I recall one moment earlier this year when Cambridge United played Manchester United in a rather unequal battle—perhaps—in the FA cup and we held those mighty people to a goalless draw at the Abbey stadium. That was a brief moment when people saw that other Cambridge. I suggest that in our communities right across the country there are other cities and other places, and we need to understand all of them.

I stand before you today as a Labour MP for Cambridge who will represent the buccaneering investors and high-tech gurus of our city who will create wealth. But most of all, I will be standing up and arguing for our public sector workers, who so often are forgotten, but without whom the rest of the city cannot do its job. I am proud to represent Cambridge and look forward to standing up for the city in the years ahead.

19:26

[Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to speak for the first time in the House today. I would like to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Margaret Ferrier) on her excellent maiden speech and the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Vicky Foxcroft). I am truly delighted to have been called to speak in this Scotland Bill debate on behalf of my constituents, who have bestowed upon me the honour of representing them in this place as the first SNP Member for North Ayrshire and Arran.

One regret I have is that my mother is not alive to see me elected to this place, as I know she would have been so proud. She came to Scotland with my father in 1954, from Malin Head in Ireland, in search of work and a better life. I was the youngest of eight children, with my father dying suddenly when I was one. Life was a struggle and we lived in deep poverty. That is why I understand the struggles of so many of my constituents, who find making ends meet a challenging prospect every single day.

I represent a dozen or so distinct communities—Ardrossan, Barrmill, Beith, Dalry, Fairlie, Kilbirnie, Kilwinning, Largs, Saltcoats, Skelmorlie, Stevenston, West Kilbride and Kilwinning—and two beautiful islands, Cumbrae and Arran. Arran, of course, is an island famed for being “Scotland in miniature”. Much of my constituency faces many challenges in the post-industrial era, but the pride and determination of those communities and their commitment to a fairer and more equal society are truly inspirational. My constituency retains important businesses, ranging from the very small to DSM, which employs over 300 people and has the distinction of being the only manufacturer of vitamin C in the world outside China. We also have J & D Pierce, which is not just Scotland’s largest steel fabricator, but the largest steel fabricator in northern Britain, and the wonderful Arran Aromatics.

North Ayrshire and Arran is the place to be for those who consider themselves to be epicurean in their tastes, being an enviable source of seasonal produce. In addition, we can boast the Arran brewery and Scotland’s newest world-class distillery, in Lochranza. Arran blonde ale will satisfy the palate of even the most discerning ale drinker.

Over the years, the boundaries of my constituency have altered. My immediate predecessor, Katy Clark, represented the constituency within its current boundaries for 10 years. A very well known MP who represented much of the constituency when it was called Bute and Northern Ayrshire was Sir Fitzroy Maclean, who was a major-general in the second world war and rumoured to be one of Ian Fleming’s inspirations for James Bond.

I like to think that I share important attributes with the character of James Bond: I exude charm, as I am sure Members will come to recognise; I show courage when life becomes difficult; I have good self-defence skills that will enable me to disarm opponents; and, like Mr Bond, I am able to embrace change willingly. I know some Members of this House struggle to do so, especially with regards to voting behaviour.

The rebuke that SNP Members received for clapping in the Chamber reminds me of the outcry that Keir Hardie caused when he delivered his maiden speech wearing a tweed suit and deerstalker hat, instead of the expected frock coat and top hat. It seems that every generation of parliamentarians, in their own particular and modest ways, must push the House inch by inch into the future.

As has been said by so many of my colleagues, we in the SNP come to this House in good faith, armed only with the aspirations of our constituents and our determination to be a strong voice for Scotland. The Scotland Bill fails to live up to the powers recommended by the Smith commission, as the UK Government retain a veto over key policy areas. The SNP will seek to improve the Bill to ensure that, as a minimum, it delivers on the Smith commission proposals in full.

It is an outrage, as we heard earlier, that the plan for English votes for English laws could prevent Scottish MPs from voting on issues that have significant implications for Scotland’s budget. To push through such a change would mean that no full and proper scrutiny of this measure could be undertaken.

Devolving more powers to Scotland is the best way to improve the lives of the people of Scotland. Scotland needs control over employment support, job creation and welfare. This Bill falls far short of what the people of Scotland were promised and now quite rightly expect.

We must give voice to Scotland’s priorities. That is why we are here and why we have been elected to this place. We in the SNP will work tirelessly and relentlessly to deliver the kind of policies that reflect the values and aspirations of the people of Scotland, and we will work with others in this House with whom we find common cause. That is my vow to the good people of North Ayrshire and Arran, and that is the SNP’s vow to people across Scotland.

19:33

[Carolyn Harris (Swansea East) (Lab)]

I am very grateful to be able to speak in this important debate. As a Welsh MP from the party of devolution, I am keen to see my Celtic cousins gain a strengthened Scottish Parliament while still enjoying the benefit of being part of the Union. I congratulate the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson) on her excellent maiden speech and on her elevation to this place, where I am certain she will serve her constituency with integrity and passion.

I must pay tribute not only to my immediate predecessor but to the two Members who preceded her. My immediate predecessor, Siân James, made history by becoming the first female to represent Swansea East. As the second female Member to represent the constituency, the perception of this place as a male-dominated arena has been firmly dispelled in Swansea East. One needs only to look around the Chamber to see that women are very much in evidence in 2015.

Siân was involved in groundbreaking parliamentary work when she helped steer through the Sunbeds (Regulation) Act 2010. She is one of the few living Members of Parliament whose life experiences have been portrayed in a big screen movie—an achievement in which she can take great pride.

I need to jump a political generation as I pay tribute to the late Neil McBride. As a home-grown young girl of Swansea East, I was immensely proud that Mr McBride knew my name and never failed to speak to me as I passed his home en route for school. Neil McBride was MP for Swansea East from 1963 to 1974 and Government Whip from 1966 to 1974. He was one of my early heroes and his kindness and patience with an eight-year-old politically inquisitive child undoubtedly encouraged me to take a keen interest in politics at a very young age.

I turn now to my political pin-up, Don Anderson, now Lord Anderson of Swansea. I have known Don for many years and supported his campaigns election after election. I admire his incredible memory and his excellent political acumen. He is generous in spirit and with his time and advice, and his knowledge is boundless. To stand in his shoes is an incredible honour and I intend to repay his nurturing by representing Swansea East with great commitment and enthusiasm.

Swansea East forms part of the geographical area that Dylan Thomas referred to as the ugly, lovely town. I am afraid though that I have to challenge that description as today the view from Dylan’s Kilvey is anything but ugly. In 2015, Swansea East boasts a vista that is economically exciting, architecturally beautiful, culturally and educationally groundbreaking, and environmentally innovative. It has a sporting track record that is the pride of Wales.

In September, University of Wales Swansea opens its Swansea Bay campus. Although it is technically in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock), he has given me permission to mention it as it is literally inches from my own constituency. As an alumnus of University of Wales Swansea I would not be forgiven if I did not give it a mention. The new campus is a £450 million scheme that has created an architectural community with open spaces, integral streets and grand structures, which give the impression of a small city. It is estimated that, over the next 10 years, the development will have a £3 billion economic impact on Wales.

Closer to Swansea East and in the St Thomas community, just under the edge of Dylan’s Kilvey, University of Wales Trinity St David is proposing to introduce and deliver on its plans for a “transforming education, transforming lives” project. In direct partnership with the Welsh Government and the City and County of Swansea Council, it is intending to develop a Swansea waterfront innovation quarter to support the university’s aim of inspiring individuals and developing graduates. It will be a vibrant, modern waterfront, with purpose-built facilities for learning, teaching and research. A single faculty of architecture building in 2017 will eventually evolve into a vibrant, social and educational community within 10 years.

Swansea East is also home to several Government agencies: the Pensions Agency, the Land Registry and the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency, which is undoubtedly the largest agency in terms of employment. The DVLA is in a landmark building: a large white oblong that is visible for many miles from the M4, and the beacon that tells me that I am nearly home when it comes into sight. The public sector is one of the largest employers in my constituency and the presence of every one of those agencies is very welcome.

Tidal Lagoon Swansea Bay is hopefully to be the jewel in the Swansea Bay crown. I am very proud that one of the most exciting global environmental projects that we have ever seen will be coming to Swansea East very soon. The proposal for the world’s first man-made, energy-generating lagoon, which is predicted to power more than 155,000 homes, is currently in the final stages; we are waiting for the development consent order, which is due imminently. Given the Prime Minister’s enthusiasm for the project in this Chamber fewer than five days ago, I am very optimistic that there will be a favourable outcome. The project will see a critical change in the UK’s energy mix. It will harness natural power from the rise and fall of the tides. Swansea Bay will be the first in a series of six tidal lagoons that will eventually meet up to 8% of UK electricity demand.

In my home ward, Landore Cwmbwrla, we are very proud to have the Liberty stadium, which is the home of the Ospreys rugby team and of the only Welsh football club in the premier league. I am sure that all my Welsh colleagues will join me in congratulating the Swans on finishing eighth in the league and in wishing them well for the 2015-16 season. Without doubt, Swans supporters are the most intrepid in their trips for away games; it has been worked out that they have travelled more than 4,000 miles, the equivalent of a trip to the Bahamas.

Colleagues can now appreciate why I take exception to the proposal that Swansea is an ugly town. Lovely, I cannot argue with, not least because of the people. They are friendly, welcoming, open and hard-working and they have put their trust and their faith in me. I intend to be their voice in this Chamber and to represent them on everything they would want me to. Somebody once said that Swansea was the graveyard of ambition, but I hope that after this speech Members will agree that Swansea East is a treasure chest of opportunity.

19:40

[Callum McCaig (Aberdeen South) (SNP)]

I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris) for her welcome and expert maiden speech. It is not a place that I have been to, but I feel almost as though I have lived through the wonders of Swansea.

It is a great pleasure to take part in this debate and to give my maiden speech. It seems that the force of argument from the SNP Benches has cleared the ranks of the Scottish Conservative and Unionist party from the Chamber, which is to a degree regrettable.

Aberdeen South is in many ways the classic three-way marginal seat—a three-way marginal that I and the SNP won last month from fourth place. That signifies why we are here: the people of Aberdeen South and Scotland have a desire for change and progress, for the Scottish Parliament to be empowered and for the country we live in to be made a stronger and fairer place to live.

My immediate predecessor, Dame Anne Begg, made her maiden speech in this Chamber during the debate on the Referendums (Scotland and Wales) Bill, which gave the people of Scotland the opportunity of re-establishing the Scottish Parliament. History has shown that that Bill was not enough to satisfy the Scottish people’s desire for control over their own affairs, and I have little doubt that the same will be said of this Bill in years to come. At that time, there was much talk about the settled will of the Scottish people, but I do not think that the people of Scotland are willing to settle for this Bill.

I know that it is customary to pay tribute to one’s predecessor, but for me it is easy. Dame Anne Begg served Aberdeen South with great spirit, enthusiasm and passion for 18 years. She paved the way as the first full-time wheelchair user in this House since the 19th century and campaigned tirelessly for the rights of people with disabilities. Her defeat was in no way a reflection of her work or her dedication to her constituents, but part of the strong desire in Scotland for a more distinctive Scottish voice in this place and a stronger and more accountable Parliament in Edinburgh. I pay tribute to Anne for her work on behalf of her constituents. I have no doubt that she still has a major contribution to make to public life, and I wish her well.

Aberdeen is fondly known as the granite city. The stone from the quarries in and around the city has been used to great effect all over the world. Stone from the biggest of these, the Rubislaw quarry in my constituency, is in the Terrace here in Westminster. Rubislaw quarry, which might be brought back to life as a visitor centre, is known as the biggest man-made hole in Europe. I have some concerns that that title might be in jeopardy given some of the actions of this Government, but for the sake of the country as a whole I hope that it is one that we retain.

Aberdeen South has many distinct and proud communities, from the picturesque village of Cove at the southern point of the constituency, round the mighty headland of Girdle Ness to the former royal burgh of Torry. My constituency follows the course of the beautiful lower reaches of the River Dee, the mouth of which forms a natural harbour that founded the development of our city as the economic powerhouse that it is today. Such is the demand for space at the harbour, even with low oil prices, that there is a prospect of expanding the harbour outwith its present realms, showing the might and resilience of our city.

The constituency is home to two wonderful Victorian gardens, Hazlehead and Duthie parks. It hosts the main campus of the young, ambitious and upwardly mobile Robert Gordon University in Garthdee as well as some of the finest state schools in Scotland. It is a constituency of growing diversity with people from across the globe enhancing and enriching a culture that is proudly Scottish but distinctively Aberdonian. In short, and to borrow from the Doric, it is an afa bonnie place and well worth a visit.

Aberdeen South is one of the wealthiest constituencies in Scotland, but among that great wealth lies great poverty: 10% of the children in the seat live in poverty, in a city with essentially full employment that is home to a world-leading oil and gas industry. I and my party want to address that, but I do not think that the Bill gives us the tools to do so. It might go some of the way, but more work needs to be done.

The low oil price is of course concerning, but Aberdeen remains that resilient city. Those who want to find work will by and large find it. The problem is for those earning the minimum wage. In a wealthy city like Aberdeen it is nigh on impossible to have a decent standard of life on the minimum wage. For me, the biggest failing of the Bill is that it does not give the Scottish Parliament the power to implement a genuine living wage.

Aberdeen proudly boasts the title of Europe’s oil capital and we are in the transition to becoming a truly global energy city as we diversify into new markets and into a hub for renewable energy. Over the coming weeks and months I look forward to championing the industries of Aberdeen and ensuring they get the support that they need from Government.

As I said, I feel that the Bill will not be judged kindly by history. It does not live up to the Smith agreement, it falls way short of the modern form of home rule promised before the referendum and it takes scant account of the election result in Scotland. The people of Scotland want a Parliament and a Government that care for the most vulnerable in society, that promote sustainable economic growth, and above all stand up for the weak in the face of the powerful. If this place is unwilling or unable to do that job, there is another place up the road that is ready, willing and able to take on that mantle.

19:46

[Mr David Anderson (Blaydon) (Lab)]

It is a huge pleasure to see you in that seat, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I hope that you are there for many years to come, comrade. I will get that one in first.

I praise all new Members for the tremendous speeches they have made tonight, and particularly—even though he is gone—my long-standing hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner). We had many happy years working together in the trade union movement, and it is there that I want to start.

In previous discussions about devolution, there was a marked difference in that there was consultation and the involvement of civic society. We saw that in the 1990s, through the discussions in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, and through those about London and my part of the world. Not only were people involved, but trade unions put in time, effort, politics and members’ money to make a case for a referendum on devolution. They were responding to what their members wanted. Their members wanted relief from the pain and suffering they had seen through 18 years of Tory rule and they saw devolution as a route to that.

Perhaps even more important was the situation in Northern Ireland, where people saw a chance of devolution as giving them a chance for peace. I was sitting earlier talking to my colleague, our friend, the hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley). In the mid-1990s I never realised that 20 years later I would be sitting in this House and working with his father to take devolution and the peace process forward. Sometimes people had to be dragged, but ultimately the will of the people was heard. Nobody can argue that that was anything other than positive.

Today, we have another chance to put right a wrong. I am glad that the vote last year in Scotland went the way it did, but we must address the problem of where we ended up. As a knee-jerk reaction to a rogue poll the leaders of the parliamentary parties in this House gave a vow to the people of Scotland that I believe some of them did not want to carry through, but they made that vow and should stick to the terms of it. I hope that between us we can ensure that that happens, but I must say to our colleagues from Scotland that that cannot happen in isolation. What we do with this Bill will impact on England and on my part of the world in particular, and in my part of the world people want to have a say. They want to be involved in the way other people across these islands have been involved. I do not think that that is too much to ask, but clearly the Conservatives do, as the Secretary of State has already said tonight that there will be no constitutional convention for England.

The Chancellor, who runs the Government, despite what the Prime Minister might think, said that we can have semi-devolution if we sign up to elected mayors. We know what that is about: it is about giving mayors from the Tory party a chance to rule parts of the world that do not want Tory rule, and would never, ever vote for them in local elections. That is all it is—it is being used to abuse the constitutional settlement. If it is good enough for the rest of this kingdom, it is good enough for the people of the north-east and the people of England. Why should we be short-changed? Why should we be told that we can have control of our daily life only if we do what we are told, instead of having a proper, adult conversation with people as we have done in this country over the past 20 years?

I am sad that we have lost 40 representatives from Scotland. Those people did a great service to their country, to the United Kingdom, and to the House. Quite clearly, the people in Scotland have spoken, and colleagues who have left the House are where they are because of things that were not true. They are victims of a story that said that they did not want to fight austerity—they were Tory-lite—and they deserted their original role as defenders of the poor, the weak and the vulnerable. No one can tell me that that was the case with people like Dave Hamilton, Jim Sheridan, Jim McGovern and Katy Clark. They are men and women who never wavered in their commitment to the poor, the weak and the vulnerable.

The truth is that my party leadership conceded, to an extent, to the austerity agenda of the Tory party. At times, when we were in government, we favoured businesses and power over workers and the poor, and we let people down. We pursued a neo-liberal tract on many issues, which jarred badly with the people of Scotland and parts of the UK such as the place I come from. My leadership has to understand that going forward.

Many people across these islands have a long-held belief in collectivism and the power of the state, and they struggle to get to grips with an agenda that promotes individuals and self-interest. I do not believe that many Scots voted last year to break up the United Kingdom because they hated the UK. What they hated was the austerity agenda—the poverty agenda that has been pursued by the Tory party for as long as it has been in existence, which says that it will let the poor pay for the failures of the rich, and that the wealthy should always be looked after while the poor take the hindmost. The people of Scotland rejected my party this year because it was too close to people who have pushed that agenda for years and years.

The people who have been in the driving seat for the past five years were in the driving seat for 18 years from 1979. We know the history: they argue that unemployment is a price worth paying because their people are not paying it. They argued that there was no such thing as society, because they had enough money not to depend on one another and the communities they came from. They try to tell us that we are all in this together, while nurses get a 1% pay rise and chief executives of trusts get a 17% pay rise. That is the world that Tory Members live in, and that is the situation that the people of Scotland are trying to escape.

It is against that background that we should judge the Bill, which must be seen as a way of people getting some respite from the damage that the Tory party has caused the country, the people of Scotland and the rest of the UK for many years. People can see no respite. Indeed, the Government are saying not only that they are going to keep up the pressure on austerity but that when we are back in balance they will still do so, which means that the people of this country—working people and the people who can least afford it—will be put under more and more pressure.

Under the long-term economic plan, it was all supposed to be roses by now, but we all know what happened to that. It was all supposed to be happy by 2014, but that certainly did not happen. People have had enough of carrying the can for failure. The Bill is a chance to put things right. I say to comrades from Scotland: do not do this in isolation from the people of England, because we deserve the same as your people.

19:53

[Karin Smyth (Bristol South) (Lab)]

I am grateful for the opportunity to make my maiden speech after the excellent maiden speech by the hon. Member for Aberdeen South (Callum McCaig) and the speech by the hon. Member for Blaydon (Mr Anderson).

I am pleased to make a speech in a debate about matters that have important implications for my constituents, even though they cannot take part in it. We are at an important point in the history of these islands. As a southern English MP, daughter of recent Irish immigrants, and a proud European, I hope to play my part in shaping the future constitutional arrangements of these islands on behalf of the people I now serve. The people of Scotland have debated these issues for many years, and in the past year they have sent two strong messages. They wish to be part of the United Kingdom, but they wish to see something very different. The people of Bristol have also sent strong messages, and we all need to be mindful and find our own inner Gladstone. We need to understand those messages, be mindful of our shared history and proffer a way forward.

It is a great honour to serve as the Member for Bristol South. Dawn Primarolo, my predecessor, served as an MP for 28 years, and in paying tribute to her I should like to say what big shoes she has left for me to fill. In Parliament, Dawn took on shadow Health and Treasury roles, and in government she served the Treasury as Financial Secretary and Paymaster General before subsequent ministerial roles at the Department of Health, and at Children, Schools and Families. As Mr Speaker said, Dawn served with distinction as Deputy Speaker from 2010 until she stood down this year. When first elected in 1997, she was the only Labour MP in the south-west. Now we are four—that is progress. She was one of only 41 women, but now we are 191, which is perhaps better progress. I owe her, and the women who have come before me, a great deal. It is a debt that I intend to repay to the women who will follow.

Dawn’s dedication and commitment was evident for all to see, and her record is closely linked to that of the Labour Government in improving the lives of local people. There are too many examples to give, so I shall just touch on a couple. The building of a community hospital after a 70-year campaign is one, but I shall really pick up on education. All the secondary schools in Bristol were rebuilt under Labour’s Building Schools for the Future programme. The sun shone and the roofs were not just fixed, they were rebuilt, and the infrastructure and standards were improved. Thanks to teachers, support staff and governors, all Bristol South secondary schools are now rated good or better by Ofsted. However, attainment in some of our most economically challenged communities is still far below where it should be, and today in Bristol South new opportunities are needed to offer hope and aspiration for all, whatever path young people seek to pursue. It is a constituency whose people, down the years, have played a vital part in our country’s prosperity.

Bedminster in my constituency was home to more than a dozen coal mines. Well into the 20th century, many local people spent their working lives underground in dark and dangerous conditions, paid only for the coal that they cut. Hartcliffe formerly hosted what was Europe’s largest cigarette-manufacturing factory when it opened in 1974. Bristol South has a proud industrial heritage but, despite being manufacturers of growth, its people were rarely rewarded or permitted to share in its fruits. In fact, many paid a high cost—from lives lost in the Dean Lane pit disaster to industrial illnesses and the health problems caused by tobacco, in the manufacture of which the city played a pivotal role.

There is a special warmth and generosity among South Bristol people. They are, to use a well-known local phrase, “gert lush”. They are forward-looking, ready to seize chances to help to shape a future for themselves, their families and their communities. Those communities are strong, and a great variety of community groups and enterprises have grown up to provide help and support. Having powered economic growth in the past, residents are eager to play their part in doing so again. Equipping the people of Bristol South with the skills and knowledge that they need to be part of that growth for the changes that lie ahead is the biggest challenge for my constituency.

In many ways, Bristol’s story is a tale of two cities. It has thriving universities and booming finance, high-tech and creative sectors, but it also has areas of severe economic disadvantage. My constituency has immense talent in its workforce, young and old, but too often people’s potential lies dormant, latent and untapped, waiting to be triggered by local leadership and economic opportunities. This is where the Government’s grand design on devolution puzzles my constituents, prompting the question: where does Bristol—indeed where do Swindon, Exeter, Plymouth and the rest of the south-west—fit in the emerging narrative dominated by Scotland, Wales and the north?

The Government say that they are intent on devolving power to English regions but only where there is an elected mayor—a depressingly familiar, unadventurous, command-and-control approach to power sharing from central Government. The proposal invests all power in one individual. There is no compunction on that individual, perhaps other than having an eye on an election every few years, to consult, co-operate and negotiate solutions with other elected and civic leaders, or with communities, however they are represented.

Bristol was the only city to vote in favour of an elected mayor when given an opportunity. Bristol’s Mayor was elected by 9% of Bristolians on a turnout of 27%. Three years on, what is the lesson from this experiment to other English cities? Bristolians are still waiting for improvements to transport, housing, skills and jobs. Bristol should be at the forefront of the devolution debate, not lagging behind. The west of England is already an economic powerhouse with an economy worth £26 billion a year, and a net contributor to the Treasury.

The sensible strategic way ahead for my constituents is for communities’ real needs to be shaped not by distant legislators with a one-size-fits-all proposal or individual mayors with pet projects, but by the people and communities affected. I have spoken about the need for us to understand messages received from the people of Scotland about our shared history. One of the key lessons to emerge in recent years from Scotland and from Bristol is that power needs to be shared with communities and with individuals, not just with town halls and professional local politicians.

In recent years my constituents have heard much discussion about Scottish devolution, and in recent months about the so-called northern powerhouse. I know that collectively Bristol South’s residents have the skills, energy and potential to create a western powerhouse if only they are empowered to do so, and I look forward to supporting them all to make it happen.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Hoyle)]

Order. Before I bring the next speaker in, I am going to raise the time limit to nine minutes.

20:01

[Jeff Smith (Manchester, Withington) (Lab)]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for calling me to make my maiden speech. It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol South (Karin Smyth), who made an excellent speech. Many Members in all parts of the Chamber have made excellent maiden speeches today and raised the bar very high.

I begin by paying tribute to my predecessor, John Leech. John and I have had many political differences, but I respect his dedication to Liberal values, and no one would deny his commitment to his constituency or his hard work for the people of south Manchester. Despite our differences, we share one common cause. He is, like me, a long-time season ticketholder at Manchester City, and I wish both John and his football team the very best for the future. I pay tribute, too, to John’s predecessor, Keith Bradley, now Lord Bradley. Keith was also a hard-working and committed MP for Manchester, Withington, as well as a highly respected Minister, and he has given me much support and advice over the years. I know he took particular pleasure in my victory on 7 May.

Above all, I would like to say thank you to the people of Manchester, Withington for giving me the huge privilege of serving them in Parliament. I am very proud to do so. It is the constituency where I was born into a Labour family. My parents met at a dance in the 1950s organised by the Labour party League of Youth. My uncle, Albert Winstanley, was Labour election agent in the 1960s for Old Moat ward in my constituency. His electoral ambition was to get close enough to the Tories to ask for a recount—an ambition which, sadly, he never quite achieved, so he will be pleased that Labour won the election in Withington with no need for a recount. Our majority of almost 15,000 was a decisive verdict on five years of the Liberal Democrats propping up a Tory Government that made life harder for the people of Manchester.

I have always lived in Withington because it is the diverse, thriving, vibrant cultural heart of our city. It has areas of deprivation that have suffered badly under the austerity programme of the previous Government, but it boasts successful high-tech industry such as Siemens in West Didsbury. It has great public services, such as world-class cancer treatment at the Christie hospital. It is home to students, graduates and academics from our superb Manchester universities. Although mainly residential, it has fine parks, the Mersey valley and my favourite place, the Fletcher Moss botanical gardens. It is home to the excellent Chorlton and Didsbury arts festivals, and to many people who work in creative industries, such as musicians, artists, poets and—as I was in my former life—DJs.

Withington can even boast of being the birthplace of an Oscar-winning actor, Robert Donat, who won his Academy award in 1939 for his role as a teacher in “Goodbye, Mr Chips”. One of his rival Oscar nominees that year was James Stewart for his role in “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington”, where he played an innocent, decent and principled politician called Jeff Smith. It has always been a role close to my heart—a role emblematic of the difference one individual can make in politics, and I hope I can make a difference in that spirit.

My first political speech in Manchester, Withington was as Labour candidate in a mock general election debate at Old Moat primary school. I remember standing making my speech, aged 11, feeling nervous and somewhat out of place. Some things do not change. I am happy to say I won that election, and have won several since. I am proud to have served for 18 years as a councillor in Manchester—a great city of radicalism, innovation and creativity. It is often said that what Manchester does today, the rest of the world does tomorrow. One of the many areas where this is true is local government, where the city council and the Greater Manchester combined authority are pioneering new ways of working, delivering jobs and growth.

The debate today is about devolution of power and responsibility. Labour is the party of devolution so I welcome proposals for devolution of power to Scotland, as I welcome further devolution of extra powers to Manchester and other cities. The people of the Greater Manchester city region are ready to rise to the challenge of creating growth and improving services, but with the extra responsibility must come the resources to deliver. As a former cabinet member for finance, I am painfully aware of the impact on vulnerable people when local services are starved of Government funding. Local government has taken the hardest hit from Government cuts, and in England it is the poorer, mainly northern cities which have taken the biggest hit of all. If we want our communities to thrive, if we want localism and devolution to work, we must give local people the ability and the resources to make it happen.

After 18 years in Manchester town hall, I had spent a long time in a huge neo-Gothic Victorian building full of politicians, so this year I thought I would do something new. In coming to the House of Commons, I hope to work hard to represent the people of Manchester, Withington, but I hope to fight for wider progressive causes; to combat climate change, the biggest challenge of our time; to tackle the housing crisis that affects so many people in my constituency; to argue for reform of our discredited and ineffective drug laws, and maybe even our discredited and ineffective Prime Minister’s Question Time; to fight poverty and defend human rights in this United Kingdom and abroad; and to create a better country—not one where we balance the books at the expense of the most vulnerable, but one where we build a more equal, more tolerant, more compassionate society.

This is a time to work together to face the challenges of the 21st century, not a time for separation, either within the UK or from the rest of Europe. We build a better world together. A belief in collectivism and fairness is at the heart of Labour politics. Last week I heard maiden speakers quote great heroes—Gandhi and Mandela—but I will end with some words from one of my personal heroes, Bruce Springsteen, who put it very simply when he said, “Nobody wins unless everybody wins.”

20:08

[Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and let me welcome you back to your position in the House as I take up mine. Thank you for this opportunity to make my maiden speech in this very important debate. Unlike my taking of the oath, I hope I will have to make this speech only once.

I follow the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Jeff Smith), and I share his passion for football. It is a sport that I played as a young girl growing up, and I am still partial to a game of five-a-side. Perhaps if we cannot come to an agreement on the motions this evening, we can fight it out on the football field.

I have the honour to represent the constituency of Livingston in the county of West Lothian. I am proud to be the first woman to represent the constituency at Westminster, and I am also proud to be the third of three women parliamentary representatives for our county, following in the footsteps of Angela Constance MSP and Fiona Hyslop MSP, both of whom have given me great support. I have the honour to speak for my party on fair work and employment, and I want to leave this House in no doubt as to the weight of the issues at the heart of this brief. As I address those issues, I have my own family history, as well as the people and communities of my constituency, very much at the front of my mind. It is their and my expectation that the Scotland Bill should address those issues, with adequate powers to create a culture of dignity in work, tackle income inequality and thereby enhance economic growth in Scotland.

However, I wish first to pay tribute to my predecessor, Graeme Morrice, who served as MP for Livingston from 2010 and, before that, from 1987, gave many years of conscientious service as a councillor. Personally, I am particularly appreciative of his gracious comments to me on election night.

As with many constituency designations, the name Livingston does not convey the breadth and diversity of the many communities that lie within it. It encompasses the large new town of Livingston as well as many smaller villages boasting fine names, such as Fauldhouse, Pumpherston, Broxburn, Bents and Roman Camps, to name but a few. Those smaller communities fiercely defend their individual identities, even though the mining— coal and shale—railway and manufacturing industries that defined them have disappeared or changed beyond all recognition.

The constituency combines old and new, continuing a history of innovation and invention in ways that strive to look forward without losing the past. The oil industry began in my constituency with the first extraction of oil from coal and shale, and the town of Livingston has gone on to play its part in the development of, for example, sonar scanning, bionic prosthetic limbs by the company Touch Bionics and soft contact lenses. Mitsubishi is one of the biggest employers in my constituency, and its work to encourage young people into engineering and STEM—science, technology, engineering and maths—careers is to be commended. I am also delighted to be able to inform the House that, as confirmed during a meeting in New York with the First Minister, the manufacturing company Jabil is set to invest £12.5 million in its Livingston plant, creating 212 new jobs and safeguarding 147 existing manufacturing roles.

I also want to highlight the West Lothian Credit Union, which has done incredible work to give those on low wages the opportunity to save and borrow in a safe and ethical way. I would like to see such credit unions given greater powers to inject more investment into small and medium-sized businesses, which are the lifeblood of our communities.

My constituency also boasts many community projects, such as The Vennie in Knightsridge, which I visited recently, and Firefly Arts, which is giving young people great opportunities to develop valuable life skills. Two of many local charities in my constituency have been set up by families who lost their children way too early to cancer. Jak Trueman and Michelle Henderson both died tragically young, but their memories live on in the tremendous work their families are doing to raise awareness and funds. There is such inspiring ingenuity and determination in my constituency, despite the setbacks of deindustrialisation.

My brother and I were brought up in Craigshill, one of Livingston’s original and smaller areas, by a single mother who worked full time in an era when childcare cover was an afterthought and single-parent families were often demonised. In the little spare time my mother had, she fought tooth and nail for our local area. I feel fortunate to have been educated locally, to have had a free university education and to have had a career that has included working in the media, politics, international relations and, most recently, the oil and gas industry.

My brother and I were also fortunate in having the support of our grandparents for a good number of years. Both were from mining families, forced from school by poverty at age 14, but none the less extensively self-educated and widely read. My grandfather began his working life as a “pit fitter”, before going on to be an aircraft fitter in the RAF during the battle of Britain. He started one of the early small businesses in the new town of Livingston, his own precision engineering company. My grandmother was a time-served gents’ tailoress who then worked for Rolls-Royce during the second world war. My great grandmother on my grandfather’s side marched with the suffragettes. Political activism started many years ago in my family. Mr Deputy Speaker, you cannot know people like that and not be committed to the dignity of labour. Those were people who knew their own worth, believed in strong trade unions and were prepared, at the risk of the direst poverty, to walk away from work that assaulted their dignity, and they did so on numerous occasions.

I hope to use every opportunity to remind this House that our mission for our citizens is not just to wrangle over how many hours makes an acceptable contract, or how many pence we should add to or take off employers’ national insurance contributions, as important as those considerations undoubtedly are; our mission, in exerting our collective legislative skills, is to say to our citizens that we understand, we care about and we intend to promote and deliver on their right to secure, productive employment that contributes to this nation’s economic progress and, crucially, supports the kind of life that every citizen has a right to expect.

In my experience, most of our citizens are not looking for executive directorships to top up already large earned or unearned incomes. Our citizens want a sense of self- worth from a valued contribution in work, the camaraderie of shared effort, enough time and disposable income to spend rewarding time with their families and to offer decent opportunities for their children. It says much for the direction in which the UK is headed that we are having to argue so relentlessly for that, as if it were a privilege. Neither is this need to argue just a reflection of global forces or immigration. Other countries, not least our northern Nordic neighbours, have long since made it the fabric of their societies. Those are the questions that Scotland asked itself at the referendum: what kind of country do we the citizens want? I am in no doubt that that is why we got the level of engagement we did. I am also in no doubt that, at the heart of people’s aspiration—a much overworked but not much defined word—these are largely modest but enormously dignified desires.

Mr Deputy Speaker, you may understand, then, my desire to do all I can to try and influence this House to take seriously and address the urgent need for this country to declare its commitment to a culture of fairness and dignity in work, and to implement all necessary measures in pursuit of it. Scotland and my party are clear in their commitment to work to achieve that. My constituents and the overwhelming majority of Scotland’s electorate voted for it. We require legislation with the requisite powers to deliver it, and we require it now. The Scottish Government are already the first UK Government to become an accredited living wage employer, and I urge the UK Government to make a start on reducing the scourges of increasing income inequality and in-work poverty by following where Scotland has led.

We are, as politicians, also human beings, none of us infallible and none of us indispensable. On the day I had to repeat my oath, I spent a few moments reflecting on my mistake and what great expectation and scrutiny there is on all of us as parliamentarians. I was sitting outside by the Emmeline Pankhurst memorial, and I was reminded of her struggle and of what she did for all of us. Thank you.

20:17

[Ruth Smeeth (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to make my maiden speech in such an important debate. It is an honour and a privilege, which I hope I will never take for granted, to stand here representing my constituency. I am sure that you will agree that my new colleagues have set the bar very high in their maiden speeches and done their constituencies proud, not least the hon. Member for Livingston (Hannah Bardell), who delivered an excellent speech.

However, I have to disagree with many of my new colleagues: although they may have very pleasant constituencies, it is of course mine, Stoke-on-Trent North and Kidsgrove, that is the most beautiful and inspiring. From our industrial heritage in the mother town of the potteries to the beautiful Victorian parks and canals, I bow to no one in maintaining that I live in the most beautiful constituency in the country. But it is not just the architecture and the landscape that make Stoke-on-Trent North and Kidsgrove so special; it is the people, to whose industry and talent our city stands as testament.

My constituency was built on the blood, sweat and tears of working people. It was their labour in the great industries—pits, pots and steel—that drove our city forward. We gave the country and the world a celebrated ceramics industry, including the crockery used in this House, which, for the record, was made in my constituency. But our creativity goes far beyond that; it is reflected in the work of so many proud Stokies, from Josiah Wedgwood to Reginald Mitchell, who designed the spitfire, and from Clarice Cliff to Robbie Williams.

Local businesses are capitalising on this in the new and creative technologies, from augmented reality to tidal lagoon power. We need to harness this creativity in order to build a brighter future for my city and for my residents where the stories of these successes are the norm, where my constituents have more options for skilled work, where Stoke-on-Trent will no longer be a living-wage blackspot and a zero-hours-contract area, and where the blight of poverty and the use of food banks will be consigned to the dustbin of history where it belongs rather than being a daily occurrence.

I am lucky enough to represent the best of British—the kindest, most industrious people—but my community deserves better. They embody what Government Members would call the big society, but what we in Stoke simply call community. In spite of the savage cuts made by this Government and the impact on real people’s lives, we have seen the best of humanity as they unite to look after each other and protect our city. From Mike and Pat at the Burslem Park Pavilion, where they have created a social enterprise to restore one of our country’s original Victorian parks, to Rev. Ashley Cooper and his amazing team at Swanbank church who were granted the Queen’s award for voluntary service for their community work. It is not just these incredibly generous community acts that I wish to celebrate, as we also have wonderful facilities protected by the community to mark our place in history, from our war memorial gardens in Tunstall to the Victoria Hall in Kidsgrove, which the Speaker of the House himself visited during the previous Parliament to promote local democracy.

All these organisations were well served by my predecessor, Joan Walley, who joined this House when I was only seven years old. I know how respected and well thought of she was by people from across the political spectrum. She was noted for her passion not only about our local football team, Port Vale, but about issues pertaining to the environment, serving my party and our country as a shadow spokesperson on transport and the environment when we were last in opposition, and then as Chair of the Environmental Audit Committee in the previous Parliament. As our MP for 28 years, she has left huge shoes to fill, and I hope to do her proud.

Joan was not the first woman to represent our seat. In fact, I have the honour of being the third female Labour MP for my constituency since the war. The first was Harriet Slater, an inspiration, who was elected in 1953 in a by-election. She became the first female Whip to serve my party and this House. However, it is her passion against racism that I wish to comment on. Sixty-two years ago she sat in this Chamber as a new MP and was so horrified by the tone of the debate that she intervened to make her maiden speech without any preparation—something I really cannot comprehend. The subject of that debate was the colour bar, where Members of this House were actually debating whether black and white children should be educated in the same classrooms. This was abhorrent to her as it should be to all of us. She intervened in anger, and I hope to replicate her conviction and her passion in the years ahead to protect and promote the hard-earned equalities that we now take for granted.

It is with that thought that I wish to turn to the subject matter in hand. I stand here today, probably much to the confusion of hon. Members from the SNP, as a proud Scot. I was born in Edinburgh. I am the granddaughter of a blacklisted Scottish steelworker who became a miner, and my father was blacklisted for leading the first insurance industry strike in Scotland. My mother Lucy is also a proud trade unionist and quite simply my inspiration as a strong and determined woman who dedicated her life to fighting for those who could not fight for themselves. It is because of her commitment and support that I stand here today. I simply hope to emulate her. Her family were forced to flee the Russian pogroms, scapegoated in the name of nationalism and intolerance. My family were not militant, but rather proud socialists and, most importantly, internationalists. They saw nationalism, at worst, as an evil doctrine which poisoned working people against each other, and at best as a distraction from the true battles we fight to make the world a better place for the people who need our help.

For these reasons, I have spent most of my life campaigning against the politics of hate and division, against extremism and nationalism. I am proud of the leading role I have had with Hope Not Hate to defeat the BNP and to make sure that UKIP was limited in its success. But nationalism comes in many guises, and we need to stand united to fight for a better world and for the good of our communities, which is why I will also be fighting for the Union. I will be campaigning for a fair deal for the people of Scotland just as I will be fighting for a better deal for north Staffordshire. There is much more that unites the communities of Bonnybridge and Burslem than divides them. Poverty is poverty whether in Stoke-on-Trent or Stirling, and equality of opportunity needs to be the same in Kidsgrove as it is in Kirkcaldy. We are stronger when we are united.

We have much work ahead of us, but in the words of one of my more famous citizens, Arnold Bennett:

“It is easier to go down a hill than up, but the view is from the top.”

I will keep climbing that hill because I know the view will be worth the effort. I look forward to serving the people of Stoke-on-Trent North and Kidsgrove in the years to come, and I hope to live up to the faith they have placed in me.

20:25

[Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)]

Let me begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Ruth Smeeth) and the other Members who have made their first speeches so well today.

It is with a great sense of honour that I make this speech in this important debate here today, and with a deep sense of gratitude and responsibility to the people of East Renfrewshire. I chose to live in East Renfrewshire with my family, and there is no place that I would rather be. East Renfrewshire is made up of the some of the most vibrant, active and diverse communities in Scotland. Just like the new Members on these Benches, East Renfrewshire benefits very significantly from the diverse backgrounds and traditions of its people. For those who may not be familiar with my constituency, it sits just to the south of Glasgow, stretching from the city boundaries right out to Whitelee forest in the south. The distinct areas that make up the constituency all have a strong sense of identity, and perhaps an even stronger sense of community spirit.

I am delighted to follow such a high profile MP as my predecessor, Jim Murphy. No one can dispute the mark that he made on Scottish and UK politics, and I wish him well.

There has never been an SNP MP in my constituency before. In the 2010 election, we were fourth. In fact, prior to 1997, East Renfrewshire was the safest Conservative seat in Scotland, and since then it had been considered one of the safest Labour seats. But the appetite for change in Scotland is immense. My constituents, just like people all over Scotland, want their voices to be heard, loudly and clearly. They expect to be listened to—so they should—and this House must recognise that.

East Renfrewshire is blessed with rolling countryside and farmland, with glorious parks and suburbia, and it is a beautiful place. The lovely rural village of Uplawmoor leads down to the ancient parish of Neilston, with its beautiful old church. We travel north to the bustling town of Barrhead, home to the famous Arthurlie football club, and east to our largest town, Newton Mearns, a modern area in many ways, but with roots stretching back to the bronze age, and on through our beautiful Rouken Glen park to Thornliebank, where the Crum family for many years combined their print works with philanthropy, and to Giffnock and Eastwood Park Theatre, and then to my own home area of Clarkston, with the National Trust for Scotland’s Greenbank gardens, and Busby, where it is a pleasure to walk in Busby glen. There is a scenic route along the White Cart Water through Waterfoot, and up to Eaglesham, an historic conservation village, and gateway to the wind farm at Whitelee.

East Renfrewshire is in many ways a place of contrasts, just like modern Scotland. We are lucky to have active and energetic faith communities playing a full part in local life. This includes being home to Scotland’s largest Jewish community, a growing and vibrant Muslim community, and thriving Christian, Hindu and Sikh communities. We have an incredible community spirit in East Renfrewshire. Groups run by local people are at the heart of our area, and they contribute hugely to making it the positive and welcoming place that it is. Such groups include the Neilston and Uplawmoor First Responders, who have dealt with hundreds of emergencies in the past year, and the Queen’s award-winning Super Kids club for children with additional support needs and their families. That great range of community and voluntary groups hugely enriches my area. People are incredibly community-minded. They turn out in huge numbers for events such as the Eaglesham fair, which took place successfully amid high winds and torrential rain on Saturday, and for elections. I am privileged to represent an area with such an engaged electorate.

Historically, industry in East Renfrewshire was based on cotton mills, manufacturing and farming. The balance of business has changed; we continue to have numerous farms in our rural areas, as well as a range of other successful businesses, many of which benefit from positive business growth schemes such as the small business bonus. Many more would benefit from the increased economic powers that we would like for Scotland. Our businesses now range from high-end international companies such as Linn Products to small businesses such as The Wee Fudge Company, which operates from a house in Stamperland and produces a most delicious Scottish fudge that would surely sell well in the Members’ Tea Room. We need all of our businesses to thrive, no matter what their size. For that, we need levers to grow our economy and ensure that more of my constituents are economically active.

Many people in East Renfrewshire are doing well—they live comfortably in our lovely leafy suburbs and beautiful rural villages—but it is not like that for everyone. A great many people in East Renfrewshire would not recognise that reality at all. Many of them struggle badly to feed themselves and their families in lovely, leafy East Renfrewshire. We have food banks, because we need them; we have a school uniform bank, because we need one. That is a scandal. I have seen for myself the difficulties and indignities that people face, and I cannot begin to understand how, in 2015, families and children in my community are hungry. Children go to school without breakfast. They are children whose parents are doing their best but face barriers too great for them to surmount. They are families in which people are working, families in which people would like to work and families in which someone has become ill or disabled. If a measure of our society is how we treat the most vulnerable among us, we have a long way to go.

People all over East Renfrewshire see that, which is why they voted for change and for greater powers for Scotland, to allow us to make the changes that we need to ensure that we can have a sustainable, successful economy and ensure that we no longer neglect those of us who are struggling. Things have moved on significantly since the Smith agreement. The election result reflects clearly that people in my constituency and across Scotland voted for something more. They voted for real powers to create more jobs, boost wages and protect our welfare state. That is why it is vital that our voice is heard clearly here on the Scotland Bill.

People in this House have spoken a lot about aspiration over the past couple of weeks. Many in my constituency aspire—our schools are the envy of the country—but aspiration is an uneasy bedfellow for the ever-increasing inequality in our society and our communities. This Government have the opportunity in the Bill to ensure that Scotland has the powers to deliver successful economic policies and tackle that inequality, and we will push every day to do so.

20:32

[Sue Hayman (Workington) (Lab)]

It is an honour to give my maiden speech after so many excellent maiden speeches in this debate. I am only the fifth Member of Parliament for Workington since the constituency was established in 1918, but I am the first woman to be elected to represent the constituency, and in fact the first woman ever elected to Parliament in Cumbria. It is an honour and a privilege, and I intend to serve my constituency diligently.

As this is my maiden speech, before I come to the subject of the debate, I shall follow the tradition of the House by paying tribute to my predecessor, Sir Tony Cunningham, who represented the Workington constituency for 14 years. I am sure that hon. Members from all parties will join me in wishing him well in his retirement. Sir Tony began his career as a teacher before being elected to represent Cumbria and Lancashire North in the European Parliament. He then worked for human rights organisations until his election to this House in 2001. His passion for that work made him the ideal choice to join the Front Bench as shadow Minister for International Development.

Sir Tony took his constituency responsibilities seriously, working hard for Workington and for individual constituents. In retirement, he continues to champion local charities. Throughout his career, he stood up for the poor and vulnerable both at home and overseas, and his commitment to helping others, some of them in truly desperate circumstances, will always define him and provide a humbling reminder to us all.

Sir Tony has said that his proudest achievement was saving Cumbria’s cottage hospitals when they were under threat of closure. At that time, the Health Secretary was my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Alan Johnson), who listened to and understood Cumbria’s particular needs. I hope that this Government will do the same over people’s concerns for West Cumberland hospital and the services that are under threat today.

Sir Tony’s predecessor, Dale Campbell-Savours, continues to serve the public, now from the other place. He remains greatly admired and respected in the Workington constituency, for both his fight and his intellect. No cause was too large or too small. If people needed help, he was there for them.

Many hon. Members have told us in their maiden speeches how beautiful their constituencies are. Mine runs from the summit of Skiddaw in the Lake District national park to the sparkling sea and spectacular sunsets of the Solway coast, an area of outstanding natural beauty and a wildlife habitat of international importance.

In addition to the country’s most dramatic and beautiful landscape and coastline, the constituency has a strong and proud industrial heritage—from mining and steelworks and the flourishing port at Workington, to the fishing boats of Maryport, the large farming community and the thriving tourism industry. It is also part of Britain’s energy coast, which is bringing thousands of jobs and billions of pounds of investment to west Cumbria through nuclear, tidal and other energy projects.

The Solway forms the western border between England and Scotland and over the centuries, part of my constituency, like other areas of the borders, has been subject to Scottish raiding parties. I must say to hon. Members from north of the border how relieved I am that the famous Scottish national uprising of 2015 stopped short of Cumbria for once. They might also be interested to know that Mary Queen of Scots spent her last night of freedom in Workington hall, because we are renowned for our hospitality.

To go even further back in history, fortifications associated with Hadrian’s wall were built in west Cumbria by the Romans as a defence against the Scots—and the native Cumbrians, too, for that matter. At Maryport’s famous Senhouse Roman Museum, it is still possible to see the remains of the fort and many artefacts, which illustrate the importance of west Cumbria in the defence of the realm—a role the county continues to fulfil today through the vital Trident submarines in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (John Woodcock).

The gem town of Cockermouth is also in my constituency. The childhood home of William Wordsworth, Wordsworth house, has been opened to the public by the National Trust. Another famous—or should I say infamous?—local lad is Fletcher Christian, who led the mutiny on the Bounty. He now has a pub named after him on Main Street. Talking of pubs, Cockermouth’s most famous export, the legendary Jennings beer, is still brewed at the old Castle brewery in the town centre.

More recently, Cockermouth became famous for the floods that devastated homes and businesses in November 2009 when the River Derwent swept through the town centre. Those same floods claimed the life of policeman Bill Barker in Workington when a bridge collapsed. Both towns showed extraordinary courage and resilience in rebuilding after the floods, and PC Barker’s bravery that night will never be forgotten. The new footbridge over the river in Workington is named Barker’s Crossing in his memory.

Sir Tony worked with the local communities to fight back after the floods, but the work is not yet finished and I have pledged to carry on campaigning for proper flood defences wherever they are needed, to try to ensure that such a tragedy never again happens in Workington or Cockermouth.

To finish the tour of my constituency, I must mention the beautiful seaside town of Silloth, with its famous golf course, and Aspatria, the old mining and market town, which shares a passion for rugby—both league and union—with its larger neighbours.

I would have thought that the grit, passion and heritage I have spoken of would mark out west Cumbria as a key part of the northern powerhouse. I am pleased that the Chancellor has recognised that the north of England can contribute positively to the UK, but I would like to take this opportunity to remind him that the north-west extends considerably beyond Manchester. The northern powerhouse is focused on cities more than 100 miles south of west Cumbria. We have been shouldering heavy cuts to local government and public services, and the energy coast investment that I referred to earlier is still a few years away. Cumbria must not be left out. We need to see a proper devolution of powers across the region, not just to the big cities, so we can deliver our potential. We cannot allow areas such as west Cumbria to be left behind just because we are beyond the M6 corridor and the west coast main line.

As well as looking south to contribute to the northern powerhouse, we should also support the devolution of further powers to Scotland, because the time for rivalry has long since gone. Much of Dumfries and Galloway, for example, is as far from Glasgow and Edinburgh as west Cumbria is from Manchester or Leeds. We must forge cross-border alliances to bring investment in areas such as transport, energy, tourism, education and rural development that benefit the border communities on either side of the national boundary. There are already significant connections between people living in the borders region, whether on the English or the Scottish side. Many jobs depend on the business transacted daily across the border. Many families have members living on both sides of the border, and every day many commuters see the M74 turn into the M6 and back again.

We have a huge opportunity before us now to build social and economic prosperity that embraces both the diversity and the common interest of everyone in the border regions. We owe it to future generations to work together, rather than move apart, and I want the devolution of powers and resources to benefit everyone, not just those who live on one side of Gretna Green and not the other.

20:41

[Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to be called in this debate and to speak after some excellent speeches. The hon. Member for Livingston (Hannah Bardell) left us tantalisingly in the air for her quote, which we look forward to hearing on another occasion. I first met the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Ruth Smeeth) while waiting for our IT to be sorted out—she was there two and a half hours after me—and I am glad to see she has resolved her problems and is in her place. She spoke passionately about her constituency, as did the hon. Members for East Renfrewshire (Kirsten Oswald) and for Workington (Sue Hayman).

Right hon. and hon. Members may wonder why a Member of Parliament for one of the southernmost seats of England, North Dorset, sought to speak on the Second Reading of the Scotland Bill. I did so as a fellow Celt, albeit a Welshman, who fought two seats in Wales before securing victory in North Dorset. I was very much involved in fighting the then Labour Government’s campaign in Wales. The genie was out of the bottle: there is now a settlement, and we live with the consequences—some of the downsides and some of the upsides.

In an intervention earlier, my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Heidi Allen) talked about trust. At that point, SNP Members laughed slightly, though I was pleased that, in his speech, the hon. Member for Moray (Angus Robertson) accepted the purpose of the point she made—that in this debate we need to have trust. It may be that my following remarks are out of keeping or out of step with what a new Member should say, but that has never stopped me in the past and it will not stop me now.

It is probably quite hard to build the relationship of trust required, because the political landscape shifted very considerably on 7 May. Those of us who would describe ourselves as strong Unionists—by intellect as much as by heart, gut and passion—were left aghast at the nationalist tide, coming so recently after a referendum that said, “No, we don’t want to go down that particular route.” It has left the Labour party bereft of seasoned colleagues, expert opinion and wise heads in this House. It should be no surprise to anybody, not least the leadership of the nationalists, that their success has left a huge sense of head-scratching and bewilderment on the Conservative Benches as much as it has among Labour Members. We need to build trust among ourselves and with the nationalist party, just as it needs to build trust with us. I would guess that many SNP Members do not believe in their hearts that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and the Government are serious about that, but I do not think that anyone who listened to my right hon. Friend’s opening speech could have been left with any impression other than one of his absolute and passionate commitment to delivering the additional powers that Scotland and the Scottish people want.

We will be judged on the basis of our actions in that regard. We will be judged on the basis of how we vote, and how we engage in the debate. I am pleased to see that the hon. Member for Moray is nodding. May I ask something of him and his colleagues? Conservative Members—along with Labour Members—take a different view of the final destination for Scotland. We want to see a proud Scotland in a strong and robust United Kingdom; SNP Members want to see a strong Scotland that is an independent force in the world. They have advised us that they are not seeking to pick off the scabs of the referendum debate, and that they are here to try to make the settlement—a settlement on which the Scottish people agreed back in September—work. May I ask them, and their leadership, not to freeze us out of that debate?

The fact that we are Unionists, and the fact that we may come from other parts of the Celtic regions or elsewhere, do not mean that we are any less sincere, or any less committed to the success that we want Scotland to be. The tone of some SNP speeches today seemed to suggest—almost as if certain Members were delegates for Miss Sturgeon and the Scottish Government—that those who were not part of the Holyrood project somehow had no right to take part in the debate. The hon. Member for Moray looks confused, but we all know that tone and body language are important, and as I sat on this side of the House, listening to all the speeches, that was the impression with which I was left. In my humble judgment, such a tone will not lead to the relationship of mutual trust and certainty that all quarters of the House need to build if we are to make this settlement work.

As I have said, our view and our vision of the ultimate destination is different from that of the SNP, but we want the Scotland Bill to work. Scotland is a proud and vibrant part of the United Kingdom, and we—Conservative Members—wish it to remain so. That will pose some challenges if, for example, the SNP continues its tsunami of decapitation in next May’s Holyrood election. I am tempted to call this the Madame Defarge Parliament, because I believe that more heads have been removed than at any time since the French Revolution. I am not complaining about that, for the will of the Scottish people was expressed in the ballot box, but if it continues next May it may destabilise a little further the foundations of trust that we are seeking to build and on which, through the Bill, we are seeking to deliver the pledges and promises that were made after the referendum.

I wish my right hon. Friend success in piloting the Bill on the Floor of the House. We wish to take part in the debate, sincerely, pragmatically and positively, but let me end by saying again that I hope SNP Members do not freeze us out of that debate.

20:48

[Douglas Chapman (Dunfermline and West Fife) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare). I cannot say that I agree with all his views, but we can discuss that on another occasion. Let me also congratulate the hon. Member for Workington (Sue Hayman) and my hon. Friend the Member for East Renfrewshire (Kirsten Oswald) on their maiden speeches, both of which were thoughtful and gracious. I am sure that the House appreciated them as much as I did.

Thank you, Mr Speaker, for allowing me to take part in this debate on the future governance of Scotland and the granting of further powers to it. It is unlikely that there will be such an important Bill for SNP Members to consider during this first Session of the new Parliament, and we approach it with great vigour and passion. We want to bring home more powers to the people who have put us here: the people of Scotland, the one nation that we hold dear.

Before considering the proposals, may I say a few words about my constituency and echo some of the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Margaret Ferrier) about the staff of the House of Commons? Every Member on this side of the Chamber has been really amazed by the generous, friendly and warm welcome we have received from all the staff. I want to pay particular tribute to my buddy, Catherine, who helped me through the first few days of being in what is a very strange environment for many of us.

The Dunfermline and West Fife constituency is a real mix of rural, village and large town settlements. Coastal villages, such as Kincardine, Limekilns and Torryburn mix with the rolling hillside villages of Saline and Hill O’Beath. They sit alongside former coalmining villages of Oakley, Blairhall and High Valleyfield. We also have former royal burghs such as Culross, with its magnificent palace, and Inverkeithing, which has its own distinct rich history.

We have many claims to fame. How many hon. Members know that Dunfermline was once the ancient capital of Scotland? Our abbey is the resting place of King Robert the Bruce, an iconic figure in Scottish history who has served as an inspiration to generations of Scots who, like Bruce, sought to reaffirm Scotland’s place in the world as an independent nation.

Dunfermline is the birthplace of the industrialist, entrepreneur and, later in his life, great philanthropist, Andrew Carnegie. Carnegie made millions of dollars on the back of the railroads and iron and steel industries in America. He realised, perhaps belatedly, that the business of making money must also have a strong social conscience. The two go hand in hand. In today’s terms, Carnegie would have been a multibillionaire. He said

“that a man who dies thus rich, dies disgraced”.

His generosity and philanthropy travel far and wide. Who has not heard of his funding for the great Carnegie Hall? And I do mean the one in Dunfermline, although I believe there is also one in New York. Who is not aware that it was Carnegie’s generosity that brought books and learning to many communities through his support for Carnegie libraries across the world, and that he funded the magnificent Peace Palace in The Hague, where it still serves as a beacon to resolve conflict internationally?

Musically, the constituency has given us great talent over the years. For rock fans, Nazareth and Big Country are a part of our past. If there are any ageing punks in the Chamber tonight, we also have the band The Skids. I believe that my hon. Friend the Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) may know something about these bands.

More up to date, the skills and talents of the area are being utilised at the likes of Oceaneering, a world-leading undersea technology company, and Rosyth dockyard, where the workforce are building both of our Navy’s aircraft carriers. In recent weeks, I have met the management and the trade unions. They are fiercely proud of the expertise they bring to delivering the carriers project. Like with most activity at Rosyth dockyard, the workforce are bringing in these huge complex projects on time and in budget. Perhaps with a vain hope, I am looking at the Government Front Bench. If UK Government decisions on military procurement were equally efficient and budget aware, perhaps we would be in a better position as regards the national finances.

Another high skill based project on time and under budget is the construction of the new Queensferry crossing, funded by the Scottish Government. On completion in 2016, we will have three generations of new bridges over the Forth. It is truly appropriate that in a few weeks’ time we are all hoping that the Forth rail bridge, an icon of Scottish engineering and the oldest of the three bridges, will gain UNESCO world heritage site status and put it up there with other world heritage sites. This recognition of the rail bridge will bring many new jobs to the west Fife economy as we improve the offer we can make to visitors and tourists to the area.

Government Members—I wish there were a few more here—will be made especially welcome in Dunfermline and West Fife, as we do not get to see many Conservatives in that part of the country. I assure Members, however, that irrespective of the Benches on which they sit, they will be made very welcome—and it says here, “Please bring your wallets”.

I would like to pay a warm tribute to the previous MP, Thomas Docherty, who served his constituents and pursued a wide range of issues here in the House. He served in Parliament from 2010 and rose to the position of shadow Deputy Leader of the House. I wish him well for the future. His main claim to fame was his appearance in the TV series “Inside the Commons” where Thomas was seen bedsharing—not at the same time, I might add —with the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) in order to secure more debating time. As a candidate at the time, I was worried that the level of exposure Thomas was getting on prime time television would damage my chances of being elected, but a 10,000 majority suggests my concerns were misplaced. It also reminded me of a valuable political lesson taught to me by my late father: never, never, never, get into bed with the Tories.

I also have a famous—some might say infamous—constituent: the former Chancellor and Prime Minister Gordon Brown, who promised much in the referendum campaign last year. By a slender majority, the no campaign won the day, but given the energy and interest in Scottish politics in recent months, the Bill offering new powers needs to be something special. Whatever measures are proposed, they should carry the support of the Scottish people. During the referendum, we had a huge and engaging campaign that brought to life the sometimes staid and distant world of politics. People felt part of a new, vigorous nation and thought that their views and ideas actually counted. The great challenge for the UK Government is to engage with the ordinary people of Scotland, who have fought so extraordinarily for more powers, and I urge them to consider our amendments as the Bill makes progress through Parliament. They are there for a purpose: to make Scotland stronger and more economically vibrant, to destroy child poverty once and for all and to make us a better nation that all the people of these islands can enjoy and benefit from.

We are in the 56th Parliament, and the SNP has returned 56 Members. I respectfully remind the Government that we are here to do business for our constituents and represent Scotland like it has never been represented before. I hope the Government will respect our mandate and the changing political landscape. The world as we know it has changed. It cannot be business as usual.

20:56

[Nick Thomas-Symonds (Torfaen) (Lab)]

I thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for calling me to make a contribution in this debate, and I congratulate you on your recent election victory. I also congratulate the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Douglas Chapman) on his maiden speech. I was particularly pleased to hear the tribute to Andrew Carnegie and his well-known social conscience. I thought that his passion and commitment to his constituency shone through his speech, and I look forward to serving with him in the House in the years ahead.

James Keir Hardie said, when asked about his socialist beliefs, that he saw them as arising from a rooted local culture. His belief in localism and the de-centralisation of power led him to a firm belief in devolution. In the career and beliefs of Keir Hardie, a Scot who represented a Welsh constituency, there are lessons for us in this debate. Most of all, if we recognise the qualities and strengths of our family of nations here in these islands, we can strengthen our whole United Kingdom.

I welcome a number of aspects of the Bill, which takes devolution to the next stage. Let us not forget that devolution came about because the Labour Government of 1997 to 2010 introduced the widest swathe of constitutional reform since the Great Reform Act 1832. I welcome the formal recognition in law of the status of the Scottish Parliament and, in particular, the increased financial responsibilities, which build on the third pillar of the Smith commission. I also welcome devolution and greater flexibility in several areas of tax, including income tax, VAT, the aggregates levy and air passenger duty. As was set out by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray), however, there are ways in which the Government can go further, and I look forward to that in the course of the debates on the Bill.

Prior to entering the House, I lectured in politics. The first thing I taught at the start of every academic year was the UK constitution, and the one thing I always said to my students was never to see any single measure of devolution in isolation; they have to be seen in the context of the overall settlement and argument for the whole of the UK. Lord Kilbrandon took over the royal commission on the constitution between 1969 and 1973, and it became known by his name. He said that any decisions and debates on public funding that we have here in Westminster affected

“the whole of the United Kingdom”.

That quotation comes from a period before our modern devolution journey began, but I suggest that it is as relevant in 2015 as it was back in 1973.

As we debate finance and funding, it is critical to bear in mind how those issues affect the different constituent parts of our United Kingdom. My point as a Welsh Member—it is important that the voice of Wales is heard during the passage of the Scotland Bill—is that there is a long-standing public debate on the underfunding of Wales in the United Kingdom. It goes back to the Holtham commission of 2010, which identified £300 million of underfunding for Wales, and the same issue runs through part 1 of the Silk commission. Even at this moment, the finance committee of the National Assembly for Wales is debating future funding for Wales. This is a crucial issue for Wales and my Torfaen constituents.

I remind the Secretary of State that the Prime Minister promised earlier this year that Wales would not be left behind. The Chancellor of the Exchequer originally promised a Wales Bill within the first 100 days of this Parliament. Unfortunately, all he has done so far for Wales is to promise a further £3 billion of cuts across the UK, about £84 million of which we expect to fall on Wales. That is hardly a great start when it comes to addressing fair funding for Wales.

The First Minister of Wales, Carwyn Jones, has made it clear that this issue of fair funding has to be dealt with, so I say that a great devolution debate must go ahead in this Parliament and the Secretary of State must bear in mind all the constituent parts of the United Kingdom. History tells us that if particular issues are left untouched in devolution debates, they usually come back and need to be dealt with at a later stage. I urge the Secretary of State to think again about ruling out, from the Dispatch Box, the idea of a constitutional convention, which would not only give all politicians a chance to contribute to the debate, but would involve the wider public in all parts of the United Kingdom. It is important that we end this Parliament with strong devolution within a strong United Kingdom.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Hoyle)]

With two speakers left, I am increasing the time limit to 12 minutes each.

21:02

[Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)]

There seems to be cross-party support in this place for legislation that would substantially implement the recommendations of the Smith commission. We have heard some interesting contributions, not least from the hon. Member for Moray (Angus Robertson). We all wait with bated breath to see what amendments will be tabled to the Bill to try to establish full fiscal autonomy for Scotland. We certainly hope that in order to fulfil that promise, the amendment will be a little stronger than the one on the Order Paper today, which is all about Scotland moving to

“a position in the medium term where the Scottish Parliament and Government are responsible for all revenue raising”.

That seems to me to be a lot of weasel words and very far away from full fiscal autonomy.

There has been a certain amount of interest in this pledge from people watching the debate in this place, and I have been asked by many where the Scots believe they will get the money needed to fill the hole—we understand it might be £7.6 billion or even £10 billion. However much it is, people in Scotland and presumably across the whole of the United Kingdom will want to know from the Scottish nationalists where that money is going to come from, if they get full fiscal autonomy. The prime opportunity comes from introducing an amendment to this Bill, and we all wait to see what it is going to say.

[John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

When the hon. Lady’s party introduced devolution at the end of the last century, it said that it would settle the kingdom once and for all, and that Scotland would then live very happily in the Union. What went wrong?

[Emily Thornberry]

The right hon. Gentleman will, I am sure, realise that we have all moved on in the last 100 years and that things change and we have become different people, but I think the majority of people in these islands identify as British. We saw that in the referendum result and the feelings expressed across the whole of this nation, and the important thing is that we remain a United Kingdom. With the devolution being introduced today, which will be a continuing devolution, we must nevertheless remain a United Kingdom. I believe I speak on behalf of the vast majority of people in Great Britain when I say that.

What concerns me about the Bill, however, is how the Sewel convention will be implemented. The Smith commission recommends that the Sewel convention be placed on a statutory footing. However, despite the Secretary of State’s contention that the Bill will implement the commission’s recommendations in full, in my view clause 2 falls short of fulfilling that promise.

In the 1998 debate on the Scotland Bill of that year, Lord Sewel said:

“However, as happened in Northern Ireland earlier in the century, we would expect a convention to be established that Westminster would not normally legislate with regard to devolved matters in Scotland without the consent of the Scottish parliament.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 21 July 1998; Vol. 592, c. 791.]

In seeking to put this convention on a statutory footing, the Bill uses identical language, stating that

“it is recognised that the Parliament of the United Kingdom will not normally legislate with regard to devolved matters without the consent of the Scottish Parliament.”

What does that mean? Does that mean we will not normally legislate with regard to devolved matters without the consent of the Scottish Parliament unless the UK Parliament does not like it? It seems rather an odd way of proceeding and it is a funny way to write the law.

In its report on the Government’s draft proposals, the House of Lords Constitution Committee described this in much more measured terms than I would. [Interruption.] It says

“the use of the word normally…is unusual in legislation and is undefined.”

[Interruption.] The Secretary of State, who is the only Scottish MP on the Government Benches, should listen: the House of Lords Constitution Committee says his legislation is nonsense, and he should listen.

The inevitable question is what the Government mean by “normally”. Language that may be appropriately applied to a convention may well be inappropriate in statute. For instance, we might pass legislation that says, “Normally, it is illegal to steal someone’s wallet”—except when it is legal—or, “Normally, millionaires should pay their fair share of tax”, although perhaps that is a bad example. How about this example, then? Legislation might say, “Normally, it would be illegal to blow up the Houses of Parliament,” but there might be circumstances in which it was legal. This is the legislation being put before us by the Government today.

[Simon Hoare]

What is the normal response when the hon. Lady sees a white van?

[Emily Thornberry]

The normal response to silly questions like that is to pass on and not make comment, because the hon. Gentleman belittles himself and this place by descending to that.

[Martin John Docherty]

Does the hon. Lady believe the Secretary of State for Scotland should give more credence to the unelected upper Chamber than a cross-party report by the democratically elected Scottish Parliament?

[Emily Thornberry]

I simply think the Secretary of State for Scotland should not introduce legislation that says that we

“will not normally legislate with regard to devolved matters without the consent of the Scottish Parliament”,

because in my view that is not the sort of thing we normally put in legislation. The Bill has been rushed through at the last minute and has not been thought through properly. I strongly suggest that the Secretary of State pays attention to people who are better experts than he is, and makes sure his legislation is a little better than it is.

The Constitution Committee’s report went on to note that this measure, as drafted, would have

“little, or no, legal effect”.

[Interruption.] I am sorry to interrupt the Secretary of State once more. The Committee says this clause would have little or no legal effect, and I suggest he pays attention to that. It says that the clause would simply

“recognise the existence of the Sewel convention rather than turn it into a legally binding principle”.

In other words, it is a gesture and it does not actually mean anything. I strongly suggest the Secretary of State considers providing some clarity on that point. What do the words of the statute mean? What does he intend? Tell us what “normal” means, and what “abnormal” means, so we all know what we are talking about.

That point is as nothing compared with the nonsense and mess that the Bill will cause in relation to the Human Rights Act. The Government may or may not be changing the Human Rights Act in some way in the future after consulting people—who, we do not yet know. We do not know how it will be changed, but it appears that the Government do intend to change it. As the Secretary of State knows, an integral part of the devolution settlement is that Scotland has a role in the Human Rights Act, and that remains important. If the Government are to honour the spirit of the Sewel convention, they will need to seek the consent of the Scottish Parliament before proceeding on any wholesale reorganisation of the legislative framework upon which our basic human rights rest. The Government need to look at that.

The convention will be pushed to its limit whether it has a basis in statute or not. The Human Rights Act is embedded in Scotland’s devolution settlement, and while it remains for the UK courts to determine whether an Act of Parliament violates an individual’s convention rights, both schedule 6 and section 29(2)(d) of the Scotland Act 1998 gave the same power to the Scottish courts to invalidate Acts of the Scottish Parliament if they are judged to be incompatible with the UK’s obligations under the convention. The same prohibition on acting incompatibly with individuals’ convention rights is extended to Ministers in the Scottish Executive under section 57(2) of the 1998 Act. Since the passage of that Act, the Scottish Parliament has established a Scottish Human Rights Commission and a national plan for human rights, so human rights are without doubt a substantially devolved issue. What is more, the Scots were not exactly backwards in coming forwards on the need to preserve the Human Rights Act.

The Minister might remember that the Government spent the previous two years consulting on how to replace the Human Rights Act with their so-called British bill of privileges; they went around the country asking people their views, for suggestions, whether any rights had been forgotten and whether people would like to change this bit or that bit. The Minister might also remember the consultation’s reception in Scotland. When the Government asked Scottish people their views, how many were in favour of changing the Human Rights Act? None. The Government did not get a single person in Scotland to say that it was a good idea to change the Human Rights Act, so exactly how will they be able to implement the Sewel convention and somehow or other change the Human Rights Act in Scotland? How will that work? It is constitutional nonsense, and the Government should take it extremely seriously.

Following the election, the Scottish Human Rights Commission said:

“While we will examine any legislative proposals in detail, the Commission repeats its long-standing concerns about the regressive nature of many elements of previous proposals for a British Bill of Rights. These have included enabling the UK to pick and choose which judgments to accept from the European Court of Human Rights, reducing the scope of human rights laws so that they only apply to ‘the most serious’ cases, or to particular areas of law, and restricting the eligibility of rights on the basis of nationality or citizenship. Any and all of these changes would fly in the face of progressive protection for human rights and would have adverse consequences for people in Scotland”.

That is absolutely right. It is quite clear that the people of Scotland do not want the Government to interfere with their Human Rights Act, and the Government should leave it alone. Frankly, they should leave it alone for all of us.

The Government should not seek to change the Human Rights Act without first seeking the consent of the Scottish Parliament. It is clear that if the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice, the right hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove), went up to Scotland and asked people there whether the Government could change the Human Rights Act, they would probably tell him to sling his hook—or possibly something a little ruder.

Will the Minister assure the House that the Government’s intention is to honour the Sewel convention on a matter of such importance as fundamental human rights?

[Antoinette Sandbach]

Does the hon. Lady accept that being a signatory to the European convention on human rights is different from the Human Rights Act? We are at liberty, in Parliament, to change the Human Rights Act while still remaining a signatory to the treaty.

[Emily Thornberry]

I have only two minutes and 46 seconds left, but I am happy to talk to the hon. Lady outside the Chamber. I would say that the Government should keep away from this—it is a devolved issue. They may think that they can implement the Sewel convention properly and still change the Human Rights Act in relation to Scotland, but it cannot be done.

Will the Minister give us a clearer outline of the Government’s definition of “normal”? Will he help us by telling us whether or not, in order to stay true to the spirit of the Smith commission’s recommendations, the Sewel convention can be placed on a much stronger statutory footing than today’s Bill achieves? As it stands, nothing in the Bill prevents this or any future Government from riding roughshod over the clearly expressed views of the Scottish Parliament and the people it represents. The first victim of such woolly legislation could well be the Human Rights Act in Scotland. Just as we will fight in England, we will fight in Scotland to make sure that we keep our Human Rights Act intact.

21:15

[Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

I am pleased to have the opportunity to contribute to this debate on a significant piece of constitutional legislation—the next step in a process we have been witnessing since at least 1997, when the first steps to a devolved Scottish Parliament were put in place.

It will come as no surprise to the House that I take a close personal interest in this Bill, as a Scot by birth and upbringing who has lived in England for many decades. Not only is it important to me personally for that reason, but it is important to many of my constituents who share exactly the same family experience. These families have lived, and continue to live, on both sides of the border, and they feel an emotional and physical attachment to England and Scotland as a result of their history and their lives today. We have, again, heard from other Members who share that family experience, including in at least two maiden speeches—those of the hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Alberto Costa) and my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Ruth Smeeth). They, too, described exactly that experience, which is very common in this country of people who have strong family links and histories in both England and Scotland—and indeed in other parts of the UK.

The Bill is not only important to families across the UK, but it is an important financial, political and constitutional settlement that needs therefore to be fair to people in all parts of the UK. Clearly, there is cross-party support for the Smith commission principles and for the idea of greater devolution. This is a great opportunity for people in Scotland to tackle the poverty and inequality that still pertain in that country. It is very much one that I hope we will be able to replicate in my part of the country in the devolution settlement we achieve for Greater Manchester. But that cross-party support for devolution sits alongside our wish for the continued ability to pool and share risks and resources, and nowhere is that more important than in relation to welfare provision, where it is key that costs and risks must be fairly shared.

There has been much discussion this evening of the extent to which this Bill gives effect to the intentions of the Smith commission. Smith said that there should be “complete autonomy” over devolved benefits. We heard tonight concerns that, in practice, the UK Government will now be able to veto that autonomy, and questions were asked about what that would mean in practice and how things would operate.

It is important to say to those who speak for complete autonomy and expect that that would not involve a degree of negotiation and consultation between the two Governments that we must recognise the huge scale and challenge of the operational change the Department for Work and Pensions is facing now on welfare. Indeed, it is now in a state of perpetual revolution, which makes such negotiation necessary. It will not help people in Scotland or in England or Wales if the stability and resilience of our welfare systems is put at risk by an insistence on impractical solutions. Equally, however, the Bill’s wording as to what we mean by this process of consultation and this notion of veto is unhelpfully woolly. I hope there will be an opportunity to tighten it up in Committee.

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

Given the hon. Lady’s caution, what does she think of the example in Northern Ireland? On paper, the Northern Ireland Assembly has legislative power, but Westminster has basically said, “Unless you pass a karaoke version of our legislation, we will interfere in the rest of your Budget and create a Budget crisis.” That situation is now creating a political crisis.

[Kate Green]

We can see very clearly the importance of precision and of nailing down exactly what is intended in the wording of legislation and agreements. The Northern Ireland example is instructive of what can go wrong.

The Secretary of State gave us an assurance this afternoon about the process of consultation and resolution, but I hope that there is transparency in the way in which decisions are taken, negotiations are conducted and conclusions are reached. We must be clear about how decisions are taken, and we must be able to scrutinise that process. It will also be important to understand timescales and milestones for such decisions to take place. As I said to the Secretary of State, there needs to be clarity over how disputes between the two Governments are resolved. That is not clear to me despite the assurances that he gave us this afternoon. It is a matter that we need to firm up in Committee.

[Alex Salmond]

The hon. Lady made an excellent point very early on in her debate over who adjudicates in a dispute. The answer at the moment is that if there is a financial dispute with the Treasury and the devolved Parliament, the Treasury adjudicates. If it is the Joint Ministerial Committee, the Prime Minister does it. Unless it is specified in this Bill, yet again it will be the Prime Minister and his Government who will act as judge and jury in their own court.

[Kate Green]

The right hon. Gentleman and I might be able to agree that that would not be in the spirit of the discussions that we have had around the purpose of this Bill, which is to create the freedom for Scotland to operate within its devolved powers and to do so within the context of, and as an equal partner in, its relationships with the UK Government.

[John Redwood]

In order for England as well as Scotland to feel that justice is done, how would the hon. Lady recommend that the Scottish grant be adjusted for the money it will be collecting in its own right from taxation?

[Kate Green]

Clearly, the fiscal settlement will be of crucial importance to the people in Scotland, to my constituents and to the constituents of the right hon. Gentleman. That is a function of negotiation that I would expect to see as the fiscal settlement is worked out. One principle that was discussed under the Smith negotiations was the principle of no detriment. We can already see that there are issues to be ironed out here, such as those of operational costs, and the potential knock-on effects and costs of Scottish Government decisions about benefit levels, entitlements and top-ups. For example, it could be that a decision of the Scottish Government creates a passporting through to an entitlement, the cost of which falls to the UK Government. It could be that the decision of the Scottish Government in relation to crediting people into national insurance contributions creates a consequence for the national insurance fund. That is complex to disentangle, and it will be really important for this Parliament to have a mechanism for ongoing scrutiny. I hope that the Minister, in responding to this debate, will say how he thinks that scrutiny will work.

There seems to be surprise that the wording of the Bill appears to have fettered some of the scope of the Scottish Government and the Scottish Parliament to control the devolved welfare benefits. There is also surprise that only new welfare benefits can be created, and not benefits in relation to, for example, education or health. There are concerns that clause 19, which deals with disabilities, carers and industrial injuries benefits, may be worded too restrictively. It might not be possible to bring certain people into the ambit of the benefit, or people could have a question mark over their qualification for the benefit. For example, it might be that they live on one side of the border, but provide care for someone who lives on the other side of the border, and that needs to be sorted out.

There is concern over the provisions on topping up the reserved benefits and over whether there is an intention for the Scottish Parliament to take an across-the-board approach to topping up those reserved benefits, or whether it is merely a discretion to top up benefits for an individual in one individual case.

I think that we were surprised at the ambit of decisions on discretionary housing payments that will be delegated to Scotland in clause 22, which could potentially fetter the opportunity that colleagues in Scotland might wish to take completely to eliminate the harm done by the bedroom tax. There are also worries about clause 23 and the restriction of the application of short-term temporary assistance, which appears to leave out the possibility that families with children with an ongoing need for support could be excluded from the provisions of the existing legislation. These issues will need to be sorted out if the Scottish Parliament, the Scottish Government and the Scottish National party are to take advantage of the full fiscal autonomy that they have said is their medium-term ambition. We cannot wait for the medium term to resolve these issues; they must be resolved in Committee.

Important new provisions are introduced in clause 24 for the housing element of universal credit. Again, this could be a useful provision for the Scottish Government, as they would be able to reflect the characteristics of the Scottish housing and rental markets. For example—I hope that the Minister will tell me whether I am right to think this—they could vary their broad rental market agreement areas or the local housing allowance. However, there are again restrictions on the extent of the powers being devolved. They will not, as I read it, apply to those who receive housing benefit rather than the housing element of universal credit. They will not apply when people switch at pension age into receipt of pension credit. There is a gap in the legislation in ensuring that the devolution of housing benefit is sufficiently comprehensive to ensure that the Scottish Government will have the incentives and levers to use reductions in the housing benefit bill to enable them to build new homes.

I welcome the provisions on the devolution of employment programmes such as the Work programme and Work Choice. This is a sensible reflection of the different characteristics of different labour markets, although I remind SNP colleagues that the differences exist not just between England and Scotland but within Scotland. That is why Labour proposed in our election manifesto to devolve the Work programme and Work Choice to local authority or combined local authority level. I would expect to hear from Scottish parliamentarians and the SNP what their approach will be to that double devolution to reflect local labour markets.

I say to Ministers that I have read the provisions of clause 26 on “work for your benefits” on a number of occasions now and have absolutely no idea what they are getting at. I hope that there might be some clarity tonight.

Finally, there will be some significant operational questions, because the smooth delivery of benefits is as important to benefits recipients as the amounts and entitlements that the system offers them. Decisions taken in Scotland could of course affect operational workload elsewhere, such as in relation to decisions about mandatory reconsideration or changing the assessment process, which could have a significant effect on appeals workloads. I note that a fully functioning separate Scottish tribunal system will not be in place until 2023.

In conclusion, it is clear to me that we have a shared intention but a gap and a lack of specificity in providing for the intentions that we all understood to underpin Smith. They must be addressed before the Bill completes its parliamentary passage. We cannot leave issues of such grave constitutional importance in such uncertainty. It is clear that the scale of the constitutional change implied in the Bill is extensive, complex and impacts on the whole of the UK. That is why we will need to ensure that we have the mechanisms to keep its impact and effect under close and continuous scrutiny here in this House.

21:29

[Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for the opportunity to make a brief contribution to this fantastic debate. We have had some amazing maiden speeches today. I am very grateful to my Conservative friends who can claim that they made their maiden speech on the Scotland Bill and added to the rich tapestry of the debate about Scotland, and very fine they were, too, but I particularly want to pick out the incredible contributions made by my hon. Friends in the fine tradition of the SNP 56 group maiden speeches that we have heard so far. It has been great and I pay tribute to my hon. Friends the Members for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson), for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Margaret Ferrier), for Aberdeen South (Callum McCaig), for East Renfrewshire (Kirsten Oswald), for Dunfermline and West Fife (Douglas Chapman) and for Livingston (Hannah Bardell). I am particularly grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline and West Fife, who reminded me of my punk days, and my time with the Skids and Big Country.

We have heard some astonishing contributions, as well as much repeated stuff. This is the third Scotland Bill on which I have had the great pleasure to be able to speak. It feels entirely different today: the context and environment in which the debate is being held feel totally different. For a start, there is no Scottish Labour left. They were all defeated and beaten by the fantastic maiden speakers we have heard today. Listening to the hon. Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray)—the one Member left from Scottish Labour, and who is not paying any attention to what I am saying—we can see why they are in such a diminished state. The almost catastrophic response to the debate and the legislation suggests why they are so diminished in the House. They have an opportunity—a great chance—to back the SNP as we seek to improve the Bill as it goes through Parliament. This is the one chance they have to redefine themselves and say that they have learned the lessons of their crushing defeat to create a new narrative or story about how they want to approach Scottish issues.

As we seek to amend and improve the Bill as it goes through the House, I extend the arm of friendship to our colleagues in the Labour party and ask them to join us in a progressive alliance to tackle the austerity message to make sure that we can improve the Bill for the people of Scotland. They have an opportunity to make sure that we progress the Bill through Parliament and improve it. What a mandate we have. There are 56 of us, and we are here with the strongest possible mandate in Scotland to ensure that the Bill is improved.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

rose—

[Pete Wishart]

I am sorry, I do not have time for interventions.

We have heard from the Joint Committee in the Scottish Parliament. My hon. Friend the Member for Moray (Angus Robertson) repeatedly made the point that we have to listen to the people who will handle these powers—to Scottish parliamentarians. A Joint Committee in the Scottish Parliament concluded overwhelmingly that the measure was not sufficient. The spirit of Smith was not met in the draft clauses on which the Scotland Bill is based, so we must make sure that that voice is listened to and responded to. That is the challenge for this Government: the mandate that the 56 bring, with the strong voice of the Scottish Parliament, which says that the Bill does not meet what is required in the Smith agreement and the conclusions of the Smith Commission. The challenge as we go forward is to ensure that that agenda is progressed and that we get the Bill for which the Scottish people voted overwhelmingly just a few short weeks ago.

We have to try—and I say this to the Secretary of State, who is not listening either—to deal with the veto. If it is a matter of the wording in the Bill, the legislation should be amended so that it can be clearly understood. We should not be in the position where the right hon. Gentleman, bless him—he was the lone panda in the last Parliament—has the final say on something that is democratically decided and debated in the Scottish Parliament. If there is an issue with the veto—he does not agree that there should be a veto—he should improve the legislation, tidy up the wording and ensure that it is cleared up. The Conservatives talk about one nation and so on, but I will talk about my nation. The Conservatives got 14% of the vote in Scotland—their worst election result since the 19th century. They should not have the final say on things that are democratically decided in the Scottish Parliament. The situation must improve, and the measure must be worked on.

I want to pay tribute to the hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry), who raised some important issues about the Human Rights Act. The Conservative Government have got into some sort of trouble over that Act, and it looks as if they have booted it into the long grass. We have to be careful how we progress legislation through Parliament. We do not have a guarantee or assurance that this Parliament cannot simply do away with the Scottish Parliament: that is something that the Smith proposals invited us to consider. We still do not have clarity on that, so as the Bill works its way through Parliament, we should make sure that we get it.

We have a great opportunity to ensure that the strong voice—the overwhelming voice—of Scotland, and the mandate given by the 56 is progressed in the Bill. Let us improve it. Let us work together where we can, and make sure that the Scottish people get what they want, because this is what happens in democracies: when the people speak, Governments respond and listen. They improve the legislation. We have the strongest mandate. I appeal to the House to work with us to deliver the spirit of Smith, improve the legislation, and give the Scottish people what they want.

21:34

[Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)]

Today we have had a very good debate. We have had no fewer than 25 speeches and 16 maiden speeches. I shall dwell for a few moments, if I may, on some of the maiden speeches from both sides of the House today.

The first maiden speech was delivered by the hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Alberto Costa), who informed us that he was a Scottish Member, though he was of Italian extraction, but that he was proudly British. We then heard from the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Margaret Ferrier), and from the hon. Member for Eddisbury (Antoinette Sandbach), who said that she had a great parliamentary ambition—she hoped to be a member of the ladies tug-of-war team. We hope that she is successful in that. She neglected to mention that she used to be a Member of the Welsh Assembly as well. I should have thought that that was of note.

I was pleased to hear the hon. Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) say that he had a Welsh—or Celtic, as he called it—background. We went on to hear from the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) in a very statesmanlike speech. We heard a notable maiden speech from my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Vicky Foxcroft), who distinguished herself by reciting “The Red Flag”. I hoped she would sing it as well. We had a maiden speech also from the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson), who observed that she had characteristics similar to those of James Bond. I suggest that is because Sean Connery is an SNP supporter. We heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris), who is carrying forward the socialist tradition with great pride, if Members understand what I mean.

We then heard from the hon. Member for Aberdeen South (Callum McCaig) and from my hon. Friends the Members for Bristol South (Karin Smyth) and for Manchester, Withington (Jeff Smith), who mentioned Bruce Springsteen. That honourable and distinguished cast was reinforced with the mention of Robbie Williams by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Ruth Smeeth). We heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Sue Hayman), the hon. Member for East Renfrewshire (Kirsten Oswald), and the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Douglas Chapman), who recommended that hon. Members bring their wallets when they come to his constituency. I am certain they will take note of that.

The prize, if there is a prize, for the most engaging maiden speech this evening must go to my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner), who mentioned that he was successful in being elected to this House at the fifth attempt. He must have the House of Commons prize for perseverance.

Taken together, the speeches today demonstrated the geographic and cultural diversity of the House of Commons and of our country, and the political differences that exist across our nation. The debate today also demonstrated how politics in Scotland has changed over the past 12 months. In the space of less than a year Scotland has experienced two extraordinary democratic processes—the referendum and the general election. In the general election the people of Scotland decided who they wanted to represent them in the United Kingdom. At that point I expected a cheer, but SNP Members have probably run out of breath because of all the barracking they have been giving some of us today. In the referendum, after an unprecedented national debate in Scotland, the people of Scotland decided to remain part of the United Kingdom.

Many lessons can be drawn from those two events. What is clear beyond any shadow of doubt is that in the referendum the people of Scotland voted to remain part of a family. They voted to share economic risks and opportunities with the rest of the United Kingdom. They decided to pool resources. They voted for a fair distribution of tax and spending. They voted to tackle international issues on a collective basis and they voted for common domestic concerns to be tackled co-operatively.

Importantly, the Scottish people also voted for social solidarity with people from all parts of the United Kingdom, as my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray) noted earlier. Today I am speaking very much as a Welshman and as someone who is proud of his identity, and indeed of his accent. I recognise that many of the concerns, hopes and aspirations of my Caerphilly constituents are shared by working people in Cowdenbeath, Carlisle, Coventry and Cornwall.

[John Redwood]

Can the hon. Gentleman sketch for us how Labour would have a fair financial settlement between Wales, England and Scotland? How would the block grant for Scotland be adjusted?

[Wayne David]

Well, we of course have an agreement—a fiscal framework—and we have a cast-iron commitment to ensuring that the Barnett formula remains in place. We have also suggested the need for a Barnett floor in Wales, in order to tackle underfunding, and I think that that principle should also be considered for the rest of the United Kingdom.

One of the key messages of the referendum campaign is that the ties that hold us together are important and real. Another lesson, however, is that there is a need for radical constitutional change. Yes, the Scottish people wish to remain part of the United Kingdom, but they also want the ability to determine their own priorities and shape their own nation’s future.

Labour, as one of the signatories to the Smith agreement, welcomes the Bill. It will make real many of the commitments made by the Smith commission, and it will take Scotland forward in a number of important respects, such as a new constitutional commitment on taxation and welfare. But the Bill also has its shortcomings. Scotland needs to have the ability to make different choices from those of a right-wing Government based here in London. That is why Labour will be putting forward amendments in Committee to strengthen the Bill. We want the Scottish Parliament to be unfettered in adding to UK benefits, and we want it to be able to create new benefits of its own. We will also seek to amend the Bill so that housing benefit is devolved in full.

My hon. Friend the Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry) made a number of pertinent references to the Sewell convention and the need for it to operate effectively. Sound references were also made to the Human Rights Act, which needs careful consideration, because aspects of the devolution settlements in Wales and Scotland, and especially in Northern Ireland, are clearly based on that Act. Any tinkering with that Act by the Conservative Government, or even its abandonment, needs careful consideration of the implications for devolution.

[Stewart McDonald]

Given that the Scottish Parliament has voted to extend equality at every opportunity it has had to do so—something that this House cannot come close to claiming—do the hon. Gentleman and his party share my disappointment that full devolution of equality law is missing from the Bill?

[Wayne David]

There is already a reference to equality in the Bill, but it is one of the things that will need to be considered carefully in Committee, because the detail of the proposed legislation is important, but so too is the spirit.

[Pete Wishart]

I know that the hon. Gentleman is only here because there is no other Scottish Labour MP to make the speech, but does he not think that the Scottish Labour party really needs to rethink its whole approach to issues such as the Scotland Bill and to start reinventing itself in order to gain credibility in Scotland?

[Wayne David]

I think that it is important to recognise that meaningful constitutional change will require all sections of this House to unite wherever possible. I urge my SNP colleagues to recognise that this is not just a constitutional norm, but a way to make practical progress. I urge the hon. Gentleman to be gracious and generous in his comments, and perhaps we can have a discussion outside the House as well as in the Chamber.

When we consider this Bill in Committee, after discussions outside the Chamber as well as inside, it is important to take into account the work that the Scottish Parliament has been doing in this regard. I have been taking particular note of the Scottish Parliament’s Devolution (Further Powers) Committee and the work of the House of Lords, which was mentioned earlier. It is also important that we refer to the work that has already been done by the House of Commons Political and Constitutional Reform Committee. It is a great shame that the Government wish to do away with that Committee at a very crucial time.

[Mr Graham Allen (Nottingham North) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend for his generous remarks about the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee and the excellent job that it did on pre-legislative scrutiny of the Smith commission proposals. On the excellent list of devolved powers that are going to Scotland, is there anything in the water in Northern Ireland, Wales or England that would prevent us from having a similar list of powers should those nations within the Union feel that that was appropriate?

[Wayne David]

I thought that my hon. Friend might respond to the generous but accurate remarks that I made about him and his Committee. I hope that other Committees of the House will be able, in one way or another, to take forward the effective work that his Committee has done. We are naturally focusing on Scottish devolution, but devolution is a process that must encompass, in different ways, all parts of the United Kingdom. It is a principle that is in tune with the demands of the age. Devolution is undoubtedly the way forward for Scotland. It was Labour’s Keir Hardie, a Scotsman who represented a Welsh seat—he was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds)—who pioneered devolution, it was Labour that created the Scottish Parliament, and it is Labour that really wants to take devolution forward within the context of the United Kingdom and is determined to press for it, in different ways, for the whole of the UK.

First, to consider how devolution can be developed most effectively and appropriately for different parts of the United Kingdom, we need a constitutional convention, for which Labour has argued for some time. Such a convention would look at not only devolution but the interface between those sets of constitutional changes and the other consequential changes that need to be made so that we can have a modern democracy fit for purpose.

Where decentralisation has not yet come about, people throughout the country want it, and they are right. Devolution is necessary if we are to meet the challenges we face in the modern world. In the 21st century, decision making needs to be as close to the people we represent as possible. Local, regional, Scottish, English, Welsh and Northern Irish decision making needs to be at a level that is effective, that can engage with people, and that reinforces all our people’s diverse senses of identity. On that basis, we give our support to the Second Reading of this Bill so that this House, in Committee, will have a chance to make it much better and much stronger.

21:48

[The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr David Gauke)]

It is a great pleasure to conclude today’s debate—a very good debate with a large number of contributions. We heard a large number of maiden speeches, all consistently of a very good standard.

Let me begin by saying a few words about those speeches. My hon. Friend the Member for South Leicestershire (Alberto Costa) delivered a fluent and thoughtful speech in which he covered the whole of his constituency. I think he mentioned every village—I hope so. He certainly mentioned a very large number, and if one was missed off I am sure that someone will notice.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Antoinette Sandbach) on an excellent speech in which she spoke passionately about childcare, the dairy industry, and, indeed, devolution. She mentioned that she did not have an entirely successful introduction to being a Member of Parliament in terms of the tug-of-war competition, but she had a very successful maiden speech, and I congratulate her on it.

I also congratulate the SNP Members who delivered their maiden speeches today. They may, at one level, not want to be part of this House, but they certainly made very good contributions to this House today. The hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Margaret Ferrier) delivered a passionate speech, which embodied her point that we in this House should respect one another. The hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson) told a moving family story. She also spoke passionately and will clearly be a strong defender of her constituents. The hon. Member for Aberdeen South (Callum McCaig) delivered a fluent and articulate speech, as did the hon. Member for Livingston (Hannah Bardell); I suspect that both of them will have significant roles to play in their party in the years ahead.

The hon. Member for East Renfrewshire (Kirsten Oswald) delivered a strong and passionate speech, on which I congratulate her. The hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Douglas Chapman) made an engaging speech, winning over the House with his remarks, particularly his well-made comments about the Westminster staff and the support that they provide to new MPs.

I turn now to the Labour Benches. I congratulate the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Vicky Foxcroft) on her speech. She spoke about her background in drama and performing arts; she certainly delivered a fine performance today. She did not quite burst into song with “The Red Flag”, but she recited it. Personally, I am not sure that that is the right direction for her party to be taking, but who am I to say? The hon. Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner), after much determination to arrive in this place, delivered a thoughtful speech, mentioning the success of the innovative companies in his constituency. He also discussed devolution within Cambridge, and he will be aware of the measures that the Government are taking on that.

The hon. Member for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris) delivered an excellent speech, demonstrating a great knowledge and love of her constituency that was much appreciated. The hon. Member for Bristol South (Karin Smyth) delivered an excellent speech as a successor to Dawn Primarolo; as someone who has been a tax Minister for a number of years, I too know what it is like to follow in her distinguished footsteps. The hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Jeff Smith) delivered a witty and engaging speech. He mentioned “Mr Smith Goes to Washington”; his was a “Mr Smith goes to Westminster” speech. As someone who also knows and loves that film, I hope that he does not engage in filibustering in quite the same way as James Stewart’s character in that film.

The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Ruth Smeeth) delivered a passionate speech, making the case with great sincerity that her constituency is the most beautiful seat in the country. I am not quite sure that she brought the House with her on that point, but she had a pretty good stab at it. An easier case, if I may say so, was made by the hon. Member for Workington (Sue Hayman), who delivered an excellent speech highlighting some of the most beautiful scenery in the nation. All those speeches were excellent starts to parliamentary careers.

I also mention my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare), who delivered his second speech, although he sounded like a parliamentary veteran; it was a fluent speech. Indeed, given that it was his second speech, he was one of the more senior Members speaking in this debate. A similar point could be made about the hon. Member for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds), who also spoke extremely well.

This has been an excellent debate about an important matter. At times, there has been a strong sense of consent and a constructive approach, which I certainly welcome. To echo the comments made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland when he opened this debate, I thank the members of the Smith commission, particularly Lord Smith, for helping us to take devolution in Scotland to the next stage after the referendum. Their hard work secured a consensus among all five parties, of which all participants can be proud. Implementing the Smith commission agreement will make the Scottish Parliament one of the most devolved in the world. The Scotland Bill represents the formal step by which we will make that transformation happen in full.

[Alex Salmond]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Gauke]

I appreciate that the right hon. Gentleman has not spoken for a little while, so I will give way.

[Alex Salmond]

The Minister will know that a lot of this debate is centred on what a dispute resolution and an adjudication would look like and in what circumstances consent could be reasonably or unreasonably withheld. He has been a Treasury Minister for five years. Can he point to a single occasion when a dispute between the Treasury and a devolved Administration—there have been many such disputes—has been resolved in favour of the devolved Administration by the Treasury?

[Mr Gauke]

The reality, as the right hon. Gentleman knows very well, is that there has been a spirit of working constructively from the Government across the piece. On the particular issue of welfare, concerns have been raised about what the SNP describes as a veto. Put simply, it is not a veto. The position is that there are clauses whereby, for practical reasons, the Secretary of State needs to give consent to ensure that something is practical. That consent cannot be unreasonably withheld, and if something is unreasonably withheld the courts can declare that it has been unreasonably withheld.

[Ian Murray]

I hope I do not get struck by lightning for agreeing with the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart), but could the Minister and the Secretary of State look at clause 25, particularly subsection (3)(b), to see whether it could be redrafted to take away the ambiguity about whether or not there is a veto?

[Mr Gauke]

There is no veto. Our approach will be constructive throughout all stages of the Bill. I want to be clear with the House. The intention is not to block a measure in perpetuity; it is to ensure that something that has an impact on the Department for Work and Pensions can be done practically, because DWP has to deliver it and needs to be able to ensure that it can do so.

I am pleased to say that earlier today the Chancellor and the Chief Secretary to the Treasury met the Deputy First Minister. They had a productive meeting and agreed to immediately start work on the fiscal framework, which works alongside the Scotland Bill, ensuring that the Scottish Parliament has the tools it needs to manage its significant new tax and spending powers. We have agreed to aim to finalise the fiscal framework by the autumn, alongside the passage of the Scotland Bill through Parliament.

[Mr Graham Allen]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Gauke]

I am short of time and need to make more progress before concluding.

Last year the people of Scotland made a clear choice. It is a choice that must be honoured, so it was a key commitment in this Government’s manifesto that the all-party Smith commission agreement should be implemented in full. With this Bill, we deliver on those commitments. It will make the Scottish Parliament one of the most devolved legislatures in the world. It will deliver unprecedented new powers to Holyrood. It will give the Scottish Government the tools to manage their economy and make important decisions on behalf of the people of Scotland. This Bill demonstrates our willingness and determination to ensure that we fulfil our obligations. It implements the Smith commission and I hope it has the support of Members on both sides of the House. I commend it to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Scotland Bill (Programme)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),

That the following provisions shall apply to the Scotland Bill:

Committal

(1) The Bill shall be committed to a Committee of the whole House.

Proceedings in Committee

(2) Proceedings in Committee of the whole House shall be completed in four days.

(3) The proceedings shall be taken on the days shown in the first column of the following Table and in the order so shown.

(4)The proceedings shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the times specified in the second column of the Table.

petition

Monday 8th June 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I am genuinely sorry that the Chamber is marginally less packed than it previously was, but that is no reflection on the hon. Gentleman or the quality of his petition.

21:59

[Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)]

I am very grateful, Mr Speaker. I wish to present a petition about the protection of green spaces at Capstone Valley and areas around Otterham Quay Lane in Gillingham and Rainham.

The petition states:

The Petition of residents of Gillingham and Rainham,

Declares that the Petitioners believe that the importance of Capstone Valley and the green lungs east of Rainham around Otterham Quay Lane should be protected from development.

The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to protect these much valued important green areas.

And the Petitioners remain, etc.

[P001527]

Inward Investment: Southend

Monday 8th June 2015 Commons Chamber

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Charlie Elphicke.)

22:01

[Sir David Amess (Southend West) (Con)]

Although it is a little disappointing that there is not a packed House to listen to what I have to say about Southend, from looking around the Chamber I can see that we have the quality. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Minister for Communities and Resilience on being re-elected as the MP for Rayleigh and Wickford with a huge majority, and my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend East (James Duddridge) on similarly being re-elected with a large majority.

I could not be more pleased that my right hon. Friend will reply to this debate. He is only too well aware that there are not too Members left who can recall a Conservative majority Government. He and I worked together in the constituency of Basildon. During that time, we managed to change the public perception of Basildon, and it became the magnificent town it is today. We managed to turn round some negative things: with two days to go, we stopped the closure of the accident and emergency unit; we stopped the destruction of a silver birch forest; we saved three secondary schools from closure; and we got 10,000 council houses, which had been sold, repurchased because of clay heave.

I mean this in the nicest sense possible, but I say to my right hon. Friend that now there is a Conservative Government—and we are blessed with a Speaker who believes that every Member of Parliament elected to this place is equal, and that all our voices will be heard—I am absolutely determined that this Conservative Government, whom I support, will act not only on behalf of my constituents in Southend to make it an even better place than it is, but on behalf of the country. In future, I do not expect Ministers just to pay lip service to what I am asking them to do; I expect action, and tonight is the start of the action. At the end of this short debate, I hope that my right hon. Friend will see to it that Southend is granted city status.

In the position he now occupies, my right hon. Friend is following my right hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark), now the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper), now the Chief Whip, who both responded to such debates when we were in the coalition Government. Now we are a Conservative Government, I fully expect city status to be granted to Southend. In every respect, Southend qualifies to be a city. It certainly has its own distinct identity.

Southend’s local authority has no overall control. There are 22 Conservatives, constituting far and away the largest party, and the Labour, Liberal, Independent and UKIP councillors have joined together to prevent the Conservatives from controlling the authority. Quite how that works from a philosophical point of view I do not know, but there is no doubt that the Conservative council did a magnificent job in restoring the fortunes of Southend. We enjoy excellent communication and transport links, and the A127 and A13 have been upgraded. The most recent development, of which my right hon. Friend is well aware, is the extension of the Tesco junction along the A127, which has had to deal with congestion caused by employees at the RBS site and the Tesco Extra store—and, now, with the presence of London Southend airport. The extension has greatly relieved the congestion in the area.

I am not sure that constituents understand the constraints that affect Ministers. Ministers cannot ask questions or initiate debates, but I have discussed a number of points with my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend East (James Duddridge)—who is also the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs—and our views on the local railway lines are very similar. For instance, c2c is absolutely magnificent. When I was the Member of Parliament for Basildon, it was known as the misery line. It is now known as the happy line, and I congratulate it on that.

However, my hon. Friend and I have some concerns about the Greater Anglia railway line. I recently made a public journey on the line with the chief executive. I was very frank with him: I said I thought it was a rotten service. The prices were too high, and the rolling stock was clapped out. I asked what he was going to do about it. The Secretary of State for Transport has now opened up a bidding process, and I understand that three companies are involved. I hope that, as local Members of Parliament all of whom enjoy, or suffer, this particular rail service—there is just one station in my area, namely Prittlewell—we shall be consulted as the bidding process continues.

If I hear another colleague say that London Southend airport is fantastic, I shall respond by saying that there is a very good side to it, but also a slightly challenging side, because the aircraft take off and land in my constituency, and not all the residents who were there before the airport expanded are entirely delighted about the increased noise. Nevertheless, I entirely accept that last year it dealt with more than a million passengers. I do not know whether my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) has flown from the airport.

[Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

No.

[Sir David Amess]

My right hon. Friend must be one of the few Members who have not.

The airport now has five airline operators: Flybe, easyJet—I do not know whether Kate Moss was on a flight from Southend recently—Adria Airways, SkyWork Airlines, and Volotea. It is very popular, and it is bringing investment of all kinds into the town.

My hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend East and I are absolutely delighted that Southend United won the recent play-off and have now been promoted to the first division. I must confess that, when we were losing one-nil, the Member of Parliament for Southend West decided to leave two minutes before the end of the match. I was walking down Wembley way when I heard huge cheers, and discovered that Southend had equalised. I thought that it was too late to turn back. When I reached Stratford station, I managed to find the result on my mobile phone: we had won seven-six on penalties. That was a magnificent achievement for Southend United, and is another good reason for Southend to be declared a city.

My hon. Friend recently had the pleasure of visiting a company called Surgical Holdings, a family run business that manufactures and repairs surgical equipment for private and public hospitals. The repair of surgical instruments saves the NHS thousands of pounds, but my hon. Friend has told me that if the company continues to expand it will save even more money for the NHS.

There has already been tremendous investment in Southend. Under the coalition Government, 310 new businesses were created in Southend West alone. We now have a magnificent £3 million conference centre at the end of the pier. The longest pier in the world, it was brought down the River Thames on sailing barges. It is a wonderful thing for Southend to have. During the marvellous years of the Conservative council under the wonderful leadership of former councillor Nigel Holdcroft and Councillor John Lamb, who is now the leader, we received £2.5 million in funding as part of the city deal—I know the Minister is well briefed on that issue—and £34.5 million for infrastructure projects as part of the growth deal, including upgrades to the Kent Elms junction and the Bells junction. We received £800,000 funding for the continuation of the roll-out of the growth hub across South Essex local enterprise partnership.

My hon. Friend and I have recently been contacted by the leader of Essex County Council. It has a proposal that is being opposed by Southend council, which believes that the focus should be on achieving the best economic result rather than organisational changes. We are still to have meetings on that issue to find out what will be in Southend’s best interest. I would certainly like to see the joint Anglia Ruskin, Southend and Rochford Business Park for medical excellence, which is in the vicinity of the airport, developed even further. This would be a major regeneration project to provide major development opportunities for innovation in medical technology.

We now have probably the best library in the country at the Forum. This is a marvellous extension of Essex University and a member of the royal family will open the building later this year. I hope that in years to come we will not just be celebrating the new year at Trafalgar Square and outside the House of Commons, but having the countdown at the Forum in Southend.

There is the problem of cliff slippage. The council has not used any Government money to tackle it. Having a picnic on the cliffs and looking across the wonderful Thames, people would think they were in the Mediterranean. The River Thames presents us with the most wonderful gift: a moving picture. If there is any way that the Minister and those in other Departments could find more private investment to deal with clay slippage, our constituents would be very grateful.

At the top of the cliff, there will be a new purpose-built museum to house securely the Saxon prince find at Prittlewell. In 2003, archaeologists excavated the site and discovered an undisturbed 7th century chamber grave beneath a mound just 100 yards from the entrance to Priory Park. This is a wonderful find. I hope the development of a new museum at the Thames will be supported by the Government. It has gained support from a number of agencies, including the British Museum, Thurrock Council and the Royal Opera House at Purfleet.

One of the many things that would make me happy as a result of this debate would a marina in Southend. Many years ago, when Norman Clarke and Norman Harris were the leader and deputy leader of Southend council, the proposal fell by just one vote. The last attempt to have a marina was in 2008. It would be an enormous attraction and a wonderful facility for local residents. It would provide a destination and a departure port for vessels from the upper limits of the Thames and Medway, with passages to the continent, the coast of Britain or further afield. The marina would be the jewel in the crown in achieving city status.

At the weekend, I had the privilege of attending Thames Estuary yacht club, which is an amazing development. Two years ago, it had only 130 members. Some 76 members volunteered to build this wonderful facility on the Thames estuary. The clubhouse cost £200,000, and now people are queuing up to join.

Southend pier is the most wonderful experience anyone could enjoy. It is not just about Rossi’s ice cream, cockles, mussels and winkles; it is about the wonderful experience of going out on one of the trains to the end of the Thames. It is like walking on water. Any investment the Government might direct our way further to boost the pier’s regeneration would be greatly welcomed.

We have found a shipwreck of international importance off Southend dating back to 1665. It is well preserved and second only to the Mary Rose. It was apparently part of the fleet that brought Charles II home in the late 17th century and is currently on the “heritage at risk” list. It would be great if a billionaire gave us some money to help with that investment opportunity.

Leigh-on-Sea is the most wonderful area anyone could have in their constituency. It is home to many thriving businesses, including Fancy Nancy, who is doing extremely well at the moment. However, the Leigh creek needs dredging, which costs about £200,000 to do properly. I am also slightly concerned about the activities of DP World and their effect on the Thames estuary.

Southend will be the alternative city of culture in 2017. This is going to be a much bigger event than that surrounding the official city of culture, but if we are to be the alternative city of culture it would be useful if we were actually a city. We have been recognised as a centre for excellence in terms of culture with the purple flag award, an accolade that only 31 towns and cities have received. We have a village green music festival, folk festivals and a gathering to rival the V Festival, and I pay tribute to Metal, the culture organisation, and, in particular, to David Stanley and his music project, a life-changing organisation enabling people with learning difficulties to demonstrate their great gifts. I am delighted to tell the House that they will be performing at the London Palladium, although unfortunately I have just had a phone call from Bruce Forsyth to say that he cannot be with us because it clashes with father’s day, which I think takes precedence. We will, however, have some of the Tiller Girls there. This will be happening on Sunday 21 June at the London Palladium.

Southend is getting a sculpture done by someone called Rod Steward—not the pop artist—to mark the process of Southend becoming a city. I hope his application to the Arts Council will be successful.

I am grateful to have had the opportunity to share with the House just what a wonderful place Southend-on-Sea is. It is probably the finest seaside resort not just in the country, but in the world. My right hon. Friend and other Ministers have the power to respond positively to what Members are asking for in their constituencies. If he wants to make me happy, I hope he will do everything he can to ensure that Southend receives the investment it warrants and that it is declared a city.

22:18

[The Minister for Communities and Resilience (Mr Mark Francois)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West (Sir David Amess) on securing this debate. As he has already told the House, we have known each other and been friends for many years, so I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate him on his knighthood and on being re-elected with such a healthy majority at the general election a few weeks ago. I am also pleased to see my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend East (James Duddridge) in his place. I congratulate him on his re-election. It is good to see him in good health tonight.

My hon. Friend the Member for Southend West has, as is customary, done an excellent job of promoting Southend, and rightly so. He listed some significant achievements of which Government and local partners can be proud. Southend is a key part of the Thames Gateway, which provides one of the biggest opportunities for investment in the UK and remains a very high priority for this Government. I am pleased to have been appointed Minister with responsibility for the Thames Gateway.

South Essex has received some significant private sector investments in recent years—for example, the £1.5 billion investment in the new London gateway by Dubai Ports, in which the Prime Minister and UK Trade & Investment played key supporting roles, and the £100 million-plus investment in London Southend airport by Stobart. They give some idea of the scale of economic growth in the area.

Specifically with regard to Southend, I believe there are many encouraging signs of a new confidence in the area, on the back of which private sector investment is already following. National arts organisations such as Metal, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West referred, are championing and helping local artists from their base in Southend, helping to drive the arts sector locally. Metal puts on the annual village green festival in Chalkwell Park, which now attracts 40,000 visitors a year—and is growing. The Forum, in Elmer Square in the heart of Southend, opened in late 2013. It is an excellent facility where residents can access the combined resources of the municipal library, the University of Essex and South Essex college libraries—a very innovative approach. The relocated Beecroft art gallery is now housed in the old library building on Victoria Avenue with the new enterprise centre—the base from which business support services will be provided through the city deal-funded growth hub.

All these are positive signs of resurgence, as indeed is the successful promotion of Southend United to league one, after winning a nail-biting play-off at Wembley. A few moments ago, my hon. Friend gave us some insight into what happened. In football terms, Southend is literally “on the up”.

The Government have also been playing their part in the city deal. Eighteen months ago, my right hon. Friend, now the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government signed off the Southend-on-Sea city deal, capitalising on opportunities to increase entrepreneurship and innovation, and realise Southend’s full potential. The key ambition at the heart of the city deal is to transform the centre of Southend in order to make it a more attractive place in which to invest. Over time, the Victoria Avenue gateway to the town centre will be remodelled. The city deal will have a catalytic effect, signalling the Government’s confidence in Southend.

As part of the city deal, the Government contributed £1.8 million for the direct business support programme and over £650,000 of funding for the central library redevelopment. This is creating incubator space for up to 10 businesses at any one time, supporting over 100 jobs. It will lever in private sector investment, with over £4 million secured so far, and will provide direct business support for small and medium-sized enterprises across the south Essex area. Over 3,000 businesses have been engaged so far and over 170 assisted to improve performance. John Lamb, the Conservative deputy leader of Southend council at the time, said:

“Government is showing confidence in what we are achieving in our town”.

I know that city status is a subject close to my hon. Friend’s heart. The awarding of city status is part of the royal prerogative, and royal charters have tended to be awarded to mark significant occasions such as the millennium or royal jubilees. As with individual honours, there are no published criteria, but issues that are considered include the history of a town, its vibrancy, identity and community—all areas, to be fair, where Southend has a strong case to make. In recent years, the Cabinet Office has run competitions and sought bids, but we do not know when the next process might be, although I have to say that my hon. Friend’s intentions are now well and truly on the record. When there is next an opportunity to bid, I am sure that he and indeed our hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend East will be very firmly at the front of the queue.

Building on the city deal experience, the Government have agreed growth deals with all of England’s 39 local enterprise partnerships. The South East LEP has one of the largest allocations of local growth funding—so far, £488 million has been committed through to 2021. For Southend, which remains a critical anchor at the eastern end of the Thames Gateway, the growth deal has committed £35.6 million to A127 improvements, which is on top of funding previously approved. A number of junctions along the route, including at Bell and Cuckoo corners and at Kent Elms, will be improved, and I am sure that all south Essex residents will be grateful for those improvements. The Government are also investing £6.7 million to develop the Southend growth hub and to help improve the area around the Victoria Avenue gateway to Southend, which I mentioned a few minutes ago. Growth deal expansion has also committed £3.2 million to the development of a 55-acre business park adjacent to London Southend airport, as part of the Southend and Rochford joint area action plan—the JAAP as it is known—and I pay tribute to those two authorities for their co-operation to make that a reality. I recognise the positive effect regional airports can have on economic growth and London Southend airport has certainly been a success—over 1 million passengers a year, scooping industry awards for growth and for service.

The Government have also very recently announced the three companies selected to tender for the renewal of the East Anglia rail franchise, which includes the Liverpool street to Southend Victoria line. Those three competitors are Abellio Greater Anglia, FirstGroup East Anglia, and National Express East Anglia trains. That process will begin in earnest when invitations to tender are issued in August, and we expect the new franchise to operate from October next year, which should benefit Southend commuters travelling to London—who, indeed, do deserve an improved service.

We have already seen new private sector investments on the back of this new-found confidence in Southend: a refurbished Palace hotel, a decision just the other evening to green-light the Marine plaza development, and an exciting proposal, with significant support from the coastal communities fund of about £1.2 million, for a new lagoon. Perhaps it will also be possible to see the marina development, which I know my hon. Friend has felt passionately about for some time.

We should not rest on our laurels, but the future for inward investment remains bright. It is important as we go forward that Southend capitalises on these opportunities. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor used his first speech after the election to announce a new round of devolution deals and city-county deals. This represents a further opportunity for Southend to work with its neighbours and take greater control of its own economic destiny, to build on the many advantages that it has and to work with the private sector to deliver the skills, jobs, businesses and investment that the country needs.

My hon. Friend made much of Southend’s cultural advantages and a recent report from Warwick University business school claims that nationally the creative sector is growing at four times the rate of the economy as whole, so Southend can expect to benefit from its growing specialisation in this sector.

The attractiveness of Southend, of which the cultural offer is a key component, means that people want to relocate there, which in turn is leading to clear interest from the private sector in investing in Southend, in businesses and in new housing. These are all advantages Southend has been successful in exploiting over the past few years and we have every reason to believe it will continue to do so for the benefit of the town and its residents. They will have no firmer champion in trying to exploit those advantages than my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West. He has put the Government on notice tonight that he intends to be tenacious in promoting the interests of his constituents. We already knew that, as he has been doing that for over 30 years. Nevertheless, we cannot say we have not been told.

I believe the future for Southend is a positive one. I thank my hon. Friend again for his warm words and his recognition that this Government have helped to lay the foundations for the future growth and prosperity of Southend. We can fully expect my hon. Friend and his neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend East (James Duddridge), to continue to keep us up to the mark in making sure Southend remains a wonderful place in which to live and work and a wonderful resort where people can take time on holiday—where they can enjoy the cultural advantages it has to offer and where they can enjoy themselves with their families.

For all these reasons, I believe Southend has a wonderful future, not least as it is represented by two excellent Members of Parliament.

Question put and agreed to.

22:29

House adjourned.

Parking outside Fairmore Medical Practice in Nelson

Monday 8th June 2015 Petitions

The Petition of residents of Nelson,

Declares that the Petitioners believe patients of Fairmore Medical Practice of 211-213 Leeds Road, Nelson are having difficulty finding suitable parking places near the practice, and that the Petitioners believe there is a vacant site on Leeds Road, Nelson near the practice that could be used as a car park facility.

The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to support the Fairmore Medical Practice Patient Participation Group in securing additional parking spaces and to encourage NHS England to reconsider their funding request to support extending car parking facilities at Leeds Road.

And the Petitioners remain, etc.—[Presented by Andrew Stephenson, Official Report, 25 March 2015; Vol. 594, c. 1543.]

[P001485]

Observations from the Secretary of State for Health:

This is a matter for local determination. It is for NHS England locally to decide whether funding additional parking spaces near Fairmore Medical Practice is an appropriate use of public money.

Development on greenbelt land in Edinburgh

Monday 8th June 2015 Petitions

The Petition of residents of the UK,

Declares that the Local Development Plan 2015–2020 has proposed a number of sites on the south side of Edinburgh for development; further that local residents want the sites at Broomhills, Old Station Road, Burdiehouse, The Drum, Ellen’s Glen and Moredun to be exempt from the new plan; further that local residents, community groups and the local community councils are concerned by the likely impact on local amenities if these plans are approved; further that the Petitioners call for the plan to be scrapped and a proper process to be put in place to determine the future development of the city which works in conjunction with local communities and not against them; and further that a local petition on this matter was signed by 130 individuals.

The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Secretary of State for Scotland to encourage the Scottish Government to remove the sites on the south side of Edinburgh (Broomhills, Old Station Road, Burdiehouse, The Drum, Ellen’s Glen and Moredun) from the Local Development Plan’s proposals for development and to put a process in place to determine future development of Edinburgh which works in conjunction with local communities.

And the Petitioners remain, etc.—[Presented by Ian Murray, Official Report, 25 March 2015; Vol. 594, c 1545.]

[P001488]

Observations from the Secretary of State for Scotland, received 5 June 2015:

The decision-making process for planning applications in Scotland are devolved and are properly for the relevant local authorities, the Scottish Government and their agencies.

Housing development on Midmar Paddock, Edinburgh

Monday 8th June 2015 Petitions

The Petition of residents of the UK,

Declares that Midmar Paddock in Edinburgh is used by hundreds of people every week for open air exercise with children and dogs; further that it is green belt land, a special landscape area, designated open space and a local nature conservation site; further that it is under imminent threat of housing development and a planning application is expected shortly; and further that a local Petition on this matter was signed by 330 individuals.

The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Secretary of State for Scotland to encourage the Scottish Government to intervene to stop housing development on Midmar Paddock.

And the Petitioners remain, etc.—[Presented by Ian Murray, Official Report, 25 March 2015; Vol.594, c.1544.]

[P001487]

Observations from the Secretary of State for Scotland, received 5 June 2015:

The decision-making process for planning applications in Scotland are devolved and are properly for the relevant local authorities, the Scottish Government and their agencies.

Written Statements

Monday 8th June 2015 Written Statements

Monday 8 June 2015

Education, Youth, Culture and Sports Council

Monday 8th June 2015 Written Statements

[The Minister for Culture and the Digital Economy (Mr Edward Vaizey)]

A meeting of the Education, Youth, Culture and Sport Council was held in Brussels on 18-19 May. Fiona Hyslop, Scottish Government Minister for Culture, Europe and External Affairs, represented the UK for the cultural and audiovisual section of the Council and Shan Morgan, the UK’s deputy permanent representative, represented the UK for the sport section of the Council.

Culture and audiovisual

Ministers had a first exchange of views on the Commission’s recently published digital single market strategy presented by Commissioner Oettinger.

The strategy was generally welcomed, although many member states, including the UK, raised concerns about the implication for copyright and for funding content. In a digital single market both consumer rights to access content, and producer rights to generate income from their material, need to be safeguarded. This would help foster innovation, cultural diversity, and economic growth.

The UK noted that there is now a real opportunity to look across the market and understand how to best deliver for Europe’s creative industries and consumers.

It was also agreed that the audiovisual media services directive (AVMSD) remained valid in many domains, but needed to be adapted to take into account the consequences of convergence.

Driven by issues around the broadcast of Russian language content the Baltic states sought agreement to focus the forthcoming review of the directive on territorial jurisdiction and derogation possibilities as well as procedural issues. Most member states agreed to solve such issues through enhanced co-operation, stressing the importance of the principle of freedom of expression. There was also general agreement on the importance of the country of origin principle––whereby each provider of audiovisual media services comes under the jurisdiction of only one EU member state––as a cornerstone of European audiovisual policy.

It was also agreed that the review would need to take into account issues such as content funding, advertising, and protection of minors.

Following the policy debate, the Council adopted conclusions on cultural and creative crossovers to stimulate innovation, economic sustainability, and social inclusion. These highlight how culture and artistic creativity can trigger innovation and enhance competitiveness in industry and business, as well as in education, healthcare and the environment.

The cultural and creative sectors cover a broad range from arts, crafts, architecture, heritage, libraries and publishing, to film, television, games, music, advertising, and design. Despite numerous studies that have demonstrated the significant contribution of these sectors to GDP, job creation and exports, the synergies with other sectors have not yet been fully explored.

The Council also adopted a decision designating Plovdiv in Bulgaria and Matera in Italy as European capitals of culture in 2019, following a recommendation from the Commission based on the reports of the selection panel and a positive opinion from the European Parliament.

The European capitals of culture initiative was launched in 1985, and over 40 cities have been designated since then. It aims to highlight the richness of European culture, and both its diversity and shared features.

Under other business, the Council was updated by the Commission on the culture and cultural heritage aspects of the Da’esh threat in Iraq and Syria: where on the one hand cultural sites are being destroyed for ideological reasons, and on the other archaeological objects are being illicitly traded to finance terrorist activities. The Commission was of the view that additional measures might be needed to prevent terrorist financing from illicit trafficking. The Portuguese Minister suggested, and offered to co-ordinate, a brief joint statement of Culture Ministers expressing condemnation and sorrow vis-a-vis the ongoing destruction.

The Council then took note of concerns from the Polish delegation, backed by several other member states, regarding the maximum threshold of €5 ,illion for small-scale projects financed from the European regional development fund. The Commission noted that these projects are designed to benefit small-scale infrastructures, and that alternatives exist to complement this particular funding stream.

The Council also took note of information from the Latvian presidency on the main outcomes of the stocktaking exercise relating to Council conclusions on cultural governance which had been adopted in November 2012.

Finally, under this part of the agenda, the Council took note from the Luxembourg delegation of its main priorities in the field of culture when it takes over the presidency for the period July-December 2015. These will include cross-sectoral co-operation on cultural issues, and the role of culture in the EU’s international relations, especially those relating to co-operation and development.

Sport

The Council adopted conclusions on maximising the role of grassroots sport in developing transversal skills, especially among young people. They highlight how voluntary activities in sport which act as a method of non-formal and informal learning can help young people acquire skills and transversal competences that complement formal education and enhance their employability.

Sport is the largest non-governmental movement in Europe. Voluntary activities in the sport sector mainly take place at grassroots level in the role either of facilitator, organiser, or participant.

There was then a policy debate on physical activity as an essential element of quality education. The promotion of physical activity is a priority of EU policy making in sport, and the debate included a comprehensive exchange on best practice. There was agreement that sport needed to be considered as an integral part of school life, with encouragement for young people to engage in extracurricular sport and physical activity. The extension of the use of community facilities was recommended to ensure that sports facilities are widely available; as was the fulfilment of the necessary safety and technical standards in partnership with local sports organisations and clubs.

The Council was subsequently briefed by the presidency on the state of play regarding the European Union’s signing of the Council of Europe convention on the manipulation of sports competitions. To date 18 countries—of which nine EU member states—have signed the convention, which is expected to come into force by 2016. With regards to EU signature, several delegations had submitted written questions to the Council Legal Service, who would provide a written opinion in June.

The Council was also briefed by the EU representatives on the outcome of the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) meeting which took place in Montreal earlier in May. The meeting was focused on issues relating to the anti-doping code, the budget, and data protection. The EU is represented on the WADA foundation board––its supreme decision-making body––by Belgium, Luxembourg, and Malta. There are 38 members composed of representatives of the Olympic movement and national Governments.

WADA was established in 1999 to promote the fight against doping in sport. Its main activities include education, research, the development of anti-doping capacities, and monitoring of the world anti-doping code.

Finally, under other business the Council took note of information from the Luxembourg delegation of its main priorities in the field of sport when it takes over the presidency for the period July-December 2015. These will include the promotion of physical activity in schools; double careers in sport; EU representation and co-ordination in WADA; and the potential adoption of the Council of Europe convention on the manipulation of sports competitions.

[HCWS17]

House of Lords

Monday 8th June 2015 Lords Chamber

Monday, 8 June 2015.

14:30

Prayers—read by the Lord Bishop of Derby.

Several noble Lords took the oath, and signed an undertaking to abide by the Code of Conduct.

Smith Commission: Implementation

Monday 8th June 2015 Lords Chamber

Question

14:37

Asked by

[Lord Wigley]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they regard the implementation of the recommendations of the Smith Commission as an adequate response to the outcome of the general election in Scotland.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Scotland Office (Lord Dunlop) (Con)]

My Lords, the Scotland Bill will deliver in full the historic Smith commission agreement to devolve further powers to the Scottish Parliament within a strengthened United Kingdom, as agreed by all the main political parties in Scotland last November. The implementation of the Smith commission agreement shows this Government’s commitment to make the Scottish Parliament one of the most powerful devolved parliaments in the world.

[Lord Wigley (PC)]

My Lords, before the referendum on 18 September last year, many people in Scotland were led to believe that home rule was on the table. The Smith commission report in no way fulfils any meaningful interpretation of the term “home rule”. In those circumstances, is it not now time to look at new solutions—a balanced constitutional solution for the United Kingdom, on a confederal basis—that can meet the aspirations of Scotland, Northern Ireland, Wales and, indeed, England itself?

[Lord Dunlop]

My Lords, the Smith agreement was agreed by all five of Scotland’s main political parties. I believe that is the first time in the history of devolution that that has happened. It will create, as I have already said, one of the most powerful devolved parliaments in the world. This Government’s commitment is to deliver Smith in full, and we are doing so. Of course, as my right honourable friend the Prime Minister has said, we are open to sensible, evidence-based proposals that others might wish to table. However, I should make two points. It is only just over nine months ago that the people of Scotland voted clearly and decisively to remain within the United Kingdom, with all the benefits that that involves, and we need to respect that. It is also worth making the point that for those who believe in separation, there is no package of further devolution that will be sufficient.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)]

My Lords, does my noble friend not agree that, given that the SNP repudiated the Smith commission proposals before the ink was even dry on them, and given that the three unionist parties—the Conservative, Liberal and Labour parties—got only one seat at the subsequent general election, the Smith commission proposals are clearly not going to meet the aspirations of the Scottish people, and that we need a constitutional convention that will provide a solution that meets the needs of all parts of the United Kingdom and provides some stability, so that we can get on with discussing health and education and the things that matter to the people of Scotland?

[Lord Dunlop]

My Lords, it is not a characterisation I would agree with that the electorate of Scotland repudiated the Smith agreement. Every one of the manifestos of all the main parties, including the SNP, included a commitment to take forward the Smith agreement. Of course, there will be discussions, and I know that there are many views within this House about how best to do that, but the main objective—the Government’s main commitment and priority—is to take forward the commitment we made to implement the Smith agreement.

[Lord Reid of Cardowan (Lab)]

My Lords, the Minister will recall that, having agreed the Smith commission proposals, the SNP then wanted to go much further: for full fiscal autonomy on the basis of its rather spurious estimate for the future of the Scottish economy. That was based on oil at $113 a barrel. This morning, oil was around $60 a barrel, opening up a £7 billion or £8 billion black hole in projected Scottish public expenditure. Has he received any recent demands from the SNP for full fiscal autonomy?

[Lord Dunlop]

My Lords, I am not sure exactly where the SNP stands now on full fiscal autonomy. Its position seems to change by the day but I am absolutely clear, and the Government are clear, that full fiscal autonomy would be bad for Scotland. By the end of this Parliament, it would leave a £10 billion funding gap that would have to be addressed by higher taxes or larger spending cuts in Scotland. The noble Lord is absolutely right that one of the benefits of being part of the UK is that which comes from pooling and sharing resources, so that public expenditure remains relatively stable when revenue flows such as oil and gas are so volatile.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness (LD)]

My Lords, I welcome the fact that the Government are honouring their commitment to bring in a Bill to deliver the Smith commission proposals. However, does the Minister accept that when responding to the request of the First Minister of Wales for a constitutional convention before the referendum, the Prime Minister accepted that there would need to be an open, involved and comprehensive conversation about the kind of union we want to see and that, 15 years after the process of devolution started, we should consider the best way to go about doing so? What consideration are the Prime Minister and the Government giving to that very necessary constitutional convention?

[Lord Dunlop]

It is absolutely right that, in addition to taking forward the commitments to constitutional reform in each part of our United Kingdom, including England, it is necessary to look at how those devolution settlements work as a whole. That is why the Government are committed to reviewing the intergovernmental arrangements and taking them forward in discussion with the devolved Administrations. We will do that, and listen carefully to the lively debate which I am sure will take place on how best we can make our devolution settlements work as a whole.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab)]

My Lords, will the Minister confirm that there are lots of wealthy people in Scotland—landowners, industrialists and so on, not all of whom, by the way, are now members of the Tory party—and will he tell the House what action the so-called radical left-wing Scottish Government have taken to redistribute wealth within Scotland, using their existing tax powers?

[Lord Dunlop]

The noble Lord makes a very good point indeed. In addition to debating and asking for more powers, the debate should increasingly focus on how the Scottish Government intend to use their existing powers and the very considerable powers that will be coming their way in the very near future.

[Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)]

My Lords, we do not do constitutions in this country. Why do we always proceed in a piecemeal way? What is the Government’s precise objection to the constitutional convention being proposed by other parties?

[Lord Dunlop]

I do not believe we are proceeding in a piecemeal way. We will be taking forward four strands of constitutional change over the course of this Parliament: change in Scotland, in Wales and in Northern Ireland, and, as I have said, fairness for England. We will listen very carefully to the discussion about how these devolution settlements work as a whole, and I look forward to some lively further discussion in this House.

Economy: Productivity

Monday 8th June 2015 Lords Chamber

Question

14:45

Asked by

[Lord Haskel]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what action they will take to increase productivity as compared to that forecast in Table 5b of the Bank of England May inflation report.

[The Commercial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord O'Neill of Gatley) (Con)]

My Lords, productivity is a key challenge for this Parliament and a key focus. That is why, before the Budget, the Chancellor will publish a productivity plan, which will be a plan to make Britain work better.

[Lord Haskel (Lab)]

My Lords, I welcome the Minister to his first Oral Questions. I also welcome his words, but I think that many noble Lords will agree with me that we have heard these promises before. However, manifestly, they have not worked. Why not? Will the Minister agree with me that they have not worked because they do not understand that productivity involves every aspect of our economic life and beyond—a life which is presently dominated by austerity? So, once again, I ask the Minister whether the Government will demonstrate their commitment to productivity by moving on from a life of austerity to a life of productivity.

[Lord O'Neill of Gatley]

My Lords, as your Lordships can tell, I am not yet very familiar with the exact procedural formalities. I apologise, as I should be. I have been immersed in studying issues to do with productivity for a large part of my adult life. It is dangerous to associate productivity improvements with a so-called focus either on austerity or on some other particularly cyclical fiscal policy stance.

We are living through a moment in time when a very large number of diverse developed countries are all apparently showing a dramatic slowing in measured productivity, whether it be Germany, which is generally regarded as successful and whose measured productivity has been even weaker than ours in the past few years, or the United States, which is frequently regarded as a beacon. In my maiden speech last week, as those of your Lordships who were here would have heard, I highlighted a number of factors that will be focused on. When the Chancellor makes his presentation, I think your Lordships will see that those feature highly in the appropriate steps we plan to implement.

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that employee ownership models, such as the John Lewis model, tend to enhance productivity? If so, will he take steps to share that understanding, especially with small and medium-sized companies, and consider tax incentives?

[Lord O'Neill of Gatley]

The ideas that are being thought about include appropriate incentives to boost long-term investments and greater incentives for both the owners and participants in any company, whether privately owned or otherwise. The role of tax incentives is very important and they will be looked at further.

[Lord Kinnock (Lab)]

The Minister is correct to say of course that productivity has slowed throughout the OECD countries. However, as he acknowledged in his maiden speech last week, our record is palpably worse than so many other OECD countries. Does he accept that increasing productivity needs extra investment, better skills and decent pay? Will he therefore encourage the Government to reverse the 50% cut in net public investment since 2010, the ongoing 40% cut in further education for the over-19s since 2010 and the 6% loss in average earnings in this country? Is it not clear that unless those reversals are made, there is no hope of our country resuming the 15% increase necessary to return to our historic trend, let alone securing the 30% increase necessary to catch up with our comparable competitors?

[Lord O'Neill of Gatley]

My Lords, it is important to remind noble Lords that I referred to “measured productivity”. There are considerable issues to be focused on about aspects of how productivity is measured. Again as I highlighted in my maiden speech, the UK in the past few years has had the best employment increase record throughout the G7 countries. One does not need to look at a choice between employment and productivity, but if one were forced to do so, I think that most people in this country would want jobs and not to get so lost in the productivity issues. However, I also add that—as is well known—over the long term, countries that have the better true productivity performance are those with generally a higher standard of living and wealth, including in shared wealth. In that regard, let me repeat some of the policies that I suggested will be focused on. They will include rebuilding the northern powerhouse, improving our infrastructure, undertaking policies to improve the supply of new homes, further reforms of education and apprenticeships and—this is linked to my previous comment—boosting incentives for long-term investment.

[Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton]

My Lords, the Minister referred to the importance of employment. Would he care to comment on the fact that the personal income of people in employment ought to be sufficient for them to be self-sufficient—that is, a living wage? Would he care to endorse the—apparently—lately formed views of the Mayor of London that the Government ought to stop subsidies to companies which make huge profits while paying pittances to the people the Minister referred to, who want not only employment but a living wage and dignity?

[Lord O'Neill of Gatley]

The policies we will focus on will be those to boost the long-term performance of the economy from a productivity perspective, which will help enhance the job satisfaction of many people in our country.

NHS: Seven-day Working

Monday 8th June 2015 Lords Chamber

Question

14:52

Asked by

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the impact of the current deficit position of NHS Trusts and NHS Foundation Trusts on the ability of the National Health Service to move to seven-day working.

[Baroness Chisholm of Owlpen (Con)]

My Lords, seven-day services will need to be implemented in an affordable way, focusing on both improving efficiency and delivering clear benefits to patients. We have increased the NHS budget by £12.7 billion over the Parliament and in some situations we have provided interim financial support—but this is dependent on trusts developing and sticking to a strong recovery plan. At the heart of all that, we are making sure that trusts continue to deliver safe and sustainable services within a balanced financial position.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Baroness for that response. Does she accept that you cannot achieve full seven-day working, including at the weekend, without employing more doctors, nurses and diagnostic staff? Given that NHS trusts are projected to have a £2 billion deficit this financial year, how will that be afforded? Can she confirm for me that the decision of NICE last week to pull work on guidance on nurse/patient ratios, which came out of the Mid Staffordshire situation, was the result of pressure from NHS England because of concerns about affordability?

[Baroness Chisholm of Owlpen]

My Lords, it is clear that the NHS faces significant financial challenges due to increasing demands. Seven-day services will need to be implemented in a way that is affordable and focused on both improving efficiency and delivering clear benefits to patients. The costs of the seven-day services will depend on many factors. We are working with NHS England to identify how to achieve the aim of providing seven-day services efficiently.

[Baroness Howarth of Breckland (CB)]

My Lords, would the Minister explain how a seven-day service would function when, at the moment, to gain a GP’s appointment people are waiting sometimes two weeks? It is about demand as well as timing. Some GP practices are needing to reduce the number of doctors because of a lack of finance in their budgets. Is this not going backwards, not forwards to a seven-day service?

[Baroness Chisholm of Owlpen]

My Lords, the Government are committed to improving access to GPs’ services, including delivering services seven days a week to ensure that people are able to access primary medical care when they need to. At present, £175 million, including £25 million from the £1 billion infrastructure fund, has now been invested in the GP access fund to improve access to general practice. The first wave was announced in September 2013 and the second in March this year. So there are now 57 schemes covering more than 2,500 practices, meaning that more than 80 million patients—one-third of the country—will benefit from improved access.

[Baroness Walmsley (LD)]

My Lords, in this as with many issues, one size does not fit all, so could the Minister say whether the Government are doing any research as to how their objective for a seven-day-a-week service can be delivered in different kinds of neighbourhoods? The solution for cities may not be suitable for rural areas or small towns, and there are probably many opportunities for innovation, such as near where I live in the small city of Chester, where the Countess of Chester Hospital has a GP unit. Could we not look at what the cottage hospitals and main general hospitals can do to assist general practices in providing this sort of service and keeping people out of A&E?

[Baroness Chisholm of Owlpen]

My Lords, certainly we are looking at all those ideas, and we will gather together all the data that we need before we go forward. But I feel that I should say that there are indicators for this service that cannot be measured, and one of them is quality of life. As a former nurse, at the forefront of my mind was always the question of whether my patient was getting the best care from me, from the specialist and from the hospital. In my book, a seven-day service goes towards achieving that goal.

[Baroness Armstrong of Hill Top (Lab)]

Is the Minister perhaps being just a little complacent about just how difficult things are? In the small ex-mining town where I live, in the north-east of England, I discovered on Friday that the GP practice that normally has seven to eight doctors now has three, two of whom are salaried. They are simply not able to offer any decent service, let alone a seven-day-a-week service, to patients in that small town and the surrounding villages. Does the Government not recognise that the model is broken and that they have to be far more urgent in addressing the issues that millions of people in this country face and that undermine confidence in the NHS?

[Baroness Chisholm of Owlpen]

My Lords, I think that the answer that I gave before about the GP access fund answers what my noble friend was saying. As we know, the Government are committed to ensuring that everyone can get the care that they need, seven days a week. Seven-day services are backed by senior clinicians, who recognise the vast improvement in patient care that can be achieved. We know that it reduces patient mortality. Expanding services to seven days a week has the potential to improve the patient experience, reduce the length of stay and chance of readmission and make better use of expensive resources such as staff and equipment.

[Lord Kakkar (CB)]

My Lords, I declare my interest as chairman of University College London Partners. What assessment have Her Majesty's Government made of the potential impact of the European working time regulation on their aspiration to enhance seven-day working in the National Health Service?

[Baroness Chisholm of Owlpen]

My Lords, as outlined in the coalition agreement, the Government are committed to limiting the application of the working time directive in the UK.

Greater Manchester: New Deal

Monday 8th June 2015 Lords Chamber

Question

15:00

Asked by

[Lord Naseby]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is the anticipated timescale of the new deal for Greater Manchester.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Communities and Local Government (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)]

My Lords, the Greater Manchester devolution deal states that legislation will be passed to enable the first Greater Manchester city region mayor elections to take place in early 2017. The Cities and Local Government Devolution Bill, which was introduced into this House on 28 May, provides the necessary primary legislation framework to deliver the Greater Manchester deal and other future deals.

[Lord Naseby (Con)]

I congratulate Her Majesty’s Government on introducing the Bill. Is the Minister aware that one of the benefits of electioneering is that it gives Peers the opportunity to see the real world? I canvassed in Northamptonshire, Bedfordshire and Cambridgeshire, each of which is really vibrant and active economically. Against that background, can Her Majesty’s Government, and the Minister in particular, look at these counties and similar counties and ensure that they can benefit from initiatives similar to those powers that are being given to Greater Manchester?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I thank my noble friend for his kind words. Like him, I canvassed and campaigned up and down the country. It was good to see the real world of the north of England. I take his point about our counties and what they have to offer. Each county is different, and each group of counties will be different, and the Government are certainly open to listening to any suggestions that they bring forward.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton (Lab)]

My Lords, we support the Greater Manchester devolution deal. In a recent speech, the Chancellor of the Exchequer talked about conversations of a serious nature for the devolution of powers and budgets for any city that wants an elected mayor. Are there any other conversations about serious devolution going on at the moment with those who do not want an elected mayor?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, there are certainly lots of conversations going on at the moment. There is no one common deal to suit everyone. The Government are very keen to hear from cities, counties and rural areas and any combination of the above.

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that such deals should be subject to a local referendum to give legitimacy to the new structures which are being introduced?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

The noble Lord will recall that, back in 2007, the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act provided for resolutions of councils, not referenda, when going to a mayoral model for single authorities. This replicates that provision so, no, I do not.

[Lord Grocott (Lab)]

My Lords, in the real world of the north to which the Minister referred, and I add the Midlands and various other parts of the country, a decision was made by the previous Government to hold referendums in 10 cities—this is further to the two previous questions on a very similar theme—against the wishes of many of us who thought the referendums were a costly waste of time. The results were quite spectacularly clear: in nine of the 10 cities, the idea of a directly elected mayor was resoundingly defeated. With the Government so concerned and interested in referendums, democracy and consulting the people, can the Minister confirm what seems to me to be the Government’s position that they regard the results of those referendums as of no significance whatever?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

The noble Lord is absolutely right on one measure: referenda were held for city mayors and in the main they were rejected. They were an entirely different proposition from what we have now, which involves real transfer of powers.

[Lord Kinnock (Lab)]

If the Government’s commitment to Greater Manchester and its constituent parts is to be meaningful, are they about to reverse the 40% budget cuts inflicted upon Manchester and the surrounding areas?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, Greater Manchester has come forward with a proposal that is fiscally neutral; the plan uses the money that government currently puts into certain services, and Greater Manchester plans to use that money more efficiently and to engender growth in the process. Greater Manchester has not asked for additional money.

[Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton (Lab)]

My Lords, was the Minister’s answer to my noble friend Lord Kinnock that, yes, the 40% cut that is already in place will stay and that those who come in will have to manage within it?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, my answer to the noble Lord was that Greater Manchester has not asked for any additional public funding. This proposition between government and the combined authority has nothing to do with council budgets; it is an entirely different thing.

[Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe (Lab)]

On the same theme, does the Minister recall that, in the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011, Manchester, along with many other local authorities, asked the Government to devolve to the local level the right to set licensing for alcohol? The Government gave an undertaking to do that. In 2014, they reversed their decision. Now that we have this change before us, when will Manchester get the right to take its own decisions locally on licensing amounts?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, in terms of the devolution deal, Manchester has not requested licensing as one of the devolved powers, but I can write to the noble Lord with further details on licensing locally.

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, if Manchester asked for more money, would the Government give it any?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, the Government have made it absolutely clear that these deals are fiscally neutral, and that has been understood by Greater Manchester.

[Lord Snape (Lab)]

My Lords, as my noble friend Lord Grocott points out, the city of Manchester rejected the idea of an elected mayor and now has a non-elected mayor. While I am second to none in my admiration for Mr Tony Lloyd, democracy can hardly be said to have prevailed in and around that great city. How soon will it be before the city of Birmingham, which also rejected the idea of a directly elected mayor, has a non-elected mayor to cover the rest of Birmingham and the West Midlands? What guarantees will Her Majesty’s Government give that mayors, whether elected or non-elected, will be provided with adequate resources to meet the demands of the facilities that are being devolved from Her Majesty’s Government?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, the Birmingham city region has not yet reached an agreement with government on a mayor. I am sorry, but I have forgotten the second part of the noble Lord’s question.

[Lord Snape]

The simple question is: where is the money coming from, and when?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

The mayor, if there is one, can raise the mayoral precept in due course.

Referendums (Local Authority Governance) Bill [HL]

Monday 8th June 2015 Lords Chamber

First Reading

15:07

A Bill to allow local authorities which have opted for a mayor and cabinet executive in a referendum to hold further referendums under Part 1A of the Local Government Act 2000.

The Bill was introduced by Lord Tope (on behalf of Baroness Janke), read a first time and ordered to be printed.

European Union (Information, etc.) Bill [HL]

Monday 8th June 2015 Lords Chamber

First Reading

15:08

A Bill to make provision for information to be available in various public places relating to the activities and organisation of the European Union; to make provision for the flying of the flag of the European Union on various government and public buildings; to provide information to further the establishment of twinning arrangements between towns in the United Kingdom and elsewhere in the European Union in accordance with the European Union’s town twinning support scheme; and for connected purposes.

The Bill was introduced by Lord Dykes, read a first time and ordered to be printed.

Medical Innovation Bill [HL]

Monday 8th June 2015 Lords Chamber

First Reading

15:09

A Bill to make provision about innovation in medical treatment.

The Bill was introduced by Lord Saatchi, read a first time and ordered to be printed.

Welfare of Cats (Breeding and Sale) Bill [HL]

Monday 8th June 2015 Lords Chamber

First Reading

15:09

A Bill to make provision about the commercial breeding of cats; and for connected purposes.

The Bill was introduced by Lord Black of Brentwood, read a first time and ordered to be printed.

Deputy Chairmen of Committees

Monday 8th June 2015 Lords Chamber

Administration and Works

Communications

Constitution

Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform

Economic Affairs

Membership Motions

15:10

Moved by

[The Chairman of Committees]

Deputy Chairmen of Committees

That, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the following members be appointed as the panel of members to act as Deputy Chairmen of Committees for this session:

B Andrews, L Bassam of Brighton, L Bichard, L Brougham and Vaux, L Colwyn, L Faulkner of Worcester, B Fookes, L Geddes, B Harris of Richmond, L Haskel, B Hooper, B McIntosh of Hudnall, C Mar, B Morris of Bolton, B Pitkeathley, V Simon, B Stedman-Scott, L Taylor of Holbeach, V Ullswater.

Administration and Works

That a Select Committee be appointed to consider administrative services, accommodation and works, including works relating to security, within the strategic framework and financial limits approved by the House Committee;

That, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the following members together with the Chairman of Committees be appointed to the Committee:

L Alderdice, L Armstrong of Ilminster, E Attlee, L Bassam of Brighton, E Cathcart, Bp Chester, B Gould of Potternewton, B Hollis of Heigham, L Laming, L Moser, L Newby, L Taylor of Holbeach;

That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers and records;

That the Committee have leave to report from time to time.

Communications

That a Select Committee be appointed to consider the media and the creative industries and that, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the following members be appointed to the Committee:

B Benjamin, L Best (Chairman), B Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury, Bp Chelmsford, L Dobbs, B Hanham, L Hart of Chilton, B Healy of Primrose Hill, B Jay of Paddington, B Kidron, B Scotland of Asthal, L Sherbourne of Didsbury;

That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers and records;

That the Committee have power to appoint specialist advisers;

That the Committee have power to adjourn from place to place;

That the Committee have leave to report from time to time;

That the reports of the Committee be printed, regardless of any adjournment of the House;

That the evidence taken by the Committee in the last session of Parliament be referred to the Committee;

That the evidence taken by the Committee be published, if the Committee so wishes.

Constitution

That a Select Committee be appointed to examine the constitutional implications of all public bills coming before the House; and to keep under review the operation of the constitution;

That, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the following members be appointed to the Committee:

L Brennan, L Cullen of Whitekirk, B Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, L Hunt of Wirral, L Judge, L Lang of Monkton (Chairman), L Lester of Herne Hill, L MacGregor of Pulham Market, L Maclennan of Rogart, L Morgan, L Norton of Louth, B Taylor of Bolton;

That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers and records;

That the Committee have power to appoint specialist advisers;

That the Committee have power to adjourn from place to place;

That the Committee have leave to report from time to time;

That the reports of the Committee be printed, regardless of any adjournment of the House;

That the evidence taken by the Committee in the last session of Parliament be referred to the Committee;

That the evidence taken by the Committee be published, if the Committee so wishes.

Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform

That a Select Committee be appointed:

(i) To report whether the provisions of any bill inappropriately delegate legislative power, or whether they subject the exercise of legislative power to an inappropriate degree of parliamentary scrutiny;

(ii) To report on documents and draft orders laid before Parliament under or by virtue of:

(a) sections 14 and 18 of the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Act 2006,

(b) section 7(2) or section 19 of the Localism Act 2011, or

(c) section 5E(2) of the Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004;

and to perform, in respect of such draft orders, and in respect of subordinate provisions orders made or proposed to be made under the Regulatory Reform Act 2001, the functions performed in respect of other instruments and draft instruments by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments; and

(iii) To report on documents and draft orders laid before Parliament under or by virtue of:

(a) section 85 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998,

(b) section 17 of the Local Government Act 1999,

(c) section 9 of the Local Government Act 2000,

(d) section 98 of the Local Government Act 2003, or

(e) section 102 of the Local Transport Act 2008.

That, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the following members be appointed to the Committee:

B Drake, L Flight, B Fookes (Chairman), B Gould of Potternewton, L Jones, L Lisvane, C Mar, L Moynihan, L Thomas of Gresford, L Tyler;

That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers and records;

That the Committee have power to appoint specialist advisers;

That the Committee have leave to report from time to time;

That the reports of the Committee be printed, regardless of any adjournment of the House;

That the evidence taken by the Committee be published, if the Committee so wishes.

Economic Affairs

That a Select Committee be appointed to consider economic affairs and that, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the following members be appointed to the Committee:

B Blackstone, L Forsyth of Drumlean, L Griffiths of Fforestfach, L Hollick (Chairman), L Kerr of Kinlochard, L Lamont of Lerwick, L Layard, L May of Oxford, L Monks, L Sharkey, L Teverson, L Turnbull, B Wheatcroft;

That the Committee have power to appoint a sub-committee and to refer to it any of the matters within the Committee’s terms of reference; that the Committee have power to appoint the Chairman of the sub-committee;

That the Committee have power to co-opt any member to serve on the sub-committee;

That the Committee and its sub-committee have power to send for persons, papers and records;

That the Committee and its sub-committee have power to appoint specialist advisers;

That the Committee and its sub-committee have power to adjourn from place to place;

That the Committee have leave to report from time to time;

That the reports of the Committee be printed, regardless of any adjournment of the House;

That the evidence taken by the Committee in the last session of Parliament be referred to the Committee;

That the evidence taken by the Committee or its sub-committee be published, if the Committee so wishes.

[The Chairman of Committees (Lord Sewel)]

My Lords, I beg to move the first six Motions standing in my name on the Order Paper en bloc.

[Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)]

The noble Lord will recall that on 26 March he kindly replied to a Question of mine relating to the setting up of an international relations standing committee of this House. In the light of what he answered in his Written Answer, what progress does he see being made on this issue?

[The Chairman of Committees]

I am happy to give the noble Lord the news that this afternoon the Liaison Committee is considering the very point that he has raised. I hope to be able to write to him in a matter of a few days with details about how the matter is being taken forward.

Motions agreed.

European Union Committee

Monday 8th June 2015 Lords Chamber

Membership Motion

15:11

Moved by

[The Chairman of Committees]

That a Select Committee be appointed:

(1) To consider European Union documents deposited in the House by a Minister, and other matters relating to the European Union; The expression “European Union document” includes in particular:

(a) a document submitted by an institution of the European Union to another institution and put by either into the public domain;

(b) a draft legislative act or a proposal for amendment of such an act; and

(c) a draft decision relating to the Common Foreign and Security Policy of the European Union under Title V of the Treaty on European Union;

The Committee may waive the requirement to deposit a document, or class of documents, by agreement with the European Scrutiny Committee of the House of Commons;

(2) To assist the House in relation to the procedure for the submission of Reasoned Opinions under Article 5 of the Treaty on European Union and the Protocol on the application of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality;

(3) To represent the House as appropriate in interparliamentary cooperation within the European Union; That, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the following members be appointed to the Committee:

B Armstrong of Hill Top, L Blair of Boughton, L Borwick, L Boswell of Aynho (Chairman), E Caithness, B Falkner of Margravine, L Green of Hurstpierpoint, L Jay of Ewelme, B Kennedy of The Shaws, L Liddle, L Mawson, B Prashar, B Scott of Needham Market, B Suttie, L Trees, L Tugendhat, L Whitty, B Wilcox;

That the Committee have power to appoint sub-committees and to refer to them any matters within its terms of reference;

That the Committee have power to appoint the Chairmen of sub-committees, but that the sub-committees have power to appoint their own Chairmen for the purpose of particular inquiries; that the quorum of each sub-committee be two;

That the Committee have power to co-opt any member to serve on a sub-committee;

That the Committee and its sub-committees have power to send for persons, papers and records;

That the Committee have power to appoint specialist advisers;

That the Committee and its sub-committees have power to adjourn from place to place;

That the Committee have leave to report from time to time;

That the reports of the Committee be printed, regardless of any adjournment of the House;

That the evidence taken by the Committee or its sub-committees in the last session of Parliament be referred to the Committee or its sub-committees;

That the evidence taken by the Committee or its sub-committee be published, if the Committee so wishes.

[The Chairman of Committees (Lord Sewel)]

My Lords, I beg to move the seventh Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.

Manuscript Amendment to the Motion

Moved by

[Lord Pearson of Rannoch]

Leave out the sections relating to the membership of the Committee, and the power to appoint sub-committees and refer to them any matters within its terms of reference, and insert: “That the Committee have power to appoint up to two sub-committees, one of which shall deal with European Union constitutional affairs and one of which shall deal with European Union economic matters; that the membership of the Committee and its sub-committees be balanced between members who favour the United Kingdom leaving the European Union and those who favour staying in it;”.

[Lord Pearson of Rannoch (UKIP)]

Noble Lords appear to be aware that in recent years I have regularly raised the balance, effectiveness and number of our European Union Select Committees before we agreed their appointment. For students of this important but perhaps refined subject, I last raised it on 16 May 2013 at col. 544 and on 12 June 2014 at col. 528.

As to balance, this proposed new committee appears to be just as Europhile as its predecessors. I do not pretend to know all their views, but of its 16 members I can detect only three who I would describe as mildly Eurosceptic and six who are among the most ardent Europhiles in your Lordships’ House. This is more important than usual in a year when we are approaching an EU referendum. Your Lordships’ other Select Committee reports are widely respected, and if our EU reports suffer from a Europhile slant, that will not be helpful to any fair outcome. I want to put the public on alert now, and I hope that I do not have to come back to this point too often in future.

I admit that the second part of my amendment, that our committees should be balanced between those who want to leave the EU and those who want to stay in, will not be easy to achieve. I put it down to underline what a Europhile place your Lordships’ House is when compared to public sentiment on this matter. In fact I can think of only perhaps a dozen of your Lordships who would be prepared to say publicly that we should leave the European Union whatever the outcome of the current negotiations. However, we should at least try to make our committees as balanced as we can, and at the moment we do not.

Our committees are there to hold the Government to account on the legislation that emerges from Brussels—that is what I am constantly told by noble Lords who favour the present arrangements. However, the trouble remains that that is all that these committees can do: they can only scrutinise, and the Government regularly ignore their findings.

I remind your Lordships of the scrutiny reserve, whereby successive Governments have promised not to sign up to any piece of legislation in Brussels if it is still being scrutinised by the Select Committee of either House of Parliament. Yet since July 2010, the Government have broken that promise 303 times in the Commons and 266 times in your Lordships’ House. Some 238 of those overrides were on measures being considered by both Houses. Each override means that a new EU law is being forced upon us without the consent of Parliament, because the EU juggernaut rolls on regardless. I hope the respected chairman of our EU Select Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Boswell, will not mind if I remind your Lordships of his disappointed interventions on that subject on 4 December 2014 at col. 1400 and on 17 December 2014 at col. 95. I do not know if he can reassure us now that, as a result, the scrutiny reserve is no longer broken.

I fear that our EU Select Committees do not and cannot hold the Government to account in Brussels. Since 1996, up to last year, the Government themselves have objected to and forced to a vote in the Council of Ministers 55 new measures, and they lost the vote on every single one of them. I add that the situation is just as depressing in that democratic fig-leaf, the European Parliament. Of its 1,936 most-recent Motions, a majority of all UK MEPs voted against 576 of them, but 485 still passed—a failure rate of some 84%. So it does not seem that our Select Committee reports carry much weight there either. None of that should surprise us. The big idea behind the EU has always been that member states should be diminished in favour of the unelected bureaucracy, under the pretence that that would maintain peace in Europe, which was of course, in fact, always sustained by NATO, not Brussels—but that is still at the root of our powerlessness in the EU.

Finally, my amendment would reduce our EU committees from seven to three, freeing up four committees for other work. It is those other committees that are so widely and rightly respected by the public, and which we as a House are uniquely qualified to deliver, yet we are only being allowed three new ad hoc committees and have turned down requests from noble Lords for no fewer than 42. I refer your Lordships to HL Paper 127 from our Liaison Committee, which details all those 42 committees which we will now not have. I understand that we may be making progress on a committee on foreign affairs, which would be a step forward. However, noble Lords’ suggestions from within 21 other areas of our national life are not being adhered to—the House will not be given those committees and the British public will not have your Lordships’ wisdom upon them. I therefore propose that we have four fewer, somewhat pointless EU committees, and four more to draw on the vast array of your Lordships’ knowledge and experience. I beg to move.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab)]

My Lords, I do not think that we should let the noble Lord get away with a caricature of the committee and its operation. I had the privilege of serving on the committee for the last three years and I found it very interesting. I also found it very interesting that, although Members who are not on the committee are entitled to attend, at no time did the noble Lord come along to sit in. In fact, not only can Members attend but they can ask questions. However, as I said, at no time did he take the opportunity to come. If he had done so, he would have found his caricature of the committee to be entirely wrong. Some of the people who I believed to be critical of the European Union were in fact very positive members of the committee and its sub-committees. I do not like to single out people but the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, who has a reputation for being very critical and might have us out of the European Union, was a very positive member of the committee.

We had regular sessions with the Minister for Europe, who incidentally did an extremely good job and answered our questions very well, but we put him under particular scrutiny. He came after European Council meetings, although we thought that it would have been better for him to appear before attending those meetings so that we could tell him what we thought this Parliament felt and he could represent those interests and our views at the meetings. It is interesting that the people who suggested that—I was one of them—are perceived to be more in favour of the European Union, but we wanted there to be more criticism.

I also wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, has read any of our reports. Many, if not all, contain substantial criticisms of the UK Government and the European Union, and they make suggestions again and again about the way in which the European Union should improve. The suggestion that before people are appointed to a committee we should work out whether they are in favour of or against the European Union is, in my view, manifestly unfair and total nonsense. We would have a Star Chamber that you would have to appear before, saying whether you are in favour of or against the European Union. As we know, there is a whole range of views on the European Union in this Chamber, as there is elsewhere.

I think that what we have heard from the noble Lord is complete nonsense and I hope that it will be thrown out comprehensively.

[Lord Bowness (Con)]

My Lords, I, too, want to speak against the acceptance of this amendment. Every year we hear from the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, his objections to the European Union Committee and every year he makes it quite clear that he does not understand how it works. He talks about the reputation of other Select Committees. Having been a member of the European Union Select Committee but being no longer a member and not proposed to be a member, I have to say to the noble Lord that the reputation of this committee is such that it is widely respected across the whole of the European Union in other member states and other member parliaments. He clearly does not appreciate the amount of work that is done, and the suggestion that the sub-committees could be reduced from the current six to the number that he proposes is manifestly ridiculous, given the amount of scrutiny work that has to be done on all the draft legislation that comes from the European Union.

The committee has two roles: one is to scrutinise the European Union and the second is to hold the Government to account. I remind your Lordships that the existing structure already provides for a sub-committee to deal with economic matters and that there is already a sub-committee dealing with institutional and constitutional matters, as well as the Select Committee itself. As for endeavouring to divide your Lordships’ House on making an early judgment as to whether somebody is in favour of or against the European Union or a particular measure, it is clear that that proposal is absolutely unworkable.

We have a reputation for producing objective reports, which, as I said, are referred to across the European Union. To throw to the winds one of the most valuable institutions and pieces of work that your Lordships’ House is engaged in would be positively unfortunate to say the least, and I hope that the House will reject this amendment.

[Lord Stoddart of Swindon (Ind Lab)]

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, on once again drawing attention to the overrepresentation of people who are very much in favour of our membership of Europe on the European Union Committee, to the detriment of those who believe otherwise.

I thought, in fact, that the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, was very restrained. He did not take the opportunity to point out that, at the last election, 3.9 million people, by voting for UKIP, voted against our membership of the European Union. They voted for UKIP, I imagine, because UKIP was the only party putting forward the proposal that we should withdraw from the European Union. Those 3.9 million people obviously voted to support that proposition. If they did not, what on earth else were they doing? The Labour Party is in favour of our membership of Europe. The Conservative Party is in favour of our membership of Europe. The Liberal party is in favour of our membership of Europe.

[Noble Lords]

Hear, hear.

[Lord Stoddart of Swindon]

They say, “Hear, hear”, so they are confirming what I am saying.

All the other political parties that it was possible to vote for were in favour of remaining in Europe; UKIP was the only one saying that we should come out. Therefore, whatever objections noble Lords may have to my saying it, it is reasonable that one would expect that people who voted UKIP wish to come out of the EU. Indeed, there are many people—including people belonging to the Labour Party, the Conservative Party and even some in the Liberal party—who would vote to come out.

As I said, the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, was very measured. He did not take the opportunity to point out that, in this House, there is now a grave discrepancy of UKIP noble Lords. On the basis of the 3.9 million votes cast for UKIP, it would be entitled to 80 seats in this House. In fact, it has none, except for those who have left other parties to take on the UKIP cause. It is quite true that UKIP has only one Member in the House of Commons, but it is entitled to much better representation in this House—let us bear in mind that the Liberal Democrats, with only 2.9 million votes, have only eight Members in the House of Commons and 101 Members in this House. I think that the House needs a little balancing. I hope that the Prime Minister will take that into account when making further nominations to this House.

[Lord Elton (Con)]

I served for a brief and happy time on Sub-Committee B of the European Union Committee, and we are talking about doing away with it. Under the skilful chairmanship of my noble friend Lady O’Cathain, we objected in strenuous terms to a number of regulations that were sent from Europe on the understanding that, if a stated number of other countries did the same, the Commission would have to think again. If that were exceeded, the Commission would have to lay a new order.

I dare say that my question will put into context the efficacy of these committees. On how many occasions have similar objections actually been acted on by the Government and received a change of policy from the European Council?

15:30

[Lord Flight (Con)]

My Lords, I had the privilege of sitting on the EU Economic and Financial Affairs Sub-Committee for four years. All the members got on extremely well and produced some very good papers. But there was quite a strong underlying Europhile bias to it, excellently chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Harrison, though it was. To completely neglect the point that has been raised is wrong, but I would also say that from my experience there was a fairly open discussion, even if people’s starting points were predominantly on one side.

[The Chairman of Committees]

My Lords, as we have seen over recent weeks, there are few certainties in politics, so it is reassuring to know that one continues to exist: the annual criticism by the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, of the establishment and composition of the EU Select Committee and its sub- committees. I will deal with the points that he raised.

The House considered the number and scope of the EU Committee and its various sub-committees in a debate on a Liaison Committee report on 26 March 2012. The noble Lord may wish to write to the Liaison Committee—I offer him this invitation—if he is really serious about making substantive proposals on how the EU Select Committee should address the various issues that it has to consider. I say “substantive proposals” rather than just flag waving and cheering from the side from time to time.

However, in the context of reducing the number of sub-committees, I believe that this House greatly benefits from the various sub-committees and the expertise that they bring to bear on a wide range of issues, including home affairs, justice, agriculture, fisheries and business. A decision to reduce the capacity to scrutinise the whole range of EU draft legislation, certainly coming from an acknowledged critic of the EU, seems to be utterly perverse. I fail to understand the logic in the noble Lord’s argument. The point about composition, the Star Chamber and having to swear before you get on to a committee that you are in favour of or against continued British membership of the EU, is utterly wrong and nonsense, and I am sure that the House agrees. The point is that we make nominations to Select Committees based on the views taken by individual parties on the worth of individual Members of this House. That is the way it should remain.

On the issue about the future of Sub-Committee B, I am at a loss. I have not the slightest knowledge—and I do not think that it is true although I will check—of any attempt to abolish Sub-Committee B. It does important work. A recent report, Women on Boards, received strong and supportive comments, not just in this country but elsewhere. The sub-committee will, I am sure, continue with its good work. The noble Lord asked for a list of examples of how recommendations from our EU Select Committee and its various sub-committees have affected policy. I can think of some, and I will write to the noble Lord with a fuller list. However, I can certainly remember from my experience that the basic reform of the common fisheries policy was led by a sub-committee of the EU Committee of this House. I, of course, happened to be the chair of that sub-committee.

[Lord Pearson of Rannoch]

My Lords, on the last point made by the Chairman of Committees, I understand that in fact the change to the common fisheries policy came from a television series by Mr Fearnley-Whittingstall that was very hard-hitting.

I am very grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken, and in particular to the noble Lords, Lord Foulkes and Lord Bowness. I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, that if these EU committees are critical of things that are going on in the EU, it does not seem to make any difference. I do have to say to the noble Lord, Lord Bowness, that from 1992 to 1996 I did in fact serve on your Lordships’ European Union Select Committee and I even employed a young man who is now an eminent Member of the other place to wade through the papers for me so that when I went to the committee meetings I could see the bits that had been outlined in yellow and concentrate on them. Over the whole of the four or five years that I served on the Select Committee, I have to say that I did not see through it—I did not see that it was a waste of time—and I regret that.

As to the question put by the noble Lord, Lord Elton, I can answer that by saying that virtually no yellow card has made any difference whatever, and of course it will not. As to the red card, it really will not be much use unless we are able to repeal legislation that has already gone through instead of just looking at new legislation as it comes gushing forth.

I have to repeat that since 1996 some 55 votes have been forced in the Council of Ministers by the United Kingdom Government and they have lost every one of them. That is quite a telling point and casts doubt on the position not only of our Select Committees but of the Government themselves. I am disappointed that the noble Lord, Lord Boswell, did not contribute to the debate because I was hoping that he could reassure your Lordships that the scrutiny reserve is now occasionally respected by the Government—

[Lord Boswell of Aynho (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for allowing me to intervene. I would invite him to exercise a degree of patience for a week or two, when once again we will be presenting the annual report of my committee—and, by inference, that of its sub-committees—for the attention of the House. He will then, as he has in the past, have the opportunity to debate the report. I hope very much that on this occasion he will engage with it.

[Lord Pearson of Rannoch]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for his most helpful contribution and I look forward to the result.

Of course I am not going to press this to a vote. All I can say is that I hope that our debate has done something to rectify the situation for the next Session of Parliament. Again, I am most grateful to noble Lords who have spoken and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment to the Motion withdrawn.

Motion agreed.

House Committee

Monday 8th June 2015 Lords Chamber

Hybrid Instruments

Information

Liaison

Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology (POST)

Privileges and Conduct

Procedure

Refreshment

Science and Technology

Secondary Legislation Scrutiny

Standing Orders (Private Bills)

Works of Art

Membership Motions

House Committee

That a Select Committee be appointed to set the policy framework for the administration of the House and to provide non-executive guidance to the Management Board; to approve the House’s strategic, business and financial plans; to agree the annual Estimates and Supplementary Estimates; to supervise the arrangements relating to financial support for Members; and to approve the House of Lords Annual Report;

That, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the following members be appointed to the Committee:

L Campbell-Savours, L Cope of Berkeley, B D’Souza (Chairman), L Laming, B McDonagh, L Sewel, B Smith of Basildon, L Stirrup, B Stowell of Beeston, L Wakeham, L Wallace of Tankerness;

That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers and records;

That the Committee have leave to report from time to time;

That the reports of the Committee be printed, regardless of any adjournment of the House.

Hybrid Instruments

That a Select Committee be appointed to consider hybrid instruments and that, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the following members together with the Chairman of Committees be appointed to the Committee:

L Addington, L Grantchester, L Harrison, L Luke, B Perry of Southwark, L Quirk, L Swinfen;

That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers and records;

That the reports of the Committee be printed, regardless of any adjournment of the House; and

That the evidence taken by the Committee be published, if the Committee so wishes.

Information

That a Select Committee be appointed to consider information and communications services, including the Library and the Parliamentary Archives, within the strategic framework and financial limits approved by the House Committee;

That, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the following members be appointed to the Committee:

L Brooke of Alverthorpe, L Callanan, V Chandos, L Cooper of Windrush, B Donaghy (Chairman), L Empey, L Faulkner of Worcester, L Holmes of Richmond, L Mawson, L Oxburgh, L St John of Bletso, L Sharkey, L Strasburger;

That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers and records;

That the Committee have leave to report from time to time.

Liaison

That a Select Committee be appointed to advise the House on the resources required for select committee work and to allocate resources between select committees; to review the select committee work of the House; to consider requests for ad hoc committees and report to the House with recommendations; to ensure effective co-ordination between the two Houses; and to consider the availability of members to serve on committees;

That, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the following members together with the Chairman of Committees be appointed to the Committee:

L Craig of Radley, L Foulkes of Cumnock, L Laming, B Perry of Southwark, B Seccombe, B Smith of Basildon, B Stowell of Beeston, L Touhig, L Wallace of Tankerness;

That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers and records;

That the Committee have power to appoint specialist advisers;

That the Committee have leave to report from time to time.

Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology (POST)

That, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the following Lords be appointed to the Board of the Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology (POST):

L Haskel, L Oxburgh, E Selborne, L Winston.

Privileges and Conduct

That a Committee for Privileges and Conduct be appointed and that, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the following members together with the Chairman of Committees be appointed to the Committee:

L Bassam of Brighton, L Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, L Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood, L Eames, L Hope of Craighead, L Irvine of Lairg, L Laming, L Mackay of Clashfern, L Newby, B Scotland of Asthal, B Smith of Basildon, B Stowell of Beeston, L Taylor of Holbeach, V Ullswater, L Wallace of Tankerness;

That the Committee have power to appoint sub-committees and that the Committee have power to appoint the Chairmen of sub-committees;

That the Committee have power to co-opt any member to serve on a sub-committee;

That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers and records;

That in any claim of peerage, the Committee shall sit with three holders of high judicial office, who shall have the same speaking and voting rights as members of the Committee;

That the Committee have leave to report from time to time;

That the reports of the Committee be printed, regardless of any adjournment of the House;

That the evidence taken by the Committee or its sub-committees in the last session of Parliament be referred to the Committee or its sub-committees; and

That the evidence taken by the Committee or its sub-committees be published, if the Committee so wishes.

Procedure

That a Select Committee on Procedure of the House be appointed and that, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the following members together with the Chairman of Committees be appointed to the Committee:

L Bassam of Brighton, L Brabazon of Tara, B D’Souza, B Farrington of Ribbleton, L Greaves, B Hollis of Heigham, B Humphreys, L Laming, B McIntosh of Hudnall, L Newby, L Powell of Bayswater, L Rowe-Beddoe, L Skelmersdale, B Smith of Basildon, B Stowell of Beeston, L Taylor of Holbeach, L True, L Wallace of Tankerness;

That the following members be appointed as alternate members:

B Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, L Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood, B Browning, L Foulkes of Cumnock, B Meacher;

That the Committee have power to appoint sub-committees and that the Committee have power to appoint the Chairmen of sub-committees;

That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers and records;

That the Committee have leave to report from time to time;

That the reports of the Committee be printed, regardless of any adjournment of the House.

Refreshment

That a Select Committee be appointed to advise on the refreshment services provided for the House, within the strategic framework and financial limits approved by the House Committee;

That, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the following members together with the Chairman of Committees be appointed to the Committee:

L Curry of Kirkharle, L Goddard of Stockport, L Kennedy of Southwark, L Lee of Trafford, B Mobarik, L Pendry, L Ribeiro, L Sawyer, L Skelmersdale, E Stair, B Wall of New Barnet;

That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers and records;

That the Committee have leave to report from time to time.

Science and Technology

That a Select Committee be appointed to consider science and technology and that, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the following members be appointed to the Committee:

L Cameron of Dillington, L Fox, L Hennessy of Nympsfield, L Hunt of Chesterton, L Kakkar, B Manningham-Buller, L Maxton, D Montrose, B Morgan of Huyton, B Neville-Jones, L Peston, V Ridley, E Selborne (Chairman), L Vallance of Tummel;

That the Committee have power to appoint sub-committees and that the Committee have power to appoint the Chairmen of sub-committees;

That the Committee have power to co-opt any member to serve on the Committee or a sub-committee;

That the Committee and its sub-committees have power to send for persons, papers and records;

That the Committee and its sub-committees have power to appoint specialist advisers;

That the Committee and its sub-committees have power to adjourn from place to place;

That the Committee have leave to report from time to time;

That the reports of the Committee be printed, regardless of any adjournment of the House;

That the evidence taken by the Committee or its sub-committees in the last session of Parliament be referred to the Committee or its sub-committees;

That the evidence taken by the Committee or its sub-committees be published, if the Committee so wishes.

Secondary Legislation Scrutiny

That a Select Committee be appointed to scrutinise secondary legislation.

(1) The Committee shall, with the exception of those instruments in paragraphs (3) and (4), scrutinise—

(a) every instrument (whether or not a statutory instrument), or draft of an instrument, which is laid before each House of Parliament and upon which proceedings may be, or might have been, taken in either House of Parliament under an Act of Parliament;

(b) every proposal which is in the form of a draft of such an instrument and is laid before each House of Parliament under an Act of Parliament,

with a view to determining whether or not the special attention of the House should be drawn to it on any of the grounds specified in paragraph (2).

(2) The grounds on which an instrument, draft or proposal may be drawn to the special attention of the House are—

(a) that it is politically or legally important or gives rise to issues of public policy likely to be of interest to the House;

(b) that it may be inappropriate in view of changed circumstances since the enactment of the parent Act;

(c) that it may inappropriately implement European Union legislation;

(d) that it may imperfectly achieve its policy objectives;

(e) that the explanatory material laid in support provides insufficient information to gain a clear understanding about the instrument’s policy objective and intended implementation;

(f) that there appear to be inadequacies in the consultation process which relates to the instrument.

(3) The exceptions are—

(a) remedial orders, and draft remedial orders, under section 10 of the Human Rights Act 1998;

(b) draft orders under sections 14 and 18 of the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Act 2006, and subordinate provisions orders made or proposed to be made under the Regulatory Reform Act 2001;

(c) Measures under the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act 1919 and instruments made, and drafts of instruments to be made, under them.

(4) The Committee shall report on draft orders and documents laid before Parliament under section 11(1) of the Public Bodies Act 2011 in accordance with the procedures set out in sections 11(5) and (6). The Committee may also consider and report on any material changes in a draft order laid under section 11(8) of the Act.

(5) The Committee shall also consider such other general matters relating to the effective scrutiny of secondary legislation and arising from the performance of its functions under paragraphs (1) to (4) as the Committee considers appropriate, except matters within the orders of reference of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.

That, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the following members be appointed to the Committee:

B Andrews, L Bowness, L Goddard of Stockport, L Haskel, L Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, B Humphreys, L Janvrin, B O’Loan, B Stern, L Trefgarne (Chairman), L Woolmer of Leeds;

That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers and records;

That the Committee have power to appoint specialist advisers;

That the Committee have leave to report from time to time;

That the reports of the Committee be printed, regardless of any adjournment of the House;

That the evidence taken by the Committee be published, if the Committee so wishes.

Standing Orders (Private Bills)

That a Select Committee on the Standing Orders relating to private bills be appointed and that, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the following members together with the Chairman of Committees be appointed to the Committee:

L Geddes, L Goodlad, B Gould of Potternewton, L Naseby, L Palmer, L Rodgers of Quarry Bank, V Simon;

That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers and records;

That the reports of the Committee be printed, regardless of any adjournment of the House;

That the evidence taken by the Committee be published, if the Committee so wishes.

Works of Art

That a Select Committee be appointed to administer the House of Lords Works of Art Collection Fund; and to consider matters relating to works of art and the artistic heritage in the House of Lords, within the strategic framework and financial limits approved by the House Committee;

That, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the following members be appointed to the Committee:

B Bakewell, L Dear, V Falkland, L Finkelstein, B Gale, E Glasgow, L Inglewood, Luce, B Maddock (Chairman), L Magan of Castletown, B Rawlings, L Turnberg;

That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers and records;

That the Committee have leave to report from time to time.

Motions agreed.

Cities and Local Government Devolution Bill [HL]

Monday 8th June 2015 Lords Chamber

Second Reading

15:39

Moved by

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

That the Bill be now read a second time.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Communities and Local Government (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to introduce the first Bill to receive its Second Reading in this House under this Parliament. It implements our manifesto commitments to allow cities and areas outside London to reach their economic potential. This Bill helps us to deliver on the promises we made that, if we were returned to government, there would be a clear economic plan and a brighter, more secure future for the whole country. Last week, we had an excellent and lively debate on the measures contained in the gracious Speech, including those in the Cities and Local Government Devolution Bill.

When speaking on the steps of Downing Street on the Friday after the election, the Prime Minister referred to closing the decades-old economic gap between north and south. For many years, under Governments of all political colours, our economy has become imbalanced and London has come to dominate more and more. In 2010, through our programme of decentralisation, we began to address this issue. We supported the development of local enterprise partnerships, concluded city deals with 27 cities, and took £12 billion out of Whitehall and put it in the hands of local people through growth deals, giving local areas more control to drive their own growth. In particular, in November 2014, the Government agreed a devolution deal with Greater Manchester, which will give local people greater control over their economy and powers over transport, housing, planning and policing. Greater Manchester will also gain new powers to support business growth and skills, and to help join up health and social care budgets.

In the last five years, we have been working with many partners—in business, across the political spectrum, and up and down the country—to move towards a more balanced economy. Two hundred years ago, when the country was at the height of the Industrial Revolution, Manchester was “Cottonopolis”, Liverpool’s ports welcomed ships from around the world and Birmingham was at the forefront of creative endeavour, registering three times as many patents as any other British town or city. But that economic diversity and strength was undermined by more than a century’s worth of power and decision-making being centralised in London. For decades, central government has made the rest of the country conform to a Whitehall template. The Bill calls time on that. Here, I pay tribute to three noble Lords in particular, although there are many others besides, from all political parties: the noble Lords, Lord Shipley and Lord Adonis, and my noble friend Lord Heseltine. They have been working hard on this agenda over the last decade, and, in the case of my noble friend Lord Heseltine, for three decades.

This is a devolutionary Bill that puts in place a legal framework enabling us to decentralise powers to our cities and counties, and across the country. The framework will allow us to ramp up what we started in the last Government, reversing 150 years of centralisation whereby powers were relentlessly drawn into Whitehall and London became ever more dominant. The framework will enable us to implement the Greater Manchester city deal and similar bespoke deals in other cities.

Decentralisation is the key to achieving economic growth and unlocking the potential for economic success in our cities. It enables places to take greater control over and responsibility for the key things that make it work. Any one-size-fits-all model is destined for failure. Every city and council is different. Through the decentralisation that the Bill will enable, each city will be empowered to forge its own path, to play to its own strengths and to find its own creative solutions to the particular challenges that they face. The power of decentralisation is to bring about change—to be the foundation of securing long-term sustainable growth, applying equally to towns and counties.

To be successful, decentralisation must involve not only devolving powers and budgets but having in each place the necessary leadership, governance and accountability so that powers are exercised properly and effectively, for the benefit of all. Where major powers are devolved, the Government are clear that there needs to be a single point of accountability. People need to know who is taking the decisions and whom to turn to if things go wrong.

Mayoral governance is an internationally proven model of governance for cities. Hence, as the Chancellor has made clear, where a significant suite of powers is being devolved to areas, metro mayors must be elected by the people. We will hand powers from the centre to those cities that choose to have a metro mayor, giving greater control over such things as transport, housing, skills and healthcare. A metro mayor may also, on a case-by-case basis, as in Greater Manchester, be given the powers of a police and crime commissioner. Cities will have the levers needed to grow their local economy and to make sure that the people in the city can keep the rewards.

Our Bill therefore puts in place not only the legal framework for devolving powers, but the framework to ensure that the strong and accountable governance necessary for devolution is in place. The Bill enables a mayoral combined authority to be a precepting body, and for a precept to be set to fund mayoral functions. Requirements relating to the setting of mayoral budgets may be specified by order. A combined authority’s other costs—those not incurred by the metro mayor—will be met from the budgets of the local authorities in its area. The Bill will also allow a combined authority to be given powers and to borrow money for particular purposes, if all the local authorities in its area agree.

The Bill allows, by more straightforward processes, the local governance of a place to be simplified. For example, where powers are devolved to one or more counties, putting in place the necessary governance may include making council mergers, moves to unitary structures, or simplifying the democratic representation with fewer councillors. This will be the case whether or not there is an elected metro mayor for the area.

The crucial point is that all the Bill’s provisions are to be used in the context of deals between government and places. Nothing is being imposed. Where there is a request for an ambitious devolution of a suite of powers to a combined authority, there must be a metro mayor, but no city will be forced to have a mayor and the powers that come with it. No county will be forced to make any changes of governance and to have the powers that can come with such governance changes.

I, like many noble Lords, started my political life in local government. I want to improve my local area and to see it develop and grow. The council that I sat on for 13 years will be part of the trailblazer devolution deal, reclaiming the power to decide its future. I hope that it will be the first of many, and that the Bill enables that to happen. With the Cities and Local Government Devolution Bill we will implement the manifesto commitments to,

“devolve far-reaching powers over economic development, transport and social care to large cities which choose to have elected mayors”,

and to,

“deliver the historic deal for Greater Manchester”.

I beg to move.

15:47

[Lord McKenzie of Luton (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, for her clear introduction of the Bill and for facilitating our briefing meeting last week. It is a short Bill—just 14 clauses—which of itself devolves nothing, but its framework lays the groundwork for outcomes that could be of great constitutional significance. I say “could” because it depends on how the raft of powers in the Bill that accrue to the Secretary of State are deployed in practice. It also depends on the appetite and capacity of local authorities to engage.

As it stands, the Bill is a blank canvas. As we have heard, it could, with agreement, include devolution to a combined authority of seemingly any local authority function and any public authority function—including that of Ministers and government departments—exercisable in relation to the authority’s area. It could involve the conferring of a general power of competence on the combined authority. Further, as we heard, it enables changes by regulation to the constitution, membership, structure and boundaries of local authorities for devolution deals where a combined authority might not be appropriate.

We support the boundaries of this framework, but our task in Committee will be to probe the Government’s approach and the extent and manner in which it is intended these considerable powers be implemented and over what timescale. But we also recognise that it is not just about government; it is for local authorities, in the words of the City Growth Commission,

“to raise their game, building governance, policymaking and evaluation capacity”,

and to develop their own vision for their areas.

We know that there are compelling reasons why we should support and encourage the devolution of greater powers and funding away from the centre and towards local authorities and communities. This agenda is not new. It has long been recognised that we have a high degree of centralisation in our system of government which is stifling initiative and creativity and holding back growth and regeneration. There have been a range of policies and initiatives over the years which have sought to address this in one way or another: UDCs, City Challenge, New Deal for Communities, RDAs, LEPs and the regional growth fund. We welcome the fact that the architects of some of these are with us this afternoon. However, the economic imperative—the need to enhance and sustain growth and reconfigure and join up services in the face of more cuts—and the democratic benefit which can flow from people having more power in their localities and communities require us to now address the benefits of devolution on a more profound and sustained basis.

Discussion hitherto has generated the concern that the Government’s focus in practice was only for devolution to our major northern cities—the city regions or metros. This is a debate driven very much by the City Growth Commission, which has recognised their potential to harness the benefits of agglomeration, connectivity and improved governance. It points to the success of London although, as we know from the London Councils briefing, London councils are seeking, not unreasonably, further devolution themselves.

We support the devolution of powers to great cities such as Manchester, Leeds, Sheffield and Liverpool, and not just because these are Labour led. We want to see devolution to every part of the country, not just to other cities or metros but to counties as well—not just to Tyne and Wear and the East Midlands but to Bristol, Southampton, Norfolk and Norwich—and not just to urban areas but to rural and coastal areas, too. The Bill as it stands enables this wider devolution and has been welcomed by a number of commentators, including the LGA. As I have said, it has our broad support, although we will want to see what this means in practice.

The wide scope of the Bill raises the question of how it is potentially to be delivered. There are currently five combined authorities and suggestions that there is active consideration of four more, covering Derbyshire, Nottinghamshire, the Tees Valley and Birmingham and the Black Country. The Bill is likely to whet the appetite of others, and we hope that it does. We have no idea, of course, how many proposals might emerge under Clause 10. Obviously, this cannot all be done at once, but perhaps the Minister will tell us what the strategy for delivery is and reassure us that it will not be a piecemeal approach. Presumably, progress does not rest just on who catches the Chancellor’s eye. Is there any presumption of metros first? How will the Government seek to ensure that counties in particular do not fall behind?

We should take the opportunity today to congratulate Greater Manchester on its innovative agreement with the Treasury. The 10 local authorities involved have a long record of collaboration, characterised by consistent leadership and hard work. That work has delivered the opportunity of a range of powers over a housing investment fund, transport, business support, strategic planning skills, complex dependency, the Work Programme and opportunities to integrate health and social care across the combined authority area—the tools needed to develop programmes that address local needs and develop a new “place-based” partnership with government.

We support the devolution and integration of health and care services but recognise from the MoU attached to the Manchester agreement that the issues are not straightforward. We would not want to see a disruptive structural reorganisation and are cautious about some areas such as workforce planning, research and commissioning of specialised services. There is also a need to test where the buck ultimately stops in the event of major disruption to services—with the Secretary of State or with the combined authority. We need also to be mindful of the briefing, received just today, by the RCN.

As we have heard, the Bill also enables for the first time a combined authority to have an elected mayor who by virtue of that office chairs the combined authority, and with an obligation to appoint a deputy. The Secretary of State can by order require that any function of the combined authority can be carried out only by the mayor, and to these can be added the role of the PCC. We will express our concerns that this could lead to a very substantial concentration of power in the hands of one individual—mandatory scrutiny arrangements notwithstanding—and we will take time in Committee to probe the potential boundaries of these arrangements.

The position of elected mayor still requires some clarification from the Minister, our earlier exchange at Questions notwithstanding. I think we are clear that the Bill does not appear to make it a precondition that the combined authority must have an elected mayor in order to gain the additional functions covered in the draft legislation, yet the rhetoric of Ministers, particularly the Chancellor, has suggested otherwise. He said in a recent speech:

“So with these new powers for cities must come new city-wide elected mayors who work with local councils. I will not impose this model on anyone. But nor will I settle for less”.

We acknowledge the importance of clear leadership and accountability in driving through reforms to stimulate economic growth but question why there should be only one acceptable leadership model.

At our briefing meeting, the Minister suggested that matters might be more flexible than this. To an extent she has confirmed that again today, but can we have it on the record that a city region can have the powers under the Bill without having an elected mayor? What about the existing combined authorities? Does the Minister accept that, given that all bar one of the cities holding a compulsory referendum last time rejected elected mayors, the insistence on having one could be a barrier to the devolution process? Of course, once the position of elected mayor is accepted, there is no going back. The prospect of an elected mayor taking on some or all of the duties of a PCC would seem to be an admission of failure. Where does that leave situations where the boundaries of the combined authority and the remit of the PCC are not co-terminous?

The opportunities and challenges that the Bill presents will be heavily dependent on funding arrangements, not only the specific arrangements for individual deals but the continuing underlying funding for local government. I do not propose today to revisit the sorry saga of unfair cuts visited by the previous Government—a coalition of Tories and Lib Dems, we should recognise —on our most deprived communities, which we know are to continue, except to say that devolution must not be a cynical route to unloading responsibilities on local authorities without proper funding. Of course, the previous Government have history on this. The Bill provides, as we heard, for levying powers of a combined authority except for mayoral functions, in respect of which a combined authority becomes a precepting authority. This would appear to lead to situations where the same function is funded differently, depending on whether or not it is a mayoral function. We will look to better understand the consequences of this in Committee.

There is no general provision in the Bill whereby sources of revenue accrue directly to local authorities as part of a devolution process, so far as I can see. In formulating our plans, we have proposed the retention of all business rate growth but it looks from the Manchester agreement that these matters will be negotiated on a case-by-case basis. In his No Stone Unturned: In Pursuit of Growth report, the noble Lord, Lord Heseltine, cautioned against what he called the “penny packets” approach to devolution—that is,

“Parcels of cash attached to specific projects, each with their own particular objectives, timetable and requirements”.

Does the Minister accept this caution and can she tell us what the Government’s approach is in this regard? What is the size of their ambition and what is the measure of central public authority funding potentially available in this Parliament? Indeed, what funding streams are available?

Time marches on. There is much else for Committee, including mandatory scrutiny, which we support; the electoral process for elected mayors, which seems to have absorbed the drafters of the Bill; and the level of parliamentary scrutiny. But the Bill opens up huge opportunities and we will play our part in encouraging local government to take maximum advantage.

15:59

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, I welcome the Second Reading of the Bill and I am grateful to the Minister for her kind comments earlier. I welcome the Bill not because everything in it is right but because it represents a further and very important stage in achieving greater decentralisation and fiscal devolution within England, through which growth can be increased outside London faster and local government can make more effective use of public money by joining up service delivery. There will be a number of contributions today from these Benches and I welcome that, because there is a wealth of practical experience here to draw on. Some colleagues who are not able to speak today will be speaking in Committee.

The Minister was right to say that the record of the last Government in encouraging decentralisation was impressive. It was, however, only a start. Crucially, there is now a much clearer understanding that you cannot run the whole of England from London, so I support the principle behind the Bill. It will decentralise power out of Whitehall and enable fiscal devolution. Because it is an enabling Bill, it means that one size need not fit all and that it can be voluntary for combined authorities or councils to propose schemes that are generated locally and have some local ownership.

In recent months, we have seen a host of reports as diverse as No Stone Unturned: In Pursuit of Growth by the noble Lord, Lord Heseltine, from the City Growth Commission, from the Independent Commission on Local Government Finance, the Independent Commission on Economic Growth and the Future of Public Services in Non-Metropolitan England and the London Finance Commission. There have also been a host of reports from think tanks, in particular the ResPublica reports—not least Devo Max-Devo Manc—and work done by IPPR and the Local Government Association, of which I am a vice-president. There has also been a huge amount of work done by the English core cities network. All that work points in the same direction.

It is 40 years ago that I was first elected to Newcastle City Council, and I well remember the turf wars between that council and Tyne and Wear County Council. They competed too much and it did not help that their memberships were separate rather than shared. The met counties, as we know, were abolished some 30 years ago, but problems of integrating with the wider region remained, not least in strategic planning and transport. Then, in 2004, we had the referendum in the north-east on creating a regional assembly. On a turnout of half the electorate, only 22% voted yes. It failed despite the best efforts of a number of Members of your Lordships’ House, not least the noble Lord, Lord Prescott, because it had no real powers and was seen as a talking shop and another layer of government, when power would still in reality reside in Whitehall. I think that things have changed. The north-east of England did not see the need then, but, given the further devolution planned for Scotland, that is no longer the case. This Bill gives the scope that we need. It is the next essential stage without which Cornwall, for example, or the existing combined authorities would not be able to go any further in securing devolution.

What of my own party’s position? Our general election manifesto said that we would:

“Build on the success of City Deals and Growth Deals to devolve more power and resources to groups of Local Authorities and Local Enterprise Partnerships … Establish a Government process to deliver greater devolution of financial responsibility to English Local Authorities, and any new devolved bodies in England, building on the work of the Independent Commission on Local Government Finance”.

We also said:

“Any changes must balance the objectives of more local autonomy and fair equalisation between communities. In some areas of England there is an even greater appetite for powers, but not every part of the country wants to move at the same speed and there cannot be a one-size-fits-all approach”.

We therefore said that we would,

“introduce Devolution on Demand, enabling even greater devolution of powers from Westminster to Councils or groups of Councils working together—for example to a Cornish Assembly”.

We now need local government to propose workable structures as central government accepts that one size does not fit all—both of which, of course, the Bill recognises and enables.

I may have given the impression so far in my contribution that we are debating a perfect Bill at Second Reading and that nothing needs to change, or be further defined or examined. In my view, that is far from the case. There are issues that we need to examine closely when we reach Committee in a fortnight’s time. The first relates to democratic legitimacy: that is, a new structure of local governance, and public support for that structure. I recognise that in the case of Greater Manchester it was made clear in the Conservative Party manifesto that a Conservative Government would,

“legislate to deliver the historic deal for Greater Manchester”.

However, it is also the case that most electors in Greater Manchester did not vote for the Conservative Party in the general election. I have come to the conclusion that it must always be right to test proposed constitutional changes such as these in a local referendum. We must return to this issue in a fortnight’s time when we start Committee.

Secondly, when elections for the mayor take place—assuming the Bill becomes an Act—there will be a direct connection with the ballot box at least for the person entrusted with the huge powers an elected mayor will have. However, the range of powers is potentially so vast that I doubt one person can do it all, which means in practice that much will be delegated. We need to think very carefully about running policing, social care and health, strategic planning, housing, skills, transport, economic development and regeneration all through one person.

Thirdly, in London there is an assembly with powers of scrutiny over the mayor. Something similar is needed as part of the Bill. I noted the comments of the Chancellor of the Exchequer on May 14 in Manchester, when he said that the metro mayor would be,

“a powerful point of accountability”,

because they would be:

“A person vested with the authority of direct election”.

However, he also said that,

“the Manchester model of devolution is not like London. We haven’t created a new Assembly here. We’ve built on the excellent cooperation you’ve established with your combined authority, as you asked me to do”.

I am not convinced that this is enough. We run the risk of creating a one-party state in which one party controls the metro mayor, the metro mayor’s appointment of the deputy, the combined authority—at least in terms of having a majority of seats—and the scrutiny of the mayor and of the combined authority. This concentration of power in the hands of a very limited number of people, when this Bill is all about devolving power, seems to me to need some urgent revision.

I also have some questions around the voting system and what the preferred voting system should be, and again around the powers to precept and what in practice that will mean when applied. I hope that we can look at those further in Committee. I am an advocate of proportional representation in local government, and it has occurred to me that this might be the moment for your Lordships’ House to give some further thought, given that it applies in Scotland, to the desirability of making local government elections by proportional representation. If we did, some of the problems that I have identified could be solved.

To conclude, the principle of enhanced devolution as proposed in the Bill is most welcome. It is the detailed set of proposals that we need to spend time examining now in Committee.

16:09

[The Earl of Listowel (CB)]

My Lords, I declare my interest in the register in property development. It is also perhaps worth reminding the House that I am treasurer of the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Children.

I hesitate somewhat to take part in this debate as I am afraid I may be straying where angels fear to tread. However, I am so concerned about the issues around housing supply in this country, particularly social housing for our poorest families, and our need for key worker housing so that we have the excellent teachers and social workers who can intervene with these families and help to turn their lives around, that I feel I need to speak. In principle, I very warmly welcome what the Government propose. It seems quite evident that if we strengthen the north of England and its economies, there will be less burden on housing in London and the south-east, and we will relieve the strain that some of our poorest families experience. The principle of delegation of powers within this Bill also seems very welcome.

My concern somewhat echoes that which the CBI raised in its briefing: certain issues need a strategic authority strong enough to balance many vociferous and powerful opposing forces. In particular, the CBI talked about transport. I am concerned that in housing supply it is important to consult and think hard about local residents’ concerns. It is very important to think about the environment. However, it is also important to weigh up with that people’s need for social and key worker housing. That can be such a difficult issue for an institution to resolve. Whatever new authorities we establish to process these decisions, they need to be robust enough in terms of residential development. Local people, particularly those who own their own homes, understandably feel very concerned about any prospect of development in their local area. It can be very difficult for local politicians to put the other side, about the need for new homes for social or key worker housing. Local media may feel very much that they must put the case that most concerns local people. Whatever authority tries to balance up the interests in that area, it will have a very difficult job to do and needs to be robust enough to do it. I hope the Minister can reassure me that the institutions that she seeks to establish through the Bill will be robust enough to make the right decisions in all our interests when these things come up. Furthermore, I urge the House to look at this Bill as an opportunity to think about how we can increase the supply of affordable homes, key worker housing and social housing in this country.

I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Heseltine. Some time ago, with the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Homelessness and Housing Need, I visited Walthamstow housing action trust. I hope my memory serves me correctly, but the residents there told me that they had been rather late to apply for housing action status. I think they actually approached the noble Lord with some rubble—the masonry that fell from their buildings. Anyway, they were very grateful to be granted that special status with all the opportunities to influence their crumbling housing estate and change it for the better. I pay tribute to the noble Lord for what he did for them in particular.

If I may highlight the issues around homelessness, there were 90,000 homeless children in Britain in November, as recorded by Shelter. There were more than 2,000 families living in bed-and-breakfast accommodation in England last June—and that is on the increase. In Wales and Scotland, the numbers of such families are decreasing but in England they are on the increase. I visited the University of East London in Stratford recently to talk with four academics undertaking some research around housing and perinatal mental health. We discussed the recent report from the London School of Economics looking at perinatal mental health which highlighted the fact that failing to meet the perinatal mental-health needs of mothers cost the nation £8 billion per year. That is £10,000 per birth. The bulk of that extraordinary cost—some 72% of it—arises from the fact that when mothers are depressed or suffering postnatal depression their relationship with their child is disturbed and that child then fails to thrive, which influences their later development.

The academics are looking at how housing can influence the mental health particularly of mothers around birth. There is evidence from Chicago on the impact of homelessness on the mental health of mothers. Visiting with health visitors in Redbridge and Waltham Forest, I have seen mothers in appalling conditions, living in the most tragic circumstances, in overcrowded houses in multiple occupation, sharing facilities with several other families. We walked in and found the door left open and a mother with a baby only a few weeks old living in that very unsatisfactory situation. It really reinforces to me why we need to do all we can to improve the supply of key worker and social housing.

Not so long ago, I spoke to the head teacher of a primary school in Kings Cross who told me that one of her best teachers had recently been in her office in tears because she had to move out of London to establish her family and have a home that she could afford. Again and again, I hear from our key workers that, when they have gained experience in London and the south-east, they move up north to establish their families. This really has an impact on issues such as the number of agency staff employed by the National Health Service.

The issue of immigration is so much on our minds. There is perhaps nothing that causes more tension in communities than the fact that there is a shortage of housing, so that people in our country have to compete with immigrants over housing supply. That should not be necessary; we should have built enough housing so that we can accommodate both the immigrants we need and those who live in this country. It is a red rag to a bull. Margaret Hodge MP has raised this issue in the past, and the Governor of the Bank of England recently highlighted how supply of housing impacts on the security of the economy. It may well have impacts on productivity, too—it was good to hear the noble Lord, Lord O’Neill of Gatley, talk about that earlier.

There is much to welcome in what the Government are doing in terms of the 275,000 new affordable houses promised by the end of the five years. There is much to welcome in the Bill, but I hope that your Lordships will keep it very much in mind that this will be an opportunity to increase the supply of social and key worker housing.

16:17

[Lord Heseltine (Con)]

My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lady Williams on the very clear way in which she summarised this fascinating piece of legislation, which is immensely wide in its potential and dependent almost entirely on the detail of offers that other people are yet to make. I am sure that noble Lords will appreciate that we have heard two speeches from opposition parties that were very helpful and supportive of what the Bill intends to do. In my view, we are discussing and implementing in this Bill an historic shift.

I was particularly interested in what the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, had to say. If there is an area of this country’s administration where devolution is necessary, it is in the poorest communities, which are all fragmented into different streams of funding from central government. There is no correlation or process at local level that draws the funding together and asks fundamental questions. If you live in that sort of circumstance—and no one in this noble House does—the one thing that is missing is a ladder of aspiration. There is no machine showing you how you can change the structure. There are lots of very well-meaning people with very substantial sums of money, but there is no central point where we can try to change the assumptions of deprivation that exist on a wide scale and in many different forms. The noble Earl may well be surprised, as this process unfolds, that there is great potential for the poorest communities in particular.

I think that the whole House recognises that today we are involved in an historic shift. We all understand how this process of centralism came about. We were a pre-eminent world power in the 18th century, and the driving force and motive was that of the accumulation of wealth, which created conditions for people that were totally unacceptable. In order to ameliorate the condition of the people, it was necessary for central government increasingly over more than a century to centralise the processes that would create an equality of adequate public service. It was a very benign and necessary part of the evolution of parliamentary democracy.

However, if the intention was benign, the consequences were not quite as happy. First, because it was very largely public sector-driven, the people who had created the wealth in the first place were marginalised, and in the process of decision-making they were largely eliminated over a very long period of time. Secondly, the process of redistributing the money that had to be collected locally to provide the services that were required led to a fragmentation of function in the great spending departments of London. I can remember only one occasion in my entire political career when the subject on the agenda was a city, and it was Liverpool after the riots of 1981. Many discussions took place about housing, policing, education and whatever, but at no meeting I can remember did we sit down and ask what we should be doing about the totality of this vital community called Liverpool, Leeds, Birmingham, Manchester or whatever it may be.

So the functionalism of the central process was extremely fragmenting in the application of opportunity for those areas. Frankly, and in many ways more sadly, it created a culture of deference, because the weight of money flowing back to local people and local communities was so heavy and the systems by which it flowed back were so intrusive that the culture that developed at local level was, “Tell us what to do” and “Show us what you want”. The willingness to challenge the central machine became inbuilt into the assumptions of too many people living in our great cities.

The consequence of all this is that in this country we have devised a system of government unlike any other advanced economy. There is no economy of which I am aware—it may be that other noble Lords have a different experience—which has so concentrated power in its capital city and dictated by circular, edict, specific grant or ring-fence the precise detail in which a commonly devised formula is imposed on the whole of the economy. Noble Lords will realise that this Bill is about creating a better balance. It is not a revolution. Noble Lords who have spoken so far have talked about what has happened in the past, and there are many examples over the years. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Prescott, was very interested in this subject. The Labour Party can claim credit for creating the mayoralty of London.

I heard the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, make the proud claim that it is 40 years since he was first elected a councillor. I have to tell noble Lords that it is 45 years since as a junior Minister I entered the DCLG where I now have the honour to be a special adviser to the Secretary of State. I am glad that nobody has taken the trouble to look at the preposterous and ridiculous things I said about local government—that I created councils, destroyed councils and changed boundaries. All these things I did in the name of better governance, I said at the time. I come before your Lordships’ House today as a sinner that repenteth.

The precedent of the London mayor has been an exciting one, and no one would take it away, but there are many other mayors today. There is a Mayor of Liverpool. Nobody asked for a referendum in Liverpool. I disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, on this issue. A former Labour MP is now the Mayor of Leicester and is doing, so far as I can see—forgive the party politics—a perfectly acceptable job. Nobody suggested that there should be a referendum in Leicester. Built into the statute is endless provision for new mayors to be created within the existing framework of local government without a referendum, so why should we be preoccupied with this delaying tactic—because we know that that is what it will be?

Of course, the argument is that we did have a referendum, which from the point of view of those of us who believe in mayoral government was a disaster. Why was it a disaster? First, because it was completely controlled by the party machines, which were basically against anything that threatened their existence; and, secondly, because nobody bothered to vote. So on the idea that we are once again going to subject our great cities to a referendum—with perhaps the exception of Manchester, which has opted to take the leading steps towards one—I hope that when we get to Committee the House will come to the view that the opportunity, the prize and the timing are so urgent that we might be able to get on with the job and transfer power back to where we have taken it from over the past 150 years.

As I said, this is not a revolution. The last Government were, I think, extremely constructive. They worked with local enterprise partnerships, city deals, growth deals, the single pot and the northern powerhouse in pushing this agenda with determination and excitement. It is an evolution, not a revolution, but it is an evolution that is moving in a direction that will change the history of our country. There are things that will flow from it. First, there will be a massive potential saving in costs. I do not wish to trespass on the discussions about public expenditure cuts and the reviews that are coming; they would come under any Government, as we all know. But the fact is that with the local authority structure that we have today there is a massive overlay of costs, which will be challenged because the cuts that are coming will increase the pressure. They will not create it—the pressure is already there, and a whole range of dialogues are proceeding as to how local authorities can co-operate, amalgamate or whatever in order to cut not the services but the overhead costs of providing the services. That will be a benefit.

It is a huge change. Billions of pounds a year will be spent not because the functional apparatus of central London so designs but because local people say, “If we can spend it this way, we will get better results”—and that will build on the strength that exists in our communities and enhance the opportunities as local people see them.

It is a fact that it is a competitive process. There is no compulsion on any local authority or combination to come together to advance this cause, but if they do it will be by negotiation with central government, and in negotiating with central government they will want to ask basic questions about the administrative capability of the new structure to carry through the enhanced responsibilities that they will enjoy. That will mean that the new structure that emerges will have every incentive to diversify to encourage choice and to show ways in which it can do better than other competing local groupings—and that will raise standards as the more successful pioneer an enhanced form of service.

The next argument that flows from that is that if you distribute public money by competition, you get gearing. Many Members of this House will have been part of the process of the last 20 or 30 years in which we have shown increasingly that if you use money in a competitive sense—such as the urban development corporations, the City Challenge, the regional growth fund, city deals, the single pot—you get a significant enhancement of what the taxpayer can afford. The ratios are exciting; the most exciting of all, of course, was London Docklands at 10 times what the public had to pay, but the regional growth fund still returns something like five or six times what the taxpayer could afford. So although we talk of cuts—which, legitimately, members of the opposition party will want to do—the reality will be that in employment terms there will be no cuts, because the use of public money in a competitive environment, and the gearing that it will produce, will dwarf in increased employment the jobs lost in the public sector.

So there are many arguments in favour of the distribution of public money to the localities, but it is important to realise that this is not a take-it-or-leave-it, “Here’s the money; tell us how you got on” system. This is a new form of partnership and, whichever party is in power, it is entitled to see its manifesto implemented. Maybe the Government will have been elected to create more housing, or better health or higher education standards; whatever it may be, we are not in any way challenging the right of central government to have its manifesto implemented. What is different is that in the implementation of government policies the talent of the nation is involved in trying to do the best they can to implement that, as suits their own localities.

The devolution process is conducted by negotiation: by voluntary offers from the local communities in whatever form they want to combine, but then by agreement. One of the questions that they will have to answer, and rightly so, is: “What is the administrative structure that will actually carry out this new vision that you have put forward for your town, city, county or rural area?”. It follows that they may actually turn round and say, “Well, what is central government doing about the administrative way in which it deals with us?”. If one were a businessman, which of course as a politician one certainly is not, one would not accept one’s company being run in the way that central government runs its administrative relationships with local communities. So in asking local authorities and local enterprise partnerships how they would reorganise themselves to carry the responsibility now being devolved, it might well be that they will turn around and say to central government, “Will you please do something about reorganising yourselves so that we have a central point of contact with whom we can do business?”.

I hope that the good will expressed by all noble Lords who have spoken today will be carried through in the implementation of the Bill. The country, as we all know, faces an ever more competitive challenge, but the opportunities out there are equally attractive. The Bill is about encouraging people all over the country to help this nation grasp those new opportunities for themselves, their communities and local people.

16:32

[Lord Prescott (Lab)]

My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Heseltine. His words are often beguiling but you have to look at the small print. He has an excellent reputation for urban development in different parts of the United Kingdom, for which I give him credit. He was the man who welcomed me as a Back-Bencher on my maiden speech, so we have both been around for a bit. I recall that when I was in a Labour Cabinet, I had to get the Cabinet to agree to rescue his Dome, which turned out to be profitable, and then I had to rescue the Channel Tunnel rail link, HS1; it had collapsed in the private sector but the public sector solved it. So he and I have worked together to achieve some of the benefits of urban development.

It has been a great joy to listen to the noble Lord today but I have to say, when he talks of a “historic moment”, that he was in the Lobbies lobbying and voting against all the devolution proposals that were brought in by the Labour Government. Devolution in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland and a Greater London Authority with an elected mayor were all brought about by a Labour Government. Therefore it is not that historic at the moment; it has been there for a while, and most of it, with the noble Lord’s help, was basically abolished, or voted against, by the previous Administration.

I am therefore delighted to be here in a debate talking about devolution and how that can affect the north in particular. Again, the noble Lord, Lord Heseltine, has helped the development of the north a great deal. No Stone Unturned was a very important document that advanced some of the arguments he has just given. He always has solutions—except for the time he got kicked out of the Cabinet, but I will leave that alone at this moment—that are well thought-out and well respected in the areas they operate in.

I want to say to the noble Lord that devolution started two decades ago, and this is an extension of it. It is not the same kind of devolution; it is in a way considerably different from the kinds that we developed. As the noble Lord probably knows from the past, in 2006, when I was the Secretary of State, we produced the Northern Way. Everything in the powerhouse of the north was embodied in that document. So when they say, “Ah, the powerhouse of the north!” it is not original or historic—we did that 10 years ago. The real problem is that the Liberal Democrat and Conservative Government abolished it. As soon as they came in, in 2010, the Chancellor got rid of it and the regional development agencies—I suspect that the noble Lord, Lord Heseltine, rather admired them as a body; they did bring things together—but today this Government have taken that in a different direction.

I want to make a historic point about the documents produced at that time, but we are thankful that we are now moving to more decentralisation. The analysis given by the noble Lord, Lord Heseltine, on centralised government is absolutely right. I have felt that all my life here in Parliament. I was given the job by Michael Foot, who was the leader of the party in 1980, when we failed in the first referendum for Scottish devolution to find a solution for the English regions. The north-east, as the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, said, was very annoyed at how many powers could be given to Scotland but not to the north-east. I admit to my failure: I could not convince the Labour Government to give similar powers to English regions as they had given to Scotland. We gave them a referendum and we failed in the north-east, largely because I could not convince my colleagues to give more powers.

The situation now is very different. The position in Manchester now is about what was effected in Scotland. People say, “Right—we want these powers for the English regions”, and I fully support that and think that is right. However, as to how you interpret that, we must wait for the debate that will happen on how the resources are to come and what the powers will be. There will be some disagreement about turning local authorities into premier, championship and lower local authorities, all of which will now be given different powers and resources. On saving money, I can remember the other change in local government—I have been around long enough—when the county local authorities were set up. They did not save money; they cost a lot more in the end, and they had to be broken up in the main. Therefore, there are many lessons to be learned.

I will end on the point about the local and combined authorities. I am sure that it will be known to the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, because it is about what the noble Lord, Lord Heseltine, has been involved in, on which we are now again joined with him: how you unite the ports of the north. Hull and Manchester are on a great corridor, not just for Britain to go to the European market; we are beginning to see an Atlantic super-port in Liverpool, with big container wharf developments; international negotiations are now taking place on the new American trade between the US and Europe; and there is the development and growth of the East, and the big consumer market in Europe. That land route between Manchester and Hull will be one of the big global corridors, which is very important.

The problem for me, now, is that one port—Merseyside—is in a combined authority, while Hull is not. It is always left on the side—we do not deal with Hull. When you look at the transport policy that was produced by those combined authorities, it stopped at Leeds. It never came into Yorkshire or saw the East Riding. If you want to develop a port strategy, which would be a great asset for the north, you need to develop both ports. The Humber is becoming a massive energy base for renewables and is a major port that looks to Europe, while Merseyside looks to the Atlantic. They are the two important ports. So what is my complaint? My complaint is that, as we have found already with the transport document produced by the combined authorities, they can only really begin to opt in people from Hull and other areas but these are not part of the decision-making process. With two big gateways like that which are connected for trade and transport, it is stupid to have one authority that has the power and resources and is combined authority, such as Liverpool, with massive investment from the Peel organisation, and the other authority in Hull which is not included.

I want to put a question to the noble Baroness, Lady Williams. I do not know whether she realises that she attended one of my meetings where I made this argument, and I hope that that does not damage her career. However, it was very good that she came to Hull, which involves a long journey. Hull wants this development but it cannot get into the game. It has already written to Richard Leese and asked whether it can be included as a city region but it has been told, “No, you can’t”. Now it is expanding. Cardiff, Birmingham and Glasgow have been brought in and there is now a big national grouping of authorities. They are the ones that will really have the influence on government, and they are the ones who are promising to have a Lord in charge. I mean a mayor in charge, although it may be a Lord—who knows? Basically they need to be on the same footing. I have a letter from Richard Leese, who is now the chairman of all the combined authorities and whose name is on my Northern Way document. Basically, Richard Leese has said that city regions such as Hull—and there are many others—cannot get into the game when the priority is being given to the combined authorities.

I have a question for the noble Baroness. The notes to the Bill say that certain authorities can, under order, join in. A commission in Hull has just reported. The arguments between Hull and Beverley are in the past; they have come together. The first combined authority was developed in 2006, when we were in government, so the current Government are not unique or historic in that respect. There is now talk of Leeds being involved. Leeds is looking at how to have a big North Yorkshire authority, involving the whole area and the authorities in Humberside. How would that work? Would they just make an application—a promise to have an election for a mayor? Of course, with decentralisation the Government tell you what you have to have, but I will leave that to one side. Authorities want to know how to do that, and not only Hull—a big one will be put together if it goes in with Leeds. How will that process work and how long will it take? I feel it is important that local authorities are given these answers.

Hull just wants to be in the game. It is an important gateway to Europe and there is an important trade barrier. Hull needs to be part of this. It is always being left aside as a fishing port. Well, it ain’t now; it is a major port crucial to the development of the northern economy. I do not care whether you call it a powerhouse economy—the northern powerhouse—or the northern way. We need to get on with the investment. That is an essential part of economic and transport development, coupling with what is happening in the London of the north—namely, Manchester. Perhaps the Minister can give us some information about that.

Clandestine Migrants

Monday 8th June 2015 Lords Chamber

Statement

16:43

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Bates) (Con)]

My Lords, with the leave of the House, I will repeat a Statement given earlier today in another place by my honourable friend the Immigration Minister, James Brokenshire.

“Mr Speaker, last Thursday evening, Border Force officers at the port of Harwich detected and intercepted 68 migrants who were seeking to enter the UK illegally and clandestinely. The discovery came after four lorries were selected for examination and searching through Border Force’s normal operating procedures. Among the 68 migrants found were two pregnant women and 15 children. Seven migrants complained of chest pains and nausea and were taken to hospital as a precautionary measure. All four drivers of the lorries involved were arrested on suspicion of facilitating illegal immigration. They have been bailed but continue to be under investigation by law enforcement bodies, including the National Crime Agency.

Of the 68 people found, 35 were Afghans, 22 were Chinese, 10 were Vietnamese and one was Russian. None of those taken to hospital, including the two pregnant women, was found to have a substantive medical condition of concern. Some of the individuals have claimed asylum, and UK Visas and Immigration is considering their claims, including suitability for the “detained fast track” process. Two of the asylum seekers are unaccompanied minors and have been placed in the care of Essex social services. We have already begun the work to seek the removal of the remaining migrants from the UK.

If we can show that those who are claiming asylum have also claimed in another EU member state, we will seek to remove them under the Dublin regulation. This regulation has allowed us to remove 12,000 asylum seekers from the UK since it came into force in 2003. However, it relies on member states fulfilling their obligations systematically to identify and fingerprint migrants apprehended at the EU border. Unfortunately, we know that some member states are still not fulfilling these obligations, which is a matter that we continue to raise with them at the highest levels. This Government are clear that the EU’s approach to migratory flows must include proper management of the external border, the prompt return of those who are not in genuine need of protection and action to tackle the efforts of smugglers and traffickers who profit from human misery.

I am aware that my honourable friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex visited the port on Friday, which is in his constituency. I would like to echo and endorse his complimentary words about the work of Border Force. Border Force conducts rigorous checks on lorries and other vehicles as they arrive at UK ports of entry on a targeted basis, as was the case at Harwich on Thursday evening. Such checks are undertaken by skilled officers, who have the expertise to identify individuals who are often well-hidden in vehicles, and involve the use of state-of-the-art scanning and X-ray technology. Thursday night’s incident at Harwich comes on the back of a number of other excellent results by the Border Force team at that port. Among other successful operations in recent months, the Border Force team has made some significant seizures, including 15 kilograms of heroin in December, 17 kilograms of cocaine in May and 2.9 million cigarettes in March.

With regards to the specific problem of clandestine immigrants, Border Force concentrates a significant amount of resource at the juxtaposed ports in northern France, where the vast majority of illegal border crossings are attempted. All lorries undergo enhanced screening at these locations. Our approach is dynamic and intelligence led. Border Force is able to, and does, move its resources around on the basis of threat to ensure that we keep one step ahead of the criminal gangs that exploit vulnerable people and try to circumvent our immigration laws.

The important work that Border Force officers carry out detecting and intercepting those who attempt to enter the UK illegally, in conjunction with law enforcement agencies in the UK and internationally, is vital in the fight against organised criminal networks engaged in people smuggling. These gangs show a callous disregard for human life and seek to make a profit out of other people’s misery. I commend Border Force for its discovery last week and for the work that it does to protect the UK’s borders. I commend this Statement to the House.”

16:47

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement.

The people found at Harwich are victims of criminal gangs, just like those found on boats in the Mediterranean. What action are the Government taking to ensure that there is a more concerted UK and EU drive to seek to stop this trade in human beings at its source? To secure our borders, what percentage of lorries and containers are now routinely checked at UK ports of entry? John Vine, the former inspector of borders, stated at the weekend that good intelligence and experienced staff were critical but that a lot of experienced staff were leaving and not being replaced. Is that true? Finally, can the Minister say whether or not Border Force funding is ring-fenced from the Home Office funding cut that was announced by the Government last week?

[Lord Bates]

My Lords, I will take the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, in turn.

The noble Lord is absolutely right to say that it is one thing to try to tackle these problems when they arrive in the UK but far more productive to focus that effort in areas and countries where there is insecurity. That is part of the reason why so much of the work of DfID and the Foreign Office in places such as Syria is about trying to intervene to provide stability and security in those areas so that people do not undertake the perilous journey, in the case of the Mediterranean, or become victims of the criminal gangs that we have talked about.

The second thing that we can do in that regard is to strengthen the laws in relation to this. With a large degree of cross-party support in the last Parliament, we introduced the Modern Slavery Act, the Counter-Terrorism and Security Act and the Serious Crime Act, all of which were aimed at trying to disrupt activity and increase the penalties for those concerned.

The noble Lord asked some specific points about the operations and the percentage of checks that are carried out. This work is very much intelligence led. Border Force works very closely with the National Crime Agency and it will pass on intelligence to particular ports for the screening of vehicles. The actual percentage may change from port to port on the basis of intelligence that is received at that point. We can also take some confidence—without for one second being complacent—from the performance of Border Force in areas such as Harwich for the examples that I gave earlier.

There is a three-pronged approach: the first is tackling the issue upstream; the second is the greater use of technology; and the third is greater use of intelligence. We must also strengthen the legal framework to ensure that those people who engage in this pernicious activity of trafficking people across countries get the punishment that they deserve.

16:51

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. Does he agree that proper management of the EU’s external border is the key to solving these issues, and that the UK is in a far better position within the EU to influence member states than it would be if it were outside the European Union? The Minister also mentioned the Dublin regulation and the fact that more than 12,000 illegal immigrants who claimed asylum initially in other EU states had been deported from the UK as a result of that regulation. Will he tell the House whether that regulation would still apply if the UK were no longer a member of the European Union?

[Lord Bates]

The noble Lord is absolutely right that the work of FRONTEX in securing the borders of Europe is vital. We believe that it could be doing a better job, but we are co-operating with the agency at the present time—I believe that members of the police, the National Crime Agency and Border Force are working very closely with FRONTEX. One of the areas in which we would like to see it perform better is in taking fingerprint data as soon as people come into the European Union area. That would help in tracking them down.

The noble Lord is correct to say that this is a growing European problem. We are seeing a significant increase in the numbers of migrants coming into the EU—around 600,000. It is a European problem, but it goes beyond Europe’s borders. We are sure that our partnership in working together with other European countries—as we have done in this case with the Dutch, and as we are doing with the juxtaposed controls with the French—is an integral element of being able to tackle this going forward.

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

The Minister referred to European instruments and my noble friend took up that theme, but I want to ask about carriers’ liability, which is also the subject of an EU legal instrument. Like the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, I heard John Vine, a former borders inspector at the weekend saying that there had been no sanctions on hauliers or confiscation of vehicles where they were found to have been carrying irregular migrants—he implied that there had been none at all. Is that the case, and, if so, why? Why have there not been any sanctions for breach of carrier liability legislation?

[Lord Bates]

We have to work closely with the hauliers. In March, my honourable friend the Immigration Minister met with the hauliers to discuss what part they can play in this, because that is certainly in their interests. I can say that the four vehicles found to be carrying these illegal migrants through Harwich have been seized, and there will be ongoing legal discussions because the case has to be proved in the courts, as the noble Baroness would expect. Of course, there are many other areas where I can point to seizures which have taken place, and I will certainly write to her on the specific number. I should say that a major part of the Serious Crime Act is about strengthening the powers of the courts so that they are able to seize the assets of those engaged in people trafficking—if that is the case in this particular instance—whether the assets be lorries or boats in the Mediterranean, so that they cannot actually continue with their evil trade.

[Baroness Scott of Needham Market (LD)]

My Lords, first, I wish to declare an interest as a member of the board of the Harwich Haven Authority.

Does the noble Lord agree that the early finding of such people is not just a matter of politics but of humanitarian decency, because the impact on those who are not found in such conditions is catastrophic? Can he assure the House that proper attention is being paid to the rest of the ports community and not just to the Border Force, because it is the wider ports community which is more likely to have the first inkling that something is not right? Perhaps they need a bit more help in understanding what they should be looking for and how we can help to prevent these catastrophes turning into a humanitarian disaster.

[Lord Bates]

The noble Baroness is absolutely right. There is an extremely good relationship in this regard between Border Force and many port authorities—in fact, virtually all the ports of entry that I have ever looked at. The closeness of that relationship is absolutely vital to the sharing of information because intelligence and co-operation are critical to maintaining the integrity of our borders and the reputation and security of our port facilities.

[Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean (Lab)]

My Lords, we have seen disturbing reports recently that some of the boats crossing the Mediterranean have contained not only migrants. On occasion there is evidence that some of those on board have come from the so-called Islamic State and are trying to penetrate parts of Europe. Can the Minister tell us whether there is anything to suggest that any of the people on the boat which has just arrived come from either the so-called Islamic State organisation or, indeed, any other terrorist organisation?

[Lord Bates]

It is probably too early to say on that. Investigations will need to take place and a number of the people have applied for asylum. However, the noble Baroness has raised a very important point: this is not just about stemming what might be the trafficking of people, as evil as that is, but also about reducing the risks to our borders of the much more insidious threat of terrorism. We need to ensure that we are geared up for that.

In that regard, I want to pay tribute to the work of HMS “Bulwark” in the Mediterranean. Some 1,909 migrants have been rescued from the sea, and that is something which we can all be proud of in this country. We are ensuring that people are being rescued from their desperate situations, while at same time seeing no contradiction in having a robust attitude to maintaining the integrity of our borders.

Cities and Local Government Devolution Bill [HL]

Monday 8th June 2015 Lords Chamber

Second Reading (Continued)

16:58

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

My Lords, I am not going to enter into the polemics of the history of devolution within England or in the United Kingdom more broadly, but I look forward to what the Bill is likely to provide for certain other areas of England. I very much welcome devolution as a principle because it is needed and is a way of empowering local communities far better than has been the case in recent history. It is a way to liberate the economies of the regions.

The first word of the title of the Bill is “Cities”. Being a rural resident and someone who works within the rural economy as well as here, I was concerned that this area might be left out and that for every metropolitan powerhouse we might have a rural poorhouse. That clearly would mean that we would have a two-speed England, which would be completely wrong and unacceptable. More importantly, it would waste the resource, energy and ability of a large proportion of our English nation. Within rural areas in England, we have half a million businesses registered, the turnover of which is something like one-third of a trillion pounds per annum. We are not talking about something distant and unimportant or something that is not vital to get right in terms of the devolution jigsaw.

Noble Lords can imagine my surprise and delight when, going through the Bill, I came across Clause 10, which states:

“The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision about … the governance arrangements of local authorities”.

That is a very wide and general statement but I understand from the noble Baroness that it is the Government’s intention that the Secretary of State will be enabled to make secondary legislation allowing individual local authorities in England to have different powers and to be able to take more control of their future. I very much welcome that.

Cornwall has been mentioned a couple of times in speeches and in meetings that we have had with the Minister, which I welcome. But this is not about only that county in the south-west, it is a matter of principle that rural local authorities should participate in this process of devolution—not at the end of the queue but as an integral part of the queue. Within that context, perhaps I may ask whether there is a specific roadmap for local authorities. I should be interested to know how many are on the Minister’s action list at the moment. Is it a long list and where are we on that?

I welcome the fact that in her opening speech, the Minister emphasised that there are differences. I do not want to get into the arguments about elected mayors in terms of metropolitan and combined authorities. However, I presume from the legislation that it will not be compulsory for individual counties or other local authorities which take additional powers to have an elected mayor. I should like clarification on that. Clearly, it will be fine if they want them but a lot of rural communities are rather different in that regard and perhaps as existing authorities it would not necessarily be appropriate or be seen by the Government as being appropriate in the same way.

I understand that local authorities should not expect to queue up and say, “We want more powers”, and be disappointed if they are not granted. Clearly, there needs to be fiscal and financial responsibility. At worst it needs to be a zero-sum game and I hope that there will be financial savings, service enhancement being the most important. I look forward very much to the Minister’s reply as regards that issue. Rural areas are important. People living there are very keen to make sure that they do not become second-class citizens within this process.

I should like to mention two other issues. I was privileged to be one of the first members of the local enterprise partnership in Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly, which is probably one of the more successful. As regards more general devolution and economic development being a key part of the rationale for combined authorities and greater devolution, it is important that the LEP jigsaw should tie in better than it does at the moment. A lot of LEP boundaries are very random. I recently chaired a Local Government Association commission for non-metropolitan area economic development. I know from LGA members that one of their concerns was that the present boundaries of LEPs did not necessarily tie up very well with the way that devolution might happen. I am interested in the Minister’s response on that.

Lastly, I emphasise a point made by my noble friend Lord Shipley: there is a real concern and risk that we move, during devolution—certainly in metropolitan areas and maybe in some rural areas as well—into, effectively, one-party areas. There were great problems with them back in the 1980s, which were then solved with very blunt instruments. I would be very disappointed if this devolution process once again ended in that same sorry state in one or two decades’ time.

17:05

[The Lord Bishop of Derby]

My Lords, I, too, thank the Minister for her very clear introduction to the Bill and for showing us how it can be a creative, flexible way into the future. It ticks many of the boxes that we are concerned about today: localism, devolution, inclusivity, electoral accountability and enabling growth. I will make three very short points and ask three questions of the Minister.

The first is on unevenness. We have just heard about Truro and the rural south-west; the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich lobbies me about the east of England and the very different economic, social and political contexts. The east Midlands, where I work, is complex, with cities such as Derby, Nottingham and Leicester and very rural hinterlands. There is therefore a lot of unevenness in the territory that we are trying to use to enable economic growth and prosperity. How will those very different areas use the freedom the Bill offers? As we have heard, there is also unevenness between London and other parts of the country. Finally, there is the unevenness of some opting in and others opting out. The noble Lord, Lord Prescott, gave us a very helpful picture with the football leagues—some are “non-league clubs”, in a way, such is the complexity. If there is unevenness, what priorities will the Government have to manage it, so that we do not prioritise just some areas to flourish, while others are “non-league clubs”, to use that image?

Secondly, on London and the northern powerhouse, the Minister spoke about the redistribution of power and the noble Lord, Lord Heseltine, spoke about an historic shift. This is an historic shift because local government has been about “place”, and the identity of a place that joins all kinds of people, of all kinds of cultures and economic positions, around it. The Bill proposes that local government will be not about a place, per se, but about building places into units that deliver economic growth, which is a reconfiguration of places. That may raise some interesting questions about local cultures—what will it mean to live in Hull if you are part of a great conglomeration that can deliver economic growth, but which perhaps does not have the sensitivities for that kind of local government?

There is a very interesting question about cities and the role of London. Many would argue that the process of changing our understanding of “place” is happening to nations too: that nations are less and less important as factors in the global economy and the global ecology, and that the drivers of economics are global cities and their hinterlands. There is a lot of truth in that argument. I therefore ask the Minister: with this desire to redistribute power and properly to develop economic resources across the country, how will the Government take responsibility for a partnership between London as a global centre that needs a particular level of investment and development, and the way that other parts fit around it? I do not think that it is a simple matter of distributing, but of recognising that we benefit from having a major international city, and then asking how the other bits fit around it.

My last point concerns the shift from inviting people to participate in politics by voting for their local authority, to participating in the creation of these economic growth units. This means that local government will now be carried out not just by politicians—although mayors will be elected, and I, too, wonder whether mayors will have the leadership expertise for this large task. Local government will now be the responsibility of politicians and business, which is good. Businesses will contribute to growing the local economy and the making of the place that is a viable unit for it; but how will we deliver what the Minister called “allowing the aspirations of people in the city to share in the rewards”?

There is a danger that in this new politics, you might be able to vote for a mayor but all the deals will be fixed by politicians and businesses. What about ordinary people with jobs, “less than jobs” or no jobs? How will ordinary citizens experience a redistribution of power in the economic sense? If these spaces are about economic growth, how will the Government ensure that the proper partnership between politicians and business also connects with the aspirations of ordinary people, who need jobs, better jobs and more security? If the shift is from political participation to economic participation, what will that mean for the ordinary citizen? How will the Government make sure that that interest has a say not just every five years, when people vote for the mayor, but in the way that these partnerships operate on the ground?

17:11

[Baroness Wheatcroft (Con)]

My Lords, it gives me great pleasure to follow the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Derby, whose contributions are always thought provoking. I support the Bill but am delighted that it is my noble friend the Minister rather than I who has to answer his questions.

The need to rebalance the economy has been much spoken about in recent years but not just in terms of financial services versus manufacturing. Clearly, this is also a geographical issue. The Bill is a sensible step in that direction. There is no doubt that the increased concentration of wealth and power in London has been detrimental to other parts of the country, and you do not have to go very far from the capital to feel that. There are places only 25 miles from the centre of London where people cannot believe that MPs cannot keep three families on an MP’s salary.

Not so long ago local towns and cities had thriving businesses of their own. They had the sort of economic infrastructure that could support strong communities and growing new businesses, but gradually local businesses, whether grocers, department stores, dairies or local newspapers, were taken over, generally by businesses headquartered in London or the south-east. Simultaneously, Starbucks and McDonald’s have plagued our high streets. The end result is that local, professional firms, whether accountants or printers, again lost business to the big firms of accountants and printers headquartered in London.

Things have to change. We have to find a way to bring back businesses that can thrive in local communities. It seems to me that the mayor proposed in this legislation is a very important step in that direction. The mayor will be in a position to stimulate local enterprises and support movements such as the shop local day that has proved so successful in the United States and has recently been launched here. He can pioneer high street partnerships that will bring new life on to high streets and help stimulate the businesses there.

The Government envisage that the new combined authorities will be able to develop certain specific sector strengths in their areas. We know that clusters work. We have seen how the clusters of high-tech business can generate new ideas and thrive to the benefit of their communities. Now we need to find other ideas and all sorts of scientific innovations. The Bill envisages that the new combined authorities will work with universities and develop science initiatives and that sort of technical business in new areas. My noble friend the Minister referred to local enterprise partnerships in her introduction. I, too, see them as very important but I stress, as I did last week, that the quality of the local enterprise partnerships varies enormously and it will be important to bring up the lesser-performing ones to the standard of the better.

Then there is the matter of planning. Any thriving local community needs housing, as we have heard already, but the nimby tendency in this country is not to be underestimated. When we put several authorities together, there is a great danger that there will be very different views on where the housing development and indeed any other development should go. I am not entirely clear what the mayor’s role will be in ironing out that sort of conflict. I would be very interested to hear from the Minister exactly how the planning decisions will be taken in these new combined authorities.

The Bill gives the new mayors the power to raise levies and to borrow—for example, for transport. I would also be interested to hear what the Government’s attitude towards municipal bonds will be. In the current climate, there is obviously an appetite for bonds that appear to be slightly community-spirited, and they do not need to offer a hugely inflated interest rate to attract interest, although I would be very interested to know whether attitudes might change. There have been unfortunate incidences with some local authority schemes in the past but I think people have moved on and municipal bonds might be worth exploring.

When we come to devolving power from London, I would be interested to hear the latest thinking on devolving jobs. Some government jobs have moved out, but all too often when departments move it is the less important jobs that go and the higher earners tend to stay in London. I think those who did move out have generated sufficient taxi and train bills to make it imperative that they were moved back fairly quickly. If we are serious about devolving from London, we should be devolving the important jobs from the centre as well. Given the effectiveness of Skype, teleconferencing and videoconferencing, some of the objections that might have been raised in the past can presumably be dealt with more easily now.

Finally, I would just like to make a plea that the mayors who are elected follow the example of our own mayor in London, who has been a source of joy and delight to the community. This joie de vivre has obviously come from a mayor of the people—there have been festivals and fireworks and, generally, the feelgood factor. Our mayor uses bicycles and public transport. I would like to think that the new breed of mayors will not live in mansion houses or travel in limousines. Could we have mayors of the people?

17:17

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham (Lab)]

Yes, my Lords, if they are for the people as well.

First, I thank the Minister for an admirable speech, but I would expect nothing else of a former local government leader.

Of course I support the principle of rebalancing London’s dominance in our economy by strengthening the powers, resources and sheer political clout of the great cities of the north. It is long overdue. As the noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, just said, the dominance of London within the UK is unparalleled anywhere in Europe, but the global banking crisis, London’s overheated house prices and its huge and widening economies—in which a City trader can earn more in a day than a cleaner can in a year—show how problematic and unhealthy such dominance can be.

The eight preferred core metro cities share a history, they share economies and they share, for the most part, their politics. Devolution makes sense and is good news, but I join this Second Reading to ask one other question: what about the other cities of England? London is sorted; the great northern cities are soon to be sorted; and then there are the rest of us, the mid-tier cities. Our populations and contributions to the economy equal those of the metro cities. Our productivity and potential for growth probably—almost certainly—exceed them. OECD research shows that there is proportionately higher economic growth in medium-sized cities than in either the capitals of Europe or the secondary great European cities, yet we seem politically invisible. Devolution presumes that decisions made locally are best, not that decisions are better the larger you are.

I loathe the arrogance—and I know that this view is shared by many in your Lordships’ House—of “earned autonomy”. I distrust the simple-minded alpha-male obsession with size, the Treasury’s cosy preference for dealing with a few large authorities, rather than many diverse ones, the bureaucratic dislike mentioned by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Derby for geographical untidiness and the instinct for one-size-fits-all uniformity. I am afraid that I also have no patience with powerful, charismatic Westminster politicians, who have never been in local government, demanding that power can be safely devolved only to other powerful politicians—that is, mayors. If your Lordships will forgive the personal note, as a former leader of my council there was nothing I could not do that the proposed mayors can do, and I could do it with the consent of the majority of my council and all their financial support. I have yet to have it established to me that the situation would be different under mayors.

The devolution debate has so far been about size: bigger is better, more productive, more efficient and more effective. I challenge that. Medium-sized cities, relatively speaking, are doing the heavy lifting. Here and on the continent, mid-tier cities outperform city regions. Of course there are gains in VFM from scaled-up connectivity, but there are also significant diseconomies: congestion, pollution, labour crowding, the high cost of housing and travel-to-work times. These can affect city region productivity, just as the difficulty of integrating services horizontally—for example, between housing and social services—the added tiers of management and the logistics of travel and communication can all affect the quality of service provision. For example, after the 1974 reorganisation, which I fought as a local councillor, education, social services, highways and planning were removed from urban authorities to their shire county—bigger was better—whereupon they had promptly to be devolved back down again, either as local offices, now without any local accountability, or as agencies, with all the confusion for the public of who was responsible for what.

My own research showed that there was no right size for local government. Every service, from community centres, which are small-size, housing, which is medium-size, and highways, which are large, to secure accommodation for severely disturbed children—the very large—has a different optimum size. The education mafia used to insist that councils had to be for at least 250,000 people to run education, but academies have shown that to be a questionable assumption. With purchasing and partnership arrangements, size matters far less. What really matters, and here I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Heseltine, is identity, distinctiveness, a sense of place and, above all, political will.

The metro cities, with their balanced and self-sustaining local economies, are great but theirs is not the only model. Mid-tier cities do not especially claim self-sufficiency; rather, their strength is in their diversity and their specialisms. Sunderland, Coventry, Doncaster and Derby have strong manufacturing economies; Plymouth, Hull, Portsmouth and Southampton are ports; York, Peterborough and Milton Keynes service their regional economies; Blackpool, Bournemouth, Southend and Bath are visitor economy cities. Many are also knowledge economies, especially Oxford and Cambridge, while Brighton and Norwich support large travel-to-work areas, with thriving digital and creative industries. Their politics are diverse with Conservative, Labour and all possible NOCs in between. Many are not only county but regional centres, often surrounded by highly rural district councils. Most, but not all, are unitary authorities, but they all drive their local economies with a reach far beyond their notional boundaries and with a huge multiplier effect.

I hope that defeating Middlesbrough in the play-off final does not mean that Norwich is in the bad graces of the Secretary of State, who is from Middlesbrough. Norwich, with its universities, theatres, cathedrals, internationally renowned science park and international airport, and as the home of the eastern regions of the BBC and ITV and of Archant newspapers, not surprisingly provides half of Norfolk’s jobs. After all, Norwich’s is the largest district council in the country and larger than at least 12 other unitary authorities. It provides the shopping, culture and recreation for three counties. However, as a district council denied unitary status by Mr Pickles, it has to service the county and lead the region—1 million people look to Norwich—on the not-very-large revenues of a rural district council. We cannot do it.

Essentially, those key cities help to rebalance the national economy by closing the productivity gap between Britain’s regions, as ResPublica has argued, precisely because they are concentrated centres with a clustering of specialist firms, including advanced manufacturing and knowledge-based industries. They offer what the EU calls smart specialisation, which it favours. They can diversify their expertise into further specialised niches and offer the UK greater resilience in the face of economic shocks.

These key cities cannot embrace the false god—the fetish—of size. Most cannot become combined authorities with adjacent rural districts without diluting their focus, flexibility, entrepreneurship, distinctiveness and identity. The cities face issues of density; rural areas, issues of sparsity. We can offer services and enter specific partnerships with our neighbours, which is good, but we cannot be amalgamated and homogenised into a sort of anywhere, thinned-out, national suburbia. If we lose our sense of place or our notion of the community to which we belong, we are all losers and no longer have local government.

If mid-tier cities are to help drive economic growth while also offering much-needed services to the neighbouring authorities—their rural neighbours—then they and we need a tailored version of the finances, powers and resources offered to the core metro cities. So what do we need? Not a series of one-off deals with the Chancellor, but more general devolved powers which we could then draw down and deploy as best suits our communities. For example, instead of having the useless government work programmes—they really are useless—councils need to run education, skills and training in conjunction with schools, local business and local FE colleges. Our chambers of commerce beg us to do it, but we cannot. In that way, the community would own them.

Secondly, we need commissioning powers for a much wider range of public services, working with the private sector and other public agencies. For example, if we were responsible for transport, we could build better transport for travel to work, limit congestion and attract people off private transport with things such as Oyster card offers and the like.

We need to bring all the publicly held land within a city into a single property board to make best use of development sites. On finance, we need five-year funds to plan transport, housing, skills and training. We need more from the business rate to fund investment in local enterprise. We want more local revenues—stamp duty, perhaps VAT and, certainly, additional bands of council tax.

I hope and believe the new Secretary of State understands this agenda. I welcome him and think he is good news. In his words,

“over-centralisation has been such a disaster for urban Britain. Over-mighty and over-extended, central government has, for decades, robbed our cities of their trump card: their ability to do things differently”.

I agree with every word of that. Local government is about that difference, which is why devolution belongs to us all. We will work with him, if he will work with us, to achieve it.

17:29

[Lord Goddard of Stockport (LD)]

My Lords, I rise with a sense of déjà vu from those who remember my maiden speech, where I admitted to getting lost in this Chamber, and sitting on the wrong Benches over there. I now sit over here, so I am working my way round the Chamber.

I have no embarrassment in returning to the subject of my maiden speech, which was devolution. I believe in devolution. It matters—and the Minister agrees with me on that. A long, long time ago, before the city deals, the growth funds and a lot of things that have come, when we had only the Association of Greater Manchester Authorities, we had one meeting where Sir Howard Bernstein brought in a fresh-faced young chap to talk to us about city size, productivity and globalism. That was one Jim O’Neill—now the noble Lord, Lord O’Neill. He spent an hour and a half with us and really opened the eyes of the leaders of Greater Manchester. That was a number of years ago but it was when we began to realise the importance of combined authorities and working closer together to deliver the objectives of us all: the economic regeneration of all 10 of our boroughs. That is the reason we have been at the forefront of this. It was perhaps just lucky that the noble Lord came to Greater Manchester rather than going to Hull, Cornwall or Leeds. To our good fortune, he came to us.

I welcome the inclusive nature of this legislation, which provides cities across England with the opportunity to draw down similar powers and responsibilities to those set out in the Greater Manchester devolution agreement signed in November. It is important that all parts of the UK are able to secure greater devolution to ensure that they are able to take responsibility for growth and their own reform. The 10 Greater Manchester local authorities have run for a long time and have an unrivalled history of collaboration. We had a seamless transition from a “voluntary” federation to a formally integrated governance system to a combined authority. We always believed in a bottom-up approach, evolving over time to meet the needs agenda of Greater Manchester, and also the needs of each and every borough within it. As long as the bottom-up approach carries on, I can give some succour and faith to those noble Lords who feel that the homogenisation of combined authorities is a bad thing. It is not: there is an ability to retain your identity while being part of the bigger team thinking.

However, I have two concerns regarding the Bill. One is around accountability of the elected mayor; the other is around scrutiny. I can be very quick on the elected mayor, as that argument has been had with government. In reply to the noble Lord, Lord Heseltine, I say that there was no referendum in Liverpool because the Government offered Liverpool more powers if it did not have one. In a negotiation, that is a pretty powerful argument. I think that the noble Lord did the right thing in taking more powers without the referendum. A similar thing was offered to Greater Manchester. Greater Manchester did not, in principle, want an elected mayor but the deal was that if it wanted full powers then that was the price. Looking at the full deal, the 10 leaders felt that it was a price worth paying. For the avoidance of doubt for anyone else, I say that you will get limited powers from the Chancellor. If you want full powers, the caveat is that an elected mayor is the cornerstone of that. I am afraid that that is the top and bottom of it.

In Greater Manchester, we managed to get a deal where we appointed a mayor for 18 months who will represent us until we have a full-blown election. Mind you, we still managed to nearly mess that up. It was a quite simple contest between Peter Smith—the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Leigh, who has been a leader of AGMA, the combined authority and the city deal growth fund—and Tony Lloyd, the ex-Manchester MP and police and crime commissioner. The 10 members had to pick the winner and move on. There were eight Labour members, one Liberal Democrat and one Conservative. Two and a half hours later, at 5-5, we were still locked in a room. It took the Conservative leader changing position to ensure that Tony Lloyd is now mayor of Greater Manchester. To me, that does not bode too well. If this was a company that had the business turnover of Greater Manchester, the board wanted to elect a new chairman and it was 5-5 after two hours, I think they would have to reopen the process of selection—but they did not in this case. I wish Tony Lloyd well. I have known him a number of years and he is quite a good operator, clearly. My commiserations are with the noble Lord, Lord Smith.

One or two points from the devolution Bill will give comfort to some noble Lords—such as the right reverend Prelate and the previous speaker, the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, who spoke about homelessness—because it gives powers to borrow in respect of the combined authority functions, subject to compliance with the prudential borrowing code. It provides a combined authority with the flexibility to issue a levy or precept in respect of expenditure relating to combined authority functions, thereby providing a more secure basis for borrowing. At present, for the combined authority to take forward any arrangement which requires borrowing, one of the constituent councils has to take responsibility for that. That is unsatisfactory, administratively burdensome and inconvenient. An example is the £300 million Greater Manchester housing investment fund, which will deliver up to 15,000 new homes across Greater Manchester but is underwritten solely by Manchester City Council.

The transfer of transport powers and funding to the elected mayor are a major step forward in creating an integrated transport network that will improve connectivity and support residents to access key employment areas and the jobs that are created. The devolution of addressing skills and worklessness will ensure that service provision is delivered more efficiently and effectively to improve outcomes for residents and meet the needs of employers. There are more innovative mechanisms to invest in low-carbon infrastructure. All these details in the Bill will make real differences to people in the conurbations.

However, I would also welcome a debate around more fiscal devolution. Without more tax retained locally or more local flexibilities, it will be impossible for all parts of the country to achieve their maximum economic potential and the rebalancing of their economies. Examples could include more flexibility in the way stamp duty is applied or exploring differential rates of air passenger duty, which could have a significant impact on business growth and the development of new routes in overseas markets. We have made a start with the retention of growth on business rates. The public consultation is now taking place. I think the result of that will be that we should have full localism within a stable setting as soon as practicably possible.

I heard some noble Lords ask why we need combined authorities of such size. Size matters—and more so than ever before. Firms now need access to increasingly deep pools of human capital. When these big jobs are created, we need people close by with good transport links to get to those jobs. People of talent and ambition want to live in places with great schools, good jobs, fast transport, sport and culture. That is why our cities are now filling up again. Economic evidence shows a powerful correlation between city size and the productivity of its inhabitants. The top 600 cities in the world contain just 20% of the global population but contribute 60% of global GDP. That was the powerful thinking behind the City Growth Commission that the noble Lord, Lord O’Neill of Gatley, led with such imagination. It is the thinking behind the collaboration of the local authorities—which works.

Within 40 miles of Manchester, you have Leeds, Sheffield, Liverpool, Cheshire and—a bit further—Hull. That conurbation has in excess of 10 million people, more than Tokyo, New York or London. We must harness that talent. Yes, I will go back and see Sir Richard Leese. We have HS2 but just as important to the people of Greater Manchester is the link spoken of by the noble Lord, Lord Prescott—from Liverpool to Leeds. If that access from Liverpool to Leeds was made available as a priority, it would unleash the real northern powerhouse. I leave noble Lords with one thought. If the top 15 metros were to realise their true potential, that would generate an additional £79 billion for the UK. That is the real prize for getting this Bill right first time.

17:39

[Lord Wigley (PC)]

My Lords, I am delighted to follow the noble Lord, Lord Goddard of Stockport. I spent three very happy years in Manchester, at university, and follow the fortunes of that city and its football teams with much interest. To take up the theme of the auction of how many years we have been in local government, it is 43 years ago to last month that I was elected on to Merthyr Tydfil County Borough Council—but, unfortunately, it was done away with within two years by the Local Government Act 1972.

In principle, I would not oppose any Bill that brings decision-taking closer to the people and the communities impacted by those decisions. So I welcome very much this devolution in England and am glad that all parties at last are signed up to it, but in practice I have one or two reservations that this Bill is another piece of ad hoc devolution that will result in a complex patchwork of government. It could create confusion and a lack of clarity and, at worst, could frustrate efforts to achieve a coherent UK-wide solution, which we heard about at Oral Question Time today and which I suspect is widely sought.

As noble Lords may well imagine, my first issue on which I seek clarification—and I shall come back to these points in Committee—is whether this Bill applies directly or tangentially to Wales. Clause 12, the extent clause, says of course that it applies to England and Wales, but I realise that that may refer only to the jurisdiction as opposed to the geographical applicability. That wording can sometimes be misleading. In that context, I draw attention to the fact that Clause 10 specifically refers to England only, but the implication of that is that other clauses might not be restricted to England only. Are they relevant where local authorities co-operate, for example, on a cross-border basis? I think of the co-operation that is potentially going on between Cardiff and Bristol, for example, or between Merseyside and Clwyd. There needs to be clarity in those matters, and if it is a matter of having parallel powers within the National Assembly, I would be interested in knowing whether that is being facilitated.

One significant example of uncertainty is in Clause 3, which refers to the possible transfer of answerability of police commissioners to mayors by adding provisions to the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009. Responsibility for police commissioners or the police in general has not been devolved to the National Assembly for Wales, but local authorities, of course, have been totally devolved to the Assembly. So there is a question of how the interplay of those two dimensions comes together. Are the powers provided by that part of the Bill deemed to be transferred or transferable to the National Assembly? If not, English cities will have more powers than the National Assembly on these matters, clearly with anomalies arising out of that. Assuming that the powers conferred by this Bill are not intended to apply to Wales, can we assume that, by implication, the National Assembly has the power enabling it if it so wishes to introduce parallel legislation in Wales in a parallel or a quite different form? That is a particularly relevant question in matters relating to the police commissioners.

Can we assume that significant powers will be devolved to Manchester and elsewhere by this Bill without the need for a referendum? I take it that that is the reading of the Bill that we have heard about today. Noble Lords will recall that in Wales we had to go through two referenda, in 1997 and 2011, to get full powers over matters such as housing, health and transport, which are being devolved today. Can we assume that we shall not be subject to further referenda in Wales relating to the devolution of powers that may come for the police and, possibly, taxation powers?

This issue touches on the question of funding. The Conservative Party strongly emphasised in the recent election campaign in Wales that meaningful devolution must entail financial responsibility and that devolved authorities must have responsibility for raising at least part of their resources as well as the responsibility as to how it is spent. The Bill before us today is very light on questions of giving the devolved authorities any new taxation powers, and it explicitly refers to the mayor as not having borrowing powers, in line 26 on page 4. So if the new responsibilities currently exercised at Westminster are to be devolved, is it the Government’s intention to amend or replace the Barnett formula with regard to funding or introduce new funding mechanisms? If so, what will be the impact of those on Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, or will it be handled by other legislation devolving new taxation powers? Clearly, there needs to be the ability for authorities in areas as large as Greater Manchester to have a wide degree of taxation powers if they are to get to grips with the application of the powers being given in the areas under question.

All these questions will need answers. So far, with UK devolution, development has been uneven and incoherent over recent years. The noble Lord, Lord Teverson, raised the question of how we ensure that rural England does not fall behind in the race to make sure that the city regions have the power that they clearly need. We need to see changes in the overall balance within the UK, but it has to be a balanced package between Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland and England itself—but also within England, if the thing is to make coherent sense and to work.

17:46

[Lord Moynihan (Con)]

My Lords, some of us speaking in this debate will watch with interest as the Government provide metro mayors with a strong political platform while retaining firm control over the public purse, both through the direct funding of services and the level of the precept. That combination can have consequences, one of which is to allow a city or region, or more recently a country, to harness political support and immediately be ready to blame Westminster and Whitehall for failing to provide sufficient resources. In part, I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, answered this. It is key to embed the model with transparency and local accountability—devolved power, yes, but devolved accountability as well, building in transparency to the process.

We have an experienced and excellent Minister and an understanding Secretary of State in another place who—it should not go unnoticed—listened attentively to much of the debate this afternoon. The fact that four out of the 25 Bills announced in the Loyal Address sought the beginning of the biggest retransfer of power in history from Westminster and Whitehall is also significant. The challenge is to unleash the economic potential through these changes without providing financial control to the new combined authorities to run up the debts of profligate councils that some of us remember from the 1980s or benefit politically from blaming Westminster, as I have mentioned.

Key to the delivery of this Bill is the decision that some of the functions of local authorities will be able to be transferred to the relevant combined authority by order of the Communities Secretary. My speech today builds on the consensus of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Derby and the noble Lord, Lord Prescott, who raised a subject that noble Lords will not expect me to ignore—the vital importance of sport and recreation. My hope is that this will be one of the powers requested by the new authorities. It is my strong belief that every local authority should produce and take responsibility for a robust and comprehensive strategy for sport and physical activity to respond to local needs and, where possible, take the powers to manage this process and grasp the huge opportunities available in this context, not least politically.

We have heard of the importance of embedding pride and local ownership. One need only look at the work done and undertaken by the Mayor of London, working cross party with Kate Hoey in this context, that has managed to begin to transform sport and recreation in London. It is interesting to note that in the United States this is a really critical issue for the metro cities. The economic rationale for those cities willing to lead on sports facilities was revealed in the campaign slogan for the new stadium for the San Francisco 49ers: “Build the Stadium—Create the Jobs!”.

There is strong evidence that sports facilities can improve the local economy in four ways: first, building the facility creates construction jobs; secondly, new sports facilities provide the opportunity to generate new spending in the community, expanding local employment; thirdly, a team—if that is indeed the principal purpose of the facility—can attract tourists and companies to the host city, further increasing local spending and jobs; and, finally, all this new spending has a multiplier effect as increased local income causes still more new spending and job creation.

In addition, it is important to reflect that another important objective of the Conservative Party manifesto was to build on our Olympic and Paralympic legacy. From a study of the international cases, combined authorities with their wider representation are well placed to consider requesting oversight of sport and recreation provision to be added to the powers to be transferred for the following reasons. Sport and recreational provision and the promotion of major new facilities would best be achieved by the proposed authorities that cover the total catchment area concerned and could benefit from the municipal bonds that my noble friend Lady Wheatcroft mentioned. Sport and recreational centres could be funded by a direct transfer of Treasury funding for the area, coupled with a geographical allocation of lottery funding, which is currently biased towards London. Greater opportunities for co-financing with the private sector will also come into force. To this can be added the proposal for a precept under the 2009 Act to concentrate the attention of those living in the relevant combined authority area on facilities too big to be funded by their local council and yet beneficial, not least for the health and physical well-being of the wider population to be served by the new sport and recreation faculties.

Above all, we are, through the Conservative Party manifesto, committed to a sports legacy from the 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games, but the reality is that the current position and organisation of the funding make for gloomy reading. More than £42 million has been axed from councils’ sport and recreation budgets since 2010, according to a major BBC survey published recently. Among the regions which saw the biggest losses was the north-west of England, which saw cuts of more than £12.3 million. Concern was expressed by athletes that cutting facilities was short-termism that could impact on communities’ health and fitness levels. Liverpool City Council closed Woolton Baths. In the West Midlands, we saw cuts of £9.6 million. The region’s only 50 metre pool—in Coventry—was among the facilities to face the axe. In other regions, Sheffield lost the Don Valley stadium, where Olympic heptathlon champion Jessica Ennis-Hill trained, while Newcastle-upon-Tyne saw the closure of its city pool in 2013.

Ultimately, if we are to reduce obesity among young people, we cannot just have clubs and volunteers doing all that work. Once a facility is lost, on the whole it is gone for ever. When you come out of recession, it is very difficult to rebuild it. Emma Boggis, chief executive of the Sport and Recreation Alliance, which has already done so much valuable work on this issue, said that she had some sympathy with local authorities given the extreme financial pressures they are under. However, she said:

“Reducing investment in sport and in leisure facilities is storing up problems for the longer term … Limiting access to leisure facilities will result in greater inactivity and bigger costs to the NHS in terms of tackling conditions like diabetes, cardiovascular disease and depression”.

I argue in closing that the main reason for this has been the fact that spending on sport and recreation by local authorities in England, unlike in Scotland, is discretionary, not compulsory. The problem is compounded because the spend is centrally controlled. As part of the manifesto commitment, coupled with the objectives of the Bill, I hope that the Government will grasp the opportunity to change this trend. The percentage of our population participating in sport continues to fall year on year, as it has every year since we won the right to host the London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games, despite the inspiration that the Games managed to elicit in the country as a whole.

If combined authorities, be they Greater Manchester, Essex, Cornwall or any of these authorities, focus on applying to devolve the power of spend and take oversight of sports facilities and policies, we can and should reverse this trend. That would be in the interest not just of those who wish to participate in sport and recreation but of the development of centres of excellence in the regions to raise the priority we should be attaching to the health and welfare of the nation. I hope that that participation and the development of excellence, so necessary to ensure that we improve the health of the nation and match the success of Team GB in London 2012 when we come to future Olympic Games, will inspire not just Londoners but everyone throughout the regions of England. I believe that this Bill is one step towards achieving that objective.

17:55

[Lord Woolmer of Leeds (Lab)]

My Lords, I shall first say a word or two about what is occasionally referred to as “Leeds”. I say this because this is not about individual cities, but groups of cities in our metropolitan areas. When noble Lords in this House and the media talk about Leeds in this context, they really mean Leeds, Bradford, Huddersfield, Halifax and Wakefield. It is a red rag to a bull for some people in those other cities and towns to be regarded as Leeds. It is a conurbation of some 2.2 million people.

Some years ago, when the Government asked local authorities to get together and form city regions, Leeds City Region was formed. It includes not only West Yorkshire but Barnsley in South Yorkshire and York, Harrogate, Skipton and Selby in North Yorkshire. That indicates the problem for the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, who is not in his place: that bringing LEPs in line with other bodies is rather difficult in some parts of the world. North Yorkshire certainly does not want to be under a Leeds mayor, if you will excuse the expression. At the moment in Tyneside, in the north-east, I believe that Northumberland and Durham are in some relationship with the Tyne authorities.

These are very substantial conurbations with enormous potential and people working together. The first time I recall them working together was under the metropolitan counties. I had the pleasure of being the leader of West Yorkshire Metropolitan County Council. The two features I remember are that, for the first time, the towns and cities of West Yorkshire met and talked with a sense of coherence. Secondly, it was the first time that the counties of North Yorkshire, West Yorkshire, South Yorkshire and Humberside met regularly. So these things have been a long time in gestation.

Although I warmly welcome the Bill because it provides the possibility of selective devolution, I bear in mind that past attempts to engage in devolution have not always been successful. The metropolitan counties were formed after a lot of discussion, inquiries and differences of views, but they were abolished fairly quickly. The regional development agencies did a very good job in Yorkshire, but they were also abolished. This is a new measure, and I hope that it has staying power.

Because it is an enabling Bill, a framework Bill, it inevitably raises questions. Usually I ask a series of questions along the way and make observations. The first is to understand how this Bill fits into government thinking on the devolution of powers and of fiscal powers certainly within England and within Wales. What is the Government’s thinking on this? They appear to be saying, “Let’s let some local authorities get together and bid for some powers, and that’ll be devolution”. If that had been said to Scotland, we would have got a rap round the ear for it. So I do not understand the thinking behind the framework for devolution in England not only of powers but of fiscal powers. You cannot have real devolution without finance. It is no good finance being controlled by the Treasury—that is not devolution—and there is no sign in the Bill that fiscal devolution is genuinely under consideration. The Treasury would no doubt be fighting like mad if it was.

That leads me to the question of what powers are actually being devolved. There have been many eloquent speeches, not least by the noble Lord, Lord Heseltine, to whom we have all owed an enormous debt over the years for always making sure that this issue was at the forefront of awareness in government. I am not entirely sure what powers are being devolved. Some powers currently held by local authorities are being taken over by a mayor or a combined authority, but not many. Critically, the Minister referred, rightly, to health and social care in Greater Manchester; that would truly be a significant step forward, but that is not being talked about for the vast majority of parts of England and Wales.

That then leads to the question of mayors and the decision on them. I happen to believe that mayors would be very helpful, and I support the idea, although I have to say that in West Yorkshire there is a lot of doubt about them. The local authorities work very well together under a leader-in-cabinet model—the five leaders of the local authorities meet and take decisions within a legal framework—and if this is about devolution to local areas, why do the Government insist that they must have mayors? Why is that devolution? There is no fiscal devolution. The authorities are being told how to run themselves from the top, so I do not really understand this.

The Chancellor has made a commitment on this. A few days ago in a private briefing with the Minister, I understood that it was not compulsory, but it appears again today that it is essential that a mayor be appointed. If it is essential, at least in a metropolitan area, what powers will they be given, for which they can judge whether the price is worth paying? Do they have to go through the process of bidding for them and getting a counterbid? If the Government are clear about what it is essential to have a mayor for and what powers would tip the balance, they should be able to say. If local authorities are left in the dark, each one will bid a different thing. If each asks a different question, they might get a different answer. That makes no sense. If the Government are clear that a mayor is essential, at least in the large metropolitan conurbations, I would like to be much clearer, certainly in Committee, about the tipping point—the critical power that the local authorities would get that led to a mayor being appointed.

I have asked in this debate, and no doubt will ask in Committee, what fiscal and borrowing powers the Government will be willing to devolve, and whether that is a serious proposition. How far do they feel that fiscal powers need to be devolved, and what will that mean for the power of these authorities? Certainly in my experience of local government, if you do not have the money or the resources, you can have all the powers in the world on paper, you can talk to everybody and persuade people—and that is not unimportant; your relationship with business and communities is critical to the success of your area—but eventually people get fed up with talking. What is the Government’s thinking? Have they set their mind against serious consideration of fiscal powers? If they are prepared to consider them, they cannot consider them in ad hoc discussions with individual authorities. It would have to be a central government decision, a parliamentary decision, on what fiscal powers are going to be devolved.

I conclude with remarks that were provoked by my good friend, my noble friend Lord Prescott, who unfortunately is not here—it is probably to my benefit that he is not behind me shouting at me. I do not think that the Minister referred to the northern powerhouse. It is the first speech from a Minister that I have heard since months before the election that did not mention it. The noble Lord, Lord Heseltine, was the first speaker today to mention it. Will the Minister say what the Government really mean by “the northern powerhouse”? What is it? Where is it? Is it from the north of Newcastle to Sheffield, from coast to coast, from Hull to Liverpool? If it is, and I suspect that it must be in reality if it is to make economic sense, it is extremely important that the individual metropolitan areas such as Greater Manchester, Leeds, which I cannot call Greater Leeds or I will be shot, West Yorkshire, South Yorkshire—these conurbations across the north of England, east to west, north to south, and these are big distances—work together.

This is not just about their getting powers but about working together. The single most important thing that central government can do for the northern powerhouse—and this also applies eventually to a Labour Government, hopefully, if there is a change of government—is to deliver not just HS2 but HS3. Those communication links are absolutely critical to the north of England. Without them, we will have created maybe big pockets, but pockets none the less, of metropolitan strength, but that will not lead to northern-powerhouse strength. That, I honestly believe, is a tremendous opportunity which this Government have at least seized as their electoral slogan. I do not mean that as a slight, because I regard it as a triumph of vision. It is very important that that goes ahead.

18:08

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, the principle behind the Bill is to be thoroughly welcomed. Devolution to areas of England has long been an aim with cross-party support. It is even more frustrating, therefore, that this Bill as currently described is such a missed opportunity.

It is positive that the Bill enables different approaches to be developed across England, but this is completely undermined by the authoritarian demand that adopting a mayoral model is the only form of governance that is acceptable for the full range of powers on offer.

I thought it would be helpful if I analysed how the situation as currently presented would affect my own West Yorkshire. I thank the previous speaker, the noble Lord, Lord Woolmer, for raising the issues that are of particular concern to West Yorkshire, and remind him that we are talking not about Greater Leeds but about Greater Huddersfield.

I served on the board of Yorkshire Forward, which was one of the regional development agencies that had tremendous success in bringing economic development and world-class industry to Yorkshire, including bringing Siemens to Hull, which the noble Lord, Lord Prescott, mentioned. I served on that board for 10 years so can claim to have some experience of what can be achieved by people coming together with the specific aim of bringing economic development, jobs and prosperity to local people.

Yorkshire has a lot to recommend it: world-class universities and hospitals, an industrial base that includes world leaders in chemicals and engineering and, in Leeds, a financial centre of huge significance. Sadly, this is not matched by the quality of transport infrastructure, the ability to plan strategic economic development and the level of skills to meet growing demand. The latter challenges are of course linked to the lack of appropriate powers and responsibilities for the area.

Does the Government’s proposal provide the means to respond to these great challenges and open up the opportunities for growth? To expand on just one issue, connectivity has to be greatly improved if West Yorkshire is to attract inward investment. I sat for some years on the Northern Way board, which has also been mentioned today. One of the key decisions that that board made was that more important than bringing high-speed rail from London to the north was to have a trans-north link of high speed and high quality to link the two great ports of Liverpool and Hull in order to open up the economic development provided by the links, on the one side, to the American economic base and, on the other, to northern Europe. It is deeply to be regretted that HS3 has not been pushed forward as a primary objective rather than HS2.

We need greater connectivity. I have to tell noble Lords that the offer in the face of that huge challenge is totally inadequate, both in the size of the public investment required and in the strength of the democracy in the governance structures on offer. If West Yorkshire is to be enabled to meet the challenges, it will need a far greater level of resources than currently expended by Whitehall, and the means to raise the additional resources needed is ignored by the Bill. So that is a missed opportunity.

Throughout today’s discussion on devolution, the implication is somehow that these resources from Whitehall are being devolved to the city regions, or combined authorities—call them what you will. In fact, it is our money that we are getting back; it is the VAT that people in West Yorkshire spend which should be retained there, as should the business rates raised there. Let us have a think about this devolution by flipping the coin and saying, “Actually, that money is being raised in taxation from the people in that area and should be spent by them”. If we started thinking of the matter in that way, we would see it less as the wonderful Government giving us powers to spend our money and more as us saying, “Come on, this is our money that we’ve raised. We have a responsibility and a duty to spend it in our area ourselves”. That for me is the issue of finance.

The current governance proposals for these vital strategic decisions is to have a mayoral model that has already been decisively rejected in a referendum in each of the five metropolitan council areas, serving 2.2 million people, as the noble Lord, Lord Woolmer, has explained. We have to remember when we talk about city devolution that West Yorkshire has three great cities—Bradford, Leeds and Wakefield—while the West Yorkshire Combined Authority area includes another great city, York, which is not contiguous with West Yorkshire; the North Yorkshire district of Harrogate and Selby comes in between. So the proposal raises concerns about geography and having an area that is not cohesive, if nothing else.

The governance of this combined authority is also likely to be contentious. The composition of the governance of the area under the current proposals will probably establish a single-party state. The five West Yorkshire council leaders are all Labour, the leader of York is currently not Labour but the holder of that post often is and, if a mayoral model is forced upon us, that is also likely to go to Labour, judging by the results from the last election. Some noble Lords might think it would be a good idea to have all those people from the one party but we all know that that is not a healthy form of governance. We have seen examples of what happens when there is basically single-party local governance in Doncaster and Rotherham, to name but two. To have healthy governance you need strong challenge and accountability and, I am sad to say, that is not on offer in the model presented to us; the proposed scrutiny committee could also be dominated by people from the same party. I have already asked the Minister in the briefing whether it would be possible to constrain the chairs of that committee to be members of a party other than those forming the combined authority, to give it some improved accountability.

The conclusion has to be that this model of governance and offer of finance is a completely inadequate response to the demands of people in Yorkshire who are looking for bold devolution in line with that given to Scotland and Wales—perhaps even a Yorkshire Parliament. Effective devolution releases the energies and creativity of local people; what is on offer just eases the straitjacket. In the light of this analysis, I am left wondering what is motivating the Government. What is the driving force behind their desire to devolve constrained NHS budgets and increasingly poor-quality roads and rail links? As Virgil wrote 2,000 years ago:

“Timeo Danaos, et dona ferentes”—

beware of Greeks bearing gifts. Having said that, I welcome the principle that is on offer, but I urge the Government to be bolder in their scope and more democratic in their governance.

18:19

[Lord Horam (Con)]

My Lords, since the Bill includes some provision for local elections, before I make my brief remarks I should declare that I am an electoral commissioner, the Electoral Commission being the regulator for all elections and referenda in this country, although I am glad to say that it had nothing to do with the way in which the new mayor of Manchester emerged in some sort of puff of smoke from a back room.

That aside, I am speaking in this debate because I am a Lancastrian; I come from proud Lancashire manufacturing stock. During the Second World War, my father and his brothers and sisters—he was one of eight—made planes for the RAF near Preston, in Samlesbury and Warton. After the Second World War, he went to work for British Leyland, which unfortunately became wrapped up with British Motor Holdings and had a sad demise at the end of a long period of reconstruction. After that, a number of my family provided chemicals for the cotton industry. My noble friend the Minister mentioned Cottonopolis in her opening remarks. Perhaps she also took the journey from time to time from Manchester up to Oldham Mumps—a wonderful name—where the chimneys of all the cotton mills had their proud names written in white letters up the side. I do not know whether she remembers them: Rex, Imperator, Providence, Victorious, Cairo, Egypt. They conjure up a world when Lancashire was a supplier of cotton to the world—Cottonopolis. At that time, probably 100 ago, or at least 50, there were more millionaires in Oldham and Bradford per head of population—my noble friend Lady Eaton is nodding—than anywhere else in the country. We should not forget that rich industrial heritage.

After my youth in Lancashire I went across to be schooled in Wakefield in Yorkshire. I ought to be careful, because I am speaking after two noble Lords from Yorkshire, but I noticed that the difference between Lancashire and Yorkshire came across in the speeches today of the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, and the noble Lord, Lord Woolmer. People in Yorkshire are cautious. They say that Lancashire people joke about everything, while in Yorkshire they only make jokes about death and cricket. That is the sort of gut feeling I got. However, that was a welcome caution—they are right to be cautious. In Wakefield, where I went to school, there was Double TWO textiles, there were wool textiles in Bradford and there was mining—my friend’s father ran a business making pit props for the mining industry, which had the slogan, “We take the dust out of industry”. That was very much the sort of area that I was in.

After that I became the MP for Gateshead West and got to know the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, and remained a friend of his despite our different parties these days. There one could find the great engineering works such as Vickers-Armstrongs, Clarke Chapman, Swan ’oonter’s—or Swan Hunter’s, if you pronounce it that way—and others, all of it in a marvellous part of this country, which is rich in industrial history. Of course, since then it has moved on: in the north-east Nissan is doing extraordinarily well, and in Yorkshire a great financial centre in Leeds has been built up, in which we can take great pride. Yorkshire is also a great place for tourism—the Yorkshire Sculpture Park, Saltaire and places like that are excellent. I notice more and more people going up there; friends of mine go just to have a look round that great county. Then in Lancashire there is of course the BBC media centre—we are not just about “Coronation Street” but about the BBC and all that, too—the Peel Group, the science in the University of Manchester, and so on. All that shows that Manchester is humming these days.

I was able to play a little bit of a part in that, because I was a Minister for Transport a long time ago and helped to finish the Metro in Tyneside and to allow the building of the M62 between Yorkshire and Lancashire and the M60 around the northern part of Manchester. All that was quite a long time ago and it was of course all done by central government. One forgets that; I was often present in situations where the great leaders of northern cities would come down and had to beg in a humiliating way for money for their cities. I was often in the meetings where that happened and I could see that in a sense they were humiliated by that process; central government was handing out the money and they had to beg for it.

Therefore I welcome enormously the Bill. My noble friend Lord Heseltine played a great role in it, particularly with his inspirational document No Stone Unturned, which galvanised a lot of people into thinking again about that whole area; it was one of the building blocks of the Bill. I am afraid that he has a lot to answer for in the past; as a Lancastrian, I remember the Heath Government dismembering the county palatine. We lost Manchester and Liverpool, and lost Furness to Cumbria—it was a bad time. However, I am sure that he is a sinner repenting and that he has repented in spades.

I will take up one point that was raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, with whom I profoundly agree on this: the role of the medium-tier towns and cities. I know that she knows Norwich extremely well, having been in local government there, and I am glad that we have the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Derby here, because that is another town—or is it a city? I am not quite sure—that has a proud history. As both of them said, these are often specialist cities—a particular part of industry or manufacturing is strong in their area—and they are not like the great city regions, so we need a different solution to their issues. As a matter of simple record, they have outperformed many of the city regions in this country in recent years. We should not forget that. That is not an argument against the Bill, because the Bill is saying, “Let’s have different solutions for different situations”. Indeed, one noble Lord said that we may produce a bit of a patchwork, and that is the opposite difficulty that it may have—it may go too far in having different solutions. However, it is better to have different solutions to different circumstances than to have a one-size-fits-all approach. The Government must bear in mind those great, proud citizen towns that stand outside the great metropolitan areas of our country. Therefore, there will be no Procrustean bed; that is the philosophy behind this. I wish the Bill well. Fundamentally it has support from all sides of this House and I hope that it progresses satisfactorily.

18:27

[Baroness Donaghy (Lab)]

My Lords, in January last year we had a debate on the local government finance settlement, in which many noble Lords here present took part. I said in my speech that,

“one of the key engines for growth in an economy is strong regional government with real powers”,

and I went on to say:

“If the Government are in doubt about this, why not try an experiment and give one of our cities the independence they had 130 years ago? Call it the Birmingham Independence Bill or ... the Newcastle Independence Bill”.—[Official Report, 9/1/14; col. 1690.]

That goes to show that you should be careful what you wish for.

I understand that northern leaders are supportive of the Bill, provided that it is enabling and permissive rather than another form of central control. I accept that they have to use whatever kit is given to them, as this is the only game in town. Only time will tell whether this is a genuine attempt to pass the powers or pass the buck. It will take place in the context of the hollowing-out of local government—a 37% reduction in 2015-16, and hundreds of thousands of lost jobs. The funding gap is forecast to increase at an average rate of £2.1 billion per year until 2019-20, when it will reach £12.4 billion. Heaven alone knows where the social care bill will come into that.

The Bill, as has been said, sets out the institutional framework within which future political deals will be made between combined authorities and central government. As the Centre for Cities organisation has pointed out, the Bill does not go into further detail on what powers that might include. Can the noble Baroness the Minister tell the House whether they will be spelt out in the regulations or through announcements in Parliament, and what areas might be covered? The Bill appears to make it clear that local public bodies, such as district councils and county councils, will cede ancillary powers only by consent. Can the Minister confirm that that is the case?

The Bill also makes it explicit that, should the constituent authorities provide their consent, the combined authority can assume the general power of competence, as outlined in the Localism Act 2011. This allows for local government to pursue any activity that is not explicitly prohibited by central government. Can the Minister indicate whether this power has ever been invoked and, if so, in what circumstances?

While I am on the subject of previous legislation, the Local Government Act 2010 called a halt to local authorities exploring unitary status to avoid the short-term costs of transition. The noble Lord, Lord Heseltine, who I am glad to see is still in his place and shows his staying power in this House, as well as in his political career, said in his report, No Stone Unturned, that the 2010 Act was now redundant and should be repealed. Some of us thought that it was redundant from its inception, but what plans do the Government have to repeal that Act?

If I understand the Bill correctly, there are provisions to avoid situations where one dissenting body of an existing combined authority could block the introduction of a mayor for the area. Under such circumstances, the Secretary of State would issue an order removing the non-consenting body from the combined authority arrangement. Presumably this non-consenting body had previously consented and had reason to change its mind. What would happen if its reason was valid, such as a corrupt or a joke mayor? What would happen if more than one previously consenting body changed its mind and became a non-consenting body? Would the combined authority have to break up all that for the price of an elected mayor?

I simply fail to understand—this has been mentioned by a number of noble Lords—the obsession with elected mayors. I accept the irony that I am neither elected nor representative, just like every Member of this House. I do not know whether it is an American thing or a bloke thing to think that somehow one person can speak with more authority and that somehow this is how leaders are born. To me, it represents push-button politics. I was disappointed to hear the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, advocate mayors in the debate on the Queen’s Speech last week. I can see the attraction, of course. Ministers would have to meet only one person rather than 12 worthy burghers. Better still, why travel up there at all? Let us invite these chaps—and they will be chaps—down from Manchester, Birmingham, Leeds and Newcastle to talk to us in London. The hard hat and high-vis outfit can then be kept for the general election campaigns.

The noble Lord, Lord Heseltine, is strongly in favour of elected mayors but his report favoured an enabling approach, not imposition. Will the Government reconsider this centralist approach of forcing authorities to have elected mayors, even though the local population have consistently rejected them? Could this not be permissive rather than prescriptive?

I note that the Bill states that, in the absence of the mayor or a deputy discharging their duties, the combined authority leaders will take decisions on a majority-vote basis. That sounds good to me; you can then cut out the two middlemen and save the taxpayer money. The most ludicrous bit is allowing the elected mayor to take on the role of the police and crime commissioner. Combining two useless jobs does not make a useful job.

Finally, the local government puzzle can be solved only if the following pieces are there: adequate funding, a fair formula for redistribution, the right balance between responsibilities and powers, and the right balance between local accountability and a more modern streamlined structure. This Bill will not solve that puzzle, but it may provide a welcome opportunity to move some powers out of London. I look forward to the debate in Committee.

18:34

[Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)]

My Lords, the basic premise of this legislation is that elected mayors would be a better way to run our great cities or combined authorities. Coming as I do from the world of local government, I question the proof of that, as the noble Baroness, Lady Donaghy, has just done.

It could be said that the Chancellor does not want to deal with a local democratic structure. It has been said that the aim of region-wide elected mayors is that one person, with a high public profile, will have the final say and “carry the can” when things go wrong. Devolution is a good idea, but the Chancellor is apparently averse to lavishing large-scale devolution on local authority committees. Greater Manchester, for one, appears to have put aside local rivalries and has therefore got a £l billion devolution package, plus control of the region’s £6 billion health and social care budget. There is clearly a view that the ends justify the means. In other words: go for elected mayors, which is not necessarily a bad idea, and then you get the loot.

That is not a new concept. Coming from local government, I remember when local authorities’ diminishing housing stock was falling apart—bad windows, bad doors, bad everything, ceilings falling down and leaking water—but there was an answer. With the decent homes standard, the Government would lavish millions of pounds on those local authorities. That was very good but you had to pay the price, and the price was forming an ALMO, an arm’s-length management organisation. Many local authorities such as mine in the London Borough of Barnet did this and I became a director of Barnet Homes, an arm’s-length management organisation, because that was the only way in which we could get the loot to make the homes decent. However, it was a structure—just as this Bill is suggesting with elected mayors—in order to get the money. The money could have been given to local authorities by central government, and could have been ring-fenced if necessary, so that the local authorities could make the necessary repairs. There was no need to set up those arm’s-length management organisations, which became an industry in themselves.

In deciding whether elected mayors work, I ask colleagues to look at past results. In London we have had Ken Livingstone followed by Boris Johnson, both mayors with a high personal profile—perhaps I should correct that to a very, very high personal profile. There have been some successes but they have not in any way solved London’s housing crisis, and in fact I think that it has got worse. They have continued to preside over a gridlocked city. I was caught in a gridlock on the embankment only the other day—this is the result of what has happened. However, it must be said that the mayors have improved the bus service and Underground train service, as well as introducing, for better or for worse, congestion charges, but we still have too many vehicles challenging our environment. There is also the Oyster card. It is a good thing and I highly recommend it to any of the new conurbations, although little things are wrong, such as that visitors to our wonderful capital city cannot pay with money on buses and are currently confused by the fact that they have to go off and find something to do with shellfish. On the environment, how has London benefited? Are green spaces protected? I shall leave noble Lords to answer that. Are noxious fumes being better controlled? Here is an easy one: are our borough libraries drastically threatened? Yes, they are. One could say that cycling—one apparent positive note—has become more popular.

What I bring to the Second Reading is a London-concentric view. I know from contact with the City of London Corporation and some London boroughs that they support, as I do, the principle of devolution from Whitehall. However, this does not necessarily mean that elected mayors are the answer. London, in the form of the Greater London Authority already has such arrangements in place—as a previous speaker said, London is sorted. But in fact it must be remembered that the GLA was conceived as a strategic body and not a service deliverer. As we consider this Bill, we should not forget the principle that devolution should be made to the lowest possible level. In London, in most cases, this is the 32 London boroughs plus the City of London. Many people with long memories, like me and the noble Lord, Lord Heseltine, will know that the London boroughs are amalgamations of previous boroughs. Many, like me, look back to those halcyon days when, in the borough of Hendon, we controlled our affairs, rather than now, in the London borough of Barnet, the second largest borough in London with 320,000 people, where most services are contracted out to Capita and other companies. That is what has happened by giving powers to that particular borough.

To my mind, this is a long way from elected, all-powerful mayors for places such as Greater Manchester, which seems to be working, and other amalgamations. As a mere Londoner, it somewhat baffles me when I am shown that there is going to be a conurbation and authority with an elected mayor for the “homogenous” area of Barnsley, Doncaster, Rotherham and Sheffield, or for Durham, Gateshead, Newcastle, North Tyneside, Northumberland, South Tyneside and Sunderland, and the other areas that are listed in the papers and with which I will not bore noble Lords. I trust that, when the Minister replies, we shall hear how the currently democratically elected authorities in these groupings can restrain their rivalries, different local desires and needs when accepting control by one person, the new elected mayor.

In the further consideration of this Bill, I trust that we will examine the way in which powers might also be devolved to the city or town and another borough, or group of boroughs, as exercised through joint arrangements, not necessarily an elected mayor. I trust that we will be advised by the Minister whether or not that is something that could benefit from additional legislative provision or can be achieved using existing powers, through joint committees or other collaborative arrangements. Can we reflect on this as the Bill goes to Committee?

London is a capital city. Manchester and Birmingham are pretty large, but I do not know whether these groupings of local authorities have the same logic for an elected mayor as in London. It worries me that the fact that London has seen some success—in some people’s minds—means that other groups of towns and cities, all with great respect and pride in themselves, can be under one elected mayor.

To end on a positive note, I see a great opportunity for entrepreneurial mayors to act as ambassadors, bringing and encouraging business and enterprise to their area. That is a role that an elected mayor or leader—however one describes that person—can do. There is a need for that. But that sort of person needs extra-special skills and I am not convinced that the election of a mayor or mayors in these places would find the people who have those special skills to be ambassadors for the business world.

18:43

[Baroness Eaton (Con)]

My Lords, the Cities and Local Government Devolution Bill is a significant step towards the greater devolution that local government has long called for. I am sure that many councillors and former councillors present here will fully appreciate the importance of the changes brought about by the Bill. I commend the Government for this crucial legislation.

This Bill is of such importance to local government because it reflects the principle that decisions about communities and the services they rely on are best made in those communities. The Bill is the first step to giving cities and counties the freedom they need to join up services and infrastructure and the powers they need to compete globally. The LGA—I speak as one of its vice-presidents—has called the Cities and Local Government Devolution Bill a positive step, as it will give combined authorities the range of powers they need to,

“create jobs, build homes, strengthen healthy communities and protect the vulnerable”.

Many groupings of local authorities, such as the ones in West Yorkshire that I know best—the metropolitan district councils, referred to earlier, of Wakefield, Kirklees, Huddersfield and Bradford—have worked together closely for many more years than I can recall, in spite of political differences. They realise that expanding the functional scope of combined authorities will allow them to work together on a wider range of services in the interests of local residents and businesses, not just on economic development but on transport, skills and other vital public services.

The extension of the general power of competence to combined authorities is an important and needed change. The LGA’s recent report, English Devolution: Local Solutions for a Successful Nation, identified that devolution could bring £20.6 billion in potential savings. However, the benefits of devolution are not solely about financial savings. The social value of these devolution deals should also be fully recognised. Taking decisions closer to the people affected by them will improve the quality of public services and make them more responsive to the needs of the community.

This is true for all communities, not just great cities. In last year’s Autumn Statement, the Chancellor said that,

“my door is open to other cities who want to follow their cross-party lead”.

I am glad that the Chancellor listened to the representations of the LGA and the non-metropolitan commission and has opened the door to England’s counties as well. These areas account for half our country’s population and economic growth. Their economic contribution, and their potential growth, is as significant for the nation as that of the big cities. Even so, the language of devolution remains centred around cities. It would be helpful if the Minister would give an assurance that substantial devolution deals will be available to county areas. People in rural communities stand to benefit just as much from devolution as people in big cities. I hope that Ministers in this House and in the other place will commit to work with the LGA to explore how best devolution deals can be opened up to our great counties.

I have spoken in this Chamber before about the need for local areas to have not just greater decision-making powers but also greater financial freedom. The Independent Commission on Local Government Finance called for a number of changes to the local government finance system to ensure the sustainability of our public services. Clear multi-year settlements would allow for more effective long-term planning for local authorities. This has real potential to enable efficiencies and more strategic commissioning for everything from road maintenance to children’s services. Devolving powers to set rates and discounts for council tax and business rates would give flexibility to respond to the needs of local communities. The Independent Commission on Local Government Finance recommends going a step further, giving all councils the right to retain 100% of business rate growth. The LGA fully supports this proposal. These reforms would set councils on the path to greater self-sufficiency. They would give councils greater financial certainty in their futures and greater ability to plan for the long term.

Although the huge powers to be exercised by metro mayors worry many—a point reflected in the rejection of the mayoral model by electors in many areas—there is much to be positive about in the Bill. But one area where local government is seeking clarification is on the role of the Secretary of State. The Bill creates a number of new powers for the Secretary of State in order to grant the devolution of powers to combined authorities. Where the Bill gives the Secretary of State power to alter local structures or the delivery of public functions, the decision-making process must be transparent. We need clear criteria and a route for appeal and I would welcome the Minister’s clarification on that point.

As a principle, it is always best that these changes are made together with local government, and not done to it. By working together, we can make sure that changes are appropriate for the local area and at a pace at which they can be implemented. I am sure that the Government will ensure that the devolution deals are a collaborative process and treat local government as an equal partner.

18:50

[Lord Snape (Lab)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Eaton. I hope that she will forgive me if I am not quite so enthusiastic about some aspects of the Bill as she was, but it was certainly a pleasure to listen to her. I will explain my reservations in the course of what I have to say. I apologise to the Minister for not being present at the meeting that she held last week when I understand that some of the questions I will put to her today might have been resolved. I was away all last week, so I hope that she will forgive me if some of the things that I say during the course of my speech she could have answered had I been able to make the meeting.

One issue on which I would be grateful for some further explanation from the Minister is the extent to which areas other than combined authorities can seek to obtain the powers described in the Bill. Looking at the Explanatory Notes that accompany the Bill, it appears on the one hand that these powers are reserved for combined authorities that seek to go down the road of electing a metro-wide mayor—I share the reservations voiced by the noble Baroness, Lady Eaton, about some aspects of that—yet paragraph 1 of the Explanatory Notes, says:

“The Bill takes forward a number of reforms which are intended to allow for the implementation of devolution agreements with combined authority areas and with other areas”.

Perhaps the Minister can clarify these other areas and tell us under what circumstances these other areas, not including a mayor, would be able to enter this brave new world of devolved powers.

My other question relates to timing. It would possibly be a few years before an elected mayor could be up and running and managing his own kingdom, or—out of deference to my noble friend Lady Donaghy—her own queendom. Greater Manchester is of course further down the line and much preparation has already taken place, as we heard today, from the exchange at Question Time. But the Bill is littered with order-making powers which will be made, perhaps necessarily, in a piecemeal way. Perhaps the Minister will say that that is the very essence of devolution—local solutions for local problems. But we could end up with lots of bits of legislation passing through both Houses of Parliament at various times.

I also notice that the majority of the statutory instruments that can be made under this legislation will be subject to the negative resolution procedure. We will be introducing sweeping changes in local government throughout the country with only the bare minimum of parliamentary scrutiny. I do not necessarily complain about that, but I hope that the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee of your Lordships’ House will look carefully at what is proposed.

It would be churlish not to pay tribute to some of the intentions behind the Bill. The Minister, in an exchange earlier today, did not mention transport. In my decade or so’s membership of your Lordships’ House, I have largely confined my remarks to local government and travel and transport matters, so I am concerned. Will we see a separate Bill for transport, a Bill for delegated powers so far as local passenger train services are concerned and a separate buses Bill or, indeed, will these matters be combined? I spent some time many years ago on a passenger transport authority and more recently as chairman of a bus company, and there is a great deal of uncertainty within the bus industry about what will happen—whether there will be reregulation and what powers over bus services will be given to the mayor. The longer that that uncertainty persists, the more likely it is that investment in the industry will be held back until we see exactly what the Government’s proposals are and how power over these matters is to be devolved.

In a way, we have been down this road before. The noble Lord, Lord Heseltine, mentioned, in an unjustly self-deprecating way, his own efforts to be involved in local government reform 40 or so years ago. I have never actually forgiven him for abolishing the Bredbury and Romiley Urban District Council with his legislation all those years ago. I know that it is a long time to bear a grudge, but I wanted to get that off my chest. We formed the larger authorities at that particular time under the 1972 Act, and the metropolitan county councils as well. Again, there was a lot of sense in the formation of the metropolitan county councils. Matters such as planning and strategy ought to be devolved to a wider area such as that. They cannot be properly resolved at a purely local level. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Heseltine, had moved on when it was decided to abolish the metropolitan county councils a few years later. The cynics among us—the ex-councillors, thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Heseltine—decided that those authorities had been abolished because the Conservative Party could not win them very often. But perhaps that is with the benefit of hindsight.

[Lord Heseltine]

Just for the sake of accuracy, I was responsible for helping to create the metropolitan county councils in 1972, but I also got rid of them in 1992.

[Lord Snape]

Well in that case, I will half forgive the noble Lord.

The only major worry I have about the proposed legislation is of course the vexed question of money. When legislation such as this is greeted with such enthusiasm by the Treasury, and the Chancellor tours the country telling everyone how anxious he is to devolve all these powers, I am inclined, perhaps due to my experience as an ex-Whip in the other place, to start counting the spoons. It worries me a great deal that these powers will be devolved without the necessary financial backing to meet them. Again, at Question Time earlier today, the Minister said—if I may say so, somewhat airily—that there will be a mayoral precept. There will have to be a whacking great mayoral precept to take care of all the powers envisaged in this particular Bill.

The noble Baroness, Lady Eaton, quite rightly said that these devolved authorities should surely be able to retain the 100% business rates in their areas. But those two combined will not finance all the matters that are to be devolved. The Government have a duty and responsibility to say exactly where the money will come from. The worst of all worlds would be for some future Government to face questions either in your Lordships’ House or the other place about deficiencies in these matters in a local authority area and for the Minister to say, “That’s nothing to do with me: these matters have been devolved”, due to the Bill that we are discussing today.

I finally turn to the question of what to call these authorities. Again, my noble friend Lady Donaghy, in her very able speech, talked about the “freedom for Birmingham” Bill. One thing you could not call it in the West Midlands is Birmingham, whether greater or otherwise. The great cities of Wolverhampton and Coventry, to name but two, would have something to say about being absorbed into anything called “greater Birmingham”, let alone the boroughs of Sandwell, Dudley and Walsall, to name another three likely objectors. Of course the Minister might say that the leafy suburbs of Trafford and Sale in Greater Manchester, and perhaps my home town of Stockport, would be more prepared to vote for an elected mayor than the city of Manchester, although she will have a job persuading many of us that that is the case, if that is her argument. But while the name of Greater Manchester seems to be acceptable in the north-west, “greater Birmingham” would certainly not be acceptable to those of us in the West Midlands.

With those few provisos and reservations about the Bill, I await the more detailed legislation after your Lordships’ House and the other place have given these matters the scrutiny they want and deserve.

19:00

[Lord Lyell (Con)]

My Lords, it may startle my noble friend the Minister if for once I declare two interests. First, it is odd to have a Scot—I declare my interest as a member of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland—heading south of the Border to dabble his toes in devolution for the cities of England. The other interest I have to declare is my interest in sport. We heard the speech of my noble friend Lord Moynihan, who alas is temporarily absent from his place, about the importance of sport. As far as my sporting activities are concerned, in 2006 I took a nasty turn, as we say in Scotland, but for 34 years before that I was a member of the Lords and Commons Ski Club, which may also be known as Monty Python’s Flying Ministers. I combine those two aspects when considering the Bill in front of us.

For many years my interest in sport has been more of a sedentary than passionate activity. My attention in the autumn, winter and a good bit of the spring is drawn towards the great city of Liverpool. There are two aspects of sport in that city. One is a very great institution that I deeply respect, while the other institution I both respect and am passionate about; I love it. I went to a prize-giving ceremony at one of these sporting institutions and I visited the redeveloped waterside. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will forgive me for repeating something I mentioned in an earlier speech. I was astonished by the modernity of the waterside development, and above all by the enthusiasm of everyone working there. I am also aware of the colossal newly improved port that is to be developed in Liverpool, but what I was not aware of is the fact that the Minister in an earlier incarnation was the chief executive. It is for that reason I will restrain myself and not call her “Baroness Digger Williams”, because she did most of the preparation work for that enormous port. When it has been completed, we will see what she and many others have done for the city of Liverpool.

We have heard a number of speeches about the area today, and while I enjoyed the crack from the noble Lord, Lord Snape, about greater Birmingham, I understand that there is something called the Greater Manchester Combined Authority. Some briefing that I have received tells me the authority is comprised of 10 local authorities of varying size and importance. The authorities originally came together last year and have been granted full powers for transport. As I have found in Edinburgh and Glasgow, there are railway carriages which take people to and from Manchester Airport, which is one vital aspect. I have also discovered from the briefing that the Greater Manchester Combined Authority has pooled all the funds of the 10 authorities. It has managed to find £300 million for a separate form of housing which is particularly relevant to Manchester and the north-west. A further £500 million is to be used to invest in the technology skills of boys and girls, pensioners and many other people in the area, giving them specialist advice and a good start. This will perhaps improve their career chances which they may not have had because the systems that they would be using might not be as relevant in London or elsewhere in the country.

The total health budget for the area covered by the Greater Manchester Combined Authority is £6 billion, which has provided the authority with enormous flexibility. A point which was stressed by my noble friend Lord Heseltine was the need to look at how to spend the money well and properly. I understand that this has given a huge boost to both social services and health services. Perhaps I may add one particular personal aspect. It concerns the Royal Manchester Children’s Hospital, which is dear to me thanks to some sporting connections that I have. I became interested in the Royal Manchester Children’s Hospital and its use of specialist facilities to treat young, frightened and sick children. I am thinking of a particularly gutsy young lady who had a difficult handicap. However, she is just one among the thousands who have been helped by the hospital. It has the flexibility to do things its own way. I am sure that the other similar massive institutions such as Alder Hey Children’s Hospital in Liverpool and Great Ormond Street Hospital in London are excellent, but the Royal Manchester Children’s Hospital is able to spend money in a particularly effective way.

I have declared my interest as a member of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland, whose motto is “seek the truth”, and there is another motto that I use myself: KISS. It has nothing to do with embraces or anything like that, it stands for “keep it simple, stupid”—but we will cut out that adjective. I hope that my noble friend and the Government will keep those two mottos in front of them. First, seek the truth about the money that you are able to spend, and secondly, keep it simple and see that it is spent wisely. I think that the Bill before us today will certainly outlive many of us here in your Lordships’ House in its effectiveness for regenerating the belt covering the whole of the north from Hull to Liverpool. I wish it well.

19:07

[Baroness Henig (Lab)]

I want to draw the attention of noble Lords at the outset to the fact that I served as a Lancashire county councillor for more than 20 years, alongside the aunt of the noble Lord, Lord Horam—the redoubtable Aunt Marjorie. She was a wonderful advertisement for the power of local government in those distant days. I should also say that my son is currently the leader of a very large northern combined authority, and he was most anxious for me to point out to your Lordships that any views I express on this Bill are my own personal views, which I am happy to do.

I start by welcoming the Government’s professed aspirations in introducing this Bill. As we have heard, it aims to decentralise power in England, to contribute to advanced economic recovery, and to enable cities particularly in the north to work together more closely and compete more effectively with London. Who could argue with those aims? Moreover, one can only admire the marketing genius who dreamt up the strapline, the “Northern Powerhouse”. It conjures up a strong image of a northern renaissance, but it is only an image; it is a marketing ploy. I have to say to noble Lords that the current realities are very different. Both in terms of economic power and political decision-making, as many noble Lords have already pointed out, London is the pre-eminent centre of the country.

The gap between London and the rest of the country, even the 10 biggest cities, is huge and has been growing even since 2010. That gap is much greater than the comparable situation in any advanced or developing country. London is the third-fastest growing city in the world and now accounts for nearly 22% of our total economic output. Therefore, the effort required to achieve any meaningful dispersal of economic power and activity away from London is enormous. While I share absolutely the desire of the noble Lord, Lord Heseltine, to bring about this historic shift, it will take a prodigious effort to do that, given the situation as it exists. I fear that the measures outlined in this Bill will go nowhere near to closing the economic gap between London and the rest of the country, which is increasing even as we debate here today.

At the same time, in terms of political governance, England is about the most centralised state in Europe, if not in the developed world. All political power flows from Whitehall, and all major policy decisions are taken there. As we have already heard, in the past 30 years there has been a one-way transfer of powers and responsibilities from local to national government. When I started in local government in the early 1980s, the county council together with district councils oversaw schools, further education colleges, council house building, policing and much more. It enjoyed considerable flexibility in setting levels of business and domestic rates.

Year on year, under all Governments, local councils have lost a range of powers and responsibilities, and continue to do so. Even as we are considering this Bill today, another swathe of schools is being earmarked for academy status and therefore will move from local authority supervision. As we know, local authorities face further cuts in funding, with formulae which seem to aid and abet the transfer of resources from the north to the south. It is notable to me that successful administrators move from local government to government departments—some even come to this House—but no one moves in the other direction. For a civil servant or a special adviser, being sent out of London is even worse than being exiled to Siberia, but there is little prospect of a return.

However, in recent years, the devolution of powers to Scotland and Wales has transformed Edinburgh and Cardiff into growing and increasingly powerful regional centres. The reason, of course, is that they house the Scottish Government and the Welsh Assembly. Therefore, they are developing as political, administrative and economic hubs. In England, although we have regions, we do not have regional government or, any longer, regional development agencies. That is now a problem because, if the Government want to devolve power, it is by no means an easy or straightforward process because of that lack of a clear, regional tier of administration.

For starters—it is not covered in this Bill—there surely has to be much greater investment in regional infrastructure, particularly transport, as some noble Lords have already pointed out. I am not thinking so much about high-speed rail links or accessible and efficient airports, important though they are to the development of the local economy. Your Lordships have only to compare the frequency and diversity of local transport and its availability to people who live in and near London with the situation in most of the rest of the country to see the size of the problem. While local authorities are fully aware of the pressing need for better local transport, all they can do, as I am sure noble Lords will know, is to bid every year for resources from central government to improve their services, but they have no certainty of success. Providing more resources to enable people in the regions to move about on public transport more flexibly and easily must be high on the Government’s priority list if they are serious about delivering on the devolution agenda.

How will this Bill help to deliver the Government’s professed aim of decentralisation of power to cities and to local government? It is, we know, an enabling Bill. My problem is that I cannot see how the provisions within it do much more than pay lip service to the Government’s stated aspirations. Here, I have to say that I share the scepticism of my noble friend Lord Woolmer. The combined authority is to have a directly elected mayor. That assumes that all constituent elements support this in principle and co-operate with the successful leader, once elected. Both assumptions seem to me to be questionable, especially bearing in mind what the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, told us so frankly earlier.

Even if the metro mayor has full support from across the area, what resources will she be able to deploy? What levers will she be able to pull to generate economic growth and sustainable development? I see no measures to bring about meaningful devolution of finance, no proposals to allow the mayor to raise finance locally or no suggestion that the iron grip of the Treasury over public spending is going to be relaxed in any way. It is all very well exhorting cities in the north to work together more closely on housing, strategic planning, health, social care and skills training to compete more effectively with London. I would argue that in many parts of the north, there is already much greater collaboration between councils than there is in Whitehall. I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Heseltine, made the point extremely effectively that if a businessperson wants to deal with Whitehall, there is no obvious place for them to go. Whitehall is nowhere near as joined up as many of the local authorities we are talking about. It is important to bear that in mind. The reality is that without access to sufficient, regular and reliable funding, combined and metro authorities will face an uphill struggle to catch up with London, and it is almost certainly doomed to failure.

The measures outlined in the Bill may be helpful for some areas. Clearly they will not work everywhere, as we have already heard. The cynic in me says, “Perhaps that’s the point of this Bill. Perhaps the only real aim is to provide the vehicle for doing deals between the Government and Manchester, and maybe the Government and one or two other northern cities”. Perhaps that is what it is all about. I sincerely hope that that is not the case and that the Government have wider aspirations. If so, it is important for this Bill to provide a permissive legislative framework, as my noble friend Lady Donaghy, said, and not be prescriptive. For me, there is an even more important word beginning with P: a meaningful partnership. There has to be a partnership in play between central government and local authorities, not the sort of hierarchical relationship—I am sure that the noble Baroness, Lady Eaton, remembers it as well as I do—whereby local government leaders are summoned to London to be issued with the Government’s latest proposals, and instructed to adhere to them and do as they are told, or else. The noble Lord, Lord Heseltine, candidly admitted that there was an element of that in decades gone by.

It is abundantly clear that over the past 30 years, central government has not trusted or respected local councillors or their capacity to make decisions on behalf of their local communities. If this Bill is a signal of intent that the new Government want to work more co-operatively with some of the major elements of local government, such as combined city and county authorities, obviously we all welcome that. It is just that part of me still remains to be convinced. I would like to see more tangible proof of that resolve, which is why there are so many detailed questions to be asked about what impact the measures in this Bill will have; whether, and if so what, new clauses need to be added; and how the Bill can be tailored to deliver powers more effectively for a wide range of county, district and combined authorities, not just for a handful of northern cities. I look forward to participating further in Committee to turn what is at the moment quite a sketchy enabling Bill into something more meaningful for local government.

19:18

[Lord Sherbourne of Didsbury (Con)]

My Lords, I have very much enjoyed the debate today and it has been a privilege to hear speeches from two former Deputy Prime Ministers. I very much enjoyed hearing them both claim that they are in some way the godfather of the proposals in this Bill—and justifiably so. My noble friend Lord Heseltine showed what local leadership can do when, in the 1980s, he championed the cause of Liverpool. It is testament to what he achieved in that city that my noble friend, a Conservative Peer, was awarded the freedom of the city of Liverpool by a Labour council.

My noble friend spoke about this being a process of evolution. He is right, because when the noble Lord, Lord Prescott—who is not in his place—was in office, we had the Urban Task Force, under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Rogers of Riverside. It was set up to,

“identify causes of urban decline and establish a vision for our cities”.

I looked back at what the noble Lord, Lord Rogers, said just over 10 years ago in reviewing progress. He talked about the change of culture in favour of towns and cities, and about people moving back into city centres. He produced an incredible figure, which I presume is true:

“In 1990 there were 90 people living in the heart of Manchester; today”—

that was in 2004—“there are 25,000 residents”.

He went on to say:

“English cities have established themselves as powerhouses in the UK economy and centres for cultural innovation”.

But he was also clear that the job was far from done and that there was much more to do.

That brings me to the Bill. For years now we have talked about the north/south divide; urban regeneration; how to decentralise power; bringing decision-making closer to people; the need for greater accountability; encouraging greater investment in transport; and, more recently, about achieving greater co-ordination between healthcare and social care. The Bill sets out to deal with all these issues. It is about providing leadership and more effective local governance of city regions, and about keeping decision-making simple and straightforward. We are not proposing regional talking shops.

I know that there are some worries about whether the Bill’s provisions will lead to another layer of bureaucracy. I believe that the fears are misplaced. As my right honourable friend David Davis put it a few days ago, the Bill is about providing maximum power with minimum bureaucracy. Of course, as the Bill’s provisions roll out across the country we will need to respond to the different circumstances of the city regions, as many speakers have said. We will need flexibility. We do not want a one-size-fits-all Bill.

This is a big Bill with big objectives, but I want to focus briefly on one issue. It is a big one: the need for transparency and public scrutiny. As the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, pointed out, the Bill could lead to a concentration of power in the hands of one political party. We have seen all too recently—I am thinking of Tower Hamlets—what can happen when too much power is put in the hands of one person without effective scrutiny. The Bill seeks to deal with this by the establishment of overview and scrutiny committees. These committees will have the power, to quote the Bill,

“to review or scrutinise decisions made, or other action taken”.

It is not immediately clear—at least to me—what the difference is between reviewing a decision and scrutinising it. I also note the use of the past tense: these committees will be reviewing or scrutinising decisions already made or action already taken—in other words, only after the event. It is true that the committees will be able to recommend that a decision is reconsidered, but if action has already been taken it may well be too late.

To be fair, the committees will have the power to make recommendations to the mayor. This could perhaps allow them to keep a watching brief on decisions in the making. However, although the Bill gives them these powers, they are not bound to exercise them, or to do so in an effective and, above all, open way.

Here we come to the role of the Secretary of State. According to the Bill, the Secretary of State will be able to issue guidance on the exercise of these powers. This could be crucial, so I hope that when we come to consider the proposals more closely in Committee the Minister will be able to tell us more. We do not want debate and decision-making behind closed doors. But, having said all this, I strongly support the Bill.

19:25

[Lord Whitty (Lab)]

My Lords, the widespread support for the central concept of the Bill is proof indeed that something fairly drastic needs to be done. The Bill is a very thin Bill, but it covers a very big concept. It attempts somehow to tackle two very big problems in our society and in our nation. One is the disjunction of economic development—the south-east against the rest—and the other the general alienation of citizens and businesses from the degree of centralisation of decision-making that we have seen from Governments of all hues over the past few decades.

Those two problems are distinct. The latter suggests that this ought to be part of what many of my colleagues are calling for—a constitutional convention—as it addresses the same problem that devolution to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland addresses: the remoteness from decision-making here in Westminster and the administrative centralisation in Whitehall. That is felt not just in our metropolitan cities. As I have put it before in this House, it is felt in Cornwall and Cumbria as much as it is in Birmingham and Bradford. The populations in the regions of England have much the same feelings as those in Scotland and Wales, which have been so obvious in recent years. This is an attempt to do something structurally and politically in England that addresses those twin problems.

The structure of English local government remained, broadly speaking, the same for a long time—from William the Conqueror to the noble Lord, Lord Heseltine. However, since then we have changed the structure quite significantly in terms of powers and the way that we expect local authorities to do business. That was in a context where central government took more and more decisions to itself and restricted the freedom of local authorities more and more—whatever their boundaries, size and structures—to take decisions for their communities. Against that background—even with the current Government or the previous coalition Government—we have seen more centralisation, with things effectively being taken off local authorities, education being the obvious example. Housing is also no longer a clear and effective local government responsibility.

To reverse that, we need to take the initial steps that the Bill suggests. I understand why it has to be a framework Bill, but, as my noble friend Lord Snape suggested, the danger is that we then have a plethora of secondary legislation specific to the individual areas covered, which will not receive adequate scrutiny in this House or in the local authority area that it is supposed to cover. A bit of history again: this is the exact opposite approach to that adopted when I was a Minister in this House, under the general direction of my noble friend Lord Prescott, when we set up the GLA. The noble Lord, Lord Tope, clearly remembers this. The then GLA Bill was the largest in living memory —larger than any other non-financial piece of legislation apart from the Government of India Act 1935, which was never fully implemented. To give the Government a few hints, we got the GLA Bill through the House of Lords only because we split the Opposition: the Liberal Democrats wanted an assembly without a mayor and the Conservatives wanted a mayor without an elected assembly. We got the structure and everything else that went with it through that way; the glory we now see at City Hall is as a result of that very detailed Bill. Some of that detail, or the issues that it raised, will have to be faced up to when we legislate or administrate for Greater Manchester, the West Midlands, Merseyside, or whatever we are going to call the new combined authorities.

In the great days of municipal innovation from the 19th century through to perhaps 50 years ago—from Joe Chamberlain, if you like, to Herbert Morrison—local authorities at that level operated with much greater freedom than they have now. Local authorities themselves drove a lot of economic development and were entrepreneurial, comprising gas, light and coke companies in the 19th century, transport bodies at the beginning of the 20th century and housing bodies from the 1920s onwards. The assumption was that, provided they could raise the money, local authorities could do pretty much what they liked or what was not expressly forbidden by statute. However, key to that was, of course, the ability to raise their own money. They could determine their own domestic and business rates at that point and could go to the private market and borrow money on various terms, and did so to a greater extent than many sovereign states during that period. They were not subject to the detailed Whitehall restrictions on ring-fencing how they spent that money or even determining what the basic standards were.

Now local authorities are not even able to borrow against investment and certain future incomes without coming up against the Treasury rules. That means they cannot address some of the basic problems of housing and infrastructure within their own areas, let alone take steps in partnership with the private sector to revive their local industry. We need to get back to a degree of freedom which is not quite that of the 19th century—we require different forms of accountability—but one which we have abandoned to our cost over the last half century.

Incidentally, I was also responsible for taking through this House the Local Government Acts of 1999 and 2000, which provided the options of structuring local government in a number of ways, including for elected mayors. As others have pointed out, the option of elected mayors did not prove hugely popular. Indeed, it was not popular in Manchester, among other places.

[Lord Prescott]

Or anywhere.

[Lord Whitty]

Pretty well anywhere, but not quite anywhere. However, I have my doubts whether the concept of a directly elected mayor at a combined-authority level will prove any more popular. One of the problems with the rhetoric on the Bill, particularly from the Chancellor and those who are briefing on his behalf, is that it is suggested that the full range of powers will go only to those combined authorities opting for a directly elected mayor. Some of the comments that the Minister made in a briefing meeting and today suggest a bit more flexibility in that regard. As we go through the Bill, I should like to ask how much flexibility we have area by area.

It will be important for us to recognise the different requirements and priorities area by area, but also to recognise the different existing structures area by area. As my noble friend Lord Snape said, it is not just a question of whether you call the relevant area “Greater Birmingham”, to everybody else’s offence, but rather of looking for a combined authority and a directly elected mayor to cover the cities of the East Midlands. We have an elected mayor in Leicester. That is fine. However, Nottingham very firmly rejected the elected-mayor principle. If we were to bring those together with the counties surrounding them, we would experience some difficulty if we were seen to be imposing a particular structure as distinct from particular powers, responsibilities and resourcing.

Questions will be raised on the Bill as we go through Committee but I think the central one is: in what context will it operate? Will it operate in a context in which we free up the financial flexibility and availability of funds for local authorities, or one in which we try to compensate in some way for ever-squeezed formal public expenditure commitments, but not by allowing local authorities to raise their own resources to deliver the economic development we are looking for through innovative partnerships with the private sector and the financial sector?

London does not seem to be covered by the Bill. The London councils say that they could do with some of the powers in the Bill. Will the Minister indicate, either now or in Committee, what powers could be devolved to a combination of London boroughs and the GLA?

My last, and perhaps flippant point, concerns Wales. This is called an England and Wales Bill yet virtually none of it applies to Wales because local authority structures are a devolved matter for Wales. However, as I say, it is called an England and Wales Bill in the appendix. When we discuss English votes for English laws, I would like to know whether this is indeed an English Bill or an England and Wales Bill. That is a minor point in some ways but probably not considered so in Wales. The bigger point is: will the powers and resources really match the rhetoric that surrounds this Bill?

19:35

[Lord Tope (LD)]

My Lords, it is always a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, although I think on this occasion a rather dangerous one as he tempts me into reminiscing too much about the many happy hours, days, weeks and, indeed, months we spent in 1999 on the Greater London Authority Bill. He is right to say that it was extremely long on detail—mostly about what the Mayor of London could not do; it was extremely short on the detail of how to do it. However, the one thing I do not recall having any difficulty with was what we were going to call Greater London. We had some difficulty over whether it was an authority or a council and most people still referred to it as the GLC, but it was still Greater London.

Before I forget, I must declare my interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association.

This has been a very useful, interesting and stimulating debate with a wide measure of agreement on the things we do agree about and agreement on the concerns that I think are widely shared on all sides of the House. It was made clear by the previous five speakers on these Benches that the Liberal Democrats welcome the Bill’s principles and intentions. Indeed, how could we do otherwise, as most of us have argued for the whole of our political lives for greater devolution? The first Liberal Party publication I ever read back in the 1960s was entitled Power to the Provinces, so at last, to quote the noble Lord, Lord Heseltine, we are perhaps at an historic moment. The noble Lord has featured frequently throughout the debate and has been present throughout to hear all the comments. We very much welcome that, as he has shaped the thinking on these issues for a very long time.

Noble Lords on these Benches have made clear that we welcome the Bill but have a number of concerns. We are very concerned about democracy, accountability and scrutiny, particularly as regards the city areas—the combined authorities to be created over this Parliament —as there is a very real danger of their becoming one-party states in a way that may matter to some on this side of the House. It does not matter which party is involved, a one-party state is not good for democracy, challenge or scrutiny. I hope that is something to which we can give more attention.

Reference has been made to the need to devolve fiscal powers, and I hope more reference will be made to that. Unless these authorities have the power actually to raise funds, they will not have real power. I hope we are reaching the stage when central government is willing and brave enough to tackle those issues.

I hope that we will say more about the relationship of the new authorities with their local communities, not just or particularly the political communities, if I can call them that, but the business communities, which I think are generally welcoming but, perhaps understandably, a little suspicious of what may be coming. So that is important.

Lastly, as has been mentioned by a number of speakers, the Bill starts by calling itself the cities Bill and then goes on to say “local government”. We must ensure that we do not talk and think only about the cities, important though they are, but that we remember what is actually the greater part of the rest of England—the non-metropolitan areas and the rural areas. I hope we will pay considerable attention to those.

Our aim during the remaining stages of the Bill will be to try to prompt the Government to think more about some of the very important details in these proposals, to tease out some of that thinking and debate it, and to look at how we can amend what is and must remain an enabling Bill so that it gives the right degree of guidance without being too prescriptive. That is something that we will have to pay some attention to.

There have been references to London throughout today’s debate. Many of those were quite properly references to the economy but quite a few were also to government. As someone who has been a London borough councillor for 40 years, until last year, I say to your Lordships that, in government terms, the London more usually referred to as Whitehall or Westminster is at least as distant from the London Borough of Sutton or the London Borough of Enfield as, for instance, Newcastle or Manchester. It is important that devolution applies to and within London as elsewhere.

I know that the Bill does not cover London specifically, for structural reasons we know and understand, but I hope the Minister can say something in her reply to give encouragement to the mayor, the GLA and the London boroughs that although they may not be covered by the provisions of the Bill, the Government are at least ready to hear proposals from the mayor and the London boroughs that respond to the encouragement that the Bill gives elsewhere. I know that that is something that both the GLA and London Councils have been working on and are looking forward to being able to promote. They are rather anxious that the Bill might actually set that back rather than encourage it. I hope the Minister will be able to give us some reassurance there.

I have just mentioned my 40 years as a London borough councillor. As it happened, the first 12 of those years were with the Greater London Council. During the next 14 years we had no strategic authority for London—unless you regard central government as the strategic authority—and we tried to work on a London borough basis. It was not a good time but one of the really good things that came out of that period was the growth of real co-operation between London boroughs, which we had not previously known and which still exists. Of course, my last 14 years were during the period of the Greater London Authority. Most relevant perhaps was that I became a London borough council leader almost on the same day that the GLC was abolished, and I stood down from the leadership in order to stand for election—a successful election—to the London Assembly, of which I was a member for its first eight years. I mention all that not because it is a declarable interest, which it is not, but because I think that a lot of that experience has some bearing on the points we are going to consider. I understand, of course, that the structure of London government is different in many ways from what is proposed now, but I think that there are lessons we can learn from the experience in London, good and bad, of having these arrangements.

We have spent a lot of time—perhaps too much time, and I fear that will continue—talking about elected mayors. London had the first elected mayor, as I am sure I do not need to remind people, particularly on this side of the House. The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, will know that he spent most of his time as the Minister responsible trying to put things into the Bill to ensure that the first Mayor of London did not have too much power, as he had when he was leader of the GLC. In a way, that is my point. I think we are getting too obsessed with elected mayors. I am not and never have been a fan. I do not understand why this Government are so keen, as the previous Government were, to have them and why we do not simply have them on a permissive basis—if people want them, fine, let us have them; if they do not, they do not.

The only argument put forward today in support came from the Minister and was that people need to know who is accountable. I have no idea of Ken Livingstone’s view as to whether he was more accountable as leader of the GLC or as Mayor of London. I would suggest that at the time he was at least equally well known as either and most Londoners really did not know or care what title he had; it was what he was doing that was rather more of concern. Similarly, we learned in the recent election that a very large number of people, not only in London, think that Boris Johnson is the Prime Minister and not the Mayor of London, so I just do not buy that argument. In my experience, and as the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, said, if council leaders are any good, they have at least as much power as any elected mayor, if they use it properly and effectively. So I simply do not understand that. My concern is that we will spend too much time on that issue and not enough time on what, frankly, are more important issues. I urge the Government to think about whether it is really necessary to impose elected mayors as a condition of getting the powers and funding that people want—in other words, bribery.

There are other issues. We have talked about accountability and scrutiny. If we are to have elected mayors and strong combined authorities, it is crucial that the scrutiny function, the challenge function and the accountability must be equally strong. It is a very important part of democracy and democratic accountability. There is a real danger that we will not have that. Again referring to the GLA, there is a strong mayor and a weak assembly. The only power the London Assembly has is to amend—and it is a fairly limited amendment power—the mayor’s budget if there is a two-thirds majority. In the first 15 years of the Greater London Authority, the mayor has never had a majority for his budget but equally there has never been a two-thirds majority to amend it. The mayor has always known that and the power is therefore useless. So the scrutiny function needs to be stronger and it needs to be effective. I hope we can pay some attention to that.

I mentioned earlier the relationship with communities. It is very easy, and I think it will be even easier with these combined authorities, for local authorities to become too inward-looking, talking too much to themselves and the people closely around them. It is very important that they build a relationship with all the communities—the geographical communities and the interest communities, and particularly the business community. Again, I hope we can give some attention to how that is going to happen.

I conclude with just one warning. I am and always have been a strong advocate of devolution but it has also been the case—in too many cases—that devolution has paradoxically led to greater centralisation. I would give Scotland as an example. We have devolved a lot of power to Scotland, to the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Executive. Actually, within Scotland it has become very much more centralised. Ask anyone of any party in Scottish local government and they will tell you: it is more centralised now than it was before we devolved power. That does not automatically have to happen. It should not happen and we must ensure that it does not.

We welcome the Bill and its principles and intentions, and we will try to ensure that it leaves this House a better Bill.

19:48

[Lord Beecham (Lab)]

My Lords, first, I refer to my local government interests in the register. By my count, we have had nine former council leaders addressing the House today, including the Minister. One of those is the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, and I am sure the House will join me in congratulating him on his new appointment as the Liberal Democrat spokesman on local government. He and I had several years of enjoyable confrontation in the Newcastle City Council chamber when I was leader of the council and he was leader of the opposition. He subsequently served also as leader of the council and had a very distinguished local government career. I imagine that in the noble Lord’s new post, he will not be one of the roughly 60 Liberal Democrat Peers who will no doubt be seeking leave of absence from the House, in accordance with their policy that representation in this House should reflect the percentage of the vote cast in the last election. That would have a significant effect on the number of Liberal Democrat Peers—but obviously the noble Lord would be immune to his party’s policy in that respect.

My late wife Brenda was none too pleased when, for our summer holiday in Spain in 1969, I took along Maud—that is to say, the Maud report, the first of many such reports which, in the 48 years that I have served as a local councillor, have helped to shape successive reorganisations of local government. From that report’s recommendations were born the metropolitan county councils, which were referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, established by the Heath Government—no doubt under the influence of the noble Lord, Lord Heseltine—and abolished 12 years later by the Thatcher Government, alongside the Greater London Council, which had of course also been created by a previous Conservative Government. Since then, a variety of reorganisations, both structural and of governance, have followed at fairly regular intervals.

The present Bill needs to be seen in the context of this history, which in many respects casts an ironic light on its proposals and the philosophy which animates them. But let me be clear that I very much welcome moves to devolve decision-making, providing that they are accompanied by a respect for community identities, a needs-based system of local government finance and an effective partnership at local level across the public sector, involving government departments, agencies and the community itself.

It is ironic that some of the functions which feature in the Government’s thinking, and in the Greater Manchester Combined Authority agreement, were among the very same functions exercised by the metropolitan counties—notably, economic development and transport —although it will be recalled that the Thatcher Government eventually forced the sale of local authority-owned and managed bus services, except in London. Even now, the Tyneside Metro is run by Nexus, a local authority body involving the councils currently involved in the North East Combined Authority. Similarly, Newcastle Airport was developed and is still partly owned by local councils—and all this without an elected mayor.

As I reminded the House during the debate on the Queen’s Speech, the Local Government Association conceived the idea of Total Place, under which we had hoped to see much closer working at local level across the public sector to ensure a more integrated and cost-effective deployment of resources, both local and national. The concept was adopted by the Treasury and the Department for Communities and Local Government, but little enthusiasm was evinced, perhaps unsurprisingly, by other departments or agencies, secure in their Whitehall silos. Little progress has been made on that concept in the last five years.

Quite apart from other concerns raised in this debate, I do not believe that even the best intentioned Secretary of State—and I think that Mr Clark probably fits that description—will succeed in overcoming the institutional inertia and narrow vision of departments and their Ministers unless a very serious Minister, as the noble Lord, Lord Prescott, was when he was Deputy Prime Minister, is charged with oversight of the process. I recall very clearly the meetings that we used to have in local government with the Central-Local Partnership, as it was then called, chaired by the noble Lord and involving other government departments and Ministers. That was a very useful mechanism.

In addition, I repeat my call for the reintroduction of government regional offices, which could help significantly in this and other respects. They would also help to meet the point made in this debate about having a central point of contact between the local authorities in a given area and government itself. It is much easier to do that through a regional office than by having to connect directly or indirectly with Whitehall, and it would apply whatever structures are operating at local level.

One of the major difficulties with the proposals in the Bill is the apparent insistence on the requirement of an elected mayor before significant powers can be granted, without any test of public opinion. The case for elected mayors is much overstated anyway, even from a democratic standpoint. Even in the London mayoral elections, with all their massive attendant media coverage, turnout is not significantly higher than in ordinary local elections. It was 38% in 2012. But there are also concerns about vesting so much power in a single pair of mayoral hands, as many of your Lordships have said, augmented under Clause 3 by the hands of the deputy who he or she appoints, or any “member or officer” he chooses—including, presumably the political adviser whose appointment the Bill prescribes, unless the Secretary of State orders otherwise.

These concerns are, in my submission, substantially augmented by the possible transfer of the police and crime commissioner role, established with such a fanfare by the Government three years ago and treated by the electorate with unparalleled indifference when it came to voting for them at the ballot box. Such a concentration of power in this sensitive area is highly questionable. The very suggestion underlines the concern that many of us share about the degree to which this single individual could be accountable, especially in areas which are not natural entities but which comprise distinctive communities. It is not for me to comment on other areas but, as the person who suggested the formation of the Northern Regional Councils Association, now the Association of North East Councils, in the 1980s, I have some experience of the sensitivities. To progress the idea, I circulated a paper anonymously through the medium of the then leader of Northumberland County Council, knowing that if the idea had been seen to be conceived in Newcastle, other significant councils in the area would be much less likely to support it. This, after all, was the area where the leader of Gateshead Council in the 1960s said of the prospect of local radio being established in Newcastle that nobody in Gateshead would be interested in listening to it.

Happily, such extreme manifestations of tribalism are now much rarer. However, the North East Combined Authority extends from Berwick on the borders to the boundaries of Darlington and Teesside—a distance of approximately 85 miles—and from just east of Carlisle, in the west of the region, to the North Sea coast. It comprises five metropolitan districts and two counties— one of them, as we have heard, led by the very able son of the noble Baroness, Lady Henig—with substantial rural areas. It has a population the size of that of Northern Ireland and two-thirds the size of that of Wales. The notion of accountability vesting in a single pair of hands for such an area is unreal and unacceptable. One wonders whether the siren voice of Nick Boles, who proclaimed that elected mayors were the only route back for the Tories in Manchester, has influenced the Government’s approach, especially in the light of the rejection of the concept in all but one of the cities which, as we have been reminded several times today, were subjected to referendums only three years ago.

There is no reason why the mechanism of combined authorities, backed up by well-resourced scrutiny and the active participation of public sector partners and their private and community sector counterparts in appropriate policy areas, should not operate effectively and accountably. They should have their own audit committee, or public accounts committee, independently chaired. I must say in parenthesis that I regret even more in this context the abolition of the Audit Commission, an egregious act of spite by the former Secretary of State.

Mention of the Audit Commission brings me to the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Heseltine. It is such a great pleasure to see him in his place today. Neither of us may be too happy to admit it but we go back a long way. Newcastle under my leadership was one of the first councils to be penalised by the Conservative Government, within weeks of the 1979 general election, but that did not prevent our working with that Government when it could benefit the city—notably during the noble Lord’s two terms as Secretary of State for the Environment. On two occasions, I received invitations from him. The first was when he invited me to join the Audit Commission as a member. I declined because I did not think that this was compatible with my position as the then chair of the Association of Metropolitan Authorities. The invitation was useful, however, in helping me rebut charges of profligacy by Conservative members of Newcastle City Council. The second invitation I accepted with, I must confess, some trepidation. It was for dinner in the Tower of London. It was not held in the Beauchamp Tower but it included the noble Lord, Lord Levene, and the late and much lamented Sir Peter Hall. I remember that it was a very useful discussion about local government.

The noble Lord, Lord Heseltine, has of course long had a serious and constructive interest in local government and the problems and potential of our cities in particular. He was, as we have been reminded today, much moved by the plight of Liverpool in the early 1980s. He engaged with the inner-city partnership programme and launched City Challenge in the 1990s. More recently, he produced the seminal report on cities, which again has been mentioned several times today.

There is perhaps one lesson, at least, that we can learn from City Challenge—a programme which, in Newcastle, brought about £30 million to the city in its six-year life—which is that extra one-off resources, although welcome, will never be adequate if at the same time financial support for existing services is cut. The city lost more in grant during that period than we gained from that useful programme, welcome though it was. My noble friend Lady Donaghy made precisely the point that we cannot look at structures and financing without looking at the position not merely of capital investment and the like but of the revenue requirements of authorities, and the degree to which they are fairly funded by government.

This matter of a needs-based local government finance system is critical if the Government’s proclaimed aspirations are to be realised. I repeat that devolving tax-raising powers of itself is insufficient, given the variability, and vulnerability, of the local tax base. By all means devolve those powers, but recognise that there is still a need, in addition to the fiscal devolution—to which a number of Members have referred, including in particular the noble Lord, Lord Shipley—to have ample financial resources available. Fiscal devolution, like patriotism is, of itself, not enough. I was very taken with the suggestion from the noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, about municipal bonds, an idea that has been floated from time to time. No Government have yet reacted positively, but it is time to reconsider that, particularly in the context of strategic authorities, whatever their precise mode of government may be.

I conclude by joining others in urging the Government not to make a fetish of the mayoral system as a condition of empowering and working in partnership with combined authorities, or with other authorities and groups of authorities, because we are not, as the Minister made clear earlier, just talking about combined authorities. There may be opportunities in particular for counties and others to have some form of involvement with the provisions of the Bill. At the very least, any structures should be backed by public support and secured by argument and debate, and not by the threat of withholding much-needed investment and the advantages of joint working. With that qualification, I and the Opposition welcome the Bill. We will seek to try and improve it and we look forward to local government and government together being able to go forward in a mutually respectful partnership which enhances and retains local accountability in a system in which, as I say, on the financial side in particular, the whole basis is one of need.

20:03

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in today’s debate. It has been an excellent one and I thank noble Lords from all sides of the House for the good will that they have shown towards the Bill. It is indeed a privilege to have heard from not only two former Deputy Prime Ministers but, as the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, pointed out, nine former council leaders. I have listened to what has been said and have got a good feel from some of the contributions that have been made. I see support from all sides on the need for further devolution, and the desire to see all parts of the United Kingdom benefit from greater devolution of power and achieve their economic potential in this way. The Bill will deliver the devolution of powers and resources so that our cities, our towns and our counties can become their own economic powerhouses.

The noble Lord, Lord Tope, made a point about London. London boroughs are absolutely not precluded from coming forward with their ideas for devolution, albeit they have a mayor in place. Just as an aside, he made the point about people thinking Boris Johnson is the Prime Minister—but people think Churchill is a dog.

I will not answer every single question but I will go through the pertinent points made this afternoon. The noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, made the first, crucial point by confirming that devolution under the Bill does not just cover cities. He was absolutely right: it enables proposals to come forward from counties, groups of authorities and certainly from rural areas. Although we have been quite tied up with the concept of the northern powerhouse, there are great counties, such as Cornwall, which will be very keen to put forward some of their proposals, and the Government are very keen to have a conversation with them. He also asked about the delivery strategy; in other words, how the counties will catch the Chancellor’s eye. Will smaller proposals be left behind? Not at all. The Government are keen to hear from all areas that have proposals. That will follow a discussion with the Secretary of State and the Government. He also asked where the buck ultimately stops. In this country, the buck always stops with the electorate—they will be the ones who ultimately decide—but there is also an agreement between the combined authorities and government in terms of what government will expect.

Many noble Lords asked whether a city can have all the powers without a mayor. The Chancellor said:

“We will transfer major powers … to those cities who choose to have a directly elected … mayor”.

That does not preclude any area from coming forward with proposals, and a conversation taking place between those areas and government.

The noble Lord, Lord Shipley, talked about this being an enabling Bill, as did many noble Lords. It is, and it does recognise that one size does not fit all. It recognises that Manchester is different from Birmingham, which is different from Leeds, which is different from Cornwall, which is different from Norwich. It also recognises that medium-tier cities will have their proposals, which will be different from those from other places, and it is very keen on those. I am personally looking forward to the proposal from Norwich, which the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, mentioned several times. Norwich has its part to play.

The noble Lord, Lord Shipley, talked about democratic legitimacy through referendums, as have several noble Lords. I said in my Answer at Question Time today that there are local authorities that have mayors without having had to go through a referendum. I can name two of them: Liverpool and Leicester. As I said today, the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007 provided that if local authorities wanted to go straight to a mayoral model, they could do so. This is a multiplication of that provision. It is writ large and absolutely clear in the Government’s manifesto that they wish for this to take place. In that context, I am sure noble Lords would be willing to support that.

The noble Lord, Lord Shipley, also talked about an assembly. Greater Manchester has been very clear that it does not want additional tiers of government, and I am sure other local areas would feel the same. An assembly has not been considered because we want to minimise the risk of creating more bureaucracies.

The noble Earl, Lord Listowel, made a very interesting point about social housing and addressing housing issues, very neatly followed by my noble friend Lord Heseltine talking about all the funding streams that existed, meaning that it was difficult to get one co-ordinated housing plan. The Bill would help with that disparate approach to things such as housing need. Of course, going back to Greater Manchester, there is a housing investment fund of £300 million.

As my noble friend Lord Heseltine said, the Bill is dependent on detail. It is a framework, a mechanism for powers to be brought through in secondary legislation. A lot of questions were asked this afternoon about what those powers are. The Government do not want to dictate to local authorities or groups of local authorities what those powers might be. We want to hear from them. I know that that is a bit of an about-face after all the years of centralisation, but Government really want to hear those proposals. This is a partnership between Government and local authorities.

The noble Lord, Lord Prescott, talked about the Northern Way. I remember that well; it was the subject of many a document. In terms of what it delivered, I do not think it delivered anything but it certainly sowed the seeds of what we now talk about as the east-west links between Liverpool and Hull. Those links are crucial and in no way less important than HS2—HS2 and HS3 are all part of the jigsaw. I declare an interest, as one noble Lord said earlier, as a former chief executive of Atlantic Gateway. The super-port in Liverpool has significant benefits in terms of the economy and transport logistics, and really could be a game-changer in all this and for Hull.

The noble Lord also asked what the proposals from Hull look like. I know they are working on proposals there, but I do not think anything has yet come forward to government. I am sure the noble Lord would like to be part of the conversations with Hull. Leeds also has a devolution deal with government that is quite far advanced, looking at West Yorkshire. He also asked how long this takes. It takes as long as it takes for those local authorities to agree and come forward to government with their proposals and for an agreement to go forward. It is a bit like a piece of string, really. Of course, Greater Manchester has been first off the blocks here.

The noble Lord, Lord Teverson, asked about a specific road map. Whatever proposals come forward will be considered and no one proposal will take precedence over another because of size or scale of ambition. The Government are keen to hear from everybody and every group of local authorities.

The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Derby talked about the unevenness needing to be addressed. This is actually at the heart of what the Bill does in allowing areas outside London to unlock their potential. I do not in any way, in any of the discussions we are having, want to do down London. London is an incredibly important powerhouse, but the north and other areas outside London, such as Cornwall, are capable of so much more. That is what we are trying to promote. He talked about the benefit from the international economy in London. Of course, we have benefited from that but places such as Greater Manchester want now to be net contributors to the Exchequer. We want to punch above our weight.

My noble friend Lady Wheatcroft talked about clusters of businesses. Clusters of businesses and the links between them are absolutely crucial. This effect of agglomeration is crucial to local and regional economies, as is creating this idea of a single labour market, with some connections so good that people are closer together in terms of getting to work and seeking employment. She also asked—as did the noble Lord, Lord Beecham—about the idea of a municipal bond. The Government are open to suggestions as to how financing might be raised. We look forward to any suggestions being brought forward. She also asked if the mayor will be fun and ride bikes. The answer is that I do not know. I hope that the mayor will be fun, whoever that is in whichever authority.

The noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, talked about the unhealthy dominance of London. It is dominant and in many ways that has been healthy for our economy. However, outside London we are capable of so much more. That is a point I made before. As she said, the Core Cities will be sorted but what about the others? I think I answered that point in terms of the mid-tier and other smaller groups of authorities.

The noble Lord, Lord Goddard, who is not in his place, talked about the journey of Greater Manchester. I was with him on that journey. One thing I would say about that journey is that that combined authority grew in maturity over the 30 years that it worked on a voluntary basis. Also, one thing that you could point out about Greater Manchester is that the leadership was very strong. I do not believe that these things will get through or work effectively without strong local leadership, whatever that leadership might look like. He also asked about borrowing—there are clearly provisions for prudential borrowing in there for the combined authority—and fiscal devolution. Some noble Lords will have seen some of the proposals in terms of retention of business rates and the “earn back” model that Greater Manchester seeks.

The noble Lord, Lord Wigley, welcomed the Bill but asked about Wales. It is an entirely devolved Administration; the reference to Wales in the Bill was to Wales as a jurisdiction, rather than its relevance to this Bill—so I hope that that answers the question.

My noble friend Lord Moynihan talked about sport and recreation and perhaps raising funds through a precept. Should a group of local authorities wish to come forward with proposals—a mayor may wish to take a focus on sport and recreation—it is something that the mayor could put to the combined authority in terms of the precept that they raise.

The noble Lord, Lord Woolmer of Leeds, again, talked about fiscal devolution, and I hope that I have in some part answered that question. He asked why we needed a mayor. We need maximum accountability for maximum powers devolved. He talked about HS3, and I think that I have covered that, but he also asked, “What is the northern powerhouse?”, which got me thinking. For me, the northern powerhouse is the ability of some of those great northern industrial places to reignite their greatness again. That is what I understand it to mean. Of course, we have the northern powerhouse but we also have county authorities that wish to institute growth in their areas. The northern powerhouse might mean a certain thing in terms of cities, but we do not forget our counties in all this.

The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, talked about resources and said that it was our money. Of course, all money raised is our money, because we are the taxpayers. In terms of the devolution of powers and funding, it gives us the chance to be masters of our taxpayers’ destinies in a more effective way and to get economic growth.

There has been a lot of talk about single-party states. No combined authority would be formed without the explicit agreement of each of its constituent parts. My noble friend Lord Sherbourne also asked about the scrutiny and accountability, and asked how you ensure effective scrutiny when a scrutiny system cannot overturn but can challenge the decision of the mayor in question. Our view is that overview and scrutiny committees for combined authorities should be chaired by a person who is not actually a member of the majority party represented on the combined authority. I hope that that gives the noble Baroness and my noble friend some sort of comfort in holding a mayor to account.

The noble Baroness also talked about some of those non-constituent parts of a combined authority. It is a very important issue, which we want to consider carefully. There are provisions in a draft legislative reform order before Parliament which would, if enacted, give greater flexibility as to what can constitute an area of a combined authority. As we take the Bill forward, we will look carefully at how best to provide that flexibility so that the governance structures, including that of a metro mayor, can provide the accountability and transparency of the decision taken.

I shall gallop through the last two pages of questions, because I am coming up to 20 minutes. My noble friend Lord Horam made some lovely points about industrial Lancashire and the cotton industry, and I think that my noble friend Lord Ashton of Hyde’s forebears’ names might have been there somewhere. He talked about leaders having to beg for funding in the old days and feeling almost embarrassed; the time has gone to feel embarrassed. Government is now reaching out to local authorities and local areas to ask what they want.

The noble Baroness, Lady Donaghy, talked about powers being ceded by consent. The answer is yes to that. She also asked what powers may be included. I think that I answered that previously in saying it was about what powers local areas would want included.

The noble Baroness, Lady Eaton, made the point about counties, and I hope that I answered that in saying that we really do want to hear from counties that might be attached to cities, et cetera.

The noble Lord, Lord Snape, asked whether the orders would go through on a negative resolution. No, they would not—they would go through on an affirmative resolution. He talked about transport needing primary legislation. That is absolutely correct and we hope to bring it through later this year.

However, I cannot finish without mentioning the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, and his love of Liverpool and the port. He is absolutely right about what a difference that port will make.

I hope that I can allay some of the cynicism expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Henig, about Whitehall trusting local government. We shall see as time goes on. I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this excellent Second Reading debate and look forward to continuing the arguments or debate in Committee.

Bill read a second time and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

House adjourned at 8.24 pm.