Civil Liability Bill [HL]

Baroness Primarolo Excerpts

Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Thursday 10th May 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Primarolo (Lab)]

My Lords, I rise to speak briefly to Amendment 21, which is tabled in my name. I draw attention to my interests as set out in the register.

I shall follow the theme in the point made by the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, with regard to physiotherapy and psychological treatments in claims under this clause. The debate at the moment is with regard to probing amendments, and I hope very much that the Minister, in his reply, will be able to give us a little more explanation on how he sees this particular section of the Bill operating.

I should also say as a caveat that, while I accept the very strong point continually made in the Chamber, and rightly so, about the creativity of some claims management companies—the ones making the telephone calls—to find ways into this area and to cause considerable difficulties, I hope that we will not lose sight of the genuine claims of individuals and the hardships they suffer when they seek to make a claim but cannot represent themselves and whose access to finance for such a claim does not exist. In our rush to deal, quite rightly, with unwanted claims, I hope that we will not undermine and damage the very valuable claims that are necessary for individuals—not just adults but children as well.

With regard to my proposed amendment, Clause 2(6) states:

“Regulations… may provide”,


that a person has taken,

“reasonable steps to mitigate the effect of … whiplash injury or minor psychological injury”.

As I have said, I want to talk about physiotherapy as well.

The reason I ask the Minister to give us more information is in the background of the very public debate about, for example, the provision of mental health services and, in particular, where such services are provided and how the claimant would get access to them and therefore have taken reasonable steps not to undermine a subsequent claim. The King’s Fund, in its analysis of NHS trusts, clearly identifies, through their financial accounts, that approximately 40% of mental health trusts have received a reduction in their funding and therefore in their services.

The type of claims made that require psychological support may involve children who, having been with their parents in a car accident, have problems with nightmares, so they need access to proper support and therapy. Such a claim may involve, and has involved, parents travelling in a car where the mother is pregnant and therefore suffers stress as well as physical injuries. Again, where is the access to psychological injury and, reasonable steps having been taken to mitigate that, given the connection between pain and one’s mental health well-being?

I am not a lawyer, and if my comments are considered ill-informed I will not be embarrassed by being corrected by the very many experienced noble and learned Lords in this Chamber. At the heart of this, and the objective that the Government seek to achieve, is how to stop those who are using the system in a way that, frankly, undermines the rights of good, honest people who are not making fraudulent claims. How to correct that system without preventing worthy, correct and needy claims is a huge challenge. At the moment, while I understand why the ABI talks in its briefing about the need for it to have flexibility to adjust and evolve as the industry does, I see nothing in the Bill that puts that same flexibility into protecting the rights of legitimate claimants in this area of physical damage.

I very much look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say on this whole area, because I fear that otherwise we may need to return to this. There is not enough protection at the moment for the individual legitimate claimant.

[Baroness Berridge]

My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments 8, 10 and 49A in this group. I join with the comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Primarolo, in relation to genuine claimants. As I understand it, even the insurance companies accept that the majority of claimants in this area are genuine. It is a high burden on your Lordships’ House to ensure that the Bill hits the target of fraudulent claims as accurately as it can without the shrapnel hitting genuine claimants. Fundamentally, someone with a bruised knee, as the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, mentioned, may find themselves with more compensation when assessed under Judicial College guidelines than someone who has genuinely incurred a potentially six-month whiplash injury.

Amendments 8 and 10 relate to reducing the length of the period of these symptoms from two years to one. It is important to remember that while, yes, there is a portal, which the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, referred to, and the small claims track, even today 35% of claims are outside the portal. These are the nuts and bolts of people’s access to justice through the small claims track, but that is without legal representation.

The important reason to reduce the scope of the Bill to a year is that the overwhelming majority of whiplash cases, even including those that the insurance companies maintain today are fraud or suspected fraud, are resolved within a year. However, a bulk of cases—15%—last longer than that, and of those there are about 5% where someone has a long-standing chronic condition as a result of the whiplash injury. They might have an early onset of osteoarthritis, a chronic pain condition or fibromyalgia—these are cases that I have seen—which are seriously long-term disabling conditions. It is very important for those people that there is representation, perhaps more in-depth medical reports looking at what has happened to their symptoms, and legal advice so that they are not pressurised into settling a claim too early and getting a sum of money within the first year when actually the prognosis is not definite. If we reduce the scope of the Bill—the Government’s stated intention relates to minor injuries and fraud—down to one year, it would give protection to those people who, hopefully, if they were advised properly, would wait to settle their claim to ensure that their symptoms had resolved.

I hope this is not going to be a complicated amendment. It would do a lot to protect genuine claimants. We do not seem to have evidence of people who are exaggerating and claiming to have fibromyalgia, chronic pain or early-onset osteoarthritis as the result of a fraudulent claim. At the moment the Bill does not do sufficient to protect claimants in those categories, and reducing the limit from two years to one would deal with the fraud problem but also give them some protection.

Amendment 49A is one that I was given advice on by USDAW. The policy reason that Her Majesty’s Government have given for creating this section of claims is that we are aiming at fraud where they will not be covered by the Judicial College guidelines. That will lead to ordinary people not necessarily understanding why claim X merited much more than their own claim. This is serious in people’s fundamental understanding of compensation and justice.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Keen of Elie]

I am obliged to noble Lords for their contributions to the Bill in Committee. I begin with Amendment 4, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, which would limit the definition of whiplash to soft tissue injuries of the neck. There is then a further amendment that would require the definition of whiplash to be set by the Chief Medical Officer of the Department of Health. The amendment to remove the back and shoulder from this definition would significantly reduce the number of claims subject to measures in the Bill, namely the tariff and the ban on settling claims without medical evidence. It would also encourage claims displacement into other areas to avoid them being subject to the tariff. That would be a serious issue.

The definition in the Bill has been adapted from that in the Prisons and Courts Bill following feedback from stakeholders that the definition in the latter Bill was not broad enough to capture the intended claims. The current definition, with the draft regulations that have now been produced, is intended to achieve that objective.

The amendment requiring the definition of whiplash to be set by the Chief Medical Officer of the Department of Health would provide an independent person who has responsibility for advising the Government on medical issues, but the definition of whiplash injury needs to reconcile the current legal understanding with an accurate medical definition that covers both injuries and their symptoms. This is why the Government have developed the definition of a whiplash injury with input not only from medical experts, but from other expert stakeholders, including claimant and defendant solicitors.

Amendments 8, 9 and 10 restrict the scope of the tariff provisions by reducing the injury duration of affected claims to 12 months from two years. As the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, observed, this would reduce the number of claims captured by these reforms, but have the negative effect of encouraging claims displacement or claims inflation. Having an injury duration of up to two years will ensure that genuinely injured claimants seek timely treatment for their injuries, as well as enabling the Government to reduce and control the level of compensation in whiplash claims and consequently—as is one of the objectives—reduce insurance premiums for consumers.

The noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, spoke to Amendments 15 to 20 and 22, which would widen the types of injuries affected by both the tariff of damages and the ban on settling claims without medical evidence. It would remove the term “psychological” from the clause, so that the measures in the Bill would apply to all minor injuries related to road traffic accidents, regardless of whether they are psychological or physical in nature. Consequently, this would apply the single-figure tariff to all those injuries, irrespective of number and type, by reference to the duration of the whiplash injury alone. This would result in the reduction of damages for a substantial number of personal injury claims outside the scope of our proposed reforms. The proposed reforms are intended to reduce the number and cost of particular claims—“an industry”, some people have referred to; “a racket”, others have mentioned. We are committed to addressing the issues that arise with whiplash injury.

I understand the point made about the bruised knee. I respond to the noble Lord, Lord Trevethin and Oaksey, on the potential for discrepancies between awards made under the tariff for the whiplash injury itself and awards made for other minor injuries.

Clause 2(8) makes provision for the fact that the court will take into account other minor injuries and will make an award that is not related to the tariff itself. That is my understanding of the words in parentheses: that, in the context of the whiplash injury, regard will be had to the limits imposed by the tariff and the regulations but that, with respect to the other injuries, there will be no such limitation. That is why we do not consider it appropriate to delete the term “psychological” and extend these provisions to all minor injuries. Including minor psychological claims within the original tariff, as the noble Lord, Lord Trevethin and Oaksey, indicated, was done in order to meet the way in which claims develop in this area. Indeed, it is in line with the Judicial College guidelines for personal injury compensation, which indicate that minor psychological injuries such as travel anxiety are not in themselves separate injuries attracting compensation; they have to be linked to physical injury itself.

Turning to Amendment 21, moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Primarolo, if one considers Clause 2(6), persons who are unable to locate treatment for either their physical or psychological injuries are in fact only required to take appropriate steps to seek such treatment. There is no requirement for them to undertake it if it is not available for any number of practical reasons. I would therefore suggest that this amendment is unnecessary in the circumstances.

[Baroness Primarolo]

Can the Minister explain, then, what the point is of putting a subsection into a Bill that will have no effect, given that we know that psychological and physiotherapy services are under enormous strain and vary around the country? On the point he makes about people just adjusting how they make their claim, surely the answer would be, “We tried and it wasn’t available”. If it is to be a test, should it not be a test that is capable of being judged?

[Lord Keen of Elie]

With great respect, the relevant text can be judged, because the requirement is that a person should take reasonable steps to secure those services where they are required. If they are not available then that is an answer to the point.

May I move on to Amendments 27A and 49A, on the course of employment? I have to confess that, on this matter, I am inclined to side with the noble Lord, Lord Bassam. It appears to me, with due respect, that there is perhaps a misunderstanding here. If we look at Clause 1(3), we see that it is concerned with a situation in which a person suffers whiplash injury “because of driver negligence”. Whether a person is in the course of their employment or not, if they suffer a whiplash injury because of driver negligence, the third-party driver’s negligence will be responsible for the injury and, therefore, the insurer of the third-party driver will respond. If, on the other hand, the injury is the consequence of the driver himself, then he will have no claim, because you cannot claim in respect of your own negligence. In neither event would there be a legitimate basis for claim against the employer. It is for that reason that we do not consider it necessary to exclude a group to that extent.

Civil Liability Bill [HL]

Baroness Primarolo Excerpts

Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard continued): House of Lords
Thursday 10th May 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Primarolo (Lab)]

On that point, the Minister will be aware that the business model for insurance companies is to assist those who they insure, and to make claims against others when it is appropriate. They are part of that industry, and some of them own claims management companies. Will the Minister explain to the House what he undertook in terms of research to make sure that the figures he is basing his assertions on are correct?

[Lord Keen of Elie]

I acknowledge the noble Baroness’s expertise in these areas as a non-executive director of Thompsons Solicitors, and her knowledge of the claims culture that has built up. With respect, in carrying out our work, we looked at the behaviour of the insurance industry in this context. Of course, the insurance industry can operate as an intermediary because, where the claims arise, it passes on the costs to the consumer by way of increased premiums. There have been instances in the past where insurance companies have passed on details of their own insurees’ claims to third parties and that has been exploited. I was quite open earlier in saying that we acknowledge the contribution of a number of different parties to what has developed into an unacceptable claims culture. That is what we are seeking to address in this Bill.

Can I continue just a little further in that context? The first group of amendments from the noble Lords, Lord Sharkey and Lord Marks, proposed that compensation for pain and suffering should be determined by reference to the Judicial College guidelines. Indeed, the second set of amendments proposed to place the tariff amounts into the Bill rather than in regulations made by the Lord Chancellor. All those figures would be significantly higher than those proposed by the Government—indeed, more in line with the amount currently paid out by claim.

I understand that noble Lords feel that the proposed tariff amounts are too low, but we continue to be concerned about the high number and the high cost of these claims in general, and the impact of that on the consumer. Therefore, we have to take a policy view as to how we can disincentivise not just fraudulent claims but what I would call unmeritorious claims—very minor and exaggerated claims. Our view is that it is right to set the tariff through regulations, which will help to control those costs and ensure greater certainty to both claimants and defendants when they come to deal with these claims, remembering that the vast majority of these claims never reach court anyway. They are dealt with before they ever arrive at the door of a court. In addition, we consider that a tariff will provide the flexibility required to change the tariff amounts, in reaction not just to inflation but to changes in the market, if I can gently call them that. We know that we are dealing with a marketplace; it is extremely inventive and can rise again phoenix-like from any statutory provision that we bring forward.

Therefore, we are going to have a tariff of predictable damages, albeit for those who suffer injury with a duration of up to 24 months. That is a relatively minor personal injury, but not one to be dismissed—and we do not seek to dismiss them. The relevant tariff will then be applied. It will be far simpler for someone to take their claim forward and, of course, we then have in place the requirement for an independent medical expert report, albeit in circumstances of dealing with subjective complaints of injury, as the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, acknowledged. They can be very difficult to determine. If someone comes forward with symptoms, on the basis of a subjective assessment, a report can be made, but it can be very difficult to determine whether those subjective complaints are well based. Indeed, as the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, observed, there are claims management companies that would encourage someone to come forward even if he had not suffered any symptoms so far, in the belief that something might emerge in due course. That is why we have taken that approach, albeit we have allowed for the judiciary to have input so that it can, in appropriate or exceptional circumstances, increase the tariff award by up to 20%.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Bassam of Brighton]

My Lords, I am much heartened by what the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, said because my Amendment 30 tries to take us to the same range of issues. It states:

“When making regulations under section 2(2), the Lord Chancellor must take account of the PI small claims limit”.


The rest of the amendment addresses the whiplash issue.

Why is the amendment here? It is here because there is no other way in which we can address the personal injury limit. It seems to us to bring in an element of manifest unfairness. This piece of legislation will impact on small claims made by employees. By raising the threshold to £2,000 for those personal injury cases the Government are creating a particular difficulty. Claimants in the small claims court, because they cannot reclaim the cost of legal support, will have to represent themselves as litigants in person—and that brings a number of difficulties.

These cases can be very complicated, and they impact adversely on those who have suffered an accident at work, or the early onset of an industrial disease. USDAW has produced a very good briefing on this, citing a vast array of cases in which it represented members and which would be caught by this uplift. Vulnerable employees can be quite seriously injured. They are often unable to work for weeks or months and suffer considerable financial detriment and loss. With no legal assistance available to them, they will be opposing an employer—who will invariably be represented at court—without the expert advice that their injury and its implications merit.

I do not understand, therefore, why the Government are so keen on this £2,000 limit. It seems both unfair and lacking in rationale. The Government have not set out any reasons for including employee injuries in what was billed as a reform of whiplash claims—which, as we have said, we have no argument with. There is no suggestion anywhere that there have been fraudulent claims by injured employees. Claimants in this process will be vulnerable. There should be, as the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, said, an equality of arms. That principle, which is fairly fundamental to the way our system of justice works, is undermined by this change, and the uplift to £2,000, when employers will be able to rely on full legal advice and support.

Cases are complex, injuries can be significant and victims can suffer considerable financial loss. Furthermore—an important point—the increase is far in excess of inflation. In 2009 Lord Justice Jackson suggested that there should be no increase to £1,500 until inflation justified it. Well, the figure of £2,000, to which the Government are wedded, cannot be justified on an inflationary basis: in terms of Lord Justice Jackson’s proposals, no increase is currently justified.

Small claims courts are not suitable for personal injury claims. We invite the Government to seriously reconsider the way they have set about this. We have already heard that cyclists will be swept up in the whiplash issue. Whether or not the Government seriously thought that they would be involving quite badly injured claimants by raising the limit to £2,000, that would be the effect of the proposed change. I have tried to find a way to bring an amendment to the Bill that would capture this issue, but have not so far succeeded. That worries me, because the Government seem to have found a way around a problem to the benefit of employers. I hope that that is not the case.

The Minister has a gap between Committee and Report, and I hope that he will meet me and others—particularly those who represent trade union members and are involved day in and day out with small claims personal injury issues—to benefit from our experience and knowledge of this field. I hope that he will then reconsider what is a very unfortunate policy, and one that will not be welcome in the workplace.

There are two other points here that are of value to consider. There will be an increase in the undersettlement of claims as a product of this; and I suspect that there will also be an increase in the number of claimants with highly unrealistic expectations of the value of their claim, thus removing the possibility of early settlement and placing increased pressure on the courts system. I hope that the Minister has some reassurance for us on this, because it is a very serious issue. It undermines some of the other, perhaps gentler, words that the Government have used in trying to understand the problems and complexities that people confront in the workplace, which was one of the Government’s earlier ambitions. That is the purpose behind our Amendment 30 and I hope that the Committee will see the strength of the case that has been put.

[Baroness Primarolo]

When the Minister considers in the round the comments made by other noble Lords, will he undertake to go away and look specifically at the way in which Scotland has approached this important question of asymmetry in the process? Will he look at whether there is a way of incorporating or dealing with claims in a similar way, without clearly undermining what he has identified as the Government’s policy principles in simply reducing tariffs?

[Lord Keen of Elie]

My Lords, perhaps I may begin with Amendment 26, as put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, and Amendment 47, put forward by the noble Lords, Lord Marks and Lord Sharkey, and my noble friend Lady Berridge. These amendments seek to secure assurances as to the recoverable cost of a medical report in respect of whiplash injury claims, notwithstanding the increase in the small claims track limit.

The cost of medical reports is currently recoverable in personal injury claims where the defendant insurer has admitted any part of liability. It is intended that these costs will continue to be recoverable following these reforms, including the proposed reform in the small claims track, which is not part of the Bill. I seek to reassure the noble Lord, Lord Marks, in particular that it is intended that that cost will be a recoverable element in each and every case where liability is accepted. My understanding is that the civil procedure rules currently permit the recovery of such a cost; if there is any issue with that, I would be perfectly happy to look at it again to ensure that the rules reflect that position, because that is certainly our intention.

The effect of Amendment 27 would be to require the Civil Procedure Rule Committee to undertake both a review and a consultation in respect of the proposed increase to the small claims track limit for whiplash claims before publishing its decision. I appreciate that the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, is taking us beyond the realms of whiplash claims and I will comment upon his observations in a moment. The Government have already undertaken a consultation on this issue and our policy changed as a result of that consultation. Originally, we proposed raising the small claims track limit to £5,000 for all personal injury claims but, after consultation, we proposed that the track limit should be raised to £5,000 for road traffic accident-related personal injury claims but only to £2,000 for all other personal injury claims, including employer/employee claims. We do not believe that a further consultation on this issue is required, nor that such a requirement should be placed into the Bill.

I observe in passing that the small claims limit for non-personal injury claims is now, I believe, £10,000 and it operates adequately. In respect of the personal injury limit of £1,000, that was set about 10 years ago so even if we were to apply various inflation-linked multipliers, it would be in the region of £1,700 to £2,000, depending upon what index was taken in respect of inflation. As regards personal injury claims in general, it is not going much beyond that.

The proposal in the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, is that the increase should be to a maximum of £1,500, as opposed to the increase to £5,000 for road traffic accidents and £2,000 for personal injury claims. In that context, the noble Lord observed that these cases—I believe he was referring to non-road traffic accident cases in particular—can be very complicated. I acknowledge that, but if such a claim is complex, that is a ground for removing it from the small claims process to the fast track. There is already provision for that very situation, so we do not consider that further steps need to be taken.

Constitutional Law

Baroness Primarolo Excerpts

Tuesday 15th January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Kennedy]

I know, Madam Deputy Speaker, that I must not—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

Order. The right hon. Gentleman anticipates my comments. While his resumé of historical progress towards this point has been fascinating, I need him to come back to the contents of the order rather than to venture into wider political discussion.

[Mr Kennedy]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. My central point, which is directly relevant to what I have been saying, is that, as has been pointed out, this order is historic, following on as it does from the 1988 Act. Why? It is historic because it transfers and devolves a fundamental, absolute and substantial power to Holyrood and to the Government of the day who have the majority in Holyrood. In so doing, we must look at the lessons of the past five years, because Holyrood—and, in particular, the SNP Government at Holyrood—having been handed this power, must handle it with a far greater sense of decentralisation and recognition of a Scotland that is much more diverse and not just centred on the interests of one political party and one political source of power. That is why, I believe, the decision we seem to be reaching unanimously this evening is so pertinent. It provides an important caveat that needs to go on the record.

Let us look to how Holyrood is going to handle this matter. Others, not least the hon. Member for Glasgow East (Margaret Curran) with her 12 years of experience in the Scottish Parliament, are much better versed in these matters than me. As an interested Scot looking at recent developments in Holyrood, however, I would have to say that any fair-minded person cannot be that encouraged by what we have seen so far. Two senior Ministers, the First Minister and his deputy who is now taking over control of constitutional affairs, have at the very least—I put this as mildly as I can in the spirit of unanimity that seems to be abroad across the Chamber this afternoon—given every impression, until caught out, of being willing to play somewhat fast and loose with authenticity and the correct version of events. That applies not just to their political competitors and opponents, but to the Scottish people. That sense will not serve them well and it will not serve well the process being taken on or the responsibility that goes with it when the House passes this order.

We have all had our years of political girn—first as far as Westminster itself is concerned and now from the Government in Holyrood where Westminster is still concerned. We are moving from that into the politics of fundamental choice. This is obviously a necessary, welcome and historic order. Let me pay great tribute not only to the calm, constructive and measured way in which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has handled this matter on behalf of the coalition Government here, but to the modicum of maturity and reasonableness that he has brought to the debate both this afternoon and over recent months. That characteristic contribution will well serve all of Scotland and the electoral democratic process, as the next year to 18 months of debate unfolds.

We are moving towards the politics of choice. As we are trying to make life hard, at least for the Hansard reporters this afternoon, let me say that the responsibility will transfer to Holyrood in due course—and a great responsibility it is—and most of all, in being entrusted with that responsibility, Holyrood must not turn a stooshie into a stramash.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rory Stewart]

That is a good question, and there are many other similar questions we might ask. It is easy to come up with hypothetical examples—such as that corporation tax point—of ways in which people could grow apart, but the key point is that, without a United Kingdom, there will be no formal processes and incentives to think through such matters. At present, however, we create the forums.

I am only three months married, so I hesitate to say this as I do not know what on earth I am talking about, but it strikes me that formal institutions such as marriage force people to discuss things, to compromise and to think in ways that we might not if that formal institution were not in place. [Interruption.] Perhaps I am wrong about that, however. It was foolish of me to hold forth on the importance of that institution on the basis of just three months of married life.

The institution of the United Kingdom and its Parliament has four key benefits. The first of them is that it brings people together. Over more than 400 years it has brought together incredibly talented people, including people we barely recognise as being Scots or English, who would not have come together if we had not had a United Kingdom. It has brought together leaders of all our parties. We often forget that Scotland produced not just the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown), but also William Gladstone and, indeed, the crofter’s grandson, Harold Macmillan. Scotland produced the ideas, the culture and the nation that challenges England and makes the United Kingdom better. Scotland played an important part in creating not just our modern economic theory, but the ideas behind the national health service, and also all the richness of the culture of Britain. Because we have this United Kingdom and this shared institution of Parliament, as our different strengths alter over time, we contain that within a single unity. There was a time when Scottish novels were better than English novels. There was a time when—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

Order. I absolutely understand that the hon. Gentleman is setting his major argument in context, and I was following what he was saying, but he is going on a little too long about the context. Please will he return to the subject of the order itself?

[Rory Stewart]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I will accelerate towards my conclusion, which involves returning to a very good point made by the right hon. Member for Edinburgh South West.

All the issues I have raised are extremely complicated. They are issues of history, of culture and of identity. They are issues of the ways in which borders work and parliamentary institutions function. In order for people to be able to vote properly in a referendum and make that simple yes or no choice for which the SNP is pushing, the debate needs to be widened much further. More money needs to be spent, and the media need to get involved. At present the media are far too worried about not being political on one side or the other and are therefore not setting out the arguments and creating the debate powerfully enough. We need to have a proper debate because if an Englishman, a Scotsman and a Welshman together is a joke, an Englishman or a Scotsman on their own is a tragedy.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

Order. Before we proceed, it might be helpful if I explain my approach to this debate. I expect Members to refer to the order, as that is what we are discussing. I understand that they may want to touch briefly on context or history, but I do not want us to drift away from the issues before us in this very important debate. I have tried to have a very light touch so far, because I loathe interrupting Members. If Members are helpful, I will be eternally grateful; if not, I will, with regret, have to interrupt them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Margaret Curran]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his warm tribute; I did not anticipate saying that, but I appreciate the tribute. May I ask him to clarify something? As I understand it, the logic of what he is explaining is that it is now for the Scottish Parliament to answer the issues of substance that have been raised today. However, it is reasonable for me, as a Scottish person and as an elected Member representing Scots, to ask him whether he thinks it is reasonable to ask the Scottish Government now to clarify that they will respect and adhere to the recommendation of the Electoral Commission. May I have a direct answer on that?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

Order. May I just remind all Members participating in this debate, including the hon. Member for Moray (Angus Robertson), that, tempting as it is to talk to each other, they are supposed to be addressing the entire Chamber by addressing the Chair? That means not having one’s back to the Chair when speaking.

[Angus Robertson]

I am grateful for your advice, Madam Deputy Speaker. As I have said twice, I look forward to the Scottish Government having the process taken forward with the advice of the Electoral Commission. I am sure that it will be listened to very closely, because we want to ensure that the process continues.

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

Order. The right hon. Gentleman cannot say “disingenuous”, although he may not agree with the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar. May I also say that Canada is a bit wide of the order we are discussing?

[Sir Malcolm Bruce]

Within the order, Madam Deputy Speaker, and the reason why it is time limited, the point is that we need a referendum to take place within no more than two years—sooner would be better. We need to agree that the outcome will not lead to a succession of subsequent referendums, which is what has bedevilled Canada; I think that is the point the parliamentarians are anxious to make.

For those of us who believe in devolution, home rule and ultimately federalism, this process can be a constructive step along the road. My instincts are that the people of Scotland already recognise that independence looks like a step too far; there are too many questions incapable of being answered this side of 2014, least of all by the SNP alone. In fact, the process has focused people’s minds on the benefits of a strong sense of Scottish identity but real influence in the United Kingdom, which gives us a footprint in the world that an independent Scotland would not have.

Many people in Scotland have articulated to me recently the fact that they do not see that independence adds anything to Scotland’s well developed sense of identity, but it would hugely diminish the reach and value that the United Kingdom gives the people of Scotland. That is the reason why we are better together, and my instincts tell me that a majority in Scotland have already decided that independence is not the way forward. We cannot underestimate the campaign or what the SNP will try to do to persuade people otherwise. We have to ensure that the end of the process brings a result that we can all accept, and that if the people of Scotland vote for the United Kingdom the SNP will also accept that they have to recognise that the people of Scotland voted for constructive engagement with the United Kingdom, not continual disruption.

--- Later in debate ---

[Margaret Curran]

I note that the Chair of the Scottish Affairs Committee is reporting to the Chamber the findings of the Committee, which has gained much respect for the work that it has undertaken. Does my hon. Friend share my disappointment that we are listening to him without the presence of any SNP Members to hear him? That is disrespectful to the Committee.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

Order. With respect to the hon. Lady, it is entirely up to hon. Members to decide which speeches they listen to, if they are not waiting to speak. Members in the Chamber may draw their own conclusions, but it is not a matter of order.

[Mr Davidson]

Indeed, it is not a matter of order. It is a matter of common decency, politeness and politics. Because the SNP does not control the Scottish Affairs Committee, SNP Members have decided to truant. They absented themselves from the Committee earlier on and have said that they will not come back until the Committee Chair is replaced by someone whom they favour more. The Northern Ireland Assembly does not decide who should chair the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, the Welsh Assembly does not select the Chair of the Welsh Affairs Committee, and we should not have a situation where the Scottish Parliament selects the Chair of the Scottish Affairs Committee.

We cannot have a situation where a party, which originally did not seek a place on the Scottish Affairs Committee and got one only because the Conservative party was prepared to give up a seat for it, then demands that everything changes. That is regrettable but not surprising. It calls into question the genuineness with which the SNP is approaching the whole exercise in relation to the referendum. We have got responsibility and agreement on the section 30 notice. Now will come the issue of implementation. Will it be done on a sectarian and partisan basis or will it be done in accordance with the interests of Scotland as a whole? We wait with interest.

Scotland and the Union

Baroness Primarolo Excerpts

Thursday 29th November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

Order. In order to try to accommodate everyone who wants to take part in this debate, I am changing the time limit to seven minutes. Depending on how long each speaker takes, it might be necessary to revise it again downwards before the end of the debate.

Scotland Bill

Baroness Primarolo Excerpts

Thursday 26th April 2012 Commons Chamber

[Stewart Hosie]

I am desperately looking forward to the hon. Gentleman explaining when a Viking decided to leave Denmark to come and be part of the British state. I like the hon. Gentleman, but I think his history is rather askew.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

Order. Actually, I would not like the hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart) to explain that in the context of these amendments, and I am sure he is coming back to what is relevant to them.

[Rory Stewart]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am happy for us to discuss Scottish history later.

We are discussing transparency, which is exactly what Lords amendment 18 relates to—explaining to this Parliament, to the Scottish Parliament, to the British people and to the Scottish people what we are doing with their money. Transparency is crucial because money is at the heart of this. On the one hand, the Scottish National party uses money to fight for separation through fantasies about oil. On the other hand, English nationalists, who are equally to blame for what is happening to the United Kingdom, focus on money to attack Scotland. This is the wrong thing to do.

Lords amendment 18 matters because it should, we hope, put those arguments aside. There are those who imagine that we are going to wreck the United Kingdom because we are worried about free eye tests, prescription charges or tuition fees. For goodness’ sake, let us, in line with Lords amendment 18, see the money. What we will see is that we are spending every year in transfer payments to Scotland half of what we are spending on the war in Afghanistan, if we include the debt and veterans costs. The reason why we need to move beyond this is that the kind of borrowing enshrined in the clause and amended in Lords amendment 18 is the borrowing that made us great together.

The very economics that underlie that notion of borrowing came south from Edinburgh with Adam Smith and the enlightenment. The very same borrowing on the basis of the United Kingdom meant that Scots and English were able to fight together at Waterloo and win. The very borrowing enshrined in clause 37 is what allowed us to create the national health service together. The very borrowing enshrined in clause 37 and amended and made transparent in Lords amendment 18 is what allows us to flourish today. I urge the House to vote for Lords amendment 18 because it enshrines the principle of togetherness.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Murray]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for raising one of the key points on why we need transparency. The hon. Member for Penrith and The Border said clearly that transparency helps not only the Scottish people to determine how their money is spent and allocated, but the other component parts of the United Kingdom to see how money is spent in Scotland, which would be welcomed by everyone in this House. Indeed, we have not even had transparency on the Bill itself. The Bill has been called “a poison pill”, “a dog’s breakfast” and “dangerous” by the same party that voted for it, campaigned against it and will, no doubt, vote for the amendments if the House divides this afternoon.

We need transparency from the Scottish Government at every level on what they wish to achieve. In the past few months, we have heard the Scottish National party say in public—the records are available—that it would reduce fuel duty, reduce corporation tax to the level it is in Ireland, and will be in Northern Ireland, which is 12.5 %, and that it would reduce duties and business rates. I am not an expert on taxation systems or, indeed, on algorithms or mathematics, but it seems that that would lower every single tax in Scotland, so I pose the question, where would the money come from? There is only one place that it can come from, and that is public services, so, on the report that would come from the Secretary of State concerning those powers, I challenge the Scottish Government and the Scottish National party to tell us, with regard to every single tax that they wish to lower or decrease, where the money will come from and where the money will go.

Let us take corporation tax, which my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North East (Mr Bain) mentioned, and which is a complicated issue. I mentioned smoke and mirrors at the start of my contribution, and there has been a lot of smoke and mirrors from the Scottish Government on corporation tax. They have used the example of Northern Ireland, but there are two clear lessons from Northern Ireland.

As I said in an intervention, Northern Ireland wants corporation tax devolved to equalise its rate with the country on its land border to the south and ensure that it is not disadvantaged. That highlights two things: first, that the land border is important; and secondly that corporation tax levels, when they are lowered to such a drastic state as we have seen in Ireland, create an uncompetitive situation and a race to the bottom.

We cannot afford that race to the bottom in the United Kingdom, with its land border between England and Scotland, because it would create an environment in which the money that came out of the block grant—some £2.6 billion if the rate were equalised with Ireland’s at 12.5%—would have to come from public services.

The Scottish Government have yet to tell us which public services they would cut. The national health service already has far fewer nurses in Scotland than it did in 2007, and the Scottish Government have yet to tell us where the money would come from in terms of public services, so I should welcome the debate and the evidence that the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) tells us we should have about corporation tax, because perhaps the Scottish Government could lay out that information, and the report under discussion, which would come back annually to the House until those taxation powers had been fully devolved, would be very welcome and could examine some of those issues.

The smoke and mirrors continues, because the First Minister of Scotland, Alex Salmond, when he was in London yesterday, no doubt met his London SNP colleagues to discuss these issues. In his speech to the Institute of Directors he suggested that, with the powers in the Bill transferred to Scotland, income tax levels in Scotland would not be changed. One of the key points here is that the Scottish Parliament has powers to reduce or to increase income tax in Scotland by 3p, but the Scottish Government chose not to maintain HMRC’s systems to enable that, so we are left with the Scottish Government and, indeed, the First Minister jumping up and down like little children, demanding powers—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

Order. I have given the hon. Gentleman some latitude, but I am sure that he is coming back to the debate which we are having here about the importance and relevance of the report.

[Ian Murray]

I will be coming back to the report this very second, because it is about transparency, and what we have had quite clearly from the Scottish Government is a complete lack of transparency. I hope that the report allows us some, because when the Bill receives Royal Assent, we will have a Scottish rate of income tax, the devolution of stamp duties, the devolution of landfill tax, the power to create new taxes and the power to borrow of many billions of pounds—borrowing powers, incidentally, which the Scottish Government did not want but have planned to use. So it is quite important that the report comes back.

With this amendment, the Lords have done a good job of enabling us to see where the new taxes will go. I certainly welcome it and will support it later this afternoon.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Mundell]

Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that, unlike the Scottish National party, Lord Forsyth achieved extra devolution to Scotland in the Bill? Lord Forsyth introduced amendments that extended the Scottish Parliament’s powers, which were accepted in the House of Lords and will be proposed in this Chamber. The Scottish National party has failed—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

Order. I would like both the Minister and the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) to return to the subject of the amendments. We should talk about the subject, not what debates went on elsewhere. I am sure, Mr Wishart, you will do so immediately.

[Pete Wishart]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, because I want to speak to the Lords amendments and discuss where they came from. We did not get much of a debate in the House of Lords. I do not know whether the Minister is helping the cross-Unionist campaign by promoting Michael Forsyth as a champion of the Unionist cause. I can see Labour Members practically squirming—

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. Perhaps I did not make myself abundantly clear, Mr Wishart, so I shall do it now. If you wish to address the House, I wish you to address it on the basis of the business before us, which is Lords amendment 18 and associated matters, and to do so now, please.

[Pete Wishart]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I was just making the point that there was very little in the way of debate, but the Government amendments are welcome. I particularly welcome the fact that the re-reservations have disappeared. I heard what the Minister said. I remember debates in the House going back to last March on the re-reservations of health professionals. I remember the passionate case that was put for—

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. We are not on Third Reading for the hon. Gentleman to reflect on the entire debates on the Bill. We are on very specific and narrow Lords amendments, and I would like him to address them.

[Pete Wishart]

I seek your guidance, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is there not an amendment about health professionals? Can I not address that?

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I have not heard the hon. Gentleman mention health professionals yet, except on that point. If it is relevant to the amendments, he can address health professionals.

[Pete Wishart]

I am grateful, Madam Deputy Speaker.

We have effectively ensured that there will no longer be re-reservations of health professionals because the clause was dropped, but the point I was trying to make was on how we managed to get to that point. I remember the debate and the passionate case that was put for the re-reservation of health professionals. The right hon. Member for Stirling (Mrs McGuire) does not agree with that, but I do not know whether Labour Front Benchers take that position or whether they believe that re-reservation is no longer required. I would be interested to find out how we got to this position.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Mundell]

I beg to move, That this House agrees with Lords amendment 3.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

With this we may take Lords amendment 4.

[David Mundell]

Lords amendment 3 would remove clause 10, and Lords amendment 4 would replace it with a new clause making similar, but expanded, provision.

Clause 10 makes provision regarding the status of the Acts of the Scottish Parliament after temporary changes to legislative competence following an order under section 30 of the Scotland Act 1998. There is widespread recognition that clarity is required on the status of Acts of the Scottish Parliament in the event that its legislative competence is reduced. The Government introduced these amendments in the other place to provide clarity following comments from the previous Scottish Parliament Scotland Bill Committee and the Law Society of Scotland.

Lords amendment 4 would ensure that Acts of the Scottish Parliament that have been validly made within the legislative competence that existed at the time do not cease to have effect purely because of changes to the boundaries of competence. Therefore, provisions contained in Acts of the Scottish Parliament will not automatically fall following an alteration of legislative competence, and no gaps in the law will inadvertently be created as a result. Such provisions would cease to have effect only if explicitly provided for in an enactment.

I hope the House will agree that Lords amendment 4 is sensible and will strengthen the provision originally contained in clause 10, and that Lords amendments 3 and 4 will be agreed to.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Mundell]

I beg to move, That this House agrees with Lords amendment 9.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendments 19 to 25.

[David Mundell]

There has been much debate about the role of the Lord Advocate and the Supreme Court in Scottish criminal proceedings. That debate has come a long way, and there is now agreement that the Supreme Court should have a role in relation to the European convention on human rights and EU law issues arising in Scottish criminal appeals.

The amendments tabled by the Government in the Lords took account of the many views expressed on these issues, including those of the expert group set up by the Advocate-General for Scotland. It would be appropriate at this point to remark on the passing of Paul McBride QC, who served on the expert group. Paul McBride was a well respected lawyer in Scotland and a highly regarded member of civic Scotland, and he is greatly missed by all who knew him and by the wider legal community. The amendments also took account of the views of the review group led by the noble and learned Lord McCluskey. On Report in the other place, he commented on the Government’s amendments. The end result of that process is something that even I could agree to about 98% of—which for anyone, never mind a lawyer, is a pretty good outcome, given where the debate started. In addition, the amendments tabled by the Government reflected the agreement that was reached with the Scottish Government to ensure that the legislative consent motion in support of the Bill was passed in the Scottish Parliament.

Lords amendments 9 and 19 to 22 replace clause 17 and make further provision about Scottish criminal proceedings. Subsection (2) of the new clause inserted by Lords amendment 21 would make the same provision as provided for by clause 17(2). That would mean that acts or failures to act by the Lord Advocate in prosecuting any offence, or as head of the system of criminal prosecutions and investigations into death in Scotland, would not be ultra vires should those acts be incompatible with the European convention on human rights or EU law. However, it will still be possible for acts of the Lord Advocate to be unlawful under section 6(1) of the Human Rights Act 1998 if the Lord Advocate acts in a way that is incompatible with the convention.

Lords amendments 19 to 21 provide for a new route of appeal to the Supreme Court for compatibility issues—questions raised in criminal proceedings about convention and EU law issues. Those issues would no longer be able to be raised as devolution issues. Lords amendment 21 would provide a right to appeal a compatibility issue from the High Court, acting as an appeal court, to the Supreme Court. The permission of the High Court or the Supreme Court would be needed for most appeals. An application for permission to appeal would have to be made within specified time limits, which could be extended if the Court considered that equitable.

Lords amendment 21 provides that the Supreme Court would only be able to determine a compatibility issue and would then have to remit the case back to the High Court. The High Court would then decide what steps needed to be taken in the light of the Supreme Court’s decision. For example, the Supreme Court would not be able to decide to overturn an accused’s conviction; that would be for the High Court to decide.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Mundell]

I beg to move, That this House agrees with Lords amendment 12.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

With this it will be convenient to consider Lords amendments 13 to 16.

[David Mundell]

Clause 25 allowed the Scottish Ministers to determine the national speed limit on roads in Scotland and to make regulations to specify traffic signs to indicate that limit. Clause 25 limited these powers to cars, motorcycles and vans under 3.5 tonnes.

We listened carefully to the arguments presented by noble Lords, together with the case made by the Scottish Parliament and Scottish Government for the Bill to provide for the devolution of powers to set different speed limits for different classes of vehicles—for example, cars towing caravans or goods vehicles. Lords amendments 12 to 16 would give the Scottish Ministers the power to make regulations regulating the speed of all classes of vehicle on roads in Scotland.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Davidson]

Given that speed is a product of both distance and time, has there been any further submission from the nationalists on their ambition to have Scotland in a separate time zone, because it is obvious that if it was in a separate time zone—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

Order. Three strikes and you’re out.

[David Mundell]

Before the debate becomes any more raucous, I should recognise that this is possibly my final opportunity to speak to the Bill, so I should like to use it principally to thank the officials in the Scotland Office who have worked so hard to deliver it. We are often the subject of scrutiny, but we are a very small Department and we, along with the Treasury and, indeed, Scottish officials, have worked to deliver this major piece of constitutional legislation. I thank all those who have participated in that process. As I said at the very start of our proceedings, I participated at the beginning of the process that led to the Bill, and I am very proud to be here at the end.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

Not quite at the end yet.

Scotland’s Constitutional Future

Baroness Primarolo Excerpts

Tuesday 10th January 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Mike Weir (Angus) (SNP)]

In answer to an earlier question, the Secretary of State again went on about the uncertainty caused by the lack of a referendum, but when the Prime Minister’s spokesman was asked about this this morning, the only thing he could refer to was a Citigroup report, the same one that the Secretary of State referred to, which is specifically on renewables. But if he looks at it he will know that Gamesa, SG, Doosan Babcock, Mitsubishi, Aquamarine Power, EDP Renewables and Repsol—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

Order. The statement has been going on a long time already and Members still wish to speak. The hon. Gentleman knows very well that he should be brief.

[Michael Moore]

The hon. Gentleman needs to pay attention to people at the CBI and others and recognise that it is self-evident that when there is uncertainty about the constitutional future of Scotland, investment decisions will become difficult. I want to get all question of uncertainty removed from the debate. I cannot understand why they seem so reluctant to get on with it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Michael Moore]

As the Member of Parliament who represents the longest stretch of that border, I hope that we will never be in a position in which such barriers might exist. I am confident that when we get to the proper debate, that will not be the way it ends up.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

Secretary of State, thank you. Some 57 Back-Bench Members participated in the statement.

Public Sector Pensions

Baroness Primarolo Excerpts

Thursday 8th December 2011 Commons Chamber

[Hywel Williams]

Well, honestly, I am sure that you would not want me to be diverted down this particular route, Madam Deputy Speaker.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

Much as this topic might interest some Members, I think the hon. Gentleman should return to the subject of this afternoon’s debate.

[Hywel Williams]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

To summarise our motion, we appreciate the valuable work done by public sector workers and believe that they should receive pensions that are affordable, sustainable and fair. I think that we can have agreement across the House on that. We believe that the Government’s changes are primarily for the purposes of deficit reduction—I do not think we are going to have agreement on that—rather than to secure the long-term sustainability of public sector pensions. These changes are, to our minds, unfair on public sector workers.

We also note that the findings of the National Audit Office for the 2007-08 period show that pensions re-negotiated at that time will generate estimated savings of 14% by 2059-60. The conclusions of the 38th report of the Public Accounts Committee reveal that the cost of public service pensions has reduced substantially because of those changes. We agree with the criticism in both reports of the failure to develop a long-term strategy for the role of pensions in recruitment and retention in the public sector, and we condemn the Government’s threat to cut the devolved Administrations’ budgets if they do not implement the Government’s immediate levy.

--- Later in debate ---

[Hywel Williams]

rose—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

Order. I will be grateful if the hon. Gentleman returns to the topic of his motion, which is the Government’s plans on pensions.

[Hywel Williams]

I will obey your injunction, Madam Deputy Speaker.

As I have said, I have had a great deal of correspondence with the unions, and I have given their point of view, which concurs with ours. We are happy to fight the workers’ corner in this dispute. We are happy to press for a proper pensions settlement, which is why we will press our motion to a Division.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Murray]

You are talking about choices that the SNP Scottish Government will make and one of the big choices they made was to cut capital spending far faster and far further than your own Government.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

Order. The hon. Gentleman is referring to the Minister and should refer to him as the Minister or “he”. “You” means the occupant of the Chair, and this is nothing to do with me, fortunately.

[David Mundell]

That is a phrase often used in Scotland, Madam Deputy Speaker, by one of the—

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. I say to the Minister that I am absolutely aware of the use of “you”, but I think that in parliamentary debates we should stick to the convention here, as I am sure he agrees.

[David Mundell]

I will indeed do that, Madam Deputy Speaker.

The SNP Scottish Government have played fast and loose with Scotland on pensions. Rather than making responsible suggestions, they resort to scare tactics. In this motion, the SNP and Plaid Cymru are frightening people by saying that they will receive less pension. The SNP’s submission to Lord Hutton, as we have heard, offered at best no better and in some cases a much worse deal. The Scottish Public Pensions Agency, an agency of the Scottish Government, headed by the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth, John Swinney, made a number of interesting suggestions when it illustrated options for further change. It suggested reducing current employer contribution cap levels with members meeting all costs above that cap. Alongside that, it proposed to reduce the levels of benefits available without necessarily reducing the levels of contributions.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

Order. A large number of Members wish to take part in this time-restricted debate. I am going to impose a time limit from the next speaker of seven minutes, because I have now been informed of how long the winding-up speeches will take. I cannot take account of how many interventions there will be, however, so the time limit may have to be reviewed downwards in order to get everybody in at a later stage.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jackie Doyle-Price]

That is absolutely true. It is not very good for growth and competitiveness if we are pricing growing businesses out of the market simply because they cannot afford to recruit staff at sustainable levels.

The motion refers to the reports by the National Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee. I am a member of the Public Accounts Committee. While it is true that we were pleased that the reforms introduced by the previous Government were moving in the right direction, we were not satisfied that they were sustainable in the long term. The NAO would not be drawn on that specific issue, because it recognised that it was a political decision. The PAC said that the Hutton commission provided the opportunity for the Government to develop a clear strategic direction for public service pensions and that we looked forward to those detailed proposals. The Public Accounts Committee report was therefore much more sympathetic to the Government’s approach than is indicated in the motion.

That said, the Committee did express concerns about pension reform. We expressed concern over its impact on staff morale. It would be helpful if employers and trade unions worked more collaboratively to address that. Sadly, that has not been the case to date. We also expressed the opinion that many employees did not understand the value of their pensions as part of their reward. If the colleague I mentioned earlier, who worked in financial services, did not understand the true value of her pension pot, God help any other public sector worker.

We must ensure that we do not discourage people from saving for retirement. I therefore welcome the Government’s decision to exclude the lower-paid from any increases. Obviously, 15% of salary is a lot—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

Order.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Donohoe]

I do not accept that at all. This Government have put up VAT, which is affecting all the low-paid people across the country more than it is the likes of the hon. Gentleman. He should not delude himself that the situation is different.

My mind has been taken away from this subject over the past week, because young Jack Samuel Donohoe, my second grandchild, was brought into this world at five past 12 on Monday. Jack, his mother Pauline and his father Craig are all doing very well. I mention that only because when my first grandchild was born about three weeks ago, I mentioned it in a debate and I felt that it was only right to mention the second.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

Order. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will use that point to talk about how long we are all living and return to the motion.

[Mr Donohoe]

I am grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for that guidance. I am sure that that is what I was about to say. In about 70 years, my grandchildren will collect their first pension. I want it to be a decent pension, regardless of whether they are in the public sector or the private sector.

At the age of 22, I first became involved in pensions as a trustee of the pension scheme at the Ailsa shipyard where I worked. I have always had an interest in pensions as a result. Many people do not have a clue about pensions. I have always accepted that a pension is deferred income. My pension is part of my income, and pensions are the income of every person who contributes. It is income that this Government are taking from individuals. I know that and other hon. Members should know it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

Order. Before we proceed with the debate, I need to change the time limit again, because there are still more speakers left than time will allow for. I am reducing the limit to five minutes per contribution. Again, I cannot calculate the consequences of interventions. The time limit has gone from seven to five minutes because things are taking longer; therefore, it may be necessary to change it again, although I hope not. Members can either take less than five minutes or choose not to take any interventions. It is up to them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Weir]

I was about to deal with the position of the Scottish Government. They have taken positive action to help to protect household budgets by, for example, freezing council tax for the rest of the parliamentary term, increasing the Scottish living wage to £7.20 an hour for all staff for whom they are responsible, and committing themselves to imposing no compulsory redundancies. In contrast to the Westminster Government, the Scottish Government have sought to focus on protecting Scottish household budgets.

The amendment tabled by the Labour party referred to the devolved Administration. In Scotland—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

Order. The amendment was not selected. As the hon. Gentleman knows, he cannot refer to an amendment that has not been selected, and I am sure that he is not going to do so.

[Mr Weir]

Much of the debate has concerned public pensions in Scotland, Madam Deputy Speaker. I mentioned the amendment merely in passing, but I apologise for doing so.

There are five public sector schemes in Scotland—for NHS workers, teachers, the police, firefighters and local government—all of which are subject to constraints. Formal approval is required from the Treasury for legislative changes to the NHS and teachers’ schemes. It controls the purse strings. Scottish Ministers can determine the design of the police and firefighters’ schemes, although to date they have been negotiated on a UK-wide basis, a position supported by the Labour party. Scottish Ministers can decide on the funded local government scheme as long as the scheme regulations comply with primary legislation.

The Scottish Government sought to protect public sector workers in Scotland from the measures proposed by the UK Government, but the Chief Secretary to the Treasury made it absolutely clear that he would reduce the Scottish budget if they did so. In a letter to the Finance Secretary, John Swinney, on 5 September, he stated:

“If you decide not to take forward these changes, the Treasury will need to make corresponding adjustments to your budget. I would have to reduce the Scottish Government’s budget by £8.4million for every month's delay.”

The Scottish Public Pensions Agency issued a document putting forward options. Its contents were not Scottish Government policy, nor were they SNP policy, and at no time have the SNP and the Scottish Government made such suggestions. The document simply set out options and factual information. It is ludicrous for the two main parties to have a duopoly of despair and to attack the public sector based on the document—the SNP has done much more for public sector workers in Scotland than either of them has done in this Chamber.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

Order. I am going to have to change the time limit again if we are to get all the speakers in. I am going to reduce it to four minutes from the next speaker. I make the same point as I have made every time I have reduced the time limit, which is that interventions are not included in that calculation. If extra time is added for interventions, some Members will now not be called in this debate. I hope that is clear.

Scotland Bill

Baroness Primarolo Excerpts

Tuesday 15th March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Davidson]

A moment ago, Mr Kettle accused members of the Labour party of coming to a position based on self-interest. Given that he is in an alliance with another bad lot to promote an alternative vote referendum, despite neither party preferring AV as an electoral system, it can hardly be said that other people are pursuing their self-interest in this matter. Might I add that, to be fair, the Liberals welcome AV, because they predict that they will have a better result than they achieved in Barnsley and will at least come second in the referendum?

[The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Dawn Primarolo)]

Order. May I add that I would like the Minister to return to discussing the new clause?

[David Mundell]

Thank you, Ms Primarolo. I will take on board what you say and, as ever, I note the hon. Gentleman’s comments. Some of what he said in his contribution was helpful, in that there is an acceptance, following the Arbuthnott commission’s report, that some form of review of electoral systems in Scotland is required. The Arbuthnott commission suggested that that should take place post-2011, and the Government share that view.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr MacNeil]

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

[The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Dawn Primarolo)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

New clause 4—Economic incentives for the Scottish maritime industry—

‘(1) The Scotland Act 1998 is amended as follows.

(2) In Schedule 5, section E3, the words “Financial assistance for shipping services which start or finish or both outside Scotland” are replaced with “Financial assistance for shipping services which both start and finish outside Scotland.”.’.

New clause 12—Scottish maritime boundaries—

‘(1) In section 126(2) of the 1998 Act, after “Council”, insert “and with the Consent of the Scottish Parliament”.

(2) At the end of section 126(2) insert “A boundary order shall be issued in 2012.”.’.

[Mr MacNeil]

Throughout our proceedings, we have heard claims from the Tories and the Liberal Democrats that this Bill is the greatest transfer of powers from Westminster to Scotland in more than 300 years. To ensure that it is truly a transfer of powers, I propose several additions that will see the Scottish Government gain more control over Scotland’s maritime future.

We seek to devolve the operation and funding of the Maritime and Coastguard Agency to Scotland, to remove restrictions in the Scotland Act 1998 that prevent the Scottish Government from providing incentives to the shipping industry in Scotland and to ensure that the Scottish Parliament agrees to any movement of the border instigated from London. I am aware that those proposals were not recommended in the Calman commission’s report, but we cannot expect Calman to have thought of everything. Anything might have come from Calman, I suppose, but, of course, it does not matter because the Government have picked and mixed the recommendations as they were made.

New clause 3 was sparked by the Government’s proposals to cut the coastguard service throughout the UK. Those proposals seek to leave three to four co-ordination centres south of the border and only one 24-hour co-ordination centre and one part-time centre in Scotland—there are currently five. The proposals were not meant to be debated in this House and were certainly not presented to the Scottish Parliament. That shows a blatant disrespect not only for the Scottish Parliament and Government but for MPs in this House who, to take my case as an example, will be affected by these decisions.

Through my proposals, we seek to alleviate the financial and administrative burden on the Department for Transport by taking the Scottish portion of the coastguard service out of its realm of responsibility. The decision on the future of the coastguard in Scotland should, rightly, take place in Scotland.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Dawn Primarolo)]

Order. We are debating a new clause to the Bill, and hon. Members should listen to the speeches. If they want to have private conversations, perhaps they could go outside. Mr Docherty is a bit squashed on the Bench there, but I am sure that he will stand in the right place while he is speaking to his new clause.

[Thomas Docherty]

Thank you, Ms Primarolo.

Most people think that the Scottish Parliament already has the power to decide on the model for the franchise. After all, it has to fund the ScotRail franchise, through its Ministers, and it is responsible for the letting of the franchise. It is also responsible for funding the building of new railways in Scotland, and it is worth noting that a number of new railway lines opened in Scotland between 1999 and 2007 thanks to the Labour-led Scottish Executive. The Airdrie to Bathgate line and the Larkhall to Milngavie line are two obvious examples. It is disappointing that the SNP Government saw fit to cancel the Glasgow airport rail link; that is a blot on their track record, if the Committee will pardon my rather poor pun.

The new clause would not change the health and safety rules for the railways. It is absolutely right that we have a standard—[Interruption.]

[The Second Deputy Chairman]

Order. I am really sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman again, but I can barely hear what he is saying. There are too many private conversations going on in the Chamber. Out of respect to him, will those who do not wish to listen to his speech on the new clause leave the Chamber quietly now?

[Thomas Docherty]

Thank you, Ms Primarolo. I see that the Chamber is suddenly becoming a bit emptier. Perhaps it is worth pointing out that the Deputy Prime Minister is hosting a drinks reception tonight for Government Back Benchers. I imagine that hon. Members are off to make sure he does not drink all the wine himself, although after the Barnsley result he probably needs to do so.

I shall return to the substantive issue of the railways in Scotland. As I was saying before I was so gently interrupted, it is obviously right that we should retain the single health and safety policy throughout Great Britain. I say “Great Britain” because, as hon. Members will be aware, the railways in Northern Ireland are part of the single railway system of the island of Ireland. My proposal refers only to the railway network in Great Britain.

It is bizarre that, following the Scotland Act 1998 and the Railways Act 2005, we have successfully given greater powers to Scottish Ministers to do everything except determine the model of the franchise. I am not going to argue that a switch to a not-for-dividend model would necessarily be in the best interests of passengers in Scotland. As a member of the Transport Salaried Staffs Association, I have worked for Network Rail. The problems that Network Rail has had in the past are well documented, and there is an ongoing issue involving the cases of sexual harassment and bullying by Peter Bennett, the head of human resources, of many of his employees. That has resulted in about £300,000 of damages and compensation being paid to employees. This is not an ideological debate; it is about who is best placed to make the decisions.

I shall give a couple of examples of how the present system is not working. We have only to look at the constituency of the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland. I was lucky enough to live there, in the village of Moffat, for a number of years, and the Minister will recall that I put myself forward as a Labour candidate in a local council by-election. It was a secret ballot, so I am not quite sure how he voted, but I recall his featuring on one of my rival candidate’s leaflets, promising that if the Conservatives won the by-election—which, surprisingly, they did—he would ensure the reopening of the Beattock railway line. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South (Mr Harris) will know from his time in the rail industry and as a Transport Minister that that line sits on what is now the west coast main line.

The Minister was also a great champion of the Eastriggs railway station, which is ably represented by my old colleague, Councillor Sean Marshall. The Minister’s constituency also contains the village of Thornhill, which is in the Galloway area of the constituency. In all those places, he was a huge champion of the reopening of railway stations, yet after six years as a Member of Parliament and 10 months as a Minister in the Scotland Office, none of those railway stations has reopened. That could not possibly be because he was making promises that he could not deliver, so the fault must be with the franchise model. We need no better reason for giving Scottish Ministers the power to shape their own model.

Scotland Bill

Baroness Primarolo Excerpts

Monday 7th March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Tom Greatrex (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Lab/Co-op)]

I beg to move amendment 10, page 1, line 22, at end insert—

‘(3A) After subsection (2) there is inserted—

(2A) The first order made by Scottish Ministers under subsection (1)(a) must include the application to Scottish Parliamentary general elections of the terms of paragraph (3A) of Rule 45 (the count) and Rule 53ZA (counting of votes: statement by returning officer) in Schedule 1 to the Representation of the People Act 1983.”’.

[The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Dawn Primarolo)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Clause stand part.

Government amendment 29.

New clause 5—Administration of elections—

‘(1) In Part 1 of Schedule 4 to the Act (enactments protected from modification by the Parliament), in paragraph 4(2) after “1(4)”, there is inserted “12”.

(2) In Part 2 of Schedule 5 to the Act (reserved matters: specific reservations), in Section B3 (elections) the words “the European Parliament and the Parliament” are omitted and the words “and the European Parliament” are inserted.’.

[Tom Greatrex]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Primarolo, as we embark on the Committee stage of the Scotland Bill. Since we last debated the issues on Second Reading, the legislative consent motion Committee has made its report to the Scottish Parliament, which we received last week. I understand that it will be debated by the Scottish Parliament later this week. There is also the ongoing scrutiny of these matters by the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs, to which the Secretary of State and others have given evidence. We are part of the way down the road, but there is still some way to go.

It is right that our scrutiny is done thoroughly and with care, and that the issues are properly raised and discussed, particularly in the Committee stage on which we have embarked. I am sure that many Members will wish to press their points on different aspects of the Bill. For our part, we have tabled a number of amendments, of which amendment 10 is the first. Some are designed to tease out detailed consideration to which the Minister might wish to respond further today or on Report, while we intend to press other amendments to the vote.

I would like to say at the outset how grateful we are for the assistance and discussion we have had with a wide range of interested parties and individuals over the past few weeks as we have sought to scrutinise the Bill. We are also grateful for the Secretary of State’s confirmation—after some reasoned but pointed business questions in recent weeks, which also ensured that the Leader of the House had a fuller understanding of the Holyrood legislative process than he otherwise would—that the Government will not move forward to Report until the LCM process in Holyrood has been completed. We also note the Secretary of State’s confirmation that while he will wish to reflect on the content of the initial LCM Committee report—and, presumably, the motion that accompanies it—he will not necessarily be bound by it, which is a point he recently made at the Scottish Affairs Committee inquiry. The LCM Committee made a number of observations and recommendations, and I am sure the whole House—well, at least some of it—will look forward to hearing the Government’s response to those points.

It is part of the responsibility of Members to press on particular aspects of the Bill. There are strongly held views on both sides of the House on some aspects of devolution, but it is important to endeavour to continue our scrutiny of what the Secretary of State himself has proclaimed to be the most significant development in constitutional arrangements since the Scotland Act 1998. Our reference point, as always, because of its shared, cross-party status, is the report of the Calman commission, which hon. Members know led to an earlier White Paper before the general election and, subsequently, to this Bill.

Clause 1 deals with the administration of elections, which Calman recommended should be devolved to the Scottish Parliament. Amendment 10 deals specifically with overnight counts, which I shall discuss first. It is widely acknowledged that, by and large, people in Scotland want to know the results of their elections as soon as it is practicable so to do. That was the objective of the Minister when he was in opposition in the lead-up to the general election last year and it was supported by the then Opposition parties in respect of an amendment to the Representation of the People Act 1983, which my amendment seeks to replicate. The Government are well aware of the history.

Partly owing to measures of the Government’s own making, such as the imposition of a referendum on the same day as the Scottish parliamentary elections, and partly owing to the views of electoral administrators—who always come out of the woodwork during the build-up to elections—there has been continuing speculation in recent weeks that returning officers will again seek to move wholeheartedly to morning counts, which is something that they do habitually. They tried it in 2005—when, as an employee of East Dunbartonshire council, I was closely involved in the arrangements relating to the count for the redrawn East Dunbartonshire constituency—but got nowhere. They tried it in 2007 for the purpose of the Scottish parliamentary elections, notwithstanding the disruption caused to those elections, although—unlike the design and descriptions on the ballot papers—the time of the count was not an issue; and they tried it again in the run-up to the general election.

As the Minister will recall, I raised the matter with him via the Leader of the House. Despite an earlier suggestion that it might be dealt with in the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill, he wrote to me saying that he was not prepared to change the law, that it was all very difficult, that returning officers were independent and he could not tell them what to do, and that we should leave it at that and lobby if we so wished. That was an interesting revision of the view that the Minister had expressed about a year ago, before the general election. I have with me the letter that he sent to me, in which he said that he assumed that I knew all that, given my long service as a special adviser at the Scotland Office. Given that long service at the Scotland Office, I was also aware that I would receive a letter from officials that I would send back, asking them to try again. Perhaps the Minister will learn that in the months and years to come.

The spectre of election counts not starting as soon as practicable is still with us in respect of the voting in May. Although the revered Tom Aitchison of City of Edinburgh council is no longer in post, his successors keep trying. The amendment deals with the issue for the next election to the Scottish Parliament and every other set of Scottish parliamentary elections by invoking the amendment to the Representation of the People Act that finally dealt with it before the general election.

I note the comments of the Electoral Commission, which has said that the amendment contains flexibility to deal with the position in constituencies such as Argyll and Bute in which there are practical problems connected with starting counts. However, it allows the counts to begin as soon as practicable after the election. Given that the Minister and his colleagues voted for this 12 months ago, I am sure that even within the scope of the coalition agreement there is the opportunity for some consistency on the Government’s part. I hope that those of us, in all parts of the Committee, who wish to reflect the view of our constituents that counts should happen as soon as possible after elections make our position clear. I shall be interested to hear the Minister’s comments.

--- Later in debate ---

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

May I seek clarification from the hon. Gentleman? Why are he and his colleagues tabling amendments that do not appear in the Scottish Parliament’s legislative consent motion Committee? For example, they are tabling an amendment proposing to devolve the matter of especially dangerous airguns to the Scottish Parliament, even though that was not the unanimous view of the Committee. If he respects the view of the Committee, why is he tabling such amendments?

[The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Dawn Primarolo)]

Order. I know that the Minister is eager to debate airguns, but perhaps he could wait until we get to the relevant clause? Meanwhile, I am sure that Mr Wishart was going to stick to clause 1 and this group of amendments.

[Pete Wishart]

I am grateful to you, Ms Primarolo. That is exactly what I was going to do. May I just say to the Minister, however, that we will introduce and propose our own amendments? His problem as a Minister, and the problem for all the Calman commission parties, is that they have no opportunity to table their own amendments relating to the recommendations of the Scottish parliamentary Bill Committee. There has been no opportunity to do that because we got the Bill Committee’s report only on Friday morning.

Scotland Bill

Baroness Primarolo Excerpts

Thursday 27th January 2011 Commons Chamber

[Jim McGovern]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I raised this point earlier with the Secretary of State. Is the amendment competent, given that it refers to a Scottish Government who apparently do not exist at the moment?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

The amendment is in order, otherwise Mr Speaker would not have selected it for debate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Donohoe]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. May I suggest, Madam Deputy Speaker, that you gently remind the hon. Gentleman that he should speak to his amendment? He has been talking for some 15 minutes and I have not heard anything about the amendment.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

I am grateful for your assistance in this matter, Mr Donohoe. I will decide whether the hon. Gentleman is in order. At the moment he still is and he is taking interventions. I am listening to all the contributions keenly, and I believe that the Secretary of State was about to give a response.

--- Later in debate ---

[Pete Wishart]

rose—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primaralo)]

Order. Perhaps we could now return to the amendment, Mr Wishart.

[Pete Wishart]

Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker. My hon. Friend has made his point in his typical and obligatory forthright manner.

--- Later in debate ---

[Anas Sarwar]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Before the hon. Gentleman concludes, may I point out that I do not feel he has spoken about the amendment? I wonder whether he will do that before he concludes.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

Fortunately, it is not for the Chair to remind Members that they have not necessarily referred to every point in their amendments. Members of the House can draw their own conclusions.

[Pete Wishart]

Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am sure that the hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Anas Sarwar) will get to make his own point in his own forceful way if he catches your eye.

I was about to conclude, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I shall conclude on the subject of the reasoned amendment. I want right hon. and hon. Members to support our amendment. We want to try to improve this Bill. It is a broken Bill; it is a Bill that does not serve the people of Scotland. The tax powers will be dangerous if they are implemented. I hope that hon. Members will support our approach as the Bill goes through. Let us strengthen it and make it a powerhouse Bill that serves the people of Scotland. As it stands, it is a broken Bill that cannot serve the people of Scotland because of the financial powers in it. I urge everybody to support our reasoned amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Donohoe]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I must correct the hon. Lady. Rabbie Burns was never known as Rabbie Burns. Rabbie, in Ayrshire parlance, is the village idiot: Robert was never known as Rabbie.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

We will take that as a point of clarification rather than a point of order.

[Mrs Laing]

I entirely take the hon. Gentleman’s point—I was being far too familiar and colloquial. Let me be more formal. This week, we celebrate the anniversary of the birth of our great Scottish national poet Mr Robert Burns, and one of his best poems makes the point that he was a true Unionist. “The Dumfries Volunteers” says clearly, at the end of its second verse:

“Be Britain still to Britain true,

Amang oursels united;

For never but by British hands

Maun British wrangs be righted!”

Long may it continue, Madam Deputy Speaker. We welcome the Scotland Bill because it totally strengthens Scotland’s position within the United Kingdom.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stewart Hosie]

Withdraw! You said “no new stations”. Withdraw now!

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

Order. Mr Hosie, I think that is my business, not yours, and I would be very grateful if you did not shout across the Chamber.

[Malcolm Bruce]

I acknowledge that some of those things have happened, but the SNP has been very good at cutting the ribbons on projects that were announced, organised and set in motion by previous local or national Administrations.

[Gordon Banks]

The hon. Member for Angus (Mr Weir) mentioned the Sterling-Alloa railway line. The right hon. Member for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce) is exactly right—the SNP came and cut the ribbon, but the hard work was done under the previous Administration, not the current one.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. Many speakers have gone very wide of the subject in illustrating the points that they wish to make. Mr Bruce, I would be grateful if you came back to the subject of the Bill in responding to the intervention.

[Malcolm Bruce]

I will of course observe your strictures, Madam Deputy Speaker, but when we are talking about powers, it is important that we also discuss our capacity to use those powers effectively. My contention is that the points I have made show why we need to take a step-by-step approach and demonstrate how well we can use our powers, and then hopefully take more of them.

Those who want to go faster have to acknowledge that Scotland’s capacity to take on the full responsibility for its own financial affairs is beyond credibility in the present circumstances. The UK is struggling to tackle a massive financial problem, and Scotland has a disproportionate share of that problem in its needs, its share of the national debt and its share in the underwriting of the banks, which has brought us to this pass. The reality is that Scotland’s future lies absolutely within the UK, but it is important that we have the power to take appropriate decisions, accountable to the people of Scotland, in ways that can help us make our own contribution to solving those problems in our own way.

As one or two Members have mentioned—it was alluded to by Calman—the transfer of benefits policy to Scotland has been suggested. That might happen in the longer term, but most people would acknowledge that the administration of certain aspects of benefits could be devolved or shared. At the moment, however, Scotland’s benefits bill is disproportionate, so the matter is much better shared across the UK, especially during these particularly difficult times.

We have embarked on a fundamental and radical welfare reform, which, leaving aside any controversial aspects, many people recognise has merit if it can deliver responsive benefits, value for work and so on. In the longer term it might be possible for Scotland to take a role in administering welfare, but now would hardly be the right moment to do so, as we are in the middle of a major funding deficit and a major reform programme. We must make common-sense decisions, taking on board what can practically be done now and acknowledging that further transfers could happen in the short term, when we are good and ready. Consideration at a later date can take us further forward.

I should like clarification on two questions that have been raised with me. One relates to the progressive commitment that the coalition Government have made on the threshold level of tax. As a former Treasury spokesman for my party, our commitment to raising the level at which people pay tax to £10,000, starting with £1,000 in the current year and progressing during this Parliament, is dear to my heart. I wonder whether the Under-Secretary in his reply can explain how that will be accommodated in calculating the tax revenues that would accrue to Scotland, or compensated for so that it does not create a disadvantage out of a good and progressive reform.

My second question relates to some aspects of charity law, which are not just peculiar to Scotland. When public authorities are looking to charities and the voluntary sector to take on more responsibilities for delivering public services, it raises questions about their status, and particularly their VAT liabilities. If a local authority or a health board provides services, there is no VAT, whereas if such services are provided by a voluntary organisation, there may be VAT liabilities. That may inhibit the transfer arrangements, which might otherwise be welcome. I acknowledge that that probably involves the Treasury and the Scotland Office, but I would appreciate some clarification if possible.

In the past 20 years, we have embarked on a process of restructuring the UK in a radical and decentralised way. As has been said in the past, devolution is a process, not an end product. No piece of legislation ends it. The Scottish National party wants the end to be independence. That is a perfectly respectable position, but for that, it has to win the support of the people of Scotland, which it is conspicuously failing to do. In the meantime, for those of us who want a stronger Scotland, with more control over its affairs and playing its full part in the United Kingdom, the Bill represents a major and significant step forward. It will, in my view, strengthen the United Kingdom, strengthen Scotland’s role and accountability, and perhaps enable the people of Scotland to look to their destiny and say, “We cannot always blame London and other people, we have to use the instruments that we have to help ourselves, and co-operate with others to ensure that we tackle the bigger problems together.” That is what the United Kingdom is about, and also what the devolution home rule settlement is about. They are not incompatible; both are essential. The Bill is a positive step forward, and will be beneficial to Scotland and the United Kingdom.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Laing]

I hesitate to interrupt my hon. Friend, but he has just demonstrated that he is one of the few people who understand, and have carried out an in-depth study of, the relationship between United Kingdom and Scottish finance. He is being modest about his book, but I need not be modest on his behalf. It is an excellent publication, which I have consulted on many occasions. May I ask him to show the House his book and tell us its title, so that every Member in the Chamber—[Interruption.] I do not think he will make any money from it. However, some Members might be better educated in future if they knew more about it. I believe that it is called “It’s Our Money! Who Spends It?”

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. That was a very long intervention. I think that the hon. Lady has given the hon. Gentleman his advertisement; perhaps we can now return to the debate.

[Iain Stewart]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I sense a rising demand for my book. Next Christmas is a little way off, but I have a couple of boxes of back copies which I will happily distribute.

As I was saying, part of our research involved examining the way in which other countries—Australia, Germany and Canada—operated financial relationships between state Governments and federal Governments, or provincial Governments, or whatever the term was in those countries. What struck us was that each of those countries has a system that comes close to what the Scotland Bill is proposing to introduce. Certain taxes are levied at the federal level. The example in each country varies, but some taxes are levied at the provincial level—the state level—and sometimes the state level has the power to introduce specific taxes of its own. That is balanced by a form of fiscal transfers between the federal level and the state level. There are perpetual arguments in all those countries about what the right level of spending, taxes, transfers and so on is—we will never get away from those—but on the whole the arrangements are stable. We can draw some comfort from the fact that the lessons from abroad point to the sort of system that the Bill is trying to introduce.

Conversely, there are few examples of a federal or devolved system of government where the lower level has full fiscal autonomy. Our research encountered only one example that came quite close to such an arrangement, which was in the Basque part of Spain. Since we did our work Catalonia has also adopted such an arrangement, but it is still fraught with difficulties. I do not believe that there is sufficient evidence from abroad to warrant the type of policy that the Scottish nationalists wish to introduce.