Debates between David Mundell and Lindsay Hoyle during the 2010-2015 Parliament

Scotland’s Place in the UK

Debate between David Mundell and Lindsay Hoyle
Thursday 6th February 2014

(10 years, 10 months ago)

Commons Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
David Mundell Portrait The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (David Mundell)
- Hansard - -

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Can you confirm that next Tuesday the SNP is in control of Opposition business in this House and that it has not tabled a motion to discuss independence for Scotland?

Lindsay Hoyle Portrait Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

Order. That matter is on the record and certainly does not need my confirmation.

Scotland Bill

Debate between David Mundell and Lindsay Hoyle
Thursday 26th April 2012

(12 years, 7 months ago)

Commons Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
David Mundell Portrait The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (David Mundell)
- Hansard - -

I beg to move, That this House agrees with Lords amendment 1.

Lindsay Hoyle Portrait Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

With this we may take Lords amendments 7, 8, 10 and 11.

David Mundell Portrait David Mundell
- Hansard - -

Along with the redoubtable Wendy Alexander, Annabel Goldie, Lord Browne of Ladyton, Lord Stephen and my right hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael), I took part in the very first meeting that led to the establishment of the Calman commission. I am pleased and proud today to be part of what I hope will be the successful conclusion of the commission’s work. The return of the Scotland Bill to this House comes after the other place has given the Bill a great deal of detailed scrutiny and consideration for many months. Indeed, in handling the Bill in the Lords, Lord Wallace of Tankerness was compared to Kate Adie. That comparison is not correct: he was more like General Montgomery, because he was at the forefront of the action rather than a mere commentator.

Since the Bill was last in this House, there have been two very significant developments. The Scottish Government have changed their position from one of opposition to one of support for the Bill, including many of the amendments we will consider today. On 21 March, the Secretary of State confirmed in a written ministerial statement the terms on which agreement had been reached with the Scottish Government on the Bill, and on 18 April the Scottish Parliament passed the legislative consent motion for the Bill unanimously.

When the Bill was last in this House, it appeared that the Scottish National party would never join the consensus that has been shared throughout both the Calman commission process and the parliamentary process on the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---
Lindsay Hoyle Portrait Mr Deputy Speaker
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

I am sure that everything is possible.

David Mundell Portrait David Mundell
- Hansard - -

I shall make a few points on the issues pertaining to this group of amendments. I can assure the right hon. Member for Stirling (Mrs McGuire) that we on the Government Benches always listen to her wise counsel. I will deal with the specific points she raised, which are important—regardless of when or where they are raised.

As the matter was raised by the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart), let me be clear about the position on joint commencement. The Scottish Government sought a specific provision for joint commencement in this Bill. The request was refused, as it was unworkable—like so many proposals advanced either by the SNP in London or the Scottish Government. Instead, we focused on delivering this Bill. At last, that objective is shared by the Scottish Government.

Of course we want to achieve circumstances in which joint commencement can take place. I shall quote from a letter sent by the Secretary of State on 20 March to Bruce Crawford and John Swinney:

“Consistent with the principle of consent, our two governments should reach agreement on implementation issues, including adjustments to the block grant, to take account of the Scottish Parliament’s new fiscal powers.”

That is the Government’s position.

Let me respond to a point made by hon. Member for Dundee East (Stewart Hosie). He seemed to suggest that evidence had been produced to support the Scottish Government’s and indeed the Scottish National party’s suggestion that corporation tax should be devolved. Again, I am sure that he would not wish to mislead the House into thinking that actual evidence had been produced to support that proposition. Indeed, it was not.

Stewart Hosie Portrait Stewart Hosie
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

The Minister’s memory is appalling. I intervened on the Labour Front-Bench spokesman to ask the Labour party’s position on corporation tax. I said no such thing about evidence being provided to the UK Government. I am sure Hansard will bear that out. If, however, the Minister wants to carry on and embarrass himself further, I will be delighted to listen.

Lindsay Hoyle Portrait Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

Order. I would obviously not allow the Opposition Front-Bench team to respond. I am sure that, as we go through the further provisions, everyone will be able to discuss the issues about taxation that they wish to raise.

David Mundell Portrait David Mundell
- Hansard - -

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I shall not use the same tone as the hon. Gentleman, although I think his remarks confirmed that no evidence had been produced at all or in any form to support the proposition of devolving corporation tax. That is why it is not being devolved in this Bill and is not the subject of these or any other amendments brought forward in the House of Lords. I support the amendment on that basis.

Lords amendment 1 agreed to.

Clause 7

Partial suspension of Acts subject to scrutiny by Supreme Court

David Mundell Portrait David Mundell
- Hansard - -

I beg to move, That this House agrees with Lords amendment 2.

Lindsay Hoyle Portrait Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

With this we may take Lords amendments 5, 6, 17, 18 and 26.

--- Later in debate ---
David Mundell Portrait David Mundell
- Hansard - -

Again, I would not want the hon. Gentleman to mislead the House. The regulation of activities in Antarctica are re-reserved to this House.

Lindsay Hoyle Portrait Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

And I know that no Member would mislead this House.

Scotland Bill

Debate between David Mundell and Lindsay Hoyle
Monday 14th March 2011

(13 years, 9 months ago)

Commons Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lindsay Hoyle Portrait The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

Now, then.

Clause 32 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 33

Maximum penalties which may be specified in subordinate legislation

David Mundell Portrait The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (David Mundell)
- Hansard - -

I beg to move amendment 31, page 25, line 31, leave out ‘the amount specified as’.

Lindsay Hoyle Portrait The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendment 32.

David Mundell Portrait David Mundell
- Hansard - -

The Government have identified the need for these minor technical amendments to clause 33, which updates the maximum penalties that can be applied to criminal offences created in subordinate legislation made under the Scotland Act 1998. The amendments are sensible additions that will ensure consistency across the different legal systems within the UK. The first amendment is a minor technical amendment to ensure consistency in the terminology used to refer to fine limits for different jurisdictions, which are provided for in the amendments to section 113 of the Scotland Act made by clause 33.

The second amendment ensures that the correct terminology is used in relation to fine limits in section 113 for either-way offences created in relation to the law of England and Wales and Northern Ireland, with the statutory maximum rather than level 5 on the standard scale on summary conviction. Level 5 has meaning only in relation to summary-only offences by virtue of the definition in the Interpretation Act 1978. Clause 33, as introduced, makes this terminology change in relation to fine limits for Scots law offences, and the amendment makes the same change for offences that form part of the law of England and Wales and Northern Ireland.

The amendments will ensure consistency in the terminology used to describe the fine limits for offences created in the Scotland Act orders for each of the legal jurisdictions in the UK.

Amendment 31 agreed to.

Amendment made: 32, page 26, line 2, leave out from second ‘exceeding’ to end of line 3 and insert—

(i) in the case of a summary offence, level 5 on the standard scale,

(ii) in the case of an offence triable either way, the statutory maximum,’.—

(David Mundell.)

Clause 33, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 34 to 37 ordered to stand part of the Bill.



Clause 38

Commencement

Amendments made: 65, page 28, line 5, leave out ‘made by statutory instrument’.

Amendment 66, page 28, line 9, leave out ‘made by statutory instrument’.—(David Mundell.)

Clause 38, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 39 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

New Clause 18

Orders

‘Any power to make an order conferred by this Act is exercisable by statutory instrument.’.—(David Mundell.)

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 1

Abolition of regional members of Scottish Parliament

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

(2) In section 1—

(a) in subsection (2) “Two members” is substituted for “One member”; and at the end there is inserted “save for those identified in paragraph 1(a) to (c) of Schedule 1, each of which shall return one member,”;

(b) subsection (3) is omitted.

(3) In section 5, subsections (1) and (3) to (9) are omitted.

(4) Sections 6, 7, 8 and 10 are omitted.

(5) In section 11, subsection (2) is substituted by—

“(2) A person is not entitled to vote as an elector in more than one constituency at a general election, and may cast no more than two votes at a poll for the return of constituency members.”.

(6) In section 12—

(a) in subsection (2), paragraphs (e) and (f) are omitted;

(b) subsection (3) is omitted;

(c) after subsection (4) the following subsection is inserted—

“(4A) The provision to be made under subsection (1) must include provision for—

(a) each elector to cast one or two votes of equal value, with no more than one vote to be given to any one candidate, in constituencies returning two members;

(b) the two candidates with the most valid votes to be elected in such constituencies.”.

(7) In Schedule 1—

(a) for paragraph 1 there is substituted—

“(1) The constituencies are—

(a) the Orkney Islands,

(b) the Shetland Islands

(c) the Western Isles [Na h-Eileanan An Iar], and

(d) the parliamentary constituencies in Scotland at the time of an ordinary or extraordinary general election for the Scottish Parliament, except the constituencies of Orkney and Shetland and Na h-Eileanan An Iar”;

(b) paragraphs 3 to 14 are omitted.’.—(Mr Donohoe.)

Brought up, and read the First time.

Scotland Bill

Debate between David Mundell and Lindsay Hoyle
Monday 7th March 2011

(13 years, 9 months ago)

Commons Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lindsay Hoyle Portrait The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

Order. I think we both know that this is not quite a part of the clause 13 stand part debate. If what the hon. Gentleman is saying is not part of that, I call the Minister.

David Mundell Portrait David Mundell
- Hansard - -

Thank you, Mr Hoyle, and welcome to this debate, which I can see you are already enjoying.

I did not intend to speak for long. I was looking forward to the erudite contribution of the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) on why Antarctica should be the responsibility of the Scottish Parliament, and how after 12 years of devolution, Antarctica has been discovered to be an important matter for which the Scottish Parliament must have responsibility.

--- Later in debate ---
Lindsay Hoyle Portrait The Chairman
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

Order. We are dealing with health professions. We have not quite got to Antarctica yet, so I think we will ignore that part.

David Mundell Portrait David Mundell
- Hansard - -

I accept your ruling, Mr Hoyle, although it is sometimes important to point out to Opposition members that for the first eight years of the Scottish Parliament there was a Liberal Democrat-Labour coalition.

Angus Brendan MacNeil Portrait Mr MacNeil
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

I would love to know why the Minister thinks that London rather than Edinburgh should have responsibility for whatever portion of Antarctica we are talking about. Is he ashamed of Scotland? Why should it be London? Why should Scotland not have that power? What is he ashamed of?

Lindsay Hoyle Portrait The Chairman
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

Order. We are discussing health. We are not discussing Antarctica.

David Mundell Portrait David Mundell
- Hansard - -

We have learned tonight that London SNP has control over Edinburgh SNP, because it is the Westminster SNP Members who determine the response to the Scotland Bill, and not their colleagues in the Scottish Parliament, who have a completely different point of view on a number of these measures.

The Scotland Act 1998 provides that the regulation of certain health professions is a subject matter reserved to the Westminster Parliament. Clause 13 implements the Calman recommendation to reserve the regulation of all health professions, not just those specified in the Scotland Act. The clause re-reserves the regulation of health professions, and I can confirm that the Scottish Parliament’s Scotland Bill Committee has stated that it is not opposed to the re-reservation of powers to the UK Parliament. The Scottish Parliament will vote on the Scotland Bill on Thursday, and we await the outcome of that vote, as I have said previously. Further, devolution is not a one-way street, and the Scotland Bill, like Calman, is about delivering a balanced package that works for the people of Scotland, as the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Tom Greatrex) said. The Scotland Bill does just that: it updates the Scotland Act with a two-way transfer of powers.

Since Royal Assent of the Scotland Act, the regulation of any health professions not regulated by the legislation listed in section G2 of schedule 5 has been a matter that falls within the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament. The Westminster Parliament was, therefore, unable to introduce legislation to regulate such professions without such legislation also being approved by resolution of the Scottish Parliament. Although the Scottish Parliament has had the power to introduce for Scotland separate legislation in respect of the regulation of these health professions and any other health professions not included within section G2, it has chosen not to do so and instead has approved the use of the existing, reserved machinery orders made under section 60 of the Health Act 1999 to regulate new groups of health care professionals.

The Calman commission criticised this mixed economy and considered that the current situation was unnecessarily time-consuming and cumbersome owing to the need to obtain agreement from the Scottish Parliament. The commission also pointed out that the current mixed economy presented risks in terms of consistency that could lead to the fragmentation of standards across the UK and threaten the mobility of practitioners across all four countries, which is a point that Members have raised. The Government agree that there are risks with the current situation. The Calman commission also noted that the current processes gave the Scottish Parliament some influence over the regulation of reserved professions—for instance, where there are orders and regulations relating to the regulation of professions that cover both devolved and reserved matters. The commission also took the view that there should be a common approach to the regulation of the health professions.

The Government have accepted the arguments made by the Calman commission, so the clause re-reserves the regulation of all health care professions currently regulated by legislation. It also has the practical effect of reserving to the Westminster Parliament the subject matter of the regulation of any new health professions in the future.

Notwithstanding the reservation that the clause will deliver, the UK Government will continue to agree policy in relation to the regulation of the health professions with the Scottish Government. The UK Government, through the Department of Health in England, will continue to engage closely with officials in the Scottish Government—and, for that matter, with the Administrations in Northern Ireland and Wales—to develop future policy proposals concerning the regulation of health care professionals. This will ensure that the views of the Scottish people will be taken into consideration as we go forwards, but in a manner that will deliver a consistent approach to regulation that works for the whole of the UK.