Scottish Devolution and Article 50

Debate between James Gray and Patrick Grady

Wednesday 15th March 2017 Westminster Hall

[Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray, especially given your well-known Glasgow roots and your love for Scotland. I am sure you will be among the first to claim citizenship of a newly independent Scotland—or dual citizenship, perhaps.

[James Gray (in the Chair)]

Order. The hon. Gentleman is entirely right: I am 100% Scottish and all of those things. However, he is quite wrong to seek to involve me in the debate, in which I have no interest or involvement whatever.

[Patrick Grady]

My apologies, Mr Gray; nevertheless, the pleasure remains. As my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Deidre Brock) said, the circumstances in which we are having the debate have changed somewhat, following the First Minister’s announcement on Monday about the Scottish Government’s decision to seek a section 30 order. I pay tribute to the ever-ready House of Commons Library, which nevertheless managed to capture that announcement in its briefing note just before it went to press.

I will look briefly at the principles behind the debate and some of the practical implications for us in the House and beyond. For me, there are two key principles behind the devolution settlement. The first is the claim of right for Scotland, which we have discussed in this Chamber before. It is the concept of popular sovereignty. The 1989 claim of right was the basis of the constitutional convention and the current devolution settlement. It said:

“We, gathered as the Scottish Constitutional Convention, do hereby acknowledge the sovereign right of the Scottish people to determine the form of Government best suited to their needs”.

That claim still stands today, and it was asserted on 23 June 2016, when the people of Scotland said that they wanted to remain in the European Union. That claim was passed by the constitutional convention in 1989 and was again agreed by the Scottish Parliament in 2012, but is the principle of the claim now under threat from the Conservative Government? The Tories have never been clear about whether they endorsed that principle in the first place, and it appears even more under threat now, especially if the Prime Minister tries to block or delay the requested potential independence referendum in Scotland.

The second key principle, enshrined in the Scotland Act 1998, is that whatever is not reserved is devolved. As we all know, schedule 5 to the Act is clear about what is reserved: defence, foreign affairs, social security and aspects of trade and energy. There have been some derogations in those areas over the years, but anything that is not mentioned in schedule 5 to the 1998 Act is therefore devolved to the Scottish Parliament. Climate change is a very good precedent for that. When the UK Parliament decided it wanted to legislate on climate change emissions, responsibility fell to the Scottish Parliament to make legislative provision in Scotland. The Scottish Parliament took it upon itself in 2009 to pass some world-leading climate change legislation, which was some of the most ambitious anywhere in the world. It seems now that the principle of what is not reserved being therefore devolved is also under threat. We have certainly had ambiguous answers from Ministers to date.

Tibet

Debate between James Gray and Patrick Grady

Thursday 18th June 2015 Westminster Hall

[Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)]

It is a genuine pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray, as I have discovered that you were brought up in my constituency. I did not have a lot of time in my maiden speech to sing my constituency’s praises, and I do not intend to detain hon. Members by doing so today. I note that what was Kelvinside parish church next to your childhood home is now the Òran Mór, a tremendously popular and vibrant cultural venue for the city and the country as a whole. Indeed, it contributes much to the local economy and the wider cultural scene.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Leeds North East (Fabian Hamilton) on bringing this important debate to the Chamber. I commiserate with him on the result of this morning’s ballot, but wish him every success, should he seek to be a member of the International Development Committee. In contributing briefly to the debate, I would like to offer some perspectives from the Scottish National party, the Scottish Parliament and the country more broadly.

Much as there is a system of all-party groups in Westminster, a system of cross-party groups exists in the Scottish Parliament. My colleague, Linda Fabiani, the Member of the Scottish Parliament for East Kilbride, chairs the cross-party group on Tibet. Much like the all-party parliamentary group here, it has shown considerable cross-party interest in and concern over issues affecting the area. It is supported by Aberdeen University’s Scottish Centre for Himalayan Research and in particular by Dr Martin Mills and Dr Sam May.

It is important to recognise the important work of that institute in promoting and researching issues that affect Tibet and the wider Himalayan area. Some of its current topics include tantric medicine, 17th century Scots in the Himalayas—there are similarities between Scotland and Tibet, and I saw an interesting chart comparing the heights of the mountains of the two areas—plant collecting, spirit categories in Afghanistan, and Tibetan divination, which is relevant to this debate. The cross-party group is active, meets regularly and has campaigned on a range of issues. It called, for example, for a portrait of His Holiness the Dalai Lama to be displayed in Holyrood to mark his 80th birthday. Though the conventions in that place unfortunately did not allow for that, I think the suggestion indicates the respect and affection in which the Dalai Lama is held by parliamentarians in Scotland and the wider public.

Tibet was the subject of a debate in Holyrood, which was led by Maureen Watt, the MSP for Aberdeen South and North Kincardine. The debate focused specifically on immolation. By February of last year, there had been 127 reported incidents, and that number is now up to 137. The way Members’ business debates work is not dissimilar to Westminster Hall, only they are debated on a slightly fuller motion than we would have here. The motion said:

“That the Parliament…understands that these actions are largely acts of protest against restrictions on religion, the Tibetan language, access to employment and the degradation of water resources and grazing lands; expresses concern at what it understands has been the state’s attempts to prevent accurate reports of self-immolations reaching the media; condemns what it considers the criminalisation of family members and sometimes witnesses to the incidents; believes that 11 countries urged China to improve the human rights of Tibetans at the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva on 22 October 2013”.

That demonstrates the consensus. I and my colleagues in this House share the sentiments expressed and put on record our sadness that such numbers of people have felt the need to resort to such dramatic and desperate gestures. The Scottish Government’s response to that debate very clearly condemned human rights abuses, wherever they occur. The Cabinet Secretary for Cultural and Government Affairs said:

“Upholding basic civil and political rights is a core duty of the state, and individuals must be free to celebrate their cultural traditions and demonstrate their faith in any society.”—[Scottish Parliament Official Report, 4 February 2014; c. 27401.]

The Scottish Government recognise the role that China has to play. On a number of occasions when visiting China, Ministers have raised concerns about freedom of religious expression, transparency and access, and the situation in Tibet. Indeed, the Scottish Government’s overall China engagement strategy has four guiding principles: securing sustainable economic growth by building Scotland’s prosperity by strengthening links to China; understanding the culture, including attaching great importance to learning more about the culture through a memorandum of understanding; increasing the influence we can have; and, most relevantly for the debate, respecting human rights and the rule of law, supporting China’s process of modernisation and internal reform, and the need to balance the demands of economic development with social justice.

In Scotland, we are justly proud of our reputation for ethical business practices, human rights and the rule of law. We want to continue to share our experiences wherever we can. Key to “Scotland’s National Action Plan for Human Rights” is ensuring that we all play a part in building a better world, giving effect to our international obligations at home and abroad. That hopefully demonstrates that many of the broad concerns expressed in today’s debate and elsewhere in the House over the years are being taken seriously and acted on by our colleagues north of the border.

I will finish with some personal reflections. As part of a crowd of some 4,000 people in the Scottish Exhibition and Conference Centre, I saw the Dalai Lama 11 years ago when he visited Scotland. I was struck by how, even with such a vast crowd, he appeared to be addressing each of us individually. It is important to recognise the importance of spiritual leaders to the world. Today, Pope Francis has released an encyclical that includes a radical and prophetic call for environmental justice and care for creation. That is particularly important when we consider pollution and climate change, particularly in the Himalayan region that the hon. Member for Leeds North East spoke about. My maiden speech was on the theme of justice and peace around the world, and peace must be built on respect for human rights and democracy, whether in Tibet or elsewhere. The dignity of human beings and their fundamental right to be agents of their own destiny are hugely important, and that should be the start and ending point of any such debate.

[Mr James Gray (in the Chair)]

The hon. Gentleman was speaking on behalf of the Scottish National party as the third party. Normally, I would now call the spokesman for Her Majesty’s loyal Opposition. However, with the leave of the Chamber, I shall call Mr Nic Dakin.