Scotland Bill

Debate between Lord Beamish and Angus Robertson

Monday 15th June 2015 Commons Chamber

[Angus Robertson]

The hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point. Hopefully, the Committee does not need to divide. If there is support from Labour and from the Government, everybody will be satisfied and we can move forward.

In legal terms, there is nothing to stop the Westminster Parliament from repealing clause 1, according to the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty and the associated norm that one Parliament cannot bind its successors. The Scottish Government produced an alternative clause that includes a double lock—it would require that the clause cannot be repealed without the prior consent of the Scottish Parliament, and without the people of Scotland voting to abolish the Scottish Parliament in a referendum conducted for that purpose. The Scottish Government clause forms the basis of our amendment.

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

I have no objection to what the hon. Gentleman is trying to achieve, but can he clarify the amendment? It states:

“The Scottish Parliament is a permanent part of the United Kingdom’s constitution.”

The country does not have a constitution, so will he identify the legal definition and what is constitutional?

[Angus Robertson]

The hon. Gentleman knows that the UK does not have such a constitution—we are strong supporters of a constitution, whether for the UK or for Scotland—and that the constitution is based on custom and practice. Legislating on the matter would be an appropriate safeguard.

The SNP approach would strengthen the declaratory and political effect of the clause. It also acknowledges the position of the Scottish Parliament and the long-standing sovereign right of the people of Scotland to determine the form of government best suited to their needs, as recognised in paragraph 20 of the Smith commission report, which states:

“Reflecting the sovereign right of the people of Scotland to determine the form of government best suited to their needs, as expressed in the referendum on 18 September 2014, and in the context of Scotland remaining within the UK, an enhanced devolution settlement for Scotland will be durable, responsive and democratic.”

[Mr Jones]

I am just trying to be helpful. The hon. Gentleman might have the wording “United Kingdom’s constitution” in an amendment, but would it have any legal force? An amendment to the American constitution, or to any other written constitution, is legally binding. What would be the status of the hon. Gentleman’s amendment?

[Angus Robertson]

I am making the point that it would be very difficult for people to go back on legislation with the express wording proposed in the amendment. It is not that difficult a concept to grasp.

The Scottish Government noted in their response to the Devolution (Further Powers) Committee interim report that both the House of Commons Political and Constitutional Reform Committee—I am looking at the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen), who served with great distinction as the Chairman of that Committee—and the House of Lords Constitution Committee raised concerns with those aspects of the UK Government’s clause.

The Scottish Government’s alternative clause and the SNP amendments address more minor issues with the UK Government’s clause, using the definite article “the” instead of the indefinite “a”, as that is the language used in the Scotland Act 1998. That was picked up by the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael).

Scotland Bill

Debate between Lord Beamish and Angus Robertson

Monday 8th June 2015 Commons Chamber

[Angus Robertson (Moray) (SNP)]

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

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

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

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

[Mr Kevan Jones]

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

[Angus Robertson]

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Angus Robertson]

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

[Mr Kevan Jones]

rose—

[Angus Robertson]

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

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

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

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

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