Scotland Bill
Alex Salmond Excerpts(9 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Carmichael
Four years ago, I was very much in favour of devolution to the communities: it was something on which we could not build a consensus—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman has asked a question; if he calmed down a little, he could listen to the answer.
Four years ago, we could not build a consensus on this issue and that was a matter for regret. I regularly pursued the issue, as I am sure the Secretary of State will recall. I am delighted now to be able to place publicly on the record my enthusiasm for devolution to council areas—possibly even sub-council areas. That is why amendment 57 seeks to facilitate the devolution to the Western Isles, Orkney and Shetland of the powers of the Crown Estate commissioners, so that the communities have the day-to-day responsibility and reap the financial benefits.
I have always been of the view that power is best exercised closest to the community affected by it, and the seabed as a resource could be much better managed if it were under the control of local communities—island communities, in particular.
Alex Salmond (Gordon) (SNP)
I am fascinated by this lack of consensus in the last Government. Was the current Secretary of State for Scotland someone with whom the right hon. Gentleman was unable to form a consensus on the issue of devolution of the Crown Estate?
Mr Carmichael
I shall allow the Secretary of State to speak for himself when he has the opportunity to do so later; I am sure we will all be on tenterhooks to hear what he has to say.
It is manifestly the case that the seabed as a resource could be better managed—and it would be if it were managed by the communities most directly affected. That would generate more income. There are tremendous opportunities for generating income from the seabed, many of which are thwarted because the Crown Estate commissioners over the years have taken an especially narrow construction of their duties under the Crown Estate legislation.
I fully accept that amendment 57 seeks to promote the interests of the Western Isles, Orkney and Shetland. I remind the House that the issue was the subject of two reports to the Scottish Affairs Committee in the last Parliament, and has also been pursued vigorously by the three island authorities in their engagement in the “Our Islands Our Future” process, which I was keen to encourage when I was Secretary of State.
I suggest that if we were able to achieve devolution to the three island authorities first, the way would be smoothed for those in the Highland region area, and Argyll and Bute in particular. I know that the issues relating to the islands and coastal communities in those council areas are very similar to those for the Western Isles, Orkney and Shetland.
Sir Edward Leigh
Yes, I was going to come to that point, which is important. I have obtained the help of the Library in finding out exactly what happens in Northern Ireland with regard to abortion, which I will describe in a moment.
My research assistant shares my generally pro-life view—I suppose it is no secret that I will always take the pro-life argument, whether on capital punishment, assisted suicide or abortion. I have my own views, which I appreciate are not the views of everybody in this place. When I was thinking about tabling this new clause, he said to me, “Is this wise? What would the Scottish Parliament decide? Would its views be more like ours in the UK Parliament?” I said to him, “It’s completely irrelevant what my views are or what your views are. That’s a value judgment. It’s not for me for decide.” Frankly, I have no idea whether, if the Scottish Parliament was allowed to decide the law of abortion, it would take my pro-life view and amend the Abortion Act 1967 or not. I have no idea and it is none of my business.
I would have thought that a self-respecting Parliament could and should be trusted to deal with abortion, especially as I understand that the Scottish Parliament already deals with assisted dying. Indeed, in January 2010, the End of Life Assistance (Scotland) Bill was introduced in the Scottish Parliament by Margo MacDonald MSP. It sought to permit assistance to be given to persons who wished to have their lives ended under certain conditions. The Scottish Parliament disagreed with the general principles of the Bill, which is apparently being reintroduced, and that discussion is going on. That is fair enough. When Lord Falconer introduced his Assisted Dying Bill in the other place, he did not seek to extend it to Scotland. Obviously we trust—quite rightly in my view—the Scottish people, through their Parliament, to decide what is arguably an even more important issue than abortion, namely whether assisted dying should become legal. I cannot see the logic—this is why I am trying to probe my right hon. Friend the Minister—in allowing the Scottish Parliament to decide on assisted dying, but not abortion.
Let me deal with the intervention by the hon. Member for Southport (John Pugh). I know he has tabled an amendment on this issue and I look forward to hearing from him later. No doubt he can make these points far more powerfully than I can. The Abortion Act 1967 never extended to Northern Ireland, where abortion continues to be regulated by provisions in criminal law. Under the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, all abortions are illegal in Northern Ireland, subject to very limited exceptions specified in the Criminal Justice Act (Northern Ireland) 1945 and application of case law, chiefly R v. Bourne of 1939. Abortion is currently allowed in Northern Ireland subject to limited circumstances where the pregnancy threatens the life of the woman or where it would affect her physical or mental health in a way that is permanent or long term.
That is the situation in Northern Ireland and, believe me, I have no idea what the Scottish Parliament would decide if it was given this power. In a sense, we already have abortion on demand in this country—that is itself a controversial statement. For all I know, the Scottish Parliament may want to clear up the law in its own way, and I do not see why it should not be allowed to.
Alex Salmond
I thought it might help the hon. Gentleman if I gave him a little bit of history. If I remember correctly, the late Donald Dewar wanted this power devolved in the Scotland Act 1998, but was prevented by some sort of star chamber that was presiding over that legislation. Given that that was what Donald Dewar wanted to be done all those years ago, is it not more than passing strange that it is not being done even now?
Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)
Thank you, Mr Crausby—[Interruption.] I did not hear that interruption by the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil), which is always a great loss because his interventions are some of the most amusing that we ever hear. On this occasion, however, I am going to disagree with him. I do not like clause 31 at all; I think it is fundamentally misconceived. I have tabled a number of amendments, which I hope will improve it—if it is possible to make a silk purse out of sow’s ear.
Let me start by explaining why I do not like the clause in principle. I think there is a danger that it is attempting to give away something that does not actually belong to the state. The Crown Estates belong to the sovereign and are given in trust to the Government at the beginning of every reign. This started at the beginning of the reign of George III and has been recommitted by every monarch subsequently. However, the Crown Estates must return entire to a new sovereign at the beginning of a new reign. It is not possible—it is not right; it is not proper—for the Government to give away the Crown Estates or to put them in such a state that an incoming sovereign could not take them back in their entirety. I therefore have concerns about the underlying principle of clause 31 in that it is seeking to divide the Crown Estates, which ought not to be divisible because of the unity they are required to have at the beginning of each reign.
I also do not like it symbolically because, although I am very sympathetic to the demands of the SNP for more government in Scotland and for more rights for the Scottish Parliament, I think the Crown is more important than the union of Parliaments.
Mr Rees-Mogg
It is an honour to give way to the right hon. Member for Gordon (Alex Salmond).
Alex Salmond
I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman is familiar with the phrase “the land belongs to the people”. Surely that applies to the foreshore as well—except the bit that belongs to Caledonian MacBrayne, I suppose.
Does the hon. Gentleman regret jumping at the bait from the metropolitan press? I refer to the silly, foolish, extraordinary story that appeared three weeks ago suggesting that the Crown’s income would be damaged by the devolution of the Crown Estate. Does he regret jumping so quickly at that bait on a hook, and associating himself with such a scurrilous rumour?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I am very grateful for the right hon. Gentleman’s characteristically helpful intervention. What was so wonderful about that bait was the outpouring of patriotic royal fervour that it elicited from my friends in the Scottish National party. I must confess that I was thrilled and surprised when a party that I had thought to have republican leanings turned out, to a man and woman, to contain some of the staunchest monarchists in the land. That is desperately reassuring—
Mr Rees-Mogg
I do not think that the hon. Gentleman —I was about to say “my hon. Friend”—is bold enough. What he should say, and what I, in logic, would be bound to accept, is that if that is to be determined by one Government, it could be argued that it should be determined only by the Scottish Government in relation to the whole Crown Estate. However, that would not be my argument.
Alex Salmond
I am able to help the hon. Gentleman with a precedent. It turns out that in 1923 the Crown Estate was given to the Irish Free State Government to be collected. The pertinent point is that in 1923 southern Ireland was under the Crown, as the hon. Gentleman will recall, so we now have an exact precedent for doing what he says is impossible to do.
Mr Rees-Mogg
I am terribly sorry to say that we do not have an exact precedent. We have exactly the wrong precedent, and the right hon. Gentleman is making my argument: we should be very nervous of doing this because it would lead inexorably to a division between the state—we divide the Crown, and we divide the state. There we are: I am finding a good deal of agreement between my position and that of SNP Members, but neither of us is in perfect harmony with those on the Treasury Bench, who seem to want to put this forward with the view that it does not risk a fundamental division in the Crown. That is what worries me; it is why I think it is a mistake, and why I have tabled a number of amendments that I hope will meet with universal approbation. Indeed, I am very surprised that many SNP Members, after all their protestations of loyalty to the Crown following the suggestion that the sovereign grant might lose a bit of money, did not add their names to my amendments. I was hoping for that, but I hoped in vain.
I would like to explain my amendments in reverse order, because amendment 127 is perhaps the key one. It states
“The scheme must not include any permanent alienation of the rights of the Crown.”
Jack Dromey
Some Scottish national agreements exist alongside agreements covering the rest of the UK, but is it really being said that we want the progressive atomisation of pay bargaining? Where does that ultimately lead?
Another example that surprises me about the Scottish National party’s position is on the transfer of undertakings regulations. Under a Conservative Government, I took the case of the Eastbourne dustmen all the way to the European Court of Justice. The Court compelled the Government to extend the acquired rights directive to England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, which had been denied coverage for 10 years after the passing of TUPE. The lesson for me is that such fundamental rights are best obtained across the four nations of the United Kingdom.
Alex Salmond
When I, as First Minister, negotiated a no compulsory redundancy agreement with the civil service unions in Scotland, should I have not done that because the Government down here were not prepared to do so? When I negotiated with the Fire Brigades Union to stop the embezzlement of part of their pensions, which was being pursued down here, should I have not done that because this Government refused to do it?
Jack Dromey
In my trade union life, I frequently negotiated no compulsory redundancy agreements in a whole number of cities and throughout England, Wales and Scotland.
Alex Salmond
What my hon. Friend the Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil) provides is the Castlebay answer to the Scottish question, to which the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve) should listen with great care. It is always put forward with the ultimate good will.
I am in a race against time because I have 3% power left in my iPad and I want to read into the record the following quotation:
“The Scottish Government agrees with the Islands Councils that marine activities in the territorial waters of Scotland adjacent to the islands can have impacts on the community as well as delivering financial benefits to the local economy. The Scottish Government committed in Scotland's Future to ensuring the island communities benefit by receiving more than 50 per cent of Crown Estate seabed leasing revenues.
The marine assets of island communities are key to their future and the wealth that is generated should be reinvested to safeguard that future. The Scottish Government will therefore ensure that 100 per cent of the net income from the islands seabed is passed to island communities.”
That is a clear statement from a document entitled “Empowering Scotland’s Island Communities”, which I launched as First Minister last year with the three island convenors from the three island authorities, and which was broadly supported, particularly because it made the point of support not just to local authorities but to island communities, and it encompassed all the island communities of Scotland.
There was a similar declaration of intent in the principles agreed in the Smith commission. The bona fides of the Scottish Government on this matter, I may say to the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael), have just been demonstrated massively in the general election in the support that was gained across these communities and in Orkney and Shetland in particular. Given these substantial bona fides, the agreement and the Smith commission, why on earth does he feel it necessary to write into the Bill what the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government should do with powers that are devolved?
There is nothing in the actions or performance of the Scottish Government and the Scottish Parliament, and the massive support that they have received across island communities, that should put anyone in any doubt of the intent, once the Crown Estate revenue is devolved, to make sure that our coastal communities and our island communities benefit in full measure. It is the very antithesis of devolution to write prescriptively into legislation what will be done after the powers are devolved. From someone who admitted in the Chamber today that he could not find agreement, or consensus, as he put it, when he was Secretary of State for Scotland to get the power devolved in the first place, it takes substantial brass neck to put forward the amendment that he tabled.
Speaking of brass neck, although he does it so elegantly, the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg) was found out three weeks ago by jumping to the bait of —I was going to say the tabloid press, but the tabloids were innocent in this matter; it was the disreputable press—The Daily Telegraph, the Daily Mail, The Times and so on, added to on this occasion, disgracefully, by The Guardian and Channel 4, which leapt on to the totally misleading, erroneous story that a plot was afoot to cut the Crown revenue. As has been pointed out factually, the Crown revenue does not come from the Crown Estate. It is merely used as a proxy for the level of the royal grant.
The hon. Gentleman attempted to reinterpret his mistake and his charging in to get a few column inches—I had better call them inches in his case, as opposed to centimetres—in those disreputable newspapers, by telling us that it was some elaborate ruse to tempt out the monarchist tendencies in the Scottish Government so that he could ensure that those loyalist noises would come from the Scottish Government, as they were outraged by the very suggestion that any republican sympathies had broken out. The hon. Gentleman would have done himself more credit if he had just said, “The press got it wrong and I got it wrong, and we should all look before we leap where these matters are concerned.”
Mr Rees-Mogg
The truth is that that did lead to a wonderful outpouring of monarchical fervour from Scotland. That is to be commended. I am just a bit worried that the former leader of the Scottish National party is not as supportive of the monarchy as his successor.
Alex Salmond
I was objecting not to the outpouring, but to the suggestion from the hon. Gentleman that he had planned this all along—that this was all part of some dastardly scheme he had dreamt up. That stretched our credulity rather too far.
I know that the acronym IPSA—the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority—is not beloved in this Chamber, and on coming back to this House I can see why. How on earth have Members managed to order their affairs and deal with goodness only knows what over the past few years? IPSA is not beloved, but IPSO—the Independent Press Standards Organisation—should be beloved. Today IPSO, the new self-regulating press arrangement, delivered a humiliating rebuff to The Daily Telegraph. Although it is printed on the front page in microscopic form, none the less there it is on the front page, a full-scale apology to the First Minister of Scotland for the totally erroneous story that was published during the general election campaign, with which some Members of the House are familiar and some are very familiar indeed, concerning her views on which UK Government she preferred.
IPSO is on a winning run and should now pursue those dreadful papers—right-wing bastions such as The Guardian, and those even further right-wing bastions such as The Daily Telegraph, The Times and the Daily Mail, which published such a dreadfully inaccurate story and tried to muddy the waters of this debate about the Crown Estate and cast aspersions on the monarchical loyalties of our First Minister of Scotland.
It is important that the reason for the overwhelming wish to see these matters devolved is a real belief in the island and coastal communities of Scotland that local management of these resources will achieve considerable benefits overall. It is a question not of reducing revenues, but of increasing economic activity. For many years I represented a fishing constituency, and I can tell Members that the Crown Estate has not been a popular institution among many of our fishing communities. Many of our small harbours in particular found the harbour dues on the foreshore extremely onerous. The only victory I can remember was in the town of Gardenstown in Banffshire, where the harbour commissioners were suffering from the imposition of a very substantial bill from the Crown Estate commission.
We were able to discover a royal deed from Charles II, from a time when he had been crowned King of Scots but was still to assert his rightful throne south of the border. He had a fantastic time one night in Gardenstown as he was gathering an army before the battle of Dunbar and as a result, in a fit of generosity, wrote an exemption from all Crown dues. We were able to produce that deed from the 17th century, and Gardenstown harbour, I can report to the House, is free from the imposition of the Crown Estate revenue, but other communities in Scotland have not been as fortunate. Members will therefore understand full well why there is a general desire to see such resources being applied to the economic benefit of local communities.
My final point applies to other clauses that we are debating and particularly to the speech that we heard from the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey). His idea that the devolution of key aspects of labour relations and wage policy will lead to a diminution of standards does not stand up to any examination of the reality of devolution in Scotland. I pointed out to him that the no compulsory redundancy agreement which, uniquely, the civil service unions have was negotiated by the SNP Government. The pensions benefit that the Fire Brigades Union has—a small benefit in terms of the overall imposition on public sector unions, but none the less a benefit that the union values—happened because the Scottish Government were able to negotiate it. Our nursing community—nurses in the national health service—was mentioned. Nurses last year got a pay rise in Scotland because the Scottish Government followed the recommendations of the pay review, whereas the Government down here did not.
Given that experience and given the fact that the Scottish Government are an accredited living wage employer, the suggestion that people sacrifice those benefits so that the hon. Gentleman can get his uniformity, which he seems to think is crucial across the United Kingdom, would explain why there is a divergence opening up between his views and those of the Scottish Trades Union Congress on how best to achieve progressive change in Scotland.
That is a matter of great current interest, because this week we will discuss the Budget, and one of the issues of greatest importance under discussion will be the diminution of in-work benefits. Thousands of people across all our constituencies face the prospect of a substantial reduction in their standard of living as a result of the course that the Chancellor has set. He says, of course, that he wants to end the situation in which huge subsidies are going to a range of private sector employers. One approach that the Scottish Government might take, were we to have control of the minimum wage legislation, would be to increase the minimum wage quickly to the living wage, thereby reducing in-work benefits through the early increase of wages, as opposed to reducing them before any wage increases are forthcoming, which I think is the fate that is in store for workers across our constituents.
The challenge is therefore twofold. First, Members who believe that the right course of action is to increase the minimum wage towards the living wage, or to see the living wage more generally applied, would like to see that as a prerequisite before in-work benefits are cut. Secondly, with regard to the suitable amendments before the Committee, for Members representing Scottish constituents, and for those who are sympathetic to progressive politics, would it not be safer, given all the evidence to place matters in the hands of the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government, to achieve that and protect the living standards of Scottish workers?
Drew Hendry
I rise to support new clause 57. The transfer of the Crown Estate in Scotland and its assets was a key commitment agreed to by the cross-party Smith commission, and I know that the Secretary of State will be keen to deliver it in full. The Heads of Agreement stated, in paragraph 32:
“Responsibility for the management of the Crown Estate’s economic assets in Scotland, and the revenue generated from these assets, will be transferred to the Scottish Parliament. This will include the Crown Estate’s seabed, urban assets, rural estates, mineral and fishing rights, and the Scottish foreshore for which it is responsible.”
We have heard a lot today about the nonsense of connecting payments of the Crown Estate and the royal grant, so I will not go into that. I think it is fair to say that unfortunately we will not be supporting the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg).
The amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray) has the look of a sensible proposal. Were it not for the Treasury’s approach to the transfer scheme, it might have been worthy of support. However, when put together with the Treasury transfer scheme, it would have the effect of removing from Ministers the ability to exercise management functions, which would be logical and necessary.
The Bill, as it stands, fails to meet the promises of the Smith commission. New clause 57 would reduce the frankly unnecessary complexity of the current arrangements relating to the Crown Estate. By removing the reservation relating to the management of the Crown Estate, it would provide the Scottish Parliament with full legislative competence in relation to the management of the Crown Estate in or as regards Scotland. It would also transfer any functions of the Crown Estate Commissioners in relation to the rights to the continental shelf beyond the 200-mile limit adjacent to Scotland.
If the Government are truly committed to delivering on the promises of the Smith commission, much needs to be done to reduce the level of unnecessary complexity in the Bill. As drafted, it provides for restrictions on the Scottish Parliament’s ability to legislate and for retention of the Crown Estate Act 1961 powers. These carve-outs and powers of direction were not envisaged by the Smith commission. For example, the area of the continental shelf beyond the 200 nautical mile limit, where the Crown Estate has “spill over” responsibilities, is not covered by the proposals.
The Bill also excludes assets not wholly owned by the Crown Estate. The most striking example must be Fort Kinnaird shopping centre in Edinburgh. As I pointed out earlier, the Smith commission agreed that the Crown Estate’s economic assets in Scotland, and the revenue generated from them, would be transferred to the Scottish Parliament, and that specifically included urban assets. To be clear, that is economic assets and urban assets. Fort Kinnaird generates net revenue of up to £8.4 million a year—surely a significant urban asset—yet the Bill seeks to exclude it from transfer on the basis that for the Crown Estate it is not an asset. That is nonsense. The Crown Estate is in a 50:50 partnership with a company called Hercules. The seventh labour of Hercules was to capture the Cretan bull. In this particular piece of mythology that we are debating tonight, it is no Herculean feat to capture the bull contained in this exception. This is an asset. Therefore, to honour the Smith commission agreement, it must be included.
Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir David. I was incredibly surprised to hear during an earlier point of order that this is apparently an English and Welsh only Bill, so perhaps that is the first point the Secretary of State for England and Wales would like to clear up when he comes to the Dispatch Box. It is a great privilege to speak for the Opposition on day four of the Committee’s considerations. I will speak to amendment 52, which is the first in this group standing in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Wayne David), and to all the other amendments and new clauses that stand in our names.
The Labour party has tabled 34 amendments to this section of the Bill, and 81 amendments to the entire Bill so far. It is a shame that the Secretary of State, who has been derided for some of this in the Scottish media, has not accepted any of these amendments, although he says that he is looking at the sensible ones. Will he enlighten the Committee on which amendments those are and on his direction of travel? That would allow to us shape some of our thoughts on Report.
Alex Salmond
That is indeed a mighty number of amendments. I am looking at the lack of support that the hon. Gentleman is carrying on his Benches. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey) told us that he had organised the first strike in the House of Commons. From the look of the Labour and Tory Benches, that strike seems to be ongoing.
Ian Murray
Given the time limits that we have on this debate, I feel that we have just wasted 30 seconds through a rather unnecessary intervention by the right hon. Gentleman, but, as we always say, it is quality and not quantity when we are having these debates. [Interruption.] I find it strange that I have been on my feet for less than two minutes—I have barely got to the end of the first page of my speech, half of which has been amended—and the baying from SNP Members has already started. If they just sat and listened for a few moments, they might find that I actually agreed with them on some of these amendments. I would have carried on to the second page of my speech had not the right hon. Gentleman intervened on me at that point. [Interruption.] I feel that a bit of common courtesy might be called for in these important debates. In fact, we might get an awful lot further if we had a bit of common courtesy.
These parts of the Bill cover Scotland’s road and rail infrastructure, its Crown Estate territories, and controls over tribunals and equalities legislation. The Secretary of State and the UK Government must deliver on these proposals, and go further. However, it is also for the Scottish Government to explain what they want to do with these powers; to date, they have studiously avoided doing so. [Interruption.] We have heard a lot in today’s debate, but also in the other three debates—
Ian Murray
It does say here, because it is a speech, and that tends to be what happens. The right hon. Gentleman chunters from a sedentary position, “It says here”, but he was reading from his iPad earlier—with 3% of its battery left, as he told the Committee. If we are not supposed to read speeches in this place, I am not sure what we are supposed to do.
Ian Murray
I will give way to the right hon. Gentleman, but first I say this: he is wasting the time of the Committee in a time-limited debate that should finish at 8.37 pm, and we want to get on to some of the substantive issues.
Alex Salmond
I was reading from the iPad because I was quoting from the Scottish Government document, “Empowering Scotland’s Island Communities”, released last year, which says exactly what the Scottish Government intend to do with the revenue from the Crown Estate in relation to island and local communities. Having learned that, would the hon. Gentleman now care to withdraw his remark?
Ian Murray
The right hon. Gentleman asks me to withdraw my remark, but he asked to intervene before I made it, so he obviously wanted to intervene about something else. As they used to say on the radio, “What’s your point, caller?” [Interruption.] I can stand here and waste time until 8.37 pm if SNP Members want me to. I believe that many of them want to speak, but if they want to continue to waste time, that is entirely up to them. I can stand here all evening and then allow the Minister to speak shortly before we move on.
I believe that most of the clauses in this part of the Bill match the spirit and letter of the Smith agreement, but we wish to make sure that there is clarity, and to go slightly further. We have identified areas where the Bill can go further, primarily by placing more specific duties on the Scottish Parliament and Scottish Ministers, and also on the Secretary of State to deliver on these powers. Labour’s amendments would require the Scottish Parliament to work towards gender balance in the membership of the Scottish Parliament and on the boards of Scottish public authorities; require the Scottish Parliament to establish a process to end the system of employment tribunal fees in Scotland; devolve the enforcement of equalities legislation to the Scottish Parliament; and make sure that Scotland can, if it so wishes, implement a not-for-profit people’s railway.
We have already heard some debate about the Crown Estate, so I will canter through this part of my speech rather quickly to allow other Members to speak. Clause 31 transfers management of the Crown Estate’s Scottish assets and income to Scottish Ministers. That terminology is vital in terms of some of the questions we have for the Secretary of State. These assets account for about 3.9% of Crown Estate revenues. They include several rural estates; commercial property in Edinburgh; mineral and salmon fishing rights; approximately half of the coastal foreshore; and almost the entire seabed, including rights on the continental shelf. Crucially, the clause does not transfer rights over joint investments. As the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Drew Hendry) said, there has been considerable local press coverage about Fort Kinnaird in Edinburgh as it is not owned by the Crown Estate but is merely a joint investment. Why it is specifically excluded given that—the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right—even if it is just a 50% shareholding, it should be deemed to be an asset in terms of a being shareholding? It would be useful if the Secretary of State clarified that.
I largely agree with the clause as drafted, albeit with two small amendments. The first is the amendment tabled by the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael). I understand that the reason for the current wording of the clause is that the Treasury requires the legislative consent of Scottish Ministers before making such a scheme. However, once that consent has been given, as I assume it would be, the wording does not definitely require the formation of a scheme. Our amendment 52 would replace reference in line 36 to “Scottish Ministers” with “Scottish Parliament”. Ministers are transient, whereas the Scottish Parliament is permanent, and that should be recognised in all the clauses of this Bill.
The transfer of Crown Estate assets entails the transfer of staff and tenants to a new employer and landlord. It is vital that that transition is as smooth as possible to minimise unnecessary disruption and anxiety to workers and to tenants. I would welcome an assurance from the Government that every effort is being made to ensure that that will be the case. The right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve) and the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg) asked some legitimate questions that the Secretary of State should take on board and try to answer.
Finally on the Crown Estate, will the Secretary of State deal with the issue of the coastal communities fund? That is not directly funded by the Crown Estate but by the Treasury as part of the revenues of the Crown Estate. Will that situation continue or will the responsibility transfer to the Scottish Government? The fund is hugely important for Scottish coastal communities, and it is important to get clarity on its continuation, whether paid for by the Treasury or by the Scottish Government.
We will support amendment 57, in the name of the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland, as we believe in the concept of double devolution to get powers into the hands of the communities best placed to use them effectively. I agree with what the right hon. Member for Gordon (Alex Salmond) said about coastal communities. I recognise, however, that the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland is using this as a probing amendment to make sure that the issue can be on the agenda. He is right that it does not have to be included in the Bill, but I am glad that it has been raised.
Clause 32 devolves powers over equal opportunities bodies to the Scottish Parliament. The Labour party has always been a staunch proponent of women’s rights and the promotion of female representation. As respected organisation Engender has observed, there is compelling evidence to suggest that lack of gendered power balance in the wider public domain has a major impact on equality of outcomes across Government Departments. I therefore welcome the transfer of these powers, which will add to the tools available to the Scottish Parliament to tackle gender inequality in all its guises. There are very few legislative opportunities to provide for meaningful advancement in these areas, so we should grab those opportunities when they arise. We have seen that voluntary quotas or non-statutory targets can go some way towards this but are not as effective as legislation.
Our amendment 123 would amend clause 32 to include a specific requirement for gender balance among Members of the Scottish Parliament and members of boards of Scottish public authorities. That would devolve the issue to the Scottish Parliament and allow for it to be debated and properly implemented there. The Scottish Parliament has achieved much to be proud of, but in this area we are lagging behind our European partners. We should also deal with the dreadful record on such issues in this place. In appealing for the Committee’s support on this, I reassert my belief that equality is not a party-political issue. I want us to work together on it. I thank the cross-party campaigning group Women 50:50 for their support for the amendment and their “It’s as easy as 123” campaign. I hope that Members will also support new clause 41, which would require Scottish Ministers to undertake and publish a review of the measures they are taking further to help and promote gender equality in the membership of the Scottish Parliament and on the boards of Scottish public authorities.
New clause 66, tabled by the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) and new clause 56, tabled by the hon. Member for Southport (John Pugh), propose the devolution of abortion law and other connected laws, with regard to the relevant section of the Scotland Act 1998, to the Scottish Parliament. We will vote against the new clauses if they are pressed to a vote because we believe that a woman’s right to choose should be determined by robust medical evidence and not by where they live.
There is no reason why women in Edinburgh should face a different experience from women in Exeter. Many would argue that the current system needs to be improved, but that would be best achieved in a UK framework and should be part of a debate separate from that on the constitution.
Chris Stephens
I will come back to that point.
Our approach is evidence-based. The 30 detailed recommendations of the “Working Together” report are a strong foundation to build on if we have more powers, and I commend that report to the Committee. We also support the devolution of trade union laws to maintain the largely stable and productive industrial relations in Scotland, underpinned by the long-standing strategic partnership between the Scottish Government and the Scottish Trades Union Congress.
Alex Salmond
My hon. Friend will be familiar with the Scottish Government’s action to reverse the House of Lords ruling on pleural plaques. If the Scottish Government had not had the power to do that, in the case of a significant condition that was being wrongfully put outwith the scope of industrial compensation, many people in Scotland would be in an extremely disadvantaged position—people who had suffered worry for years. Is not that an example of why these powers should be devolved?
Chris Stephens
I agree with my right hon. Friend, and he signed two memorandums of understanding with the STUC on improving workers’ rights in Scotland.
The devolution of trade union laws would also allow us to block the proposed assaults on workers’ rights, such as current plans to restrict the right to take industrial action. We seek protection for working people from a Government that are charging down an ideological cul-de-sac with an anti-trade union agenda based on a historical prejudice and a casual approach to legislation that borders on incoherence. The question for the Committee is whether Scotland can take a different approach based on the needs of Scotland.
New clause 48 would devolve the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974. That would enable the Scottish Parliament to take responsibility for all aspects of workplace health and safety legislation, regulation and enforcement. The Smith commission did not recommend the devolution of health and safety law, but it did recommend a review of
“the functions and operations of the Health and Safety Executive in Scotland and…how the future requirements to best serve the people of Scotland could be delivered operationally whilst remaining within a reserved health and safety legislative framework”.
In other words, a bit of a waffle, served up with fudge.
We consider that the Scotland Bill would benefit from being strengthened by devolving workplace health and safety legislation and regulation to the Scottish Parliament. In evidence to the Scottish Parliament Devolution (Further Powers) Committee, Dave Moxham, general secretary of the STUC, said that
“the trade union movement in Scotland is looking extremely closely and with a not uncritical eye at the potential to devolve a range of powers relating to what we categorise as workplace protections, including employment law, the minimum wage and health and safety, that in our view fit the committee’s prescription for improving the quality of work and wages and reducing the benefits bill.”
While we recognise the value of being able to deliver a distinctively Scottish approach, our amendment would make provision for the UK-wide Health and Safety Executive to continue to deliver health and safety regulation in Scotland as a cross-border public authority. That would ensure continued enforcement in the short term while allowing the Scottish Parliament to develop an alternative approach in the future. Making the Scottish Parliament responsible for workplace health and safety in Scotland would ensure that regulation is informed by evidence and the needs of Scottish workers and businesses. While providing for the continued role of the Health and Safety Executive in the short term, Holyrood would be able to consider ways to improve health and safety law in Scotland.
Further devolution would also allow for greater coherence across regulatory bodies, with some areas such as fire and environmental protection already devolved. In particular, the tensions across the devolved regulatory duties of local government, such as food safety, and the reserved ones, such as health and safety, could be addressed.
In areas where there are strong cross-border interests and specialist requirements, such as offshore oil and gas, there would be mechanisms to ensure the Scottish and UK regimes complement each other. Devolving health and safety law would thus empower the Scottish Parliament to consider potential improvements to the regime, while being mindful of cross-border needs and sensitivities. The Unison Scotland submission to Smith accurately pointed out that devolution of powers over health and safety could improve Scotland’s poor record in health and safety at work.
Scotland Bill
Alex Salmond Excerpts(9 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir Edward Leigh
That is a very fair point. I agree that that is a matter for debate. I have already made the point that Scotland’s situation is very different from that of Greece. I am actually suggesting that we remain a United Kingdom, with a sharing of the national debt. Nothing is more debilitating in this whole debate than saying, “That bit of the national debt is yours, or this bit is mine.” We are back to the same dreary arguments about who is responsible for spending and when. My hon. Friend makes a serious point. If we achieve full fiscal autonomy, which I believe is inevitable—whether it happens now or in five years time, it will happen—the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government will have to act responsibly and live within their means. I have confidence that they will do so.
Alex Salmond (Gordon) (SNP)
I can feel the sap rising at various points in the hon. Gentleman’s speech. When he said that Scotland is where Ireland was in the early years of the last century, I felt obliged to check the record, because last week he said we were
“where Ireland was in the 1880s.”—[Official Report, 8 June 2015; Vol. 596, c. 965.]
We seem to have advanced 20 years in a week. Does that mean that in a week’s time, we will be where Ireland was in the 1920s?
Sir Edward Leigh
That is an amusing point, but the right hon. Gentleman knows exactly what I am trying to say. This is a very serious point; it is not just a debating point. We have a responsibility to learn from history. What I was saying last week, and what I believe, is that we were wrong to abolish the Irish Parliament, wrong to delay granting Catholic emancipation, wrong not to listen to Gladstone in the 1880s, and wrong not to implement full home rule at the outset of the great war. We were wrong, wrong, wrong and wrong again. We need to have an element of statesmanship and vision in these affairs. The right hon. Gentleman, with all his debating skills, can laugh at what I say, but I assure him that I genuinely believe in what I am trying to do.
Scotland Bill
Alex Salmond Excerpts(9 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Scotland (David Mundell)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
May I begin by offering my warmest congratulations to all new MPs from Scotland on winning their seats? This Government respect the results from Scotland in the general election, just as we respect the result of the referendum last year. As the Prime Minister said, this is a one-nation Government. That is why one of our chief priorities is to bring the four nations of our United Kingdom together. The Bill is an important part of a package of measures that we believe does just that. If the House agrees to give the Bill a Second Reading it will be subject to four days of line-by-line scrutiny on the Floor of the House. I am happy to have my feet held to the fire, and for the Bill to receive full scrutiny, because I am confident that it delivers the Smith commission recommendations in full, but that does not mean that we will not listen carefully to contributions as it is debated.
David Mundell
Let me progress a little.
Let us not allow bluff and bluster to obscure the fact that there is already substantial agreement on the most significant aspects of the Bill. The UK and Scottish Governments agree on the devolution of income tax, representing £11 billion in revenue, and on the principle, if not yet the detail, of devolving £2.5 billion in welfare.
Alex Salmond
Has the Secretary of State seen today’s edition of the Daily Record, in which there is an excellent eight-page supplement? The paper, after all, offered the vow, and more than any other newspaper, was influential in securing a no vote in the referendum. In its editorial today, the Daily Record describes the Bill as “unacceptable” for not implementing the promises of the Smith commission. Why does the Secretary of State believe that the Daily Record describes his Bill as unacceptable and accuses him of reneging on the Smith commission’s recommendations?
David Mundell
I am afraid that that is the right hon. Gentleman’s interpretation. There is an excellent piece, which I commend to him, by Professor Adam Tomkins, in that very edition, in which he sets out the argument that the Bill clearly meets the Smith commission recommendations.
David Mundell
Let me continue. We are going to debate the Bill in full. We are going to scrutinise, over four days, every line and every clause. I am satisfied that the editor and readers of the Daily Record will be confident that the Bill meets the Smith commission recommendations in full when we complete that process. [Interruption.] No, we have dealt with that issue. [Interruption.]
David Mundell
I have made it clear, and the hon. Lady is aware, that significant changes have been made to the draft clauses, which were published ahead of the Scottish Parliament committee considering them. I have told the House that we look forward to seeing amendments and proposals. Yesterday the Scottish Government produced some draft clauses, which we most certainly will look at as part of our ongoing discussions with them. If the hon. Lady and others feel that the Smith commission is not met in full by the exact terms of the Bill, there will be plenty of opportunities for debate and discussion in this House. As I have said, there will be four days of line-by-line scrutiny of the Bill.
David Mundell
I have a quote from the current First Minister, so perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will wait until I have reminded him that last week she said that
“compromise isn’t…the same as concession.”
Compromise was made by all parties in respect of delivering the Smith agreement. This Bill is not about reopening those issues.
Alex Salmond
I know that the Secretary of State would never knowingly mislead the House, but earlier he said that the Daily Record was behind him in saying that the Bill implemented the proposals of the Smith commission. I have had an opportunity to consult today’s editorial, which says that
“there are serious concerns the proposed Scotland Bill does not fully implement what was proposed…This is an unacceptable situation that must be rectified quickly as the Bill makes its way through Westminster.”
Does the Secretary of State hold to his previous statement, or does he accept the concerns that he has not implemented what Smith proposed?
David Mundell
I do not think the right hon. Gentleman listened to my response, because I made it very clear that I felt that, after today’s debate and four days of detailed scrutiny of the Bill in Parliament, the Daily Record, its readers and, indeed, the people of Scotland will be satisfied that it meets the full recommendations of the Smith commission.
The coalition Government committed to bringing forward draft clauses to implement the Smith commission agreement by Burns night 2015: they did so on 22 January —another commitment met in full and on time. When the Prime Minister went to Edinburgh on that day in January, he gave assurances that he would listen to the views on those draft causes and, as I have set out to a number of Members, we have done so. Since January, the Government have engaged extensively with interested parties in Scotland. Hundreds of people have attended events, from the north-east to the borders, giving their views on the clauses and how they could be refined further.
Of course, work remains to be done during our deliberations on the Bill and we will listen to proposals. The Smith commission recommended, for example, that the Scottish Government should be able to create new benefits in areas of devolved responsibility. We are working closely with the Scottish Government to examine whether new powers, if any, are required to implement that recommendation.
I am proud that the Bill has already benefited from significant input from people and groups across Scotland. This Government will continue to listen to views from all parts of Scotland and from those in all parts of the Chamber as we take forward the Bill and refine its provisions to ensure that the spirit of Smith can be met in full.
David Mundell
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. As ever, I have been working very closely with the Scottish Government. I am looking forward to speaking tomorrow with Alex Neil, the Cabinet Secretary responsible for welfare matters, and to taking forward the work of the joint ministerial welfare group. I have made it clear, in relation to that group, that we want to put in place transition arrangements to allow the powers to be transferred as quickly as possible. However, we need to know what we are transitioning to and so need clarity on the Scottish Government’s position in relation to the operation of those powers.
Alex Salmond
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. There is a rumour sweeping the Benches that Conservative Members have been provided with a prompt sheet on questions to ask the Minister. If such a disgraceful thing had happened, would that be within the rules of the House?
Ian Murray
I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s intervention, because one key question for the Treasury Minister wrapping up today’s debate will be: if the Government legislate for not increasing VAT, national insurance or income tax, what are they going to increase to cover the £23 billion of promises they made during the general election? I suppose the direct answer to my hon. Friend’s question is to say that that is the way devolution works and it is up to the different legislators to decide what they wish to do. This Bill allows Scotland a settlement where the responsibility and the accountability goes straight to the heart of politics in Scotland.
I was saying that as this Bill makes its passage through the House, Labour will ensure that legislation promises are fully met both in substance and in spirit. The original purpose of devolution was to keep the social solidarity that comes from being part of something bigger while recognising the uniqueness of Scotland’s role in the United Kingdom. But we in the Labour party want to go further. We have been calling for more powers for some time and included most of them in our manifesto, so this is not a knee-jerk response to the general election result as some would say, but a continuation of the devolution commitment.
Alex Salmond
I have been listening carefully to the hon. Gentleman, and he is not saying anything that was not said by Labour during the general election campaign. In many other areas, the Labour party is undergoing fundamental reassessment of policy. Having lost 40 out of 41 seats in Scotland, is there any new policy with which the hon. Gentleman wants to enlighten this House and Scotland?
Ian Murray
If the right hon. Gentleman wishes me to make some progress, I will come on to those very issues. Let me remind him that the devolution settlement was agreed to by all five parties on the Smith commission. The Bill that is in front of us is to ensure that the Smith agreement is put forward in full, and we want to ensure that it is put forward in full both in spirit and in substance, as I have said twice already. [Interruption.] I hear someone chuntering, “It doesn’t” from a sedentary position. Well, we are going through this parliamentary process and will seek to amend the Bill precisely because we want to ensure that it does fulfil everything in the Smith agreement, but we also want to go further.
We will seek to amend the Bill to go beyond the Smith agreement without compromising on the pooling and sharing of resources across the UK that guarantees the Barnett formula and the UK pension system for Scots. On welfare, we will ensure that the final say on benefit levels remains in Scotland by giving the Scottish Parliament a wider power to top up all reserve benefits. We will ensure that the Scottish Parliament can introduce new benefits in devolved areas funded from Scotland to meet Scottish circumstances; bring employment and welfare policy together with a positive vision for tackling the low skills, numeracy and literacy problems that hold back adults trapped in long-term unemployment; fully devolve housing benefit; and ensure double devolution by devolving job creation powers to local communities, providing real opportunities, as my private Member’s Bill demonstrated at the tail end of the previous Parliament.
Mr Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State not only on his appointment as Secretary of State, but on surviving his election, with some glory to himself.
I commend the hon. Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray) for his performance at the Dispatch Box because he did the House a great service just now: he put the Scottish National party on the spot. Let SNP Members put down that amendment in favour of full fiscal autonomy. The hon. Gentleman may oppose it, but he may find quite a number of Conservative Members voting for it. It might go through. We know that the SNP is calling for what it does not really want because it would leave the Scottish Government with a deficit in their budget of at least half the health service spending in Scotland. We want less of that kind of dishonest politics in the House. I commend my new hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Heidi Allen), who called for more trust in this debate. That needs to come first from the SNP, whose whole purpose is not to trust but to promote distrust so that it can break up the Union.
I am bound to ask the Secretary of State whether this Bill is really “it” for the future of Scotland. Is this the full and final settlement that will stabilise the Union of the United Kingdom? I hae ma doots. I will certainly support the Bill, but it comes with a number of problems. It is based on the vow during the closing stages of the referendum. We read that vow on the front page of the Daily Record, which, I say to the right hon. Member for Gordon (Alex Salmond), hardly represents the fount of learning and wisdom from which we would expect him to learn. Would he commend The Sun in England, for example, as our Bible, any more than I would commend the Daily Record as his Bible? [Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman should not be provoked.
What did that vow mean? Interpreting that extraordinary vow has been part of the difficulties of the Smith commission.
Mr Jenkin
I will give way in a moment.
We already have a devolution settlement that is pretty opaque, and this Bill will make it yet more opaque, more difficult to hold to account, and more difficult to explain to voters who does what. On the question of spending, the situation is now perverse. We have SNP Members, who do not think that they should be in this House because they want a separate country, seeking to use the funding mechanism—the outdated Barnett formula—as a pretext for interfering in decisions that should now be wholly determined by MPs representing English constituencies.
Alex Salmond
I have done that many times. On the subject of the Daily Record, the Prime Minister seemed very happy to use it last September, so is it not quite reasonable to quote what it is saying today? Also, if I remember correctly, the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin) once stood for election in Scotland. Will he remind the House how he got on?
Mr Jenkin
I beat the SNP candidate into fourth place—[Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”]—and Tommy Sheridan into fifth place. At least I stood in a Scottish general election, unlike the current SNP leader. She seemed to take part in the general election as if she were a candidate, even though she was not; it was a rather odd way of conducting a general election campaign. I noticed that the right hon. Gentleman did not call for full fiscal autonomy. He is now in retreat from that demand, because he knows that it is not what he wants.
Alex Salmond
The acoustics of the House must require attention. I did, I do and I will continue to call for full fiscal responsibility. With regard to the First Minister, is it not remarkable that she emerged as the unanswered star of the general election campaign without contesting a seat?
Mr Jenkin
I hope that the House noted that the right hon. Gentleman has retreated from full fiscal autonomy to full fiscal responsibility. People do not like politicians playing with words, which is exactly what he is doing. The fact is that he does not want full fiscal autonomy because he knows that it would result in dramatic cuts to public spending in Scotland.
On the question of taxation, the hon. Member for Edinburgh South ought to reflect on the fact that one of the problems identified by his hon. Friend the Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies) is that Scotland would be setting tax rates and having effects that English voters do not have for their own tax rates, which is exactly the same argument that we made against the Scotland Bill in 1997-98. He might reflect on how we have got into that situation. [Interruption.] Oh yes, because the Scotland Act 1998 allowed the Scots a 3% variation in income tax. They never used it, but it set up the very anomaly that the hon. Member for Swansea West complained about.
David Mowat
I recognise that a needs-based assessment —that is, an assessment that will result in public money being spent where it is most needed—is fairer. However, I am not saying that it should be introduced immediately, as it would be with full fiscal autonomy, and as it would have been had the hon. Gentleman’s party won the referendum. Such things can be done over a period of, say, 10 or 20 years. There can be a target for the achievement of fairness.
As I was saying, no one questions the right of the Scottish Government to provide free prescriptions and free tuition—if that is their priority—and to make different arrangements for social care. However, if such provision is predicated on a baseline of funding that is unfair and wrong, it is reasonable for us to question it, and not to let the Scottish Government get away with saying that they can take such action because it is progressive. That is neither fair nor right.
We are talking about a formula that is based on need, and a formula that the late Joel Barnett was desperate to get rid of. A House of Lords Select Committee made the position very clear. Moreover—this is not mentioned often enough—the Holtham commission identified the serious underfunding of Wales as a consequence of the Barnett formula. That problem will have to be addressed in Scotland. It is true that public spending must reflect sparsity, and must reflect the fact that Scotland’s population is more spread out. However, it also needs to reflect relative ageing and relative measures of deprivation.
Alex Salmond
The hon. Gentleman is making an interesting speech, but at its heart is something of a contradiction. He says that we must implement the vow, but scrap the Barnett formula. Is he aware that the Barnett formula features in paragraph 6 of the vow?
David Mowat
Yes, I am completely aware of that. My point is that the whole settlement will be at risk if it is not perceived as being fair in, for want of a better phrase, “middle England.” I represent a constituency that is in the north but also in the middle, depending on where you start.
Kate Green
We can see very clearly the importance of precision and of nailing down exactly what is intended in the wording of legislation and agreements. The Northern Ireland example is instructive of what can go wrong.
The Secretary of State gave us an assurance this afternoon about the process of consultation and resolution, but I hope that there is transparency in the way in which decisions are taken, negotiations are conducted and conclusions are reached. We must be clear about how decisions are taken, and we must be able to scrutinise that process. It will also be important to understand timescales and milestones for such decisions to take place. As I said to the Secretary of State, there needs to be clarity over how disputes between the two Governments are resolved. That is not clear to me despite the assurances that he gave us this afternoon. It is a matter that we need to firm up in Committee.
Alex Salmond
The hon. Lady made an excellent point very early on in her debate over who adjudicates in a dispute. The answer at the moment is that if there is a financial dispute with the Treasury and the devolved Parliament, the Treasury adjudicates. If it is the Joint Ministerial Committee, the Prime Minister does it. Unless it is specified in this Bill, yet again it will be the Prime Minister and his Government who will act as judge and jury in their own court.
Kate Green
The right hon. Gentleman and I might be able to agree that that would not be in the spirit of the discussions that we have had around the purpose of this Bill, which is to create the freedom for Scotland to operate within its devolved powers and to do so within the context of, and as an equal partner in, its relationships with the UK Government.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr David Gauke)
It is a great pleasure to conclude today’s debate—a very good debate with a large number of contributions. We heard a large number of maiden speeches, all consistently of a very good standard.
Let me begin by saying a few words about those speeches. My hon. Friend the Member for South Leicestershire (Alberto Costa) delivered a fluent and thoughtful speech in which he covered the whole of his constituency. I think he mentioned every village—I hope so. He certainly mentioned a very large number, and if one was missed off I am sure that someone will notice.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Antoinette Sandbach) on an excellent speech in which she spoke passionately about childcare, the dairy industry, and, indeed, devolution. She mentioned that she did not have an entirely successful introduction to being a Member of Parliament in terms of the tug-of-war competition, but she had a very successful maiden speech, and I congratulate her on it.
I also congratulate the SNP Members who delivered their maiden speeches today. They may, at one level, not want to be part of this House, but they certainly made very good contributions to this House today. The hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Margaret Ferrier) delivered a passionate speech, which embodied her point that we in this House should respect one another. The hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson) told a moving family story. She also spoke passionately and will clearly be a strong defender of her constituents. The hon. Member for Aberdeen South (Callum McCaig) delivered a fluent and articulate speech, as did the hon. Member for Livingston (Hannah Bardell); I suspect that both of them will have significant roles to play in their party in the years ahead.
The hon. Member for East Renfrewshire (Kirsten Oswald) delivered a strong and passionate speech, on which I congratulate her. The hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Douglas Chapman) made an engaging speech, winning over the House with his remarks, particularly his well-made comments about the Westminster staff and the support that they provide to new MPs.
I turn now to the Labour Benches. I congratulate the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Vicky Foxcroft) on her speech. She spoke about her background in drama and performing arts; she certainly delivered a fine performance today. She did not quite burst into song with “The Red Flag”, but she recited it. Personally, I am not sure that that is the right direction for her party to be taking, but who am I to say? The hon. Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner), after much determination to arrive in this place, delivered a thoughtful speech, mentioning the success of the innovative companies in his constituency. He also discussed devolution within Cambridge, and he will be aware of the measures that the Government are taking on that.
The hon. Member for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris) delivered an excellent speech, demonstrating a great knowledge and love of her constituency that was much appreciated. The hon. Member for Bristol South (Karin Smyth) delivered an excellent speech as a successor to Dawn Primarolo; as someone who has been a tax Minister for a number of years, I too know what it is like to follow in her distinguished footsteps. The hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Jeff Smith) delivered a witty and engaging speech. He mentioned “Mr Smith Goes to Washington”; his was a “Mr Smith goes to Westminster” speech. As someone who also knows and loves that film, I hope that he does not engage in filibustering in quite the same way as James Stewart’s character in that film.
The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Ruth Smeeth) delivered a passionate speech, making the case with great sincerity that her constituency is the most beautiful seat in the country. I am not quite sure that she brought the House with her on that point, but she had a pretty good stab at it. An easier case, if I may say so, was made by the hon. Member for Workington (Sue Hayman), who delivered an excellent speech highlighting some of the most beautiful scenery in the nation. All those speeches were excellent starts to parliamentary careers.
I also mention my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare), who delivered his second speech, although he sounded like a parliamentary veteran; it was a fluent speech. Indeed, given that it was his second speech, he was one of the more senior Members speaking in this debate. A similar point could be made about the hon. Member for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds), who also spoke extremely well.
This has been an excellent debate about an important matter. At times, there has been a strong sense of consent and a constructive approach, which I certainly welcome. To echo the comments made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland when he opened this debate, I thank the members of the Smith commission, particularly Lord Smith, for helping us to take devolution in Scotland to the next stage after the referendum. Their hard work secured a consensus among all five parties, of which all participants can be proud. Implementing the Smith commission agreement will make the Scottish Parliament one of the most devolved in the world. The Scotland Bill represents the formal step by which we will make that transformation happen in full.
Alex Salmond
The Minister will know that a lot of this debate is centred on what a dispute resolution and an adjudication would look like and in what circumstances consent could be reasonably or unreasonably withheld. He has been a Treasury Minister for five years. Can he point to a single occasion when a dispute between the Treasury and a devolved Administration—there have been many such disputes—has been resolved in favour of the devolved Administration by the Treasury?
Mr Gauke
The reality, as the right hon. Gentleman knows very well, is that there has been a spirit of working constructively from the Government across the piece. On the particular issue of welfare, concerns have been raised about what the SNP describes as a veto. Put simply, it is not a veto. The position is that there are clauses whereby, for practical reasons, the Secretary of State needs to give consent to ensure that something is practical. That consent cannot be unreasonably withheld, and if something is unreasonably withheld the courts can declare that it has been unreasonably withheld.