Scotland Bill

Angus Robertson Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd March 2016 Commons Chamber

It may not feel like it, but this is a historic day for Scotland that will fundamentally change its social and political landscape. All we have to do now is make use of these substantial powers. We take up that challenge. It is now up to others to do the same.

[Angus Robertson (Moray) (SNP)]

I am delighted to follow the hon. Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray). It is a calumny that he has been described as negative. He spent much of his time at the Dispatch Box trying to be positive about the Scotland Bill. Parts of his speech were positive and we welcome that, and we also welcome the Secretary of State’s positive comments.

The Scotland Bill is an important step in extending the responsibilities of the Scottish Parliament and in Scotland’s journey towards greater self-government. That journey has quickened in pace since the Scottish National party was first returned to power in 2007. The Bill follows progress including the Scotland Act 2012, the independence referendum and the Smith commission itself. As Deputy First Minister John Swinney has said, the Bill delivers additional powers that can benefit the people of Scotland, including extended powers over tax, new powers over welfare, and responsibilities for the Crown Estate, tribunals and the licensing of onshore oil and gas activity.

The agreement on a fiscal framework published on 25 February increases the Scottish Parliament’s financial responsibility, is consistent with the Smith principles of no detriment, and is fair to the people of Scotland. As the Bill, including the amendments under discussion, provides useful powers and has moved towards delivering more of the recommendations made by the Smith commission reports, and as the agreement on the fiscal framework would be a fair basis for future funding consistent with the principles agreed by the Smith commission, the Scottish Government recommended that the Scottish Parliament should consent to the Bill. On 11 March 2016, the Devolution (Further Powers) Committee published its report on the Scotland Bill and the fiscal framework. Although it makes recommendations on specific policy areas, its overall conclusion is that the Scottish Parliament should consent to the Bill. That is what is before us. On 16 March, the Scottish Parliament consented to the legislative consent motion for the Bill.

The SNP has, of course, governed in Scotland for nine years, and every indication is that the people of Scotland have been delighted with the governance of Scotland under the SNP. I join the Labour party spokesman in paying tribute, as I did earlier today, to every outgoing Member of the Scottish Parliament—not least my right hon. Friend the Member for Gordon (Alex Salmond)—of all political parties, who have worked hard to achieve the best governance that decision-making closer to home can bring.

The outgoing Scottish Government have already acted with pace and creativity, in consultation with others, to be ready to use the limited powers—there are, of course, limits on the powers that are being devolved. That includes introducing a social security Bill within the first year of the new Scottish Parliament, to support the transfer and administration of Scotland’s new, devolved social security benefits. It also includes enhancing opportunities for employment and inclusive economic growth by improving support for people to move into employment through reform of the Work programme and linking employment programmes with training and education.

The outgoing Scottish Government have also committed to abolishing fees for employment tribunals, to reduce the burden of air passenger duty by 50%, and to promote equalities by taking early action on gender balance on public boards. They have also set out longer-term intentions for further income powers, are committed to a progressive taxation policy and have applied that to the decision on existing tax powers. Commencement of most of the new powers will take place in 2016, but new arrangements for the use of major new powers on matters including tax and welfare will not be in place before April 2017 following scrutiny of the proposals by the Scottish Parliament.

On 11 March 2016, the Scottish Parliament’s Devolution (Further Powers) Committee published its final report and gave its unanimous recommendation that legislative consent be given to the Scotland Bill. That was described as

“a significant milestone in a remarkable political process”

by Committee convener Bruce Crawford MSP. I pay tribute to him and his colleagues on the Committee, as I do to my hon. Friend the Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart), the Chair of the Scottish Affairs Committee, for their work. Although the Scotland Bill and the Smith commission could have delivered more effective and coherent powers to the Scottish Parliament, the Bill provides useful additional powers in important areas such as taxation and social security.

The UK Government amended the Bill to reflect some of the comments of the Scottish Government, the Scottish Parliament and its Committees. With an agreed fiscal framework that increases the Scottish Parliament’s responsibility and protects the Barnett formula, the Scottish Government recommended that the Scottish Parliament consent to the Scotland Bill. The final report of the Devolution (Further Powers) Committee also had some important things to say:

“There are still some areas where we feel that the Scotland Bill continues to fall short of the spirit and substance of Smith…Nevertheless, the Bill has been improved during its passage through our detailed scrutiny and we welcome the fact that the Secretary of State for Scotland has been prepared to listen to the evidence we have presented and improve the Bill in other areas…in our view, on the basis of the information provided to date by both governments, we are prepared to endorse the fiscal framework underpinning the powers to be devolved to Scotland as part of this Bill. Therefore, on balance, we recommend that the Scottish Parliament gives its legislative consent to the Scotland Bill.”

UK Government amendments that implement more of the Smith report, including the permanence of the Scottish Parliament, are welcome. However, it needs to be said that the Scotland Bill continues to fall short of the spirit and the substance of Smith in some areas, including the devolution of employment programmes and the future operation of the legislative consent provision. It is important to understand that the UK Government can still effectively veto the exercise of devolved powers over universal credit by inserting their own date for the changes to commence. The social security provisions on discretionary payments and assistance are still subject to restrictions, notably for those who are under sanctions. The Smith report was clear that the Scottish Parliament should have complete autonomy over devolved benefits. The Scotland Bill is many things, but it is not federalism or near-federalism. Anybody who understands the powers of the German or Austrian Länder knows that to be true. It is an improvement, and it is progress.

We in the SNP thank all in the Scottish Government who have been involved, especially John Swinney. We also thank those on the UK Government side, even though—this is an important rider—I see that there is a Minister from the Treasury on the Treasury Bench, and we all know that the Treasury wanted a fiscal framework that would have made Scotland worse off by £7 billion. Thank goodness for the efforts of John Swinney and colleagues in the Scottish Government. I would like to take the opportunity to thank my SNP MP colleagues, who have worked so hard on the Bill throughout the parliamentary process. In fairness, it is also right to place on record the fact that Members in the other place spent a lot of time on the Bill.

Most importantly, I thank all those in Scotland who have believed in more powers. They did not draw lines in the sand or say, “This far, and no further”, as others have done, even in the recent past. Thanks to all those yes voters and all those SNP voters, Westminster has had to take note. This is just the latest stage on Scotland’s journey, and there will be many more. We agree with the amendments, and we wish the Bill to proceed. That is exactly what will happen today.

[David Mundell]

I will not detain the House for long, but I want to respond briefly to some of the points that have been made.

I add my best wishes to all Members of the Scottish Parliament who are leaving at this election, particularly my colleagues and others who were elected to the Scottish Parliament alongside me back in 1999. A number of people who have served in Parliament throughout that period are leaving, and others who are standing in the election will be leaving, although not necessarily of their own accord. We should wish them well.

Scotland’s Fiscal Framework

Angus Robertson Excerpts

Wednesday 24th February 2016 Commons Chamber

[David Mundell]

I am very happy to give my right hon. and learned Friend the assurance he seeks. The Scottish fiscal framework will be consistent with the UK fiscal framework.

[Angus Robertson (Moray) (SNP)]

May I begin by thanking the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement and indeed for the conversations he had yesterday, given the constraints of parliamentary time and being able to make a statement only today? We appreciate his having done so.

I speak on behalf of all Scottish National party Members in welcoming the agreement on the fiscal framework, and we all look forward to the draft heads of agreement being published for parliamentary scrutiny in this place and in the Scottish Parliament later this week. My SNP colleagues in the Scottish Government were clear throughout these protracted negotiations that they would not sign a deal that included a threat to the Scottish budget. Members on the SNP Benches here, too, pursued the UK Government’s commitment to the principle of “no detriment”, a promise made during the Smith commission negotiations and a promise that the SNP has ensured has been delivered.

When negotiations began, Scotland’s budget faced a threat from the Treasury of a cut of £7 billion. This week, it was £3 billion, and yesterday morning it was £2.5 billion, but last night my colleagues in the Scottish Government secured a deal that will ensure that Scotland will not be a pound or even a penny worse off, and that the new powers that were promised will be delivered. I pay tribute to the First Minister, Nicola Sturgeon, and the Deputy First Minister, John Swinney, for their efforts to stand up for Scotland and for being stronger for Scotland.

I welcome the fact that the UK Government will guarantee that the outcome of the Scottish Government’s preferred funding model—the per capita indexed deduction—is delivered in each of the next six years. I understand that a transitional funding arrangement will be reviewed following the UK and Scottish parliamentary elections in 2020 and 2021 respectively. The review will be informed by an independent report, with recommendations presented to both Governments by the end of 2021. In that context, let me say this: the Smith report was crystal clear that the fiscal framework had to be agreed by both the UK and Scottish Governments. The Treasury tried to engineer an agreement that would have allowed it to impose a model of indexation in five years’ time—those are the facts of the matter. That would have seen billions cut from Scotland’s budget. Let me therefore ask the Secretary of State the following questions: will he confirm that the Treasury no longer has the power to impose a method of indexation? Will he confirm that the review will go ahead without prejudice to the outcome? And will he confirm that there is no default indexation option and that the Scottish Government’s agreement is required before any new indexation model can be adopted?

[David Mundell]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for welcoming the parts of the agreement that he did. This has been a negotiation, and this is the point arrived at in the agreement; it is not possible for the Treasury or the UK Government to have engineered an agreement, as what was needed was the agreement of the Scottish Government, and that is what has been achieved. The two parties have been able to reach an agreement on a fiscal framework that is both fair to Scotland and fair to the people of Scotland.

I can reassure the right hon. Gentleman that the review will go ahead on an independent basis, without prejudice or a predetermined outcome, and it will be concluded by the end of 2021. There will be no imposition of any formula at the end of that period, and what happens will be by way of agreement. As I said in my previous comments, when I quoted what Lord Smith said, I believe that this process, through some of the most difficult types of negotiation, gives us confidence that in a maturing relationship the UK Government and the Scottish Government will be able to reach such an agreement.

Scotland Bill

Angus Robertson Excerpts

Monday 9th November 2015 Commons Chamber

[Sir Edward Leigh]

I do not want to get into a debate about a black hole, the deficit and all the rest of it. I remember that I was intervened on by the hon. Member for East Lothian (George Kerevan) and I accepted that there should be transitional arrangements. I made the point that this was not a right-wing Tory trap for the SNP. This was not a device to get rid of Barnett because we were claiming that the Scottish people get £1,600 a year more. I said precisely that if there was full fiscal autonomy and we got rid of Barnett, we should retain the United Kingdom and there should be a grant formula based on need.

If, for instance, Scotland had a particular problem, as we have in Lincolnshire with the sparsity factor in relation to education provision, or with declining industries, we are a United Kingdom Parliament. We are a fraternal Parliament. I believe in the Union, I believe in our standing together. If there is a need for the United Kingdom—I called it the imperial Parliament, as it were—to help out our friends in Wales—[Interruption.] SNP Members do not like that word, but I used it advisedly. That was the term that was used during the debates on Irish home rule. It is a technical term. If our friends in Northern Ireland, Wales or Scotland need extra help from the United Kingdom Parliament, we should give that help, but it should be based on needs, not on an automatic formula based on Barnett, which is an outmoded concept that has outlived its usefulness. It is also, as I have said, very dangerous in the context of the debate on English votes for English laws.

I am sorry to take the Labour party to task, because I respect the shadow Secretary of State. Labour is making some progress, but it is still behind the curve and I do not believe it will ever get back in front of the curve in Scotland unless it is bold. I repeat the point I made back in June: whether we like it or not, we have the election system that we have. We, the Unionist parties, went to the Scottish people. We based our arguments on the Smith commission, and we lost 56 of the 59 seats in Scotland.

The hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen) can complain about that, but that is the parliamentary system we have. We have to accept that, whether we like it or not, the Smith commission was rejected by the Scottish people. If we want to save the Union—and I am as passionate about the Union as the hon. Gentleman —we cannot be behind the curve on this. We have to be big-hearted, we have to be bold, and we have to move with full fiscal autonomy and move with it now.

[Angus Robertson (Moray) (SNP)]

I rise to speak to the amendments tabled in my name and those of my right hon. and hon. Friends in proceedings which, thus far, most viewers in Scotland will frankly view as a total travesty and a farce. We are told that this is a piece of legislation of amazing proportions and importance, yet there are fewer than 10 Back Benchers on the Conservative Benches and fewer than 10 Members of Parliament on the Labour Benches. What does it say about the Unionist parties in this House that they cannot even be bothered to turn up for a debate about something they think is so important? We are debating the Report stage of the Scotland Bill with 200 or more amendments and new clauses before us—200!—yet we have heard extended speeches about English local government and a whole series of other things that have absolutely nothing to do with today’s proceedings.

The context of these proceedings is clear to people listening and watching in Scotland. First, a promise—a vow—was made. Secondly, we heard day in, day out that devo-max would be delivered, even from Labour MPs of the time. The former Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, said that we were near to federalism:

“Within a year or two, as close to a federal state as…can be.”

One can call this Bill many things, but it is not a charter for federalism—it is a long, long way from that. We all know about its shortcomings; they have been denied by the Government, but they are clear to pretty much anybody else who cares to look. We know because others who are not in political parties, and do not have a vested interest, have said so, including the Scottish Trades Union Congress, the Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations, Carers Scotland, Enable Scotland, and—how about this—the cross-party committee of the Scottish Parliament, on which senior Conservative and Labour MSPs served, that had the obligation to look at this. It said that the Scotland Bill “falls short” in some “critical areas”, and that it does not meet the “spirit or substance” of the Smith commission’s recommendations and requires extensive redrafting in other key areas.

What about those who do have a political vested interest? How about—let us pick one—the deputy leader of the Labour party in Scotland, Mr Alex Rowley? He said on BBC Radio Scotland on 18 September 2015:

“No ifs, no buts, Smith has not been delivered”

and

“We will stand shoulder to shoulder with SNP Ministers to deliver Smith.”

How ironic. Where were those voices today—where were the speeches? Perhaps we can hear them later. We have not heard a single one that reflects those realities.

We should not lose sight of the fact that the Smith commission followed the referendum. As I have said in previous debates in this House, we recognise and respect the result of the referendum, and we proceeded to work with the other political parties in the Smith commission. We then went to the country in a general election, and, like other political parties, we stood on a manifesto. The manifesto said:

“We welcome the proposals set out in the Smith Commission, as far as they go. The further watering down of the agreed proposals, by the UK government, is unacceptable. There should be no effective veto for UK ministers on the exercise of the various new powers, in particular over the welfare system. We share the view of many organisations across Scotland that the package, as it stands, does not enable us to deliver fully either the greater social justice or the powerhouse economy that our country demands. As the STUC has said, ‘there is not enough’ in the Smith Commission recommendations ‘to empower the Scottish Parliament to tackle inequality in Scotland’… The Smith Commission proposals were, in many respects, a missed opportunity. Decisions about more than 70 per cent of Scottish taxes and 85 per cent of current UK welfare spending in Scotland will stay at Westminster.”

We also went to the country with the following pledge:

“Scotland should have the opportunity to establish its own constitutional framework, including human rights, equalities and the place of local government. The Scottish Parliament should also have the ability to directly represent its interests on devolved matters in the EU and internationally.”

--- Later in debate ---

[David Mundell]

Since the hon. Gentleman has put that on the record so many times, I want to point out that the Conservative party polled more votes in the 2015 general election than in 2010 election. He has sought to distort those figures. Perhaps he would like to join me in congratulating the new Conservative councillor in Aberdeenshire, who topped the poll in the very constituency of the right hon. Member for Gordon (Alex Salmond).

[Angus Robertson]

Oh dear, oh dear! The right hon. Gentleman had the opportunity to name a single country in the industrialised democratic world where a centre-right party does worse than the Scottish Conservative party, but he could not think of one because there are none. The Scottish Tories polled 14.9%, down two points on the previous general election. To be proud of that—

[David Mundell]

Twenty thousand votes up.

[Angus Robertson]

For the Secretary of State for Scotland to deny the facts just goes to show how far the Conservative party, the Labour party and—[Interruption.] I was going to add the Liberal Democrats—there is not a single one in the Chamber—because they lost 10 out of 11 seats in Scotland.

The point of saying all this is to understand where the democratic mandate lies. We went to the country saying that Smith should be delivered in full and that further powers should be delivered, and the Scottish National party won an overwhelming mandate to come to this place and make our case.

[Ian Austin]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Angus Robertson]

The hon. Gentleman will have time to make a speech later. There is very little time, and I am the first parliamentarian from the SNP to be called in these proceedings more than an hour after the beginning of this debate.

The sole purpose of the Scotland Bill is to implement the Smith commission in full. The UK Government’s amendments are a welcome admission that the Scotland Bill, as published, did not deliver Smith. However, the Government’s amendments tabled on Report still fail to deliver Smith and still fail Scotland. SNP Members have tabled a range of amendments that will give the people of Scotland the powers they were promised and the powers that they will need. We have tabled amendments on tax credits, which would devolve control over all aspects of working and child tax credits, and on employment rights, which would devolve control over employment rights and industrial relations to the Scottish Parliament. We will debate those in the next group of amendments, when they will be addressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Banff and Buchan (Dr Whiteford).

We have also tabled new clause 36 to devolve the power to hold a referendum on Scottish independence to the Scottish Parliament. There should only be another referendum on Scottish independence when the people of Scotland indicate that they want one, but it is right that the Scottish Parliament—the people of Scotland’s Parliament—should hold the power to react to the wishes of the people of Scotland.

We should not lose sight of the fiscal framework. That is the financial underpinning that will allow the transfer of powers to operate without detriment to the people of Scotland.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I spoke to the right hon. Gentleman before the debate, so he knew that this question was coming. This debate is clearly about the constitution and tax. The Scottish Parliament intends to end tax relief for sporting estates, which bring substantial revenue and many jobs to Scotland. Scotland is famed for its outstanding scenery and tremendous field sports opportunities. This must be about the approach to managing natural resources. Does he agree that, when it comes to recreating tax forms and making sure that the distribution of moneys is correct, this is a great opportunity to enshrine safe ground partnership principles at the heart of government?

[Angus Robertson]

The hon. Gentleman has put his point of view on the record. I encourage him to get in touch directly with the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs, Food and Environment in Scotland, Richard Lochhead. We are proud of the Scottish Government’s rural affairs agenda. Incidentally, I commend the hon. Gentleman’s party for turning up in greater strength to this debate than the Liberal Democrats.

To hold the 2014 referendum, the Scottish and UK Governments were required to agree a section 30 order, which amended schedule 5 to the Scotland Act 1998, to grant the Scottish Government the legislative competence to hold a referendum, providing that a number of conditions were met—namely, that it was held before the end of 2014 and that the ballot paper included one question.

New clause 36 would permanently transfer to the Scottish Parliament the power to legislate for a referendum on Scottish independence. It is right that the Scottish Parliament should decide on that, and not this place. As the First Minister has made clear, the SNP manifesto for next year’s Scottish election will set out our position on a second independence referendum and consider in what circumstances such a referendum might be appropriate at some point in the future. However, the final decision on whether there is another referendum and on whether Scotland ever becomes independent will always be for the people of Scotland.

In the meantime, I observe that support for Scottish independence has continued to grow. If people back home are watching this debate, I have no doubt that it will rise even further. A Panelbase poll for The Sunday Times found that 47% of people in Scotland currently support independence and that more than two thirds believe that the country will be independent by 2045.

Support for independence has risen as the UK Government have failed to meet their promises on more powers; continued with austerity; introduced further welfare cuts; and promoted English votes for English laws. Since the referendum, the UK Government’s attitude towards Scotland has angered a great many people. Those who are watching proceedings today have good reason to be angered yet more. On EVEL, the Scotland Bill and austerity, the UK Government have shown scant regard for the voice of the people of Scotland.

We will not lose sight of the financial arrangements that relate to the Bill. We raised them in Scottish questions last week. We understand that a negotiating process is under way between the UK Government and the Scottish Government. It is critical that that financial framework is negotiated in good faith between both Governments and without detriment to the people of Scotland.

[Ian Murray]

I am grateful that the right hon. Gentleman has got on to the fiscal framework. At Scottish questions last week, I asked the Secretary of State whether we could have a little more transparency about the discussions to prevent anyone or any party in this Chamber from misinterpreting what the fiscal framework is trying to achieve. The Scottish people can then make their own judgment about whether it is detrimental to Scotland or otherwise.

[Angus Robertson]

Without wanting to concern the hon. Gentleman, I agree with him. Transparency is a good thing. Our colleagues in the Scottish Parliament are significantly happier than we are here with the open approach that the Scottish Government are taking on this matter. Obviously the negotiations are between the two Governments, but the Secretary of State could easily come to this House and provide more information to the hon. Gentleman’s satisfaction and mine.

The Smith commission identified that Scotland’s budget

“should be no larger or smaller simply as a result of the initial transfer”

of powers. It recommended that the devolution of further tax and spending powers to the Scottish Parliament

“should be accompanied by an updated fiscal framework for Scotland”

and that

“the Scottish and UK Governments should jointly work via the Joint Exchequer Committee to agree a revised fiscal and funding framework for Scotland”.

The UK and Scottish Governments are negotiating the fiscal framework on an ongoing basis. It should allow the Scottish Government to pursue their own distinct policies that meet the needs and wishes of the people of Scotland. For fiscal devolution to work, it is essential that the Scottish Government have the flexibility to pursue distinct fiscal policies, consistent with the overall UK fiscal framework.

The block grant adjustment should be robust and transparent, deliver a fair outcome for Scotland and be agreed by both Governments. The effect of the adjustment should be to ensure that the Scottish Government’s budget is in broad terms no better or worse off in the long term compared with what the devolved taxes would have raised had they not been devolved. The Scottish Government have said that they will not sign up to any adjustment that is not fair to Scotland. That is in line with the “no detriment” principle set out in Smith.

Before us today, we have 200 amendments and new clauses. They are massively important to people in Scotland. Sadly, they are clearly not important to the Labour and Conservative parties, which are here in such small numbers. I will bring my contribution to a close to ensure that more Members of Parliament for Scotland have the opportunity to take part.

The people of Scotland are watching these proceedings. We are told that this is the mother of all Parliaments. This is supposed to be the most important legislation about the future of our country, yet it has been shoehorned into less than one day of proceedings. Incidentally, for the information of the shadow Secretary of State, that happened against the wishes of the Scottish National party, which pressed for another day of proceedings so that we could look into the proposals in detail. People should look and learn, because if this is the way to legislate, we do not need it. The Scottish Parliament is a 21st-century Parliament. If ever a case was put for the Scottish Parliament to be able to exercise power over all issues that matter to the people of Scotland, this is it.

[Alberto Costa (South Leicestershire) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Moray (Angus Robertson)—[Interruption.] I apologise for my pronunciation—I have lived in England for over 15 years and one’s accent does change. It was also a pleasure to listen to the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart). I agree that this is an important constitutional Bill. We are hearing today about how the Bill will make the Scottish Parliament not just a permanent institution in the United Kingdom’s constitutional arrangements, but one of the world’s most powerful devolved Parliaments.

Crucially, the Bill will allow more decisions that affect Scotland to be taken in Scotland. It will increase the financial responsibility of the Scottish Parliament and its accountability to the Scottish public. Perhaps that is a word that SNP Members do not wish to hear, because accountability is something that has been lacking these last eight years in Scotland, when gripes and grievances have constantly been thrown to London about decisions and powers that already rest with the SNP Scottish Government.

The package that has been brought before the House today by the Secretary of State and his team contains substantial financial powers, including over income tax and VAT, the devolution of substantial elements of the welfare system and a range of other powers, including constitutional powers and powers over transport, such as responsibility for air passenger duty.

--- Later in debate ---

[Angus Robertson]

Just now, in response to my hon. and learned Friend’s point about our being excluded from the Joint Committee, the hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Alberto Costa) said, “Good.” Might she take an intervention from him so he can explain why the party that represents almost every constituency in Scotland should be excluded from that important Committee?

[Joanna Cherry]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for drawing that to my attention. I would be delighted to take that intervention. Will the hon. Gentleman, whom I believe is a lawyer of sorts, tell us and the people of Scotland why he thinks it acceptable for all Scottish MPs to be excluded from the Joint Committee?

--- Later in debate ---

[Angus Robertson]

As is customary, it is appropriate to put on record the appreciation of all parties, and I do so on behalf of the effective opposition in this Chamber, the Scottish National party. I thank, too, colleagues in the Westminster SNP group who have taken part in the debate, and colleagues in the Scottish Government, with whom we have worked closely throughout the passage of this Bill.

Those watching at home, as opposed to those sitting in the Chamber—for those who are not aware of it, our proceedings are trending among the top 10 most discussed issues on Twitter tonight; a great many people in Scotland have been watching our proceedings—will have noted a number of things. They will have noted that for the first half of proceedings there were more SNP Members in the Chamber than those of all other parties combined. They will have noticed that, with less than six hours allocated for debate—notwithstanding the fact that an offer was made by the SNP for a second full day on Report—the Government tabled 200 new clauses and amendments, and we had an opportunity for only seven Divisions. On an issue that is supposed to be defining for Scotland’s constitutional future, that is no way to legislate. The idea that legislating as we just have is worthy of the mother of all Parliaments, as some people choose to call it, is way out of place.

We have heard a great many claims about the delivery of the vow. This evening, we have seen Labour Members agreeing with the Conservatives, as they have so often over the last years—[Interruption.] Indeed, they are signalling their co-operation and that they work closely together. That has been noted. In particular, it has been noted that this evening, the Labour party voted with the Tories against tax credits being devolved to the Scottish Parliament. On a defining issue—

Scotland Bill

Angus Robertson Excerpts

Monday 15th June 2015 Commons Chamber

[Angus Robertson (Moray) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hoyle. I welcome you back to your role. I wish to speak in support of amendment 58, which stands in my name and in the names of my hon. Friends.

The Scottish National party has submitted a series of amendments to the Scotland Bill based on the three-pronged commitment outlined in our manifesto for the UK general election: first, delivering on the Smith agreement in full; secondly, devolving additional powers in priority areas such as job creation and welfare protection; and, thirdly, enabling the Scottish Parliament to move to a position of full fiscal autonomy. This approach was backed in record numbers by voters in Scotland in May, giving the SNP a clear mandate for change, which the UK Government must recognise and must act upon.

The UK Government must live up to the words of the Prime Minister on 10 September 2014, when he said:

“If Scotland says it does want to stay inside the United Kingdom then all the options of devolution are there and are possible”.

If all options are possible, it is the duty of the UK Government to respond to the clearly expressed desire of the Scottish people for more powers in the Scotland Bill. The SNP amendments include effectively entrenching the Scottish Parliament—that is what we are discussing now—placing the Sewel convention on a meaningful statutory basis and giving the Scottish Parliament the legislative competence to remove the reservation on taxation, borrowing and public expenditure, enabling the Scottish Parliament to legislate to deliver full fiscal autonomy. The SNP also proposes amendments for further priority powers at later stages in the Bill, including powers over tax, setting the minimum wage and taking responsibility for welfare decisions. In this first group of amendments, I will speak on issues relating to the permanence of the Scottish Parliament, and my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee East (Stewart Hosie) will speak shortly on full fiscal autonomy.

Amendment 58 relates to the permanency of the Scottish Parliament and Government. Paragraph 21 of the Smith commission report stated:

“UK legislation will state that the Scottish Parliament and Scottish Government are permanent institutions.”

However, in its analysis of the draft clauses published by the UK Government, the Scottish Parliament’s Devolution (Further Powers) Committee raised two main issues. As I stressed in the previous stage, that was an all-party Committee, involving members from the Scottish National party, the Scottish Labour party, the Scottish Conservative party, the Scottish Liberal Democrats and the Scottish Green party.

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

It is important to get it on the record that Alex Johnstone MSP has made it perfectly clear that his participation on the Committee is not to be conflated with the SNP press release issued at the time of the Committee’s report. He clearly supports the Committee’s report, but not the SNP’s attempt to distort that report.

[Angus Robertson]

It will no doubt be a relief to you, Mr Hoyle, that I will confine myself to the words agreed by all Committee members, including Mr Johnstone, when he signed up to the report.

That cross-party Committee found that the form of words on permanency proposed in the Scotland Bill was a weaker formulation than stating simply that the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government were permanent. We agree with the view of the Committee—and of Mr Johnstone—in paragraph 47:

“The Committee is of the view that the inclusion of the words ‘is recognised’ in draft clause 1 has the potential to weaken the effect of this clause, which would be unfortunate given the all-party agreement to this recommendation as part of the Smith Commission, and the views expressed to us by the former Secretary of State for Scotland that he perceives that the permanence of the Scottish Parliament and Scottish Government is guaranteed.”

The Committee was also told by the former Secretary of State that he was open to reconsidering the wording of draft clause 1, but changes were not made in the published Bill. This suggests that the Government might be open to the amendment.

Paragraph 49 of the report agreed by Mr Johnstone and all other Committee members states:

“In evidence to the Committee, the former Secretary of State for Scotland commented that he was ‘open to thinking about different ways in which…permanence could be achieved’. The Committee welcomes the openminded approach of the former Secretary of State with regard to this issue. The Committee therefore considers that there is scope to further strengthen the permanency provisions.”

The Committee’s analysis of the published Bill, however, confirmed that there was no change between the draft and the final clause.

The Committee called for additional protection in paragraph 50 of its report, supported by Mr Johnstone and all other members:

“The Committee considers that the effect of the clause on permanency, as currently drafted, is primarily declaratory and political rather than legal in effect. The UK doctrine of Parliamentary sovereignty makes achieving permanence problematic. The Committee recommends that the Scottish electorate should be asked to vote in a referendum if the issue of permanency was in question, with majorities also being required in the Scottish Parliament and the UK Parliament.”

That is the purpose of the SNP amendments, which we will be moving.

[James Cleverly (Braintree) (Con)]

Does the hon. Gentleman genuinely believe that there are circumstances in which the permanency of the Scottish Parliament could be called into question without the voice of Scottish people being heard?

[Angus Robertson]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his election. I gently encourage him to remind himself of the position of the Conservative party in the run-up to the referendum on Scottish devolution. It was totally opposed to devolution, so he will perhaps understand why SNP Members, who have consistently supported home rule, wish to see that reflected in the legislation. He will have the opportunity to support the SNP amendment later.

[Mr Graham Allen]

If there is absolutely no threat whatever to the Scottish Parliament, why not put that fully on the face of the Bill, as the hon. Gentleman suggests?

[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).

[Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Angus Robertson]

I want to make some progress, if the hon. Gentleman will forgive me. I have given way to Members on both sides of the Committee.

The SNP also suggests using “constitution” rather than “constitutional arrangements”, because the former term is already straightforwardly used in the 1998 Act. “Constitutional arrangements” is a term most commonly used to refer to the governing arrangements of bodies and offices, and is therefore inappropriate for describing the governance of Scotland. That is politically important for both the Conservatives and the Labour party, given that the very first words of the vow were:

“The Scottish Parliament is permanent, and extensive new powers for the Parliament will be delivered”.

In his foreword to the Smith commission report, Lord Smith made the position clear by saying:

“The Scottish Parliament will be made permanent in UK legislation”.

The main body of the report, however, had a slightly weaker formulation:

“UK legislation will state that the Scottish Parliament and Scottish Government are permanent institutions.”

The fact that the cross-party Scottish Parliament devolution committee—including the Scottish Conservative party, and now, as a result of amendments to this part of the Bill, the SNP, the Liberal Democrats and Labour—has sought to deliver a stronger legal protection for permanence suggests that the Westminster Conservatives are the only partners in the Smith deal who hold the softer interpretation of what Smith was proposing.

--- Later in debate ---

[Angus Robertson]

It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Crausby, and to follow the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen). I can give him the assurance that my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Scottish National party Benches will be resolute in our support of the Human Rights Act and the European convention on human rights.

I would like to speak to new clause 10. Paragraph 22 of the Smith report, entitled “Scottish Parliament consent to the UK Parliament making law in devolved areas”, recommended, simply and with no room for ambiguity, that

“The Sewel Convention will be put on a statutory footing.”

The details of clause 2 are therefore really important. The Scotland Bill, as drafted, seeks to implement this recommendation by adding a new subsection (8) to section 28 of the Scotland Act 1998. The positioning of this new provision is significant because the provision before it, section 28(7), makes an unambiguous assertion of Westminster’s parliamentary sovereignty and the legislative supremacy of the UK Parliament. Section 28(7) declares:

“This section does not affect the power of the Parliament of the United Kingdom to make laws for Scotland.”

This is therefore a clear statement that Westminster continues to have the legal power to legislate for Scotland across devolved, as well as reserved, areas of public policy. Clause 2 inserts section 28(8), which states:

“But it is recognised that the Parliament of the United Kingdom will not normally legislate with regard to devolved matters without the consent of the Scottish Parliament.”

In paragraph 61 of its report, the Scottish Parliament Devolution (Further Powers) Committee considered that the draft clause placed

“the purpose of the Sewel Convention in statute”—

but—

“does not incorporate in legislation the process for consultation and consent where Westminster plans to legislate in a devolved area.”

In addition, the Committee recommended that the words “but it is recognised” and “normally” in the draft clause should be removed because they weaken the intention of the Smith recommendations. We agree with the all-party Committee’s analysis.

The current clause fails to implement the Smith recommendation in three respects. First, on amendments to the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament, the Sewel convention, as set out in devolution guidance note 10, also requires the consent of the Scottish Parliament to Westminster legislation that alters the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament or the Executive competence of Scottish Ministers. The clause does not refer to either of those categories. This is a significant omission. As the House of Commons Political and Constitutional Reform Committee noted, and as the hon. Member for Nottingham North no doubt remembers:

“We heard in oral evidence from Professor McHarg and in written evidence from Dr Adam Tucker and Dr Adam Perry that the draft clause failed to acknowledge the full scope of the Sewel Convention as it is currently applied in practice. The clause refers only to the Convention’s applicability in respect of devolved matters: it was pointed out to us that the Convention is also applied to legislation affecting the competences of the devolved institutions.”

This is reflected in the UK Government’s devolution guidance note 10, which states that a Bill requiring Scottish parliamentary consent under the Sewel convention is one which

“contains provisions applying to Scotland and which are for devolved purposes, or which alter the legislative competence of the Parliament or the executive competence of the Scottish Ministers.”

DGN 10 is referred to in the Command Paper, containing the draft clauses, as follows: “It is expected that the practice developed under Devolution Guidance Note 10 will continue.”

DGN 10 has no legal effect, but sets out how the UK Government Departments legislating in Scotland will meet the terms of the convention. This practice is not reflected in the drafting of clause 2.

Secondly, on statute as a convention, the clause puts the Sewel convention into legislation as a convention, rather than putting the convention on a statutory footing. As the Scottish Government have pointed out to the Scottish Parliament Committee, this is very different from precedents where the UK has placed other conventions on a statutory footing, such as the Ponsonby convention relating to treaty ratification. Again, as the House of Commons Political and Constitutional Reform Committee noted:

“We consider that draft clause 2 does not give the Sewel Convention the force of statute, but may strengthen the Convention politically. We believe it fails to acknowledge that the Convention extends to legislation affecting the competences of the devolved institutions. We recommend that the presence of the word ‘normally’ in the Sewel Convention, and the applicability of the Convention to legislation affecting the competences of the devolved institutions, be addressed in any redrafting of draft clause 2.”

Thirdly, on the consultation requirement, as has been widely noted and as set out in DGN 10, the effective operation of the Sewel convention depends on consultation between the Scottish and UK Governments, which the Secretary of State for Scotland made play of earlier. The clause, however, fails to include any consultation requirements.

The Scottish Government’s alternative clause, which we have tabled as a new clause, addresses those deficiencies and properly places the Sewel convention on a statutory footing. The opening subsection of the alternative adds to section 28 of the Scotland Act by providing a clear statement of the Sewel convention that the UK Parliament must not pass Acts applying to Scotland about a devolved matter without the consent of the Scottish Parliament. It then defines “about a devolved matter” to encompass all three categories covered by DGN 10: legislation in a devolved area; changing the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament; and adjusting the Executive competence of the Scottish Government.

The alternative clause then provides for a new section 28A to be inserted into the Scotland Act. This is a straightforward consultation provision requiring the UK Government to consult the Scottish Government before introducing to Westminster Bills that apply to Scotland. Where the Westminster Bill would require the consent of the Scottish Parliament under section 28, as amended, the UK Government should share a copy of the provisions of the Bill that apply to Scotland with the Scottish Government 21 days before introduction at Westminster. However, there is an understanding that, on occasion, it is necessary to expedite the legislative process, and therefore the alternative clause is pragmatic and flexible in allowing the consultation requirement to be curtailed in certain circumstances.

The Scottish Parliament has of course looked at the clauses proposed by the Government, and its Devolution (Further Powers) Committee considered

“that the current draft clause, whilst placing the purpose of the Sewel Convention in statute, does not incorporate in legislation the process for consultation and consent where Westminster plans to legislate in a devolved area. The Committee considers that it should do so. Moreover, the Committee considers that the use of the words ‘but it is recognised’ and ‘normally’ has the potential to weaken the intention of the Smith Commission‘s recommendation in this area and recommends that these words be removed from the draft clause.

For those reasons, I urge Members on both sides of the Committee to support the measure we are promoting. In response to the published Bill, the Committee called for the specified words to be removed from the clause, but there has been no change: clause 2 is identical to the draft clause 2 we saw those many months ago.

Given everything we hear about reflecting, improvements, co-operation and the UK Government listening to the Scottish Government, the SNP and other parties, I would love to hear from the Secretary of State, whose ear I am hoping to catch, at what stage the Government intend to accept and implement these improvements. As drafted, the clause does not implement the Smith recommendation. As I have said, that critique was agreed by all parties in the Scottish Parliament, and I hope the UK Government will take that on board.

The clause puts the Sewel convention into statute, rather than putting it on a statutory footing, as required by paragraph 22 of the Smith report. In our view, the intention of the Smith recommendations was that key aspects of DGN 10 would be codified in statute. As it stands, the clause sets out the basic principle, but provides no statutory process for consultation and consent where Westminster plans to legislate for Scotland in devolved areas. As things stand, the Bill has not been drafted to take account of the shortcomings; does not put the Sewel convention on a meaningful statutory basis; does not adequately implement the Smith commission recommendations; and does not apply to changes to the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament or Executive competence of Scottish Ministers. That is why we will be pressing for these changes.

[Mr Alistair Carmichael]

Amendments 19 and 20 have their genesis in the efforts of the Law Society of Scotland and seek to achieve much the same ends as those already outlined by the hon. Members for Caerphilly (Wayne David) and for Moray (Angus Robertson). On a very literal basis, clause 2 does implement the Sewel convention, which is why the word “normally” is in there. When Lord Sewel, during consideration of the Scotland Act 1998 in the other place, gave his undertaking, the word “normally” was used. However, as has become apparent from the comments of the hon. Member for Moray and others, the operation of the convention over the years has been very different—we now have DGN 10—and on reflection, with the benefit of pre-legislative scrutiny, it should be revisited in the terms before the House. I do not necessarily expect the Secretary of State to accept the amendments, but I hope he will acknowledge that this is a legitimate point that it would cost the Government nothing to adopt. It would be an indication that they are listening and of their good will.

New clause 5 is in the name of the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen). I enjoyed the trailer for his Second Reading speech to the Human Rights Act abolition Bill—if we are ever to see it; it is notable, of course, that it was not in the Queen’s Speech. I hope that, having looked into the abyss and seen the myriad complications that would come from their proposal, the Government might find extensive and mature consideration necessary and that we might, in fact, never see that Second Reading.

--- Later in debate ---

[Wayne David]

We shall not be pressing any of our amendments to a vote. I note that the Secretary of State has said that he is not convinced “at this stage”, and I take that to mean that he is open to persuasion and willing to listen. I hope he will be persuaded by arguments that will be put to him in the other place, and, indeed, by Members of the Scottish Parliament, which he will visit shortly.

There is something of a mismatch between theory and practice here. Theory has it that this Parliament is absolutely sovereign, but, in practice, the very existence of devolution puts constraints on that sovereignty, as does the very fact that we are members of the European Union. I think that we have reached a point at which that needs to be legally recognised. There is no doubt that the word “normally” is legally imprecise, and if it ever arose in a court of law, enormous difficulties would result because of that conflict between theory and practice.

I take on board what the Secretary of State has said, and I hope that we shall see some movement. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3

Elections

[Angus Robertson]

I beg to move amendment 60, page 2, line 7, leave out “Section B3 of”

[The Temporary Chair (Mr David Crausby)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 61, page 2, line 9, leave out from “Under the heading” to end of line 29 on page 3 and insert—

‘(2) In Part 2 of Schedule 5 to the Scotland Act 1998, for Section B3 (elections) substitute—

“B3 Elections

Elections for membership of the House of Commons and the European Parliament, including the subject matter of —

(a) the European Parliamentary Elections Act 2002,

(b) the Representation of the People Act 1983 and the Representation of the People Act 1985, and

(c) the Parliamentary Constituencies Act 1986,

so far as those enactments apply, or may apply, in respect of such membership.

Paragraph 5(1) of Part 3 of this Schedule does not apply to the subject matter of the European Parliamentary Elections Act 2002; and the reference to the subject matter of that Act is to be construed as a reference to it as at 24 July 2002 (the date that Act received Royal Assent).

(B) Elections for membership of the Parliament and local government elections

The holding of the poll at an ordinary general election for membership of the Parliament on the same day as the poll at—

(d) a parliamentary general election (other than an early such election),

(e) a European parliamentary general election, or

(f) an ordinary local government election in Scotland.

The combination of polls at—

(a) elections for membership of the Parliament, or

(h) local government elections,

with polls at elections or referendums that are outside the legislative competence of the Parliament.

Modifying the digital service for the purposes of applications for registration or for verifying information contained in such applications.

The subject matter of Parts 5 and 6 of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 in relation to polls at elections that are within the legislative competence of the Parliament where they are combined with polls at elections for membership of the House of Commons and the European Parliament.

“Digital service” has the meaning given by regulation 3(1) of the Representation of the People (Scotland) Regulations 2001 as at the day on which the Scotland Act 2015 received Royal Assent.

Paragraph 5(1) of Part 3 of this Schedule does not apply to the subject matter of Parts 5 and 6 of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000; and the reference to the subject-matter of those Parts of that Act is to be read as at the day on which the Scotland Act 2015 received Royal Assent.””

This amendment provides substitute text for the Section B3 Elections reservation in Schedule 5 to the Scotland Act 1998 which makes the effects clearer. Part (A) reserves elections for membership of the House of Commons and the European Parliament. Part (B) refers to Scottish Parliament elections and local government elections in Scotland.

Amendment 42, page 2, leave out lines 24 to 26.

Government amendments 92 to 98.

Clause 3 stand part.

Amendment 44, in clause 4, page 3, line 42, at end insert

“including provisions about the impact of the ending of the transition to Individual Electoral Registration on the completeness of the register.”

Amendment 46, in clause 4, page 3, line 42, at end insert

“including the automatic registration of eligible electors,”.

The Amendment would give Scottish Ministers power to make provision for automatic registration for Scottish Parliament and Scottish local elections. In its Fourth Report of Session 2014-15 (HC 232), the House of Commons Political and Constitutional Reform Committee reaffirmed its view that voters should ideally be registered to vote automatically.

Amendment 47, in clause 4, page 3, line 42, at end insert—

“(b) about online voting in elections,”

The Amendment would give Scottish Ministers power to make provision for online voting for Scottish Parliament and Scottish local elections. According to the House of Commons Political and Constitutional Reform Committee in its Fourth Report of Session 2014-15 (HC 232), online voting could lead to a substantial increase in the level of participation.

Government amendments 99 and 100.

Clause 4 stand part.

Government amendment 101.

Amendment 43, in clause 5, page 6, line 8, at end insert—

“(c) A referendum called under reserved powers”.

Clause 5 stand part.

Government amendments 102 to 105.

Clauses 6 to 8 stand part.

Government amendments 106 and 107.

Clause 9 stand part.

New clause 11—Electoral registration: requirement to produce report—

‘(1) The Electoral Commission shall prepare and publish guidance setting out, in relation to Scotland, how to further improve the electoral registration process and how to ensure the completeness of the electoral registers.

(2) Guidance under subsection (1) must in particular include—

(a) workable proposals for prompting people to register to vote or update their registration details when using other public services;

(b) whether to allow schools, universities and colleges to block-register students;

(c) whether to pilot election day registration; and

(d) other proposals to ensure that greater numbers of attainers join the electoral register.”

The New Clause would require the Electoral Commission to produce a report into ways of further improving the electoral registration process and of ensuring the completeness of the electoral registers in Scotland.

[Angus Robertson]

It is a pleasure to speak about this string of amendments and new clauses relating to elections to the Scottish Parliament and local authorities.

As Members will know, paragraph 23 of the cross-party Smith commission report recommended that the Scottish Parliament should have

“all powers in relation to elections to the Scottish Parliament and local government elections in Scotland (but not in relation to Westminster or European elections). This will include powers in relation to campaign spending limits and periods and party political broadcasts.”

Additional detail was set out in paragraph 24 of the agreement.

Clauses 3 to 9, which are the focus of this group of amendments, seek to address that recommendation. While the clauses have some merit, we believe that there are still a number of issues to be worked on with the United Kingdom Government. In particular, some parts of the clauses limit the Scottish Parliament’s powers beyond those proposed in Smith. As the Scottish Government said in their response to the report of the Scottish Parliament’s Devolution (Further Powers) Committee, clause 3 does not fully implement the Smith commission’s recommendation. That is why the Scottish Government have proposed an alternative to the clause, which forms the basis of our amendments.

Our proposal would replace, rather than amend, the section B3 Elections reservation in schedule 5 to the Scotland Act 1998. That is designed to make the effects of the clause clearer. We propose that part (A) should reserve elections for membership of the House of Commons and the European Parliament, while part (B) should refer to Scottish Parliament elections and local government elections in Scotland. Our amendments reserve the holding of a Scottish election vote on the same day as a UK parliamentary general election, a European parliamentary election, or an ordinary local government election in Scotland. That would implement paragraph 24(4) of the Smith report.

In their response to the Devolution (Further Powers) Committee, the Scottish Government said:

“We have removed paragraph (b) of the combination of polls provision in Part (B), which would have had the effect of reserving the combination of devolved polls. Should the timing rules be varied to allow ordinary Scottish Parliament and ordinary Scottish local government polls to coincide, then the Secretary of State would have had competence over the devolved conduct rules, which would otherwise both be the responsibility of the Scottish Parliament. This is clearly undesirable and goes beyond the Smith recommendation.”

The Scottish Government suggested alternative drafting in relation to the digital service, which they, and we, think is clearer about the actual effect of the reservation. The reference to the reservation of parts 5 and 6 of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 is the same as that in the Scotland Bill.

The Scottish Government have said that they are generally content with clauses 4 to 9, subject to the changes that they are proposing to the United Kingdom Government. The Secretary of State is no longer present, but no doubt his colleagues will be avidly taking notes about the Scottish Government’s suggestions. We have heard, in good faith, that they will be taken on board and considered in full, and hopefully they will be.

The Committee will excuse me if I rely heavily on the points of detail set out by the Scottish Government and shared with the UK Government and the devolution Committee of the Scottish Parliament. The first of those, in relation to clause 4, the part which enables Scottish Ministers to make provision by order for the combination of polls for a specified list of polls that currently may coincide, could be simplified. The reservation of the power to make combination rules could be removed from section B3, and the list of coinciding polls at section l2(2)(d) could be replaced with a provision that gives Scottish Ministers power to provide for the combination of polls and referendums that are within the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament.

The references to use of the digital service could be seen to conflict with clause 6. This currently gives Scottish Ministers some powers to make provision, with the agreement of the Secretary of State. This could be read as restricting the use of the digital service beyond what is actually needed or intended.

Clause 5(3) goes beyond what was recommended by the Smith commission. The Smith agreement clearly sought only to prevent the polls from being held on the same day. The Scottish Government would wish to adhere to that narrow limitation. Their preference would be for the words

“or within two months before”

to be omitted from clause 5(3).

In clause 6, the Scottish Government view is that the definition of

“use of the digital service”

is overcomplicated. They also believe that the inserted section 6(3) may be out of step with existing provision in this area, as it appears to suggest that a person cannot use the digital service unless they are eligible to register, when there is nothing to suggest any current restriction on those who may use the service. If the purpose of the digital service is to determine whether an applicant is eligible to register, this provision could be omitted.

Also in clause 6, and in common with the approach to the vetoes throughout the Bill, we believe that the provision at subsection 11—

“Regulations made by the Scottish Ministers by virtue of subsection (9) may not be made without the agreement of the Secretary of State”—

should be removed. We will, of course, return to vetoes at a later stage of our consideration.

On clause 7, the Scottish Government have noted that this power does not apply where any other poll is combined with a Scottish Parliament election. They accept this in principle as a practical approach, but they suggest that it should be limited to the combination of a Scottish Parliament election with any other poll that is outwith the Parliament’s competence. The provision as drafted would have the effect that, should the timing provisions be varied to permit Scottish Parliament elections to be combined with local government elections in Scotland, the combination rules would be reserved, which would be undesirable.

On clause 9, the Scottish Government argue that subsection (6) can be omitted as the Scottish Parliament (Elections etc.) Order 2010 is already devolved under the Scotland Act 2012. The Smith commission recommended that the Scottish Parliament should have all powers in relation to Scottish Parliament elections and elections to local government in Scotland. In doing so, the commission specifically stated that this would include party political broadcasts. There does not appear to be any provision to this effect in the draft clauses. We hope the Government will address this point in particular.

The Smith commission also recommended that

“the Electoral Commission will continue to operate on a UK-wide basis. The Scottish Parliament will have competence over the functions of the Electoral Commission in relation to Scottish Parliament elections and local government elections in Scotland. The Electoral Commission will report to the UK Parliament in relation to UK and European elections and to the Scottish Parliament in relation to Scottish Parliament and local government elections in Scotland.”

We believe that clause 3 does not fully deliver the second part of this recommendation. An alternative approach should be considered, to give greater clarity and to ensure that the Scottish Parliament will have competence over the commission’s functions in relation to Scottish Parliament elections and local government elections in Scotland.

These may seem very technical areas, but they are important. I note that those on the Treasury Front Bench have been listening with interest and they no doubt will look at the record. We hope they can be persuaded to accept amendment 60 later. If they do not, I trust they will be consulting colleagues about how to take on the technical improvements that we have outlined and that I have spoken in support of this evening.

[Mr Graham Allen]

I should like to speak to amendments 46 and 47, if I may. I am sure that colleagues will know that the largest amount of public consultation ever achieved by a Select Committee was on the “Voter engagement in the UK” report that the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee produced just before the last general election. The report covered a raft of ways in which we as a House and as politicians—and politics in general—could re-engage with people out there.

The Committee did some technical stuff, and I want to talk this evening about the amendments relating to automatic registration and online voting. Anyone who believes in devolution will know that it is not possible to mandate the nations of the Union to conduct themselves and their democracy in a specified way from the centre, or even from the federal Parliaments. There has to be a degree of discretion and a degree of trust, particularly when there is an institution with the status of a Parliament within one of our nations. I would argue that that should also apply to an Assembly and an Executive and that, when we get devolution in England, it should apply to the means of devolution here as well. I would argue strongly that that should take the form of constitutionally separate local government, which is commonplace in every western democracy apart from our own.

Anyone who believes in that, and who believes that there can be a rich diversity of approaches to our democracy to suit national and local characteristics, will understand that it is key to ensure that our colleagues in the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government maintain and extend their discretion on matters such as automatic registration and on the suggestion in my Committee’s report for online voting. It would be out of order to suggest that that happens overnight in other nations, but we are in the middle of discussing the Scotland Bill and it is highly pertinent to say that if the representatives in the Scottish Parliament wish it, they could take forward a proposal on automatic registration, just as they did so innovatively in relation to votes for 16 and 17-year-olds before the referendum.

Such a measure would be important because it would allow everyone to participate, and because we have a false dichotomy about how boundaries could change unless registered electors met a certain number. I will explain this to the Committee—I am getting there slowly. If a small number of people are registered, that does not mean that there is a small number of constituents. In fact, some colleagues argue strongly that the people who give us the highest number of casework items are those who are not on the register. Should we say to them, “Sorry, you’re not on the register so I’m not going to help you”? Of course not.

Automatic registration can be achieved using a number of devices. I am going to ask the hon. Member for Meon Valley (George Hollingbery) some questions about this afterwards, so I hope he is paying attention. I hope that it could be achieved through registration with the Department for Work and Pensions, for example, or through credit ratings or council tax forms. It is entirely possible to make registration almost automatic. I see the distinguished members of the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee nodding eagerly in approval of what I am saying.

The Committee also looked at online voting, and 16,000 people responded to our consultation on this. Lots of organisations also put out online information and questionnaires for us. The Committee found that the most popular option was online voting. It obviously appeals to particular groups of people at the moment, but it is clearly something whose time will come very soon. Sometimes the other place is innovative. On this occasion, there is so much we can learn from the way our devolved friends in the Scottish Parliament conduct their business. Why should they not be the first to trial online voting in certain well-prescribed circumstances, which they would keep an eye on and feel responsible for, and which I am sure they would make a success. I will not detain the Committee any further on this, other than to say that diversity, experimentation and creativity are the hallmarks of proper devolution and these are just two small ways in which we could encourage our friends in the Scottish Parliament to take devolution that little bit further in their own nation.

--- Later in debate ---

The amendment would allow the Scottish Government to make regulations about the impact of the end of transition to IER on the completeness of the registers for Scottish parliamentary and local government elections. However, clause 4 already gives Scottish Ministers a broad power to make provision on matters relating to the conduct of Scottish parliamentary and local government elections, particularly on the registration of electors. The intention behind the amendment is to make provision to keep non-IER registered electors on the Scottish electoral registers beyond the end of the transition, but Scottish Ministers could do so already under clause 4 as currently drafted. The amendment would therefore add nothing and is unnecessary. I hope that it will be withdrawn so that we can proceed.

[Angus Robertson]

I know that we are running out of time, so I will not detain the Committee. I have listened to what the Minister has said and beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendments made: 92, page 2, leave out lines 30 to 32 and insert—

“Any digital service provided by a Minister of the Crown for the registration of electors.”.

This amends the reservation of the Digital Service to allow for future changes, such as to the operational mechanisms of the Service, subsequent amendments to the Representation of the People (Scotland) Regulations 2001 (SI 2001/497) and for transfers of functions between Ministers.

Amendment 93, page 2, leave out lines 33 to 37 and insert—

(a) Parts 5 and 6 of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 (expenditure in connection with elections) in relation to an election within the legislative competence of the Parliament, where the poll at the election is combined with the poll at an election for membership of the House of Commons or the European Parliament, and

(b) sections 145 to 148 and 150 to 154 of that Act (enforcement) as they apply for the purposes of Part 5 or 6, so far as the subject-matter of that Part is reserved by paragraph (a).”.

This amendment amends the reservation relating to Parts 5 and 6 of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 to make clear that sections 145 to 148 and 150 to 154 are also reserved to the extent that those Parts are reserved.

Amendment 94, page 3, line 1, leave out from “Act” to end of line 2 and insert

“as they apply for the purposes of section 155 or 156, so far as the subject-matter of that section”.

This amendment makes drafting changes to the reservation of sections 145 to 148 and 150 to 154 of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 in line with amendment 93.

Amendment 95, page 3 , leave out line 12 and insert—

“(c) sections 12, 21 to 33, 35 to 37, 39 to 57, 58 to 67, 69, 71, 71F, 71G, 71H to 71Y and 140A,”.

This amendment amends the reservation of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 so that sections of that Act which have been repealed, make amendments to other legislation or do not relate to elections to the Scottish Parliament are not included in the reservation.

Amendment 96, page 3, line 15, after “157”, insert “and 159”.

This amendment amends the reservation of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 in B3(B) so that section 158 is not reserved. Section 158 provides for amendments and repeals of other legislation and therefore there is no subject-matter within this section that needs to be reserved.

Amendment 97, page 3, line 16, leave out from “154” to end of line 18 and insert

“as they apply for the purposes of a provision mentioned in paragraphs (a) to (e), so far as the subject matter of that provision is reserved by those paragraphs.”

This amendment makes drafting changes to the reservation of sections 145 to 148 and 150 to 154 of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 in line with amendment 93.

Amendment 98, page 3, leave out lines 20 to 25.—(Stephen Barclay.)

Due to amendment 92, definitions of the “digital service” and “elections in Scotland” are no longer required.

Clause 3, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 4

Power to make provision about elections

Amendments made: 99, page 4, line 30, leave out from “of” to end of line 32 and insert

“any digital service provided by a Minister of the Crown for the registration of electors”.

This amendment ensures that subsection (4) of new section 12 of the Scotland Act 1998 refers to the amended reservation of the Digital Service (see amendment 92).

Amendment 100, , page 5, leave out lines 1 to 3. —(Stephen Barclay.)

Due to amendment 92, a definition of the “digital service” is no longer required.

Clause 4, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 5

Timing of elections

Amendment made: 101, page 6, line 4, leave out “, or within two months before,”.—(Stephen Barclay.)

This amendment removes the provision preventing a Scottish parliamentary ordinary general election from being held in the two months before a UK or European parliamentary general election, but such an election to the Scottish Parliament could not be held on the same day as such elections to the UK or European Parliaments.

Amendment proposed: 43, page 6, line 8, at end insert—

“(c) A referendum called under reserved powers”.—(Wayne David.)

Question put, That the amendment be made.

Scotland Bill

Angus Robertson Excerpts

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.

[David Mowat]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Angus Robertson]

I would like to make a bit of progress, and then I will be delighted to give way to the hon. Gentleman, whose interventions thus far have been tremendously helpful to the SNP.

I feel a sense of déjà vu as we discuss the contents of yet another Scotland Bill driven once again by the success of Scotland’s independence movement and party. The previous Bill, now the Scotland Act 2012, was the Government’s response to the Calman commission recommendations; the Calman commission, of course, was a response to the SNP’s first election victory in the Scottish Parliament in 2007, which enabled us to form an historic first minority Government. In 2011, though, the SNP had an even more dramatic and significant victory in Scotland. As Members will be aware, we broke the electoral system, gaining a majority in a proportional representation system designed explicitly to prevent that eventuality.

The constitutional response to the first majority pro-independence Government in Scotland in more than 300 years was the agreement to hold last September’s referendum. That is how we have got here today. The Bill’s genesis was in the referendum, and it flows from the desperate promises of the final few days of the campaign. The legislation before us comes from the vow made then, which was followed by the Smith commission and the five-party Smith agreement, albeit in watered-down form.

[Johnny Mercer (Plymouth, Moor View) (Con)]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the UK Government have met every single deadline imposed during the process of delivering power to Scotland? The Bill must be viewed in the context of the no vote that the SNP finds it so difficult to accept.

[Angus Robertson]

First, to correct the record, the SNP recognises the result of the referendum. We were in favour of a yes vote, and we did not secure it, but 45% of the electorate voted for Scottish independence, and a considerable number of those who voted no did so on the basis of the vow that was given. That is why this discussion is so important.

The interventions and heckling from Conservative Members—and, sadly, from Labour Members as well—throughout this debate will inform the voters of Scotland of one thing: those Members have learned absolutely nothing since the general election, in which the Conservative party suffered its worst defeat in 100 years, making it, as far as I am aware, the worst performing centre-right party in the industrialised world to date. If Conservative Members took cognisance of that fact, they might not intervene in the way that the hon. Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Johnny Mercer) did a moment ago.

[Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)]

On the issue of full fiscal responsibility, a lot of the SNP’s economic prospectus was based on an increasing oil price and the much vaunted arc of prosperity. How did the hon. Gentleman get on with that?

[Angus Robertson]

How we got on with it is that we won 56 out of 59 seats.

[Mr Jackson]

indicated dissent.

[Angus Robertson]

The hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but it is a statement of fact. The Scottish National party won almost every single seat in Scotland, and it did so on the basis of the argument conducted during the general election. I advise Conservative Members, who apparently are in favour of the maintenance of the Union, that they should respect the views of the electorate that returned SNP Members in such great numbers.

[Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Angus Robertson]

I would like to make some progress, and then I will give way to the hon. Lady.

I will return in much more detail to the watering down of the Smith agreement in the Bill, because righting that wrong will be a central priority for the SNP. As we know, the vow was a direct response to the growing momentum of the yes campaign, in which the Better Together parties—Labour and Tory, which had worked closely for two years—descended into breathless panic and promised the earth. More accurately, they promised “home rule” and as close to federalism as possible. At least they had the nous not to carve those particular promises on an eight-foot block of stone. There is no doubt whatever that the Bill does not match the pledges of the campaign or the spirit and letter of the Smith deal. On that issue, I give way to the hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry).

[Emily Thornberry]

As I understand it, the Scottish National party’s position is for full fiscal autonomy. There is a difference between autonomy and responsibility, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman would agree. Autonomy means a great deal. The amendment that was not selected states

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

Does he agree that that is not full fiscal autonomy?

[Angus Robertson]

That is interesting. A moment ago, Labour Members intervened to say that there was no mention of our support for fiscal autonomy; now we are told that we did mention it, but the hon. Lady is not happy with the wording. I opened my contribution by saying that I look forward to the SNP amendment on full fiscal autonomy; I expect to see Labour Members trooping through the Lobby and voting with the Tories yet again on governance in Scotland. I suggest that if they want to retain their only seat there, they should think twice about pursuing that course of action.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Angus Robertson]

I want to make some progress, but I will give way to the hon. Member for Edinburgh South.

[Ian Murray]

To be clear, can the hon. Gentleman confirm that he is saying that the SNP will introduce an amendment to deliver full fiscal autonomy for Scotland, and that the Labour party should support a measure that would put a £10 billion black hole in Scotland’s finances? It is not about walking through the Lobby with anyone; it is about standing up for Scotland’s interests.

[Angus Robertson]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for letting me intervene in his second speech in this debate. He needs to consider closely the impact of his party’s collaboration with the Tories for two years on the independence referendum campaign. He can say whatever he likes about full fiscal autonomy, which the SNP supports and which the other parties oppose. They have this in common: they are unbelievably unpopular in Scotland, and it will take a while for them to learn the lessons from that.

The hon. Gentleman had the opportunity in his speech from the Front Bench to outline any new thinking, new ideas or anything else that the Labour party did not say in the Smith commission proposals. There was not a peep; not one new idea. That, along with his party’s ongoing co-operation with the Conservative party, will consign Labour to the opposition position that it deserves in Scotland.

[Ian C. Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Angus Robertson]

I have taken many interventions, and I will now make progress. There is no doubt that the Bill does not match the pledges of the campaign or the spirit and letter of the Smith deal. The Bill falls short and, more importantly, it has also been overtaken by another election—the general election of a few weeks ago—in which the SNP had overwhelming and unprecedented success.

[Ian C. Lucas]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Angus Robertson]

For the second time, I will not. I want to make progress.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Laing)]

Order. The hon. Gentleman is not giving way. We must not waste time arguing about it; there is much to be said this evening.

[Angus Robertson]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. The people have spoken, and it is clear that they want more power for Scotland than the Bill offers. I ask the Secretary of State: will the Government listen?

I am not usually given to quoting the traditionally Labour-supporting Daily Record, but I recommend that the Secretary of State and other Members look at today’s issue. Across the front page is a headline that reads, “Failure to fully deliver all the new powers promised to Scotland will seriously damage your Union”.

[Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Angus Robertson]

No, I am making progress. The editorial that follows states:

“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.”

Much of what we have heard so far today has been an attack on the SNP by both the Government and Labour. As the effective Opposition in this Parliament, we will ensure that we make progress with the Bill. The Government can be assured that strengthening the legislation so that it begins to satisfy the aspirations of the people of Scotland and organisations across Scotland will be another priority for SNP Members.

Both the convenor of the Scottish Parliament’s Devolution (Further Powers) Committee and the Law Society of Scotland have urged the UK Government to ensure that the Bill proceeds in a way that will enable the Scottish Parliament to influence and shape it.

I endorse their view and ask the Secretary of State to confirm today that the Government will accept the cross-party changes proposed by the Scottish Parliament’s Devolution (Further Powers) Committee to bring the Bill into line with the Smith agreement.

It might help colleagues who have not read the report if I highlight the fact that the committee’s conclusions were reached unanimously on an all-party basis. The committee’s deputy convenor is one Duncan McNeil of the Scottish Labour party and it also includes one Alex Johnstone of the Scottish Conservative and Unionist party, Alison Johnstone of the Scottish Green party and Tavish Scott of the Scottish Liberal Democrats.

[Huw Merriman]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Angus Robertson]

I want to make some more progress.

This is a cross-party committee, and as its convenor Bruce Crawford MSP said when launching the interim report in May,

“the current proposals do not yet meet the challenge of fully translating the political agreement reached in the Smith Commission into legislation.”

This is really important. If all the political parties in this House believe that this Bill should deliver on Smith, and if all our colleagues in the Scottish Parliament say it does not fully do so, the Government must listen and they must act.

The errors that those in the Scottish Parliament seek to address go to the heart of what was agreed in the Smith commission. First, on welfare, the Bill as it stands retains a UK veto over changes to universal credit, among other things. That is unacceptable. The Secretary of State denied that there is a veto right in the Bill. I do not know how many Members present have read the Bill, but I invite them to turn to clause 24(4) on page 26, which states:

“The Scottish Ministers may not exercise the function of making regulations to which this section applies unless…they have consulted the Secretary of State about the practicability of implementing the regulations”.

The veto rights are there in black and white. [Interruption.] I hear someone from the Labour Benches say, “So?” Do they think it is a problem or not? Their colleagues in the Scottish Parliament think it is.

[Ian C. Lucas]

rose—

[Angus Robertson]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree with his colleagues in the Scottish Parliament that the Smith proposals should be delivered?

[Ian C. Lucas]

I am not giving way at this point.

[Angus Robertson]

There was I being hectored and accused of being frit and not taking interventions, but when Members are put on the spot as to whether they support their own colleagues in the Scottish Parliament, they run away.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way on the extremely important issue of a veto. An ordinary reading of clause 24(4) shows that it clearly says that “such agreement” is

“not to be unreasonably withheld.”

That means that it is not a veto and that it would be justiciable in front of the courts if an unreasonable decision were made by the Secretary of State.

[Angus Robertson]

The key point is that it does not have to be given. The hon. Gentleman will no doubt make contributions during the Bill’s Committee stage, but I ask hon. and right hon. Members across the House: have they read what their colleagues in the Scottish Parliament have concluded, and will they act on it or not?

[Stewart Hosie]

The hon. Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg) talks about reasonableness, but how on earth can we trust this Government or any Secretary of State to be reasonable when they have just implemented £177 million-worth of in-year cuts to the Scottish budget?

[Angus Robertson]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point. I was struck by the fact that the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Heidi Allen), who is not in her place, made an appeal for trust in this process. I totally agree with her. I look forward to the Government delivering everything that was promised in the Smith commission and more, because we all—every party—stood on manifestos of constitutional change, and the three UK parties were all defeated.

The Prime Minister has said that he will listen to what the Scottish Government have to say on more powers. I will take him at his word. The Secretary of State for Scotland has said that he is open to ensuring that the wording of the Bill is optimal to deliver on the Smith commission proposals. It is absolutely crucial that that takes place and that the trust mentioned by the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire is delivered on. When a committee of our colleagues in the Scottish Parliament concludes, on a cross-party basis, that the Government’s Bill does not fulfil that, the Government must listen.

[Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

Does it follow from what the hon. Gentleman has just said that, if the amendments that SNP Members will inevitably table are voted down, they will accept the consequences of the amendments not going through and their not getting the massive powers they seek?

[Angus Robertson]

I am not entirely sure whether the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that he and his colleagues should vote against his party colleagues in the Scottish Parliament. Is that what he is suggesting? The point I am trying to make is that all our political parties signed up to the Smith commission and all of our political parties in the Scottish Parliament have concluded that the Bill does not fully deliver on it. Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that his party should not support our colleagues in the Scottish Parliament?

[Sir William Cash]

I am asking a very simple question about this House. The SNP has won a victory in Scotland and its Members have come here, so they are obviously bound by the circumstances that apply within the Westminster Parliament. If they are voted down, will they accept that?

[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.

[Mr Jenkin]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Angus Robertson]

I am still making progress.

These are matters of substance: shortcomings identified and agreed by all parties in the Scottish Parliament. The Scottish Government have helpfully provided new clauses to the Devolution (Further Powers) Committee on those and other gaps in the Bill—amendments that would deliver on the Smith agreement in full. Will the Secretary of State agree now to introduce them as Government amendments? If he cannot offer that guarantee, I am happy to confirm that the Scottish National party will do so, so that the Bill can be given these most basic and essential improvements during its Committee stage.

In that respect, I want to remind the Secretary of State of the Government’s stated policy with regard to England, as set out in the Queen’s Speech, and to replace the word “England” with “Scotland” to create what I hope can be a new principle for the passage of this Bill—perhaps we can call it the Mundell principle— as follows: “That decisions affecting Scotland can be taken only with the consent of the majority of Members of Parliament representing constituencies in that part of our United Kingdom”. That means that if the majority of Scottish Members of this House, representing the views of the Scottish Parliament, desire a change to the Bill that affects only Scotland, his Government must not and should not stand in our path.

The Scottish Parliament and Government have set out the steps that must be taken to ensure that this legislation delivers on the Smith agreement. The Bill is a response to the referendum, but we now need an adequate response to the general election and the clear mandate for more powers that was delivered. I agree with the words of the Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations in its briefing to Members on the Scotland Bill:

“As it stands, the Scotland Bill fails to recognise the sea change of opinion in Scotland and the wish for further devolution.”

That failure must now be remedied. If the Government are unwilling to give the people of Scotland what they want, the SNP will table the necessary amendments.

The manifesto on which I and my colleagues were elected was one that secured the support of more votes in Scotland than the Conservatives, the Labour party and the Liberal Democrats combined. We have been clear on our priorities for more powers, stating that

“we will prioritise devolution of powers over employment policy, including the minimum wage, welfare, business taxes, national insurance and equality policy—the powers we need to create jobs, grow revenues and lift people out of poverty.”

Those priorities will be the focus of our amendments in Committee and on Report. I hope that the Government will accept such changes as reflecting the clearly expressed will of a majority of Scottish Members on issues that affect Scotland only.

With meaningful powers over working-age benefits, we can protect Scottish society from the ideological attacks on our welfare state being undertaken by this Government. With responsibility for a full range of economic levers, we can work to support the job creators in Scotland. We can do more to create the wealth and share it more fairly. We can make more of our natural competitive and comparative advantages, boost exports and encourage innovation as we work to make Scotland’s economy more competitive and more productive. These are more powers for a very clear purpose: to deliver policy that works better for the people of Scotland—policy for the many, not just for the few. As our manifesto made clear, we will seek to amend the Bill so that the Scottish Parliament can become responsible for all revenues raised in Scotland as part of a wider financial arrangement that includes borrowing powers. That is also part of our mandate.

The people have spoken, and the UK Government should respect their choice. We know that the UK Government blocked the devolution of many new powers during the very last hours of the Smith negotiations. They were wrong to do so, as the election result has made very clear. Press reports have revealed that very late drafts of the agreement, as negotiated between the Scottish parties, included

“proposals to devolve income tax personal allowances, employers’ National Insurance contributions, inheritance tax, and the power to create new taxes without Treasury approval.”

We are also told that Labour representatives on the Smith commission blocked plans to devolve additional powers on employment law, including the national minimum wage. I hope that the Labour party, in particular, will now shift its stance so that we can ensure that minimum wage levels are set by the Scottish Parliament, not by this Tory Government. I look forward to the Scottish Labour party adding its voice and vote in Committee to SNP amendments to devolve the minimum wage.

The delivery of substantial new powers for our Parliament has become the settled will of the Scottish people, as expressed in elections and opinion surveys. People want the devo-max that was promised in the final days of the referendum. Scotland deserves nothing less.

[Huw Merriman]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Angus Robertson]

I am just concluding.

As a recent study by the Economic and Social Research Council has revealed, 63% of people in Scotland support the full devolution of both taxes and welfare benefits, including unemployment benefit. Our guiding principle should be that the people of Scotland get the form of government that they want. For almost two thirds of our fellow citizens, that is a Parliament in Scotland with substantially stronger powers than we have today and substantially stronger than are on offer in this Bill.

As our amendment on the Order Paper makes clear, we wish the Bill to progress into Committee so that it can be improved. Change is necessary, and I hope Government Front Benchers accept that reality. SNP Members will work with the Scottish Parliament to deliver the improvements to the Bill that are required—improvements that will first deliver the Smith agreement in full, and then give us the new powers Scotland needs to enable us to create more jobs and boost economic growth, to increase wages and opportunities across society and to deliver higher living standards for hard-pressed households.

The Westminster system has delivered growing inequality. The gap between the super-rich and the rest is growing at an unacceptable rate. We are among the most unequal societies anywhere in the world. Westminster is not working for the majority of people in Scotland—or arguably for the rest of the UK, either—and that is why there is such a clamour in Scotland for a new way of doing things and for the powers, in our own hands, to make a difference.

The UK Government have promised that this Bill will deliver the Smith commission in full, and that it will include proposals from the Scottish Government that were endorsed by the electorate in the general election. In the weeks ahead, the House of Commons will debate amendments that can strengthen the Bill. I hope that the Government will deliver on the vow, accept the verdict of the electorate and ensure that the Bill does deliver what the Scottish people require.

Oral Answers to Questions

Angus Robertson Excerpts

Wednesday 25th February 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Carmichael]

I rarely have any difficulty in endorsing a campaign run by The Press and Journal. The question of the price being paid by electricity consumers across the highlands and islands is complex, but I know that we all benefit from being part of the wider UK energy market.

[Angus Robertson (Moray) (SNP)]

Scottish generators, including Longannet, provide 12% of the electricity going into the British network, but pay 35% of the transmission charges. The Secretary of State has been in government for five years. What has he done to end that discrimination?

[Mr Carmichael]

The hon. Gentleman is well aware that transmission charging is the responsibility of Ofgem, the energy market regulator. He will also be aware of the work that Ofgem has been doing with other parts of the energy industry in relation to Project TransmiT.

[Angus Robertson]

Last week, the First Minister wrote to the Prime Minister about this very subject, asking

“the UK Government to initiate a dedicated capacity assessment for Scotland, informed by stakeholder views, and take steps to transfer to the Scottish Parliament the authority to set our own national reliability standard for electricity.”

Having failed to end the discriminatory transmission charges, will the UK Government agree to those reasonable suggestions?

[Mr Carmichael]

The hon. Gentleman and the First Minister must both be aware that National Grid has a constant process of reviewing energy supply. The system operators in Scotland have stress-tested 140 scenarios in which Longannet and other Scottish fossil fuel generators were closed, and National Grid has the tools to keep the lights on in every one of those scenarios, including by being resilient against one-in-600-year risks. Those are the facts, and they are preferable to the sort of scaremongering that we hear from the nationalists.

Constitutional Law

Angus Robertson Excerpts

Monday 2nd February 2015 Commons Chamber

[Angus Robertson (Moray) (SNP)]

It is an honour and a pleasure to speak on a subject close to my heart. Lowering the voting age is one of the main reasons I became involved in politics in the first place. I joined the youth wing of the Scottish National party in 1985, at a time when the Young Scottish Nationalists updated the party’s policy. From then on and until the present day, SNP policy has been that 16 and 17-year-olds should be able to vote in all democratic elections.

I felt so strongly about the issue that it was the subject of my maiden speech in 2001, and I hope the hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Pamela Nash) does not mind my reading some of it out:

“Speaking as the youngest Member of the House who represents a Scottish constituency”—

I think the hon. Lady has taken over that responsibility from me—

“I am convinced that one change might help to engender an interest in voting among young people: lowering the voting age to 16. That has the support of Members on both sides of the House and I make the suggestion in the non-partisan hope of boosting democracy.

Does it not strike hon. Members as ludicrous that we can raise and spend tax money levied on 16 and 17-year-olds? Is it not ludicrous that we can pass legislation that affects their working lives and economic well-being? Is it not obscene that we can send young service men and women into hazardous situations where they may give their lives for their country? It is obscene that 16 and 17-year-olds are judged old enough to pay tax, get married or die for their country, but are not granted the equality that enfranchisement brings. As Ministers in this place and in the Scottish Executive consider suggestions for boosting the teaching of civic life and modern studies, would it not help to show 16 and 17-year-olds the relevance of the democratic process if we gave them the vote?”—[Official Report, 3 July 2001; Vol. 371, c. 192.]

That was in 2001.

I also reflected on the fact that the commitment of the SNP to lowering the voting age goes back much further. One of my predecessors who represented Moray, Winnie Ewing, was elected previously in Hamilton in 1967, and she made her maiden speech on lowering the voting age from 21 to 18. The commitment runs deep in Scotland’s largest party.

It is fantastic that Members on both sides have praised the independence referendum and the involvement of 16 and 17-year-olds, although I have not yet heard Members from other parties acknowledge that they were able to vote because the SNP-led Scottish Government insisted on it. It behoves Members to recognise that as a significant reason why we are at this stage. Perhaps they will think it noteworthy to bring up in their contributions later.

The experience to which hon. Members have attested was reflected in my constituency and, I am sure, in every single part of Scotland. We were invited to take part in debates in schools and sit on panels with young people—I went to Speyside high school, Forres academy and the Elgin youth café. I am sure that Members on both sides could attest to these types of events, and as the referendum drew closer, the level of debate among younger Scots about what the referendum would mean for them, regardless of whether they had made up their minds, was fantastic.

The statistics thus far—there will many more, because several academic studies have yet to report—and early academic feedback are extremely encouraging. The Electoral Commission released a report in December 2014 suggesting that turnout among 16 and 17-year-olds was 75%—significantly higher than among some older age groups. Of all respondents, 60% said they would support a measure allowing everyone to vote from the age of 16; and 97% of the 16 and 17-year-olds who reported having voted said they would vote again in future elections and referendums. This is tremendously encouraging and should give great support to those arguing for a wider franchise.

[Mr Russell Brown (Dumfries and Galloway) (Lab)]

We should all applaud the turnout of young voters in the referendum, but does the hon. Gentleman agree that the difficulty is in encouraging 18 to 25-year-olds to take part in the process?

[Angus Robertson]

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point, although widening the franchise will make that much easier for future generations, through engagement in schools, through modern studies, and with political parties and local representatives. That will help to join up, in a much more tangible way, the political world with what happens in schools. However, he points out the challenge of those age cohorts who have not had that experience, and we all need to work hard to bridge that gap.

By enfranchising 16 and 17-year-olds, we can encourage schools to hold political debate and involve democratically elected representatives. Some schools have concerns about managing the process fairly, but it is not beyond the wit of those schools to do so, and as we know—because we attended many of these events—it works. All of us, having gone through the referendum experience, will want to ensure it is not a one-off. That we can do it for Scottish Parliament elections is great; that it will happen for local government elections is fantastic; that it will not happen for Westminster elections is shameful.

I note that there are two Conservative Members in the Chamber. I observe that 58 of the 59 Members from Scotland belong to political parties that support lowering the voting age in Westminster elections, yet it is not happening. It is for Conservative Members to reflect on what message it sends to people in Scotland when yet again decisions are being made, or rather when progress is not being made because there is not a willingness to recognise the democratic wishes of people in Scotland.

It is unimaginable now that we might go back to a situation in which 16 and 17-year-olds could not vote. I shall spare the blushes of some people in Scottish politics, and not quote their words in the run-up to the referendum.

[Pete Wishart]

Tell them!

[Angus Robertson]

My hon. Friend encourages me. I shall give one quote. The Scottish Secretary’s predecessor told the Press Association on 19 February:

“Sixteen and 17-year-olds should be barred from voting in a referendum on independence for Scotland.”

It was inexplicable—now it just sounds ridiculous. Why on earth would he say such a thing? I have no idea. Once we have lowered the voting age, nobody will argue that it was not the sensible thing to do. When this place finally gets round to lowering the voting age for 16 and 17-year-olds in Scotland and the rest of the UK, I shall be all in favour of it. It will play a part in reconnecting younger people in society with the political process, which over time will lead to a reconnection with the whole of society.

[Pete Wishart]

I am sure my hon. Friend is doing all he can to spare the blushes of our Labour colleagues regarding some of their comments in advance of this order. Does he agree, however, that we now have to work together—it is great that the Labour party has embraced this measure—and ensure that our young people get to vote in all subsequent elections, whether for Holyrood or Westminster?

[Angus Robertson]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. It is up to all of us. What will be in the manifestos of the political parties? If the overwhelming majority of Members returned from Scotland are in favour of lowering the voting age, that is what should happen, as should be the case with every other major policy decision.

This is a rare event in the Chamber. Almost all Scotland’s parliamentarians in this place agree on Scotland’s constitutional progress, but we should reflect on the fact that it was not always that way. It is amazing how when one moves beyond the introduction of such a measure, everyone is suddenly in favour of it—even those who only a year or two before were opposed or highly sceptical. I am really pleased that the SNP and the Scottish Government, when given the chance to put their money where their mouth was, delivered on what was promised decades ago—that younger people in Scotland should be able to vote. That should happen in all subsequent elections, for the Scottish Parliament, for local government and for the Westminster Parliament.

Oral Answers to Questions

Angus Robertson Excerpts

Wednesday 14th January 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Carmichael]

The hon. Lady is right to say that the Scottish Government have planning and environmental regulation powers that would enable them to block any fracking project they wanted to block. It is sensible, in the circumstances, that they should be given responsibility for the licensing of such activities as well. That will be done as part of the Smith process.

[Angus Robertson (Moray) (SNP)]

The Scottish Government and the Scottish National party have been pressing for the devolution of all powers over fracking for some time. Why have the UK Government ruled out devolving power over fracking licences until after the general election?

[Mr Carmichael]

That is part of the timetable to which we are all committed. Until I heard the Deputy First Minister speak at the National museum, I had thought that the hon. Gentleman’s party was committed to it as well. We are proceeding with that speedy and tight process. I will publish the draft clauses before 25 August—sorry, I mean 25 January, which is, incidentally, before 25 August. With 25 January being a Sunday, we might even meet the deadline with a few days to spare.

[Angus Robertson]

Until now, the UK Government’s position has been to remove the right of Scottish householders to object to unconventional gas or oil drilling underneath their homes. What will the position be between now and the full devolution of powers over fracking? Will the Department of Energy and Climate Change give an undertaking that it will not issue any fresh licences?

[Mr Carmichael]

The position will be as it is at the moment, which is that if there is any fracking project in Scotland, the hon. Gentleman’s colleagues in the Scottish Government will have the power, using planning or environmental regulations, to block it. They should not seek to push the blame on to anyone else.

Oral Answers to Questions

Angus Robertson Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd July 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Carmichael]

I have had a number of discussions, as I think my hon. Friend is aware, involving my colleagues in DECC and in the Crown Estate. I am very keen to ensure that no procedural difficulties will stand in the way of the development from MeyGen, which, as he and I both know, is a very exciting and potentially lucrative development for his area.

[Angus Robertson (Moray) (SNP)]

Inward investment into Scotland is at a 16-year high under a Scottish National party Government and in the run-up to an independence referendum. That contrasts with all the claims of doom and gloom from the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Given that the UK Government were spectacularly wrong in their claims on inward investment, why should anybody trust the myriad Westminster scare stories?

[Mr Carmichael]

I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman gives me the opportunity to remind the House that of the 111 inward investment projects that were successful in 2012-13, 84 were supported by UK Trade & Investment. That is the sort of heft that is given to Scottish business by being part of the United Kingdom; that is what he wants us to walk away from.

[Angus Robertson]

The UK Government have launched a confrontational approach to the European Union. The Prime Minister went to Brussels last week and was outvoted 26 to 2. If smaller countries have no say in the European Union, why is it that a Luxembourger is the new President of the European Commission—from a country smaller than the city of Glasgow?

[Mr Carmichael]

I will take absolutely no lectures from the Scottish nationalists on the subject of confrontational approaches. It really is a mark of the desperation of the position in which they find themselves that that is the best they can come up with.

Oral Answers to Questions

Angus Robertson Excerpts

Wednesday 7th May 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Carmichael]

I very much agree with my right hon. Friend. I always think of the United Kingdom as being a family of nations. Of course, like all families, we do have those moments where we have disagreements, and we do occasionally want to do things in a slightly different way, but as a family the ties that bind us are so much greater than the differences that divide us. That is why I believe that Scotland, come 18 September, will choose to remain part of that family of UK nations.

[Angus Robertson (Moray) (SNP)]

But the people of the borders and the rest of Scotland are being subjected to the self-styled “project fear” campaign, which its own supporters describe as negative, nasty, and threatening, and who also say that the Prime Minister is toxic in Scotland. Why are even the Secretary of State’s own colleagues saying this?

[Mr Carmichael]

I have to say that it is a bit rich to hear the right hon. Gentleman talking about “project fear” when the First Minister went to Carlisle on St George’s day to deliver a lecture that I can only describe as project ridiculous. The fact of the matter—there is no escaping this for the nationalists—is that for people living in the constituencies on either side of the border, there are real benefits to being part of the United Kingdom. The nationalists want us to walk away from those benefits.

[Angus Robertson]

Leading members of the right hon. Gentleman’s own campaign have told people in the borders and the rest of Scotland that they will have to show a passport at the border; drive on the right-hand side of the road; worry about their pensions, when in this place people are being told that they are safe; and that they will not be able to use their own currency, when the media in London are being briefed that that will be safe. Why do his colleagues think that the people of the borders and the rest of Scotland will fall for this demeaning, insulting nonsense?

[Mr Carmichael]

The question of the borders highlights perfectly how the Scottish nationalists want to have their cake and eat it. On the one hand, they tell us that we could have a common travel area, which works very well with the Republic of Ireland at present. At the same time, they tell us that we will have a widely divergent immigration policy, which the Republic of Ireland does not have. They can have one thing or the other: they cannot have both. That is why their prospectus is flawed.