Scotland Bill

Ann McKechin Excerpts

Thursday 27th January 2011 Commons Chamber

[Ann McKechin (Glasgow North) (Lab)]

It is now more than 12 years since the then Labour Government guided the pioneering Scotland Act 1998 through this House. I was proud to join thousands of fellow Scots of different political persuasions and of none in campaigning for its creation. It was undoubtedly one of Labour’s most important achievements. It has strengthened our democracy and brought government closer to the people and it works well in practice.

However, we recognised the need to review the challenges that the Scottish Parliament had faced in almost 10 years in operation—first, in how it could meet people’s desire to strengthen its functions, and secondly, in how to increase its financial accountability to the people of Scotland. The resulting Calman commission report was a serious, balanced and thorough analysis of Scotland’s constitutional arrangements. I would like to take this opportunity to commend Sir Ken Calman and his fellow commissioners for their work and the manner in which it was conducted. Despite the fact that the call for the establishment of the commission was initiated by a clear majority at Holyrood, it was rejected by the SNP Government, who preferred instead to engage in a costly, unpopular and one-sided so-called “national conversation” on a wholly independent Scotland.

[Pete Wishart]

Will the hon. Lady remind us how much the Calman commission cost?

[Ann McKechin]

The hon. Gentleman will no doubt remind us how much his national conversation cost, which resulted in not one piece of legislation and no change for the betterment of Scotland, whereas the Bill, we recognise, will strengthen our democracy and will be to the benefit of the people of Scotland.

[Pete Wishart]

The Calman commission cost £614,000, which is an extraordinary amount of money. It is what David McLetchie called “unionists talking to unionists”.

[Ann McKechin]

Sadly, the hon. Gentleman has not informed the House that his national conversation—the big blether with Alex—cost more than £1 million, and we have not had one single benefit as a result. That is a test that the very sensible people of Scotland will apply. They deserve better.

The Caiman commission agreed with our fundamental view, set out in our 2009 White Paper “Scotland’s Future in the United Kingdom”, that together the nations of the United Kingdom are stronger and that together we share resources and pool risks. Nowhere was that more apparent than in 2008 with the vital bail-out of our major banks by the Labour Government, which included two major Scottish institutions. The cash injected to salvage our Scottish banks was the equivalent of £10,000 for every man, woman and child in Scotland. Without the Union and the intervention of the UK Labour Government, Scotland would have been plunged into the depths of economic despair that smaller countries such as Iceland and Ireland, the previous poster boys of independence for the SNP, are sadly still suffering from.

[Mr Frank Roy]

Will my hon. Friend tell the House what would have happened had Scotland at that point been part of an “arc of prosperity”?

[Ann McKechin]

SNP Members have made no mention today of an analysis of what would have happened under fiscal independence during the period from 2007 to 2009. In fact, the SNP has produced no governmental analysis for that period. Recent estimates by experts indicated that Scottish tax income would have dropped by nearly £2.5 billion—and that includes a per capita share of North sea oil, before the Secretary of State and his colleagues on the Front Bench ask about that. The SNP Government have continually failed to produce detailed modelling of their case for separation. The analysis has to be done not only in the good times but in the bad times as well.

Indeed, the SNP’s case for fiscal autonomy is so weak and unconvincing that its Ministers in Holyrood are now accused of having had to resort to playing fast and loose with the facts of economic research to substantiate any case at all. We are firmly of the view, based on sound, independent evidence, that the economic union is Scotland’s greatest economic opportunity and that together we are stronger.

Let us be clear that the Scotland Bill was born of consensus and consultation and is a model example that Government should always follow, whether here in Westminster or at Holyrood, before laying legislation on such fundamental constitutional reform. While in government, we sought political consensus from the start. We initiated independent commissions and reports, embarked on a robust consultation with the public, civic society and experts, and we listened carefully when those people spoke. There is no such consensus and there was no such consultation prior to the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill or, indeed, the Fixed-term Parliaments Bill, and the result has been rushed and biased legislation, which insults our democracy. The Tory-led Government have steamrolled those Bills through this House of Commons and into the House of Lords, showing scant regard for proper scrutiny and completely disregarding the opportunity to engage with interested parties and experts or the electorate whom they serve.

However, the Bill we are debating today is the antithesis of the Government’s other shoddy constitutional efforts. On the whole, it reflects most of the Calman commission’s recommendations, and accordingly there is much that we agree on. As the official Opposition, however, we will rigorously scrutinise the Bill to ensure that it represents the best deal for the people of Scotland. There are some areas of concern and issues that will require further clarification and amendment as we continue into the Committee stage, although I can assure the Secretary of State that we will not press the Antarctica clause to a vote. I am astonished that the dogma of the SNP is such that this one simple clause, which was clearly a mistake in the original legislation and has now, I understand, been corrected, will enable one of our finest universities to mount an expedition to Antarctica. Instead, the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) seems to be more concerned about where the First Minister might spend his summer holidays.

[Pete Wishart]

I am relieved that we will see no Labour amendments on Antarctica. I am grateful that the hon. Lady said that the Labour party will be engaged in scrutinising the Bill, which is good news. What sort of amendments can we expect to see tabled in Committee?

[Ann McKechin]

Unlike the hon. Gentleman, who wants to stop this process in its tracks this evening, I believe that the Bill requires a proper period of thorough examination. There will be amendments that we believe are appropriate on technical issues and on the substance of the Bill.

[Gordon Banks]

Will my hon. Friend confirm that any amendments that we table in Committee will have more bearing and substance than the amendment that has been spoken about by SNP Members today?

--- Later in debate ---

[Ann McKechin]

I am happy to provide my hon. Friend with that assurance. Unlike some other parties, we are already listening carefully to and speaking with people and bodies in Scotland, as we have done throughout this process, which has already lasted three years.

There has been much discussion, both in the Scotland Bill Committee in Holyrood and beyond, of the effect of the proposed devolution of the fiscal powers set out in the Bill to the Scottish Parliament. We urge the Secretary of State to set out and make transparent at the earliest opportunity the precise plans that the Government intend to introduce to ensure operational stability during the transition and the measures he intends to put in place to control the costs incurred during those changes. In particular, it is imperative that the Scotland Office, the Scottish Government and Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs are in full and frank consultation and that operational systems are put in place to ensure that changes are fully effective so that Scottish taxpayers do not see public moneys wasted during a period of difficult financial constraint. What discussions has the Secretary of State held with HMRC and the Scottish Government on the initial planning required to implement those substantial changes, and will he undertake to report regularly to the House on progress during the preparation period leading up to the next general election?

We also seek clarity on the definition of “Scottish taxpayer”, which experts have already highlighted could lead to a series of what we suspect are unintended anomalies. According to the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland, a worker who spends 101 days in Scotland, 99 days in England and 165 days working overseas, for example, will still be deemed to be a UK resident and a Scottish taxpayer, despite spending less than half the calendar year in Scotland. A person who lives in Scotland but works in England would derive all their income from their activities in England but still be classified as a Scottish taxpayer because that is where they end their day. As the Secretary of State and his No. 2, the Under-Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell), both represent border constituencies, that issue might be of direct relevance to their constituents. We understand that HMRC currently has no intention of introducing a concession to split the tax fiscal year to deal with the movement of workers across the border. None of those consequences seems particularly sensible, so we urge the Government to look carefully at the definition.

We are disappointed that the Government have not taken the opportunity to tackle the problems caused by the different approaches to the definition of “charitable purposes” and “charity” in the Charities and Trustee Investment (Scotland) Act 2005 and the Charities Act 2006, which applies to England and Wales. They have failed to use this opportunity to introduce measures to reduce the regulatory burdens on UK charities that operate in both Scotland and other parts of the UK —particularly in difficult times when charities are already affected by the spending review cuts and bearing the brunt of the economic downturn. The Bill is the ideal place to address the issue, and to quote the Secretary of State’s right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, “If not now, then when?”

Let me conclude by reminding the House that the Bill is intended to preserve the political and economic union that has benefited both great countries over the past three centuries. The case for fiscal autonomy has disintegrated around the SNP, and its vision for Scotland is small, isolated and weak. Conversely, the Bill is designed to ensure that Scotland’s future in the United Kingdom is strong, enabling the Scottish Parliament to flourish further and to carry on improving the lives of people in Scotland.

[Mark Lazarowicz]

A large number of charities are headquartered in my constituency, and they regret the fact that the opportunity has not been taken to deal with this anomaly. Does my hon. Friend agree that, to allow the point to be dealt with, the Government could well consider tabling amendments in Committee? I myself am a director of a Scottish charity, but it is a local one that is unlikely to be affected by the provisions.

[Ann McKechin]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. On that point, I agree that it would be helpful if the Government reconsidered their response to that recommendation by the Calman commission, because there is an additional burden on many very good charities that operate not only in Scotland but in other parts of the UK. They face two licensing processes and two sets of regulatory burdens, and, for a Government who always lecture people on reducing the regulatory burden, this is a good opportunity, working with the consensus among charities, to try to alleviate the amount of time they have to spend on paperwork and to increase the amount of time they have to spend on charitable purposes.

We will support the Bill’s Second Reading, not the Scottish National party’s amendment, if it is put to a vote. That does not mean we will not scrutinise the Bill carefully and closely, but, after almost three years of study and engagement with the Scottish public and with experts, and given the express will of the Holyrood Parliament, whose Committees are currently considering the matter in close detail, it is now important to get on with business and to put the Calman commission into legislation.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Mowat]

The difference that we are really talking about today is the one between the constituent parts of the UK, but I have no difficulty with also applying that to the constituent parts of England. As I said, a needs-based formula is fair.

If my constituency of Warrington South, which has areas of great deprivation and some better-off areas, were in Scotland, the average constituent would receive £900 more. That is not fair—I get a considerable postbag about it. Today’s debate is not on the Barnett formula, but unless we address the matter at some point, it will become a tension in the Union from the other direction. We need to be cognisant of that, and we need to be careful.

[Ann McKechin]

The hon. Gentleman mentions basing the determination on needs. In last Wednesday’s Adjournment debate, to which the Under-Secretary referred, there was some discussion about the system in Australia. It is based on needs, and there is a commission that makes a judgment. There is frequent argument between the federal states about the definition of needs, and some commentators are now saying that they want to move back to a per capita formula, just like the Barnett formula. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that stability might be a better prize?

[David Mowat]

I do not agree that stability is a better prize if it is based on something that is wrong. I agree that it is difficult to compute need, but that is no reason not to try. We have let the matter drift. One of the determinants is relative population movement—I repeat that, notwithstanding the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes South (Iain Stewart); I guess we can discuss that later in the bar.

I ask the Under-Secretary to table a simple amendment to the Bill to provide for revising the block grant allocation to take account of relative need, in the way that the House of Lords Committee on the Barnett formula and the Holtham commission recommended last year and in previous years.