Scotland Act 1998: Section 35 Power

Bernard Jenkin Excerpts

Tuesday 17th January 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Jack]

No, obviously I do not. In 24 years, the Scottish Parliament has passed 347 Acts and the United Kingdom Government have never used a section 35 order. The legal advice deems that we should use a section 35 order this time, which is what we have done because there are adverse effects on UK-wide legislation.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)]

As the Opposition spokesman during the passage of the devolution Bills in 1998, I took part in the debate in which the devolution of equality rights was explicitly debated. I pointed out that the

“imposition of anti-discrimination laws has to be handled with great care, because it is all too easy to substitute one type of intolerance of minorities for another”.—[Official Report, 31 March 1998; Vol. 309, c. 1121.]

That is exactly what the SNP’s Bill does by denying the rights of women and girls. The important point is that the Labour Minister, Henry McLeish, one of the architects of devolution, responded by saying that human rights might be devolved, but equal opportunities should not be devolved, and that the Scottish Parliament should not

“be able to impose new duties or additional regulation in equal opportunities matters.”—[Official Report, 31 March 1998; Vol. 309, c. 1127.]

It was expressly debated in the House of Commons, it was voted on in the House of Commons and the SNP lost their amendment on this topic. Is it not time the SNP respected the devolution settlement? Will my right hon. Friend write to the official Opposition to ask them exactly what their response to his statement means? Why have the architects of devolution been replaced by weasels?

[Mr Jack]

We are fortunate to have among us a colleague of great political sagacity who was there when the legislation was debated. He is right that that democratic Bill went through Parliament with the support of all parties. Section 35, the instrument we are using today, is part of that Bill brought forward by the Labour party and supported by the Scottish National party back in 1998.

Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill: Section 35 Power

Bernard Jenkin Excerpts

Tuesday 17th January 2023 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the Government’s decision to use section 35 of the Scotland Act with regard to the Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill.

Here we have it, eventually: the statement of reasons, which I am expected to read while also speaking. I have to admit that there is a real temptation for me to stand here and read every single word of it into the record right now. [Interruption.] They want me to! They probably should not goad me to; I will. On a more serious note—[Interruption.] Calm down. On a more serious note, I want to start with an apology to those people—and this should apply to everyone, irrespective of their views on the GRR—who have hopes and aspirations for the future and who have fought so hard for a piece of legislation for so long and now see their hope being taken away from them. It is being taken away from them by a Government whom they did not vote for and whom we have not voted for since 1955.

That goes to the heart of the issue, which is about democracy on these islands and what democracy looks like in the United Kingdom. In Scotland’s democratically elected Parliament in Holyrood, legislation has been passed that relates directly—directly—to a devolved competency. The GRR Bill is the most-consulted-on legislation in the history of the Scottish Parliament. It received support from not just the Scottish National party, but the Labour party in Scotland; Conservative party members in Scotland, including the predecessor of the hon. Member for Moray (Douglas Ross), as I understand it; the Liberal Democrats in Scotland; and the Greens in Scotland.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Stephen Flynn]

I will give way in a moment.

In total, the Bill received support from nearly two thirds of Scotland’s democratically elected Parliament in Holyrood. It is an outrage that the United Kingdom Government are seeking to overturn the mandate and the legislation put down by our Scottish Parliament.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Flynn]

If we are going to talk about losing, the hon. Gentleman lost the debate in Scotland. I repeat once again that it is not democratic to try to overturn that legislation here in this place.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Stephen Flynn]

I will not. I want to make a little progress.

It has been inferred by some Conservative Members that GRR is in some way in conflict with the Equality Act 2010. Indeed, I am sure that, in this tome before me, that is the case, yet there are also senior Members on those Benches who have been vocal about the fact that it does not interfere with or overturn the Equality Act in any way, shape or form, so which one is it?

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Flynn]

I share my hon. Friend’s views. I am deeply concerned about that, and about the culture war that the Government are seeking to stoke.

Let us also reflect on what we have here. We have a Conservative Government, who have not been elected in Scotland since 1955. Perhaps most intriguing, we have a Secretary of State for Scotland who, in the coming months, will be walking out of this place. He will not be walking anywhere except along to the undemocratic House of Lords. Baron Jack, as he will come to be known, is trying to tell Scotland’s democratically elected parliamentarians what they can and cannot do, while at the same time knowing that he will end up in an unelected Chamber. Shame on him and shame on his Conservative colleagues.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin]

Why does the hon. Gentleman think that the gender recognition Bill has been such a protracted dispute in the Scottish Parliament and so divided the Scottish National party?

[Stephen Flynn]

I do not agree with the hon. Member on that. I think it is healthy in a democracy for discussion to be had within a Parliament, and that is exactly what has happened in Holyrood. It may have escaped his notice, but I will repeat that parliamentarians from each and every party in Holyrood voted in favour of the legislation. The question to him and his colleagues is: why are they seeking to overturn Scotland’s democratic view in this way? I am more than happy to invite him back in to answer that specific point. He is not interested.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Murray]

Let me finish my point.

The Government have come forward with 13 pages that they think show that the Bill adversely affects UK-wide legislation. I think the statement of reasons is thin, although I have not had a chance to read it all the way through. [Interruption.] It might be rubbish, but people have concerns that we have to alleviate. We have to bring people with us. What the SNP has forgotten about this entire process—Labour is very experienced at this because we do it all the time—is that when a Government are passing major equalities legislation they have to bring people with them. If that means they have to get people around the table—[Interruption.] Should you not have to bring people with you? If people raise concerns, you should just dismiss them? [Interruption.] No, this is me saying it. Equalities legislation is difficult and you have to bring people with you. These adverse effects might be “rubbish”—as I have said, at an initial glance I think they are pretty weak and flimsy—but the courts will have to decide whether they like this or not, because that is where this is going. The Scottish Parliament has the right to pass this legislation, because this is devolved, but the Scotland Act, protecting the Scottish Parliament, also contains a mechanism, written by Donald Dewar, to ensure that if there are cross-border concerns, those are dealt with. That is the way it is in this particular process.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Ian Murray]

I have not even gone through the first bit of my speech, but I will give way to the hon. Gentleman if he will apologise for saying that we were “weasels”. I hope that he has gone back and read my speech, which is not what I said during my contribution on the statement.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin]

With the greatest respect, what I am hearing from the hon. Gentleman now is that he supports neither the position of the Scottish Parliament nor the position of the Government. He says that we need to win public support, but how much of that has the Labour party got in Scotland? Is this not the problem he has to face: leaving himself with nowhere to stand in Scottish politics and falling between stools, he is hardly standing up for the devolution settlement, which he should be so proud that Donald Dewar established?

[Ian Murray]

Obviously, the hon. Gentleman did not listen to my contribution during the statement and has not listened to my contribution since. I have no idea which debate he is listening to, but it is certainly not the one I am participating in at this moment.

The bottom line here—this is the undeniable fact, whether we like it or not—is that the only way to resolve this today would be for both Governments to come together to try to find an accommodation. I am surprised that they have not done so, as this has been on the cards since 2016 and all we are getting now is a statement of adverse effects one day— 24 hours—before the expiry period for Royal Assent for the Bill. The Government are coming in at the eleventh hour with a section 35, with 13 pages of adverse effects that have not been communicated or worked on with the Scottish Government before. I am not involved in detailed discussions at ministerial level, although perhaps the Labour party will be at some future point, but perhaps it takes two to tango in these discussions. If the SNP genuinely wants this legislation to be passed and the Government genuinely want to see whether any adverse effects could affect residents in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, is it not incumbent on both Governments to get together to do everything they can to resolve this? That would allow us to get this on the statute book; section 35 could be removed and the Bill could go for Royal Assent, as was supposed to have happened some time ago.

That is the grim reality in Scottish politics the moment. It happened with the children’s rights Bill, which the UK Government challenged through the Supreme Court, which said that certain aspects had overreached under section 33 of the Scotland Act—that was another section that Donald Dewar wrote in to protect devolution. The Scottish Government were asked to remove those aspects from the Bill in order to get Royal Assent, and two and a half years later nothing has been done. That just shows that we are in political paralysis in Scotland at the moment, where nobody can do anything because it is turned into a political football about the constitution, and the trans community and others are sitting there in disbelief today that this cannot proceed.

Scottish Referendum Legislation: Supreme Court Decision

Bernard Jenkin Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd November 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Jack]

I will answer very simply. In 2014, there was a consensus between both Governments, all political parties and civic Scotland. Those are not the circumstances today.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)]

May I just point out to my right hon. Friend that it was in fact the United Kingdom Parliament that gave Scotland a referendum in 2014—[Interruption.] Oh yes! Does he recall that the SNP then said it was a once-in-a-generation decision? Has he ever known a generation to pass so quickly, in just eight years? Could it be that the SNP prefers campaigning for a referendum it cannot have because it wants to distract attention from the failures of the Scottish Government on schools, on health, on procurement of ferries and on many other issues?

Scotland Bill

Bernard Jenkin Excerpts

Monday 8th June 2015 Commons Chamber

[David Mundell]

I fear there is a lot of cheek still to come.

Over 18 years, the devolution of power and decision making from this Parliament to the Assemblies of Wales and Northern Ireland and to the Parliament in Scotland has changed the constitutional make-up of the United Kingdom fundamentally. I was proud to be elected as a Member of the new Scottish Parliament at its inception in 1999—indeed, I was the first MSP to ask a question in that Parliament on the opening day, so I draw from my experience of the Scottish devolution settlement as I take this Bill forward.

Even though some had doubts at the time, few would now deny that devolution has been a success story for Scotland. It has ensured that decisions affecting our homes and our families, from schools to hospitals to our police service, have been taken closer to the people they affect. As today’s Bill makes clear, the Scottish Parliament is a permanent part of the UK’s constitutional arrangements. The Bill recognises that, and rightly so.

[Mr Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)]

To what extent does the Bill represent a full and final settlement for the future of the United Kingdom? How stable will it be?

[David Mundell]

I anticipate that the Bill will be a very stable settlement for Scotland as it was signed up to by all five of the political parties represented in the Scottish Parliament, including the Scottish National party.

That does not mean that the devolution settlement is or ever was perfect. From the start the settlement contained an imbalance, with a Scottish Parliament responsible for spending money which another Parliament—this one—was chiefly accountable for raising. It is one of the most important features of the Bill that it seeks to redress that balance. I will go into that in more detail later in my remarks.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I think the hon. Gentleman knows the answer to that: they gave up on him some time ago.

[Mr Jenkin]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. You are incredibly indulgent.

There have been reports that some Members have been required to sign a piece of paper undertaking not to disagree with those on their Front Bench as a condition of being Members of this House. Would that be in order?

[Mr Speaker]

I gather it has been denied. I must say, I would not have lasted long in the House had I been required to sign any such paper. I am innocent of such matters. It is the first I have heard of it and I doubt it will last.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)]

I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State not only on his appointment as Secretary of State, but on surviving his election, with some glory to himself.

I commend the hon. Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray) for his performance at the Dispatch Box because he did the House a great service just now: he put the Scottish National party on the spot. Let SNP Members put down that amendment in favour of full fiscal autonomy. The hon. Gentleman may oppose it, but he may find quite a number of Conservative Members voting for it. It might go through. We know that the SNP is calling for what it does not really want because it would leave the Scottish Government with a deficit in their budget of at least half the health service spending in Scotland. We want less of that kind of dishonest politics in the House. I commend my new hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Heidi Allen), who called for more trust in this debate. That needs to come first from the SNP, whose whole purpose is not to trust but to promote distrust so that it can break up the Union.

I am bound to ask the Secretary of State whether this Bill is really “it” for the future of Scotland. Is this the full and final settlement that will stabilise the Union of the United Kingdom? I hae ma doots. I will certainly support the Bill, but it comes with a number of problems. It is based on the vow during the closing stages of the referendum. We read that vow on the front page of the Daily Record, which, I say to the right hon. Member for Gordon (Alex Salmond), hardly represents the fount of learning and wisdom from which we would expect him to learn. Would he commend The Sun in England, for example, as our Bible, any more than I would commend the Daily Record as his Bible? [Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman should not be provoked.

What did that vow mean? Interpreting that extraordinary vow has been part of the difficulties of the Smith commission.

[Alex Salmond]

rose—

[Mr Jenkin]

I will give way in a moment.

We already have a devolution settlement that is pretty opaque, and this Bill will make it yet more opaque, more difficult to hold to account, and more difficult to explain to voters who does what. On the question of spending, the situation is now perverse. We have SNP Members, who do not think that they should be in this House because they want a separate country, seeking to use the funding mechanism—the outdated Barnett formula—as a pretext for interfering in decisions that should now be wholly determined by MPs representing English constituencies.

[Alex Salmond]

rose—

[Mr Jenkin]

I will give way to the right hon. Gentleman if he will declare his unwavering and unflinching support for full fiscal autonomy for Scotland.

[Alex Salmond]

I have done that many times. On the subject of the Daily Record, the Prime Minister seemed very happy to use it last September, so is it not quite reasonable to quote what it is saying today? Also, if I remember correctly, the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin) once stood for election in Scotland. Will he remind the House how he got on?

[Mr Jenkin]

I beat the SNP candidate into fourth place—[Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”]—and Tommy Sheridan into fifth place. At least I stood in a Scottish general election, unlike the current SNP leader. She seemed to take part in the general election as if she were a candidate, even though she was not; it was a rather odd way of conducting a general election campaign. I noticed that the right hon. Gentleman did not call for full fiscal autonomy. He is now in retreat from that demand, because he knows that it is not what he wants.

[Alex Salmond]

rose—

[Mr Jenkin]

I have given way to the right hon. Gentleman once already. On the question of taxation—[Interruption.] I am tempted, so I will give way.

[Alex Salmond]

The acoustics of the House must require attention. I did, I do and I will continue to call for full fiscal responsibility. With regard to the First Minister, is it not remarkable that she emerged as the unanswered star of the general election campaign without contesting a seat?

[Mr Jenkin]

I hope that the House noted that the right hon. Gentleman has retreated from full fiscal autonomy to full fiscal responsibility. People do not like politicians playing with words, which is exactly what he is doing. The fact is that he does not want full fiscal autonomy because he knows that it would result in dramatic cuts to public spending in Scotland.

On the question of taxation, the hon. Member for Edinburgh South ought to reflect on the fact that one of the problems identified by his hon. Friend the Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies) is that Scotland would be setting tax rates and having effects that English voters do not have for their own tax rates, which is exactly the same argument that we made against the Scotland Bill in 1997-98. He might reflect on how we have got into that situation. [Interruption.] Oh yes, because the Scotland Act 1998 allowed the Scots a 3% variation in income tax. They never used it, but it set up the very anomaly that the hon. Member for Swansea West complained about.

[Geraint Davies]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Jenkin]

The hon. Gentleman will forgive me, but I have given way several times and used up half my time already.

The point is that more than one intervention from the Opposition Benches has underlined what a mistake it was to believe that setting up a Scottish Parliament would resolve the grievances of people in Scotland. We now know—we can see it very graphically in this House—that it has just been a platform for those grievances, and it explains how we have got to this point today. I say to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that to describe the referendum, with its promise of yet more powers, as truly historic is almost an understatement; it was a near-death experience for one of the most successful nation states the world has ever seen. I do not think that we should describe the devolution process, which has become never-ending, as a great success.

What we need first of all is an atmosphere in which we can build more trust, instead of fuelling mistrust. How can we generate that trust? We need some cross- party forum, outside the hurly-burly of daily politics, in which to start building up a consensus on what a full and final settlement for the whole United Kingdom might look like. We need a cross-party agreement, in principle, that we are going to establish such a full and final settlement and put an end to this never- ending process of instability and uncertainty about the relationships between the four parts of the United Kingdom.

I would go so far as to suggest that we need a new, 21st-century Act of Union to be ratified by a referendum in all four parts of the United Kingdom that the SNP would be quite free to campaign against if it wished—and if it won, then Scotland would be an independent country; let the SNP dream that dream. We ought to conduct that referendum on the basis of a coherent and agreed offer, not a rush job published on the front page of a tabloid newspaper after a failed ex-Prime Minister has been shouting down the phone at the Prime Minister in Downing Street, as occurred with the previous referendum. Such a new Act of Union would aim to provide a balanced and equal settlement of powers across the four parts of the United Kingdom—with respect to my hon. Friends on the Northern Ireland Bench—and a mechanism such as a new council for the Union for distributing UK tax resources on the basis of need and unanimous agreement rather than an outdated formula that was designed to equalise spending between England and Scotland but has actually determined precisely the opposite.

The House should not carry on like this, as though we have not suffered the near death of one of the most successful nation states the world has ever seen, and without an atmosphere of contrition and seriousness about what we have all got wrong in the relationship between our four great nations in this great country. Unless we approach this in a new spirit, I fear for the future. I am standing for the chairmanship of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, and I promise that I will approach these matters with the utmost seriousness and determination—[Interruption] —and with a mind to seeking the maximum consensus, even from those who are now scoffing and laughing at such an idea.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Mowat]

No. I have given way twice, and I need to make some progress.

A needs-based review must be something that I would be delighted to accept if I came to Westminster representing a progressive party. Surely my progressiveness would not allow me simply to say, “We will have all we can get in Scotland”—which, as we heard from the right hon. Member for Gordon, is what was on the front page of the Daily Record. A progressive party should say, “We are not going to take all this money, because we are progressive. The settlement needs to be fair to Wales and to parts of England, where there is a great deal of deprivation.”

[Mr Jenkin]

And that would be a step towards full fiscal autonomy.

[David Mowat]

Indeed. I understand that full fiscal autonomy would take the problem away, which is, of course, why we are now seeking to implement it “in the medium term”, whatever that means.

Of course I support the vow. Of course I support the mandate that SNP Members have achieved through their spectacular election victory. It is right for us to implement this settlement, and I will vote with the Government tonight and in the future to ensure that that happens. However, I must ask the Secretary of State to reflect on the phrase that he used in his speech—“fair and lasting”—and to ask himself whether he really believes that a fiscal settlement that is absolutely and clearly not based on need can ever be described as fair and lasting. That may yet cause us problems.

Scotland within the UK

Bernard Jenkin Excerpts

Monday 13th October 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Carmichael]

I think Lord Smith has already made it clear that he is not going to deliver independence by the back door. Whatever proposals he comes up with on St Andrew’s night in relation to further devolution, they will be in the context of there continuing to be a United Kingdom, and the constitutional integrity of the United Kingdom will be respected.

[Mr Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that we ought to learn some lessons from this near-death experience of the United Kingdom and the fact that we did not intend the winning margin to be as narrow as 10%? Does he also agree that if we are to avoid another referendum, Westminster politics and Westminster politicians must raise the tone of debate with our Scottish counterparts in order to ensure that we develop more of a relationship of mutual respect, with less opportunity for the nationalists to make mischief?

[Mr Carmichael]

There are indeed many lessons to be learned from this, and their full extent will probably not be apparent for some time to come. This statement is an important part of the process, because it is very important that the Government, with the official Opposition as well, are able to demonstrate to the people of Scotland that we are making good the commitment that we made in the course of the referendum campaign. Politicians doing what they say they will do in that way is probably the most important thing we can do to restore faith in politics.

Scotland’s Constitutional Future

Bernard Jenkin Excerpts

Tuesday 10th January 2012 Commons Chamber

[Michael Moore]

I do not know how often I have to acknowledge the SNP’s victory of last year before the hon. Gentleman hears me say it, but I am happy to repeat that I recognise its victory of last year. I am surprised that he has such a problem with the law, however, because I am sure that an independent Scotland would want to be governed under the rule of law. Therefore, I think it is in all our interests to ensure that the legal basis of any referendum is clear. I am saying to him that it is not there—it is not possible to have a legal referendum. It does not matter whether it is “advisory”, “legally binding” or whatever one calls it: a referendum has to be legal, and the authority is not there. What I am offering the hon. Gentleman, the First Minister and all his party is a way by which all of us in Scotland can get on with this decision without needing to have it made by the courts, rather than by people going to the ballot box.

The hon. Gentleman referred to the terms on which we might do this. I repeat: we are consulting. We are asking people across Scotland—and those elsewhere who may have an opinion—to tell us what they think of our proposals. We want to do this together, between the two Governments, and I hope he will encourage his colleagues there to get alongside us and work with us.

As far as the date is concerned, there is no date in the consultation paper and the draft section 30 order that we are publishing. Regarding the ballot paper, I heard the Deputy First Minister say yesterday that she preferred having a single question, so it is quite useful to get on and do what she, as well as the rest of us, wants to do.

On the franchise, we are suggesting that the same franchise that was the right basis on which the First Minister and all his colleagues in the Scottish Parliament were elected should be used to determine this historic decision. As far as 16 and 17-year-olds participating is concerned, there is an entirely fair debate about their role in the electoral system generally, but it should not be focused around a single electoral event to suit one party or another. Let us just get on with the debate on the fairest of terms; that is what we are offering.

[Mr Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)]

I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement, simply because it is high time that the debate about Scottish nationalism that has been raging in Scotland should be debated here in Westminster, too. However, does he agree that there can be no question of holding a referendum that is legal, fair and decisive unless the proposal on the ballot paper is absolutely clear? Generally, I have to say I favour post-legislative referendums.

[Michael Moore]

It is important that we have a legal referendum that is conducted fairly, and that is decisive. I would like to see it sooner, rather than later. It is damaging to Scotland and its economy, affecting jobs and investment, if we simply have a long delay. I want to ensure that we have a proper debate about when that should be, and in this consultation we set out the way we can sort the date of the referendum, by agreement.