David Mundell
Main Page: David Mundell (Conservative - Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale)Department Debates - View all David Mundell's debates with the Scotland Office
Scotland Bill
David Mundell Excerpts(13 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Donohoe
If the hon. Gentleman intervenes again to give me some understanding of that point, I might be able to accede to it.
David Mundell
Perhaps I might help the hon. Gentleman. My calculation is that there would be 101 Members. After the passage of the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill, there will be 52 constituencies in Scotland. If each had two Members, there would be 104. However, there are three constituencies that he feels should have only one Member, although my reading of new clause 1 is that people would still have two votes. There would therefore be 101 Members in the new Scottish Parliament. Does he think that that would be sufficient to conduct the Parliament’s business?
Mr Donohoe
The Minister has made my point very well in relation to making savings, which is the next point that I want to make progress on, if I may.
Michael Connarty
I should like Glasgow city council—which is a wonderful council—to be properly resourced, rather than having its budget cut by 3.7%. That is what the Scottish Government have just done, at a time when the city needs more resources. Other areas with a large proportion of SNP councillors are experiencing very small cuts. That is another abuse for which the people will take the Government of Scotland to task, and will take the SNP to task in particular.
Proportionality has not worked in our system. I do not approve of the single transferable vote. I do not believe in that kind of proportionality, because I think that it moves so far away from the idea of accountability that the public reject it, and I do not think that we will get very far with any other amendment that appears to distort what we have in the House of Commons at present. When a Member of Parliament is elected, he or she is accountable. People know whom they elected, why they elected them, and how to get rid of them. If we cannot introduce a system that provides some credibility, the Scottish Parliament will go spinning off into the future with no credibility at all. I therefore hope that the Committee will pass new clauses 1 and 2.
David Mundell
I welcome you back to the chair, Ms Primarolo. I hope that, unlike the hon. Member for East Lothian (Fiona O'Donnell), you did not have a sleepless night in anticipation of the debate. Given the level of interest that has been expressed, the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr Donohoe) has clearly done the Committee a service by promoting a debate on these issues.
Let me say at the outset that the Government will not support the new clauses, principally because we believe that a fundamental part of the devolution settlement that was voted for in the 1997 referendum was the agreement that the Scottish Parliament should be elected on a proportional basis. There is a range of debates to be had on issues relating to proportionality, and some of those issues have emerged this afternoon, but it is clear that a fundamental aspect of the Scottish Parliament is that it is a proportionally elected institution.
I must confess that during my time in the Scottish Parliament I was a regional list Member. Therefore, I must defend that cadre. Many Members from all the main political parties in Scotland have served with distinction as regional list Members, including Peter Peacock, who served on the Scotland Bill Committee, and Lord Foulkes, who was mentioned in our debate yesterday. We should not accept any general diminution of their contribution to the Scottish Parliament, as they have played their roles.
Stewart Hosie
Is that not the argument that was being used earlier: that losers can become winners? Why would a Labour Member make that case, when the Minister is explaining that that is precisely what the Labour party is now doing?
Mr Donohoe
May I make it perfectly clear that I am opposed to the position referred to by the hon. Member for Dundee East (Stewart Hosie), as is my constituency party and as are many other constituency parties across Scotland?
David Mundell
I fully take on board what the hon. Gentleman says, and I praise his consistency on this issue, but others who have been critical of the regional list system now want to use it to save their political careers, and I regard that as hypocrisy.
David Mundell
As has been said, there has been a change from the view that Members should not stand on both the list and in constituencies to a position where that should be done when it is in someone’s self-interest.
Mr Tom Harris (Glasgow South) (Lab)
I apologise for not being here for the debate before now, but I wish to clarify one matter. I hope the Minister will recall that in the first Scottish Parliament elections Donald Dewar stood as a candidate for Anniesland, in addition to being No. 1 on the Glasgow list. A number of prominent first-past-the-post candidates also stood on the list, so this is not a new procedure in the Labour party—it has been going on since 1999.
David Mundell
As I recall, the reason given for Labour Members taking that approach was that they were encouraging people to vote on the list; they were seeking to demonstrate that prominent people were on the list and so it was an important vote in which to participate.
Mark Lazarowicz
Will the Minister remind us whether there are any Conservative list MSPs standing for a first-past-the-post seat in the forthcoming elections?
David Mundell
Indeed there are, but the Conservative party has been clear and absolutely consistent in its policy. It has not changed its policy to suit the electoral needs of individual constituency MSPs who fear for their future.
Pete Wishart
The Minister rightly says that the Conservatives have been consistent about this—the list has saved the neck of the Conservative party in Scotland. Has he any idea what the Labour Front-Bench team’s position is on this matter? We have not heard a contribution from Labour Front Benchers on this; all we have heard are the siren voices of the “first-past-the-posters” at the back. Labour seems to be split from top to bottom on this issue, but does the Minister have any idea as to its view?
David Mundell
The hon. Gentleman probably shares my belief that the Labour party view will be what is in the interests of the Labour party, and not necessarily what is in the interests of the electorate in individual constituencies in Scotland.
Michael Connarty
I am glad that the Minister gave way after that terrible slur on the Labour party. We are talking about the views of Members of this House, and it is very important that we take them seriously and do not start messing around. It is clear that the parties had a view. I recall Donald Dewar saying that the idea was that, as in Germany, the leader of the list would be seen as a symbol of what the list stood for. All the arrangements were proportional in Germany, but because we had this divergence between the first-past-the-post and list systems, our arrangements became totally confused in the eyes of the electorate. We are not seeking party advantage; we are looking for the electorate’s advantage.
David Mundell
I recognise the hon. Gentleman’s consistency on this issue, but I was confused by one of the contributions from the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Cathy Jamieson), who was part of a Labour-led Scottish Government who introduced the single transferable vote into local government in Scotland. Much of the argument that I have heard today did not provide evidence that that was done on the basis of support from within the Labour party. As one Member on the Opposition Benches pointed out, it was also done without consulting people across Scotland. On the point that the hon. Lady did raise, may I say, for information purposes, that when a council by-election is required, the STV system used does not guarantee ongoing proportionality? One of the problems with STV systems is that by-elections are difficult and complex matters.
Mr Davidson
A moment ago, Mr Kettle accused members of the Labour party of coming to a position based on self-interest. Given that he is in an alliance with another bad lot to promote an alternative vote referendum, despite neither party preferring AV as an electoral system, it can hardly be said that other people are pursuing their self-interest in this matter. Might I add that, to be fair, the Liberals welcome AV, because they predict that they will have a better result than they achieved in Barnsley and will at least come second in the referendum?
The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Dawn Primarolo)
Order. May I add that I would like the Minister to return to discussing the new clause?
David Mundell
Thank you, Ms Primarolo. I will take on board what you say and, as ever, I note the hon. Gentleman’s comments. Some of what he said in his contribution was helpful, in that there is an acceptance, following the Arbuthnott commission’s report, that some form of review of electoral systems in Scotland is required. The Arbuthnott commission suggested that that should take place post-2011, and the Government share that view.
Mr Donohoe
I am sure that the Minister will concede that nothing I am proposing today would come into effect until after this year’s elections.
David Mundell
The hon. Gentleman has proposed a very specific change to the electoral system for the Scottish Parliament. It would mean that two Members would be elected from each constituency other than the three constituencies that have been identified. Although it seems to suggest that everyone would have two votes in those three constituencies, the new clause does not appear to show what would happen to the second of their votes. He has set out his intentions in this debate, but the provisions are technically defective. However, I advise him, and the Opposition Members who have expressed clear views about how they would change the electoral system for the Scottish Parliament, to take part in any review that is forthcoming on the nature of that electoral system. That is one basis on which the Government reject the new clauses.
Cathy Jamieson
I am listening to the Minister with interest. Is he actually offering that very review that he is talking about? If so, when will it take place?
David Mundell
The date of the next Scottish Parliament election has changed as a result of the Fixed-term Parliaments Bill, and the Government have indicated that a review of the implications for the Scottish Parliament will be required. A review of the voting system for the Scottish Parliament elections could form part of a wider review of issues relating to the Scottish Parliament.
Mr Davidson
May I just clarify a point? The Minister said that the proposal put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr Donohoe) is not clear on the question of what would happen in respect of people having two votes. May I refer him to the wording? New clause 1 states:
“each elector to cast one or two votes of equal value, with no more than one vote to be given to any one candidate, in constituencies returning two members”.
It continues:
“the two candidates with the most valid votes to be elected in such constituencies.”
So I understand that the reference to people having “two votes” applies only to the constituencies that are not the three identified.
David Mundell
I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s analysis, but I do not think it stands up to legal scrutiny in that regard.
Mr Donohoe
Can the Minister just tell me why? I have read that provision at some length and I am clearly of the opinion that it covers the points that he says it does not.
David Mundell
The interpretation of that provision is that people in the Western Isles, Orkney or Shetland could still have two votes.
David Mundell
That is a clear possible interpretation of that provision. The hon. Gentleman is better advised making his case not on the technicalities of the wording, but on his strong beliefs about this issue.
On new clause 2, I have made clear the Government’s view that it is a matter for the Scottish Parliament to regulate the conduct of its Members and the relationships between list and constituency Members. On that basis, we cannot accept the new clause.
Mr Doran
My argument is that a problem is not solved just by moving it to Scotland. There are fundamental problems with the coastguard—for example, most of the equipment that it uses is 40 years out of date. There is new technology available which is necessary for proper safety on our seas. The money needs to be invested. Given the present financial situation, one of the few ways that money can be invested, sadly, involves the closure of a number of coastguards. I have been told by workers at my own coastguard that with the new technology, Aberdeen could cover the whole of Scotland, but the point that I made earlier about the Western Isles is recognised. The issue will not be resolved simply by asking for it to be devolved to the Scottish Parliament.
I am by no means in favour of everything proposed in the consultation paper published by the Government, but what is needed is a properly co-ordinated national system, which we do not have at present. We have groups or pairs of coastguard stations which can communicate with one another, but in the event of a major disaster or a major incident, it is difficult to see how we could get the full benefit of a national system and the investment that we need to make by separating the Scottish service from the rest of the UK and allowing that to operate on its own.
I was heavily involved in the aftermath of the Piper Alpha disaster, when the coastguard played a pivotal role—I do not know which other stations were involved. The service then was very similar to what it is now, and there was not the capacity to involve the whole of the coastguard operation throughout the UK. Given what we have seen in other countries in recent years, it is possible that that facility may be necessary in the future. As I have said, the way to resolve a major infrastructure problem is not to cut it off and devolve it to Scotland, which is a blinded and fundamentalist view of how we should function.
We need a co-ordinated system throughout the UK. One of the key weaknesses of breaking up the system is what the Scottish Government would or could do with it. Like many people, I am suspicious about the fact that the SNP Government in Edinburgh have made no attempt to give us a proper Budget for the next three years, as we have seen the current Government and the previous Labour Government produce for the UK. Of course, there is an election on the way, so that will be the main consideration.
If the coastguard system is to be upgraded to modern standards, where will the necessary money come from? If the hon. Gentleman was successful with his new clause, there would clearly have to be some transfer of money from the UK to pay for the existing system, but not for upgrading it. The system that I hope will be based in my constituency at Aberdeen, once the consultation exercise is over and the investment has been made, will serve not just Scottish waters, but almost half the UK—it will be capable of serving the whole UK. Would that be on offer in a system run under the narrow nationalist view that the hon. Gentleman is taking? I do not know.
I need to know, and the Committee needs to know, where the money will come from to upgrade and modernise the system. It is not clear that that money exists in the Scottish Budget. If the SNP Government cannot afford to build any new schools and are not able to fund local services properly, how will they modernise the coastguard system, which is essential for the safety of our maritime fleet, our sailors and our fishing industry? The hon. Gentleman is well aware of the dangers inherent in that industry. There are more industrial accidents and deaths in the fishing industry than in virtually all the rest of industry in Britain put together. The most dangerous industry in Britain depends on the coastguard, and many operators in the fishing industry are based in his constituency.
If the new clause is part of a campaign to save the hon. Gentleman’s own coastguard station, fine. I can accept it on those terms, but if it is a serious attempt to change the system, it must be rejected.
David Mundell
This is a debate on an important issue, and in many respects I share the sentiments expressed by the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Mr Doran). If the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil) is raising the issue to ensure that it is debated and his concerns are heard, then I accept his right to do so. However, if he is seriously suggesting that the coastguard service should be devolved, then obviously the Government cannot accept his proposal. The point to be made is that this matter was not brought before the Calman commission; nor was it brought before the Scottish Parliament’s Bill Committee or the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs as something that he had considered, along with the other changes that he proposed. Indeed, I am not even aware of the matter being raised as part of the so-called national conversation—something that you will have heard about in these exchanges, Ms Primarolo—which was promoted by the SNP Government in Edinburgh with the primary purpose, it would appear, of furthering the cause of independence at public expense.
Pete Wishart
The Minister keeps going on about things not being raised by the Calman commission, but nor was Antarctica or appeals to the Supreme Court. The Minister cannot have it both ways. The Government are introducing some stuff that was not in Calman, so surely they can consider other stuff that was similarly not in Calman.
David Mundell
As the hon. Gentleman is aware, the issue of Antarctica was fully considered by the Scottish Parliament’s Bill Committee and the Scottish Affairs Committee. It was not simply plucked out of the air and dealt with in an amendment in this place.
I understand the SNP’s dogmatic opposition to the Scottish Adjacent Waters Boundaries Order 1999 and its view that if Scotland had more ocean under its control, that ocean would benefit from SNP policies, but I am afraid that it is not a view I subscribe to. As the SNP knows, the Scottish Adjacent Waters Boundaries Order has two effects. First, it determines the boundary of waters that are to be treated as internal waters or the territorial sea of the UK adjacent to Scotland. That is relevant to the definition of “Scotland” in section 126(1) of the 1998 Act, which is used for the purpose of exercising devolved functions and the extent of the Scottish Parliament’s legislative competence. Similar provision is made in legislation relating to Northern Ireland and Wales for the purposes of their devolution settlements.
Secondly, the order determines the boundary of those waters to be treated as sea within British fishery limits adjacent to Scotland. That is relevant to the definition of “the Scottish zone”—in section 126(1) of the 1998 Act—in which the Scottish Parliament has legislative competence to regulate sea fisheries in accordance with the EU’s common fisheries policy and where fishermen are subject to Scots law. Scottish Ministers also have various Executive functions that are exercisable in the Scottish zone in relation to matters such as licensing and planning.
Crucially, the order defines boundaries off both the west and east coasts using the median line mythology recommended by the UN convention on the law of the sea. It is always interesting when we find the SNP in disagreement with the UN because it does not suit its purposes. This is the standard international mythology—methodology for defining water boundaries. It is illogical to use it off the west coast but deploy a boundary based on historical practice off the east coast. The Government have no plans to redefine the nautical boundaries between Scotland, England and Northern Ireland. We cannot accept that a boundary order should be issued in 2012 when no reason has been given for the need to do so other than SNP dogma. Although we recognise the strength of feeling on the coastguard, which is an important topic of debate, I urge the hon. Gentleman not to press his new clause.
Mr MacNeil
I will be brief in the hope that we will get to the vote. I am perplexed as to why the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Mr Doran) wants to leave the Tories in charge of Scotland’s coastguard.
Tom Greatrex (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Lab/Co-op)
I do not intend to detain the Committee because there are other new clauses we wish to debate.
The new clause deals with an issue that was probably neglected in the transfer of powers to the Scottish Parliament in relation to rail, and it is appropriate and sensible that we use the opportunity of this Bill to resolve that. On that basis, we intend to support it and assume, given that it is a sensible proposal on a technical issue, that the Government will not have too much of a problem with it.
David Mundell
I was disappointed that the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty) missed out Symington station as one of those that I continue to campaign to be reopened in my constituency, as it has brought vital rail services to that part of Scotland.
I was interested in the hon. Gentleman’s analysis of the requirements of the rail services in Scotland. His constituency counterpart, Helen Eadie, was the only Labour MSP to vote against the legislative consent motion for the Bill in the Scottish Parliament. Of course, Mrs Eadie is well known for her radical views on the Scottish rail network, proposing as she has the demolition of the Forth rail bridge. I was pleased that he did not suggest that that would fall within the powers of the Scottish Parliament.
Thomas Docherty
It might help the Minister to know that the Forth bridge is a category A listed building, so unfortunately Mrs Eadie would not have the ability to knock it down.
David Mundell
I am grateful for that confirmation, because the newspaper article that I read described Mrs Eadie as being unrepentant despite criticism from several quarters in that regard.
I am afraid that I must disappoint both the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife and the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Tom Greatrex), because the Government cannot support new clause 9. It deals with rail responsibilities, as the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife explained, and seeks to give the Scottish Parliament legislative competence over the provision of rail passenger services that start and finish in Scotland. That is a much longer list than the one to which he alluded, because it involves all cross-border services, including the Virgin franchise services on the west coast main line, which do not start and finish in Scotland and remain the responsibility of the Department for Transport.
Iain Stewart
Is my right hon. Friend aware that Glasgow and Edinburgh councils are running a strong campaign for the construction of a high-speed line from London to the midlands and further north, with the simultaneous building of a high-speed line from Scotland southwards? That would provide additional cross-border services, and it, too, would have to be taken into account when framing legislation such as this.
David Mundell
Indeed. As my hon. Friend will know, the coalition Government are committed to high-speed rail services throughout the United Kingdom. On Thursday, there will be an event in Glasgow, attended by a Transport Minister, about a consultation on the ongoing developments in high-speed rail. The first part of the high-speed rail service from London to Birmingham is vital for its further development into Scotland.
Mr Weir
I am listening closely to the Minister, but I am slightly confused. He is talking about the development of high-speed rail, which will be very good if it comes to Scotland—we will see whether the Government ever get it there—but that service does not begin and end in Scotland, and neither do the Virgin or east coast services. I do not understand his point. The new clause refers to services that begin and end in Scotland—basically, the ScotRail franchise as it operates at the moment.
David Mundell
My point, which I am sure that the hon. Gentleman does not recognise for dogmatic reasons, is that there are important rail services in Scotland that cross the border, and that those services remain important.
Mark Lazarowicz
Given that that is the current situation, why on earth are the Government opposing a new clause that refers to services that “start and finish”, not “start or finish”, in Scotland?
David Mundell
If the hon. Gentleman had listened to the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife, he would have heard him give a very narrow definition of services which start and finish in Scotland, without giving sufficient recognition to the fact that there are significant services that cross the border.
Mr Tom Harris
I listened closely to my hon. Friend’s speech, and he was very explicit in saying that the new clause refers only to the ScotRail franchise. That includes one cross-border service, the Caledonian sleeper, but this would have no effect whatever on other franchise services that cross the border—Virgin, East Coast and TransPennine Express. They would be completely untouched; nothing would change in their operational or financial arrangements. The only thing that would change is the ScotRail franchise. Can the Minister explain why that is beyond the wit of the Government?
David Mundell
If the hon. Gentleman had been listening, he would realise that I have said that Scotland benefits from a mix of services within the ScotRail franchise, and that cross-border services are vital to Scotland. I would have hoped that he would support the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes South (Iain Stewart) that high-speed rail is important to Scotland. However, none of those things is why the Government do not support the new clause.
Iain Stewart
The Minister is being very generous. I am happy to stand corrected, but I believe that there is a cross-border ScotRail service. It probably goes through Dumfries in his constituency to Carlisle and on to Newcastle. How will that service be included in the new clause?
David Mundell
There are indeed services that travel from Glasgow to Dumfries and on to Newcastle.
However, the Government’s objection to the new clause is that we are committed to maintaining a GB-wide national rail network that is publicly specified, funded in the public interest and provided by the private sector. The new clause would interfere with that national network. If the intention of the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife is to allow for a not-for-dividend operator of the ScotRail network, that is possible within the current framework.
Mr Tom Harris
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way once more. I agree with him that the GB-wide network should be publicly specified and commercially provided by the private sector. However, surely it goes against the spirit of devolution and of the Scotland Bill to deny Scottish Ministers the right to take a different view with regard to one self-contained franchise in Scotland. Surely devolution is about allowing Scottish Ministers to make mistakes, if that is what they wish to do.
David Mundell
The devolution settlement is indeed about allowing the Scottish Government to take decisions in respect of the areas for which they are responsible, as determined by the Scotland Act 1998 and the Scotland Bill. This discussion is about whether the issue in question should be devolved to the Scottish Government. The Government do not agree with that proposal because we believe that it would open the opportunity to fundamentally alter the national framework by allowing a renationalisation of the railway in Scotland.
David Mundell
The hon. Gentleman knows better than most that the Government were required to take over the east coast main line as a measure of last resort. Within the framework of the rail industry, there have to be measures of last resort. It is not a measure that the Government wish to promote. As I have said, we wish to promote a national rail network that is publicly specified, funded in the public interest and provided by the private sector. As I have also said, if it is the intention that a not-for-dividend company should operate, there is nothing to stop that in the present arrangements.
Thomas Docherty
I would not wish to suggest that the Minister is misleading the House—he has obviously been misinformed by the civil servants in the Box—but the Railways Act 1993 is explicit that a public sector operator cannot run the railways. I would be happy to go out to the Lobby and get the section of the Act that says that.
David Mundell
The hon. Gentleman is seeking to give a different definition. I am specifying a not-for-dividend organisation. If he wants to go beyond that and into the realms of opening up the powers for the Scottish Government to renationalise the railways in Scotland, he should promote that point in a different debate, and not by tabling a new clause to this Bill. If he genuinely believes that the railways in Scotland should be renationalised, he should make that argument in the appropriate place.
The hon. Members for Dunfermline and West Fife and for Rutherglen and Hamilton West said that this was a minor matter that was being brought forward at this stage because it had simply been overlooked. However, I believe that it would have benefited from the thorough scrutiny of the Scotland Bill Committee in the Scottish Parliament and from discussion in the Scottish Affairs Committee.
John Thurso
I have no doubt that the Minister is right to resist the amendment, because I am sure that it is technically deficient in some way, but—[Laughter.] I took part in the entire Committee stage of the Railways Act 2005, and the intention was to devolve everything that could be devolved to the Scottish Government in relation to the railways. Is there no room for compromise to allow for what is a reasonably sensible suggestion without breaking the principle that the Minister is evoking?
David Mundell
The hon. Gentleman, as always, offers wise words. I thought that he was going to refer to the debate in this House on 31 March 1998, although he was not then a Member, in which rail powers were debated in the context of the original Scotland Bill. The hon. Member for Central Ayrshire was prominent in that debate, as he was in our earlier discussion on voting systems.
Mark Lazarowicz
Again, I honestly do not understand the Minister’s position. The new clause refers to the provision of rail services, but it does not provide for the devolution of the rail infrastructure. The tracks and the rest of it could not be sold off. I suggest that he remembers that he is in a coalition and rethinks this issue before he is deserted by some of his colleagues to his right.
David Mundell
I have set out why the Government cannot accept the new clause. The Government believe that the devolved powers, which are significant, are best exercised within a coherent GB structure, as provided under the Railways Acts of 1993 and 2005. We believe that it is essential that the overall regime for the provision of rail passenger services and their regulation remains a reserved matter. It would not be sensible to run the railway in such a way that the Scottish Parliament could overturn the framework that governs the operation of passenger services on a GB basis. Our policy is to maintain a unified national rail network that is subject to appropriate oversight by Scottish Ministers. I believe that the current system achieves that. I therefore ask the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife to withdraw the new clause.
Thomas Docherty
This should have been a relatively short and reasonable debate. As my hon. Friend the Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Tom Greatrex) said, on the face of it there should have been no opposition to the new clause. I am therefore pretty surprised by the rather weak arguments that the civil servants have foisted upon the Minister, who I think knows better.
To address the point made by the hon. Member for Milton Keynes South (Iain Stewart), it would be absurd if a railway line that ran from Glasgow down through Ayrshire, Dumfries and Galloway did not have its terminus in Carlisle. There is a variation in the operating rules that allows ScotRail to run that service to Carlisle. That service is part of the ScotRail franchise and has no impact on the other services that run through and connect at Carlisle.
Jacob Rees-Mogg
I think that those of us who support the Union are also being principled. These tax revenues—these forms that generate income for the state—must be preserved in their entirety. Once we start cutting them up bit by bit, we end up making calculations and saying “Actually, Scotland is receiving rather too little from the Crown Estate rather than too much.” I do not think that that argument works. I think that the Crown Estate must be viewed as a whole, as an indivisible part of an indivisible Crown. That is what I want to see: the traditional constitutional position which this country has enjoyed and which has made it such a great nation. Let us have no more attacks on private property or the indivisibility of the Crown, and let us have a reasonable settlement in taxation between the people of England and the people of Scotland, not to mention those of Northern Ireland and Wales, who also deserve their fair share of the total pie of economic wealth.
David Mundell
I welcome the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg), because I am afraid that our debates on matters Scottish tend to become somewhat homogenous, and it is good to have a different perspective on our deliberations. It was also good to hear again about the threat of the hot breath of rapacious socialism and the harm that it can do in Scotland, because we need to hear that. As we near the forthcoming Scottish Parliament elections, I will urge my colleagues to do their best to repel that threat.
My hon. Friend’s contribution was in marked contrast to that of the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil), who again sped through his speech, which was simply a recounting of the usual dogma. Instead of making a coherent case, he simply said that the Crown Estate should be devolved to Scotland because everything should be devolved to Scotland.
Those of us who have been present in the Chamber throughout the deliberations on this Bill noted yet again the strong divergence between what we have come to know as London SNP and Edinburgh SNP. Although the hon. Gentleman launched an attack on the Crown Estate, none other than Jim Mather, SNP Energy Minister in Scotland, has said that the Scottish Government
“greatly value the strong working relationship with the Crown estate commissioners as it helps us all to ensure that Scotland leads the UK in giving wave and tidal energy developers opportunities to harness the power of our seas.”
The characterisation of the Crown Estate by the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar was therefore misleading. Although I take on board the points that the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr Reid) made about the operation of the Crown Estate, and acknowledge that he is a doughty campaigner for change to the estate, I am afraid that I do not recognise the characterisation of the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar. As he knows, the Secretary of State has sought to engage with the Crown Estate, and the estate has moved forward in a number of positive ways, such as through the production of its annual report, and the meetings it has with Scottish Ministers, MSPs, Scottish local authorities and many interest groups.
However, although there are positive aspects to the development of the Crown Estate, the Government recognise that a number of issues have been raised during the progress of the Scotland Bill and following the Calman deliberations, which is why we look in particular to the Scottish Parliament LCM Committee report, which stated that it had identified a number of radical options for the future development of the Crown Estate but that time was needed to consider them. We agree with the Committee when it says that it noted with some interest that the Scottish Affairs Committee in the House of Commons will review the work of the Crown Estate commissioners in Scotland, and that that was an important development. The Secretary of State for Scotland’s positive attitude to this initiative was also noted. That sums up the Government’s position. We greatly welcome the inquiry that the Scottish Affairs Committee has said that it will carry out into the operation of the Crown Estate in Scotland. That will present an opportunity for the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute and others who have strong views about the Crown Estate to set them out, and the Government will look closely at the outcome of that inquiry.
What we will not do is respond favourably to dogma and to a view that the Crown Estate should simply be devolved for the sake of doing so. Although I have no hope that the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar will do so, I ask him to withdraw the motion for his new clause.
Mr MacNeil
I noted that the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr Reid) said that coastal communities should benefit, but I was told earlier by a Liberal Democrat that they would look to mess about with a pretended technicality. Unfortunately, that is the usual stance of the Liberal Democrats: on the one hand it is not enough, yet on the other hand it is too much, and the upshot is that they want to leave it all with London. They will be judged in Scotland, so at least we will probably all be saved from having to listen to their pious words for years to come. In short, their position is that London is best, helping local communities is not on their agenda, and they will be voting for the status quo. Highlanders will know what to do at the May elections: sweep the Liberal Democrats away at the ballot box. Both the hon. Gentleman and Labour talk about local communities, but do nothing about that.
The hon. Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg), whom I have great respect for and like personally, pronounces Na h-Eileanan an Iar very well. He did so not once, not twice, not three times, not four times, but five times. All I can say is he must have had a very good teacher. I should tell him, however, that Crown rights in Scotland long predate George III.
Mr Davidson
Perhaps it would be a century, but I think that it would be just under an hour and a quarter. In that way, when it was noon by Greenwich mean time, it would be about 13.14 in Scotland. Scotland would constantly be on Bannockburn time. I think that the concept of Bannockburn time is what the nationalists are after: “Here’s tae us, wha’s like us. A lot of them are deid now right enough, but we do actually remember them.” This proposal is simply about seeking division for its own sake.
The hon. Member for Milton Keynes South (Iain Stewart) was very helpful in reminding us that schedule 5 to the Scotland Act 1998 covers more matters than just time. It also covers the calendar. I am sure that the idea of a public holiday on Alex Salmond’s birthday will be a recommendation from the SNP. We have had the Julian calendar and a variety of different calendars. A nationalist calendar is the logical consequence. Why should an independent country be stuck with the same calendar as England? There are logical arguments for that, but the SNP is not the party of logical arguments; it is the party of passion, of Bannockburn and of “Here’s tae us, let’s be separate.”
I think that there is a real difficulty in all of this. I very much hope that the SNP does not chicken out here. I hope that it puts the new clause to the vote so that we can see just how ludicrous its proposals are, and the extent to which it is treating the Scotland Bill as nothing more than a joke. We are trying to improve the governance of Scotland; the SNP is trying to create divisions. The proposal to have separate time zones is absurd.
David Mundell
I am starting to be very concerned about the extent to which I agree with the hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Mr Davidson). Indeed, the hon. Member for the Western Isles has done something remarkable this evening—he has led me to agree 100% with the hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway (Mr Brown), which is a very rare occurrence. I could not have put it better—the new clause is sheer lunacy, and Members on both sides of the Chamber have set out why.
It is important to reflect on the findings of the Calman commission, which highlighted the importance of cross-border institutions and functions of the UK Government that bind the people of Scotland and the rest of the UK in a “social union”. It stated its view that a consistent British isles time zone was an important aspect of that. Of course, the SNP wants to destroy that social union. As has been said in the debate, having two separate time zones in the UK is one way in which it would seek to do so.
I think it was the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Mark Lazarowicz) who pointed out the contradiction in the position of the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil), who has spoken passionately against any proposal to change the time, but who has now tabled a new clause that makes the change that he says he opposes much more likely.
From the outset, this Government have said that they would not consider adopting single/double summertime, central European time or any variation on them without the agreement of all nations of the UK. The Prime Minister has been unequivocal in stating that having different times operating concurrently in the UK is not an option. On Second Reading of the Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Rebecca Harris), the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr Davey), made clear the Government’s opposition to the Bill. Additionally, as the hon. Member for the Western Isles will be aware, at the time of the publication of the UK Government’s tourism strategy on 4 March, the Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport, my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (John Penrose), reiterated the Government’s commitment that no change to current policy would happen without the approval of the whole UK.
Were the new clause to be accepted, Scotland would have the power to determine its own time zone. As the hon. Member for Glasgow South West pointed out, that would give the Scottish Parliament the capacity to make a change just for the sake of being different. The contribution to the debate that I thought was most illustrative was the one from Northern Ireland, from the hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson). He indicated that although the power in question was available there, nobody would wish to use it. That brings us back to the dogma of the SNP in making proposals, as I have said before, either because it sees them as a way of breaking up the UK or simply for the sake of having power.
If Scotland were to have a different time zone from the rest of the home nations, daily transactions between Scotland and the rest of the British Isles would take on an unwanted added complexity. Importantly, it could put Scotland at an economic disadvantage. It could certainly disadvantage my constituents, and those of the hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway and the Secretary of State for Scotland, which should not be countenanced.
The new clause would be detrimental to the Union between the people of Scotland and those of the rest of the UK, which is clearly why it was tabled. It runs contrary to the spirit and effect of the Bill and the views of the Calman commission, which put at the heart of its work the retention of the United Kingdom. Anyone who has a commitment to retaining the UK should oppose the new clause.
Mr MacNeil
The hon. Member for Milton Keynes South (Iain Stewart) pronounced my constituency name well, putting the Minister to shame—I note again that he referred to my constituency by its old name.
The hon. Member for Milton Keynes South and I agree on many things, and have together worked to fight off the forces of darkness who are trying to force central European time on us—they call it Churchill time, but we call it Chamberlain time, because it is definitely appeasement. He can rest assured that the date of Easter will remain the first Sunday after the first full moon after the equinox, which perhaps brings me neatly to the hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Mr Davidson). He is not keen on Bannockburn time, but I wondered whether he was working on moon time given some of his interventions and suggestions.
I am calling not for the time zone to change, but for the power to ameliorate if London makes a change. We in Scotland want to keep the time as it is. The danger is that London will foist something on Scotland that we do not want. The new clause is about giving the power to Scotland.
Tom Greatrex
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her intervention, and I hope to address the point that she has raised.
Calman looked at this issue in a degree of detail. The issue was mentioned in the White Paper of November 2009, but it does not appear in the Bill. The new clause addresses Calman recommendation 5.11, which states:
“The Scottish Parliament should not have the power to legislate on food content and labelling in so far as that legislation would cause a breach of the single market in the UK by placing a burden on the manufacturing, distribution and supply of foodstuffs to consumers, and Schedule 5 to the Scotland Act should be amended accordingly.”
Calman looked at the exception of trade descriptions in relation to food from the general reservation of consumer protection issues in the Scotland Act 1998. At the same time, the devolved Administration in the Scottish Parliament have responsibility for public health. The evidence taken by Calman was largely oral, and it was instructive. The chief executive of the Food Standards Agency made it clear in oral evidence that the potential for policy divergence was a concern that should be eliminated by making a change akin to that proposed in this new clause and said that the information should be available throughout the UK. Evidence from representatives of both the Royal Environmental Health Institute of Scotland and the College of Medicine and Veterinary Medicine echoed that point and said there was a potential issue, although I am sure that the Minister will want to remind us that both of them made it clear that in practice there has not been a problem yet. This recommendation was welcomed by the Scottish Retail Consortium, CBI Scotland and the Food and Drink Federation. It was referenced in the Command Paper from which I assume the Minister will draw his remarks on this new clause, and it is a recommendation that we seek to insert into the Bill.
The Scottish Retail Consortium made a number of points about areas in which public health is not a factor, such as that a requirement to label or produce food differently in different parts of the UK places a heavy burden on retailers and manufacturers and could breach the ethos of the single market. A number of examples have been cited—for example, mandatory environmental labelling with different requirements in Scotland from other parts of the UK—that could place a financial and administrative burden on the food industry, and many of the companies affected would be small firms providing specialised products who do not wish their markets to be limited to just one part of the UK. The introduction of this measure would not stop the often successful voluntary schemes that already exist and to which the Command Paper makes reference.
The Government suggest in the Command Paper that potential activity by the Scottish Parliament in food labelling must be agreed by the UK Government and the European Commission, and therefore the protection is in place and is robust enough. The Command Paper goes on to suggest that this Calman recommendation is superfluous. There is a clear argument that it is not superfluous, but that what we require in this matter is clarity. That is the content of the representations from food manufacturers, food retailers and business organisations in Scotland.
This new clause enables the Calman commission recommendation, which mysteriously disappeared between the November 2009 White Paper and the Bill being published, to be enacted. It provides clarity, which is what the industry is looking for, and it provides an opportunity for the Government to deal with an issue that the Command Paper seems to wish to dismiss.
David Mundell
I welcome this opportunity to discuss a substantive issue in relation to the Calman commission report and the subsequent Scotland Bill. It compares favourably with some of the discussions and superfluous issues that have been raised by the SNP during the course of the evening.
Hon. Members will know that the Calman commission made a recommendation on food content and labelling which, as the hon. Gentleman has pointed out, is not included in the Bill. I shall set out the Government’s reasons for deciding not to include it, as was made clear in the Command Paper. Although the recommendation seems sensible on paper, it presents a wide range of difficulties in practice, and I shall set those out. As he has said, the Scottish Parliament’s report on the Scotland Bill also sought a fuller explanation for the Government’s position. The commission made the following recommendation:
“The Scottish Parliament should not have the power to legislate on food content and labelling in so far as that legislation would cause a breach of the single market in the UK by placing a burden on the manufacturing, distribution and supply of foodstuffs to consumers, and Schedule 5 to the Scotland Act should be amended accordingly.”
The commission also recommended that the Scottish Parliament’s and Scottish Government’s abilities to deal with public health issues should remain, so the recommendation does not cover this aspect, and the Government fully support that.
Importantly, and rightly, Calman recognised that food content and labelling are almost exclusively regulated at European Union level, so any scope for national flexibility at member state level when implementing this European law is extremely narrow. Hon. Members will know that general and nutritional labelling is currently being recast in a proposed European regulation. The resulting legislation will be directly applicable across the whole of the United Kingdom. A number of other labelling and food standards matters are governed by European directives.
Even where no specific food-related legislation has been adopted at European Union level, free movement principles mean that any food which can be lawfully sold in any member state must be able to be sold throughout the United Kingdom, and vice versa. Significantly, single market rules seeking to avoid barriers to trade being erected apply equally to rules applied in just one part of a member state. Any national measure would need to be notified at member state level, and clearance would need to be obtained from the European Commission before adoption. Before seeking such clearance, consideration would always need to be given to the potential for any disruptive impact within the United Kingdom.
I emphasise to right hon. and hon. Members that the Scottish Parliament is already in a position where it cannot legislate to set particular Scottish standards for food content in cases where that would breach the single European market or supplement existing European regulations. The Scotland Act prohibits the Scottish Parliament from legislating in a way that is incompatible with Community law, and Scottish Ministers have no power to carry out any executive act which is incompatible with that law—to do so would be ultra vires and any such act would have no effect.
It is relevant to the Calman commission’s recommendation that member states may restrict the free movement of goods in exceptional and limited cases. One example where that might be possible is if the Scottish Parliament were to need to take action for the purposes of public health. Again, however, Calman did not suggest any restrictions in this area. The Government are aware of only two instances where Scottish food legislation imposes different requirements from those that apply in England. First, the sale of raw milk or cream for direct human consumption is banned in Scotland but permitted, subject to certain restrictions, in England—European legislation specifically allows that. Secondly, the rules regarding food storage temperature control requirements are much more detailed in England than in Scotland. Both those differences predate Scotland’s ability to make its own legislation and both relate to food safety, not general food labelling or standards. That suggests to the Government that there is not a substantial problem to be addressed. There is therefore no need, in our view, to amend the Scotland Act.
Amending schedule 5 to the Act poses a number of possibly insurmountable problems, at the root of which is the fact that the Calman commission’s recommendation seeks to address a particular effect of legislation—that is, the breach of a single market. The purpose test that applies to the reserved matters in schedule 5 to the Act requires both the purpose and the effect of a provision to be taken into account. It is therefore possible for a provision to have an effect on a reserved matter and yet not relate to it when the purpose test is applied. Simply including a matter in schedule 5 does not guarantee that it can never be affected by legislation that is in the competence of the Scottish Parliament.
There is no precedent for enabling the Scottish Parliament to legislate on a matter provided that its legislation only has certain effects. Even if it were possible to create a new type of reserved matter, there would still be problems. Indeed, any such measure would depend on a definition of what is meant by the United Kingdom single market, which is a concept at the heart of Calman’s recommendation. Furthermore, any amendment of the Scotland Act would create a divergence between the different countries of the United Kingdom as the devolved institutions in Northern Ireland and Wales are not subject to equivalent restrictions.
To summarise, although Scottish Parliament legislation of the type that Calman’s recommendation is designed to prevent is theoretically possible, it is highly unlikely. The likelihood of the Scottish Parliament’s legislating on food content and labelling in a field where exemptions can be found from single market legislation and where any applicable European regulations can be simultaneously disapplied is very limited. The likelihood of its doing so for purposes that are not related to legitimate actions in the field of public health is extremely low.
Finally, any national measures on labelling or content where a member state may be able to act would need to be notified to the European Commission at member state level.
Mr Davidson
May I seek guidance from the Minister? If we have a vote on this matter, will all Unionist Members be voting at 10 o’clock and the nationalist Members be voting on the 13.14 principle at quarter past 11?
David Mundell
That is a very good point. One thing that always interests me about those who promote the time change is that they rarely seek to refer to it as central European time and the imposition of time from Europe on the rest of the—
The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. It was not a particularly brilliant joke the first time round. Can we now get back to new clause 19?
David Mundell
I apologise, Mr Evans, for getting sucked into matters that diverge from the subject under discussion.
The Government appreciate the concern behind the Calman recommendation, and we have fully considered its implications. The hon. Member for East Lothian (Fiona O'Donnell), who has shown great stamina throughout today’s proceedings by taking part in many of the individual debates, asked whether we had consulted the retail and business sector. I am pleased to tell her that I have met the Scottish Retail Consortium and discussed this issue in detail. I have also met the director of the CBI in Scotland, who has also previously set out concerns on this matter. I hope that I have been able to persuade both organisations that the legal basis, which I have set out in detail, is a sound one and is the basis on which the Government did not include that particular recommendation in the Bill.
On the need for legislative change, taking together all the points I have made, the Government do not necessarily consider—