Scotland: General Election and Constitutional Future
Edward Leigh Excerpts(3 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Tommy Sheppard
All good things come to those who wait, and I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I will be dealing with the “once in a generation” tagline later in my speech.
On referendums and whether they should take place, the question will arise as to who should make the decision. If we believe in the will of the Scottish people to choose their own destiny, then the answer can only be that the people of Scotland should decide whether to have another referendum. I accept that there needs to be a debate about how we gauge their opinion and what democratic mechanism is used for them to express their view. Well, democratic societies will quite often do that by using the electoral process and the process of voting, and in 2016 that is exactly what happened. My party did not go into the election in 2016 saying, “There must be another referendum and, 18 months forward, we disrespect the decision that was taken.” We went to the polls saying: “It looks like things are beginning to happen in the UK that will change the whole nature of the options available to people, and there may be circumstances in which it would be legitimate and proper to go forward and reconsider the question again in a second referendum.” That was the mandate that we were given by the people of Scotland in 2016.
That was six weeks before the Brexit vote in the UK, and no one could have anticipated what would unfold in the years after the May 2016 general election in Scotland. People in England voted by a small majority to leave the European Union and people in Scotland voted, by a much larger majority, to stay in the European Union. Overall, the vote was such that there was a narrow majority to leave, and the British Government began the tortuous process of extricating the United Kingdom from the European Union. That process was made all the more difficult and painful by the Government’s decision not to try to accommodate any of the wishes of the people on the losing side of the argument and to seek the maximum possible dissociation from the European Union. That is what happened, and we remember the agonising twists and turns in that process.
As 2018 moved into 2019 and we watched the process unfold, two things became clear. First, the opinion of the people of Scotland in the matter was to be completely disregarded. Unlike in other parts of the United Kingdom where there was an attempt to try to make the decision that was being implemented fit the aspirations of people who lived there, there was no such attempt in Scotland.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
But the fact remains that Brexit has happened, so an independent Scotland would have to apply to rejoin the EU. Leaving aside whether it would be wise for Scotland to replace union with a country that is right next door to it with one with a body that is hundreds of miles away, why does the hon. Gentleman think that Spain, with its problems of Catalonia, would ever facilitate Scotland rejoining the EU?
Tommy Sheppard
That is not the subject of today’s debate, but it only takes a cursory reading of statements from European premiers to see that their mood has completely changed and they would welcome, many of them with open arms, a self-governing Scotland into the European Union. But we are getting ahead of ourselves, because we have not yet had the ability to take that decision.
As the Brexit process unfolded, two things became clear. One was that Scotland’s views were to be completely disregarded, but even more worryingly, we saw the British Government begin to put in place mechanisms to replace the jurisdiction of the European Union that would centralise political power in this country and reduce the capacity and competence of the devolved Administrations in Holyrood and, indeed, Cardiff.
By the end of 2019 it became clear that those two things were creating a fundamentally different terrain on which the future of the United Kingdom and the future of Scotland should be judged. It was the determination of the Scottish Parliament by resolution at that time that the conditions set in the mandate of 2016 had been met and that that mandate should now be discharged. Therefore, the Scottish Parliament voted and applied to the British Government for a section 30 order to begin the process of having a further referendum. The response by the Prime Minister was fast and furious, and he dismissed it out of hand.
We were about to get into an argument about that when the world literally turned upside down and a small microbe brought humanity almost to its knees. As covid-19 raced across the globe, and as our economy and society ground to a halt, the Scottish Government—rightly, in my view—decided to shelve any preparations or plans for a further referendum until that matter was dealt with. Had the pandemic not happened, we might well be having a very different discussion today. But we are where we are, and we are 51 days away from the Scottish general election, at which the existing mandate will expire. At that election, my party and others will be seeking a new, fresh mandate from the Scottish people to assert their right to choose whether they wish to remain in a post-Brexit Britain, or whether Scotland’s fortunes are better served by having a choice and becoming a self-governing independent European country. That is what will be at stake in the 2021 election.
Unlike 2016, the mandate we seek will not be conditional, have qualifications or be reliant on things that may or may not happen. It will be unconditional and without qualification, and it will be front and centre on page 1 of our manifesto. I think it is a racing certainty—Government Members can tell me if I am wrong—that the inverse proposition will be front and centre of the Conservative manifesto as well. We can be sure of one thing, which is that there will be a full and frank debate about this question, and a vote will be taken on 6 May 2021.
Oral Answers to Questions
Edward Leigh Excerpts(5 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister
I answered the question about a second referendum earlier and my view has not changed in the few minutes since I did so. I believe that we should deliver on the first referendum. But can I challenge the right hon. Lady on what she said? It is not right that outside the European Union those children have no future. This country has a bright future outside the European Union, and that is the message she should be giving to her constituents.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
The Prime Minister
My right hon. Friend has raised an important issue, because obviously the Palace of Westminster is recognised all over the world as a symbol of democracy, and the decision that was taken by Parliament to approve the restoration and renewal programme was a huge step towards its protection. As he says, we will be introducing the Bill today, and I am pleased that we are able to do that. The decision to move to Richmond House was of course a matter for Parliament. I understand that although Richmond House will be substantially redeveloped, the proposals will retain Richmond Terrace and the Whitehall façade. I am sure that, as he indicated at the end of his question, he will agree with me that it is imperative that Parliament keeps the total bill as low as possible.
Scotland’s Fiscal Framework
Edward Leigh Excerpts(8 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
David Mundell
I note what the hon. Lady says. Of course people in Scotland will know that the SNP position used to be to abolish air passenger duty completely, so there is somewhat of a change there. None the less, she makes an important point. There is a review, and I am sure that those issues will be considered as the Budget process goes ahead in this Parliament.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
Is not the measure of statesmanship the imagination to give to others what one demands for oneself? For centuries, the English have demanded full control over our spending and taxation. Why should the Scottish people feel any different? Does the Secretary of State not realise that there must be some merit in the argument that as long as we maintain the outmoded, outdated and unfair Barnett formula, which thoroughly disadvantages the English, we will simply stoke up resentment on both sides of the border, and that will ultimately lead to more calls for independence?
David Mundell
My hon. Friend, as we well know, is the staunchest advocate of full fiscal freedom in this Chamber—more staunchly so than those on the SNP Benches when he moved his amendment for complete fiscal freedom. My response is that the people of Scotland would not respond well to having a £10 billion annual black hole in their finances, and that full fiscal freedom is not the answer. Further devolution as set out in the Scotland Bill to create a powerhouse Parliament is what the people of Scotland want and it is what this Government are delivering.
Scotland Bill
Edward Leigh Excerpts(9 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
I wish to speak to new clause 1, which calls for an independent commission on full fiscal autonomy. I have to say to the shadow Secretary of State, who tabled it, that there is a whiff of hypocrisy about this. He may not remember it, but on 15 June, during the Committee stage, I proposed an amendment to achieve immediate full fiscal autonomy. I was supported in the Division Lobby by the Scottish National party and some Conservative colleagues. If Labour Members had voted with us, we could have had full fiscal autonomy that night, but they chose not to do so. I do not know whether they are embarrassed about that—[Interruption.] The shadow Secretary of State is shaking his head and says that he is not embarrassed, but he has now tabled an amendment that would produce another talking shop and another Smith commission on full fiscal autonomy, thus knocking the whole matter into the long grass. Incidentally, he says that no Member of the House of Commons or of the other place should serve on the commission. I do not why that is. He also says:
“The Secretary of State shall not appoint as a member of the commission any person who is a member of a political party.”
That is a process of thinking that suggests that, somehow, politicians should not take decisions and that the fate of nations is decided not by statesmen, but by unelected commissions. The commission will have to meet for many months, but what will it tell us that we do not already know?
The fact is full fiscal autonomy is a well understood concept; it has the virtue of simplicity. I will not repeat all the arguments I made in its favour on 15 June, but Labour could have had it. I give this prediction: at the next general election, either the Conservative party or the Labour party will promise, in their manifestos, full fiscal autonomy. They will have to do that, because otherwise we will continue to be behind the curve.
I was criticised by some on the Conservative Benches for being unhelpful on 15 June, but actually I was helping the Conservative and Unionist cause. I showed to some people in Scotland that there were Unionist politicians who value the Union, and who believe in full fiscal autonomy, because it is the best way to stop the gradual slide towards independence. If we have a Scottish Parliament based on the Smith commission, which involves highly complex procedures on tax and many other matters— they have been debated in the past so we do not need to repeat them all here—we are inevitably leading to a sense of grievance.
The way to solve the grievance is to have full fiscal autonomy immediately. The Scottish Parliament should be held responsible for taxing the people and spending the money. If the SNP controls the Scottish Parliament, it is held responsible by the Scottish people. Furthermore, the arguments for full fiscal autonomy have moved even more in its favour since June following our debate on EVEL.
What is the objection to EVEL by Scottish Members of Parliament and by the SNP? It is that we have the Barnett formula. They are not allowed to vote on all stages of a Bill. A Bill could change English spending, and in doing so it automatically changes Scottish spending, but Scottish MPs are not allowed to vote on all stages of the Bill.
If the Scottish Parliament had full fiscal autonomy—if we did away with the Barnett formula—there would be no need for EVEL. The only reserved matters would be foreign affairs and defence, which account for a very small proportion of total spending. The budget of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office is 0.2% of gross national product, that of the Department for International Development is 7%, as we know, and that of the Ministry of Defence is 2%. Sometimes a whole year will pass without there being any legislation on the MOD or the Foreign Office. If the Scottish Parliament had full fiscal autonomy, and therefore the only legislation that affected the Scottish people was to do with foreign affairs and defence, there would be no need for EVEL.
This whole debate about Barnett and EVEL is in danger of being used by our political opponents. That is not what I want, but they are our political opponents, after all. They oppose the Union. They are entitled to make what arguments they like, and they will use the debate around EVEL to argue against the United Kingdom.
Ms Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh (Ochil and South Perthshire) (SNP)
I do indeed remember the amendment that the hon. Gentleman brought before the House in relation to full fiscal autonomy. He will remember that the shadow Chancellor also voted in the Lobby with him and Scottish National party Members on full fiscal autonomy. Does he agree that it might be progress for the Labour party if it followed the party leadership on this matter?
Sir Edward Leigh
I do not know if the new shadow Chancellor voted in our Lobby, but there seems to be an interesting concept nowadays in the Labour party: there is full freedom on the Labour Benches and, apparently, the Labour party leader can oppose Labour party policy on Trident and much else. As we have just heard, the shadow Chancellor opposes Labour party policy on full fiscal autonomy. This is an interesting situation. I have made my point. I do not believe this is a genuine proposal from the shadow Secretary of State.
Ian Murray
I respect the hon. Gentleman immensely. If he thinks back to the debate we had on 15 June, he will recall that no one in this Chamber from the SNP or his colleagues on the right wing of the Conservative party believed the figures that were put forward by the Institute for Fiscal Studies or the Treasury, or the Scottish Government’s own figures. New clause 1 is an attempt to bring some clarity to those figures so that full fiscal autonomy could benefit Scotland, rather than being an £8 billion black hole.
Sir Edward Leigh
I do not want to get into a debate about a black hole, the deficit and all the rest of it. I remember that I was intervened on by the hon. Member for East Lothian (George Kerevan) and I accepted that there should be transitional arrangements. I made the point that this was not a right-wing Tory trap for the SNP. This was not a device to get rid of Barnett because we were claiming that the Scottish people get £1,600 a year more. I said precisely that if there was full fiscal autonomy and we got rid of Barnett, we should retain the United Kingdom and there should be a grant formula based on need.
If, for instance, Scotland had a particular problem, as we have in Lincolnshire with the sparsity factor in relation to education provision, or with declining industries, we are a United Kingdom Parliament. We are a fraternal Parliament. I believe in the Union, I believe in our standing together. If there is a need for the United Kingdom—I called it the imperial Parliament, as it were—to help out our friends in Wales—[Interruption.] SNP Members do not like that word, but I used it advisedly. That was the term that was used during the debates on Irish home rule. It is a technical term. If our friends in Northern Ireland, Wales or Scotland need extra help from the United Kingdom Parliament, we should give that help, but it should be based on needs, not on an automatic formula based on Barnett, which is an outmoded concept that has outlived its usefulness. It is also, as I have said, very dangerous in the context of the debate on English votes for English laws.
I am sorry to take the Labour party to task, because I respect the shadow Secretary of State. Labour is making some progress, but it is still behind the curve and I do not believe it will ever get back in front of the curve in Scotland unless it is bold. I repeat the point I made back in June: whether we like it or not, we have the election system that we have. We, the Unionist parties, went to the Scottish people. We based our arguments on the Smith commission, and we lost 56 of the 59 seats in Scotland.
The hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen) can complain about that, but that is the parliamentary system we have. We have to accept that, whether we like it or not, the Smith commission was rejected by the Scottish people. If we want to save the Union—and I am as passionate about the Union as the hon. Gentleman —we cannot be behind the curve on this. We have to be big-hearted, we have to be bold, and we have to move with full fiscal autonomy and move with it now.
Angus Robertson (Moray) (SNP)
I rise to speak to the amendments tabled in my name and those of my right hon. and hon. Friends in proceedings which, thus far, most viewers in Scotland will frankly view as a total travesty and a farce. We are told that this is a piece of legislation of amazing proportions and importance, yet there are fewer than 10 Back Benchers on the Conservative Benches and fewer than 10 Members of Parliament on the Labour Benches. What does it say about the Unionist parties in this House that they cannot even be bothered to turn up for a debate about something they think is so important? We are debating the Report stage of the Scotland Bill with 200 or more amendments and new clauses before us—200!—yet we have heard extended speeches about English local government and a whole series of other things that have absolutely nothing to do with today’s proceedings.
The context of these proceedings is clear to people listening and watching in Scotland. First, a promise—a vow—was made. Secondly, we heard day in, day out that devo-max would be delivered, even from Labour MPs of the time. The former Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, said that we were near to federalism:
“Within a year or two, as close to a federal state as…can be.”
One can call this Bill many things, but it is not a charter for federalism—it is a long, long way from that. We all know about its shortcomings; they have been denied by the Government, but they are clear to pretty much anybody else who cares to look. We know because others who are not in political parties, and do not have a vested interest, have said so, including the Scottish Trades Union Congress, the Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations, Carers Scotland, Enable Scotland, and—how about this—the cross-party committee of the Scottish Parliament, on which senior Conservative and Labour MSPs served, that had the obligation to look at this. It said that the Scotland Bill “falls short” in some “critical areas”, and that it does not meet the “spirit or substance” of the Smith commission’s recommendations and requires extensive redrafting in other key areas.
What about those who do have a political vested interest? How about—let us pick one—the deputy leader of the Labour party in Scotland, Mr Alex Rowley? He said on BBC Radio Scotland on 18 September 2015:
“No ifs, no buts, Smith has not been delivered”
and
“We will stand shoulder to shoulder with SNP Ministers to deliver Smith.”
How ironic. Where were those voices today—where were the speeches? Perhaps we can hear them later. We have not heard a single one that reflects those realities.
We should not lose sight of the fact that the Smith commission followed the referendum. As I have said in previous debates in this House, we recognise and respect the result of the referendum, and we proceeded to work with the other political parties in the Smith commission. We then went to the country in a general election, and, like other political parties, we stood on a manifesto. The manifesto said:
“We welcome the proposals set out in the Smith Commission, as far as they go. The further watering down of the agreed proposals, by the UK government, is unacceptable. There should be no effective veto for UK ministers on the exercise of the various new powers, in particular over the welfare system. We share the view of many organisations across Scotland that the package, as it stands, does not enable us to deliver fully either the greater social justice or the powerhouse economy that our country demands. As the STUC has said, ‘there is not enough’ in the Smith Commission recommendations ‘to empower the Scottish Parliament to tackle inequality in Scotland’… The Smith Commission proposals were, in many respects, a missed opportunity. Decisions about more than 70 per cent of Scottish taxes and 85 per cent of current UK welfare spending in Scotland will stay at Westminster.”
We also went to the country with the following pledge:
“Scotland should have the opportunity to establish its own constitutional framework, including human rights, equalities and the place of local government. The Scottish Parliament should also have the ability to directly represent its interests on devolved matters in the EU and internationally.”
Sir Edward Leigh
I refer the hon. Gentleman to his own new clause 1. Do I take it that because the Labour party wants an independent commission to examine the issue of full fiscal autonomy, it is increasingly open minded about the issue, and does the hon. Gentleman think that that would be one route towards getting rid of the grievance mentality among those in Scotland? If they had to take full responsibility for their decisions, it would be very difficult for them to blame a United Kingdom settlement.
Wayne David
We believe that the facts should be allowed to speak for themselves. In our view, the case has not been made and cannot be made, but what we want to see is a transparent, independent body that will reach that conclusion, and we are confident that it will do so. That is why we support the proposal for an independent commission.
Wayne David
Yes, indeed. They are very strong on rhetoric, as we have heard this afternoon. They have had strong election results, but I suspect that that will not apply for much longer, because the Scottish people will rumble them when they dig beneath the rhetoric and find that there is very little substance there.
Sir Edward Leigh
Could it just be that the Tory right, as the hon. Gentleman describes it, and the present Labour shadow Chancellor both recognise that the one way to defeat nationalism is to have a real Parliament in Scotland with full power over what it taxes and spends and that at that stage the SNP will have to take responsibility for its own actions? It will become a grown-up political party and we will start to defeat it in Scotland.
Wayne David
One of the key reasons why we are broadly in support of what the Government are belatedly proposing is that we believe it will give new responsibilities to the Scottish Parliament to try to achieve substantial things on behalf of the Scottish people. I think there is a case to say that responsibility and power go together, and that is why these measures are a step forward.
David Mundell
I want to respond to all the points raised on the new clauses and amendments if I can.
The hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen) has put forward various suggestions on local government. On the one hand, I agree with the SNP that it is a matter for the Scottish Parliament to determine the nature of local government in Scotland. On the other hand, I agree with the hon. Gentleman that as many matters as possible in Scotland should be devolved locally. Indeed, that was one of Lord Smith’s proposals for the Bill.
On the question of permanence, I am glad that the current proposal, which I had previously shared with the Scottish Government and the Devolved Powers Committee, meets everyone’s aspirations. In response to the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Wayne David), this is an important proposal which demonstrates what the people of Scotland have clearly indicated they wish to see in the legislation. I am also pleased that the proposals relating to elections have been relatively uncontentious, as were the measures relating to a super-majority. I therefore hope that the amendments to those measures will not be pressed to a vote.
I am afraid that I cannot agree with Labour’s proposal for the full amount of VAT raised in Scotland to be assigned to Scotland. It was a key part of the Smith agreement that half the VAT revenue should be so assigned, in order to ensure a stable balance between encouraging Scotland’s economy to grow and insulating the Scottish Government’s budget from UK-wide economic shocks. I hope that the relevant amendment will therefore not be pressed to a vote.
The question of human rights was raised by the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry). I have found her previous contributions to this Parliament to be based on fact and not on politics, so it will not surprise her to learn that I was disappointed with her contribution this evening. This is an important issue. The House will be aware that we have outlined our proposal to reform and modernise our human rights framework by replacing the Human Rights Act with a Bill of Rights. Of course I am very aware of the possible devolution implications of reform, and we will engage with the devolved Administrations as we develop these proposals. We spoke about this matter in Committee, and the Government’s view has not changed. The Government are working on proposals for the reform of the human rights framework, and we will bring forward those proposals in due course, in consultation with the devolved Administrations.
The fiscal framework has also been discussed today. I want to put on record the fact that I am absolutely confident that John Swinney, negotiating on behalf of the Scottish Government, will be able to get a good deal for them. I have that confidence in Mr Swinney, and I know that he and the UK Government are absolutely committed to achieving that objective. We have had a number of detailed discussions on the fiscal framework, and we agreed at the start that we would not provide a running commentary on those negotiations. Nothing is agreed until everything is agreed. However, there is no suggestion that agreement cannot be reached, and it will be an agreement that is fair for Scotland and fair for the rest of the United Kingdom. I look forward to Members of this House and of the Scottish Parliament being able to properly scrutinise that agreement.
Sir Edward Leigh
Will my right hon. Friend deal briefly with amendment 224, which has been tabled by the SNP? According to its accompanying explanatory statement, instead of asking the House to impose full fiscal autonomy, the Scottish Parliament
“could then legislate in these areas to provide for full fiscal autonomy in Scotland.”
In other words, SNP Members do not actually want full fiscal autonomy yet. They are like St Augustine: they want to stop sinning, but not quite yet. I think we should call their bluff on this one.
David Mundell
Throughout the course of these debates it has been clear that the strongest advocate of full fiscal devolution in this House is my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh). He is willing to put his money where his mouth is. I am not willing to put the livelihoods of people in Scotland on the line just to demonstrate that some scheme would not work.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
On Remembrance Sunday there is no time when it is acceptable to project anything on to the House of Commons without permission, but to project a swastika on the visit of a state leader is totally unacceptable. The point has been made, and it will be taken on board and dealt with. I am absolutely convinced that the police will be looking into it as a matter of urgency.
Sir Edward Leigh
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Will you just explain the procedure of the House, because I have not been here very long—
Mr Deputy Speaker
I know that I do not need to explain it to you, and I do not need to waste any more time because we need to move on to the Bill.
Sir Edward Leigh
I know they are very rare. Am I right, Mr Deputy Speaker, in thinking that it would be in order for any amendment to be moved? I am rather surprised that the SNP has not moved amendment 224 on “full fiscal autonomy but not quite yet”. Is there any reason that would have prevented it from moving that amendment?
Scotland Bill
Edward Leigh Excerpts(9 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Carmichael
I seek to build consensus today. It is unfortunate that the hon. Gentleman is not minded to do so. I say to him simply this: if he speaks to his colleagues in the Comhairle, he will find they have enthusiasm for this matter. They pressed me and others in government very hard in the previous Parliament to proceed on this. It would be to his benefit and to the benefit of his constituents if he were minded to give his support.
Amendments 27 to 29 have their genesis, as do many others, in briefings provided by the Law Society of Scotland. They relate to the administration of tribunals in Scotland. This was some of the most difficult and challenging work for both the Smith commission and the Government. The analysis of the Devolution (Further Powers) Committee in the Scottish Parliament and the Law Society of Scotland is that what remains in the Bill is imperfect, because it does not give full effect to paragraphs 63 and 64 of the Smith commission report. Paragraph 63 states:
“All powers over the management and operation of all reserved tribunals (which includes administrative, judicial and legislative powers) will be devolved to the Scottish Parliament other than the Special Immigration Appeals Commission and the Proscribed Organisations Appeals Commission.”
Paragraph 64 states:
“Despite paragraph 63, the laws providing for the underlying reserved substantive rights and duties will continue to remain reserved (although they may be applied by the newly devolved tribunals).”
In implementing paragraph 63, there must be scope for the continued reservation of the substantive law and that may take forms that will require some limitation on the functions transfer. However, it is the assessment of the Law Society of Scotland that the limitations on transfer should only be such as are objectively necessary and that they must not be unduly restrictive of the principle in paragraph 63.
It seems to be a notion of some novelty in Whitehall that tribunals can be running independently and applying legislation that goes across the whole of the United Kingdom. I could never share that analysis of novelty, having practised in sheriff courts and watched over many years the practice in the High Court and the Court of Session do exactly that. I never quite understood —perhaps the Secretary of State will be able to explain it tonight—why this is so difficult.
Amendment 30 is another Law Society of Scotland amendment. It deals with the regulation of estate agents in Scotland under the Estate Agents Act 1979. I remind the House that much estate agency in Scotland is done by firms of solicitors acting as estate agents. They do it very effectively within the context of Scottish land law practice and conveyancing which, being Roman in origin, is fundamentally different from the law applicable in other parts of the United Kingdom.
I would suggest in support of the Law Society’s amendment that devolving the regulation of estate agents makes perfect sense. It is another aspect of our business and commercial life, as well as our personal and private life, that is managed completely differently in the Scottish context and in Scottish law. It is an anomaly that we should take this opportunity to address.
Amendments 31 and 32 deal with gaming machines in licensed betting premises. They seek to remove the limitation
“for which the maximum charge for use is more than £10”.
Paragraph 74 of the Smith commission agreement stated:
“The Scottish Parliament will have the power to prevent the proliferation of Fixed-Odds Betting Terminals.”
It is the analysis of both the Law Society and, again, the Devolution (Further Powers) Committee that the Bill does not achieve that end. Removing the maximum charge would most effectively achieve the objectives set out in the Smith commission.
Likewise, the effect of new clause 26 would be to devolve the functions of the Health and Safety Executive. Health and safety enforcement in Scotland is already practically devolved. Control over occupational health issues—many of which are practically unique in profile to Scotland, such as those in offshore oil and gas and in agriculture—should now be formally devolved to Scotland. That would be a recognition of the practice that has developed since devolution and the creation of the Scottish Parliament in 1999. It is merely a recognition in law of something that is already widely practised.
Finally, new clause 27 is fairly technical and, again, was drafted by the Law Society of Scotland. It would give effect to the particular models of business incorporation that we have in Scots law and is a recognition that that, too, should be under the control of the Scottish Parliament.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
I rise to speak to my new clause 66, on health and medicines, which reads:
“In Part 2 of Schedule 5 to the 1998 Act, leave out “Head J (Health and Medicine)”.
In the helpful Member’s explanatory statement, which the Clerks helped me with, I say:
“The Amendment would remove health and medicine, including abortion, xenotransplantation, embryology, surrogacy, genetics, medical supplies, poisons and welfare foods from the list of matters reserved to the UK Parliament, allowing the Scottish Parliament to make separate provision in these matters for Scotland.”
I put forward the new clause hesitantly. I just want to probe the Government for an explanation of why the Scottish Parliament is not going to be allowed, under our Scotland Bill, to debate or decide these matters.
These matters are, of course, of vital interest to any nation. I well recall that whereas our debates on, say, social security, when we are discussing spending extra billions of pounds, are sometimes extremely poorly attended and attract very little interest, as soon as we get into what I would call these “Moral Maze” issues, where people have strong personal views and there are often free votes, our Parliament really comes into its own. That is what makes a Parliament. It is part of being a Parliament, and what we are trying to create in the Scottish Parliament is, in its essence, a real Parliament. Scotland may be a small nation, but it is a proud nation and it has its own individual point of view, which I would have thought was best determined by the Scottish people, through their Parliament.
John Pugh (Southport) (LD)
Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that Northern Ireland already has some of the powers that he aspires to give to Scotland?
Sir Edward Leigh
Yes, I was going to come to that point, which is important. I have obtained the help of the Library in finding out exactly what happens in Northern Ireland with regard to abortion, which I will describe in a moment.
My research assistant shares my generally pro-life view—I suppose it is no secret that I will always take the pro-life argument, whether on capital punishment, assisted suicide or abortion. I have my own views, which I appreciate are not the views of everybody in this place. When I was thinking about tabling this new clause, he said to me, “Is this wise? What would the Scottish Parliament decide? Would its views be more like ours in the UK Parliament?” I said to him, “It’s completely irrelevant what my views are or what your views are. That’s a value judgment. It’s not for me for decide.” Frankly, I have no idea whether, if the Scottish Parliament was allowed to decide the law of abortion, it would take my pro-life view and amend the Abortion Act 1967 or not. I have no idea and it is none of my business.
I would have thought that a self-respecting Parliament could and should be trusted to deal with abortion, especially as I understand that the Scottish Parliament already deals with assisted dying. Indeed, in January 2010, the End of Life Assistance (Scotland) Bill was introduced in the Scottish Parliament by Margo MacDonald MSP. It sought to permit assistance to be given to persons who wished to have their lives ended under certain conditions. The Scottish Parliament disagreed with the general principles of the Bill, which is apparently being reintroduced, and that discussion is going on. That is fair enough. When Lord Falconer introduced his Assisted Dying Bill in the other place, he did not seek to extend it to Scotland. Obviously we trust—quite rightly in my view—the Scottish people, through their Parliament, to decide what is arguably an even more important issue than abortion, namely whether assisted dying should become legal. I cannot see the logic—this is why I am trying to probe my right hon. Friend the Minister—in allowing the Scottish Parliament to decide on assisted dying, but not abortion.
Let me deal with the intervention by the hon. Member for Southport (John Pugh). I know he has tabled an amendment on this issue and I look forward to hearing from him later. No doubt he can make these points far more powerfully than I can. The Abortion Act 1967 never extended to Northern Ireland, where abortion continues to be regulated by provisions in criminal law. Under the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, all abortions are illegal in Northern Ireland, subject to very limited exceptions specified in the Criminal Justice Act (Northern Ireland) 1945 and application of case law, chiefly R v. Bourne of 1939. Abortion is currently allowed in Northern Ireland subject to limited circumstances where the pregnancy threatens the life of the woman or where it would affect her physical or mental health in a way that is permanent or long term.
That is the situation in Northern Ireland and, believe me, I have no idea what the Scottish Parliament would decide if it was given this power. In a sense, we already have abortion on demand in this country—that is itself a controversial statement. For all I know, the Scottish Parliament may want to clear up the law in its own way, and I do not see why it should not be allowed to.
Alex Salmond
I thought it might help the hon. Gentleman if I gave him a little bit of history. If I remember correctly, the late Donald Dewar wanted this power devolved in the Scotland Act 1998, but was prevented by some sort of star chamber that was presiding over that legislation. Given that that was what Donald Dewar wanted to be done all those years ago, is it not more than passing strange that it is not being done even now?
Sir Edward Leigh
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for describing that bit of history. I understand that this was discussed by the Smith commission—again, we can be given further details—and there was disagreement. Presumably a majority did not want the power to be passed. However, this is not the Smith commission. We are perfectly entitled to disagree with the Smith commission and, following the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman, we are perfectly entitled to give the Scottish Parliament that power.
Indeed, this is a power that other devolved Administrations around the world have. In the United States abortion is a state matter, within the framework of the Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade, as altered by subsequent decisions. If I was an American politician, I imagine I would be quite a strong states’ rights person. The United States has an increasingly intrusive and proactive Supreme Court, but the power of states to decide on these important matters, such as the death penalty, is jealously guarded in America. Despite the power that is given to the states in the United States, I do not believe that the republic is any weaker, that the union is any weaker or that these matters cannot be properly decided by people. People can take a different attitude on these great moral issues of the day, depending on whether they live in Massachusetts or Texas, and I think that is probably the case in other parts of the world too. I am therefore not sure I understand the logic—it can presumably be explained to us—of why abortion has been excluded.
When I tabled the new clause, I thought I should try to make it as wide as possible because I was aware that the hon. Member for Southport had already tabled a specific amendment. I included issues such as embryology, surrogacy, genetics, medical supplies, poisons and welfare foods because I did not want this to be a debate only about abortion. It struck me that all those other matters were of great interest, with issues of great national debate raging around them. I see no reason why the Scottish Parliament should not have some control over them.
Mr Rees-Mogg
I wish Doris Day many happy returns, albeit somewhat belatedly, but the hon. Gentleman is not right that all these Scottish taxpayers have paid more tax for 31 years, because some—very distinguished—SNP Members of Parliament are not 31 years old, so certainly have not been paying tax for that long.
Sir Edward Leigh
My hon. Friend is giving a very fine Tory speech, not one from the Whiggish camp as we have been hearing from others, but I wonder whether in the deepest recesses of his soul he is a Jacobite, and thinks that if there had been a different settlement we may not have had this problem. The serious point, however, is that we must allow the Public Accounts Committees of both Parliaments to look at the royal finances properly, which they cannot do at the moment.
Mr Rees-Mogg
I think that that is a terrible Jacobean, rather than Jacobite suggestion. Although this is not immediately relevant to the debate, I do not think the Public Accounts Committee should be looking at the royal finances. Her Majesty should be allowed some privacy on that, but that is a side issue.
Mr Grieve
I certainly do not think that the Crown Estate is the glue that holds the United Kingdom together. I can reassure the hon. Gentleman on that. There are all sorts of other things that provide that glue.
I said that I was perhaps looking at this too much from a lawyer’s point of view, but I like to look at structures that have some coherence. This particular structure is showing signs of not being coherent. One of the problems with these debates in which we try to reach a sensible and lasting constitutional settlement is that although I would love to accept the arguments put forward by the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil), I am conscious of the fact that he does not really want a solution to the problem. Just as the Irish question is said to have changed every time Mr Gladstone asked it, so the hon. Gentleman changes the question each time an answer comes up. He has a desire for certain structures, and although I will do my best at all times to deliver what the Scottish people want, I do not always find it easy to accept the songs that he sings, which are generally designed to lure the Union of the United Kingdom on to the rocks.
Sir Edward Leigh
My right hon. and learned Friend said that the Crown Estate was not the glue that held the United Kingdom together. Nothing much is going to change in regard to the Union following these changes to the Crown Estate. The Government are to be commended for the fact that we are having four days to debate these matters, enabling us to go into great detail. However, I support something that he said earlier, and I hope that others were listening. When we are discussing a subject as fundamental as English votes for English laws, which has a direct relationship with the preservation of the Union, particularly in regard to the Barnett formula, one day’s debate is simply not enough.
Mr Grieve
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments, but I do not want to be out of order, so I shall not stray too far along that road.
My hope is that we can find a sensible long-term settlement that will meet the desires of the people of the United Kingdom, but my main worry is that that will prove elusive if we pursue a series of measures that do not seem to have been fully reasoned through. I hope that the example in this vignette is one on which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will be able to provide all the reassurance I need. Nevertheless, I would not be doing my duty as a Member of Parliament if I did not flag it up.
Ian Murray
I do not think that the Scottish Parliament would disregard them, but it is worth giving proper consideration to the Smith commission’s proposals and the cross-border issues, rather than just devolving the issue of abortion for the sake of it.
Sir Edward Leigh
May I have the hon. Gentleman’s view on the logic of allowing the Scottish Parliament to deal with assisted dying, which is just as emotive and important an issue, but not with abortion?
Scotland Bill
Edward Leigh Excerpts(9 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Carmichael
I will take support anywhere I can find it, but I am not entirely sure that the hon. Gentleman’s remarks are germane to the matter that is before the Committee.
Amendment 89, which was tabled by the Scottish National Party, will facilitate a debate on the concept of full fiscal autonomy. I shall listen with interest to the hon. Member for Moray and others in their exposition of that, and I shall reserve my remarks on it until the end of this string of amendments, when I know I will be able to catch your eye, Mr Hoyle.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
New clause 3, which stands in my name, would deliver full fiscal autonomy, real home rule and a Scottish Parliament in control of everything save defence and foreign affairs. I am only a Back Bencher and I do not have the assistance of Government officials, so if the new clause is defective in technical detail, I apologise. If it were voted for tonight, however, it would establish a clear principle and a way forward.
The contention is clear: the new clause would deliver full fiscal autonomy. The Scottish Parliament would have full freedom to raise all taxes as it liked. It would not be restricted to fiddling around with bands; it would control all thresholds and all VAT dividends, and it would have full freedom to spend that money as it liked. That is what real Parliaments do, and that is why they are responsible.
The Scottish Parliament is constructed in a manner that is inherently conducive to the culture of grievance, and that would still be true even if the Smith commission proposals were adopted. The Scottish Parliament will raise only 50% of what it spends. Worse, under the 30-year-old, discredited Barnett formula, which even its conceiver condemned towards the end of his life, Scotland’s block grant will be based not on needs but on English levels of spending. No matter which tartan is chosen to clad the Scottish purse, the purse strings will still be controlled by England. That, I believe, has to change.
Following reports by the Office for Budget Responsibility and the Institute for Fiscal Studies, it has been said that Scotland faces a £7 billion black hole. Presumably, however, the SNP wanted independence in the next year. We cannot have an independent Parliament that does not have full fiscal autonomy, so let us have a real, informed debate about the figures.
Mr Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
When the hon. Gentleman uses the term black hole, does he mean a deficit? When people talk about the UK’s deficit, they say “deficit”. When they talk about Scotland’s deficit, they say “black hole”. Why the use of pejorative language?
Sir Edward Leigh
It can be referred to as a deficit. We have listened to the Institute for Fiscal Studies and the Office for Budget Responsibility, so now let us have an informed debate.
I want to make it clear, by the way, that I am not in favour of cutting Scotland loose. I am in favour of United Kingdom solidarity, and I am in favour of a new grant mechanism, if the need for one is proven. My aim is not to trap the SNP, call its bluff or reveal its timidity. I genuinely want to give the Scots what they want: the freedom to run their own affairs and not to blame others if things go wrong, but all within the buttresses and safety of the United Kingdom. I am a fervent Unionist.
Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP)
Will the hon. Gentleman concede that Scotland has contributed more than the rest of the UK in tax per head of population in each of the last 34 years, and that Scotland with full economic powers would be able to deliver prosperity and social justice for the people of Scotland?
Sir Edward Leigh
The hon. Gentleman can vote for my new clause, if that is what he believes. That scenario is on offer tonight, and he can vote for it. As a No. 10 spokesman said helpfully over the weekend—it is not often that No. 10 spokesmen have supported my new clauses, but I am grateful to him—the new clause
“is the acid test for the SNP over whether they will back their own policy”.
A Labour party spokesman helpfully said over the weekend, “They can have full fiscal autonomy by 10 o’clock tonight if they want to vote for it.”
Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)
Those of us who have a Eurosceptic point of view, as my hon. Friend does, have always been very cautious about fiscal autonomy without monetary autonomy. Would his amendment also enable the Scottish Parliament to have monetary autonomy?
Sir Edward Leigh
As my hon. Friend made that point last week, I was waiting for it. If he will be patient for a moment, I will finish a couple of sentences and come directly to him, because this is the kernel of the matter.
Under my proposals, the Barnett formula would be scrapped and an alternative formula based on need would be created. In the modern world—in modern finance—we create formulas based on need.
John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that there will not now be the automatic application of the Barnett formula to solve all the many money issues between Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom, but there has to be a fundamental renegotiation of the block grant and an attribution to Scotland of revenues by some formula? In practice, the whole financial settlement is in the melting pot anyway, so it will be very interesting to see how the SNP respond to his proposed further development.
Sir Edward Leigh
Absolutely; we are a united kingdom. For instance, Lincolnshire gets more money in its educational grant because of the sparsity factor. All these things can be worked out in a constructive manner between the United Kingdom Government and the Scottish Government so that there is a fair support mechanism based on need that takes account of issues such as declining oil revenues, the sparsity factor that I mentioned, declining heavy industries, or an ageing population. The grant should be determined by these matters, not by some ageing formula based on what the United Kingdom spends.
Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)
Is not the hon. Gentleman being very clever with his amendment because he is ultimately talking about an English Parliament and therefore a federal Government in future?
Sir Edward Leigh
My personal view, for what it is worth, is that if we are to create a sustainable Union we must, in effect, create full fiscal autonomy for Northern Ireland, for Wales, for Scotland and, ultimately, for England. This almost imperial Parliament would remain determining the support mechanisms to ensure safety. So, yes, in that sense I am a federalist.
Barnett is a gift to those who want to break up the Union. It is also incredibly expensive for the English, with £1,680 more a year spending per head in Scotland than in England because Scottish spending is inextricably linked to English spending. When that is cut, SNP Members quite understandably—I do not blame them for this; they are good politicians—can cry foul, as they did last week, and say, “The Scots people didn’t vote for austerity but it’s being imposed on us.” They can vote on every education and health measure, and say, “What you spend in England on health and education is going to determine what we spend.” We then get a crazy situation whereby if some taxes in Scotland are raised the grant will go down. This simply does not work. It is not a recipe for preserving the Union or for a sustainable future.
Mr MacNeil
The hon. Gentleman mentions the Barnett figures. He will of course point out, for completeness, that Barnett is only about two thirds of total spending. For further completeness, he will also point out, I am sure, that the Barnett figures for London and Northern Ireland are higher than those for Scotland.
Sir Edward Leigh
I do not want to get into a sterile debate about whether London subsidises Scotland or vice versa; I simply want to be fair and open. I am happy for Scotland to have all its oil. It can determine its oil policy and its level of taxation, and as the oil revenues decline, if they do decline, I am happy for the United Kingdom Government to step in and increase its grant.
Frank Field
Might not the hon. Gentleman be entering into this debate a note of unpleasantness that need not be there? Is it not in the interests of those of us representing English seats that whatever settlement is made for Scotland is durable, taking into account, at some stage, that it will have repercussions for how we settle the English question. Should not we approach this subject as generously as possible because we want it to succeed, not to fail? The more it succeeds, the more we answer the question when we get on to our own requirements for an English Parliament.
Sir Edward Leigh
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, who has been a good personal friend of mine over many years, for summing up the situation. I am not trying to play party political games; I really want to be helpful. I want to create the durable settlement for which Scottish people voted: they want to stay part of the United Kingdom. They want to have that buttress if there is a catastrophic shock, as happened in 1929 and 2008, but they also want to run their own affairs.
George Kerevan (East Lothian) (SNP)
May I thank the hon. Gentleman for the spirit in which he is presenting his argument? I also heard his speech on Second Reading and agreed with the analogies he drew with Ireland. If we are to move to a form of, as the hon. Gentleman describes it, benign fiscal freedom for Scotland, surely that requires a degree of transition, given the scale of the UK deficit and the unique circumstances post-2008. Therefore, the issue of division between us is the transitional arrangements, not the issue of fiscal freedom itself.
Sir Edward Leigh
I hear what the hon. Gentleman says and nobody is suggesting that, even if my new clause 3 were passed tonight, full fiscal autonomy would start immediately. Of course there has to be a discussion and, inevitably, if oil revenues are declining, there has to be some sort of support mechanism from the United Kingdom Government. I say to SNP Members that they can have this new clause. Parliament is a democratic Assembly. I do not want to overplay my importance—I suspect the Whips might ensure that my new clause is defeated—but this is an historic opportunity to give full home rule to, and to establish that principle for, Scotland, which is what the Scottish people want.
Sir Edward Leigh
The hon. Gentleman is now going to tell the Committee that he supports my new clause.
Mr MacNeil
We seem to be very happy with the hon. Gentleman’s new clause at the moment, but he talks about support mechanisms as though they are unique to Scotland. Will he concede that the UK has itself been reliant on support mechanisms since 2001 and that it has not raised the taxes to match its expenditure since then?
Sir Edward Leigh
I am afraid we are getting into the historic arguments of who is to blame: is it the UK Government? The Scottish Government face a fundamental problem, in that spending is 20% higher but tax revenues are, inevitably, lower. That is a fundamental problem that SNP Members have to—[Interruption.] Well, I have lost them there—fair enough.
We can have that debate, but let us not get too bogged down on that. They want independence; they can have it—[Interruption]—full fiscal autonomy.
The fact is that the SNP’s capture of all but three of the Scottish seats is an even greater victory than Sinn Féin’s in Ireland in the 1918 general election. Then the Unionists managed to secure 22 of the 105 Irish seats. We have to listen: this is actually a very serious issue.
Sir Edward Leigh
I will make a bit more progress, because I want to get to my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg). He has been very patient, and I will get to him eventually.
Like then, everything is different now. What will happen if Smith stays? Can we sustain a permanent settlement that prevents Scotland from setting the initial threshold for income tax or from changing universal credit? What will happen when the Scottish Conservative party promises in its election manifesto to cut taxation? How credible will that be if it affects the block grant available from the United Kingdom? All these issues have to be discussed.
Under the Smith proposals, universal credit will remain a reserved matter. Holyrood will be able to vary the frequency of payments and the way it is paid, while the power to vary the remaining elements of universal credit remain reserved, but I would ask why. I have read the Smith commission. Why?
John Redwood
Universal credit has been reserved because if Scotland decided to make it more generous, the issue would arise of how it would pay for that. What we find with fiscal independence is that we have to delegate both sides of the equation—the raising of the money and the spending of it—and then it can decide how much it wants to spend.
Sir Edward Leigh
Full fiscal autonomy results in full responsibility. That is what real Parliaments do.
Responsibility for bereavement allowance, bereavement payment, child benefit, guardian’s allowance, maternity allowance, statutory maternity pay, statutory sick pay and widowed parent’s allowance will all remain reserved and administered by the Department for Work and Pensions. Why? The Smith commission further proposes a complex system for sharing responsibility for income tax. Why? That is all affected by an oscillating block grant. As I have said, how can SNP Members promise lower taxes in an election or higher spending unless they are masters of their own fate?
What are the objections to full home rule? What are the real objections to full fiscal autonomy, apart from the fact that we appointed a Lord Smith—with lots of no doubt very worthy people—to produce a report, which has been overtaken by events? We are told that full fiscal autonomy will result in tax competition within the Union. What is wrong with that? That is what keeps the American states vibrant and competitive with one another and continually innovating. Do we not insist that our taxes in Britain compete with those of Europe? We are told that tax competition would create downward pressure on taxes. Well, I am sorry about that. Why should the Scottish Parliament not be able to lower or raise air passenger duty? It can do whatever it likes. I know it has had that power and it will be allowed it under Smith, but if that power is allowed, why not powers for other things?
On Second Reading, my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset said that a single currency requires fiscal and monetary union, with the implication that that is proved by the Greek experience. Surely he is not suggesting that the Scots are Greeks, or that the Scottish economy is as different from England’s as Germany’s is from Greece’s. No; Scotland can thrive with full fiscal autonomy because Scotland has the will and the skills to do so. It has universities, research, manufacturing, logistics, light manufacturing, oil and gas, food and drink and a flourishing creative sector. [Hon. Members: “Hooray!”] Vote for my new clause.
Mr Rees-Mogg
I agree with all the wonderful things my hon. Friend has been saying about Scotland, which are so clearly and self-evidently true. The point I was trying to make is that if a country has fiscal autonomy and issues debt in a currency other than its own, it may well get squeezed in the way seen not only in Greece, but in Italy and Spain, and in countries across Asia during the Asian financial crisis in the 1990s. For a country to have fiscal autonomy without its own currency is a recipe for economic failure. To go back historically, the same was true of the gold standard in the 1930s.
Sir Edward Leigh
That is a very fair point. I agree that that is a matter for debate. I have already made the point that Scotland’s situation is very different from that of Greece. I am actually suggesting that we remain a United Kingdom, with a sharing of the national debt. Nothing is more debilitating in this whole debate than saying, “That bit of the national debt is yours, or this bit is mine.” We are back to the same dreary arguments about who is responsible for spending and when. My hon. Friend makes a serious point. If we achieve full fiscal autonomy, which I believe is inevitable—whether it happens now or in five years time, it will happen—the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government will have to act responsibly and live within their means. I have confidence that they will do so.
Alex Salmond (Gordon) (SNP)
I can feel the sap rising at various points in the hon. Gentleman’s speech. When he said that Scotland is where Ireland was in the early years of the last century, I felt obliged to check the record, because last week he said we were
“where Ireland was in the 1880s.”—[Official Report, 8 June 2015; Vol. 596, c. 965.]
We seem to have advanced 20 years in a week. Does that mean that in a week’s time, we will be where Ireland was in the 1920s?
Sir Edward Leigh
That is an amusing point, but the right hon. Gentleman knows exactly what I am trying to say. This is a very serious point; it is not just a debating point. We have a responsibility to learn from history. What I was saying last week, and what I believe, is that we were wrong to abolish the Irish Parliament, wrong to delay granting Catholic emancipation, wrong not to listen to Gladstone in the 1880s, and wrong not to implement full home rule at the outset of the great war. We were wrong, wrong, wrong and wrong again. We need to have an element of statesmanship and vision in these affairs. The right hon. Gentleman, with all his debating skills, can laugh at what I say, but I assure him that I genuinely believe in what I am trying to do.
Stephen Gethins (North East Fife) (SNP)
The hon. Gentleman is highlighting many wrongs. Does he think that Irish independence was wrong?
Sir Edward Leigh
If we had granted home rule in the 1880s or implemented the home rule Act in August 1914, it is very probable that Ireland would have remained in the Union or become a dominion. Of course I regret the fact that Ireland chose to break free. There was a tragic civil war. That will not happen in Scotland, but the history of Ireland is one of tragedy and missed opportunities. Nobody is suggesting that we will go down that route with Scotland, but let us learn from history and try to be creative in these matters.
Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)
I am a little puzzled. Just for the record, will my hon. Friend confirm that he is not equating the subjugation of the Irish and the tragic history of Ireland from the Norman period right through to the 20th century with Scotland, which, as part of the United Kingdom, is a modern, liberal democratic country with a successful economy?
Sir Edward Leigh
I am absolutely not. I do not want to overplay the analogy. As a fervent, almost romantic Unionist, I believe that Scotland has benefited enormously from being in the Union, which has been a Union based on trust and shared responsibility. I would not in any way suggest that the Scottish people have suffered in the same way that the Irish people suffered in the 18th century. If I gave that impression, I apologise, because that was not my aim at all. The only point I was trying to make was that we have to realise, in these debates, when there is a certain inevitability. If we know that full fiscal autonomy is going to come, it is better to have a serious discussion now on how to achieve it.
Sir Edward Leigh
I must finish soon, because I am going to weary the Committee, but I do give way.
Ian Blackford
An important point has been made about opportunity. It is a real sadness that Scotland has lost a net 2 million people through migration over the past 100 years. One reason why we want powers over our economy is so that we can grow Scotland and ensure that we do not see tens of thousands of our young people being educated in Scotland and then emigrating and contributing to countries abroad. We need to grow the Scottish economy. That is why we need the powers over our economy.
Sir Edward Leigh
Most of them seem to come down here and run us, but there we go. They have done very well and we have benefited.
Danny Kinahan (South Antrim) (UUP)
As one of the only Irish or Northern Irish people here, I am glad to hear the hon. Gentleman confirm that he sees Northern Ireland as part of the Union. I accept that many of the Scots came our way. We see ourselves very much as part of the Union. I am concerned that we are moving forward before we have thought not just about Northern Ireland, but about Wales. We need a convention so that we know where we are going. I am concerned that we are going to put ourselves into a form that we cannot come back from. In Northern Ireland today, we have very nearly got ourselves into a totally dysfunctional Government that we cannot come back from. I am nervous that we are going too far, too quickly.
Sir Edward Leigh
Again, that is a very fair point. I do not mind having conventions, but we, as politicians, have to decide what we want. We should decide the principles and then, once we have decided, by all means employ distinguished people such as Lord Smith, accountants, tax lawyers and so on to work out how it is done, but let us not just push this into the long grass and have a convention of the great and good lasting for years with wall to wall lawyers. Let us, in this House, decide what we want.
This is an historic opportunity to cut through the negativity of the £7 billion black hole doomsayers. Give Scotland control of its oil revenues and taxes and let it decide its own priorities on encouraging exploration and how to tax it as the oil runs out. Then we will be one Union, based on solidarity and need. The UK subsidises Northern Ireland to preserve peace. Why should we not, on the basis of need, subsidise Scotland? I am very happy with that. Are we not brothers and sisters in this Union? Should we not help each other, if needed? Our principles should not be the politics of fear, but the statesmanship of hope.
New clause 3 delivers what I think Scotland wants: power to run her own affairs, but with the consolation of knowing that there is a secure foundation stone against catastrophic shocks, such as those in 1929 and 2008. I wish for there to be solidarity on pension liability and national debt, and for it to be shared. We should not be saying “This is your bit of debt.” We should say that it is our debt. To ensure peace and security, we should share a single defence and foreign policy; not a division based on the auld alliance of the times before James I and VI rode south, but the Union that has given us 400 years of shared identity and prosperity. Those who want slowly to leak this power and that function are setting a trajectory, however slowly, towards independence.
Stewart McDonald
There is one part of the hon. Gentleman’s amendment, which he may well be coming on to, that did strike me as slightly curious: the part on keeping treason reserved. Is there a modern day William Wallace or Mary Queen of Scots in our midst that means he sees the need to keep that power reserved?
Sir Edward Leigh
I took advice from the Clerks. All right, I will surrender treason if they want, particularly to the right hon. Member for Gordon (Alex Salmond). [Laughter.]
The Smith commission itself admits:
“A challenge facing both Parliaments is the relatively weak understanding of the current devolution settlement.”
What a glorious understatement!
“This is not surprising”—
its report further concedes—
“given what is a complex balance of powers.”
A complex balance of powers has been created and I do not think there is a single Member of Parliament who actually understands what is going to happen under Smith. We need to move to a more federal arrangement whereby the four nations have broadly equal powers. Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland should have devolved legislatures, with the English MPs at Westminster deciding the same for England, then acting as a pan-European Parliament alongside MPs elected from the devolved countries as well.
The Prime Minister promised Scotland
“the strongest devolved Government anywhere in the world”
and the Scottish people rejected full independence. I suspect that they want full home rule. But will those who have argued for full fiscal autonomy now vote for it, or will they vote for further delay or deeper fudge? Will they go on blaming the United Kingdom Government for what goes wrong, or have the courage to grasp what they say they want? Full fiscal autonomy is inevitable.
Pete Wishart
I am not going to give way again, because I know a lot of people want to get in and I want to make some progress. These issues are all important, but tonight is Scotland Bill night and these are the sorts of things we are considering.
Unfortunately, the hon. Member for Nottingham North is not in his place—[Interruption.] He is here—well, perhaps he wants to take his place. We are always very grateful for the concise way in which he puts his wide range of views. He is always interesting to listen to and is always innovative and creative. Again, we give him a lot of congratulation on the way he so rapidly went through his constitutional tour de force. The hon. Gentleman talked about his new clause 8, and I was particularly attracted when he invited the Scottish Parliament to take a proportional share of Members of the House of Lords as part of his long-term constitutional reform. With a deal of candour may I say to him that the House of Lords is perhaps the most absurd, ridiculous legislature in the world? It is bloated beyond redemption and the last thing that place needs is more Members. What it needs is total abolition, and that cannot come soon enough.
The hon. Member for Gainsborough has put forward his helpful new clause 3. As the hon. Member for Christchurch rightly identified, it has got quite a bit of attention, and not only today—we have done nothing other than debate this for the past few weeks and months. If we swapped the three words “full fiscal autonomy” with the word “independence”, we would see that we have been having this debate for the past four, eight, 15 or 20 years. The same themes seem to be revisited when we talk about full fiscal autonomy or independence, and it is the same adversaries: the Scottish National party, and the old amigos of Labour and Conservatives getting together to tell us once again how we are too poor, too wee, too unimaginative, not just to have independence, but to run ourselves fiscally within the United Kingdom. What next? Where do we go to? Can we not run local authorities properly without being too wee, too poor or too unimaginative? [Interruption.] I see that the hon. Member for Edinburgh South does not want to intervene but I give way to the hon. Member for Gainsborough.
Pete Wishart
Sorry, I was expecting a bit more of a substantial contribution from the hon. Gentleman, and I am almost disappointed we did not get some more fulsome prose from him. I thought he made quite a good case for his new clause, but I say ever so gently to him that we favour our amendment, because it is the way we should be doing this. It seeks to give time for the Scottish Parliament to progress towards full fiscal autonomy. If we suppose Government Members are right that there is this huge deficit that we keep hearing about again and again, surely they should be working with us, through a fiscal framework, to work towards full fiscal autonomy. Surely what should happen is a process that starts by giving us the important early new powers—powers over the minimum wage, national insurance contributions and welfare. There is a process of moving towards this. If they are right about that, what is wrong with working with us to try to achieve and secure it? Surely that is how we should be doing this. As I have said, the themes are the same; oil and gas is a burden and a curse with independence, as it is with full fiscal autonomy. It is as though they have learned absolutely nothing, because these were the very themes put to the Scottish people during the general election campaign. I am not trying to speak for the Scottish people, but on the doorstep I was hearing that there is a tiredness and a deep despondency among the Scottish people at being told that they cannot do something, that they are in such a diminished position that we cannot take responsibility. That argument does not work any more. We have been through a process of national self-definition, of finding ourselves and of ensuring that we try to do something different.
Tommy Sheppard
May I deal with this point, and then take an intervention? I have not been in this job long, but I am surprised—I expect I will be surprised by various things over the next five years—to find such a passionate and eloquent exposition from the Conservative Back Benches of a position with which I agree. I suspect that there is little else on which the hon. Gentleman and I would agree. On this point, he makes his case very well. However, I wonder whether there is an element of mischief at the back of his mind. Perhaps he believed the propaganda from his own Front Bench several weeks ago that we were weakening in our commitment to full financial autonomy, and he thought that he might embarrass us in this debate today. I must reassure him that we are not lukewarm and our commitment is not weakening. In fact, we like the idea so much we have brought our own amendment before the Committee. I am intrigued at the suggestion that all we need to do is vote for it—
Sir Edward Leigh
I am completely sincere. I believe that the case for full fiscal autonomy is unanswerable in logic.
Tommy Sheppard
I am pleased to hear it. I therefore expect the hon. Gentleman to vote for our amendment later.
Tommy Sheppard
Why do we not do a deal? I will try to ensure that all my colleagues vote for the hon. Gentleman’s amendment, if he makes sure that all of his party do as well. Perhaps we can have it sewn up by 10 o’clock this evening. The strange thing about this debate so far—
Sir Edward Leigh
This is very important. The hon. Member for Dundee East (Stewart Hosie) made an absolute commitment that he would vote for my new clause. I will press it to a Division and at 10 o’clock I expect to see the hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Tommy Sheppard) in the Lobby.
Tommy Sheppard
If the new clause is moved, the hon. Gentleman will see me there, for sure. I hope that I will see him in the Lobby to vote on our amendment.
The interesting thing about the debate so far is that the case has not been made against full fiscal—
Ian Murray
It is wonderful. We are now being accused of voting not with the Tories, but with the Tory Front Bench, while SNP Members troop through the Lobby with the most right-wing Conservatives. It is incredible. The hon. Gentleman is not listening to the answer, although he insisted on the intervention. If he was so keen on full fiscal autonomy before he tabled amendment 89, he could have just signed new clause 3, tabled by the hon. Member for Gainsborough.
Sir Edward Leigh
My amendment gives what SNP Members say they want straight away, whereas their amendment is a bit of a fudge and slightly kicks the matter into the long grass. It is a bit like St Augustine saying, “Let me stop sinning, but not quite yet.”
Ian Murray
The SNP position can be summed up with the words, “What do we want? Full fiscal autonomy. When do we want it? We’re not quite sure.”
David Mundell
I do not accept the hon. Gentleman’s argument. A £10 billion shortfall in spending in Scotland would affect every school, every hospital, and every family by £5,000. I am not going to countenance that, and I am not going to support any amendments that would promote it.
We have had a lengthy discussion on full fiscal autonomy.
David Mundell
I will. [Hon. Members: “Oh!”] I will take my hon. Friend’s intervention because he proposed an amendment.
Sir Edward Leigh
Let me be quite clear: those of us who propose full fiscal autonomy and the scrapping of the Barnett formula are also arguing that there should be a block grant based on Scotland’s needs and not on England’s spending, so that there is a real Parliament making real decisions, which is what the Scottish people want.
David Mundell
I have noted what my hon. Friend has said. At times today, I am sure that he will have been an honorary member of Team 57.
I want to make very clearly a point that echoes the evidence I gave to the Select Committee chaired by the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen). I regard a Scottish Parliament as a prerequisite of a United Kingdom. There will not be a United Kingdom if there is not a Scottish Parliament. I can understand why there is a lot of debate about the exact wording, and I will continue to listen to it, but I am absolutely clear that without a Scottish Parliament there will not be a United Kingdom, and that it is not sustainable to argue about lots of preconditions on that basis.
Scotland Bill
Edward Leigh Excerpts(9 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
David Mundell
I think the hon. Gentleman, like me, looks forward to amendments to the Bill being tabled, setting out the SNP position on full fiscal autonomy. I have heard that issue raised on numerous occasions but I am still not absolutely clear what it means in the SNP’s terms. The Institute for Fiscal Studies identifies a black hole of between £7 billion and £10 billion in Scotland’s finances.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
With respect—[Interruption.] Actually, I am going to make a point that might be quite positive. With respect to my right hon. Friend’s arguments, what worries me is that this might not be the end of the story, because it does not get to the kernel of the problem, which is that the Scottish Parliament will raise only about 50% of what it spends and, therefore, will be fundamentally a spending Parliament, not a tax-raising Parliament. There is a good Conservative case to be made for full fiscal autonomy, because it would breed responsibility.
David Mundell
I do not believe that there is a Conservative case, or indeed any case, to be made for an outcome that would leave Scotland with a gap of between £7 billion and £10 billion in its finances, which would affect every school, every hospital and every person in Scotland.
The independence referendum on 18 September 2014 was a truly historic moment, and I am proud that the people of Scotland voted decisively to remain part of our United Kingdom. The debates were passionate, as many here today will attest, and extensive, and the level of participation was a credit to Scotland. The result was clear and decisive. It represented the sovereign will of the Scottish people. In voting no on independence, we Scots, for the first time in our history, made the positive, conscious and collective choice to pool our sovereignty with our neighbours in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. We made the positive choice to enjoy the best of both worlds. We chose to continue to share the benefits of being part of a strong United Kingdom while enjoying the benefits of a strong devolved Parliament in Edinburgh delivering Scottish solutions to Scottish issues. However, a no vote was not a vote for no change. The Conservatives, Labour and the Liberal Democrats all published extensive proposals for more powers for the Scottish Parliament in the months before the referendum.
Mr Speaker
Order. I will deal with the right hon. Gentleman first.
I always enjoy the theatrical performances of the right hon. Gentleman, the last of which was marred only by the sudden emergence of a puckish grin on his face as he was making his point. The answer is that there would be nothing disorderly about that. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, there are very few novelties in this place. There is usually a precedent for everything.
Mr Speaker
I am not sure that a further point of order is required, but let us hear whether the knight has something new to say.
Sir Edward Leigh
For some reason, my Whips Office has not given me a prompt sheet. [Laughter.]
Mr Speaker
I think the hon. Gentleman knows the answer to that: they gave up on him some time ago.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
It is an honour to follow the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) who, apart from being a thoroughly nice bloke who is held in great regard in this House, was a most distinguished Scottish Secretary.
I want to make the Conservative case for as much fiscal autonomy, and therefore responsibility, as is possible. This is a big subject. It needs big positive gestures. We are talking about the future of the nation. We should frame our response to the general election not in the pettifogging detail of the civil service brief, but in the tradition of the great national declarations of the past. I call for nothing less than full home rule for Scotland—or self-rule as I prefer to call it.
The Smith commission really is a dog’s breakfast. No one understands it, and it addles the brain of anyone who tries to read it, as I have done. We have to get out of this love affair with commissions of the great and the good. We are politicians. We must have the vision in this House, as politicians—and, dare I say it, as statesmen—to look at the overall picture.
The election changes everything. We have to come to terms with the sad fact that the SNP has just won all but three of the seats in Scotland. We cannot go on as if we have just had the referendum. We won the referendum, but it was nine months ago. We have had a general election since then and we have to respond to that. The Smith commission was in response to an earlier panicky scare, which led to the vow, and I think the vow has, in a sense, produced an inadequate response.
If we do nothing now—if we do not move forward—we will fall into the same trap as the disastrous response to Irish nationalism. We are about where Ireland was in the 1880s. We now know our response to Ireland was too little, too late. We were wrong to abolish the Irish Parliament in 1801. We were wrong to delay granting Catholic emancipation. We were wrong not to listen to Gladstone in the 1880s. We were wrong not to implement home rule in 1914.
If we are to keep Scotland in the United Kingdom, which is my primary aim as a Unionist, I believe we should move towards full fiscal autonomy for Scotland so that, in broad terms, the Scottish Parliament spends what it raises, with only foreign affairs, defence and pension liability—and the ultimate liability for financial shocks like that in 2008—remaining at the UK level.
I do not argue for fiscal autonomy as some kind of cheap trap: “Ha ha, get rid of the Barnett formula, the oil is slowly running out, make them poorer and they’ll behave.” Aside from the obvious immorality of such a position, nationalism cannot be defeated by imposing poverty—quite the opposite.
The Union is asymmetrical. The English have 85% of the population, and we must be generous. We are never going to get some perfect federal solution. We are better off with the Union. It makes for a larger spirited nation, and it is in our interests as English Members of Parliament to be generous. That means, certainly, English votes for English laws in the very few cases where we are passing laws that only affect England, but Scottish MPs must be part of the discussion. It is a sensible compromise that grants them a role in that discussion but with an ultimate double-veto.
There are several arguments against full fiscal autonomy. First, there is the argument that we must keep something in reserve. That is a Machiavellian argument, but it does not work. If we must keep something so that we have a bargaining tool, what happens when we have just one chip left? If it cannot be given away, it has lost its effectiveness as a bargaining tool, and if it can be given away, the argument fails completely, so I do not accept it.
Secondly, there is the matter of tax competition. We are warned that Scotland will lower its corporation tax or other taxes—we have heard about airport passenger duty—but so what? We should have the confidence to accept competition in tax policy.
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
I totally agree with my hon. Friend. If Scotland has full fiscal responsibility, it can decide what taxes it sets and how much it takes, and it must have responsibility for spending as well.
Sir Edward Leigh
I am grateful to my hon. Friend.
As Conservatives, we believe in responsibility and I believe that we have created in the Scottish Parliament a grievance Parliament. Even after these proposals, the Scottish Government will be able to spend only about 50% of what they raise. They will always be able to blame the United Kingdom Parliament for what goes wrong. Give the Scottish people responsibility and, ultimately, the wheel turns—it always does. The more responsibility one gives to people, the more difficult the decisions they have to take. For example, they might want to increase taxes, but that might lessen productivity; they might want to cut spending on social security, but that might make them more unpopular. Those, however, are decisions for a real Parliament, and they are what we should give to the Scottish Parliament.
It is argued that the EU will not allow us to give value added tax decisions to the Scottish Parliament, but that is something else that the Prime Minister can argue for. If he does not succeed in that negotiation, perhaps some Scottish people will form the view that there might be life outside the EU, but that is for another day.
I do not claim any expertise in the Scottish psyche and I might have got this wrong, but I think we can have closure if we give people ultimate responsibility and if we reassure Scottish people that this is not a trick and that we will keep pension liability within the United Kingdom, as well as the liability for great financial shocks such as those we saw in 1929 or 2008. We have heard about the £7 billion black hole and I understand the Secretary of State, but we can surely carry on having the discussion. We can also carry on discussing social security. People argue that we cannot give away social security, because we have to have a larger pot to help the poor, but that is something for an enabling Bill and to discuss with our colleagues in the Scottish Parliament. If they do not want to take full fiscal responsibility now, that is their choice and they must be allowed to make it. We should at least look at the Bill in an atmosphere of co-operation and toleration for each other’s views, with a determination on the Government Benches—the Unionist Benches—to make things work, to have some sort of closure on the issue, and to re-create people’s faith in our United Kingdom Parliament, because I believe that the result of the referendum showed that that faith is still there.
After the failure of his 1886 and 1889 Home Rule Bills, Gladstone warned:
“We are bound to lose Ireland in consequence of years of cruelty, stupidity and misgovernment and I would rather lose her as a friend than as a foe.”
No one is arguing that we are in that position, but we might still lose Scotland if we create an unsustainable situation, which we are in danger of doing, so let us use these four days in constructive debate. The referendum showed us that Scotland has not yet given up on us; nor should we give up on it. If we want things to stay as they are, things will have to change; we must move forward in a spirit of co-operation.
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for the opportunity to make a brief contribution to this fantastic debate. We have had some amazing maiden speeches today. I am very grateful to my Conservative friends who can claim that they made their maiden speech on the Scotland Bill and added to the rich tapestry of the debate about Scotland, and very fine they were, too, but I particularly want to pick out the incredible contributions made by my hon. Friends in the fine tradition of the SNP 56 group maiden speeches that we have heard so far. It has been great and I pay tribute to my hon. Friends the Members for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson), for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Margaret Ferrier), for Aberdeen South (Callum McCaig), for East Renfrewshire (Kirsten Oswald), for Dunfermline and West Fife (Douglas Chapman) and for Livingston (Hannah Bardell). I am particularly grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline and West Fife, who reminded me of my punk days, and my time with the Skids and Big Country.
We have heard some astonishing contributions, as well as much repeated stuff. This is the third Scotland Bill on which I have had the great pleasure to be able to speak. It feels entirely different today: the context and environment in which the debate is being held feel totally different. For a start, there is no Scottish Labour left. They were all defeated and beaten by the fantastic maiden speakers we have heard today. Listening to the hon. Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray)—the one Member left from Scottish Labour, and who is not paying any attention to what I am saying—we can see why they are in such a diminished state. The almost catastrophic response to the debate and the legislation suggests why they are so diminished in the House. They have an opportunity—a great chance—to back the SNP as we seek to improve the Bill as it goes through Parliament. This is the one chance they have to redefine themselves and say that they have learned the lessons of their crushing defeat to create a new narrative or story about how they want to approach Scottish issues.
As we seek to amend and improve the Bill as it goes through the House, I extend the arm of friendship to our colleagues in the Labour party and ask them to join us in a progressive alliance to tackle the austerity message to make sure that we can improve the Bill for the people of Scotland. They have an opportunity to make sure that we progress the Bill through Parliament and improve it. What a mandate we have. There are 56 of us, and we are here with the strongest possible mandate in Scotland to ensure that the Bill is improved.
Pete Wishart
I am sorry, I do not have time for interventions.
We have heard from the Joint Committee in the Scottish Parliament. My hon. Friend the Member for Moray (Angus Robertson) repeatedly made the point that we have to listen to the people who will handle these powers—to Scottish parliamentarians. A Joint Committee in the Scottish Parliament concluded overwhelmingly that the measure was not sufficient. The spirit of Smith was not met in the draft clauses on which the Scotland Bill is based, so we must make sure that that voice is listened to and responded to. That is the challenge for this Government: the mandate that the 56 bring, with the strong voice of the Scottish Parliament, which says that the Bill does not meet what is required in the Smith agreement and the conclusions of the Smith Commission. The challenge as we go forward is to ensure that that agenda is progressed and that we get the Bill for which the Scottish people voted overwhelmingly just a few short weeks ago.
We have to try—and I say this to the Secretary of State, who is not listening either—to deal with the veto. If it is a matter of the wording in the Bill, the legislation should be amended so that it can be clearly understood. We should not be in the position where the right hon. Gentleman, bless him—he was the lone panda in the last Parliament—has the final say on something that is democratically decided and debated in the Scottish Parliament. If there is an issue with the veto—he does not agree that there should be a veto—he should improve the legislation, tidy up the wording and ensure that it is cleared up. The Conservatives talk about one nation and so on, but I will talk about my nation. The Conservatives got 14% of the vote in Scotland—their worst election result since the 19th century. They should not have the final say on things that are democratically decided in the Scottish Parliament. The situation must improve, and the measure must be worked on.
I want to pay tribute to the hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry), who raised some important issues about the Human Rights Act. The Conservative Government have got into some sort of trouble over that Act, and it looks as if they have booted it into the long grass. We have to be careful how we progress legislation through Parliament. We do not have a guarantee or assurance that this Parliament cannot simply do away with the Scottish Parliament: that is something that the Smith proposals invited us to consider. We still do not have clarity on that, so as the Bill works its way through Parliament, we should make sure that we get it.
We have a great opportunity to ensure that the strong voice—the overwhelming voice—of Scotland, and the mandate given by the 56 is progressed in the Bill. Let us improve it. Let us work together where we can, and make sure that the Scottish people get what they want, because this is what happens in democracies: when the people speak, Governments respond and listen. They improve the legislation. We have the strongest mandate. I appeal to the House to work with us to deliver the spirit of Smith, improve the legislation, and give the Scottish people what they want.
Scottish Representation in the Union
Edward Leigh Excerpts(9 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Carmichael
The hon. Gentleman has been in the House long enough to know that Alex Salmond was here for many years and often sought to do exactly that. However, in terms of achievement, there was not a great deal to show for his time here. I therefore caution my hon. Friend about pre-judging the outcome of the election on 7 May and what the consequences of that outcome might be.
My party has always been clear that any parliamentary vote involving English or English and Welsh MPs should be held only on the basis of a proportionate vote share from the previous election. Devolution to the constituent nations of our United Kingdom has always taken place on that basis, and for good reason. It would be wholly unjust effectively to devolve power to England or England and Wales in a way that distorted democratic opinion and passed unfair advantage to any party.
The logical and lasting solution to this conundrum, in the view of my party, is the creation of a federal United Kingdom, in which England as a whole or in its constituent parts devolves powers from Westminster and, by extension, answers the West Lothian question. I accept, however, that we may be some way from that solution.
The options can and should be considered by a constitutional convention, as the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath indicated. The convention should be empowered to look at all the anomalies and difficulties that we face. In that way, we can forge a consensus and build lasting solutions that strengthen the bonds of our United Kingdom, rather than threaten to break them.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
It is important in this debate that we learn more about the Liberal plans for the proportional representation of MPs. It seems, with respect, that they could end in a really bonkers situation. What would happen if the Green party got 5% of the votes but only one MP? Would the Green party lady walk through the Lobby representing 20 other colleagues? What would happen if the Labour party got 38% of the popular vote but 43% of MPs? How would it be worked out in practice?
Mr Carmichael
Those matters would, of course, have to be considered by the House before it countenanced a change to Standing Orders of the sort that I have outlined. The example about the Greens would have to be taken into account and it might determine the size of any such Committee. I say to my hon. Friend gently that this House has tackled many bigger conundrums and challenges than that, and we have shown ourselves to be equal to the task. Although his point is legitimate and thoughtful, I do not see it as a barrier to a change of the sort that my party favours.
It might be helpful to add a little context to the question of Scotland’s representation in the Union, so I will briefly remind the House of the recent constitutional events that brought us here. On 18 September, the people in Scotland voted to secure Scotland’s place in the United Kingdom and to keep the advantages of the UK pound, UK pensions, UK armed forces, and a strong UK voice in the world. They voted for the strength and security that the United Kingdom provides through our single domestic market, our social union, and our ability to pool and share risks. However, people in Scotland were also clear that they wanted change. They wanted a strengthened, more accountable Scottish Parliament, with more decisions that affect Scotland being made in Scotland. The United Kingdom Government made a commitment to delivering the vow made by the three party leaders—in respect of which the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath made such a decisive intervention—and to delivering further powers to the Scottish Parliament early after the next general election. Despite the ambitious time scale, all deadlines in the vow have been met.
Immediately following the independence referendum, the Prime Minister established the Smith commission as an independent body to convene cross-party talks on further powers for the Scottish Parliament. The heads of agreement were published before St Andrew’s day, in line with our commitment, and were welcomed by the UK Government. The next stage of our commitment was to publish draft legislation, setting out what the agreement would look like in law in advance of Burns night. Two weeks ago, ahead of schedule, the Government published the draft clauses with an accompanying Command Paper.
Smith Commission
Edward Leigh Excerpts(9 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Carmichael
That sounds an enticing prospect. Subject to diary commitments—my own diary gets fairly full around Burns night—I would be more than happy to accommodate the hon. Lady’s request if at all possible. She raised the matter of abortion, the terms of the report in relation to which she will have seen. There is a clear statement that it is considered by the commissioners to be an anomalous reservation, and I can understand why they take that view. However, we have always dealt with abortion differently—we have always made it the subject of a free vote in this House, for example—and the commission reached a sensible compromise by recognising the current anomaly, but saying that a new process will have to be devised to deal with that. I hope that process can involve parliamentarians and civic groups beyond the two Parliaments, which might in some way build a measure of consensus.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
Unfortunately, there appear to be a number of lacunae, inconsistencies and unanswered questions in the report. If we rush this process, we are in danger of throwing petrol on the embers of English resentment and Scottish separatism. I pose one question out of many: paragraph 95(5)(a) states:
“The Scottish Government’s borrowing powers should be agreed by the Scottish and UK Governments”.
Does this mean that their borrowing will be underwritten by the UK Parliament?
Mr Carmichael
No. Obviously, if the Scottish Government were to borrow, they would have the liability under the borrowing powers. On the hon. Gentleman’s earlier observations about what he perceives as lacunae, the resulting measure, when introduced as legislation in the Queen’s Speech following the election, will still be subject to the full scrutiny of this House and the other place, whoever is standing at the Dispatch Box at the time. I am confident of the abilities of this House and the other place, and that what we will have at the end of the day will work.
Oral Answers to Questions
Edward Leigh Excerpts(12 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
David Mundell
I am concerned to hear what the hon. Gentleman is saying, and I would be happy to meet him and other concerned island MPs to discuss the matter.
Mr Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
8. What steps he is taking to reform central Government funding for the devolved Government in Scotland.
The Secretary of State for Scotland (Michael Moore)
As the coalition agreement sets out, we are committed to a review of public funding arrangements once we have dealt with the unprecedented deficit that we inherited from the previous Government.
Mr Leigh
Someone would need an intelligence as profound as that of Spinoza to understand central Government funding of Scotland, but it must be clear to even the most basic English person that not only do we have no say over education and health in Scotland while they run ours, but we pay over the odds for theirs. Should not the Scottish National party be careful what it wishes for when it calls for independence?
Michael Moore
My hon. Friend, more than most, understands the complexities of public spending in this country. I say to him, however, that our priority has to be to reduce the deficit, after which we can look at these issues again. I would also gently point out to him that within England there are quite large variations, and that the figure per head for spending in London is higher than in Scotland.