Scotland Bill (Programme) (No.2)
Graham Allen Excerpts(8 years, 12 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Graham Allen (Nottingham North) (Lab)
The kernel of the argument is about having enough time to debate effectively all the detail in this very comprehensive Bill. There must have been some sort of deal done between those on the Front Benches. I hope that in future, particularly with regard to English devolution when we return to the local government Bill—and thereafter, as there may be other devolution Bills pertaining to Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland—there will be a mixture of time. We should use the Floor of the House, so that we are open and transparent and allow all Members to get involved. We should also ensure that there is a period of time in Committee, so that the detail—particularly in relation to a second or third English devolution Bill—can be considered to every Member’s satisfaction.
Scotland Bill
Graham Allen Excerpts(8 years, 12 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
David Mundell
As the hon. Gentleman will know, the Trade Union Bill is still under discussion in this House, and it is the Bill as finalised by this House and the other place that will determine the nature of any legislative consent motion that is required, as is the normal practice.
The amendments I have tabled today fulfil my commitment to reflect on the debate in Committee. It is a bit rich to be criticised both for taking no amendments and, in the same breath, for tabling too many. We took the Committee process seriously and the contribution from the devolved powers committee in the Scottish Parliament very seriously, and that has determined our thinking in lodging these amendments. We will now hear the case for other, non-Government amendments, but the House will not be surprised to hear that the Government still consider that full fiscal autonomy is not in the interests of the people of Scotland. I believe that Scotland’s parties, rather than rerunning the referendum, need to work together to understand how the powers in the Bill will be used for the benefit of the people of Scotland. The UK Government are honouring their commitment in the Edinburgh agreement, accepting the result of the referendum and moving forward to give the Scottish Parliament significant new powers within our United Kingdom.
Mr Graham Allen (Nottingham North) (Lab)
It is very nice once again to be talking about Scottish—[Interruption.] I give way to the Clerk. That is the first time I have been heckled from the Clerk’s Table, but I am sure it will not be the last.
There is one thing that concerns me. Much as I welcome the devolution to Scotland that the Scottish people have achieved—owing to the hard work of people such as Donald Dewar, the Scottish constitutional convention, even the Scotland Act 2012 and now this Bill—there are those of us who represent constituencies in England who envy that and would kill for 1% of the effective devolution that has gone to Scotland. I congratulate the Scottish people on their efforts and where they have got to, but I hope we will come very soon to how England can learn some of the lessons of Scottish devolution, because it has taught many of us many lessons. I will perhaps touch on some of the devolution packages now appearing in England, which look puny and weak compared with the proper devolution that has now taken root, quite rightly, in Scotland.
My anxiety is about centralisation. It is not devolution if the powers merely go to the next stage. If they go from Whitehall to Holyrood and stay there—and, some would argue, are perhaps not used as sufficiently as they could be—
Mr Allen
If the hon. Gentleman will allow me, I will make my case and happily give way later.
If the powers stay at Holyrood and do not filter down to lower tiers—perhaps local government in Scotland—and, most importantly, to the Scottish people in their communities and neighbourhoods, that is not sufficient devolution. Exchanging centralisation from Whitehall and Westminster to Holyrood is not the bargain that many of us thought we had when it came to devolution in Scotland.
Ian Blackford
If the hon. Gentleman had been paying attention to events in Scotland, he would recognise that the Scottish Government have brought forward proposals for further devolution to our island communities. When the Scottish Government came to power, one of the first things we did was to remove the vast amount of ring-fencing that constrained local authorities, so it is the previous Labour Administration who are guilty of centralisation, not the Scottish Government that we have today.
Mr Allen
It is always good to hear of examples of further devolution. I say more power to those who want to “double devolve”—and the more that happens, the more those in the other nations of the Union will learn from such examples. I gently warn the hon. Gentleman, however, that it is no good always going back to times before his party controlled and ran the Scottish Parliament with powers that are unheard of in the rest of the Union—and that should be spread to the rest of the Union. There has to be a point where people are clearly using those powers rather than complaining about what they would like to have, do not use or think they ought to have. It is a really important lesson for all of us who believe in devolution that we need to push these things further. In that case, why have my good friends in the Scottish National party not supported or proposed amendments to make sure that local government—in this case, in Scotland—can go further and run much more of its own affairs?
Dr Daniel Poulter (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich) (Con)
As always, the hon. Gentleman makes a coherent argument about constitutional matters on which he possesses great expertise. Does he agree that this is often a two-stage process? The first stage is devolving powers to the Scottish Parliament, after which it is then for the Scottish Parliament further to devolve the powers, to the islands and other communities, as indeed it has done?
Mr Allen
It is important to see devolution develop in stages. I mentioned earlier that we have made a start on the devolution proposals for England and that another couple of Bills might be necessary, even in this Parliament, before we can really see what devolution in England looks like. However, there must be a point at which the powers already devolved—in this case to the Scottish Parliament—can be pushed beyond and down to people on the ground. That is why I proposed—I did not hear a great deal of support for it—to ensure that local government in Scotland can, with the local people’s consent, raise its own taxation. If people are won over and convinced of the need, it should be possible to raise levels of a particular tax in an area. I often mention my local circumstances in Nottingham, where we would like to levy a tourist tax or a bed tax in order to do good works, providing that people in the local area consent and agree.
Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP)
Does the hon. Gentleman not see that the whole point of devolution is to ensure that those decisions are made by the Scottish Parliament in Holyrood, which is already carrying through the Community Empowerment (Scotland) Act 2015? It is not for this place to tell the Scottish Parliament what to do with the power that is devolved—otherwise, the power is not really devolved.
Mr Allen
I cannot speak for this place; I can give only my personal opinion. The hon. Lady has heard me say how important it is that powers are devolved to the Scottish Parliament, and as a devolver and a democrat, I would like to see powers devolved out of Whitehall to local areas in England, for example, and on to the ground— even, in my own case, going beyond the Nottingham City Council, good though it is, right down to the localities. It is not a case of someone telling someone else to do this. If we believe in devolution—and I understand why the nationalists may feel that they do not want devolution, because it undermines the nationalist ethic—[Interruption.] That is a perfectly valid position to hold, and it is nothing to be ashamed of, but nationalism is not localism.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Allen
I will give way in a second.
If we believe in localism, or in subsidiarity—a word that I used in one of my new clauses—and pushing power to the lowest possible levels, we cannot stop with nationalism, or the nation state. There must be a whole panoply: there must be a whole view of how power can go to the people rather than merely to another elected set of people in the Scottish Parliament, which, believe it or not, may well seem as remote to some people as the federal Parliament here.
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
In Scotland less than 2% of the money provided for local authorities is ring-fenced, while in England the figure is nearly 10%. We should not be having a discussion about Scotland being more centralised than England, because that is clearly not the case. Will the hon. Gentleman please talk about the Scotland Bill rather than about devolution to England?
Several hon. Members rose—
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. We have five hours in which to debate critical and significant amendments to the Scotland Bill, and the hon. Gentleman has been going on about devolution for England. He has not even tabled any amendments on this particular issue. When can we get back to debating the Scotland Bill and the important amendments that have been tabled to it?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
I understand the point that the hon. Gentleman has made, and I take it very seriously. I have been listening carefully to the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen). He is addressing points that are relevant to the precise matters before us and to the amendments and new clauses, in a general way, but I am sure he will accept the feeling of the House that, while it is interesting and generally relevant to discuss these issues in general and as a matter of academic interest, it is also important for the House to have enough time to debate the many amendments and new clauses that are before us. I am not stopping the hon. Gentleman, but I am trusting him to know when he will draw his remarks to a conclusion.
Mr Allen
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Perhaps the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) is a little anxious because he is now part of the establishment in this place, and is used to having the privilege of unlimited time in which to address the House. Many of us do not have that privilege, and we are very jealous of the hon. Gentleman when he gets up to speak at length. However, I am rather surprised that he stopped me from answering the question asked by his hon. Friend the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman), which I was in the middle of doing. I am also rather surprised that he had not read the amendment paper, which includes four new clauses in my name. Perhaps if he looked at those rather than repeating the speeches that he made during the previous three days of debate, he would be better informed.
I shall now be very careful to stick closely to the subject of my new clauses, which will obviously be in order. The ability to raise money locally is very important for all our localities, and is a symptom of being freed to a greater extent from Whitehall and Westminster, so that this place and Whitehall do what they should do and our respective nations can govern themselves as much as is absolutely appropriate, which they do not currently do. Scotland is leading the way in showing us how to do that, but I hope that this is not just about Scotland, and that, even for the Scottish nationalists, it is about ensuring that all of us share the benefits of devolution while we remain together in the Union, as I hope we will.
Kirsten Oswald
I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. He has just said that this is not just about Scotland. I have to put it to him that this is the Scotland Bill. Can we please discuss Scotland?
Mr Allen
I know it is difficult to accept, when one listens to one’s own propaganda that these matters are only ever about the Scottish National party, but the truth is that the Scotland Bill clearly impacts on the rest of the Union. Those of us who will benefit or suffer from matters related to Scotland have a right to express a view. If there was a slightly more outgoing sharing of learning and experience from some colleagues from the SNP, more friends would be won among those of us who very strongly believe in devolution in the other nations of the UK.
Ian Blackford
I just wonder whether the hon. Gentleman sees the irony in the fact that we voted through English votes for English laws but have created second-class MPs in those of us who come from Scotland, because we cannot fully represent our constituents in this place. Scotland returned 56 SNP MPs with a clear mandate to deliver home rule for Scotland, and we are not getting what the Scottish people want because MPs from other parts of the UK are voting against our interests. We should have Scottish votes for Scottish laws in this place.
Mr Allen
The hon. Gentleman asks from a sedentary position how we got on: 50% of Scottish people voted against the SNP and unfortunately 50% of Scotland is represented by three Members of Parliament. The hon. Gentleman should relish his victory, and he thoroughly deserves all the appropriate accolades, but I ask him to be a little careful not to become triumphant, because his party should not be proud of 50% of Scottish people being represented by three Members of Parliament. I hope the desire for proportional representation, which suited the SNP for many years—
Mr Allen
I am winding up in a way the hon. Gentleman may not approve of—I am getting my first wind.
I hope the SNP will not forget its commitment to proportional representation just because first past the post delivered the gross, disfigured distortion of 56 MPs representing half the population and three MPs representing the other half. I hope that the hon. Gentleman feels that that is not an appropriate allocation and that the SNP renews its vigour when talking about proportional representation, because it has gone rather quiet on that subject.
Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend detect from the interventions of the SNP Members that they are perfectly happy to talk about devolution down to the Scottish level, but they are very keen not to talk about devolution down to the more local levels of the kind my hon. Friend is outlining?
Mr Allen
I hope—[Interruption.] I hope that even those who are heckling and shouting would say that I always try to engage people from the SNP in debate on these issues. Sometimes things get a bit interesting and a bit heated, but that is because we all care passionately about these views. I am trying to put my point of view over now. Perhaps there are shades of opinion in what appears to be a robotic, monolithic Scottish National party. Perhaps some SNP Members acknowledge that others have a different view. It might be the case that that has some resonance, and that not all of them simply wait to be told what to do at their regular Monday meeting.
Ian Austin (Dudley North) (Lab)
I take a different view from that of my hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester (Christian Matheson). I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen) that, now that the SNP is the establishment in Scotland, its members are desperate to avoid any scrutiny of the way in which it runs the Scottish Government. That is because they want to be able to blame everybody else—namely, the wicked people down south—for everything that goes wrong in their country.
Mr Allen
I am sure that the Chair would call me to order if I answered my hon. Friend’s very pertinent question, but I know that he will make that point and many others when he is called to speak.
New clause 8 is about defining. It is all very well to sit in Holyrood handing out little bits of largesse here and there, but that is exactly what Whitehall and Westminster do to everyone else. The Scottish people have suffered from that as much as the English people have. One way to get round that is to define the competences of local government and national Government in such a way that no one will be able to unpick the idea, whenever it suits them, that power should be devolved beyond Holyrood or Westminster. Unless that principle is clearly entrenched, the lure of power from the centre—be it Holyrood or Westminster—and the temptation to tell people what to do will be too strong.
New clause 8 proposes that people who want to engage in this debate should sit down and discuss with their local government—wherever it might be—what it is appropriate for local government to do. I do not believe that Scotland, England, Wales or Northern Ireland should be immune from that idea, because otherwise they will find that power gets sucked back up. Some of my friends in Scotland are telling me that power there is becoming ever more centralised. No doubt that will be a matter of debate, but that is what people are saying. Perhaps the easiest way round that is not to say, “Oh yes, but we are very nice to people. We are benign and we give them a little bit more money here and there”, but to allow the people, the drivers who produced devolution in Scotland, to produce devolution lower down than Holyrood.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman talks about devolving power. As everyone in the Chamber knows, money is power. Will he therefore applaud the Conservative Government for devolving the retention of business rates locally? That policy has been devolved to the Scottish Government and it is now being mimicked there.
Mr Allen
I bracket the Scottish National party and the Conservative party together. If they do good things to push power down or push finance down, I am very happy to applaud that. What I am saying is that, in order to avoid a situation in which “the centre giveth and the centre taketh away”, we all need to have a proper written settlement. Even if people do not think that it is happening now, there will be a time when the temptation for those at the centre—in Holyrood or in Westminster—to turn things round, suck power back and tell people what to do will overcome them, even those with the best hearts in the world.
Mr David Anderson (Blaydon) (Lab)
May I just gently remind colleagues from Scotland that they were elected to this United Kingdom Parliament and that this is a United Kingdom Bill which will have an impact on my constituents as well as theirs? I would be delighted if my hon. Friend’s new clause would somehow enable measures similar to those in the Bill to be put into an English Bill, so that my council could help me to protect my constituents in the same way as Scottish MPs want to protect theirs. I welcome the fact that he has tabled his new clauses and the fact that they are not critical of the Bill.
Mr Allen
That is why, knowing many of my parliamentary colleagues from Scotland, I rely on their generosity of spirit to help those of us who are trying to get a devolved settlement in other parts of the Union, not to pull up the drawbridge and say, “We’ve got what we want. Now we have a load of people in Parliament, we are no longer going to talk about proportional representation. On the back of 50% of the votes in our nation we have 95% of the seats and that’s now all okay. Now we are in control of the Scottish Parliament we are not going to use the powers, but we are going to suck up power from local government.” I know that that is not where many of my parliamentary colleagues from Scotland wish to be, but they need to speak up. They need to make that clear, in their internal meetings and inside their party. They need to be clear with people who are telling them, “Leave it to us, we are the top dogs. Do what you are told. Show up, it is your shift.” We have this in every other party, and people will hope there can be proper debate within parties so that devolution as a whole can move forward. It has to go beyond Scotland. People who really believe in devolution have to take it beyond the one area. I am happy to discuss and debate that with anybody. One area we need to talk about—[Interruption.] I would gladly give way to hon. Members rather than just have shouting, although I am happy to have shouting and gesticulating—it is the parliamentary equivalent of spitting at your opponents in the street. [Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
Order. The hon. Gentleman is very patient, but I am not happy to have shouting and gesticulation—not that I see any that is out of order at present. I say to him that when the House becomes a little vociferous, it is possibly an indication that there is a limited time for debate. He does have four very important amendments down for discussion and he has taken a fair chunk of the time for the debate. As I said previously, I am not stopping him—he has the Floor. He is a senior and much-respected Member of this House and he will know when he has taken the right amount of time in this very short debate.
Mr Allen
I will certainly go a lot quicker if people allow me to. As always, not a person in this Chamber can say that I do not give way when people have a real point of debate to make, rather than just wanting to yell from a sedentary position. That will continue to be my policy and I will not move from that, whatever the provocation.
New clause 9 talks about subsidiarity, which was brought to us by the former Lady from Finchley, through the Maastricht treaty. In this Bill, it would enable us to define and keep a very clear perspective on what is local, what is regional, what is national and what is federal. That will help everybody, whichever country they are in within the Union, not just to win small victories here and there, but to sustain a change in our democratic structure that will make it harder for those who so wish to do away with any settlement when they feel it convenient.
Part of the Bill relates very much to the rest of the United Kingdom, and that relates to the possibility of having a citizens convention, modelled on the Scottish convention, whereby people throughout the whole UK can face some of these issues, which are of great importance to us. The debate about EVEL—English votes for English laws— was a diversion. It was an irrelevance and mere procedural issue, and it has very little to do with devolution and greater freedom for our peoples within the UK. I hope that we move on from where we are on Scottish devolution and on the Cities and Local Government Devolution Bill, which is devolution in England, and that we take these issues forward together. All parties need to work together to ensure that there is a citizens convention on devolution, so that we can spread some of the excellent things that have been achieved by the Scottish people, by people such as Donald Dewar, by those in the Scottish citizens convention, by those who worked on the Scotland Act 2012 and by all those parties of the Union that worked together to create this Scotland Bill, which is, quite rightly, the first Bill before this Parliament. I hope that the first Bill in the 2020 Parliament is one that brings devolution to all the nations of the Union so that we all get the benefits that will rightly be enjoyed by the people in Scotland.
Scotland Bill
Graham Allen Excerpts(9 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Wayne David
I am glad that the SNP accepts the point I am making.
It would have been better if, instead of putting nationalist sentiment first, the SNP considered harsh economic reality and the wellbeing of the Scottish people, but no—it decided to press ahead. As SNP Members are well aware, rail passengers are suffering badly as ScotRail has adopted an approach to industrial relations that the Scottish TUC’s Graeme Smith has described as “nothing short of shambolic”. Few would disagree with that comment.
Yesterday, ScotRail cancelled a third of its usual Sunday services after pay talks with train drivers’ union ASLEF stalled. Abellio ScotRail has written to staff to offer voluntary redundancy, even though the franchise was supposed to guarantee that that would not happen. In the light of these developments, it is important for us to say clearly that Abellio’s workforce planning and industrial relations are shambolic—and that is an understatement.
Why on earth is what is happening on the Scottish railways being allowed to happen? Surely what is needed is in-depth scrutiny and a review of the previous tendering arrangements. In tabling amendment 158, our desire is not merely to put the spotlight on the foolish behaviour of the SNP Government in Scotland, but to ensure that they learn the lessons so that their mistakes cannot be made again. I hope that Members on both sides of the Committee will feel able to support our amendment on that basis.
Mr Graham Allen (Nottingham North) (Lab)
Before I deal with the amendments and new clauses in my name, I should like to address a few words, through you, Sir David, to the other place. The way in which we are considering this Bill means that a large group of new clauses that try to give real life to the Smith commission proposals will not even be discussed this evening. They would give Scottish local authorities the general power of competence already enjoyed by English local authorities. They also refer to subsidiarity and to devolving power genuinely not just to the Scottish Parliament—of which I am one of the biggest supporters—but to Scottish local government. The new clauses would actually allow local government in Scotland to be constitutionally defined so that no one, either in this place or in the Scottish Parliament, could ever take away the rights and liberties of Scottish local government.
It is a flaw in our legislative process when we are not even allowed to debate those very important issues in our own Parliament. They have not even been dismissed. I very much hope that colleagues in the other place will note that those issues have not had a hearing. I think that many people—democrats from all parties—who were excited about the possibilities of what arose from the referendum and the Smith process will feel that this House has cheated them out of a proper debate on some of the wider issues of devolution.
This is going to happen again on another day, when the English version of devolution will be debased and devalued by a mere rearranging of the EVEL deckchairs in the House of Commons. I think people will live to regret that day, too.
Drew Hendry
As my colleagues have said, the principle of subsidiarity should not stop at local authorities. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that subsidiarity should be about people being able to take control themselves as and when they need to do so?
Mr Allen
I do not wish to be unkind to the hon. Gentleman, but subsidiarity is not stopping at local government in Scotland and many would argue that it is not really started at local government, either. There are many examples of how the Scottish Parliament, over which the hon. Gentleman’s party has majority control—there is no one else to blame—is sucking up powers. That sucking sound we hear from north of the border is the powers going up from local government to Holyrood. On subsidiarity, if it were justiciable, local government and, in fact, any individual, could take the Scottish Government to court if they removed the constitutional powers that I would have suggested had we had time to discuss the new clauses in the next group of amendments, but sadly we are not going to reach them.
Drew Hendry
Has the hon. Gentleman studied the document by the Commission on Strengthening Local Democracy in Scotland? It was a cross-party and civic society exercise in examining how Scotland might go forward. In fact, I as an SNP member was a signatory and co-author of that document and was on the commission.
The Temporary Chair (Sir David Amess)
Order. Before the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen) responds to that intervention, I would be grateful if he drew his remarks more closely to the amendments under discussion.
Mr Allen
In a moment. Why do we need that document? I gently remind the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey that we need it because of what his party has done to the police service, the fire service, local government, courts and colleges. I would be very happy to talk about the nationalisation of the police service in Scotland or the closure of 17 courts, but if I were to do so Sir David would call me to order. I could tell the Committee about the 23 local enterprise companies that were abolished and turned into just two, and give many other examples, but I will not stray there, Sir David, because I know you would say that I was out of order.
What I will say is that local government must play its part. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman and I can agree that local government has to be respected and recognised, and that my new clauses promote that possibility. Instead of that being at the whim of whoever happens to run the Scottish Government, it could be constitutionally defined. I suggest incorporating the words on subsidiarity from the Maastricht treaty. I suggest that the First Minister establishes a series of powers and competences for local government that can be changed only by a two-thirds majority in the Scottish Parliament. Those are ways in which, I hope he would agree, local government in Scotland could demonstrate to local government in England how to do things. Throughout the passage of the Bill—I hope the hon. Gentleman will give me credit for having been here on a considerable number of occasions—my concern has been to ensure that what is good enough for Scotland, and Scotland should have the very best, also applies to England.
I give way to the hon. Member for Midlothian (Owen Thompson), who has been very patient.
Owen Thompson
My hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Drew Hendry) mentioned the Commission on Strengthening Local Democracy. The Scottish Government have also introduced the Community Empowerment (Scotland) Bill, which contains powers for greater local community decision making. The Scottish Government have given greater decision-making powers to local communities than anyone has ever given them in Scotland. The hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen) mentioned police and fire matters. There is greater local scrutiny of those matters than there ever was under the fire and police boards.
The Temporary Chair (Sir David Amess)
Order. This is very ingenious, but I would be grateful if the hon. Gentleman kindly related his remarks to the amendments before us.
Mr Allen
Certainly, Sir David. You are right to admonish the hon. Gentleman for trying to lure me, yet again, into discussing local government, which I would not wish to do. Although I worked hard to table eight new clauses on Scottish local government, it is probably of no concern to this Committee, which seems to regard it as an irrelevance. I think that that is mistaken, because local government is key to devolution in Scotland and in England, Wales and Northern Ireland.
To get back to the plot, Sir David, Lord Smith referred strongly in the foreword to his report to the need for localism in the further devolution of powers. He was very clear about that. If Members in all parties, collectively, can be clear about that too, we will see that each nation of the United Kingdom can be governed much more effectively when as much power as is humanly possible is given to the appropriate level. That includes not just Parliaments, Assemblies and Executives, but local government and—to pick up the very good point made by the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey—beyond that, through double devolution, to neighbourhoods and communities, which can deliver many of the services that are currently over-centralised in Westminster, Whitehall and Holyrood.
I have tabled two of the new clauses in this group. New clause 50 concerns, in effect, a Bill of Rights. Earlier in the passage of the Bill, when I think you were in the Chair, Sir David, I suggested that the Scottish Parliament should continue with the Human Rights Act 1998, regardless of what this place does anywhere else in the United Kingdom. That Act should be safeguarded. I would go further, as I do in new clause 50. Human rights, as defined by the European convention on human rights, are very important. They are the fundamental block on which our liberties and freedoms rest, as I said in our earlier debates.
The issue of human rights could be taken further in Scotland through a discussion of economic and social rights. That is not an easy area, but it is perfectly possible for Scotland to lead in it. As the Scotland Bill is before the House, I have taken the opportunity to suggest that the Scottish Parliament could be a strong advocate of those rights. In the run-up to the elections next May, all parties in the Scottish Parliament should have a view on whether we can take human rights that one step further in one nation of the Union, even if human rights are being deferred, delayed and eroded in other parts of the United Kingdom.
One of the beauties of a federal system is that one part can pioneer and lead when other parts lag behind. The Minister knows that well from her experience of pushing forward ideas about early intervention and the treatment of children. She knows that if she works hard in her area, or if someone in one American state pioneers something, it is there as an example for everyone else to pick up as and when resources allow. A varied ecology allows our politics to thrive and grow, and it is the antithesis of an over-centralised state based in Whitehall that tells everybody what to do whether they are in Nottingham, Aberdeen or Cardiff.
Mr Allen
Those who feel that they are being referred to should take that upon themselves, but surely they would not wish to injure the rest of the Union. Surely that is not a price that anyone would pay. A body that could analyse what happens as Scotland evolves would benefit its near neighbours, and it could be of great use as we continue the discussions on Scottish devolution.
Brendan O'Hara
Will the hon. Gentleman reflect on his terminology and on “bitter separatists”? Much of what he said was of great interest to many of us, but the spirit of it was perhaps lost by his use of those words.
Mr Allen
I seem to touch a nerve every time I use the word “separatist” to describe those people who wish to separate. [Hon. Members: “ You said ‘bitter.’”] Well, there may be bitter separatists and there may be lovely, generous warm separatists—I am sure there are; perhaps I am looking at many of them now. If people are pursuing a project so enormous that they might get offended at the word “separatist”—[Hon. Members: “You said ‘bitter!’”] Oh bitter—forgive me. In that case, so as to carry on in the right spirit I withdraw the word “bitter”. People of all temperaments who are separatists may wish to consider how they make their case, and they should not be too worried if someone refers to people who, for genuine reasons want to separate from the other countries in the Union, as “separatists”. That word has had a good outing now—hopefully, separatism and separatists will not cause such a problem now we have burst that bubble.
Mr Allen
I am happy with that—some are ardent and some are not so ardent, but whether they are separatists or any other word we care to use, the impact of some of their policies may be that Scotland separates from the Union. I would hate to see Scotland separate; I want the rest of the Union to learn from Scotland and ensure that England, Wales and Northern Ireland enjoy the fruits of devolution rather than this constricted, over-centralised system that we all labour under, and that even people such as me can become bitter about, even though I am not a separatist.
Sir Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) (Con)
I am sure the hon. Gentleman will agree that one cannot be too sensitive in a place where our visitors are known as “strangers”. He speaks about an office of wellbeing. How does he define wellbeing? Is it the same sort of wellbeing that we have in health and wellbeing arrangements in the NHS?
Mr Allen
Again, we can get hung up on the words, and the Office for Budget Responsibility could argue about what “responsibility” means. I am trying to suggest that there should be an independent body that can define some statistical basis for the economic arguments we will all have, whatever our political differences. I think the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey wished to intervene, but I do not want to disturb him if he is looking at a good game on his PC.
Drew Hendry
I was not looking at a good game, but I thank the hon. Gentleman for allowing me to intervene. I wanted to pick up on the issue of pejorative terms because I do not think they help the debate. However, the hon. Gentleman should feel free to use whatever terms he wants because we will just go on representing Scotland. Perhaps the lessons that should be learned from Scotland are that the Scottish public voted in overwhelming numbers to return 56 SNP MPs and have them stand up and have Scotland’s voice heard, which it clearly is not being.
Mr Allen
Yes, but I think 6% of the United Kingdom electorate voted for the SNP, so if we get into statistical battles—[Interruption.] We are in the federal Parliament now. Those who get annoyed must understand that this is not Holyrood and MPs are not entitled to do to local government in nations outside Scotland what has been done to local government inside Scotland. That writ, where what the SNP says goes and we must do, does not extend to the federal Parliament. So I would say to the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey that in the rough and tumble of debate on the Union, there is a fundamental question. Some people wish to have devolution and some people wish to separate—I regard that not as pejorative but as accurate—and those debates must be heard here, even if the electoral system has handed a large number of seats to one particular party. It is a matter of respecting the views of everyone else. If that is done, that party might be able to claim that it represents the people of Scotland. But it cannot claim to be the exclusive voice of Scotland when so many people did not vote for that party and, of course, a large majority rejected the fundamental platform on which the SNP stands—separation from the Union.
Wayne David
We have heard a great deal about the fact there are 56 SNP Members. We are debating the Scotland Bill, so where are they? There are fewer than a dozen SNP Members in the Chamber. So much for being the voice of Scotland! [Interruption.]
The Temporary Chair (Sir David Amess)
Order. Before the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen) responds to that intervention, may I remind the Committee that the knife falls at 10 pm, and other hon. Members wish to speak? I have been very lax in allowing Members to drift on to the third group, which is not for discussion. I would ask the hon. Gentleman to draw his remarks much more closely to the amendments.
Callum McCaig
Amendment 154 addresses the consultation process on the renewable electricity incentive schemes. Paragraph 41 of the Smith commission report states:
“There will be a formal consultative role for the Scottish Government and the Scottish Parliament in designing renewables incentives”.
Clause 53 provides that that would not apply in relation to
“any levy in connection with a renewable electricity incentive scheme”—
or to anything that the Secretary of State deems to be a minor, technical or administrative change. In the light of recent matters that certain parties seem to think are minor, administrative or technical, but that my party views as a major attack on Scotland’s renewable energy industry, the inclusion of those words gives some cause for concern, as does the rowing back on what was promised in the Smith report.
The fundamentals of this are clear. The all-party devolution committee, about which we have heard much in the last few days of debate, said:
“Clauses 56 and 58 are identical to draft clauses 42 and 44 but Clause 53”—
the one I am talking about—
“has been changed, and does not require the Secretary of State to consult the Scottish Ministers about any levy in connection with a renewable electricity incentive scheme, it is understood that this relates to Contract for Difference—Supplier Operational Levies and Capacity Market—Settlement Cost Levies. These are levy payments made by Suppliers to cover the operational cost of administrating Contract for Difference and Capacity Market.”
Such levies are fundamental to designing renewable incentives. The spirit and letter of Smith demand formal consultation with the Scottish Government. Frankly, I do not understand what the consultation on renewable incentives will be about if it does not include the money required to enable them to happen.
I want to hear from the Minister on this issue, but I have one final point to make about the message that will be sent to the renewable industry in Scotland and beyond if amendment 154 is rejected. Investors are already on edge because of the disastrous handling of the early closure of the renewables obligation. If the promise of meaningful consultation is withdrawn, it prompts the question of what else the Government have in store to wreck Scotland’s renewables potential.
Andrea Leadsom
Let me reassure the hon. Gentleman that we are talking about consultation with the Scottish Parliament on the design of renewable incentive schemes. The point I am making is that where there are minor, technical changes, the need to consult would be too time-consuming and burdensome on both sets of Ministers. That is why we urge him not to press amendment 154.
Amendment 155 concerns the Competition and Markets Authority. A market investigation is a significant undertaking by the CMA, and the impact of business uncertainty and potential remedies may spread across the whole UK. Let us not forget that the CMA is funded by the UK Government, so it is only fair that, just like UK Ministers, Scottish Ministers should be required to involve the Secretary of State in any decision to require the CMA to undertake an investigation. I therefore urge hon. Members not to press amendment 155.
Turning to the amendments from the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen), I fully recognise the position that he is trying to convey. He and I have had many conversations on wellbeing, and he will know that I am a big fan of devolution—I am a fan of devolution to local government and a fan of this devolution Bill. The Bill proposes fundamental changes that will give unique new powers to the Scottish Parliament that it has not had before. It will mean that, overall, this devolution settlement is one of the strongest anywhere in the world. The Bill will give significant new powers to Scotland, and it is important that all Members get the opportunity to do justice to those.
Equally, the hon. Gentleman will recognise that we do not want to be telling the Scottish Parliament whether it should be setting up its own commission on wellbeing or, indeed, what sort of commission it should establish. It will be for Scottish Ministers, with the support of their Scottish MPs, to decide when and if they want to establish their own commission for wellbeing and, of course, what sort of powers they want to devolve to their local government, local enterprise partnerships and so on.
Mr Graham Allen
I agree with what the hon. Lady is saying, but will she also touch on the rights of local government, so that it, too, can have responsibilities and clarity about its role? At the moment, that is unfortunately not the case in Scotland—or, indeed, any other part of the Union—but we now have an opportunity to give local government in Scotland that freedom.
Andrea Leadsom
The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has said, he will be looking carefully at the debate and at all the feedback right across the House, giving consideration to all those proposals to see whether there is anything more we need to do to improve the settlement for Scotland. A lot of valuable contributions have been made and there is a long way to go with this devolution Bill. I am sure my right hon. Friend will listen to what the hon. Gentleman has to say, but at this point there is nothing further I can add to his comments, other than to say that I would of course entirely support any work done on wellbeing for any of the countries that make up the United Kingdom.
I think it is an incredibly important subject, and I certainly pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman for the work he has done. We have worked in close co-ordination on giving every child the best start in life and on the importance of wellbeing. I pay tribute to the Scottish Parliament, too, because I am aware of the enormous strides made in Scotland on supporting wellbeing and the best possible start in life for every child. I commend that Parliament for its foresightedness. I sincerely believe that other parts of the United Kingdom have something to learn from its actions.
To conclude, the discussion of all the amendments has been important. Today has been a bit of a wash-up, in that we have discussed everything ranging from the new powers for Scottish Members and appointing new members to the Northern Lighthouse Board to Scottish television stations and taking parliamentary submissions from Ofcom and Ofgem. We have also talked about new powers for the Scottish Parliament to be able to decide on the measures it wants to make to deal with fuel poverty and about incentives for new supplier obligations in Scotland to deal with those struggling to pay their bills.
I think that this set of measures represents an enormous transfer of powers from the UK to Scotland. All right hon. and hon. Members should be very pleased about that. We have heard a number of views on all the issues raised today, but for the reasons I outlined, I believe that the Bill’s clauses are in keeping with the Smith commission agreement, so I urge hon. Members not to press their amendments.
Clause 46 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 47 to 52 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 53
Renewable electricity incentive schemes
Amendment proposed: 154, page 60, leave out lines 9 to 17.—(Calum McCaig.)
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Scotland Bill
Graham Allen Excerpts(9 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Carmichael
Amendments 16, 17 and 18 are essentially probing amendments, authored by the Law Society of Scotland. Subject to the response that we hear from Ministers and from those in other parts of the House, it is not my intention to seek to press them to a Division.
The amendments change the nature of clause 1 from one that recognises the permanence of the Scottish Parliament to one that declares it. The genesis of the clause was the Smith commission report, which required that there should be a statement in the legislation to follow it that the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government were permanent institutions. The form of words in clause 1 was inserted by the draft clauses published at the end of January, which recognised that permanence. The permanence of the Scottish Parliament is to be found not in any amendment or statutory enactment, but in the will of the Scottish people. It is a permanent institution because, frankly, it is unthinkable that it would be repealed at this point. For that reason, and given the comments of the Scottish Parliament’s Devolution (Further Powers) Committee, it is right that we should revisit the issue.
At the heart of this debate is the issue and the definition of sovereignty. The context is a classic Diceyan definition of sovereignty, which says that Parliament here is sovereign. Although matters have moved on somewhat over the years and although it remains the case that Parliament cannot bind its successors, it is undoubtedly the case that since the European Communities Act 1972 we have taken a different view of parliamentary sovereignty, one in which sovereignty is shared with the European Union, as it now is, in Brussels, the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly, the Northern Ireland Assembly and even the London Assembly. It was the subject of considerable debate during the constitutional convention back in the late 1980s and early 1990s.
The view that was taken then, which as I recall was contained in the claim of right, was that in Scotland the Diceyan version of sovereignty—that Parliament is sovereign—has never been the case, and that sovereignty has always been vested in and remained with the people of Scotland. From that point of view, I see considerable merit in amendment 58 in the name of the hon. Member for Moray (Angus Robertson) and his colleagues in the Scottish National party, requiring that if there were ever to be a repeal of the Scotland Act 1998 it could be done only with the consent of a majority voting in a referendum. That honours and respects the view that sovereignty lies with the people in Scotland.
However, even that clause could be got around by a simple repeal, a consequence of the doctrine that Parliament cannot bind its successors. As long as we try to do these things by way of primary legislation, we will keep tying ourselves up in knots and any solution that we bring forward will lack permanence and will be unsatisfactory.
Mr Graham Allen (Nottingham North) (Lab)
Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that the former Member for Monklands East and leader of the Labour party, John Smith, said that the British constitution, which embraces the Scottish constitution, should not be a matter of judicial archaeology—that was the phrase he used—but should be put down plainly as a written constitution for all to see? Is that where his argument is going? I hope it is.
Mr Carmichael
I have long held that view. I cannot remember a time in my conscious political being that I have held a view other than that. It is never going to be easy to get to that point, of course, and it will require a fundamental change in the way we do things. The reference to judicial archaeology is interesting, because it would render some of the things that were done in this place reviewable in the courts. As long as there is a proper separation of powers, I am quite happy with that.
Angus Robertson
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his election. I gently encourage him to remind himself of the position of the Conservative party in the run-up to the referendum on Scottish devolution. It was totally opposed to devolution, so he will perhaps understand why SNP Members, who have consistently supported home rule, wish to see that reflected in the legislation. He will have the opportunity to support the SNP amendment later.
Mr Graham Allen
If there is absolutely no threat whatever to the Scottish Parliament, why not put that fully on the face of the Bill, as the hon. Gentleman suggests?
Angus Robertson
The hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point. Hopefully, the Committee does not need to divide. If there is support from Labour and from the Government, everybody will be satisfied and we can move forward.
In legal terms, there is nothing to stop the Westminster Parliament from repealing clause 1, according to the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty and the associated norm that one Parliament cannot bind its successors. The Scottish Government produced an alternative clause that includes a double lock—it would require that the clause cannot be repealed without the prior consent of the Scottish Parliament, and without the people of Scotland voting to abolish the Scottish Parliament in a referendum conducted for that purpose. The Scottish Government clause forms the basis of our amendment.
John Redwood
We are where we are. Promises were made, I thought in good faith, by the three Front-Bench teams. They were not my chosen promises; they were made on behalf of the three Unionist parties. They did the job for the referendum, but they then did not do much of a job for the Unionist parties at the general election. However, we cannot now be seen to be delaying for any great length. There needs to be proper work—and I am sure that proper work is going on in the Government at the moment as they try to work out a financial settlement in parallel to this Bill. I am just suggesting that perhaps this Parliament needs to have some of that thinking shared with it.
Today is the first opportunity, within the clear parameters of new clause 3, to try to expose a bit of the thinking on how a limited amount of fiscal autonomy will work, and on how many of these taxes Scotland will not only collect, but be responsible for and have knocked off the block grant. As I remember it, when the leaders came up with this promise, Gordon Brown was a big voice—obviously, he was not one of the leaders at the time—for rather less fiscal autonomy. He was trying to stop Scotland controlling her own income tax revenues, so I do not entirely share the interpretation of the Labour Front-Bench team of what Mr Brown was trying to do at that point.
I will bring my remarks to a close with the simple conclusion that the world has moved on because of the general election result. The debate on money is taking place elsewhere, but we currently have a short debate about money here. I hope that the Front-Bench team will share some of its thoughts on money. Fiscal devolution seems to be attractive to many people in Scotland, but we need to know where it ends and how we sort out all those crucial issues about debt and borrowing as well as about shared policies such as pensions.
Mr Graham Allen
Sir David, it is a great pleasure to see you in the Chair this afternoon. Like many colleagues, I had assumed that you would be in your green tights dancing around the maypole with many other dignitaries at Runnymede. [Interruption.] Yes, the thought does bring tears to the eyes. I am talking about a serious occasion, but it is, by necessity, a backward-looking, occasion. Eight hundred years ago, in what was a great leap forward in its time, Magna Carta was sealed, if not signed. What we have been hearing about today—and this has been a really superb debate so far by all parts of the House—is the next 800 years. We are certainly looking at the foreseeable future and at our democracy. One thing we cannot do is go back to business as usual. We have a majority party in the House, and we cannot just ram stuff through the Commons. We must consider all these sorts of Bills seriously.
I mean no offence when I say that the Scotland Bill is not the property of the people of Scotland let alone of the political parties of Scotland. The Scotland Bill is about the Union. Whether we are in a transitional period or whether we have another 800 years of happy family relationships is still to be decided. As we discuss this Bill, the local government devolution Bill, and the European referendum Bill, those colleagues who are new to the House—to all parts of the House—should be excited that they have come here at this moment. It is a time of immense potential. People from all parts of this House have expressed the view that we need to look at this matter seriously. The word “statesmanlike” has been thrown around quite a bit, but it is pertinent to this debate. What we do today and over the next four Mondays will be of great importance to all of us in the Union.
Mr MacNeil
As usual, the hon. Gentleman is making a thoughtful contribution. He said that the Scotland Bill is the property of the House, but he will recognise that the House has been forced, kicking and screaming to reach the point it is at the moment. In the previous Scotland Bill, an amendment was moved to devolve Crown estate control to Scotland, and the House would not agree to it. It has now conceded on that point because of the weight and the power of the votes from the people of Scotland and it has done so easily. Is it not a huge mistake for this place to give away too little too late and not to listen to the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh)?
Mr Allen
I am probably one of the worst in this House for blaming Westminster. Westminster and, above all, Whitehall—that is a distinction that we can educate each other in over the next five years—deserve to have that blame attached to them, but the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues are now part of Westminster. They will need to use the Westminster system and to be a part of it, if only because they wish to get such Bills passed. The Bills that have been passed to free Scotland in the way that it needs to be freed up, that Nottingham, Leicester and Derby need to be freed up and that England, Wales and Northern Ireland need to be freed up have been passed by this place because of the efforts of people such as Donald Dewar and those who got the Scotland Act 2012 through and because of the efforts of all the parties in this House, who will, I hope, pass the Scotland Bill effectively through this Committee.
Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP)
The hon. Gentleman mentions Donald Dewar and I pay tribute to what Donald Dewar did. In the establishment of the Scottish Parliament, sections were given—such as health or education—so that the Parliament could make its own policies without controlling the budget. The problem with Smith is that it is made up of little bits and pieces that mean that the two Parliaments will be forever at each other’s throats. That cannot be sustainable.
Mr Allen
The problem with Smith, with 2012 and with Donald Dewar’s devolution is that none of them was perfect. To seek perfection is to be the enemy of good. This is a progress, a process and a way forward, and it might not turn out how any of us first imagined. One key point is for those who represent England—in my case, my city of Nottingham, of which I am very proud—is that nothing in this Bill should be unable to apply to the liberation and progress of such cities. Nothing in my city should restrain or inhibit the progress I would love to see my friends in Scotland achieving, too.
This is all about devolving power. I do not wish to sour the atmosphere, but sometimes separatism and devolution are sworn enemies. I hope that this is not one of those occasions. I hope that we can all see devolution as part of a process.
Mr Allen
If I may just make this point while I am thinking about it, I will then give way. If we continue that process, we might end up in a place that is better for everybody and we might end up with the sort of liberation of our localities and communities that we all want, whichever nation of the Union we represent.
Peter Grant
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the only real separatists in this House are those on the Government Benches, who would quite happily see Scotland dragged out of the European Union against the express wishes of its people?
Mr Allen
We all have a stronger common interest than we sometimes dare admit, and we certainly all have an interest in making devolution work. The bigger issues that I want to come on to concern some of the structures through which we might all work together to do some of that. Some were raised by my Select Committee, which was an all-party Committee of this House and proved that we can do other things and move forward on devolution.
Let us imagine where we might be in 20 years’ time with the federal Parliament, which this is. Even the strongest small c conservative—they can be found throughout the House—would not say that we will be in exactly the same place in 20 years as we are today. That would be inaccurate. We will definitely be in a different place. What will it look like? I suspect the position will unfold. It may not be devised at 10 o’clock tonight, as the amendments envisage, but there will be progress over those 20 years. What does it look like? For some it looks like separation or independence. For others, it looks like a Union refreshed and renewed. For me, it looks like my people in my area being allowed to make more decisions of their own as of right, not because people feel they are giving them a little play out of Westminster.
Mr MacNeil
I see that my patience has paid off and I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. Is not one of the problems, in yet another Scotland Bill three years after the previous one, that Westminster may give away a little bit here and a little bit there? Would it not be better to turn the telescope around and have the relationship that the Faroe Islands have with Denmark? They can take the powers that they want to take and it is not a big deal for Copenhagen to give Tórshavn those powers. In Westminster it seems a massive deal to give people control over the minimum wage in Scotland—a power that Labour blocked, for goodness sake. It should not be like that. If Scotland wants it, let Scotland take it and let this place be gracious about it.
Mr Allen
It is always good to knock off a quick anti-Westminster point, so I will join the hon. Gentleman and say that everything that he resents about Whitehall, I resent at least as much in so far as it impacts badly on one of the 10 poorest constituencies in the United Kingdom, so—I mean this in a friendly way—he does not need to lecture me about how inadequate Westminster and Whitehall are at freeing up and liberating people to get better jobs, improve skills and improve their schooling, all the things that all of us hold in common as we move forward.
What I am saying is that we need to figure out how progress that has been made in Scotland—massive progress, which I fully support—can be replicated, not just in a narrow sense of “This is good for us”, but if it is so good, how it can be good also for Wales, Northern Ireland and England.
Andrew Gwynne
I commend the work that my hon. Friend and his Select Committee did in the previous parliamentary Session. Although we are talking today specifically about the Scotland Bill, is this not also about how we re-engage the debate across the whole of the United Kingdom about how we bring powers down to the very local level so that what happens in Scotland today is valid for Nottingham, Manchester, Durham and other parts of the Union tomorrow?
Mr Allen
If we have now breached the principle and the wonderful idea of devolution—giving power away, not decentralisation, where Westminster and Whitehall can suck it back—let us look at devolution that is entrenched and can stand the test of time. I agree very much with getting the words right. My Select Committee was clear about the words reflecting the permanency of the Scottish Parliament.
The question is how we achieve permanency in an unwritten constitutional environment. We do it in two or three possible ways. One suggestion in one of my amendments—I tabled new clauses 6 to 9—is that the Scottish Parliament is protected behind the ingenious mechanism of the Parliament Act, which requires both Chambers to agree to any change in the status of those things that are protected. The other idea is related to Magna Carta, which is being celebrated today, and calls for a new Magna Carta—a written constitution. I commend the Scottish Executive for the work that they have already done on that. [Interruption.] If any hon. Member has something to say, please stand up and correct me. I am happy to take a correction.
Stewart McDonald
The legislation was changed from Scottish Executive to Scottish Government. It is not a briefcase.
Mr Allen
I am sorry for once that I gave way to an hon. Member because this is a serious debate. There is a precedent and if we can build on the precedent, however we name it, and make a broader constitutional settlement for the United Kingdom, there will be fewer occasions on which any of us need doubt when progress is made. If it is clear for every schoolboy and schoolgirl that the structure of their Government is there in writing, there is less likelihood that those powers can be sucked back into Westminster and Whitehall.
Mr Jackson
I declare an interest as an adjunct associate professor of British politics. I pay tribute to the fantastic work that the hon. Gentleman did in the previous Parliament. The point that SNP Members are missing is that the progress that has been made since the Scotland Act 1998 was as a result of the sovereignty of this Parliament. May I also respectfully correct the hon. Gentleman? We are not a federal Parliament, because that presupposes a codified written constitution setting out the powers, duties and responsibilities of the centre and the constituent parts of a sovereign nation.
Mr Allen
We might not yet be a federal Parliament officially, and we might not yet have the right words for it, but there is absolutely no question but that our Union is moving towards a federal basis, rather than the alleged parliamentary sovereignty referred to earlier. I hope that I live long enough to see parliamentary sovereignty in this House, because I have not seen much of it over the couple of decades I have been here.
The other thing that I think is really important to have clarified—this is also in the interests of my friends in the SNP—is the role of local government. If we have an overarching, federal structure in the United Kingdom, there are certain things that that structure needs to define. Human rights is a classic example, and I would argue strongly that so too are the rights of the sub-national tiers of government. Otherwise, all we would be doing is transferring state power from Whitehall to Holyrood. Some people say that that is precisely what has happened in Scotland, but I am sure that is a false accusation. However, in order to ensure the freedom of those who work at the grassroots, in our communities and neighbourhoods, defining the rights of local government, which is commonplace in every other western democracy, and to do that in our Union while it exists and is flourishing, would ensure that no such accusation could be levelled at my newly elected friends in the SNP.
Andrew Gwynne
My hon. Friend will remember that in the early 1990s there was a word that was in vogue in what was then the European Community: subsidiarity. Although it is a horrible word, it has a very serious meaning, which is that decisions should be taken as closely to the people as appropriate. Is not that just as relevant to the devolution debate? We should be talking about handing powers from this place not only to Holyrood, Cardiff Bay and Stormont, but even to places such as Manchester city region, and to local communities beyond.
Mr Allen
I think that devolution is so good that it should apply to everybody in the Union. I welcome the breakthrough that has been made in Scotland and hope to see a similar settlement for England, Wales and Northern Ireland. I often say—my hon. Friend will have heard this before—that subsidiarity is the ugliest word in the political lexicon to describe the most beautiful concept.
John Redwood
An important part of our Union is that there has been a transfer as well as a fiscal Union, so the richer parts pay in more, relatively, and the poorer parts draw out more. Does the hon. Gentleman feel that that could be sustained with full fiscal autonomy, or is that a problem?
Mr Allen
As far as I am concerned, the idea of income tax assignment was applied in the Scotland Act 2012. I think that it is the basis on which devolution can move further forward in Scotland, and certainly on which it can start to move forward more seriously in England so that we have not just piecemeal breakthroughs, as we are having at the moment, but something that can apply to every local authority throughout the whole of England and Wales and, if it wishes, Northern Ireland.
Mike Weir
I have listened carefully to what the hon. Gentleman has been saying, particularly about local government. Does he accept that it is not up to this place to determine the form of local government in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland? Decisions about local government are already devolved to the Scottish Parliament and the Assemblies of Wales and Northern Ireland. England may determine its own local government through this place, but questions about local government in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are not to be decided here.
Mr Allen
We need to think carefully about whether the rights that we would like to enjoy in our constitution should be placed at a federal level or at a national level. Let us fantasise about what would happen if, for example, the European convention on human rights was abolished and the right to torture people was established in part of the United Kingdom—[Interruption.] I know it is a silly example, but let me continue for a moment. I cannot imagine that we in the federal Parliament would not object to that ridiculous state of affairs. In some written constitutions, transcending values—concerning, for example, human rights, structures and democracy—may be in the federal constitution rather than in national constitutions. We need to debate that, and I hope that the hon. Member for Glasgow South will join in that debate rather than simply shaking his head, as he is doing.
Martin John Docherty
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for participating in this resolute debate about the future of Scotland and the British Parliament. I come back to the Statute of Westminster of 1931. Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that Scotland should be a dominion?
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)
On a point of order, Sir David. May we have a ruling that there is no such thing as the British Parliament; there is the Parliament of the United Kingdom?
Antoinette Sandbach (Eddisbury) (Con)
The hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen) seems to be advocating a written constitution, but the problem with that, as we have seen clearly with the Government of Wales Act 2006, is that it invites judge-made law. Recent Supreme Court decisions on the 2006 Act have led, in effect, to judicial decision making on a reserved powers model, which is not contained in the Act.
Mr Allen
I am sure that I would be called to order if I went into too much detail on the pros and cons of a written constitution. Suffice it to say that reams and reams of judge-made law exist, but our citizens are not allowed to see the basis on which that framework is put into place.
Mr MacNeil
Further to the point of order made by the hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley), France knows that it is France, but the UK does not seem to know that it is the UK. That is an extraordinary state of affairs.
The Temporary Chair
Order. Again I say to the Committee that that is a point of argument, not a point of order.
Mr Allen
Perhaps I can turn to a subject that will help the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar, who has intervened several times, in his future career: the House of Lords. I have tabled a new clause that would enable the nations of the Union to decide how they would like their representatives in the second Chamber to be chosen, elected or balloted for. Should the SNP have reached its zenith, and should it suffer a catastrophe after the next general election, I suggest that the hon. Gentleman may wish to have his name added to a list of such representatives put forward by the Scottish Parliament.
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.
Mr Graham Allen
I thank the Secretary of State for listening to the proposal by the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee. Will he take away the idea that what he is saying are to be in the Bill, in so many words? What those words are to be should be left to him, and perhaps he can return to that on Report.
David Mundell
I said that I would reflect on a number of the issues raised by the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) relating to proposals by the Law Society of Scotland. Among those is the debate on the wording currently in part 1, and we will certainly look at that.
I do not accept amendments 58 and 59 because they refer to the term “constitution” whereas clause 1 refers to the term “constitutional arrangements”. The term “constitutional arrangements” is used to reflect the fact that the United Kingdom does not have a written constitution. That is a well-established constitutional arrangement of which a Scottish Parliament is a crucial and enduring part.
In new clause 2, the hon. Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray) proposes a constitutional convention. I have said at this Dispatch Box previously that I, and this Government, do not support a constitutional convention for reasons that have been well rehearsed, not least because—on this one matter I am in agreement with the Scottish National party—it would slow down the progress of this Bill, which I am committed to taking through Parliament as quickly as possible.
Other matters have been raised and we have debated them fully but they do not fully relate to the Bill. On that basis, I propose that we move to vote on the amendments.
Wayne David
I rise to speak to amendments 39, 4 and 41 on the Sewel convention. As Members will know, the convention is quite well established. In the debate on the Scotland Bill in 1998, Lord Sewel, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the Scottish Office, said that
“we would expect a convention to be established that Westminster would not normally legislate with regard to devolved matters in Scotland without the consent of the Scottish parliament.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 21 July 1998; Vol. 592, c. 791.]
That was accepted, and the Sewel convention became a reality.
As the Law Society of Scotland has said, it is true that since the enactment of that Bill there is agreement that the convention has been successful, and it has been adhered to by successive Parliaments. The Smith commission gave a firm commitment:
“The Sewel Convention will be put on a statutory footing.”
That was a clear and unambiguous statement. On the face of it, the Government’s draft legislation honoured the commitment that had been given, but I suggest that there are weaknesses in what the Government have proposed in this Bill.
I want to refer to the excellent work done by the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee. It has been pointed out that the Sewel convention has been distilled in the Government’s interpretation of it. Clause 2 refers only to the convention’s applicability in respect of devolved matters, and the convention also applies to legislation affecting the competences of the devolved institutions. We are concerned that, in some ways, what has happened in practice is not quite recognised in the Bill.
We are also concerned about the way in which the convention is to be placed on a statutory footing. Students of British constitutional history will recognise that, according to Dicey’s principle, this British Parliament has ultimate sovereignty. Such a statutory footing recognises that constitutional reality, but does not challenge it or take it forward in any way whatever. That is somewhat unfortunate and certainly worthy of debate. The statutory footing, in reality, does not count for anything because what we have is essentially a summation of the Sewel convention that is little more than a political statement. Indeed, the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee quoted academics as saying that the clause was “legally vacuous” and
“like a bowl of jelly”.
We should be concerned about that.
It is noteworthy that the House of Lords Constitution Committee, which is highly regarded by many people, said, in its rather more sedate way, that
“it can be said that the new provision will recognise the existence of the Sewel convention rather than turn it into a legally binding principle.”
That is an extremely important phrase. Although those of us who are committed firmly to the Sewel principle recognise that there is no challenge to the convention, who knows what will happen in the future? That is why it should be legally binding, not just on this Government, but on all future Governments of any political complexion. Those issues need to be aired fully in considering the Sewel convention, because they are important and fundamental to the Bill.
Mr Graham Allen
This is not some constitutional nicety; it is about the circumstances in which the UK Parliament is allowed to legislate on a matter that is covered by the convention, without the consent of the Scottish Parliament. I hope that my hon. Friend will press the Secretary of State very hard on this matter. The Secretary of State might want to take it away and look at the wording. As my Political and Constitutional Reform Committee said:
“The presence of the word ‘normally’ in the Convention is clearly problematic when it comes to giving it the force of a statute, and we recommend that this be addressed in any redraft of the clause.”
As well as pressing the Secretary of State on this matter now, perhaps my hon. Friend will return to it on Report so that we can all be satisfied that the Scottish Parliament’s sovereignty is not in question.
Wayne David
My hon. Friend has put his finger on another important issue that was considered carefully by his Committee. When the word “normally” is used, I ask, “How long is a piece of string?” It is legally imprecise, which is a cause for concern. That reinforces my earlier point.
The Secretary of State gave evidence to the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee, but I suspect that his response was not wholly acceptable to its members. I therefore hope that he has refined his response and will give more robust answers to the questions that I have put to him. We wait with interest to hear what he has to say.
Finally, new clause 5, which was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen), refers to the application of the Human Rights Act 1998 to Scotland. It is extremely important constitutionally that devolution has, to a large extent, been underpinned by human rights legislation, in particular the 1998 Act. That is certainly the case as far as Wales is concerned, it is extremely important as far as Northern Ireland is concerned, and it has an important bearing as far as Scotland is concerned.
In the past few years, the Scottish Parliament has taken a number of initiatives with regard to human rights. I commend those initiatives. It is easy to take them forward in Scotland because it has a different legal system from England and Wales. The Scottish Human Rights Commission has published “Scotland’s National Action Plan for Human Rights”. Whatever one’s political allegiance, those positive measures should be welcomed.
I would not like to see any piece of legislation that does not take those measures into account or that does not fully take into account how devolution in Scotland rests firmly on the principle of extensive and liberal human rights. I hope that the Committee agrees with the Opposition on that point. If any action is taken against the Human Rights Act by this Government, whatever form it takes, there should first be the express consent of the Scottish Parliament.
Mr Graham Allen
It is a pleasure to speak on this group of amendments. I will speak not about the Sewel convention, because that clause should be put right in a relatively straightforward way by the Secretary of State, but about the implications for the Human Rights Act 1998 of what we are considering.
New clause 5 would ensure that, were the Human Rights Act abolished, renewed, revived or changed by this place in whatever shape or form, the Scottish Parliament would be able to maintain the Act, as it would like to do. That is a principle of devolution that I would like to be applied to England, Wales and Northern Ireland within an overarching federal settlement, so that we can be sure that fundamental human rights are close to the people and cannot be dispensed with on the whim of a federal Parliament.
Whenever I talk about these things, people say, “Here we go again—dry constitutionalism”, so I want to say a little about this dry constitutionalism. This is all about defending the victims of crime, those who have disabilities, women who are facing sexual and domestic violence, and the victims of child trafficking. It is about fundamental human rights.
The rights that are listed were not written by some recent bureaucrat in the Commission in Brussels, but by an eminent group of Conservatives led by David Maxwell Fyfe, a former Conservative Home Secretary and, I think, a boss of the intelligence services, so no woolly liberal radical he. Having been affected by the appalling suffering of the second world war, he pulled together the European convention on human rights. I cannot commend him highly enough. It was drawn up not by Mr Delors or the current President of the European Commission, but in response to the plight of refugees and the torture and inhumanity of the second world war. David Maxwell Fyfe and a number of British civil servants drafted these human rights, which have been adopted across the European Union. The rights also arose out of the United Nations charter.
The rights that are listed include things that we take for granted: the right to life, liberty and security of person; the right to a fair trial; protection from torture and ill treatment; freedom of thought, conscience, religion, speech and assembly; the right to marry; the right to free elections; the right to fair access to the country’s education system; and the right not to be discriminated against.
There are many arguments about how the convention is enforced and used across the European Union, and about our interaction with the continental courts system. Is it perfect? Of course it is not. However, we should not dispense easily with something that has had a good 60 or 65 years’ service, and that has allowed people in this country who were struggling for their rights to pursue their cases, defeat the domestic courts and have things overturned in their favour. I do not want to use this just as a prelude to the arguments we will have on human rights later, but I will certainly do my best, if Mr Crausby is not listening too intently, to make sure we have a proper debate.
Mr Graham Allen
Incidentally, the draft of a written constitution done by the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee included the Bill of Rights.
The abolition of the Human Rights Act—or changes to it—was in the manifesto of the governing party, so it might feel that it ought to do it. Will the right hon. Gentleman reinforce the point, however, that, as we are proving this evening, good pre-legislative scrutiny on something so technical and detailed would prove an immense bonus to the Government in getting their proposals through?
Mr Carmichael
Indeed, that is the case. For all sorts of reasons, pre-legislative scrutiny is not always possible, but it ought to be the default in any sensible legislature.
The Secretary of State may intervene if I am wrong, but I understand that the Government have said they will not change the integration of the Human Rights Act in the 1998 Act and that it will continue to underpin the Scottish Parliament. Inevitably, then, any such change would not apply to Scotland. It is conceivable, however, that we might be left with a messy situation in Scotland where the Human Rights Act applied to some matters and not to others. I was practising in the Scottish courts as a solicitor when the Scotland Act came into force but before the Human Rights Act came into force across the whole of the UK. It meant we had to use a device known as a “devolution note” if we wanted to raise human rights matters in court. It was messy. It was necessary to get us through the year, but I do not want to go back to those days. Having a single regime of human rights protections that applies across the whole of the UK is absolutely necessary, and we tamper with it at our peril.
The Temporary Chair (Mr David Crausby)
The hon. Gentleman’s point of order is noted.
Angus Robertson
It is a pleasure to speak about this string of amendments and new clauses relating to elections to the Scottish Parliament and local authorities.
As Members will know, paragraph 23 of the cross-party Smith commission report recommended that the Scottish Parliament should have
“all powers in relation to elections to the Scottish Parliament and local government elections in Scotland (but not in relation to Westminster or European elections). This will include powers in relation to campaign spending limits and periods and party political broadcasts.”
Additional detail was set out in paragraph 24 of the agreement.
Clauses 3 to 9, which are the focus of this group of amendments, seek to address that recommendation. While the clauses have some merit, we believe that there are still a number of issues to be worked on with the United Kingdom Government. In particular, some parts of the clauses limit the Scottish Parliament’s powers beyond those proposed in Smith. As the Scottish Government said in their response to the report of the Scottish Parliament’s Devolution (Further Powers) Committee, clause 3 does not fully implement the Smith commission’s recommendation. That is why the Scottish Government have proposed an alternative to the clause, which forms the basis of our amendments.
Our proposal would replace, rather than amend, the section B3 Elections reservation in schedule 5 to the Scotland Act 1998. That is designed to make the effects of the clause clearer. We propose that part (A) should reserve elections for membership of the House of Commons and the European Parliament, while part (B) should refer to Scottish Parliament elections and local government elections in Scotland. Our amendments reserve the holding of a Scottish election vote on the same day as a UK parliamentary general election, a European parliamentary election, or an ordinary local government election in Scotland. That would implement paragraph 24(4) of the Smith report.
In their response to the Devolution (Further Powers) Committee, the Scottish Government said:
“We have removed paragraph (b) of the combination of polls provision in Part (B), which would have had the effect of reserving the combination of devolved polls. Should the timing rules be varied to allow ordinary Scottish Parliament and ordinary Scottish local government polls to coincide, then the Secretary of State would have had competence over the devolved conduct rules, which would otherwise both be the responsibility of the Scottish Parliament. This is clearly undesirable and goes beyond the Smith recommendation.”
The Scottish Government suggested alternative drafting in relation to the digital service, which they, and we, think is clearer about the actual effect of the reservation. The reference to the reservation of parts 5 and 6 of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 is the same as that in the Scotland Bill.
The Scottish Government have said that they are generally content with clauses 4 to 9, subject to the changes that they are proposing to the United Kingdom Government. The Secretary of State is no longer present, but no doubt his colleagues will be avidly taking notes about the Scottish Government’s suggestions. We have heard, in good faith, that they will be taken on board and considered in full, and hopefully they will be.
The Committee will excuse me if I rely heavily on the points of detail set out by the Scottish Government and shared with the UK Government and the devolution Committee of the Scottish Parliament. The first of those, in relation to clause 4, the part which enables Scottish Ministers to make provision by order for the combination of polls for a specified list of polls that currently may coincide, could be simplified. The reservation of the power to make combination rules could be removed from section B3, and the list of coinciding polls at section l2(2)(d) could be replaced with a provision that gives Scottish Ministers power to provide for the combination of polls and referendums that are within the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament.
The references to use of the digital service could be seen to conflict with clause 6. This currently gives Scottish Ministers some powers to make provision, with the agreement of the Secretary of State. This could be read as restricting the use of the digital service beyond what is actually needed or intended.
Clause 5(3) goes beyond what was recommended by the Smith commission. The Smith agreement clearly sought only to prevent the polls from being held on the same day. The Scottish Government would wish to adhere to that narrow limitation. Their preference would be for the words
“or within two months before”
to be omitted from clause 5(3).
In clause 6, the Scottish Government view is that the definition of
“use of the digital service”
is overcomplicated. They also believe that the inserted section 6(3) may be out of step with existing provision in this area, as it appears to suggest that a person cannot use the digital service unless they are eligible to register, when there is nothing to suggest any current restriction on those who may use the service. If the purpose of the digital service is to determine whether an applicant is eligible to register, this provision could be omitted.
Also in clause 6, and in common with the approach to the vetoes throughout the Bill, we believe that the provision at subsection 11—
“Regulations made by the Scottish Ministers by virtue of subsection (9) may not be made without the agreement of the Secretary of State”—
should be removed. We will, of course, return to vetoes at a later stage of our consideration.
On clause 7, the Scottish Government have noted that this power does not apply where any other poll is combined with a Scottish Parliament election. They accept this in principle as a practical approach, but they suggest that it should be limited to the combination of a Scottish Parliament election with any other poll that is outwith the Parliament’s competence. The provision as drafted would have the effect that, should the timing provisions be varied to permit Scottish Parliament elections to be combined with local government elections in Scotland, the combination rules would be reserved, which would be undesirable.
On clause 9, the Scottish Government argue that subsection (6) can be omitted as the Scottish Parliament (Elections etc.) Order 2010 is already devolved under the Scotland Act 2012. The Smith commission recommended that the Scottish Parliament should have all powers in relation to Scottish Parliament elections and elections to local government in Scotland. In doing so, the commission specifically stated that this would include party political broadcasts. There does not appear to be any provision to this effect in the draft clauses. We hope the Government will address this point in particular.
The Smith commission also recommended that
“the Electoral Commission will continue to operate on a UK-wide basis. The Scottish Parliament will have competence over the functions of the Electoral Commission in relation to Scottish Parliament elections and local government elections in Scotland. The Electoral Commission will report to the UK Parliament in relation to UK and European elections and to the Scottish Parliament in relation to Scottish Parliament and local government elections in Scotland.”
We believe that clause 3 does not fully deliver the second part of this recommendation. An alternative approach should be considered, to give greater clarity and to ensure that the Scottish Parliament will have competence over the commission’s functions in relation to Scottish Parliament elections and local government elections in Scotland.
These may seem very technical areas, but they are important. I note that those on the Treasury Front Bench have been listening with interest and they no doubt will look at the record. We hope they can be persuaded to accept amendment 60 later. If they do not, I trust they will be consulting colleagues about how to take on the technical improvements that we have outlined and that I have spoken in support of this evening.
Mr Graham Allen
I should like to speak to amendments 46 and 47, if I may. I am sure that colleagues will know that the largest amount of public consultation ever achieved by a Select Committee was on the “Voter engagement in the UK” report that the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee produced just before the last general election. The report covered a raft of ways in which we as a House and as politicians—and politics in general—could re-engage with people out there.
The Committee did some technical stuff, and I want to talk this evening about the amendments relating to automatic registration and online voting. Anyone who believes in devolution will know that it is not possible to mandate the nations of the Union to conduct themselves and their democracy in a specified way from the centre, or even from the federal Parliaments. There has to be a degree of discretion and a degree of trust, particularly when there is an institution with the status of a Parliament within one of our nations. I would argue that that should also apply to an Assembly and an Executive and that, when we get devolution in England, it should apply to the means of devolution here as well. I would argue strongly that that should take the form of constitutionally separate local government, which is commonplace in every western democracy apart from our own.
Anyone who believes in that, and who believes that there can be a rich diversity of approaches to our democracy to suit national and local characteristics, will understand that it is key to ensure that our colleagues in the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government maintain and extend their discretion on matters such as automatic registration and on the suggestion in my Committee’s report for online voting. It would be out of order to suggest that that happens overnight in other nations, but we are in the middle of discussing the Scotland Bill and it is highly pertinent to say that if the representatives in the Scottish Parliament wish it, they could take forward a proposal on automatic registration, just as they did so innovatively in relation to votes for 16 and 17-year-olds before the referendum.
Such a measure would be important because it would allow everyone to participate, and because we have a false dichotomy about how boundaries could change unless registered electors met a certain number. I will explain this to the Committee—I am getting there slowly. If a small number of people are registered, that does not mean that there is a small number of constituents. In fact, some colleagues argue strongly that the people who give us the highest number of casework items are those who are not on the register. Should we say to them, “Sorry, you’re not on the register so I’m not going to help you”? Of course not.
Automatic registration can be achieved using a number of devices. I am going to ask the hon. Member for Meon Valley (George Hollingbery) some questions about this afterwards, so I hope he is paying attention. I hope that it could be achieved through registration with the Department for Work and Pensions, for example, or through credit ratings or council tax forms. It is entirely possible to make registration almost automatic. I see the distinguished members of the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee nodding eagerly in approval of what I am saying.
The Committee also looked at online voting, and 16,000 people responded to our consultation on this. Lots of organisations also put out online information and questionnaires for us. The Committee found that the most popular option was online voting. It obviously appeals to particular groups of people at the moment, but it is clearly something whose time will come very soon. Sometimes the other place is innovative. On this occasion, there is so much we can learn from the way our devolved friends in the Scottish Parliament conduct their business. Why should they not be the first to trial online voting in certain well-prescribed circumstances, which they would keep an eye on and feel responsible for, and which I am sure they would make a success. I will not detain the Committee any further on this, other than to say that diversity, experimentation and creativity are the hallmarks of proper devolution and these are just two small ways in which we could encourage our friends in the Scottish Parliament to take devolution that little bit further in their own nation.
Scotland Bill
Graham Allen Excerpts(9 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Wayne David
I think that it is important to recognise that meaningful constitutional change will require all sections of this House to unite wherever possible. I urge my SNP colleagues to recognise that this is not just a constitutional norm, but a way to make practical progress. I urge the hon. Gentleman to be gracious and generous in his comments, and perhaps we can have a discussion outside the House as well as in the Chamber.
When we consider this Bill in Committee, after discussions outside the Chamber as well as inside, it is important to take into account the work that the Scottish Parliament has been doing in this regard. I have been taking particular note of the Scottish Parliament’s Devolution (Further Powers) Committee and the work of the House of Lords, which was mentioned earlier. It is also important that we refer to the work that has already been done by the House of Commons Political and Constitutional Reform Committee. It is a great shame that the Government wish to do away with that Committee at a very crucial time.
Mr Graham Allen (Nottingham North) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for his generous remarks about the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee and the excellent job that it did on pre-legislative scrutiny of the Smith commission proposals. On the excellent list of devolved powers that are going to Scotland, is there anything in the water in Northern Ireland, Wales or England that would prevent us from having a similar list of powers should those nations within the Union feel that that was appropriate?
Wayne David
I thought that my hon. Friend might respond to the generous but accurate remarks that I made about him and his Committee. I hope that other Committees of the House will be able, in one way or another, to take forward the effective work that his Committee has done. We are naturally focusing on Scottish devolution, but devolution is a process that must encompass, in different ways, all parts of the United Kingdom. It is a principle that is in tune with the demands of the age. Devolution is undoubtedly the way forward for Scotland. It was Labour’s Keir Hardie, a Scotsman who represented a Welsh seat—he was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds)—who pioneered devolution, it was Labour that created the Scottish Parliament, and it is Labour that really wants to take devolution forward within the context of the United Kingdom and is determined to press for it, in different ways, for the whole of the UK.
First, to consider how devolution can be developed most effectively and appropriately for different parts of the United Kingdom, we need a constitutional convention, for which Labour has argued for some time. Such a convention would look at not only devolution but the interface between those sets of constitutional changes and the other consequential changes that need to be made so that we can have a modern democracy fit for purpose.
Where decentralisation has not yet come about, people throughout the country want it, and they are right. Devolution is necessary if we are to meet the challenges we face in the modern world. In the 21st century, decision making needs to be as close to the people we represent as possible. Local, regional, Scottish, English, Welsh and Northern Irish decision making needs to be at a level that is effective, that can engage with people, and that reinforces all our people’s diverse senses of identity. On that basis, we give our support to the Second Reading of this Bill so that this House, in Committee, will have a chance to make it much better and much stronger.
Mr Gauke
There is no veto. Our approach will be constructive throughout all stages of the Bill. I want to be clear with the House. The intention is not to block a measure in perpetuity; it is to ensure that something that has an impact on the Department for Work and Pensions can be done practically, because DWP has to deliver it and needs to be able to ensure that it can do so.
I am pleased to say that earlier today the Chancellor and the Chief Secretary to the Treasury met the Deputy First Minister. They had a productive meeting and agreed to immediately start work on the fiscal framework, which works alongside the Scotland Bill, ensuring that the Scottish Parliament has the tools it needs to manage its significant new tax and spending powers. We have agreed to aim to finalise the fiscal framework by the autumn, alongside the passage of the Scotland Bill through Parliament.
Mr Gauke
I am short of time and need to make more progress before concluding.
Last year the people of Scotland made a clear choice. It is a choice that must be honoured, so it was a key commitment in this Government’s manifesto that the all-party Smith commission agreement should be implemented in full. With this Bill, we deliver on those commitments. It will make the Scottish Parliament one of the most devolved legislatures in the world. It will deliver unprecedented new powers to Holyrood. It will give the Scottish Government the tools to manage their economy and make important decisions on behalf of the people of Scotland. This Bill demonstrates our willingness and determination to ensure that we fulfil our obligations. It implements the Smith commission and I hope it has the support of Members on both sides of the House. I commend it to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time.
Scotland Bill (Programme)
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),
That the following provisions shall apply to the Scotland Bill:
Committal
(1) The Bill shall be committed to a Committee of the whole House.
Proceedings in Committee
(2) Proceedings in Committee of the whole House shall be completed in four days.
(3) The proceedings shall be taken on the days shown in the first column of the following Table and in the order so shown.
(4)The proceedings shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the times specified in the second column of the Table.
Proceedings | Time for conclusion of proceedings |
|---|---|
First day | |
Clauses 1 to 11, new Clauses relating to Part 1, new Schedules relating to Part 1 | The moment of interruption on the first day. |
Second day | |
Clauses 12 to 17, Schedule 1, Clause 18, new Clauses relating to Part 2, new Schedules relating to Part 2 | The moment of interruption on the second day. |
Third day | |
Clauses 19 to 30, new Clauses relating to Part 3, new Schedules relating to Part 3 | The moment of interruption on the third day. |
Fourth day | |
Clauses 31 to 37, Schedule 2, Clauses 38 to 45, new Clauses relating to Part 4, new Schedules relating to Part 4 | Three hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Bill on the fourth day. |
Clauses 46 to 55, new Clauses relating to Part 5, new Schedules relating to Part 5, Clauses 56 to 58, new Clauses relating to Part 6, new Schedules relating to Part 6, Clauses 59 to 64, new Clauses relating to Part 7, new Schedules relating to Part 7, remaining proceedings on the Bill | The moment of interruption on the fourth day. |
Consideration and Third Reading
(5) Any proceedings on Consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour before the moment of interruption on the day on which those proceedings are commenced.
(6) Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on that day.
Programming committee
(7) Standing Order No. 83B (Programming committees) shall not apply to proceedings in Committee of the whole House, to any proceedings on Consideration or to proceedings on Third Reading.
Other proceedings
(8) Any other proceedings on the Bill (including any proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments or on any further messages from the Lords) may be programmed.—(Charlie Elphicke.)
Question agreed to.
Scotland Bill (MONEY)
Queen’s recommendation signified.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 52(1)(a)),
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Scotland Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any expenditure incurred by virtue of the Act by the Secretary of State.—(Charlie Elphicke.)
Question agreed to.
Scotland Bill (WAYS AND MEANS)
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 52(1)(a)),
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Scotland Bill, it is expedient to authorise–
(1) the imposition by virtue of a Scottish rate resolution of the Scottish Parliament of charges to income tax in relation to the income of Scottish taxpayers,
(2) the making of provision, by Act of the Scottish Parliament, for imposing a tax to be charged on the carriage of passengers by air from airports in Scotland,
(3) the making of provision, by Act of the Scottish Parliament, for imposing a tax to be charged on aggregate when it is subjected to commercial exploitation in Scotland, and
(4) the payment of sums into the Consolidated Fund.
In this Resolution, ‘Scottish rate resolution’ means a resolution providing for the rate or rates payable by Scottish taxpayers for any tax year on income other than savings income, any such rate being a whole number or half a whole number or zero. —(Charlie Elphicke.)
Question agreed to.
Smith Commission
Graham Allen Excerpts(9 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Graham Allen (Nottingham North) (Lab)
I welcome the report. This is a great day for democracy and what is good enough for Scotland is now good enough for England. The Secretary of State will have seen in The Times today a letter from local government leaders from the greatest to the smallest asking for devolution in England. Rather than having to drag it out of Whitehall over 20 years, as Scotland did, through lobbying and referenda-ising, we should get to this quickly. If we do not, through our sloth the Secretary of State might create in England the same nationalism as was evident in Scotland, which I think he would regret. Will he not keep putting this off and talking about constitutional conventions that might never report? We know what we need to do: put it in the manifestos, unite the House and give England local devolution, as Scotland is now getting.
Mr Carmichael
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman, as I suspect that that is the first time that Hansard will have been required to record the word referenda-ising. It is novel and creative. I am not entirely sure whether the growth of nationalism in the different parts of England will be a consequence, but having sat through a six-hour debate just a few weeks ago in this House on the subject of devolution across the whole United Kingdom, I would say the one thing that was clear at the end of the debate was that there is not yet consensus—[Interruption.] It might well need leadership, but leadership alone will not be enough to build consensus. The hon. Gentleman would do well to listen to the words of his own Front Benchers on the question of a constitutional convention. That is not a delaying tactic, as he seems to think. In my view, it is the only feasible way of building consensus to get the change that is wanted.
Oral Answers to Questions
Graham Allen Excerpts(10 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Graham Allen (Nottingham North) (Lab)
7. What discussions he has had on the potential benefits of replicating aspects of the Scottish devolution model in England; and if he will make a statement.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (David Mundell)
The devolution settlement is designed to meet the needs and wishes of the people of Scotland. This Government are committed to devolving power across the United Kingdom to the most appropriate level, taking account of local need. In England, we are achieving this in many ways, including the city deals programme in which Nottingham is a participant.
Mr Allen
A lasting democratic settlement in the UK must be based on the twin principles of union and devolution. Does the Minister share my view that separatism will be weaker and devolution will be stronger and more believable, not least to the Scottish people, if its benefits are spread to England too?
David Mundell
This Government are committed to devolution within England, and the hon. Gentleman is a prominent advocate of that. He recognises, as I do, that independence in Scotland is the end of devolution there.
Oral Answers to Questions
Graham Allen Excerpts(12 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
David Mundell
The off-grid issue is of concern in rural Scotland, as elsewhere, and I would be happy to meet the hon. Gentleman to discuss his concerns.
Mr Graham Allen (Nottingham North) (Lab)
11. What powers would be devolved to Scotland under devo-max.
The Secretary of State for Scotland (Michael Moore)
Devo-max is a term used by the Scottish Government with no clear definition. This Government are focused on delivering the Scotland Bill, which will represent the largest transfer of fiscal powers to Scotland since the Act of Union in 1707.
Michael Moore
It is always dangerous for a Scot to enter into the constitutional debate in England but there is a lively debate to be had. The important thing today is that we acknowledge the important next steps we are taking in Scotland through the real proposals in the Scotland Bill which are due to get the consent of the Scottish Parliament and, I hope, their lordships next week. That will put us on track for the biggest development in devolution since 1998.