European Union (Withdrawal) Bill: Sewel Convention

Ian Murray Excerpts

Thursday 14th June 2018 Commons Chamber

[David Mundell]

That is an excellent question, because I have twice heard the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford) say that powers will be stripped from the Scottish Parliament. However, not one power that the Scottish Parliament currently exercises will be stripped. Over 80 new powers and responsibilities are coming to Holyrood and, yes, I call that a “powers bonanza.”

[Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)]

I thank the Secretary of State for taking up my invitation in my point of order yesterday to make a statement to the House today. I want to ask him a serious question to try to take some of the heat out of the bluff and bluster from both sides of the House. As I understand it, the Scottish Brexit Secretary signed off or agreed with the proposals during meetings, but they were then vetoed by the First Minister. That suggests to me that a deal could be done and that compromises could be made by both sides. Will the Secretary of State now do everything in his power to get all sides back around the table to find the distance that they can go between compromise and getting a deal?

[David Mundell]

I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s acknowledgement of the statement, which was the right thing to do given that the opportunity to have a debate today had been declined by the leader of the SNP following yesterday’s stunt. I am still committed to getting agreement, and I welcome the recent interventions of Professor Jim Gallagher and Gordon Brown, who were genuinely looking for a settlement. We reached out to Michael Russell to see whether he was willing to engage with that process, but I am afraid that the clear message was that the Scottish Government’s position is as it was the last time we spoke and is as it was a year ago and that there is no scope for compromise. I am always willing to talk, and if there is any prospect of getting an agreement with the Scottish Government, I am open to doing so.

Oral Answers to Questions

Ian Murray Excerpts

Wednesday 24th January 2018 Commons Chamber

[David Mundell]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend, and I would point out that those figures were produced by the Scottish Government themselves. Trade within the UK is worth four times as much to Scotland as its trade with the EU. When “Scotland’s place in Europe” was published last week, it disappointed me that that fact was not recognised.

[Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)]

Will the Secretary of State tell the House what he thinks is wrong with the devolution powers in the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill, and how he would like to see them fixed? Or is it that, in this week of Burns celebrations, he is just the great puddin’ o’ the chieftain race?

[David Mundell]

The hon. Gentleman always has an interesting take on events, but I am clear that we want to work with the Scottish Government and the Welsh Assembly Government, and with the Scottish Parliament, whose Finance and Constitution Committee has set out its views on clauses 10 and 11 of the Bill. I want to reach agreement with them, so that the Government will recommend a legislative consent motion.

Referendum on Scottish Independence

Ian Murray Excerpts

Monday 13th November 2017 Westminster Hall

[Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered e-petitions 180642 and 168781 relating to a referendum on Scottish independence.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bailey, in what I am sure will be an interesting and lively debate. I thank the Petitions Committee for allowing me introduce the two petitions before us. The petitions are diametrically opposed, representing opposite views on essentially the same issue—Scottish independence and how that should be determined. One of the petitions is entitled, “Another Scottish independence referendum should not be allowed to happen”, and it reads as follows:

“We in Scotland are fed up of persecution by the SNP leader who is solely intent on getting independence at any cost. As a result, Scotland is suffering hugely.”

The other is entitled, “Agree to a second referendum on Scottish Independence”, and it reads as follows:

“The actions of the UK government after the Brexit vote do not align with the people of Scotland. We are not bigoted. We are not racist. We welcome everybody based on their contribution, not on where they come from. The UK government does not behave in this way and so we must LEAVE.”

Petitions by their nature express a grievance, as both petitions make clear. It is not possible simultaneously to support the premise of both petitions, as my electronic mailbag has demonstrated over the last few weeks in the number of emails I have received supporting or opposing either position. I have selected a few representative excerpts that sum up the debate among my constituents and to give a flavour of what has been said. One says:

“I ask you to argue that the sovereign will of the Scottish people must be respected.”

It is interesting that although that point was made by somebody who opposes an independence referendum, very similar points were made by those who support one. A constituent said:

“I would ask you to take a motion to investigate precisely whom effected a constituent coup, that precluded the majority from being respected.”

Again, I directly quote a no petitioner, but similar points were also made by those arguing in favour of an independence referendum. Another said:

“the people voted to remain part of the U.K.”.

That is a historically factual position. Another email said:

“I would like to remind you that NO means NO.”

I will come back to that point. One said:

“I strongly urge you to continue to investigate keeping Scotland in the EU.”

That was a very common feature, again from both sides. Another wanted to work

“to help attract skilled workers to create a better and diverse Scotland in the future.”

Other emails stated:

“There is a democratic deficit, seen by such things as EVEL; there is a need for independence”,

and

“Brexit has caused a material change and our views are being ignored.”

It is, however, possible simultaneously to oppose both positions, as several correspondents suggested. That is best expressed by the following quote:

“Scottish independence and Scottish sovereignty don’t require the permission of Westminster. They require ours”—

a view that I have considerable sympathy with.

There is quite a range of varied opinions. It is quite clear from just that snapshot, which I hope flavours the arguments of both sides of the debate, that the underlying thought process clearly is whether someone supports self-determination, and how they think that would be best determined.

[Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way so early in his speech. Quite rightly, he makes a balanced argument for the positions of the two petitions, but before he moves on to the substantive part of his argument, will he tell us how many people signed each petition?

[Martyn Day]

I refer the hon. Gentleman to the Library briefing as I cannot remember the exact figures, but significantly more signed the petition opposing independence than signed the one in favour. However, what is more important in the debate is democratic mandate, which I will come on to and which changes that dimension considerably.

Without any doubt, the strongest and most repeated argument of constituents opposed to another independence referendum is basically that the matter has been determined and that “NO means NO”, as I quoted earlier. However, circumstances change. People have the democratic right to revisit any decision or policy if they wish at any election.

--- Later in debate ---

[Martyn Day]

As I have said a few times, circumstances change. The 2016 election gave a mandate. That was reinforced by a vote in the Scottish Parliament—I hope that everybody respects parliamentary sovereignty—and further reinforced by the election of 35 SNP MPs to this House earlier this year.

[Ian Murray]

On a point of order, Mr Bailey. I am sorry to interrupt proceedings when the hon. Gentleman is making such a powerful speech, but given that he is presenting the debate on behalf of the Petitions Committee, I wonder whether he will at any point get to the arguments for why we should not have a second independence referendum.

[Mr Adrian Bailey (in the Chair)]

I am not sure that that is a point of order, but the hon. Gentleman has made his point none the less.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bailey. I am slightly disappointed, as are many hon. Members, by the introduction we heard from the member of the Petitions Committee. I did not hear one argument for our not having a second independence referendum. Given the balanced way that the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Martyn Day) could have made his case, I should have thought that he might have spent at least 55% of his opening speech on that argument.

Here is the bombshell: 2 million is larger than 1.6 million, and 55% of the Scottish people voted to remain part of the United Kingdom. I have no truck with the SNP as regards its continuing to agitate for a second referendum—that is why it exists—but I would hope it would realise the impact that has, not only on the Scottish economy but Scotland as a country. When people went to the polls and made their democratic choice to stay part of the United Kingdom, that should be respected, and for a number of reasons. First, it is democratic, but secondly, we were promised by the proponents of an independent Scotland that the referendum would be “once in a generation” or, indeed, “once in a lifetime”. When proponents said that and people went to the polls and put their cross in the box, whether yes or no, they should have been able to trust what people had said. I will not come on to what many Conservative Members did during the Brexit referendum, but people should be able to trust what people are saying during referendums and take that forward on their own basis.

I come at the debate from a slightly different perspective from people who have spoken already, and that is the perspective of jobs, livelihoods and prosperity in my constituency. Some 66% of my constituents voted to remain part of the United Kingdom, which is something I promised to respect—as did many other hon. Members here—not just at the 2015 general election but also the 2017 election; it was very much the question on the doorsteps in ’15 and ’17. The hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk says that the SNP won the 2017 election, but he should be marginally more humble about that result and not take the Scottish people for granted. If the SNP won the election, as he claims so emphatically, why is it not holding a second independence referendum if it feels it has that mandate?

There is a lesson in here for the Scottish people. Regardless of the First Minister, the entirety of the Yes campaign or the SNP—I appreciate that there are nuanced differences between those groups—if a second referendum is put on to the back burner, or even if the First Minister stands up and says we will have no talk of a second independence referendum, what will bring it back on to the front burner? People voting SNP in other elections. We have heard this afternoon that that is where the SNP sees the mandate as coming from, so a second referendum will never properly be on the back burner while the SNP continues to agitate for it.

Let us look at the economic case in terms of jobs and livelihoods. Scotland lags behind the rest of the United Kingdom in growth, jobs and the sustainability of the economy, and investment is not as high in Scotland as across the rest of the United Kingdom. That economic case for a second independence referendum is completely shot. Constituents come to me all the time and say, “We’re three years on from the independence referendum, and five to six years on from the start of this process, and we still don’t know the answers to the fundamental questions. What happens to our pensions? What currency will we use? What will our lender of last resort be?”—and, and this is a crucial one, because it is a key argument of the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk—“Will we or will we not be part of the European Union?”

I still do not know the Scottish Government’s position on the European Union. They know they have to play to a number of people who voted yes to independence and voted to leave the European Union. They know they have to play to that base, in terms of whether Scotland will go back into the European Union—[Interruption.] If somebody from the SNP wants to intervene and tell me whether it is the Scottish National party’s position to go back in as full members of the European Union, I am happy to give way.

[Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)]

One of the hon. Gentleman’s colleagues who I was on the radio with said that if Scotland voted no in 2014, it was a vote to stay in the European Union. Where does that promise stand now?

[Ian Murray]

There has been a democratic vote, and a democratic petition on how it went has been put to the Petitions Committee, and I wish we were analysing that.

I will finish, because I want to leave other hon. Members time to speak. It is quite clear in my own constituency that 3,622 people took the time and effort to sign a petition to say that they do not want a second independence referendum, because of all the issues around the economy, culture and taking Scotland forward. They have made that decision already. Only 500 people in my constituency voted for a second independence referendum. We must listen to the public and hear what they are saying. For the sake of the Scottish economy and for the future livelihoods and prosperity of my constituents, let us say no to a second referendum and take it off the table permanently.

Scotland Bill

Ian Murray Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd March 2016 Commons Chamber

The Government made substantial amendments to the Bill on Report in this House. The Lords amendments are largely technical, but nevertheless include important provisions related to the fiscal framework and responsible parking. I am pleased that they were accepted in the other place. I urge the House to accept the Lords amendments.

[Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State’s description of the road traffic changes had me mesmerised. I could have listened to him all evening. We thank him for that.

It is a great pleasure to speak on behalf of the official Opposition. I am not going to pretend that the passage of the Bill has been entirely enjoyable, smooth or stress-free, but we are where we are and it has definitely been worth getting to this place. Every Member of this House and the other place should be incredibly proud of what has been achieved in such a short time. Some will say the Bill does not go far enough, and some will be disappointed that it does not contain what they wanted, but I think today marks a historic day in the devolution journey of our Scottish Parliament.

When this Bill is passed—there is no longer any doubt that it will be passed today—Scotland will have one of the most powerful devolved Parliaments in the world. That is what the Labour party has always wanted from that process. It was the former Prime Minister, the former Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath, who devised the vow that promised more powers. Let us pay tribute both to him and to the Daily Record for publishing it at the time. [Interruption.] I knew I would get a reaction to that. If only I had said The National, the response from the SNP Benches might have been different.

That paved the way for the Smith commission, skilfully chaired by Lord Smith of Kelvin, who managed to negotiate cross-party agreement on the form that those powers should take. That in turn laid the foundations for the Bill before us today. It has now passed through this place and the other place. A revised fiscal framework has been agreed, crucially with the Barnett formula at its heart. As promised, the vow has been delivered, with Barnett protected. That was always a Labour party priority, as we recognise the integral role played by the Barnett formula in maintaining public spending in Scotland. That said, and as the Institute for Fiscal Studies astutely observed, during the fiscal framework negotiations it was, ironically, the SNP Government who insisted upon Barnett as sacrosanct. With the zeal of the convert, they argued vociferously for an approach

“which ensures the ongoing pooling and”

sharing

“of some proportion of ‘devolved’ revenues across the UK.”

Of course, as long-standing advocates of the Barnett formula and the principle of pooling and sharing resources that it enshrines, we gave the Scottish Government our full backing in those negotiations. I wonder whether that now means that the Scottish National party has renounced its No. 1 policy priority of full fiscal autonomy—perhaps we will hear this evening.

However, at least for the time being we have an agreement. The irony is that this Bill will wing its way to Her Majesty to receive Royal Assent, hopefully later tonight, on the eve of what would have been separation day in Scotland. It creates one of the most powerful devolved Parliaments in the world, as opposed to the White Paper prospectus promised by the SNP in 2014.

Some of the Lords amendments speak directly to that agreement, delivering, for example, the strengthened borrowing powers and the enhanced fiscal oversight of Scotland’s public finances that this fiscal framework provides for. Now that the last impediment to the Bill has been removed, we must focus on the powers that the Scottish Parliament is receiving. As the Secretary of State has said, the legislative consent motion has been passed by the Scottish Parliament.

Given that today is the last day of the current Scottish Parliament, it would be remiss of me not to pay tribute to all the MSPs, from all parties, who have served since 2011. With your indulgence, Mr Deputy Speaker, I will say a word or two about those MSPs, particularly Labour MSPs, who are retiring from the Scottish Parliament, having done so much in the process of getting this Bill here today. They include Hugh Henry, Duncan McNeil and Richard Simpson, who have served since 1999. There is my old university friend Richard Baker, who was first elected in 2003, and Margaret McDougall, Graeme Pearson and Drew Smith, who were elected in 2011. They all retire with our best wishes, especially Malcolm Chisholm, who was also a long-standing Member of this House. He retires leaving a distinguished record of public service to his constituents. We wish him well. It would also be remiss of me not to mention the right hon. Member for Gordon (Alex Salmond), who is not in his place. The Scottish Parliament’s loss is this place’s gain. Are we not lucky indeed?

With the passing of this Bill and the dissolution of the Scottish Parliament, we can today lay the old arguments of the referendum to rest, alongside any doubt that the vow has not been delivered. The conversation must now move on to how these powers are used—or not used in some cases. It is worth briefly reminding ourselves what those powers are, because they are considerable, and their Lordships looked at them in great detail, for which we thank them. The Scottish Parliament has power over rates and bands of tax on all non-savings and non-dividend income. That means it can put taxes up or bring them down; it can increase or reduce the thresholds at which the different rates are paid; or it can choose to do nothing and keep things pretty much as they are, short of affording a tax break to higher earners—champions of the status quo perhaps—even if, in so doing, some people are abandoning a manifesto pledge to reintroduce the 50p rate for those earning over £150,000. That is what some have chosen to do, but that is not what we would do

I wonder how commentators have looked on that process. Owen Jones, who is often quoted by the SNP Members now beside me, called it

“a huge blow to their credentials”.

What does the Scottish Trades Union Congress think of the Scottish Government’s grand plans for devolved taxation in Scotland? It calls them

“a disappointingly timid approach to tax policy…Breaking the consensus on increasing the additional rate is difficult to fathom.”

It said it was an approach that is

“difficult to reconcile with the Scottish Government’s”

so-called

“social and economic objectives.”

For the past five years, many people had the mantra “more power for Scotland.” Today, when the Bill is passed, we will have a powerful Scottish Parliament—power not as a point of principle, but power to be used for positive, progressive change. I can tell the House, in no uncertain terms, that the Scottish Labour party will not settle for power for power’s sake. We will not settle for the political choice of austerity. This Bill goes straight to the heart of how we would do that. We will oppose austerity in the UK and we will oppose it in Scotland, and when we get into government we will reverse it. We will build a better and fairer Scotland for all, and taxation will not be our sole tool for doing so.

Lords amendment 22 strengthens the borrowing powers available to the Scottish Government, as agreed in the fiscal framework, allowing them to invest more in capital infrastructure or to smooth out fluctuations in devolved taxes.

Scotland’s Fiscal Framework

Ian Murray Excerpts

Wednesday 24th February 2016 Commons Chamber

[Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)]

I thank the Secretary of State for advance notice of his statement, and indeed for coming to the House yesterday to indicate he would be making it today. I begin by welcoming unequivocally the news that an agreement has been reached on the fiscal framework, and I would also like to echo the thanks to both Governments, the Deputy First Minister, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, who is in his place, and of course the Secretary of State himself for working so hard to secure this historic deal. Our heartfelt thanks also go out to the officials of both Governments, who we all know are the people who do the real work in these negotiations.

Yesterday’s agreement marks the removal of the final obstacle to the transfer of significant and substantial powers to Scotland, and, as Lord Smith himself has said, the agreement

“sees the recommendations of the Smith commission delivered in full.”

Importantly, the vow stipulated clearly that the Barnett formula should remain the key mechanism for calculating Scotland’s budget. That has now been agreed and Barnett has been secured.

I note the Secretary of State’s commitment to publishing details of the agreement by the end of this week, and I welcome that commitment, but can he indicate whether this House will have time to scrutinise the agreement in detail? I have been saying for some time that greater transparency is required in the way these deals are negotiated. This process has highlighted the fact that future intergovernmental relationships must be improved to make these powers work for Scotland. Lord Smith’s recommendations that both Governments need

“to work together to create a more productive, robust, visible and transparent relationship”

and that the Joint Ministerial Committee

“must be reformed as a matter of urgency”

echo in this process. Can the Secretary of State confirm that this will be done?

We all know that the major stumbling block was the indexation method used for the block grant adjustment. Under the compromise reached, there will be a five-year transitional period, which will cover the full term of the next Scottish Parliament. Towards the end of that period, an independent review and recommendation will be published that will form the basis of a more permanent solution. When he gave evidence to the Scottish Parliament’s devolution Committee last night, the Secretary of State suggested that the period between the review being published and the transitional period ending at the end of March 2022 could be as little as 12 weeks. If no agreement is reached, what happens then?

On the transitional period itself, it is my understanding that the Scottish Fiscal Commission will carry out the necessary forecasts of Scottish GDP and tax revenues. Can the Secretary of State confirm that, under the terms of the fiscal framework negotiations, those forecasts will be fully independent of the Scottish Government? Last week, the Scottish Finance Committee voted against allowing for that independence.

There also seems to be some confusion over the block grant adjustment during the transitional period to 2022. The First Minister said it would be done according to the Treasury’s favoured method but with the Scottish Government’s favoured outcome. Can the Secretary of State confirm what method will be used? Will it be the catchily named tax capacity adjusted levels deduction, which I understand was the Chief Secretary to the Treasury’s latest offer?

Further clarity is also needed on the timeframe for the devolution of powers. The Secretary of State has said that the new income tax powers will be available by April 2017. However, the Deputy First Minister has said he does not agree that that timeframe is realistic. Is the Secretary of State able to confirm that the new tax powers will be transferred by April 2017?

Today the Scottish Government are passing the Scottish budget. Twelve months from now, at the time of the next Scottish budget, we want them to have full control of income tax and air passenger duty and the deployment of 50% of Scotland’s VAT revenues. We also want them to have the considerable powers over welfare, which will allow us to design a new social security system for Scotland.

I welcome the review and the fact that it will be fully independent. I have stated several times that impartial oversight and, if necessary, arbitration should be an established part of intergovernmental relations. Will the Secretary of State tell us how the review body will be chosen, and can he confirm that it will be done in a spirit of consensus with the full agreement of both Governments? Will he also tell us to what extent the recommendations of the review will influence the decision taken on the long-term solution for block grant adjustment?

I close by welcoming once again the agreement that has been reached. Today marks an historic date in Scotland’s devolution journey: the creation of one of the most powerful devolved Parliaments in the world. The promises made to Scotland in 2014 have been met—the Smith agreement implemented, Barnett protected, powers transferred, the vow delivered. Scottish politics will never be the same again thanks to these new powers. We have entered a new and exciting era of devolution. What an opportunity to transform Scotland for everyone—an opportunity that my party will grasp with both hands.

[David Mundell]

I agree with most of what the hon. Gentleman said about the opportunity this presents to change Scottish politics. I think the people of Scotland want us to move on from discussing process to discussing policies and the difference that we can make for them with these extensive new powers. It is my full expectation that the agreement and associated details should be available tomorrow, and I very much hope that that will afford the maximum amount of scrutiny. It will of course be open to Committees of this House to scrutinise the arrangements as they see fit.

For understandable reasons, the hon. Gentleman makes reference to intergovernmental relations, but it is important to look at what Lord Smith said about how this agreement was arrived at. He said:

“It is difficult to imagine a bigger test of inter-governmental relationships and while it was obviously a very tough negotiation, what matters is that an agreement was reached.

He continued:

“This provides an excellent basis for constructive engagement between the governments long into the future.”

I accept that fully. I believe that when the transition period is over and the independent reports have been published, it will be possible for the Governments to reach agreement.

The hon. Gentleman has asked many times why it has taken so long, but many important agreements are reached at the eleventh hour, just by the very nature of doing a deal. I am sure that we will be able, on the basis we have set out, to ensure that that is the case at the end of the transitional period. The independent review, to which he referred, will indeed be a matter for agreement between the two Governments, but as he is well aware, many people in Scotland hold themselves out as being independent but are perhaps not as independent as they superficially seem. It is therefore important that there is agreement between the two Governments as to how that independent review should go forward.

On the Fiscal Commission, the agreement with the Scottish Government is that its forecasts will be fully independent. Finally, this Government will place no impediment on the transfer of powers. Obviously we cannot impose the income tax powers on the Scottish Government, and we would not seek to do so, but I would have thought and hoped that they would want to take them on as soon as possible, and that is the end to which we will be working.

Public Finances: Scotland

Ian Murray Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd February 2016 Commons Chamber

[Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House notes the ongoing negotiations between the Scottish and UK Governments in the Joint Exchequer Committee on a revised fiscal framework to accompany the Scotland Bill; regrets that, despite both Governments repeatedly stating that the negotiation of a revised fiscal framework would be concluded by autumn last year, no agreement has been reached; further regrets the complete lack of transparency with which negotiations have been conducted; notes that, until agreement is reached, the measures in the Scotland Bill will not be implemented and the substantial new powers it contains will not be deployed for the benefit of the Scottish people; believes that both the UK and Scottish Governments have a duty to ensure that the negotiation of a revised fiscal framework which is fair to Scotland is completed in time for the Scotland Bill to be approved by the Scottish Parliament prior to its dissolution, so that it can use its current and future powers for the benefit of the people of Scotland; and calls on the UK Government to publish all minutes and papers from the Joint Exchequer Committee negotiations, and to assure the House that every effort is being made to ensure that agreement on a revised fiscal framework is reached, and the Scotland Bill is passed, prior to the Scottish Parliament elections.

I am sorry that you do not want an oratorical flourish, Madam Deputy Speaker, because that is what I was preparing to give—but never mind; we will continue with the debate. I appreciate that this debate has been curtailed because of the previous debate, which was on an incredibly important issue, and because of the Prime Minister’s statement. We have to accept how the House works in such circumstances.

It is a pleasure to open this debate for the Opposition. At its core, this debate is about the transfer of new powers to Scotland under the Scotland Bill, which completed its passage through the House in November and is currently in the other place. It is worth briefly reflecting on the Bill, to put this debate about Scotland’s public finances and the fiscal framework into context. The Bill had its genesis in the vow and the Smith commission, the recommendations of which were agreed by all five major Scottish political parties. When passed, the Bill will transform the Scottish Parliament into one of the most powerful devolved Parliaments in the world.

Scotland will have control over all income tax, apart from non-savings and non-dividends income, which generated almost £11 billion in revenues in 2013-14. The Scottish Parliament will have the power to vary the rates and bands of income tax, to increase or decrease those revenues. This greatly enhances the powers devolved under the Scotland Act 2012, under which the Scottish Parliament controls just 10p in the pound. On that note, the Scottish Labour leader, Kezia Dugdale, announced yesterday that, faced with a choice of cutting into Scotland’s future or using the powers of the Scottish Parliament, we would use the latter to set the Scottish rate of income tax at 11p, rather than the 10p in the SNP Budget, to invest in that very future for Scotland and to protect the low-paid. We made that point in the debate in the Scottish Parliament today.

These new revenue-raising powers are accompanied by new spending powers, such as control over £2.5 billion of welfare spending. The Scottish Parliament will be able to top up existing UK benefits and, thanks to concerted pressure from Labour and our amendments, will have total autonomy to create new benefits in devolved areas. When these new powers are enacted, the Scottish Parliament will be able to make different choices to create a better Scotland.

[John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

Who in the hon. Gentleman’s party speaks for England to make sure that the settlement is fair to England as well as to Scotland?

[Ian Murray]

The settlement has to be fair to the rest of the UK as well, including England, but I will come to that later.

[Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)]

We hear of cheers in the Scottish Parliament this afternoon when the Scottish Finance Minister tried to justify public expenditure cuts by the Tories. Is that not the final proof that the socialist credentials that the SNP claims have no foundation whatsoever?

[Ian Murray]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention, because what we have seen this afternoon in Scotland is a Scottish Labour party determined to use the current powers of the Scottish Parliament to try to do something different from Conservative austerity. The result of that is a Scottish Finance Minister and a Scottish Government just managing that Conservative austerity. As I said earlier, when faced with the choice of managing the Tory austerity or creating a different future for Scotland, we have chosen to create that different future.

I was explaining the principles behind the Scotland Bill. However, before the Scotland Bill can be enacted they must be underpinned by a new fiscal framework for Scotland. That runs alongside the legislative process, which is slightly different from what happened with the Scotland Act in 2012.

It is crucial to state that the Smith commission stipulated that the Barnett formula would be retained as the mechanism for determining Scotland’s block grant. That is not in question in this debate. However, Scotland’s block grant will need to be adjusted to reflect both the new tax-raising powers and new expenditure responsibilities that are being devolved, and that is at the heart of today’s debate. Until that revised framework is agreed by the UK and Scottish Governments, the Scotland Bill cannot be enacted and the new powers and responsibilities it transfers cannot be implemented. We need a negotiated agreement in order to move on, otherwise the new powers will lie dormant and Scotland’s financial position in the future will remain very uncertain.

[David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman mentioned the Barnett formula and the vow, and of course he is right that the Barnett formula will be retained, but he will also be aware that it is not based on relative need and therefore is not fair to England, and in particular to Wales. Will he therefore, as a member of a party of the left, support reform of the Barnett formula to make it more progressive for the whole island?

[Ian Murray]

There is consensus across the entire Chamber that the Barnett formula should stay in place. It was in the vow signed by all the major party leaders who went into the general election. The Smith agreement has been signed by all five political parties, and that includes the maintenance of the Barnett formula. The hon. Gentleman, from the Conservative Back Benches, wants to renew and review the Barnett formula, which means only the Labour party in this Chamber will defend it. It would seem that the policy from the Conservative Back Benches is to do away with Barnett and that the Scottish National party wants full fiscal autonomy, which would also do away with the Barnett formula. We will defend the Barnett formula, because it is in the interests of our constituents to do so.

[David Mowat]

rose—

[Ian Murray]

I am happy to give way to the hon. Gentleman again, while bearing in mind that this debate is very much curtailed.

[David Mowat]

I do not want to do away with the Barnett formula. I would just like to see it revised so it is based on relative need, because that seems to me to be a very fair way forward.

[Ian Murray]

The Barnett formula is based on that need. It was designed in the 1970s to take into account not only the contribution that Scotland makes to the United Kingdom but its public service requirements and geographical nature. It commands broad political consensus and I do not think we should break that. That would be a very difficult message to send out.

The message from today is that it is the job of the Scottish and UK Government Ministers to get a deal. We heard today that the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, who I am delighted is in his place, will be in Edinburgh for talks all day on Monday. The people of Scotland will expect nothing less than a final deal that is signed, sealed and delivered. We support the Scottish Government in their efforts to reach an agreement that is fair, equitable and consistent with the Smith agreement. Again that is not in question, but reach an agreement they must.

[Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

Surely before the Scottish referendum the Scottish people were promised these extra devolved powers and they will be extremely disappointed with all this shilly-shallying around and failure to come to an agreement after 18 months?

[Ian Murray]

That is the crux of our calling for this Opposition day debate. I will come on very soon to the issues around timescales and what should have been delivered by now, but nobody will forgive us in Scotland, or indeed across the rest of the United Kingdom, for breaking the promise of getting these powers through so that the Scottish Parliament can choose a different course, if it so wishes, from the rest of the UK.

As I was saying, reach an agreement they must. I believe there is broad consensus on this point across the Chamber. Indeed the SNP chair of the Scottish Affairs Committee, the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart)—I am delighted he is in his place—has also said that he wants

“assurances…that a deal will be reached in time.”

We do not agree on very much, but we certainly agree on that particular point. Few people would understand if both Governments were to walk off the job before it was done and instead start a blame game.

I want to highlight two key issues in the debate. The first is the secretive nature of the negotiations and the consistent refusal of both Governments to publish any meaningful papers or minutes from the Joint Exchequer Committee meetings.

[Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. I did not mean to interrupt his flow; he is making an important speech. The Communities and Local Government Committee has published an important report today, not about Scottish devolution but about English devolution, and it contains major criticisms of the lack of openness over deal negotiations. Does he share my concern that the Government seem to be operating in an underhand way in relation to these negotiations as well?

[Ian Murray]

I agree with my hon. Friend. This seems to be very much the way in which this Government operate. We have just had a debate about taxation, and we have also discussed the devolution settlements that the Communities and Local Government Committee’s report mentions. It is important that we have transparency, because the only way to carry the public with us on the fundamental issue of devolution to local communities is to ensure that the arrangements are transparent, robust and democratic.

That brings me to my second concern in this Opposition day debate, which is the need to agree the framework so that the Scotland Bill can be passed in time for the Scottish parliamentary elections in May. For months now, the negotiations in the Joint Exchequer Committee have dragged on behind closed doors, shielded from public scrutiny. According to Scottish Government sources, agreement is as far off as it has ever been, while the tone of the Secretary of State suggests that he is straining every sinew to get a deal. There was always a danger that, away from the spotlight, the two Governments would fiddle and fixate and that the momentum to reach a deal would be lost. And so it has proved. This relates to the concern raised earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman).

At first, agreement was going to be reached by last autumn. The Scottish Secretary consistently referred to an autumn deadline, as did the Chief Secretary to the Treasury and the Deputy First Minister in Scotland, but no agreement materialised. Then the deadline was moved to mid-February. In mid-December, the First Minister talked up the prospect of a Valentine’s day deal, but come January her deputy, Mr Swinney, struck a downbeat note emphasising the big gap between the two Governments. He also introduced an arbitrary deadline of 12 February for a deal on the fiscal framework. If negotiations were not concluded by then, he would not table a legislative consent motion prior to the Scottish Parliament’s dissolution before the elections in May. I have yet to find out why that is the case, because the Scottish Parliament does not dissolve until late March. If no agreement is reached, the Scotland Bill will effectively be kicked into the long grass. That would mean no new powers for the foreseeable future.

For all that, I remain confident that if the political will exists, a deal can be reached. To test that political will, however, we need to bring the negotiations out into the open and allow the public to see whether this is brinkmanship or a proper negotiation. From the very beginning, I have bemoaned the absence of transparency at the heart of these negotiations. It is simply unacceptable that the process of redrawing Scotland’s fiscal terrain is taking place behind closed doors in vapour-filled rooms.

[Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that a key reason for the deal to be done before the Scottish parliamentary elections is to give the Scottish electorate some confidence in the promises being made by the political parties on spending and taxation? Does he also agree that there is great interest in this matter across the rest of the United Kingdom because of the asymmetric nature of devolution? We want to see how Scotland uses these powers.

[Ian Murray]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Without having the Scotland Bill on the statute book and available to be used from 1 April 2017, there will be obfuscation about what can go into party manifestos come May, and we will be having a constant debate about the constitution rather than about the transformation of Scotland. He is also right to suggest that this is not just about a fiscal framework for Scotland. It is important for these negotiations to run in parallel with the Scotland Bill, but they also have significant implications for the rest of the United Kingdom. The no detriment principle for Scotland works both ways; it is also a no detriment principle for the rest of the United Kingdom. That point is often lost in these discussions.

As I was saying, I have bemoaned from the very beginning the absence of transparency. It is simply unacceptable that the process of redrawing Scotland’s fiscal terrain is taking place behind closed doors. David Bell, the respected economist, has noted the secretive nature of these discussions. He said:

“These discussions are taking place behind closed doors with little information publically available about the options being considered and the effects of these options.”

Asked to offer his thoughts on these proceedings, Professor Muscatelli said:

“I will be honest, it is difficult for anybody on the outside to see what exactly the stumbling block is”

in these negotiations. Even the Chair of the Scottish Affairs Committee—this might be the second time we have agreed—said that the negotiations and the transparency at their heart are “not good enough”. I also warmly welcome the Scottish Affairs Committee’s in-depth inquiry on this issue, which it will publish soon.

I ask why both Governments refuse to publish papers and minutes, as requested. On 9 September, I wrote to the chairs of the Joint Exchequer Committee, John Swinney and the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, with the perfectly reasonable request to publish papers and minutes from the meetings, but they refused to do so. I also tabled written and oral questions to ask that we be kept updated on the progress of the negotiations and that substantial details of the discussions be placed in the public domain, but, once again, my request was rejected. Both Governments said that they would not provide a “running commentary” on the negotiations, while providing the very same running commentary through the media. Meanwhile people in Scotland are very much in the dark. That has allowed politicians on both sides to seek to exploit the secrecy, rather than getting on with finalising the deal.

[Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

Does that not also trouble my hon. Friend, because it goes back to the very principles of the Smith commission, pillar one of which explicitly said that one challenge faced in this new constitutional settlement was having much stronger, transparent parliamentary scrutiny of the work? It particularly identified the JEC. If we cannot get it right now, what hope do we have for the future?

[Ian Murray]

That is a timely intervention, because when everyone talks about making sure that the Smith agreement is delivered in spirit and in substance, they tend to forget the bits of the substance that it is inconvenient for them to remember, and that is one such bit. The JEC has not been transparent. One key plank of the Smith agreement was intergovernmental relations, and without that transparency we cannot see whether intergovernmental relations are actually working. One key thing about the whole devolution project, be it in Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland or in the discussions about England, is to make sure that all the components of that devolved body of the United Kingdom can work together in partnership.

Let me compare these negotiations with the fiscal framework negotiations that sat alongside the Scotland Act 2012. I have here the minutes of the first meeting from that process, which took place on 27 September 2011, and they are a dusty tomb of information, giving details of who attended, points that were discussed, things that were agreed and things that were to come back to be agreed. By contrast, let me give a flavour of the communiqués from this year. The one relating to the 1 February meeting states:

“The Joint Exchequer Committee met in London today, chaired by John Swinney, Deputy First Minister and Cabinet Secretary for Finance, Constitution and Economy. HM Treasury was represented by…Chief Secretary to the Treasury.

This was the eighth meeting of the JEC since the publication of the Smith Commission report…The Ministers continued their discussion…

Both Ministers agreed to meet next week”.

The minutes on the 21 January meeting again introduce who was at the meeting, with their very long titles. They then state:

“This was the seventh meeting of the JEC since the publication of the Smith Commission report. The Ministers continued their discussion on the indexation methodologies for the Block Grant Adjustments and also discussed the initial transfer of funding for new welfare powers….

Both Ministers agreed to meet again shortly”.

They go on, running to less than a third of a page—a couple of paragraphs of minutes. I am not sure that having no details and no substance is acceptable.

It is not acceptable because the Scottish Government have threatened to veto the Bill if it is “not fair to Scotland.” The problem is that we do not know what, in their opinion, or in the UK Government’s opinion, is a fair deal for Scotland and what that looks like. We do not know in what way the current detail on offer from the UK Government is deficient on that test of fairness. It would appear that the main stumbling block is on the method used for the future indexation of the block grant. Of the methods being considered, the Scottish Government now favour the per capita index deduction. People can go to the Library to find out what that is—I will not explain it at this juncture. [Hon. Members: “Go on!”] I can go through the formula if Members want, and give a prize if they get the answer at the end. Less than a year ago, however, the Deputy First Minister told the Scottish Parliament’s Finance Committee that he favoured the indexed deduction, which takes into account population growth. There is clearly some confusion over which method is best for Scotland, which is why transparency of discussions is incredibly important.

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

I understand that the Labour party is feeling a bit sad, because, as it has not been successful enough to be in government in either country, it is not involved in these negotiations. Now that the shadow Secretary of State has the opportunity to have his say, can he please tell us what method of block grant adjustment Labour would favour?

[Ian Murray]

Well, we do not know—[Laughter.] Let me answer the question! We have not seen the negotiations, but, as the leader of the Scottish Labour party has said, we prefer the per capita index reduction model, because it is important that we have that particular debate. It is strange that the intervention gave the impression that we are being locked out. It is not the Labour party that has been locked out of these discussions, but the Scottish people, which is why we called this debate. We want to shed some light on these very secret discussions.

I noticed that the hon. Lady did not say whether she supports doing something in Scotland with the powers that her party currently has, or whether she is willing just to manage Conservative austerity.

[Alex Cunningham]

I thank my hon. Friend for giving way again. Does he agree that there are some amazing parallels between these negotiations and the Prime Minister’s EU negotiations, where we were kept totally in the dark all along and then we found out that there was nothing to see anyway?

[Ian Murray]

Absolutely. I suspect that that is part of the problem that we have now.

I am conscious of the time, so let me quickly wrap up by paying some attention to the SNP amendment that has been selected in the name of the right hon. Member for Moray (Angus Robertson). I cannot quite fathom why the party has tried to amend what is a very uncontentious motion. I thought that we could work together on this important issue given that we share the same goals for a fair deal for Scotland. Our motion merely reflects the views that have also been expressed by the Chair of the Scottish Affairs Committee. I have no problem at all with the SNP amendment as it is written, but it is a wrecking amendment, as it would completely replace everything that we are asking for in our amendment. I wish that the SNP had tabled the amendment as an addendum, and we could have gone forward together in consensus. The purpose of this debate is to get transparency and to ensure that a fair deal is done, and I would have thought that SNP Members would have agreed with that. I welcome the fact that they are now defenders of the Barnett formula, as a few months ago they were voting in this Chamber with the Conservatives to scrap the Barnett formula in favour of full fiscal autonomy. It does pose the question of whether they are really interested at all in getting these particular issues resolved.

Let me finish by talking a little about the democratic deficit, which was the second plank at the heart of these negotiations. We must close that deficit. The Scotland Bill is much too important for us not to do that.

I will conclude by posing a few questions, which I hope can be answered by the Secretary of the State in his opening remarks, or by his colleague, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, at the conclusion of this debate. The Chief Secretary to the Treasury announced today that he will be in Scotland for more talks on Monday. What are the Secretary of State’s aspirations for that meeting, and is a deal expected at those talks? Does the Secretary of State recognise 12 February as a final deadline, and what will happen if a deal is not reached by that date? Will negotiations continue regardless of dissolution and the Scottish parliamentary elections? Will the Secretary of State publish the final offers from both parties for transparency purposes so that the public can determine whether or not these were good deals for Scotland? Has consideration been given to agreeing a deal for a trial period thus allowing for assessment and adjustment?

Our motion urges both Governments to work together and to stay at the table until a deal is agreed. It also calls on the UK Government to publish all minutes and papers from the Joint Exchequer Committee, and I commend it to the House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Natascha Engel)]

Order. I now have to announce the results of today’s two deferred Divisions. On the motion relating to social security regulations, the Ayes were 297 and the Noes were 73, so the Question was agreed. On the motion relating to the social security pensions Order, the Ayes were 301 and the Noes were 70, so the Question was agreed.

[The Division list is published at the end of today’s debates.]

--- Later in debate ---

[Stewart Hosie]

For the hon. Gentleman’s benefit, I will come on to the specific issue of raising tax in a just a moment.

Before I leave the context of the UK fiscal charter, let me say that we all recall the vote on 13 January 2015 on the implied £30 billion of cuts, when we made many of the same points we are making today. The great tragedy then and now is that the Labour party supported £30 billion of extra Tory pain and austerity.

[Ian Murray]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Stewart Hosie]

I will happily give way.

[Ian Murray]

Let us just dispel this constant nonsense from the Scottish National party. The hon. Gentleman’s own First Minister said, when she launched the Scottish business partnership at Tynecastle stadium in June, that the framework on which there was a vote on 13 January 2015 gave Governments enough flexibility to do as they wished. It was very similar to the fiscal framework or charter that he promoted back in November. He refuses to use such powers; he would rather demolish and demoralise Scottish public services.

[Stewart Hosie]

As the arguments are complicated, it is so much easier simply to quote in full from the 15 January issue of the new Labour leadership’s favourite newspaper, the Morning Star:

“Labour MP Diane Abbott accused her party’s leaders yesterday of doing working people a ‘great disservice’ by backing Tory plans for permanent austerity.”

The hon. Gentleman keeps getting it wrong.

The key thing is that Scotland’s budget has been cut and will continue to be cut by this Government, which makes the achievements of the Scottish Government all the more remarkable. That makes it all the more important not simply that we get any old fiscal agreement, but that we get it right. We must ensure that the Smith commission principle of “no detriment” is adhered to and that we do not embed unfairness in the system, so that we are not subject to possible additional cuts of about £350 million a year. We need to avoid that outcome so that we can continue to do good things and build on the progress we have seen in health spending, which is up to £12.3 billion this year and will be £13 billion next year, and in education.

Scotland Bill

Ian Murray Excerpts

Monday 9th November 2015 Commons Chamber

[Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State is cantering through the Government amendments. Can he clarify for the House whether, in the current context, they would require a legislative consent motion for the Trade Union Bill?

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Edward Leigh]

I do not know if the new shadow Chancellor voted in our Lobby, but there seems to be an interesting concept nowadays in the Labour party: there is full freedom on the Labour Benches and, apparently, the Labour party leader can oppose Labour party policy on Trident and much else. As we have just heard, the shadow Chancellor opposes Labour party policy on full fiscal autonomy. This is an interesting situation. I have made my point. I do not believe this is a genuine proposal from the shadow Secretary of State.

[Ian Murray]

I respect the hon. Gentleman immensely. If he thinks back to the debate we had on 15 June, he will recall that no one in this Chamber from the SNP or his colleagues on the right wing of the Conservative party believed the figures that were put forward by the Institute for Fiscal Studies or the Treasury, or the Scottish Government’s own figures. New clause 1 is an attempt to bring some clarity to those figures so that full fiscal autonomy could benefit Scotland, rather than being an £8 billion black hole.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

I do not want to get into a debate about a black hole, the deficit and all the rest of it. I remember that I was intervened on by the hon. Member for East Lothian (George Kerevan) and I accepted that there should be transitional arrangements. I made the point that this was not a right-wing Tory trap for the SNP. This was not a device to get rid of Barnett because we were claiming that the Scottish people get £1,600 a year more. I said precisely that if there was full fiscal autonomy and we got rid of Barnett, we should retain the United Kingdom and there should be a grant formula based on need.

If, for instance, Scotland had a particular problem, as we have in Lincolnshire with the sparsity factor in relation to education provision, or with declining industries, we are a United Kingdom Parliament. We are a fraternal Parliament. I believe in the Union, I believe in our standing together. If there is a need for the United Kingdom—I called it the imperial Parliament, as it were—to help out our friends in Wales—[Interruption.] SNP Members do not like that word, but I used it advisedly. That was the term that was used during the debates on Irish home rule. It is a technical term. If our friends in Northern Ireland, Wales or Scotland need extra help from the United Kingdom Parliament, we should give that help, but it should be based on needs, not on an automatic formula based on Barnett, which is an outmoded concept that has outlived its usefulness. It is also, as I have said, very dangerous in the context of the debate on English votes for English laws.

I am sorry to take the Labour party to task, because I respect the shadow Secretary of State. Labour is making some progress, but it is still behind the curve and I do not believe it will ever get back in front of the curve in Scotland unless it is bold. I repeat the point I made back in June: whether we like it or not, we have the election system that we have. We, the Unionist parties, went to the Scottish people. We based our arguments on the Smith commission, and we lost 56 of the 59 seats in Scotland.

The hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen) can complain about that, but that is the parliamentary system we have. We have to accept that, whether we like it or not, the Smith commission was rejected by the Scottish people. If we want to save the Union—and I am as passionate about the Union as the hon. Gentleman —we cannot be behind the curve on this. We have to be big-hearted, we have to be bold, and we have to move with full fiscal autonomy and move with it now.

--- Later in debate ---

[Angus Robertson]

The hon. Gentleman has put his point of view on the record. I encourage him to get in touch directly with the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs, Food and Environment in Scotland, Richard Lochhead. We are proud of the Scottish Government’s rural affairs agenda. Incidentally, I commend the hon. Gentleman’s party for turning up in greater strength to this debate than the Liberal Democrats.

To hold the 2014 referendum, the Scottish and UK Governments were required to agree a section 30 order, which amended schedule 5 to the Scotland Act 1998, to grant the Scottish Government the legislative competence to hold a referendum, providing that a number of conditions were met—namely, that it was held before the end of 2014 and that the ballot paper included one question.

New clause 36 would permanently transfer to the Scottish Parliament the power to legislate for a referendum on Scottish independence. It is right that the Scottish Parliament should decide on that, and not this place. As the First Minister has made clear, the SNP manifesto for next year’s Scottish election will set out our position on a second independence referendum and consider in what circumstances such a referendum might be appropriate at some point in the future. However, the final decision on whether there is another referendum and on whether Scotland ever becomes independent will always be for the people of Scotland.

In the meantime, I observe that support for Scottish independence has continued to grow. If people back home are watching this debate, I have no doubt that it will rise even further. A Panelbase poll for The Sunday Times found that 47% of people in Scotland currently support independence and that more than two thirds believe that the country will be independent by 2045.

Support for independence has risen as the UK Government have failed to meet their promises on more powers; continued with austerity; introduced further welfare cuts; and promoted English votes for English laws. Since the referendum, the UK Government’s attitude towards Scotland has angered a great many people. Those who are watching proceedings today have good reason to be angered yet more. On EVEL, the Scotland Bill and austerity, the UK Government have shown scant regard for the voice of the people of Scotland.

We will not lose sight of the financial arrangements that relate to the Bill. We raised them in Scottish questions last week. We understand that a negotiating process is under way between the UK Government and the Scottish Government. It is critical that that financial framework is negotiated in good faith between both Governments and without detriment to the people of Scotland.

[Ian Murray]

I am grateful that the right hon. Gentleman has got on to the fiscal framework. At Scottish questions last week, I asked the Secretary of State whether we could have a little more transparency about the discussions to prevent anyone or any party in this Chamber from misinterpreting what the fiscal framework is trying to achieve. The Scottish people can then make their own judgment about whether it is detrimental to Scotland or otherwise.

[Angus Robertson]

Without wanting to concern the hon. Gentleman, I agree with him. Transparency is a good thing. Our colleagues in the Scottish Parliament are significantly happier than we are here with the open approach that the Scottish Government are taking on this matter. Obviously the negotiations are between the two Governments, but the Secretary of State could easily come to this House and provide more information to the hon. Gentleman’s satisfaction and mine.

The Smith commission identified that Scotland’s budget

“should be no larger or smaller simply as a result of the initial transfer”

of powers. It recommended that the devolution of further tax and spending powers to the Scottish Parliament

“should be accompanied by an updated fiscal framework for Scotland”

and that

“the Scottish and UK Governments should jointly work via the Joint Exchequer Committee to agree a revised fiscal and funding framework for Scotland”.

The UK and Scottish Governments are negotiating the fiscal framework on an ongoing basis. It should allow the Scottish Government to pursue their own distinct policies that meet the needs and wishes of the people of Scotland. For fiscal devolution to work, it is essential that the Scottish Government have the flexibility to pursue distinct fiscal policies, consistent with the overall UK fiscal framework.

The block grant adjustment should be robust and transparent, deliver a fair outcome for Scotland and be agreed by both Governments. The effect of the adjustment should be to ensure that the Scottish Government’s budget is in broad terms no better or worse off in the long term compared with what the devolved taxes would have raised had they not been devolved. The Scottish Government have said that they will not sign up to any adjustment that is not fair to Scotland. That is in line with the “no detriment” principle set out in Smith.

Before us today, we have 200 amendments and new clauses. They are massively important to people in Scotland. Sadly, they are clearly not important to the Labour and Conservative parties, which are here in such small numbers. I will bring my contribution to a close to ensure that more Members of Parliament for Scotland have the opportunity to take part.

The people of Scotland are watching these proceedings. We are told that this is the mother of all Parliaments. This is supposed to be the most important legislation about the future of our country, yet it has been shoehorned into less than one day of proceedings. Incidentally, for the information of the shadow Secretary of State, that happened against the wishes of the Scottish National party, which pressed for another day of proceedings so that we could look into the proposals in detail. People should look and learn, because if this is the way to legislate, we do not need it. The Scottish Parliament is a 21st-century Parliament. If ever a case was put for the Scottish Parliament to be able to exercise power over all issues that matter to the people of Scotland, this is it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tommy Sheppard]

The hon. Gentleman must speak for the people who elected him, and I will speak for those who elected me. I am discussing the Scotland Bill, as amended—that is what I have been speaking about, and what I intend to speak on. The Bill falls far short of the expectations not just of the SNP, but of the people of Scotland. Civic society, trade unions, Churches and voluntary organisations throughout Scotland are disappointed at the poverty of ambition shown by the Secretary of State and the Government in the Bill.

Let me return to the Bill, because that is all we currently have—I do not normally read when making a speech, but I will read this quote so that I do not get it wrong. The Secretary of State said, on 8 June:

“I am absolutely clear that the Scotland Bill does fulfil in full the recommendations of the Smith commission.”

He has obviously had the benefit of a relaxing summer to consider the situation and determine whether that statement was in fact true. It now seems that it cannot have been true, because we have no fewer than 128 amendments from the Government to their Bill. I submit that never in the field of discussion of legislation has a Bill been so amended by its proposers and still managed to fall so far short of its declared objectives.

None the less, it is welcome that second thoughts are being had and that some improvements are being made. The first improvement is on the question of permanence, although I wonder why it has taken until now to happen. It is good that new clause 12 contains the agreement that the Scottish Parliament will not be taken away, dissolved or otherwise removed without first a plebiscite among the Scottish people to see what they want to do. I am pleased that the Secretary of State, in tabling that new clause, recognises where sovereignty lies on that question. It should lie with the people of Scotland whose government we are discussing. I invite the Secretary of State to support new clause 36 which would enshrine that principle of sovereignty a little more. It provides that in future discussions about the arrangements for the government of Scotland, it should be the people of Scotland’s Parliament that determines what those discussions are and the timetable by which they are put to the people in a referendum. That is only a logical extension once it has been conceded that sovereignty should lie with the people. If it is not the Scottish Parliament that should consider and respond to a future referendum, should there be one, who else should do so? It would be ridiculous for this Parliament to retain that power for itself.

The Smith commission was clear when it said that the Sewel convention should be enshrined in statute. The Bill still—after all this time—does not make that happen. The Sewel convention says that the “imperial Parliament” —to quote the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh)—should not interfere in devolved decisions by the Scottish Parliament or other devolved Assemblies. The SNP’s new clause would enshrine that convention in law and enshrine the principle of subsidiarity—decisions being taken as close to the people as possible.

[Ian Murray]

Given the codification of the Sewel convention in new clause 36, I give the hon. Gentleman—my constituency neighbour—a commitment that we will support him if he presses it to a vote this evening. Perhaps we will attract further support and it will be carried.

[Tommy Sheppard]

I am grateful to the shadow Secretary of State for his support on this matter. The principle is clear: you do not keep a dog and bark yourself. Once power has been devolved to organisations, they must be allowed to get on with it.

I was disappointed that the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen) took almost 20% of the time available for this debate not to discuss constitutional principles about the governance of Scotland, but to pursue his concerns about the decentralisation of services. What we are discussing is a change in the constitutional arrangements between Scotland and England within the Union. We are talking about giving more authority and competences to the Scottish Government, and that is not the same thing as the decentralisation and better administration of public services in England. The hon. Gentleman was wrong to do that and is unlikely to have made friends to support his argument as a result.

My final point is on full fiscal autonomy. I think that some of our opponents thought that when we did not get that through the last time, we would forget about it. Believe me, we have not forgotten about it. We want the Scottish Government to have control over the economy in Scotland. We want the ability to grow our economy and for our priorities to be set in line with the aspirations of the people who live in Scotland. I heard some interesting arguments from the hon. Member for Gainsborough and others in favour of full fiscal autonomy, but I have yet to hear a principled argument against it. The hon. Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray) often talks of a black hole, but that is not an argument in principle against full fiscal autonomy—against giving the Scottish Government control over economic affairs. It is an argument for saying that we should prepare for that devolution of powers and make sure that we get it right. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will come round to that way of thinking. We will object to the proposal to give a Conservative Secretary of State the power to set up a commission to look into whether full fiscal autonomy could happen, because he has already made his intentions in that regard clear.

We will come back to this issue, and it will be the subject of future debate in Scotland. The grandest commission of all on this debate will be the electorate of Scotland, who will get another opportunity in six or seven months’ time to decide whether they want better economic powers for their Government. We will get another mandate and come back to make that argument again.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Moray referred to the fiscal framework. It is not for us today to get involved, or even seek to influence, the discussions between Scottish and UK Ministers on the fiscal framework, but we have to be clear about what is at stake. The Smith commission was clear: it said that whatever powers are devolved to Scotland in this or any other settlement, it should be at no detriment. In other words, at the point of transfer of the power, the Scottish budget should not suffer as a consequence. I want to hear from the Secretary of State whether he believes in that principle. Is it guiding his discussions with Scottish Ministers? If it is used simply as a device to cut the Scottish budget and not provide adequate funding for the delivery of the new powers, he will do his cause a great disservice and hasten the day that we come back with a new Bill that will be a considerable improvement on this one.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)]

In the wake of Scotland’s referendum on independence last year, the Prime Minister set up the Smith commission to secure cross-party recommendations for the further devolution of powers to the Scottish Parliament. With regard to the constitutional aspects of the report, the Smith commission recommended that the permanence of the Scottish Parliament and Government be established in statute, ensuring that devolution could not be abolished at the whim of a Westminster Government. Therefore, I sincerely welcome the UK Government’s latest U-turn on this issue. The provision should have been included at the inception of the Scotland Bill, but I welcome the Government’s coming round to our way of thinking—better late than never, some might say.

The Smith commission report also stated that the Sewel convention should be put on a statutory footing by the UK Government. Unfortunately, the UK Government’s proposals in this area fall far short of Smith, despite the Prime Minister’s pledge to implement the commission’s proposals in full. Clause 2 of the Bill states that

“the Parliament of the United Kingdom will not normally legislate with regard to devolved matters without the consent of the Scottish Parliament.”

The Government’s current position on the matter is ridiculous and risks weakening, not strengthening the Sewel convention, and it is at odds with the Smith commission report. The Government’s vow that they will “not normally legislate” in devolved areas will simply not suffice and raises serious concerns that it will set a dangerous precedent.

Indeed, from my work on the Immigration Bill Committee, I can already see one instance where the UK Government’s Bill encroaches on devolved areas in Scotland. For example, immigration is of course a competence reserved for the UK Parliament, but housing is not: it is devolved to the Scottish Parliament. Yet, as part of the Immigration Bill, the UK Government will introduce the right to rent. This is legislation that will compel landlords to establish a person’s legal status before they can offer a tenancy, introducing penalties for landlords who fail to comply. The UK Government’s “right to rent” provisions in the Immigration Bill will be extended to Scotland through secondary legislation without a legislative consent, or Sewel, motion being debated and passed by the Scottish Parliament. Furthermore, consultation with the Scottish Government on housing and with housing stakeholders in Scotland ahead of that Bill being introduced is said to have been rushed and extremely limited.

The Scottish Government are very concerned at this development and the Scottish housing Minister wrote to the Immigration Minister asking for a meeting on this very subject, only to be arrogantly rebuffed by him. In his reply, he said:

“The Right to Rent scheme and the new measures in the Immigration Bill relate to immigration control, which is not devolved”—

so far correct—but then said:

“These measures restrict access to housing”.

We have already established that housing is very much a devolved issue. So much for the respect agenda, much lauded by the Prime Minister.

The SNP’s new clause 35, which would place the Sewel convention on a statutory footing, is pragmatic and would ensure that the Bill lived up to the Smith commission’s recommendations. The UK Government’s approach to policy making where there are wider implications for devolved areas can be ignorant and churlish. There is no better example of that than the Conservatives’ much trailed desire to abolish the Human Rights Act.

[Ian Murray]

The hon. Gentleman is making an incredibly compelling argument about legalising and codifying the Sewel convention. If he wishes to push new clause 35 to the vote in a few minutes’ time, we would be more than happy to support him and take this forward. Otherwise, I am afraid it will be down to the other place to deal with.

[Gavin Newlands]

I appreciate the shadow Secretary of State’s support on this matter, which I will take up with my colleagues.

The Human Rights Act is vital to us in many ways. It gives us the right to life, freedom from torture, the right to liberty and security, freedom of thought, belief and religion, the right to private and family life, freedom of expression, assembly and association, and the right to free elections and education, to name a few. The Human Rights Act extends to all public authorities in Scotland—our schools, our local government, our NHS and our police. Amendment 204 would devolve responsibility for human rights to the Scottish Parliament, putting it beyond any doubt whatever, to help to safeguard human rights for those living in Scotland.

The potential abolition of the Human Rights Act will undoubtedly have profound implications for devolution in Scotland and across these islands. It would be an affront to democracy for the Conservative Government to use their slender majority in this House to abolish the Human Rights Acts when they do not command support in Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland. Our new clause 35 would require the UK Government, regardless of political hue, to seek a legislative consent motion in all instances of Westminster legislation affecting areas devolved to Scotland, and would require the UK Government to consult the Scottish Government on legislation that would have such an impact on Scotland.

The Tory Government—formed by a party to which the people of Scotland delivered a vote of no confidence at the last election; a party with only one MP in Scotland—have rejected every amendment put forward by the SNP Westminster group, a group that has 95% of Scotland’s MPs. That prompts the question: why are amendments to the Scotland Bill that are supported by an overwhelming majority of Scotland’s MPs ultimately rejected? The Conservatives—and, indeed, Labour—must stop ducking, diving and obfuscating when it comes to strengthening the Scotland Bill and must stop playing games with Scotland’s powers. The people of Scotland are watching. It is time they were listened to.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Blackford]

I always agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Gordon (Alex Salmond); the point is that it is the Scottish people who are ahead of this Parliament. We have to reflect on what is happening in this Bill. We were promised devo-max—as close to federalism as we could get; home rule in the spirit of Keir Hardie. It is this House and those on the Government Benches who are letting down the people of Scotland, and the people of Scotland will reflect upon that.

[Ian Murray]

I always enjoy listening to the hon. Gentleman making his passionate speeches in this Chamber. I wonder, for the sake of clarity, whether he could read the second line of what the former Prime Minister said about federalism.

[Ian Blackford]

The point is that the Scottish people were promised by Gordon Brown that we were going to get “powers for a purpose”—that we were going to have a powerhouse Parliament—and that is not what is being delivered tonight.

[Ian Blackford]

Despite what the Secretary of State says, the reality of the situation is that 70% of powers over taxation and 85% of powers over welfare will be held here at Westminster. I do not know what that is, but it is certainly not a powerhouse Parliament.

In the light of the challenges we face with the cuts to tax credits, which we will discuss in the second part of tonight’s debate, we need to make sure that the Scottish Parliament has the powers to protect the people of Scotland. We will be saying to the Labour party, “Come with us. Show that resolve,” to make sure that we can protect the people we need to protect in the country of Scotland.

[Ian Murray]

If the hon. Gentleman is truly passionate about protecting the people of Scotland, he will no doubt get to his feet and tell this Chamber and the people of Scotland that he will restore to them any losses from tax credits, as the Scottish Labour party has committed itself to do.

[Ian Blackford]

The Scottish National party in power in Scotland over the last few years has sought to mitigate the cuts that have come from Westminster, with £100 million invested for the Scottish people to offset the impacts of the bedroom tax. We will fight to defend the interests of the Scottish people, as we always have done.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Murray]

I am grateful to the Secretary of State for his clarification on gift aid. That is a significant concern for the charity sector in Scotland, which will welcome his reassurances. On that basis, we will not press new clause 4 to a vote.

[David Mundell]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that.

I also thank the hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Tommy Sheppard). I usually disagree fundamentally with his contributions, but I always enjoy them. I also commend him on winning the new MP of the year award from The Spectator. He and the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands) touched on the Sewel convention—the legislative consent motion procedure in the Scottish Parliament. I am afraid that I do not agree with their proposals. The Sewel convention has been set out in the Bill, as required by the Smith commission.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Mundell]

Let me begin by dealing with the specific issue of welfare funds, on which I am accepting an amendment that the SNP tabled in Committee. The Smith commission agreement stated that the devolution of welfare foods should be the subject of further discussion between the UK and Scottish Governments. This has taken place, and I am pleased that new clause 14 and consequential amendments 79, 80, 82 and 83 devolve powers to the Scottish Parliament concerning welfare foods. They will be able to abolish or amend existing schemes, which includes the nursery milk scheme and health start scheme, or make new schemes for the provision of welfare foods.

On welfare more generally, the Government are proposing a number of changes to the welfare clauses, responding to a number of comments made by Members of this House in Committee, as well as the Scottish Parliament and other stakeholders. As a result, it will be beyond doubt that the Scotland Bill fully delivers on the Smith commission agreement and that the Scottish Parliament will have significant responsibilities for areas of welfare. I was pleased to see these changes receiving a full endorsement from Gordon Brown, from the Scottish media, and indeed from all objective observers. The Scottish Government are getting responsibility for disability and carer’s benefits that were worth £2.7 billion in Scotland last year, and they will be able to deliver new benefits in all areas of devolved responsibility if they wish. Amendments 70 and 71 to clause 19 ensure that the Scottish Parliament can, if it wishes, legislate for the payment of a carer’s benefit to a person who is under 16, is in full-time education or is gainfully employed. The Scottish Government will be able to pay anyone on a reserved benefit a top-up payment. That includes being able to top up benefits such as tax credits, child benefit and universal credit.

[Ian Murray]

For the sake of clarity, will the Secretary of State say whether the Scotland Bill, as drafted this evening, will allow the Scottish Parliament to top up tax credits?

[David Mundell]

I have said it on numerous occasions and I am very happy to say it again: the Scotland Bill, as it progresses through the House this evening, will allow the Scottish Parliament to top up tax credits, and indeed child benefit and elements of universal credit. The Scottish Government will be able to pay shorter-term payments to help anyone, regardless of whether or not they are entitled to a reserved benefit, who has an immediate need for them and whose wellbeing is at risk.

I have proposed important changes to the Bill so that the Scottish Parliament can create its own new benefits in any area of devolved responsibility. That will be achieved by new clause 34 and amendments 191 to 193. The Scottish Parliament will be able to do this without any need to consult the UK Government. This power is significant: the Scottish Parliament will no longer be able to say that it is constrained by Westminster in deciding what it does, and it will be able to choose what additional benefits to offer people in Scotland.

I must, however, make very clear a few important points about the new power that the Scottish Parliament will get to create new benefits in devolved areas. Any new benefits that the Scottish Government want to deliver will be in parallel to the benefits that are delivered by the UK Government. The new power does not affect Westminster’s ability to legislate for and to deliver support, and it does not enable the Scottish Parliament to change or amend reserved Westminster legislation in any way. The Scottish Parliament will need to both fund and deliver any new benefits from Scottish funds.

The House will be aware that we have also delivered on other areas of Smith in full. Scottish Ministers will be able to make regulations for certain elements of universal credit, such as the frequency of payments and to whom they are paid.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Mundell]

No. I have dealt with that issue.

There was much debate in Committee on the universal credit powers. There were many inaccurate accusations that the UK Government would have a power to veto decisions of the Scottish Government. To put this beyond reasonable doubt, I have tabled amendments to clauses 24 and 25 to make it clear that there is no UK veto over decisions that the Scottish Government make in this space. Amendments 77 and 78 will strengthen the drafting of those provisions. The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions will remain legally responsible for the delivery of universal credit, but both Governments will need to work collaboratively to consider any such changes to the elements of universal credit. That is at the heart of clauses 24 and 25, and I know that our officials have already had very constructive discussions with the Scottish Government on this subject. To ensure that the record is crystal clear, let me say that there are no UK Government vetoes anywhere in these welfare and employment clauses.

I would like to emphasise that we have listened to the Scottish Government and to the debate in the House. For example, amendment 72, which enables the Scottish Government to provide non-financial assistance for maternity, funeral and heating expenses, reflects an amendment the SNP tabled in Committee. After full consideration, the Government are happy to make this change. Amendments 73, 76, 191 and 192 also relate to that provision.

All in all, this settlement fully reflects the agreement reached by the Smith commission. It ensures that the areas that the agreement said should remain reserved—pensions, universal credit, sanctions and conditionality, and employment support delivered by Jobcentre Plus—remain the responsibility of the UK Government, but, importantly, it gives the Scottish Parliament full responsibility for many areas of welfare. The Scottish Parliament will have the autonomy to legislate for large areas of welfare, and I look forward to the beginning of the debate on how it intends to use those powers.

The Smith commission agreement also recommended the devolution of abortion legislation, given that the parties to the agreement were strongly of the view that the anomalous reservation needed to be corrected. As I announced last month, UK and Scottish Ministers and officials have held discussions on the matter and reflected very carefully about the practicalities of devolution in this area.

[Ian Murray]

I am grateful to the Secretary of State for accepting a lot of the Labour amendments, and indeed some SNP amendments tabled in Committee. He said quite clearly in Committee back in July that he would not devolve abortion without a proper process and full consultation and discussion with Scottish women’s groups. What has made him change his mind?

[David Mundell]

I do not think that that is an accurate reflection of what I said. I made it very clear that the Smith commission had recommended the devolution of abortion and that we were engaged in a discussion with the Scottish Government. We have of course engaged with women’s groups in Scotland. The groups to whom I have spoken are clear that abortion can be devolved.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Whiteford]

I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has asked that question so early. Had he been listening to events in the Scottish Parliament last week he would know that Nicola Sturgeon has made clear commitments to mitigate the impact—

[Ian Murray]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Dr Whiteford]

Let me answer this question.

Nicola Sturgeon has made a clear commitment to mitigate the impact of the tax credit changes, but—like the Prime Minister—she is in the dark about the exact proposals. George seems to be still writing them on the back of an envelope. We are clear that it will not be possible to quantify them for two and a half weeks yet.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Murray]

I am delighted that the hon. Lady has given way, but she did not quite answer the question put to her by my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Melanie Onn). Is the hon. Lady committing tonight to restore all the losses from the pernicious tax credit cuts by this Tory Government? Her party voted against that in the Scottish Parliament last week.

[Dr Whiteford]

I really wish that the shadow Secretary of State had voted against the tax credit proposals when they came before this House on 20 July, because that would have killed them dead. Labour Members did not, however, and that is why we are back where we are. Nicola Sturgeon has made it crystal clear that she intends to bring forward costed, credible plans once the autumn statement has been made.

For low-paid working families, tax credits are an essential source of income. They put food on the table and shoes on the feet of children. They heat homes during winter. By the end of this Parliament, the Government’s proposed tax credit cuts would take £3.2 billion out of the Scottish economy from the pockets of the poorest families. That will undermine economic recovery. The austerity measures already enacted are set to push 100,000 more children in Scotland into poverty by 2020. Under the tax credit measures, 350,000 Scottish youngsters are set to lose out further. No wonder the Tories have abandoned any attempt at measuring child poverty.

There is a broad consensus in Scotland that cutting tax credits is the wrong thing to do. Even the leader of the Tory party in Scotland has called for a rethink and said that it is wrong for low-paid workers to lose out. It is recognised that the proposals will disincentivise work, hit children who are already disadvantaged and punish those in lower paid jobs.

The House of Lords put a proper spanner in the works of the proposals the other week, when it forced the Government back to the drawing board on their tax credit plans. Like millions of families across the UK who are facing uncertainty, we are all in a degree of limbo at the moment. We will have to wait until the autumn statement to learn what the Government intend to bring forward to make their plans more palatable to their own Back Benchers, who seem rather thin on the ground tonight.

We in the SNP have been very consistent in our opposition to tax credit changes. We have made the case at every single opportunity for alternatives to regressive austerity cuts. We will continue to fight tax credits tooth and nail in this House to force the Government into a climbdown. I hope we can rely on the support of other Opposition parties to stand firm, too. Labour abstained on 20 July, when we debated the general principles of the Welfare Reform and Work Bill that ushered in these proposals. The Government’s new clause 34, tabled last Wednesday, represents some progress. I am grateful for that, because it acknowledges that there was a veto and it manages to deal with that to some extent. New clause 34 would partially mitigate the impact of the tax credit cuts, but our new clause 18 is much stronger. It would fully devolve control of our tax credits to the Scottish Parliament, including eligibility thresholds and tapers. Government new clause 34 will give the Scottish Parliament the power to top up benefits. That is fine as far as it goes, but it will be no help whatever to those people who have lost their tax credits entirely as a consequence of the changes. If someone is not in receipt of a benefit, it cannot be topped up.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr McFadden]

The House is very pressed for time.

We have had experience of what happens in those circumstances. We know that 10 women a day have travelled here from the Republic of Ireland because of the different legislative frameworks. I do not predict that that will happen in this instance, but the new clause allows for the possibility. The logic was right before. There is no logic in allowing for two legislative frameworks 18 years on.

[Ian Murray]

It is a pleasure to talk to our new clauses and amendments on this part of the Bill. We have a lot of ground still to cover in this short debate, but it is important to state at the outset that crucial welfare clauses in this Bill deliver on the vow and the Smith agreement in both spirit and substance. That was not the case before the Government tabled their latest tranche of amendments last Monday. That is why, as my SNP colleagues rightly highlighted earlier, the deputy leader of the Scottish Labour party said that the vow had not been met, and indeed the architect of the vow, the right hon. Gordon Brown, the former Prime Minister, made exactly the same points. However, now that the amendments are before the House, we believe that the benefits issue has been resolved and that therefore the vow has been delivered. This is a crucial victory for the Scottish Parliament, the importance of which cannot be overstated. I said at the end of the Committee stage that if the Government did nothing else they should concede to my amendment 31 to allow the Scottish Parliament the power effectively to design its own social security system. Their new clause 34 does that, and we will support them on it.

[Stephen Gethins]

Does the hon. Gentleman think that the proposals are as close to federalism as we can get? Yes or no will do the trick for me.

[Ian Murray]

I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman intervenes with that question, as it allows me to put the record straight. What SNP Members do not mention is the second part of the sentence that the right hon. Gordon Brown said. That was: as close to federalism as we can get in the context of 85% of it being one block called England. That is what he said, and SNP Members never ever talk about that when they talk about “as near to federalism as possible.” The right hon. Gordon Brown can speak for himself when he says these things, and that is exactly the context in which he put this Bill.

The right hon. Member for Gordon (Alex Salmond) agreed with the amendments on welfare proposed by the Secretary of State. We agree as well, and I would have thought that there would be some kind of consensus across the Chamber on these amendments.

Let me turn to new clause 2 and Government new clause 34. Part 3 of this Bill devolves to the Scottish Parliament new and substantial powers over welfare, transferring to it £2.5 billion-worth of welfare responsibility. As I said when we debated this part in Committee, this presents a real opportunity for Scotland and the Scottish Parliament. Today we will pass amendments that will fundamentally transform the Scottish Parliament’s relationship with the social security system. That is why the Bill is so important. According to the House of Commons Library, if the Bill were passed in its present form, the Scottish Parliament would be responsible for 62% of all public expenditure, but our new clause 2 and the Government new clause 34 will give the Scottish Parliament total freedom to create new benefits in all devolved areas. It would then be up to the Scottish Government of the day to design the system they want and the Scottish people have voted for, and to find the resources to pay for that system.

The same goes for Government new clause 14, which devolves the Scottish Parliament’s legislative competence regarding welfare foods. I believe that was an SNP proposal, and, again, we support it.

The power to create new benefits in devolved areas was a Smith agreement recommendation and delivering on that commitment has been an absolute priority for the Opposition. We tabled the initial new clause in Committee, which the Government voted against, but I am delighted that the Secretary of State and Government have now come over to our way of thinking, as they have on the veto and the carer’s allowance. As the SNP finally conceded halfway through a Scottish Labour debate in the Scottish Parliament last week, and as we have heard again tonight, the original clause 21 and this new clause also afford the Scottish Parliament the power to top up any reserved benefit. There can now be no doubt that the Scotland Bill will allow the Scottish Government to compensate fully the Scottish families affected by the Government’s pernicious cuts to tax credits.

[Callum McCaig]

The reality is that Scotland will pay for the administration of tax credits and it will also pay for the administration to top-up tax credits. Rather than just devolving the provision, why should we pay for its administration twice under what the hon. Gentleman is proposing?

[Ian Murray]

The proposal would allow for the top-up of any reserved benefit and for the introduction of any devolved benefit. So, although we use the term “restoration”, it would actually create a new top-up reserved benefit, as does the Bill. There is a lot of misunderstanding relating to the fact that a lot of these benefits are not being devolved; they are effectively being switched off. The Scottish Government would therefore have to introduce new proposals in relation to any of the provisions in the Bill.

[Callum McCaig]

rose—

[Ian Murray]

We are running out of time, so I shall press on.

We will not cut tax credits for Scottish working families. Kezia Dugdale, the Scottish Labour party leader, has made that quite clear, and we have been very clear about how we would pay for that. It is interesting to note that on four different occasions tonight we heard nothing from the SNP about whether it would match that commitment—

[Ms Ahmed-Sheikh]

Twice!

[Ian Murray]

The hon. Lady says “twice”, but the record will show that ours is a clearly costed policy that would be delivered using the new powers in the Bill.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Ian Murray]

I shall move on, because we are running out of time—[Interruption.] We have already heard complaints about the restricted time for the debate. I would have thought, given that we agree on the welfare provisions, that the braying mob on the SNP Benches would have taken a little time to run through some of them.

Now that the Secretary of State has come round to Labour’s way of thinking on the power to create new benefits, the Bill strikes the right balance between reserved and devolved areas. The Smith agreement said that the welfare state and the social security system should remain shared across these islands. New clause 3, whose provisions are linked to new schedule 1, would provide for a cross-Parliament Committee on welfare devolution to oversee the transition and implementation of welfare powers transferred by the Bill. That would go some way towards resolving the point raised by the hon. Member for Aberdeen South (Callum McCaig). The Scottish Council on Voluntary Organisations has welcomed the new clause, stating that it is a

“pragmatic proposal given the need to ensure continuous, timely delivery of social security payments to those who receive them.”

It goes without saying that any new Committee must be open and transparent. We have already seen the Scottish Government claiming that they might reject the Scotland Bill if the secretive fiscal framework is not to their liking. We cannot afford for that to happen with these important welfare provisions.

Turning to new clause 5, I have said that Labour’s key aim is to deliver in full on the recommendations of the Smith agreement, but we are prepared to go beyond it if we see a reasonable argument for doing so. The new clause goes beyond the agreement in seeking to devolve the childcare element of universal credit to the Scottish Parliament.

Amendments 21, 22 and 23 cover another area in which I believe we should go beyond the Smith agreement’s recommendations—namely, making payments to individuals who have been sanctioned. The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Dr Whiteford) mentioned this in her eloquent speech. The Labour party is committed to reviewing the UK sanctions regime, the punitive nature of which is beginning to spiral out of control, forcing people into destitution on the back of draconian DWP targets. That is why we believe that the Scottish Parliament should have the power to make payments to individuals who have had payments unfairly reduced, suspended or withdrawn due to the UK Government’s sanctions regime.

We have also tabled amendments 24 and 25, which I shall address alongside Government amendments 77 and 78. These all concern the perceived existence in the Bill of a UK ministerial veto in relation to the regulation-making powers for universal credit being transferred to the Scottish Parliament. I am grateful that the Secretary of State has again listened, not only to the Labour party but to the SNP, on this issue. The Government have now redrafted the relevant clauses and removed the perceived veto. When I wrote to the Secretary of State asking him to confirm this, he gave me an assurance that the UK Government would have a “legal obligation” to implement any changes made by Scottish Ministers.

I welcome the Secretary of State’s amendments 70 and 71, which will remove the restrictive definitions relating to carer’s allowance, but I am disappointed that he has not removed the similar definitions in relation to disability allowance, as many of the disability charities in Scotland requested. Amendment 194 offers an alternative broader and more flexible definition of disability benefits, and I hope that if the Secretary of State cannot give us a satisfactory answer on this matter tonight, we will pursue it in the other place at the Bill’s next stage.

Let me deal briefly with the issue of abortion, making it clear from this Dispatch Box that nobody in this Chamber is saying that the Scottish Parliament does not have the capacity or indeed the responsibility to deal with abortion. The Smith agreement said that there would be a process, and, as we have heard eloquently this evening from my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), the devolution of abortion has to be dealt with properly and sensitively. The Secretary of State avoided my intervention earlier. He said in this House in July that the Smith agreement did not allow for the devolution of abortion at this stage and it would not be in this Bill, but that a proper process would be put in place to ensure that it is done sensitively, properly and in consultation with women’s organisations in Scotland. I do not think that his frantically calling round women’s organisations in Scotland on the day he tables the amendment is satisfactory consultation or that it takes into account the issues that many women in Scotland have contacted me about.

This is not about the time limit for abortion; this relates to the entire complex matrix of the legislation that sits behind abortion. It is about the issues relating to the criminality of abortion, the authorisation of abortion and where abortions can be carried out. It is not just about 24 weeks; it is about much more than that. The Secretary of State should reflect on the fact that a proper consultation needs to be put in place, otherwise he is in danger of doing something incredibly dangerous to abortion in this country.

[Mr McFadden]

The Secretary of State has said time and again when taking interventions that the Scottish Parliament has the capacity to legislate on abortion. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is a question not of whether there is capacity, but of whether or not it is desirable to have two different legislative regimes for this in Scotland and England?

[Ian Murray]

Regardless of who legislates for it, we may end up with different legislative regimes on either side of the border. I am perfectly confident in the Scottish Parliament, and I take the First Minister’s word that she will not change the regulations, but that is not to say that the regulations down here might not change and we end up with abortion tourism. Nobody wants that across the United Kingdom, and my right hon. Friend, who took the Scotland Act through this place—

[Mr McFadden]

No, I did not.

[Ian Murray]

My right hon. Friend did not take it through this place but he was heavily involved in it, and he knows about the issues relating to abortion and the position taken.

Amendment 26 makes it explicit that, among the exceptions to reserved matters on equal opportunities, the power to set gender quotas is being devolved to the Scottish Parliament. The Labour party takes this issue very seriously, and we thank Women 50:50 for helping us with these issues. I also commend amendment 225.

We now have a welfare section in this Bill that is in line with the Smith agreement. Everyone in this Chamber should be incredibly proud of that achievement and now we must move on to the debate about how we use these powers.

[David Mundell]

I do not want to say too much more at this stage, other than to welcome the fact that, other than in relation to the issue of abortion, to which I shall return, the Government’s proposals have been accepted. I am grateful for that.

In Committee, I said we would listen to sensible proposals made in the context of the Smith agreement, and that is what we have done. That is why I am not persuaded by some of the amendments, particularly those set out by the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Dr Whiteford) on the welfare system. They do not relate to areas that form part of the agreement. As we have mentioned on other occasions during this debate, the SNP was of course part of the Smith commission process and it signed up to an agreement that at that point did not seek to devolve tax credits to the Scottish Parliament. What was devolved were extensive powers that allow the topping up of tax credits and other benefits; the creation of new benefits in devolved areas; the topping up of child benefit; and changes to be made to income tax—

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Murray]

I echo the Secretary of State in thanking everyone who has been involved in the Bill’s passage, including his officials and the people who have been so supportive to Labour Members. I thank my Parliamentary Private Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Ruth Smeeth), and, of course, my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Wayne David), who has spoken on many parts of the Bill, but I also thank the Clerks in the Public Bill Office, who have been incredibly helpful in putting the Bill together. It has been like wading through treacle at times, but they have always been courteous, and their advice has always been well received.

Let me be absolutely clear at the outset about the Labour party’s position. We fully support the Bill and all that it seeks to achieve. [Interruption.] One would think that SNP Members would just stop for two minutes during the Third Reading debate. When the Conservative Secretary of State spoke, there was complete silence, but when the Labour party speaks, the braying mob starts. That tells us all that we need to know about this place.

With the amendments that have been accepted this evening, the vow has been delivered in full. The Bill delivers on the powers promised and agreed by all parties, including the SNP, in the Smith commission.

In 1998 Donald Dewar said:

“There shall be a Scottish Parliament”—[Official Report, 12 January 1998; Vol. 304, c. 25.],

and it was Labour, with the consent of the Scottish people, that delivered that Parliament. This Bill will make the Scottish Parliament one of the most powerful devolved legislatures in the world. It meets not only the terms of the vow, but the timetable laid out by Gordon Brown last year. We promised a process by the end of October; it was delivered. We promised it would conclude by St Andrew’s day; it was delivered. Draft legislation was promised by January; it was delivered. Second Reading of the Scotland Bill was promised straight after the election, regardless of who won; that was delivered. We promised that, no matter what parties formed the Government after the election, we would deliver a Bill to meet what the Smith commission set out; and thanks to the Secretary of State’s amendments put forward on Monday, that has been delivered. It is absolutely clear that this Bill, as amended, will place at the Scottish Government’s disposal the powers to make Scotland the fairer and more equal country that we all aspire for it to be.

[Patrick Grady]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Ian Murray]

I am not going to take interventions because I want the SNP opposition spokesman to speak, and if I take interventions he will be talked out.

From the establishment of the Scottish Parliament to the Calman commission to the Scotland Act 2012, Labour has supported more powers for the Scottish Parliament, but we are absolutely clear about what we stand for: we believe in devolution, not separation. That is what the people of Scotland voted for last year, and we respect the sovereign will of the Scottish people. They said they wanted to remain part of the United Kingdom but with a strong Scottish Parliament. They said they wanted to continue to pool and share resources across these islands. They said that they wanted the continued security that being part of a bigger union of nations and family of nations brought.

The Bill provides an historic opportunity for our politics in Scotland to turn from talking about the constitution to talking about the country, and about what we can do to make Scotland the fairest nation on earth, instead of what we cannot. Let’s grasp that opportunity. Let’s build that fairer nation. Let’s give the people across Scotland the politics they deserve. In the words of Donald Dewar, there shall be a powerful Scottish Parliament.

Scotland Bill (Programme) (No.2)

Ian Murray Excerpts

Monday 9th November 2015 Commons Chamber

[Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)]

I do not want to detain the House either, but I agree with the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart)—I hope that he does not turn to dust as a result—not on his content, but on the tone with which he has started this debate. It is worth putting on record that the Government, Opposition and SNP Whips—the usual channels—spent an inordinate amount of time on this, and I understand that there was broad agreement on how today’s proceedings would operate.

We would very much like some more time in the Chamber, but unfortunately that will not happen on Report and Third Reading. Given that the Government have accepted most of our amendments on the permanency of the Scottish Parliament, that the Scottish Parliament can now design its own social security system, and that the Government have moved towards the removal of the perceived vetoes—and, indeed, given the equalities section—we think the vow has been delivered. We agree with some of the Government amendments. The Government have come forward with amendments that agree with some of ours. I think we should get on with the debate this afternoon and start to discuss some of these issues. If the Scottish National party press this to a vote, we will see whether the House agrees.

Scotland Act 1998 (Modification of Schedules 4 and 5) Order 2015

Ian Murray Excerpts

Monday 14th September 2015 General Committees

[Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)]

As always, it is a great pleasure to serve while you are in the Chair, Mr Gray.

The Opposition do not disagree with the order. I thank the Secretary of State for his introductory remarks and I will pose just two questions in response to his explanation of the order. The first is a more general question of whether he envisages any other reasons for introducing a section 30 order before the Scotland Bill gains Royal Assent, hopefully very shortly in this Parliament. Secondly, the right hon. Gentleman did not touch on the modification of schedule 5 in article 3(2)(a), which refers to inserting

“‘The reduction of the minimum voting age’”

under “‘Exception 1’”. Will the Secretary of State cover in his summing up exactly what that means for devolving that power? I hope that it devolves the power to the Scottish Parliament to decide to allow 16 and 17-year-olds to vote.

I thank the Secretary of State for being here for his first Statutory Instrument Committee of this parliamentary term. However, it may be his last, and the Deputy Leader of the House will ably deputise for him in future such Committees—not because he has upset the Prime Minister; I do not want to start any vicious rumours of his demise from the Cabinet.

With those two brief questions, I emphasise that we are grateful for the order’s being introduced quickly so that the Scottish Parliament has the power to determine its elections timetable from next year.

Scotland Bill

Ian Murray Excerpts

Monday 6th July 2015 Commons Chamber

In conclusion, there is an opportunity to really deliver on the Smith commission if these obvious issues are addressed through our new clause. Communities across Scotland have been waiting for and are expecting the full devolution of the assets and revenues of the Crown Estate in Scotland. Let us see that promise delivered by making sure that the Bill lives up to the serious expectations of the people of Scotland. I commend new clause 57 to the Committee.

[Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir David. I was incredibly surprised to hear during an earlier point of order that this is apparently an English and Welsh only Bill, so perhaps that is the first point the Secretary of State for England and Wales would like to clear up when he comes to the Dispatch Box. It is a great privilege to speak for the Opposition on day four of the Committee’s considerations. I will speak to amendment 52, which is the first in this group standing in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Wayne David), and to all the other amendments and new clauses that stand in our names.

The Labour party has tabled 34 amendments to this section of the Bill, and 81 amendments to the entire Bill so far. It is a shame that the Secretary of State, who has been derided for some of this in the Scottish media, has not accepted any of these amendments, although he says that he is looking at the sensible ones. Will he enlighten the Committee on which amendments those are and on his direction of travel? That would allow to us shape some of our thoughts on Report.

[Alex Salmond]

That is indeed a mighty number of amendments. I am looking at the lack of support that the hon. Gentleman is carrying on his Benches. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey) told us that he had organised the first strike in the House of Commons. From the look of the Labour and Tory Benches, that strike seems to be ongoing.

[Ian Murray]

Given the time limits that we have on this debate, I feel that we have just wasted 30 seconds through a rather unnecessary intervention by the right hon. Gentleman, but, as we always say, it is quality and not quantity when we are having these debates. [Interruption.] I find it strange that I have been on my feet for less than two minutes—I have barely got to the end of the first page of my speech, half of which has been amended—and the baying from SNP Members has already started. If they just sat and listened for a few moments, they might find that I actually agreed with them on some of these amendments. I would have carried on to the second page of my speech had not the right hon. Gentleman intervened on me at that point. [Interruption.] I feel that a bit of common courtesy might be called for in these important debates. In fact, we might get an awful lot further if we had a bit of common courtesy.

These parts of the Bill cover Scotland’s road and rail infrastructure, its Crown Estate territories, and controls over tribunals and equalities legislation. The Secretary of State and the UK Government must deliver on these proposals, and go further. However, it is also for the Scottish Government to explain what they want to do with these powers; to date, they have studiously avoided doing so. [Interruption.] We have heard a lot in today’s debate, but also in the other three debates—

[Alex Salmond]

It says here.

[Ian Murray]

It does say here, because it is a speech, and that tends to be what happens. The right hon. Gentleman chunters from a sedentary position, “It says here”, but he was reading from his iPad earlier—with 3% of its battery left, as he told the Committee. If we are not supposed to read speeches in this place, I am not sure what we are supposed to do.

[Alex Salmond]

rose—

[Ian Murray]

I will give way to the right hon. Gentleman, but first I say this: he is wasting the time of the Committee in a time-limited debate that should finish at 8.37 pm, and we want to get on to some of the substantive issues.

[Alex Salmond]

I was reading from the iPad because I was quoting from the Scottish Government document, “Empowering Scotland’s Island Communities”, released last year, which says exactly what the Scottish Government intend to do with the revenue from the Crown Estate in relation to island and local communities. Having learned that, would the hon. Gentleman now care to withdraw his remark?

[Ian Murray]

The right hon. Gentleman asks me to withdraw my remark, but he asked to intervene before I made it, so he obviously wanted to intervene about something else. As they used to say on the radio, “What’s your point, caller?” [Interruption.] I can stand here and waste time until 8.37 pm if SNP Members want me to. I believe that many of them want to speak, but if they want to continue to waste time, that is entirely up to them. I can stand here all evening and then allow the Minister to speak shortly before we move on.

I believe that most of the clauses in this part of the Bill match the spirit and letter of the Smith agreement, but we wish to make sure that there is clarity, and to go slightly further. We have identified areas where the Bill can go further, primarily by placing more specific duties on the Scottish Parliament and Scottish Ministers, and also on the Secretary of State to deliver on these powers. Labour’s amendments would require the Scottish Parliament to work towards gender balance in the membership of the Scottish Parliament and on the boards of Scottish public authorities; require the Scottish Parliament to establish a process to end the system of employment tribunal fees in Scotland; devolve the enforcement of equalities legislation to the Scottish Parliament; and make sure that Scotland can, if it so wishes, implement a not-for-profit people’s railway.

We have already heard some debate about the Crown Estate, so I will canter through this part of my speech rather quickly to allow other Members to speak. Clause 31 transfers management of the Crown Estate’s Scottish assets and income to Scottish Ministers. That terminology is vital in terms of some of the questions we have for the Secretary of State. These assets account for about 3.9% of Crown Estate revenues. They include several rural estates; commercial property in Edinburgh; mineral and salmon fishing rights; approximately half of the coastal foreshore; and almost the entire seabed, including rights on the continental shelf. Crucially, the clause does not transfer rights over joint investments. As the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Drew Hendry) said, there has been considerable local press coverage about Fort Kinnaird in Edinburgh as it is not owned by the Crown Estate but is merely a joint investment. Why it is specifically excluded given that—the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right—even if it is just a 50% shareholding, it should be deemed to be an asset in terms of a being shareholding? It would be useful if the Secretary of State clarified that.

I largely agree with the clause as drafted, albeit with two small amendments. The first is the amendment tabled by the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael). I understand that the reason for the current wording of the clause is that the Treasury requires the legislative consent of Scottish Ministers before making such a scheme. However, once that consent has been given, as I assume it would be, the wording does not definitely require the formation of a scheme. Our amendment 52 would replace reference in line 36 to “Scottish Ministers” with “Scottish Parliament”. Ministers are transient, whereas the Scottish Parliament is permanent, and that should be recognised in all the clauses of this Bill.

The transfer of Crown Estate assets entails the transfer of staff and tenants to a new employer and landlord. It is vital that that transition is as smooth as possible to minimise unnecessary disruption and anxiety to workers and to tenants. I would welcome an assurance from the Government that every effort is being made to ensure that that will be the case. The right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve) and the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg) asked some legitimate questions that the Secretary of State should take on board and try to answer.

Finally on the Crown Estate, will the Secretary of State deal with the issue of the coastal communities fund? That is not directly funded by the Crown Estate but by the Treasury as part of the revenues of the Crown Estate. Will that situation continue or will the responsibility transfer to the Scottish Government? The fund is hugely important for Scottish coastal communities, and it is important to get clarity on its continuation, whether paid for by the Treasury or by the Scottish Government.

We will support amendment 57, in the name of the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland, as we believe in the concept of double devolution to get powers into the hands of the communities best placed to use them effectively. I agree with what the right hon. Member for Gordon (Alex Salmond) said about coastal communities. I recognise, however, that the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland is using this as a probing amendment to make sure that the issue can be on the agenda. He is right that it does not have to be included in the Bill, but I am glad that it has been raised.

Clause 32 devolves powers over equal opportunities bodies to the Scottish Parliament. The Labour party has always been a staunch proponent of women’s rights and the promotion of female representation. As respected organisation Engender has observed, there is compelling evidence to suggest that lack of gendered power balance in the wider public domain has a major impact on equality of outcomes across Government Departments. I therefore welcome the transfer of these powers, which will add to the tools available to the Scottish Parliament to tackle gender inequality in all its guises. There are very few legislative opportunities to provide for meaningful advancement in these areas, so we should grab those opportunities when they arise. We have seen that voluntary quotas or non-statutory targets can go some way towards this but are not as effective as legislation.

Our amendment 123 would amend clause 32 to include a specific requirement for gender balance among Members of the Scottish Parliament and members of boards of Scottish public authorities. That would devolve the issue to the Scottish Parliament and allow for it to be debated and properly implemented there. The Scottish Parliament has achieved much to be proud of, but in this area we are lagging behind our European partners. We should also deal with the dreadful record on such issues in this place. In appealing for the Committee’s support on this, I reassert my belief that equality is not a party-political issue. I want us to work together on it. I thank the cross-party campaigning group Women 50:50 for their support for the amendment and their “It’s as easy as 123” campaign. I hope that Members will also support new clause 41, which would require Scottish Ministers to undertake and publish a review of the measures they are taking further to help and promote gender equality in the membership of the Scottish Parliament and on the boards of Scottish public authorities.

New clause 66, tabled by the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) and new clause 56, tabled by the hon. Member for Southport (John Pugh), propose the devolution of abortion law and other connected laws, with regard to the relevant section of the Scotland Act 1998, to the Scottish Parliament. We will vote against the new clauses if they are pressed to a vote because we believe that a woman’s right to choose should be determined by robust medical evidence and not by where they live.

There is no reason why women in Edinburgh should face a different experience from women in Exeter. Many would argue that the current system needs to be improved, but that would be best achieved in a UK framework and should be part of a debate separate from that on the constitution.

[Mr MacNeil]

That is remarkable, because those matters are linked to countries’ constitutions. The limits are different in almost each and every European country. Why cannot they be different or the same across the UK—whatever the most democratic forums in each part of the UK choose? I am surprised at the hon. Gentleman’s negation of democracy.

[Ian Murray]

The next part of my speech offers an explanation of our opposition to devolving that particular issue across these islands.

[Mr MacNeil]

What about Northern Ireland?

[Ian Murray]

The hon. Gentleman is chuntering again. I will come on to the Northern Ireland issue. This is an incredibly serious issue and we should discuss it in a sober, proper and mature manner. Whether someone is pro-choice or pro-life, these are incredibly sensitive and emotive issues to which we should give due consideration.

Our opposition to devolving this particular issue is threefold. First, we stand with the 13 organisations from Scottish civic society, including Amnesty International, Scottish Women’s Aid and the Scottish Trades Union Congress, which have called on us to vote against the amendments. We share their concerns that the proposal has not been properly consulted on and that, on existing evidence, it could lead to harming a woman’s right to choose. The statement they have sent to all Members of this House concludes:

“Women across the UK have fought for women’s bodies to be their own and, to this day, fight opposition to a woman’s right to choose. We do not wish this amendment to open the doors to those who seek to undermine this right.”

[John Pugh]

Does the hon. Gentleman seriously think that the Scottish Parliament would disregard those sentiments?

[Ian Murray]

I do not think that the Scottish Parliament would disregard them, but it is worth giving proper consideration to the Smith commission’s proposals and the cross-border issues, rather than just devolving the issue of abortion for the sake of it.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

May I have the hon. Gentleman’s view on the logic of allowing the Scottish Parliament to deal with assisted dying, which is just as emotive and important an issue, but not with abortion?

[Ian Murray]

That is the framework of the Scotland Act 1998.

[Mr MacNeil]

Is it logical?

[Ian Murray]

Well, devolution in a lot of instances is not logical, because—[Interruption.] I am answering the intervention of the hon. Member for Gainsborough. If the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil) wants to intervene, I am more than happy to allow him to do so, but he must let me answer the intervention first. A lot of devolution is illogical, because that is how devolution works.

I hope that the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar will allow me to get to the second and third reasons for our opposition to the devolution of abortion at this stage. As I have said, our first reason for opposing it is that we are being asked to do so by women’s organisations in Scotland. Secondly, the Smith commission clearly stated that

“a process should be established immediately to consider the matter further.”

That has not happened. On 21 July, a Scottish Government spokesperson told the BBC that talks with UK Government Ministers on the devolution of abortion law had begun prior to the election. I would welcome an intervention from the Secretary of State or, indeed, anyone on the SNP Front Bench to inform the House about the discussions that have taken place so far, but the Smith agreement is clear and the promised process has not emerged.

This is not the proper process for which Smith asked. I understand that the issue was put on the table rather late in the day at the Smith commission and that it was agreed that there would be a proper process of discussion, debate and dialogue before any particular change is made to the constitution or the law.

[Dr Philippa Whitford]

Does not the hon. Gentleman think that this could be the start of that process? If there is an agreement in principle that the powers will be devolved, that discussion can begin. If we throw the amendment out, it will disappear.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Murray]

There is a point of difference between us on how we interpret this issue. The 13 organisations that have written to us are experts in this field and have asked us to vote against the amendment, and I think we should listen to them. I do not disagree with the hon. Lady. Everyone has their own views, not only on this, but on the devolution process. I just feel that, having weighed up all the issues, we should listen to what the 13 organisations have said, follow the proper process outlined by Smith and see where we go.

The third reason for our opposition is that the UK already has a two-tier system on abortion, with a different legal position in Northern Ireland. That has been heavily criticised by human rights organisations and the United Nations. We do not wish to create yet another category of abortion law in the United Kingdom that could fall foul of them. That is not to say that devolution might not be desirable at some point in the future, but let us go through the proper process.

The devolution of abortion law would mean that the Scottish Parliament would have to start from scratch. The law is established and is operating effectively in the United Kingdom. It should continue to operate across the UK and be determined by the best clinical advice available.

New clause 64 would fully devolve responsibility for enforcement of equalities legislation to the Scottish Parliament. An important principle of devolution is that it should not lead to the exercise of power becoming disjointed across nations. As some of my hon. Friends have made abundantly clear, we believe that legislation on employment rights must remain consistent across the United Kingdom in a single market, in order to avoid any erosion of those rights and a subsequent race to the bottom on pay, terms, conditions and practices.

To quote the Trades Union Congress:

“Any move to devolve responsibility for employment and trade union rights could have profound implications not just for working people in Scotland, but across the whole of the UK. The TUC would strongly counsel against a ‘race to the bottom’, with the Scottish and Westminster governments competing to attract investment by promoting a more de-regulated labour market.”

That is what we see right across the world in terms of competing markets, particularly labour markets. I agree with the TUC. Given that we do not propose to devolve employment law, it would be neither consistent nor desirable to devolve equalities legislation, because they are inextricably linked. I will speak about the specific issue of the national minimum wage at the end of my contribution.

[Chris Stephens]

The hon. Gentleman has quoted the TUC, but in various debates on the Bill he has quoted the STUC. Will he confirm that the STUC is clear that employment law and health and safety law should be devolved to the Scottish Parliament?

[Ian Murray]

I do not disagree with the hon. Gentleman: that is the STUC’s view. The TUC takes a slightly different view. We have to be very careful, as the TUC points out, that we do not create a race to the bottom. As I have said, it strongly counsels against a race to the bottom.

[Mr MacNeil]

We want a race to the top.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Murray]

We all want a race to the top, but we need to make sure that we are doing all these things properly, with cross-border agreement between Governments both north and south of the border.

It would not be inconsistent to devolve the enforcement of equalities legislation, as suggested by the STUC and our new clause 64. The STUC argued in its submission to the Smith commission:

“Ultimately equality law is governed by European minimums and…the law as it currently stands is positive and tends to support the advancement of equality. The major barrier to achieving equality therefore is not the law, but practice, culture and indeed discriminatory attitudes. Therefore enforcement is key to advancing equality and major gains could be made if enforcement was carried out in line with Scottish expectations and the needs of the Scottish economy.”

I hope that Members will recognise the logic of that assertion and support new clause 64, which would allow for the creation of a bespoke enforcement regime in Scotland that would take a full view of the distinct nature of the Scottish equalities landscape, but within the UK and EU legislative framework.

Clause 33 devolves to the Scottish Parliament new powers over the administration of employment tribunals. My amendment 54 would add a specific requirement on Scottish Ministers to initiate a process, in conjunction with the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service and the Scottish trade unions, to end the system of employment tribunal fees in Scotland.

My amendment is barely different from an amendment tabled by SNP Members. We all wish to see the end of employment tribunal fees, because there is no doubt that the figures show that they are a barrier to justice. Those are not just my words; they are also included in a letter to the former Justice Secretary signed by 40 QCs and 400 barristers who argued that

“fees are a significant barrier to access to justice and are preventing employees from being able to complain about contraventions of their employment rights.”

The letter further observed:

“The introduction of fees has had no discernible impact on the outcome of cases.”

It surely cannot be fair for a pregnant woman who is being discriminated against at work and who might have just lost her job to have to find a £1,200 fee at a time when family budgets are more stretched in order to seek redress in an employment tribunal. When I was the shadow Minister for employment relations in the last Parliament, we made those arguments consistently during debates on the Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Act 2015. You may have chaired that Bill Committee, Sir David, so you will be well versed in those issues. This policy is fundamentally unfair; it is a tax on justice.

Fortunately for those of us in Scotland, the Bill is an ideal opportunity to do something about employment tribunal fees. Amendment 54 would enshrine in law the Scottish Government’s responsibility to establish a proper process to put an end to these pernicious and unfair charges in the Scottish tribunal system. I hope that we will get support for that amendment.

[Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)]

There is agreement across the Opposition Benches on making employment tribunals fairer and eliminating the fees, but is the hon. Gentleman’s strategy not completely wrong? He wants fairness in Scotland that cannot be introduced in England. That is at odds with his arguments about having solidarity on both sides of the border. He is picking and choosing what he will support and what he will not support. He has a lack of strategy, rather than a strategic approach.

[Ian Murray]

This amendment is about people paying a fee to enter the employment tribunal system. It would give the Scottish Parliament full control over how that system operates, under the legislative framework of the United Kingdom. That is how a lot of issues work, including health and safety and the Scottish courts system. That is how the justice system in Scotland, which has always been independent of the rest of the UK, operates and it is a perfectly fair way for devolution to work.

Amendments 159 and 160 relate to fixed odds betting terminals and the supervision, inspection and enforcement under the Gambling Act 2005. My hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn (Graham Jones) might go into that in more detail if he catches your eye, Sir David.

I am not sure whether the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson) is in her place, but in an earlier sitting of the Committee, she mentioned that the Scottish Parliament controls much of road safety, but does not have legislative competence over pavement parking. As she did not table an amendment to sort that out, we brought forward new clause 22, which has the full support of the Living Streets charity, to rectify the anomaly. It intends to ensure that parking offences such as parking on pavements or by dropped kerbs and double-parking can be enforced by the Scottish Parliament. I am grateful to Living Streets for bringing this matter to our attention. Having spent a day blindfolded with the guide dogs in Corstorphine in Edinburgh, I think we should all take cognisance of the way in which people with sight problems are able to get around our towns and cities.

Clause 39 devolves Executive competence in relation to the policing of railways in Scotland by specifying as a cross-border authority the British Transport police authority. The clause is in keeping with the Smith agreement, but it was not part of the agreement that the British Transport police should be devolved in order that it may be abolished. That is what is being proposed by the Scottish Government, who want to transfer the existing functions of the British Transport police to Police Scotland. The abolition is vehemently opposed by the unions and the British Transport police, and their strong views should be taken into account. Will the Secretary of State comment on that issue?

Finally, new clause 63 calls for an assessment by the Low Pay Commission of the effect of the Scottish Parliament having the power to alter the national minimum wage rate for Scotland. The national minimum wage is one of the proudest achievements of the last Labour Government and we will defend it to the death. However, it has become a maximum wage for too many people and we must encourage the private sector to move beyond the minimum wage to a living wage. Low pay is one of the biggest political issues of our time, particularly in the run-up to the Budget, with the proposed cut to tax credits.

[Mr MacNeil]

I am anxious to know why Labour want control over the minimum wage in Scotland to be in the hands of the Tories.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Murray]

The minimum wage in Scotland is not in the hands of the Tories; it is in the hands of the Low Pay Commission.

[Mr MacNeil]

It is in the hands of the Tories.

[Ian Murray]

I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman realises this, but it is the Low Pay Commission that recommends the rate of the national minimum wage to the Government. As someone who sat on the Committee that considered the statutory instruments that implemented the recommendations of the Low Pay Commission, I say that I would like its recommendations to go further, but it is up to the commission to set the rates.

I say to the hon. Gentleman that we had a firm manifesto commitment to ask the Low Pay Commission to increase the national minimum wage over a period of time to 58% of median earnings. We have to be careful in this area. That is what new clause 63 is about. If he reads it, he will see that. We have to be extremely cautious about not undermining the national minimum wage by devolving it to Scotland. The new clause is perfectly clear about what we are trying to achieve. It asks the Low Pay Commission to complete a full analysis of the consequences of devolving this power.

If the hon. Gentleman does not believe me, he should look at what we received from the Bakers, Food and Allied Workers Union today. It is promoting a £10 minimum wage, so it has no axe to grind in terms of our policy on 58% of median earnings, because it wants to go much higher. It has been campaigning on that rather successfully for some time. It says that devolving the national minimum wage to Scotland could enable the vision of the Prime Minister’s Government of lower pay in some regions to come true, particularly in northern constituencies and in Scotland. It states:

“We need to be extremely cautious over the…demand for devolving powers surrounding the minimum wage. This move would bring about an end to the national minimum wage”

in Scotland. We are saying that we need to be cautious. I ask the hon. Gentleman to read new clause 63 before he intervenes again. I will allow him to intervene again if he does so.

[Callum McCaig (Aberdeen South) (SNP)]

Low pay is one of the key problems of our age, as has been said. The minimum wage is in need of being undermined because it undermines people’s lives. I would be happy for the Scottish Parliament to increase the minimum wage in Scotland and to fundamentally undermine the minimum wage, so that the embarrassment of poverty wages is eradicated right across the United Kingdom.

[Ian Murray]

That is exactly what we want to see. We want the issue of poor wages across the United Kingdom to be resolved in its entirety. The hon. Gentleman will remember that in 1998, many of my colleagues and former colleagues sat all night for three nights in a row to ensure that the National Minimum Wage Act was passed by this House. It eradicated the worst of low pay in our country, such as security guards being paid 60p an hour. As I said, the national minimum wage has become a maximum wage for too many people and we have to drive it up across the United Kingdom to eradicate poor pay. I caution the hon. Gentleman that there is a danger that we will undermine the national minimum wage across the United Kingdom if we fragment it.

[Mr David Anderson (Blaydon) (Lab)]

As one of the first people to give evidence to the Low Pay Commission in 1998, I think I have some knowledge about this issue. The unions up and down these islands have always said, “Do not vary the rate on a regional or sub-national basis.” There has to be one complete and utter rate across the whole of the United Kingdom, because if there is not, it will open the door for those who want to undermine it, including the people sitting on the Government Benches opposite.

[Ian Murray]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There is no bigger champion of workers’ rights, the national minimum wage and union rights in this place. We must deal with poverty pay. [Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar wants to read new clause 63, I am happy to let him intervene again, but he obviously has not because he does not realise that new clause 63—[Interruption.] If he will allow me to explain, new clause 63 asks the Low Pay Commission to do a full analysis of the potential consequences of fragmenting the national minimum wage across the United Kingdom. That is something that Opposition Members of all colours should wish to see, because if we undermine the national minimum wage, we undermine the entire structure that is meant to prevent low pay in this country.

[Mr MacNeil]

It is terrible that Labour sees the national minimum wage only as something to be undermined; it is something that has to be bolstered. What does the hon. Gentleman think the effect would be on the national minimum wage in England, Wales and Northern Ireland if it were increased in Scotland by, say, 10%? It would drive it higher.

[Ian Murray]

In fact, what the hon. Gentleman has just said is exactly what it says in new clause 63, which tells the Low Pay Commission to look at the consequences. The consequence of undermining the political consensus on the national minimum wage would be fragmentation and a race to the bottom. The TUC is clear in its press release today:

“It is also a complete false economy… Breaking up the national minimum wage would carry similar risks, leaving workers in many parts of the country facing poorer pay in depressed local economies.”

It speaks of a potential “race to the bottom”. We should listen to the people who have fought for their entire lives for the national minimum wage. The difference between me and the hon. Gentleman is that he does not agree that everyone across the entire United Kingdom deserves better pay. The fight to eradicate poor pay in this country does not stop at the border.

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

Has the hon. Gentleman completely forgotten that some of the biggest advances in progressive social legislation that England has seen in the past 15 years happened after, and only because, they were introduced by the devolved Administrations of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland? This place would not have introduced the right to work in a smoke-free environment had it not happened in the devolved Assemblies and Parliaments. The right of responsible access to the countryside happened in the devolved Assemblies, otherwise it would never have happened here. Freedom of information would never have happened here if it had not happened first in the devolved Assemblies.

Does the hon. Gentleman not understand that we need to trust the people of Scotland to elect a Parliament that believes in a legally enforceable living wage? That is the quickest and surest way to make sure that workers across these islands can enjoy a living wage, rather than trusting a Conservative Government to introduce it.

[Ian Murray]

It is clear that the Scottish National party’s strategy is not to have a proper debate and discuss the fundamental points about the risk of undermining the national minimum wage, but merely to paint people as being in the pockets of other Governments or political parties.

The hon. Gentleman is right that many progressive Governments have pushed forward issues such as those he mentioned, but the national minimum wage, freedom of information and the ban on smoking inside were progressive changes pushed through by Labour Governments. The Labour party will fight for the national minimum wage not to be fragmented and undermined in a race to the bottom. The TUC has agreed with that, and the Bakers, Food and Allied Workers Union felt that it had to put out a press release today to ensure that the minimum wage was not undermined. My new clause 63 suggests that the Low Pay Commission looks sensibly at proposals to ensure that that does not happen.

[Chris Stephens]

The hon. Gentleman has mentioned the views of the TUC and the BFAWU. Can he confirm that the two largest trade unions in Scotland, Unison Scotland and Unite Scotland, gave evidence to the Smith commission saying that they wanted responsibility for the national minimum wage to be devolved to the Scottish Parliament?

[Ian Murray]

They have argued that, but the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers and the GMB have argued that it should not be devolved because they are worried about a race to the bottom. If the hon. Gentleman reads my new clause 63, he will see that I am asking for the Low Pay Commission to look at the issue and ensure that the minimum wage is not undermined. The worst possible result that this Parliament could leave for future generations would be the undermining of the national minimum wage not just in Scotland but across the entire United Kingdom. I hope that the Committee will support the new clause, to ensure that we do not throw the baby out with the bathwater. Let us listen to what the unions and the TUC are telling us. I commend all our amendments and new clauses to the House.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—