Scotland Bill
Joanna Cherry Excerpts(9 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ian Austin
I completely agree with the hon. Gentleman. It is an absolute disgrace.
An even bigger disgrace is the state of education in Scotland, which is run by the SNP. The gap between the richest and the rest has persisted, meaning that the poorest children in Scotland are not getting the opportunities they should. Young people from deprived backgrounds who get to university are facing grants and bursaries that have been cut, making them the lowest in the UK. Every year, more than 6,000 children in Scotland leave primary school unable to read properly, and pupils from a wealthier background are twice as likely to get a higher A than pupils from deprived backgrounds. Pupils from wealthy backgrounds are twice as likely to go on to higher education as those from deprived backgrounds. In further education, 140,000 fewer students are going to college in Scotland, and funding for Scotland’s colleges has been cut by £53 million. Scotland has the lowest percentage of university entrants from the poorest backgrounds and the lowest proportion of entrants from state schools in the UK. As I said, grants and bursaries for poor students have been cut by 35%.
A moment ago, the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford) asked me about the health service in Scotland. The truth is that under the SNP standards have been slipping. Waiting time targets have been missed and pressure is increasing on nurses and doctors. Analysis from the impartial Scottish Parliament Information Centre shows that the SNP has not increased investment in the NHS as much as in England, despite rising demand. The accident and emergency waiting time target has not been met for six years. More than 400,000 people have had to wait more than four hours in A and E since 2011. The new flagship Queen Elizabeth University hospital in Glasgow posted the lowest waiting time targets since its opening: only 77% of patients were seen within four hours.
The hon. Lady asked what Scottish doctors are saying. Only one third of NHS Scotland staff say there are enough staff for them to do their job properly. Despite promising less private involvement in the NHS, spending on private health services is at its highest since devolution.
I also agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North on the case for greater decentralisation from Holyrood to local authorities, because that might enable local authorities in Scotland to tackle the housing crisis across the country. Scotland is facing its biggest housing crisis since the second world war, with nearly 180,000 people in Scotland on social housing waiting lists. Audit Scotland estimates that Scotland will need more than 500,000 new homes in the next 25 years. In 2007, the year Labour left office in Scotland, there were 25,741 housing completions. In 2014, there were just 15,000—a 40% reduction.
When I visited Edinburgh for a weekend last month, I was absolutely stunned—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil) thinks it is funny. The level of rough sleeping on the streets of Edinburgh is an absolute disgrace. His colleagues in the SNP should be thoroughly ashamed. Everyone knows that under the Conservatives rough sleeping is increasing right across the country, but I have to say that I saw many more rough sleepers on the streets of Edinburgh than I have ever seen on the streets of Birmingham, which is a much, much bigger city.
On full fiscal autonomy, I agree with new clause 1 and the case for a commission. The Institute for Fiscal Studies has said that the SNP’s plans would leave a £7.6 billion black hole in Scotland’s finances that the separatists have absolutely no idea how to fill. The nats might deny that, so let us have the full independent review that Labour is calling for and get the facts.
Having listened to the debate, you, Madam Deputy Speaker, would be forgiven for thinking that SNP Members would much rather invent rows with the rest of the UK than improve life for people across Scotland. Their whole approach is designed to drive up resentment and blame everyone else for their failings. Instead of being held to account for their record, they want to blame the nasty people down south for everything that goes wrong: everything that goes right in Scotland is down to the SNP; everything that goes wrong is down to the rest of us. The truth is that SNP Members are not interested in policy. They are obsessed with breaking up the country, but having been rejected in the referendum they are trying to engineer a separation by fuelling grievance in Scotland, winding up the English and undermining Labour, because they know they have more chance of a successful vote in a referendum with a Tory Government in place in Westminster.
They are more interested in breaking up Britain than they are in improving the health service, improving education and providing housing for the poorest people in Scotland. It is much easier to blame everything on a supposedly wicked Westminster than it is to try to use the powers they have to improve things in Scotland. In fact, the last thing they want to do is solve the problems in education, health or housing, because then they would not be able to stoke resentment, fuel grievance and blame the nasty English for causing them. It is, I am afraid, the perpetual nat whinge: blame everyone else for your failings and pretend that everything would be solved if only the country was broken up.
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)
In contrast with the previous speech, which was an ill-informed diatribe criticising the Scottish Government, I rise to address the Bill before us today. I am going to use what precious time I have to speak in favour of amendment 204.
Amendment 204 would introduce a subsection to clause 11 that would remove the Human Rights Act 1998 from the list of protected provisions in schedule 4 to the Scotland Act 1998. This would have the effect of removing the Human Rights Act from the list of enactments that cannot be modified by the Scottish Parliament. If the Scottish Parliament was able to modify the Human Rights Act, that would allow the Scottish Government and the Scottish Parliament fully to establish a human rights regime in Scotland regardless of whether the Act was repealed by the UK Parliament in London.
The UK Government, which have no mandate in Scotland, have repeatedly made clear their intention to repeal the Human Rights Act and to replace it with a Bill of Rights. They have made it clear that they scorn European and international norms on human rights and the jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights. They have made it clear that they want to replace the Human Rights Act with a watered-down version of the rights and protections that everybody in the UK currently enjoys. We saw that very much trailed in The Sunday Times yesterday.
We in Scotland do not wish to have the terms of the debate on human rights in Scotland dictated by the UK Parliament, because in Scotland we have a very different agenda. There is no mandate in Scotland for repeal of the Human Rights Act. Preserving the Human Rights Act was an issue during the campaigns in both the independence referendum and the general election. The SNP has consistently opposed repeal, and as my right hon. Friend the Member for Moray (Angus Robertson) said, we won the general election in Scotland. Indeed, including Labour’s and the Liberal Democrats’ sole representatives in Scotland, 58 out of 59 Scottish MPs oppose repeal.
Joanna Cherry
I think I will make some progress, if the hon. Gentleman does not mind.
Last year, the Scottish Parliament voted by 100 to 10 to endorse the Human Rights Act, and civic society in Scotland, from the Scottish Trades Union Congress to the Church of Scotland, also opposes repeal. Nevertheless, this UK Government have repeatedly confirmed that they intend to go ahead with repeal and that it will apply equally in Scotland as in England, Wales and Northern Ireland.
In Scotland, we are concerned by repeated statements from Ministers of this Government suggesting they believe they could repeal the Act without consulting the Scottish Parliament. Their argument seems to be that they would not need a legislative consent motion, but that is incorrect. Human rights are not a reserved matter under the devolution settlement. Schedule 4 to the Scotland Act 1998 protects the Human Rights Act against modification by the Scottish Parliament, but human rights per se are not a reserved matter. They are not listed as such among the reserved matters in schedule 5 to the 1998 Act. It was part of the late Donald Dewar’s scheme that all matters would be devolved unless specifically reserved, and human rights are not specifically reserved.
Moreover, human rights and the European convention on human rights are written into the Scotland Act, meaning that the Scottish Parliament and Scottish Ministers cannot pass legislation that is incompatible with the convention.
Joanna Cherry
No, I will make progress. We have heard quite a lot from the hon. Gentleman already. These are important points of great concern to the Scottish electorate, and I want to make them very clear.
In Scotland, we have a national action plan for human rights, as well as a United Nations-accredited Scottish Human Rights Commission, and our commitment to human rights extends not just to the ECHR, but beyond that to social and economic rights.
Joanna Cherry
The hon. Gentleman is clearly desperate to get his oar in, so I will give way.
Alberto Costa
The hon. and learned Lady raises some important issues, but she is pre-judging what the Secretary of State for Justice might bring before the House. It might well be a beefed-up human rights regime that the Scottish people will want.
Joanna Cherry
It is hard to take that seriously. Since we have been in the House, we have, through the judicious questioning of Ministers, established that one of their main concerns about the Human Rights Act is the fear they should have to take account of—that is all the Act says—the decisions of the Strasbourg Court. Given that they fear having to take account of European and international norms, I can only assume they want to replace the Act with a considerably watered-down version of the ECHR and the Act. That is merely a logical deduction.
I wonder if I might give way to the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Wayne David), on the Labour Front Bench, who wished to intervene earlier.
Wayne David
It was only about five minutes ago, but I thank the hon. and learned Lady very much indeed. I agree with her comments about the Human Rights Act, but would she accept that what she says about Scotland also applies to Wales and to Northern Ireland especially?
Joanna Cherry
I do. As our First Minister has made clear, and as I have made clear in the House several times, we will do everything we can to preserve the Act for the whole of the UK. Were the Government to recognise that human rights are not a reserved matter and that therefore there has to be a legislative consent motion, we in Scotland could help friends across the House by refusing legislative consent for the repeal of the Act, which would be one way of keeping it for the whole of the UK.
Angus Robertson
Just now, in response to my hon. and learned Friend’s point about our being excluded from the Joint Committee, the hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Alberto Costa) said, “Good.” Might she take an intervention from him so he can explain why the party that represents almost every constituency in Scotland should be excluded from that important Committee?
Joanna Cherry
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for drawing that to my attention. I would be delighted to take that intervention. Will the hon. Gentleman, whom I believe is a lawyer of sorts, tell us and the people of Scotland why he thinks it acceptable for all Scottish MPs to be excluded from the Joint Committee?
Alberto Costa
It is important that we have sensible lawyers on the Committee. The hon. and learned Lady keeps stating that human rights are not a reserved matter, but they are a very obvious reserved matter. That is my point.
Joanna Cherry
I am sure viewers in Scotland and everyone reading Hansard tomorrow will be interested to hear that the hon. Gentleman thinks it acceptable to exclude every elected representative of the Scottish electorate from a Joint Committee whose purpose is to scrutinise Bills for human rights compliance across the UK.
Pete Wishart
The hon. Gentleman is probably equally delighted that there are six unelected donors and cronies from the House of Lords on that Committee, yet no place for any Scottish MP.
Joanna Cherry
I am sure he is. The hon. Gentleman’s interventions and speech underline the reality of our concern that the wish of the Scottish electorate to preserve the Human Rights Act will not be respected. I reiterate that we want to make common cause with the Labour party, the Lib Dems, Northern Ireland Members and Government Members to preserve the Act for the whole of the UK.
Joanna Cherry
I said “we”. Listen carefully. I know my accent is a bit difficult to follow, but I said “we”.
In conclusion, our primary intention is to preserve the Act for the whole of the UK, but the amendment would give us the option to implement the settled will of the Scottish people to keep the Act for Scotland, if we fail to keep it for the whole of the UK.
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.
Scotland Bill
Joanna Cherry Excerpts(9 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ian Murray
I will give way again, but first let me make some progress.
It is simple: the pooling and sharing of resources across the UK, and the maintenance of the Barnett formula, benefits Scotland. The much-quoted Institute for Fiscal Studies, which the SNP continually rubbishes, has demonstrated beyond argument that full fiscal autonomy would result in Scotland having a deficit of some £7.6 billion. Before SNP Members jump up to challenge those expert figures, I want to put it on the record that that is over and above any current UK deficit and UK spending projections.
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that all this talk of black holes with full fiscal autonomy fails to recognise that a black hole exists already as a result of the policies of successive Westminster Governments, both Tory and Labour, and for which the Tories are now making the poorest and most vulnerable in our society pay? [Hon. Members: “Speech.”] The case that Labour is making in attacking full fiscal autonomy is that things are so bad that letting the Tories fix the deficit their way is better—[Interruption.] I am going to keep going—[Interruption.]
The Temporary Chair (Mr David Crausby)
Order. Interventions should be short, and the Committee should be tolerant of that.
Joanna Cherry
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that his party should have more ambition for Scotland?
Ian Murray
This is the nub of the matter: if we try to scrutinise what would be a devastating policy for Scotland, we are accused of not being ambitious for Scotland. For the avoidance of doubt, that £7.6 billion is over and above the UK deficit. I agree with the hon. Lady that the Conservative Government made a complete shambles of getting rid of the deficit in the previous Parliament, breaking all their promises and only halving it. But the actual deficit—I have the IFS paper here—is not just £7.6 billion, but £7.6 billion over and above the current UK deficit, which is £14.2 billion. That is not a lack of ambition for Scotland, but a warning against a fiscal policy that would be folly for families up and down Scotland.
Joanna Cherry
I beg to move amendment 62, page 11, line 19, leave out
“the decision whether to pass or reject it”
and insert
“the motion that the Bill be passed is debated”.
Amendments 62 to 66 to Clause 10 aim to clarify matters around references to the Supreme Court, in particular where the Scottish Parliament resolve to reconsider the Bill.
The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 21, page 11, line 27, at end add—
“(aa) the period between general elections specified in section 2(2)”.
Amendment 22, page 11, line 30, at end add—
“(ba) the alteration of boundaries of constituencies, regions, or any equivalent electoral area”.
Amendment 63, page 11, line 39, after “unless”, insert
“it is passed without division, or”.
Amendment 64, page 12, line 18, at end insert—
“(2A) He shall not make a reference by virtue of paragraph (a) of subsection (2) if the Parliament resolves that it wishes to reconsider the Bill.
(2B) He shall not make a reference by virtue of paragraph (b) of subsection (2) if—
(a) the Bill was passed without a division, or
(b) the Bill was passed on a division and the number of members voting in favour of it was at least two thirds of the total number of seats for members of the Parliament.”
This amendment establishes that a Bill passed by consensus in the Scottish Parliament (i.e. without a division) automatically meets the super-majority requirement and ensures that a Presiding Officer’s statement is not required if the super-majority requirements are not triggered.
Amendment 65, page 12, line 23, at end insert—
“(3A) Subsection (3B) applies where—
(a) a reference has been made in relation to a Bill under this section, and
(b) the reference has not been decided or otherwise disposed of.
(3B) If the Parliament resolves that it wishes to reconsider the Bill—
(a) the Presiding Officer shall notify the Advocate General, the Lord Advocate and the Attorney General of that fact, and
(b) the person who made the reference in relation to the Bill shall request the withdrawal of the reference.”
Amendment 66, page 12, line 27, leave out subsections (11) and (12) and insert—
“(10A) In subsection (4) after paragraph (a) insert—
“(aa) where section 32A(2)(b) applies—
(i) the Supreme Court decides that the Bill or any provision of the Bill relates to a protected subject matter, or
(ii) a reference has been made in relation to the Bill under section 32A and the Parliament subsequently resolves that it wishes to reconsider the Bill.”
(10B) After that subsection insert—
“(4A) Standing orders shall provide for an opportunity for the reconsideration of a Bill after its rejection if (and only if), where section 32A(2)(a) applies—
(a) the Supreme Court decides that the Bill or any provision of the Bill does not relate to a protected subject matter, or
(b) the Parliament resolves that it wishes to reconsider the Bill.””
Clause 10 stand part.
Amendment 67, in clause 11, page 13, line 4, at end insert—
“(1A) In paragraph 1 of Schedule 4 (protection of Scotland Act 1998 from modification), delete ‘(2)(f) the Human Rights Act 1998’”
This amendment would remove the Human Rights Act 1998 from the list of protected provisions in Schedule 4 of the Scotland Act 1998.
Amendment 68, page 13, line 10, paragraph (a)(ii), leave out “(3)” and insert “(2B)”.
Amendments 68 to 88 to Clause 11 would grant the Scottish Parliament powers to make decisions about all matters relating to the arrangements and operations of the Scottish Parliament and Scottish Government as agreed in the Smith Commission.
Amendment 69, page 13, line 11, paragraph (a)(iii), leave out “11” and insert “12”.
Amendment 70, page 13, line 12, paragraph (a)(iv), leave out from “section” to the end and insert “sections 13 to 27,”.
Amendment 71, page 13, line 13, paragraph (a)(v), leave out from “(v)” to the end and insert “section 28(1) to (6),”.
Amendment 72, page 13, line 14, paragraph (a)(vi), leave out from “(vi)” to the end and insert “sections 29(2)(e)”.
Amendment 73, page 13, line 15, paragraph (a)(vii), leave out “27(1) and (2)” and insert “31”.
Amendment 74, page 13, line 16, paragraph (a)(viii), leave out “28(5)” and insert “32(1) to (3),”.
Amendment 75, page 13, line 17, paragraph (a)(ix), leave out “(1)(a) and (b) and (2) and (3)”.
Amendment 76, page 13, line 18, paragraph (a)(x), leave out “39” and insert “38”.
Amendment 77, page 13, line 21, paragraph (b)(i), leave out “44(1B)(a) and (b), and (2)” and insert “44(1C), (2) and (4),”.
Amendment 78, page 13, line 22, paragraph (b)(ii), leave out “(3) to (7)” and insert “to 50”.
Amendment 79, page 13, line 23, paragraph (b)(iii), leave out “46(1) to (3)” and insert “51(1), (2) and (5) to (8)”.
Amendment 80, page 13, line 24, paragraph (b)(iv), leave out “47(3)(b) to (e)” and insert “52”.
Amendment 81, page 13, line 25, paragraph (b)(v), leave out “48(2) to (4)” and insert “59”.
Amendment 82, page 13, line 26, paragraph (b)(vi), leave out “49(2) and (4)(b) to (e)” and insert “61”.
Amendment 83, page 13, line 27, leave out paragraph (b)(vii).
Amendment 84, page 13, line 28, paragraph (c), leave out “(3)”.
Amendment 85, page 13, line 29, paragraph (d), leave out from “general,” to the end of the paragraph, and insert—
“(i) sections 81 to 85,
(ii) sections 91 to 95, and
(iii) section 97,”.
Amendment 86, page 13, line 31, paragraph (e), leave out from “supplementary,” to the end of the paragraph in line 37, and insert—
“(i) sections 112, 113 and 115, and Schedule 7 (insofar as those sections and that Schedule apply to any power in this Act of the Scottish Ministers to make subordinate legislation),
(ii) sections 118, 120 and 121,
(iii) section 124 (insofar as that section applies to any power in this Act of the Scottish Ministers to make subordinate legislation),
(iv) section 126(1) and (6) to (8), and
(v) section 127,”.
Government amendments 108 to 110.
Amendment 87, page 13, line 39, paragraph (g), leave out “6” and insert “7”.
Amendment 88, page 13, line 41, paragraph (h), leave out
“paragraphs 1 to 6 of”.
Clause stand part.
Joanna Cherry
I rise to speak in favour of amendments 62 and 67. Amendment 67 would introduce to clause 11 a subsection that would remove the Human Rights Act from the list of protected provisions in schedule 4 to the Scotland Act 1998.
In the debate on the Gracious Speech, the Home Secretary confirmed that a Bill will be brought forward during this Parliament to introduce a Bill of Rights and to repeal the Human Rights Act. The Scottish National party has consistently opposed repeal of the Human Rights Act. We won the election in Scotland and therefore there is no mandate from the Scottish people for repeal of the Act. None the less, the Secretary of State for Scotland has confirmed, albeit on Radio Scotland, that repeal of the Human Rights Act will apply equally in Scotland as in England. At present, the Human Rights Act is listed as a protected provision in schedule 4 to the Scotland Act, which means that the Scottish Parliament cannot modify the Human Rights Act. Amendment 67 would change that.
The UK Government have not been clear on how potential changes to the United Kingdom’s relationship with the European convention on human rights and the abolition of the Human Rights Act could impact on the place of the ECHR in Scotland’s constitutional settlement. That is important because the ECHR is entrenched in the Scotland Act. For example, section 29(2)(d) provides that a provision that is incompatible with the ECHR is outwith the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament, and section 57(2) provides that a member of the Scottish Government has no power to make any subordinate legislation or to do any act in so far as that would be incompatible with the ECHR.
Neither of those sections would be changed by simple repeal of the Human Rights Act alone. It is clear, therefore, that human rights are not specifically a reserved matter; they are partially devolved. Scottish National party Members therefore argue that any repeal of the Human Rights Act without first consulting the Scottish Parliament would violate the Sewel convention, whereby the Westminster Government will not normally legislate with regard to devolved matters without the consent of the Scottish Parliament.
Matters are further complicated by the fact that the Smith commission and the draft clauses proposed putting the Sewel convention on a legislative footing. There is therefore the prospect of a very real clash between the United Kingdom Government commitment to revise and reduce the role of the ECHR in United Kingdom law and their commitment to the Scottish electorate to implement the vow. There is a real possibility of a clash between the Scottish and Westminster Parliaments.
It is worth pausing to look at the realities of human rights in the United Kingdom and why they matter. As I said in my maiden speech, the United Kingdom in fact loses very few of the cases brought against it in Strasbourg. The United Kingdom once had a proud tradition of leading in Europe on human rights. It was elected to membership of the United Nations Human Rights Council in 2014 on a prospectus claiming that it was
“a passionate, committed and effective defender of human rights”.
Repealing the Human Rights Act would not really live up to that claim and would send out all the wrong signals. The right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve) said in 2014 that the proposal to repeal the Human Rights Act represented a
“failure of ambition…on the global promotion of human rights”.
Human rights matter to ordinary people in this country. Those who have benefited from the Human Rights Act include victims of domestic violence, who have been able to get better protection, and victims of rape, who have used the Act to ensure that the police properly investigate offences. Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex people have used human rights to overcome discrimination in this country. The families of military personnel killed on active service because the Ministry of Defence supplied them with outdated equipment have also benefited under the Human Rights Act. These rights are very real for ordinary United Kingdom citizens.
In Scotland, we have a national action plan for human rights, which has been co-produced in partnership with wider civil society. We have a United Nations- accredited Scottish Human Rights Commission, which is internationally acknowledged as one of the world’s best. As I said in my maiden speech, our commitment to human rights in Scotland extends not just to the ECHR, but beyond that to social and economic rights. Through our work on social justice and challenges such as that on fair work, we are intent on ensuring that people in Scotland can enjoy their economic, social and cultural human rights. Scotland is also a world leader in its work to give full effect to the rights of children. We are very proud of that record in Scotland and we wish to protect it—hence amendment 67.
As I have said, the amendment would have the effect of removing the Human Rights Act from the list of enactments that cannot be modified by the Scottish Parliament. If the Scottish Parliament was able to modify the Human Rights Act, that would allow the Scottish Government and the Scottish Parliament to establish a human rights regime in Scotland regardless of whether the Act was repealed by the UK Parliament.
I hasten to add that, as our First Minister has said, the SNP is committed to opposing the repeal of the Human Rights Act for the whole of the UK, not just for Scotland. However, in the unfortunate event that it is repealed for the whole of the UK, amendment 67 would enable us to do something about it, at least in Scotland. That position has the overwhelming support of the Scottish electorate, as evidenced by the 56 out of 59 MPs sitting beside and behind me.
Mr Alistair Carmichael
I will not detain the Committee because time is pressing.
I tabled amendments 21 and 22, which were authored by the Law Society of Scotland. The two issues that they deal with are fairly short in their compass and I do not intend to press them to a Division. However, I will be interested to hear the Minister’s response to them and to have it on the record.
Amendment 21 would include the parliamentary term of the Scottish Parliament within the provisions that can be altered only by way of a super-majority. Under amendment 22, the same would be true of boundaries. It is the wish of the Law Society of Scotland that it should not be possible to influence those matters by a simple majority merely for political advantage.
Dr Coffey
The hon. Gentleman is right that these are important matters, and I can assure him that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is engaging with the devolved Administration as we develop the proposals. It has to be said, however, that the amendment is squarely outwith the Smith commission agreement, which contained no proposals in this respect. The hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West herself said it was not directly a matter for the Scottish Parliament.
Clause 11 contains important provisions that transfer substantial new powers to ensure that the Scottish Parliament has a greater role and greater powers to make decisions about the operation and administration of itself and the Scottish Government. By doing so, the clause delivers a critical element of the Smith commission package. Among other matters, the clause transfers greater powers to the Scottish Parliament over its membership and proceedings and over the composition and powers of the Scottish Government. I hope that the Committee will agree to the clause.
Joanna Cherry
We are also grateful to see the hon. Lady in her place, and she is always welcome to make a contribution to Scottish debates, but I regret that her contribution today does not give us the comfort we seek on the protection of human rights in Scotland. We do not wish to press our amendment to a vote tonight, but we reserve the right to return to these matters later in the Bill’s proceedings. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 10 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 11
Scope to modify the Scotland Act 1998
Amendments made: 108, page 13, line 32, before “section” insert
“section 112(1) and (3) to (5),”.
This amendment would allow the Scottish Parliament to modify subsections (1) and (3) to (5) of section 112 of the Scotland Act 1998 to the extent that those subsections apply to any power exercisable within devolved competence to make subordinate legislation.
Amendment 109, page 13, line 34, leave out from “power” to end of line 36 and insert
“exercisable within devolved competence to make subordinate legislation),”.
This amendment would allow the Scottish Parliament to modify the sections of the Scotland Act 1998 to be listed at sub-paragraph 4(2)(e)(i) of Schedule 4 so far as those sections apply to any powers exercisable within devolved competence to make subordinate legislation (including Orders in Council).
Amendment 110, page 13, line 37, at end insert
“, and
(iii) section 124 (so far as that section applies to any power exercisable within devolved competence to make subordinate legislation),”—(Stephen Barclay.)
This amendment would allow the Scottish Parliament to modify section 124 of the Scotland Act 1998 to the extent that the section applies to any power exercisable within devolved competence to make subordinate legislation.
Amendment proposed: 89, page 13, line 42, at end insert—
‘(2A) In paragraph 4 of Schedule 4 (protection of Scotland Act 1998 from modification), insert new sub-paragraph—
“(5A) This paragraph does not apply to amendments to Schedule 5, Part II, Head A, Section A1 insofar as they relate to:
(a) taxes and excise in Scotland,
(b) government borrowing and lending in Scotland, and
(c) control over public expenditure in Scotland.” —(Joanna Cherry.)
This amendment would enable the Scottish Parliament to amend the Scotland Act 1998 to remove the reservation on taxation, borrowing and public expenditure in Scotland, with the effect that the Scottish Parliament could then legislate in these areas to provide for full fiscal autonomy in Scotland.
Question put, That the amendment be made.