Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Alistair Carmichael

Thursday 14th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee.

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

I congratulate the Secretary of State, and indeed the Chancellor of the Exchequer, on the achievement of the Budget: in 23 years in this House, I have never seen such a degree of unity among farming organisations in their response to it. One point on which there seems to be no disagreement is that the removal of the ringfence around agricultural payments to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland is a bad move. Nobody asked for it. Why did the Government do it, and what do they expect to achieve with it?

Budget: Implications for Farming Communities

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Alistair Carmichael

Monday 4th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee.

[Mr Carmichael]

I remind the House of my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.

Thank you, Mr Speaker, for allowing this urgent question. I also thank the Minister for his statement, but I fear that it illustrates rather well some of the lack of understanding that has brought us to this point. More than any other industry, farming relies on stability and long-term planning. That is why many people in the industry relied on undertakings given by the Secretary of State when in opposition that the Labour party in government would not change inheritance tax reliefs for farming.

Every farming business is capital-rich but revenue-poor. Those businesses also trade in a market that has been more heavily influenced by government intervention than any other. Agricultural property relief is not a loophole; it has been a deliberate policy of successive Governments for the past 40 years, designed to avoid the sale and break-up of family farms. Is that still a goal to which this Government adhere? As the NFU put it, the Government have seemingly failed to grasp

“that family farms are not just small farms, and that just because a farm is a valuable asset it doesn’t mean those who work it are wealthy.”

As the Minister will be aware, some of the figures he has just given the House have been vigorously challenged over the past few days, particularly the assertion that only one in four British farms will be affected. Will the Minister and his Treasury colleagues publish the data behind those figures? In particular, does the figure that 73% of farms will not be affected rely on the inclusion of very small holdings?

These changes will have a ripple effect across the whole rural community. Will the Government publish their impact assessment for other rural businesses? Can the Minister also explain why the Treasury has removed the ringfence around farm support to be spent in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland? That ringfence was introduced after the Bew review. If it needed a review to introduce it, how can it just be abolished now out of the blue?

The Prime Minister has said in the past, and the Minister has repeated today, that food security is national security. Can the Minister point to one measure in this Budget that makes achieving that aim easier, rather than harder?

Independent Water Commission

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Alistair Carmichael

Wednesday 23rd October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

We come to the Chair of the Select Committee.

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

The Secretary of State is quite right to point to the role of the payment of bonuses and dividends in bringing us to this point, but he must surely acknowledge that that is far from being the whole story. There are a number of business and accounting practices in companies such as Thames Water that have brought us to the stage we are at today. If he is serious about having a water system that is fit for the future, he has to understand properly what has gone on before. Will he therefore confirm that the commission will be properly resourced with the necessary forensic accounting resource, so that those who have been responsible for the most egregious practices in the past and who now seem to be appearing in other water companies around the country will not be allowed to do the same thing there?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Alistair Carmichael

Thursday 12th September 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee.

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

Arguably, and in the view of some of us, ours is the finest Select Committee in the House.

The problems with the uptake of ELMS have been at the heart of a significant departmental underspend. No fair-minded individual would blame the current Government for that, but if that money disappears back into the Treasury, never to be seen again on farms, that blame will be attached to the current Government. In opposition, they said that any underspend should be rolled over into future years. Is that still their position in government, and how will they do it?

Post Office Horizon Scandal

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Alistair Carmichael

Thursday 18th July 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

I also welcome you back to your place, Mr Speaker. It is a genuine pleasure for me, as the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, to be addressing the House on behalf of the third largest political grouping. My party will use the privilege of that position to hold the Government and Ministers to account. We will not be using it simply to stoke division and manufacture grievance. That is what the people of the United Kingdom, and Scotland in particular, voted for.

At the heart of the Horizon scandal was the culture at the centre of the organisation that failed to respect the work that was being done by sub-postmasters at the frontline. The Minister and the Secretary of State will meet with the chief executive of the Post Office. What evidence have they seen that that culture has actually changed?

Prison Capacity

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Alistair Carmichael

Thursday 18th July 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Lib Dem spokesperson.

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

I also welcome the Lord Chancellor to her new position, and thank her for advance sight of her statement.

It has been apparent for months that measures of this sort would be necessary. These are described as temporary measures, but 18 months is a very long time for temporary measures. There would be a real danger of damaging public confidence in our criminal system if the measures were to be extended beyond that point.

The answer surely has to be more than just building more prison capacity. The problem is not that our prison estate is too small; it is that we send too many people to prison, and that the time they spend there does nothing to tackle the problems of drug and alcohol dependency, poor literacy and numeracy skills, and poor mental health, which led to their incarceration. Can we hope to hear in the very near future the Government’s comprehensive plan to tackle the issue of the time that people spend in prison?

Finally, may I bring to the Lord Chancellor’s attention the report published this morning by His Majesty’s inspectorate of probation on the failings of the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough probation delivery unit? That report outlined that our duty of care to those whom we lock up should not end the day they leave custody. When will we have a response to that report?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Alistair Carmichael

Thursday 7th March 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call Bob Blackman. Not here.

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

Can the Secretary of State give me some assurance that any free trade agreement with Israel will not allow the importation of goods produced in settlements on the west bank?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Alistair Carmichael

Tuesday 24th October 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Carmichael]

The Foreign Secretary will be aware that the Government of France have announced today that they are sending their Foreign Minister to the United Nations Security Council to argue for a humanitarian truce in Gaza, which in their words would be capable of leading to a ceasefire and necessary for the distribution of aid to civilian populations. It would also allow the focus to concentrate on the release of hostages, which I would have thought would commend itself also to the Government of Israel. Will the Government support—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Being first on the Order Paper is not permission to take all the time. Topicals should be short and sweet. The right hon. Gentleman has been here long enough to know that.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Alistair Carmichael

Thursday 23rd February 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

13. What recent assessment her Department has made of the feasibility of ending the use of non-essential single-use plastics.

[Mr Speaker]

Who wants this one?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Alistair Carmichael

Tuesday 21st February 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Can I just say to the two Members who want to leave that they should stay for two full questions after they have spoken? We have not yet completed this question.

[Mr Carmichael]

May I take the Secretary of State back to his answer to the hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire (Martin Docherty-Hughes)? If he is not ruling out ever leaving the convention, is he then not ruling out ever breaking the Good Friday agreement?

[Dominic Raab]

We are absolutely committed to the Good Friday agreement and the stability of Northern Ireland, which is why the efforts of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and the Prime Minister are so important.

Prime Minister’s Meeting with Alexander Lebedev

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Alistair Carmichael

Thursday 7th July 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

So not to the House—that is totally not satisfactory.

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

“Not satisfactory”—I admire your magnificent understatement, Mr Speaker.

Surely this admission illustrates why this man cannot remain as Prime Minister, even as a caretaker. He is simply not to be trusted. I have seen four other Prime Ministers stand at the Government Dispatch Box in my time in the House, and I cannot imagine any one of them becoming involved in an enterprise such as this. The relationship with Russia goes right through this Government. We were told four months ago that we would get the report on the golden visa schemes, but we still do not have it. When will that report be published? Why has it been delayed?

British Council Staff: Afghanistan

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Alistair Carmichael

Thursday 20th January 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am grateful to you for taking a point of order at this stage. The hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr Wragg), to whom I gave notice of my intention to raise this point of order, has spoken today in the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee about the intimidation of and threatened removal of funding from projects in the constituencies of Members who have come out against the Prime Minister and called for him to resign. This is behaviour of a sort I have never heard. We all understand the need for Whips to maintain discipline, but this owes more to the tactics of the mafia than anything found in “Erskine May”.

What can you do, Mr Speaker, to protect Members who wish to express their opinions and have differences sincerely and strongly held without seeing their constituents disadvantaged in such ways and without their being intimidated into remaining silent when they really want to speak up?

[Mr Speaker]

Members may wish to write to me in private. I understand what the right hon. Gentleman said. There are allegations about the conduct of Whips and special advisers working for Ministers. Serious allegations have been made and, at this stage, without having had chance to study what has been said in detail, I can only offer general guidance; I have been in the Chair since this revelation came out, as I understand it, at 10 o’clock. Members and those who work for them are not above the criminal law. The investigation of alleged criminal conduct is a matter for the police and decisions about prosecution are for the Crown Prosecution Service. It would be wrong of me to interfere with such matters.

While the whipping system is long established, it is of course a contempt to obstruct Members in the discharge of their duty, or to attempt to intimidate a Member in their parliamentary conduct by threats. There is a clear process for raising privileged matters and referring them for investigation to determine whether the conduct in question is a contempt. In the first instance, Members raising such concerns should write to me. I hope these general observations will assist the House in going forward.

Points of Order

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Alistair Carmichael

Wednesday 8th December 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I will write to the Prime Minister to remind him that he promised to have a meeting with you. I will pass on those remarks, and I am sure that those on the Government Front Bench will have heard them. When people make statements that they will meet, they should honour that. All Members of this House count. All Members matter.

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. It is further to the point of order raised by the shadow Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, the hon. Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting). Successive Ministers have promised that vaccine passports will not be introduced without the prior approval of this House, yet it is reported today that they are going to do exactly that. What can you do, Mr Speaker, to protect the position of this House and to ensure that Ministers keep the promises they have made to it?

[Mr Speaker]

I do not want to continue debate on a point we have already had an answer to. What I would say is that I expect—and I know—that your voice will be heard, and it is certainly on the record.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Alistair Carmichael

Thursday 2nd December 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Come on. I call Alistair Carmichael.

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

I thank the Secretary of State for the support that she has given in the past to the development of tidal stream renewable energy generation. Now that we have the very welcome ring-fenced pot for tidal stream energy, will she charge her Department with the development of a strategy to ensure that we can export that expertise as we move towards commercialisation?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Alistair Carmichael

Thursday 23rd September 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I congratulate the new Minister on his appointment, and call Alistair Carmichael.

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

1. With reference to his Department's “COVID-19 Response: Autumn and Winter Plan 2021”, if his Department will publish scientific evidence in support of the efficacy of mandatory vaccine passports.

Business of the House

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Alistair Carmichael

Thursday 11th February 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Let us head up to the Shetlands and Alistair Carmichael.

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD) [V]]

Thank you, Mr Speaker—not quite as far as Shetland today; I come to you from Orkney. I ask the Leader of the House whether we can have a debate in Government time on the operation of the UK-US extradition arrangements, which were entered into under a treaty of the Labour Government in 2003. He will have seen press reports about the case of British businessman Mike Lynch, which demonstrate that the treaty is not only open to abuse but is being abused. We need arrangements that are equal in fairness to each side. Many Conservative Members were critical of the treaty in 2003. Can we now start a debate about getting improvements?

Points of Order

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Alistair Carmichael

Tuesday 6th October 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

First, I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving me notice of her intention to raise this matter. As Speaker, I have expressed my concerns on several occasions about the delays in answering written questions, particularly delays within the Department of Health and Social Care, none more so than in the case referred to in the text I received yesterday from the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch)—she said that she had been waiting since April and had finally got a reply last week. The Ministers on the Treasury Bench will have heard the instance that has been raised and I hope that they will also take action. The hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran) may also wish to consider raising her concerns with the Procedure Committee, which keeps a watching brief on the timeliness and adequacy of answers to parliamentary questions. I am disappointed on her behalf and, although this does not make it better, she is certainly not on her own.

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. You are aware that there are a number of reports in the Scottish media today regarding the possibility of increased restrictions in Scotland. It was suggested earlier today that we might in fact be heading for some sort of circuit-break lockdown. As things stand, it is my intention to go home on Thursday to return on Sunday for business on Monday. I am not, at present, sure if that is actually going to be possible. What guidance can you give to Members, especially from Scottish constituencies, who want to be here to carry out their duties in the House, especially in the light of the reluctance of the Leader of the House to allow us the continuation of digital participation to its full extent?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Alistair Carmichael

Thursday 2nd July 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Sounds like Harry Potter, doesn’t it?

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

What steps he is taking to protect the rights of UK seafarers during the covid-19 pandemic.

Conduct of Business After the Whitsun Recess

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Alistair Carmichael

Wednesday 20th May 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I will now call Alistair Carmichael, who is asked to speak for no more than two minutes.

[Mr Carmichael]

Thank you for allowing this urgent question, Mr Speaker. I do not want this debate today to be all about Members of Parliament. Let us remember what has brought us to this point. Yesterday, the number of recorded deaths from covid-19 reached 35,341—a rise of 545 from the day before. Today, the Government’s response to that is to insist that Members of Parliament should undertake non-essential journeys—in my case, that is almost the entire length of this country—to stay in second homes. When that was done by leading Government advisers, it led to their resignation. If ever there was a case of do as I say and not as I do, then this is it.

None of us is blind to the inadequacies of online scrutiny. Like many Members I find it stilted and artificial, but if it is a choice between that, and putting the safety of Members, their families and the staff of the House at risk, that is no choice at all. This system should end only when it is safe to do so—and safe for all Members, not just those who live within driving distance of Westminster.

As trade union representatives explained to the Commission yesterday, the House of Commons is supported by approximately 3,000 employees. Is the Leader of the House really satisfied that we can bring MPs back from 2 June while discharging our duty of care towards those staff? How many staff will be able to return to work without risk to themselves or those with whom they live?

It is widely reported that the motivation for this over-hasty return is to get a support pack behind the Prime Minister on Wednesday afternoons. Today, it has even been reported that yesterday, the Leader of the House suggested to the Commons Commission that to get more MPs in, perspex screens should be installed between the Benches and between Members—someone has obviously told him how things are being done in Tesco these days. In recent weeks we have demonstrated that the business of this House can be done from behind a screen, as we do right now, but it is from behind a computer screen, not a screen of perspex, the only purpose of which would be to shield the Government from scrutiny and the Prime Minister from ridicule. The Leader of the House must think again.

Covid-19: Repatriation of UK Nationals

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Alistair Carmichael

Wednesday 29th April 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

In that case, we will go to Alistair Carmichael.

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD) [V]]

May I take the Minister back to the two positions stated last week by Sir Simon McDonald? These are not differences of nuance; they are two fundamentally different positions. Will the Minister share with the House the explanation that Sir Simon gave him for two such different positions being put out in the course of one day? More importantly, will he give us some assurance that if EU procurement processes are to offer a route to much-needed PPE being available in care homes and hospitals across the country, we will not lose out on that opportunity?

Covid-19

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Alistair Carmichael

Tuesday 17th March 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

To help the House, I should say that I am expecting to run this until around 2 o’clock.

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

The Foreign Secretary is absolutely right: repatriation is a complex and costly business. But that is surely exactly why it should not just be left to individuals and why there must be a leading role for Government.

Like many MPs, I have had representations this morning from constituents. Some of mine are on holiday in Morocco and now find themselves stranded. The ambassador’s Twitter account is telling them just to go to the airport with their passports and tickets and see what they can fix up when they get there. We realise that the consular services are under stress, but surely at this moment they have to have every possible resource to provide the best possible information for our constituents.

Living Wage

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Alistair Carmichael

Thursday 3rd November 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

I am pleased to have this opportunity to contribute to this important debate, and I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) for securing this time from the Backbench Business Committee. I am grateful for the many examples that she and others have brought to the House today. I do not in any way seek to diminish those examples when I say that the people I am about to speak about would probably bite your hand off if they were offered the terms and conditions that the hon. Lady and others have described. I want to talk about the pay levels and employment practices on offer to our seafarers that are all too common in the maritime sector in the United Kingdom.

The recent detention of two vessels operating in the North sea—the Malaviya Seven and the Malaviya Twenty in Aberdeen and Great Yarmouth respectively—lifted the lid on payment and employment practices that are frankly scandalous, and from what I hear from many of those who work in our merchant marine in the North sea, this is just the tip of the iceberg. These practices are much more widespread and there is much more to be found. To put it bluntly, if these practices were happening on dry land, enforcement action would be taken immediately. They would not be tolerated. Because they are happening at sea, however, they are somehow out of sight and out of mind. I hope that when the Minister speaks to representatives of HMRC, she will impress it upon them that that attitude has to change.

I want to bring to the House’s attention the situation regarding two ferries that run lifeline freight services to my constituency from Aberdeen. The Helliar and the Hildasay are operated by Seatruck Ferries, but they are on contract to Serco, which operates the Scottish Government-funded lifeline ferry service. The RMT tells me that in 2014, when it last had sight of the contracts, some 20 ratings on the two ferries were being paid £3.66 an hour. The ferries’ journeys start in Aberdeen and finish in either Orkney or Shetland in the Northern Isles, but the company is able to pay that rate because it is deemed to be operating wholly outside UK waters. It beggars belief. It is wrong not only for the ratings, most of whom are probably Estonian nationals, but for UK seafarers whose jobs and livelihoods are being undercut by such employment practices. It is outrageous that a taxpayer-funded service is being operated in a way that undermines the opportunities of British seafarers to get working conditions and employment rates to which they would otherwise be entitled.

Seatruck Ferries recently said:

“Seatruck Ferries operates in a worldwide shipping market where NMW”—

national minimum wage—

“application in isolation would place the company at a serious disadvantage in relation to its competitors.”

It would appear that what it is doing is illegal, but, frankly, that is sheer sophistry. It is a scam that the Government could stop if they were minded to take the necessary action to stop it. That is why the point about the Government guidance on the application of the national minimum wage that I made in an intervention on the Minister is not just important, but extremely urgent. The practice may be bad, but from what I hear an awful lot worse is going on in the North sea on ships that have been chartered to the oil and gas industry.

I will not detain the House much longer because I do not have the time, but in evidence to the Energy and Climate Change Committee I challenged the chair and chief executive of the newly created Oil and Gas Authority to bring the operation of the maritime sector in the North sea within its remit, but they flatly refused. It seems to me as though they knew that there was something nasty underneath the stone and for that reason they were not prepared to lift it.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

The time limit is now four minutes.

Investigatory Powers Bill

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Alistair Carmichael

Report: 2nd sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 7th June 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that I hold no brief for the SNP—I struggle on many days to hold any affection for it. But may I offer him the opportunity to reflect on what he has said about the duty of the SNP Members and others of us, including a substantial number on his Benches? None of us would seek to undermine the work of the security services, but it is our duty to ensure that the powers given to them by this House are necessary and proportionate. That is the work in which we are engaged here, and if we are talking about a breach of duty, it would be a breach of our duty if we were not to do that.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. The right hon. Gentleman wishes to catch my eye very shortly, and of course I want to hear him speak, but I do not want to hear the speech twice. We need short interventions.

Scotland Bill

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Alistair Carmichael

Monday 15th June 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

I beg to move amendment 16, page 1, line 7, leave out first “A” and insert “The”

[The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 37, page 1, line 7, leave out “is recognised as” and insert “shall be”.

Amendment 17, page 1, line 7, leave out “recognised as”.

Amendment 58, page 1, leave out lines 7 and 8 and insert—

‘(1A) The Scottish Parliament is a permanent part of the United Kingdom’s constitution.

(1B) Subsection (1) or (1A) may be repealed only if—

(a) the Scottish Parliament has consented to the proposed repeal, and

(b) a referendum has been held in Scotland on the proposed repeal and a majority of those voting at the referendum have consented to it.”

This amendment is to ensure that the Scottish Parliament can only be abolished with the consent of the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish people after a referendum.

Amendment 38, page 1, line 8, at end insert

“and may not be abolished without the consent of the Scottish people given effect by an Act of the Scottish Parliament”.

Amendment 18, page 1, line 12, leave out “recognised as”.

Amendment 59, page 1, leave out lines 12 and 13 and insert—

‘(1A) The Scottish Government is a permanent part of the United Kingdom’s constitution.

(1B) Subsection (1) or (1A) may be repealed only if—

(a) the Scottish Parliament has consented to the proposed repeal, and

(b) a referendum has been held in Scotland on the proposed repeal and a majority of those voting at the referendum have consented to it.”

This amendment is to ensure that the Scottish Parliament can only be abolished with the consent of the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish people after a referendum.

Clause 1 stand part.

Amendment 89, in clause 11, 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.”

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.

New clause 2—Constitutional convention—

‘(1) The Prime Minister shall establish a Constitutional Convention within one month of the day on which this act is passed.

(2) The Chair and Members of the Constitutional Convention shall be appointed in accordance with a process to be laid before, and approved by, resolution in each House of Parliament.

(3) The Chair of the Constitutional Convention is not permitted to be a Member of Parliament or a member of a political party.

(4) Members of the Constitutional must include, but not be limited to, the following—

(a) members of the public, chosen by lot through the jury system, who shall comprise the majority of those participating in the convention;

(b) elected representatives at all levels;

(c) representatives of civil society organisations and, in an advisory role, academia.

(5) The Constitutional Convention shall review and make recommendations in relation to future governance arrangements for the United Kingdom, including but not limited to the following—

(a) the role and voting rights of Members of the House of Commons;

(b) democratic reform of the House of Lords;

(c) further sub-national devolution within England;

(d) codification of the constitution.

(6) The Constitutional Convention shall engage in widespread consultation across the nations and regions of the UK, and must provide a report to both Houses of Parliament by 31 March 2016.

(7) The Secretary of State must lay before both Houses of Parliament a formal response to each recommendation of the Constitutional Convention within four months of the publication of the final report from the Constitutional Convention.’

This New Clause provides an outline for a Constitutional Convention selected from the widest possible number of groups in society to analyse and design future governance arrangements for the United Kingdom, and to report by 31 March 2016.

New clause 3—Transfer of reserved matters—

‘(1) Schedule 5 (which defines reserved matters) to the Scotland Act 1998, has effect with the following modifications.

(2) In Part I (general reservations) omit paragraph 6 (political parties).

(3) Part II (specific reservations) is omitted.

(4) Insert Part IIA (UK pensions liability) as follows—

Part IIA

UK Pensions liability

The consent of the Treasury is required before the enactment of any provision passed by the Scottish Parliament which would affect the liabilities of the National Insurance Fund in respect of old age pensions.”

(5) In Part III (general provisions) the following provisions referring to Part II of the Schedule are omitted—

(a) paragraph 3(2);

(b) paragraph 4(2)(c).’

This Amendment would allow the Scottish Parliament to make provision for the registration and funding of political parties, but would otherwise retain the Part I reserved matters covering the constitution, foreign affairs, public service, defence and treason. It would entirely remove the remaining reservations over financial and economic matters, home affairs, trade and industry, energy, transport, social security, regulation of the professions, employment, health and medicines, media and culture and other miscellaneous matters. The consent of the Treasury would be needed for any changes in old age pensions which would affect the liabilities of the National Insurance Fund.

New clause 6—Constitution of Scotland—

‘(1) The 1998 Scotland Act shall be cited as The Written Constitution of Scotland.

(2) A standing Scottish Constitutional Convention shall be convened jointly by the Secretary of State and the Scottish Ministers to conduct reviews and to make recommendations to the Scottish Parliament and the Parliament of the United Kingdom.’

The New Clause renames the Scotland Act 1998 and introduces a standing Scottish Constitutional Convention.

New clause 7—Application of the Parliament Acts to the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government—

‘(1) The Parliament Act 1911 is amended as follows.

(2) In subsection 2(1), after “other than a Money Bill”, insert “or a Bill amending sections 1 or 2 of the Scotland Act 2015.’

The New Clause entrenches the permanence of the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government by ensuring that changing Clauses 1 and 2 of the Bill once enacted would be possible only with the consent of both Houses of Parliament.

New clause 8—Scottish Parliament nomination of members of the House of Lords—

‘(1) The Scottish Parliament shall nominate members for appointment to the House of Lords, in a method to be determined wholly by the Scottish Parliament.

(2) The number of members of the House of Lords appointed in accordance with this section shall at any time be in broadly the same proportion to the total membership of the House of Lords as the population of Scotland is to the total population of the United Kingdom.’

The New Clause would require the Scottish Parliament to nominate members to sit in the House of Lords in proportion to Scotland’s share of the United Kingdom population.

New clause 9—Constitutional convention—

‘(1) Within one month of the day on which this Act is passed, a constitutional convention is to be held to consider and make recommendations on the constitution of the United Kingdom.

(2) The Secretary of State must make regulations to—

(a) appoint a day on which the convention must commence its operations,

(b) make fair and transparent rules about how the convention is to operate and how evidence is to be adduced,

(c) make further provision about the terms of reference prescribed under section 2, and

(d) specify how those who are to be part of the convention are to be chosen in accordance with subsection (8).

(3) The date appointed under subsection (2)(a) must not be later than 31 December 2016.

(4) A statutory instrument containing regulations under subsection (2), if made without a draft having been approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament, is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.

(5) The convention shall have the following terms of reference—

(a) the devolution of legislative and fiscal competence to and within Scotland and the rest of the UK,

(b) the devolution of legislative and fiscal competence to local authorities within the United Kingdom,

(c) electoral reform,

(d) constitutional matters to be considered in further conventions, and

(e) procedures to govern the consideration and implementation of any future constitutional reforms.

(6) The convention must publish recommendations within the period of one year beginning with the day appointed under subsection (2)(a).

(7) The Secretary of State must lay responses to each of the recommendations from the convention before each House of Parliament within six months beginning with the day on which the recommendations are published.

(8) The convention must be composed of representatives of the following—

(a) all registered political parties within the United Kingdom,

(b) civic society and local authorities of the nations and regions of the United Kingdom.’

The New Clause would require the appointment of a convention to review the operation of the Act resulting from the Scotland Bill in the wider context of the Union.

Amendment 1, in clause 63, page 67, line 24, leave out paragraph (a).

This amendment provides that section 1 will not come into force on the day on which the Act is passed, in order to link the commencement of Part 1 of the Act (Constitutional arrangements) with the work of the Constitutional Convention, outlined in New Clause NC2, which would be required to report by 31 March 2016.

Amendment 2, page 67, line 26, at end insert—

‘(1A) Part 1 comes into force within one month of the publication of the report of the Constitutional Convention appointed under section (Constitutional Convention).”

This amendment provides that Part 1 of the Act (Constitutional arrangements) comes into force after publication of the report of the Constitutional Convention, as outlined in New Clause NC2, which would be required to report by 31 March 2016.

[Mr Carmichael]

Amendments 16, 17 and 18 are essentially probing amendments, authored by the Law Society of Scotland. Subject to the response that we hear from Ministers and from those in other parts of the House, it is not my intention to seek to press them to a Division.

The amendments change the nature of clause 1 from one that recognises the permanence of the Scottish Parliament to one that declares it. The genesis of the clause was the Smith commission report, which required that there should be a statement in the legislation to follow it that the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government were permanent institutions. The form of words in clause 1 was inserted by the draft clauses published at the end of January, which recognised that permanence. The permanence of the Scottish Parliament is to be found not in any amendment or statutory enactment, but in the will of the Scottish people. It is a permanent institution because, frankly, it is unthinkable that it would be repealed at this point. For that reason, and given the comments of the Scottish Parliament’s Devolution (Further Powers) Committee, it is right that we should revisit the issue.

At the heart of this debate is the issue and the definition of sovereignty. The context is a classic Diceyan definition of sovereignty, which says that Parliament here is sovereign. Although matters have moved on somewhat over the years and although it remains the case that Parliament cannot bind its successors, it is undoubtedly the case that since the European Communities Act 1972 we have taken a different view of parliamentary sovereignty, one in which sovereignty is shared with the European Union, as it now is, in Brussels, the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly, the Northern Ireland Assembly and even the London Assembly. It was the subject of considerable debate during the constitutional convention back in the late 1980s and early 1990s.

The view that was taken then, which as I recall was contained in the claim of right, was that in Scotland the Diceyan version of sovereignty—that Parliament is sovereign—has never been the case, and that sovereignty has always been vested in and remained with the people of Scotland. From that point of view, I see considerable merit in amendment 58 in the name of the hon. Member for Moray (Angus Robertson) and his colleagues in the Scottish National party, requiring that if there were ever to be a repeal of the Scotland Act 1998 it could be done only with the consent of a majority voting in a referendum. That honours and respects the view that sovereignty lies with the people in Scotland.

However, even that clause could be got around by a simple repeal, a consequence of the doctrine that Parliament cannot bind its successors. As long as we try to do these things by way of primary legislation, we will keep tying ourselves up in knots and any solution that we bring forward will lack permanence and will be unsatisfactory.