Scotland Bill

Mark Durkan Excerpts

Monday 15th June 2015 Commons Chamber

[David Mundell]

It is not a change to how things are normally done, but a change to how they are set out on the face of legislation. As part of the Smith process, it was clear that people wanted the convention set out in the Bill, but I do not accept that they want a change to the convention as envisaged by Lord Sewel.

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

Surely not even the Smith commission wanted mere commentary to be dressed up as a clause. That is all clause 2 is—mere commentary. There is no binding or cogent constitutional governance in it.

[David Mundell]

I answered the hon. Gentleman’s questions when he was part of the Constitutional and Political Reform Committee, and I understand the strength of his views, but it was the view of the Smith commission that the convention should be set out in such a Bill, which is what the UK Government are doing. It is a fundamental principle of United Kingdom constitutional law that the United Kingdom Parliament is a sovereign legislature. The people of Scotland voted last September to remain part of that United Kingdom. Therefore, it is right that this Parliament, while respecting the Scottish Parliament and its right to legislate, continues to be able to legislate for all matters without restriction on its sovereignty.

Furthermore, I believe amendment 56 is unnecessary. The Bill adopts the language that formed the basis of the Sewel convention. When Lord Sewel said that he would

“expect a convention to be established that Westminster would not normally legislate with regard to devolved matters in Scotland without the consent of the Scottish Parliament”,

he did not intend his words to carry a technical meaning. The same expectation exists in clause 2. The wording used will take the convention’s ordinary English language meaning.

The Smith commission recommended that the Sewel convention be put on a statutory footing—no more, no less. That is what the Bill seeks to achieve. Accepting amendment 56 would be to go further than was recommended, radically alter how the convention was intended to operate, and attempt to limit the authority of the UK Parliament. For those reasons, I urge hon. Members to resist it.

Amendments 41 and 45 seek to make additional stipulations to the Sewel convention. I reiterate that the Bill already establishes that the UK Parliament will not normally legislate with regard to devolved matters without the consent of the Scottish Parliament. That convention operates effectively at present. The amendments would add unnecessary bureaucracy to the procedure. I do not believe that the statutory requirements that would be placed on Members of the UK Parliament by the amendments would add any value to a process that operates well, and that is being placed on a statutory footing by the Bill.

On amendments 19 and 20, and new clause 10, as I have said, the Bill adopts the language that formed the basis of the Sewel convention. As I said in previous remarks, when Lord Sewel said that he would

“expect a convention to be established that Westminster would not normally legislate with regard to devolved matters in Scotland without the consent of the Scottish Parliament”,

he did not intend those words to carry a technical meaning. We have established that the Bill clearly states that the UK Parliament

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

That is what the well-established Sewel convention does, and it has been consistently adhered to by successive UK Governments. We have had more than 15 years of good practice of the convention. It has not been breached. In the context of my earlier remarks, I do not accept that it could be. I believe that that current good practice will continue.

The hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen) referred to the Government’s plan to reform the Human Rights Act and its incompatibility with the devolution settlements. Amendment 5, which he tabled, would make it more difficult for the UK Parliament to repeal the Act. Let me be clear about the Government’s intentions: we are committed to human rights and have pledged to bring forward proposals for a Bill of Rights. The protection of human rights is vital in a modern and democratic society. This Government will be as committed as any to upholding those human rights. The purpose of a Bill of Rights is not the diminution of rights, but to reform and modernise our system, and to restore credibility to the human rights legal framework.

The Government know that our proposals for reform are likely to be significant. As such, we will consult widely on the reforms. We are aware of the potential devolution implications of reform and will engage with the devolved Administrations as we develop proposals. We are currently developing our proposals and it would not be sensible to prejudge that process at this stage through the amendment. I hope the hon. Gentleman reconsiders his statement that he wishes to press it to a Division.

I believe I have addressed all the proposals. The Government are not persuaded by them at this stage but, as I have indicated, I will discuss the report of the Scottish Parliament Devolution (Further Powers) Committee when we meet next week.

Scotland Bill

Mark Durkan Excerpts

Monday 8th June 2015 Commons Chamber

[Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

I am pleased to have the opportunity to contribute to this debate on a significant piece of constitutional legislation—the next step in a process we have been witnessing since at least 1997, when the first steps to a devolved Scottish Parliament were put in place.

It will come as no surprise to the House that I take a close personal interest in this Bill, as a Scot by birth and upbringing who has lived in England for many decades. Not only is it important to me personally for that reason, but it is important to many of my constituents who share exactly the same family experience. These families have lived, and continue to live, on both sides of the border, and they feel an emotional and physical attachment to England and Scotland as a result of their history and their lives today. We have, again, heard from other Members who share that family experience, including in at least two maiden speeches—those of the hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Alberto Costa) and my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Ruth Smeeth). They, too, described exactly that experience, which is very common in this country of people who have strong family links and histories in both England and Scotland—and indeed in other parts of the UK.

The Bill is not only important to families across the UK, but it is an important financial, political and constitutional settlement that needs therefore to be fair to people in all parts of the UK. Clearly, there is cross-party support for the Smith commission principles and for the idea of greater devolution. This is a great opportunity for people in Scotland to tackle the poverty and inequality that still pertain in that country. It is very much one that I hope we will be able to replicate in my part of the country in the devolution settlement we achieve for Greater Manchester. But that cross-party support for devolution sits alongside our wish for the continued ability to pool and share risks and resources, and nowhere is that more important than in relation to welfare provision, where it is key that costs and risks must be fairly shared.

There has been much discussion this evening of the extent to which this Bill gives effect to the intentions of the Smith commission. Smith said that there should be “complete autonomy” over devolved benefits. We heard tonight concerns that, in practice, the UK Government will now be able to veto that autonomy, and questions were asked about what that would mean in practice and how things would operate.

It is important to say to those who speak for complete autonomy and expect that that would not involve a degree of negotiation and consultation between the two Governments that we must recognise the huge scale and challenge of the operational change the Department for Work and Pensions is facing now on welfare. Indeed, it is now in a state of perpetual revolution, which makes such negotiation necessary. It will not help people in Scotland or in England or Wales if the stability and resilience of our welfare systems is put at risk by an insistence on impractical solutions. Equally, however, the Bill’s wording as to what we mean by this process of consultation and this notion of veto is unhelpfully woolly. I hope there will be an opportunity to tighten it up in Committee.

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

Given the hon. Lady’s caution, what does she think of the example in Northern Ireland? On paper, the Northern Ireland Assembly has legislative power, but Westminster has basically said, “Unless you pass a karaoke version of our legislation, we will interfere in the rest of your Budget and create a Budget crisis.” That situation is now creating a political crisis.

Oral Answers to Questions

Mark Durkan Excerpts

Wednesday 9th November 2011 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend has a great record in pushing forward that absolutely vital idea. It is a tragic fact that so many couples break up after the arrival of the first child because of all the stresses and strains that can bring. That is dreadful for those couples and dreadful for those children. We spend a huge amount as a country dealing with the problems of social breakdown; in my view we should spend more on trying to help to keep families together. Relationship advice and support, as he says, is absolutely vital in that.

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

Q8. On Friday the UN Security Council will consider the democratically conveyed Palestinian request for full membership of the UN. Might not the international community do more to advance the prospect of a two-state solution by doing more to create a two-state process? In that context, will he ensure that the UK representative casts a positive vote on Friday, and does not go for the cop-out of abstention?

[The Prime Minister]

My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary will make a full statement to the House on this issue in a few moments, but let me say this: the British Government are fully behind the two-state solution, but I profoundly believe that we will get that not through declarations and processes at the UN, but through the two potential states—Israel and Palestine—sitting down and negotiating. All our efforts should go towards helping to make that happen.

Oral Answers to Questions

Mark Durkan Excerpts

Wednesday 9th March 2011 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I am delighted to say that a huge number of councils have done that. I think it was right to announce a freeze in council tax, which will bring real help to households across the country, saving the average family up to £72 a year at a time when they face difficulties with the cost of living. That compares, as my hon. Friend said, with a doubling of council tax under the last Government. As to whether they have learned any lessons from that, I have to say that Labour’s shadow Local Government Minister, the hon. Member for Derby North (Chris Williamson) attacked this freeze as

“nothing more than a gimmick”.—[Official Report, 17 January 2011; Vol. 521, c. 531.]

Yet it is bringing relief to hard-pressed families up and down our country and it is absolutely the right policy.

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

Is the Prime Minister aware of a commitment in the programme for government of the coalition Government who are taking office in Dublin today to move to an opt-out system for organ donation? As well as whatever consideration his Government might give to that proposal, will the Prime Minister undertake to work with all other Administrations in these islands through the British-Irish Council to increase the number of organ donors and to improve networks for sourcing and sharing donor organs and transplant services for people who need that life-saving and life-changing treatment?

[The Prime Minister]

I will certainly agree to do that. It is important that we try to increase the amount of organs available for donation. In the last Parliament, there was a debate about whether we should move formally to an opt-out system, and there are difficulties with that, but there is a huge gap between where we are now and a formal opt-out system, in encouraging patients and talking to them about what can be done. I am sure that we can make steps forward, and my right hon. Friend the Health Secretary will do that.