Scotland Bill

Pete Wishart Excerpts

Tuesday 21st June 2011 Commons Chamber

[Ann McKechin]

If the First Minister had anything sensible to say, I would, but as yet, I have not heard it. It is a bit like the corporation tax issue—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil) needs to calm himself and not get over-excited. The Scottish Government have had many weeks to produce detailed analysis. They have complained that things have been rushed and that we have not had figures from the UK Government on a variety of issues throughout the passage of this Bill, yet they cannot produce the detailed evidence and analysis that would allow people in Scotland to judge whether their calls have validity.

The hon. Member for Dundee East was given five opportunities this evening to explain what the impact would be on Scottish public expenditure if there was a cut in corporation tax. He said in Committee:

“I would like it cut over a number of years”.—[Official Report, 14 March 2011; Vol. 525, c. 70.]

Members may be interested to hear that that has not always been the Scottish National party’s policy on corporation tax. In 1988, a certain Alex Salmond was suspended as an MP from the House of Commons for attacking the Tory Government’s reduction in corporation tax.

[Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for the history lesson. Is this what we are going to get from the Labour party for the next few years? I want to encourage her, because the negativity and can’t-do attitude that has permeated the Labour party is partly responsible for the overwhelming defeat that it suffered at the Scottish elections. Please carry on.

[Ann McKechin]

If that is the level of intellectual debate that we can anticipate from the Scottish Government and their colleagues at Westminster over the next five years, I think Scotland will be in a pretty poor state. Of course, we now have a hierarchy in the Scottish Government depending on whether one is a good Scot or a bad Scot. That is a level of debate that extends even up to judges in the Supreme Court.

If corporation tax was cut in Scotland, public spending would have to be cut in line with it, as we have heard today. The hon. Member for Dundee East suggested that the Scottish Government would take the power, but apply the same rate. That suggests that the power would not provide any benefit or disbenefit, except that they would have to administer the tax at a cost. At some point in the future, they would then apply the tax.

There are questions to which people in Scotland want answers. By how much would the Scottish Government cut corporation tax? The hon. Gentleman spent 42 minutes talking this evening and did not confirm that figure once. What would be the time scale for the cut in corporation tax? Would it be done over two years, three years or four years? We do not know. That is despite the fact that the Treasury, in its evidence to the Scotland Bill Committee in Holyrood in March, stated:

“A 10% cut in corporation tax in Scotland might cost about £600 million per year for an indeterminate period.”

That is understandable given the maturity of the Scottish economy and, as the Exchequer Secretary mentioned tonight, the many large plcs that already have their registered offices in Scotland. Even Northern Ireland’s First Minister, Peter Robinson, believes that Northern Ireland is a special case and has warned Alex Salmond that Scotland could lose up to £1.5 billion if it follows through the bid to set its own corporation tax. Anyone would need answers to the questions I have asked if they are to decide that that is a good idea.

The SNP is reluctant to say whether it thinks Scotland should be a high-tax nation or a low-tax nation. Does it believe in high-quality, good value public services, or does it want a lower public expenditure base, which would mean fewer nurses, doctors and police? There are consequences to that. Does it want an increase in income tax? [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar chunters about scaremongering, but he has failed to answer any of those questions. He should feel free to educate us about the detail of the SNP proposals.

--- Later in debate ---

In particular, I fear for the electoral standing of my party if it continues to feel, as many do now, that the Scottish Labour party tail wags the English Labour party dog. We stand in danger of being marked indelibly as a party in England that is not prepared to protect or to promote the English question. My new clause 8, which I know others wish to support, makes a plea: that we should move as quickly as we can to a position from which those on the Treasury Bench can spell out what the basis of the allocation of the main grants between the constituent parts of the United Kingdom should be, and, if there are differences, how we can defend them to our constituents on the basis of fairness—something that they feel in their guts—which is not possible at present. If we cannot do that, we should not envisage shortly—because these Parliaments move amazingly quickly towards their close—going into a referendum debate in Scotland about independence, or not until we have spelt out those differences and the logical basis for them, and can defend them to our English constituents.

[Pete Wishart]

The right hon. Gentleman is making a thoughtful speech and a fine contribution, but I am sure that when he talks to his constituents he will want to ensure that they have the correct facts about this argument. Will he at least acknowledge that there is a debate about relative spending between the rest of the United Kingdom and Scotland? Oxford Economics, for example, found that when unidentified spending is factored in, London and Northern Ireland receive more money than Scotland. Will he at least accept that there is an argument?

[Mr Field]

I might accept that there is an argument; my plea is that the information should be set out clearly for us, so that we can understand if there are differences and, if there are, establish a basis on which they can be defended. If I manage to conclude fairly quickly, I know that there are Members on the Government Benches who have written and spoken about the need for us to move expeditiously to a needs-based formula, although we all understand that if we did that the period in which we phased in the new formula would be crucial. I am not in favour of doing things that rough people up unnecessarily; timing is important.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ann McKechin]

As we made clear on Second Reading and in Committee, Labour welcomes the Scotland Bill because we believe that it will enhance the devolution settlement. As the Secretary of State mentioned, the Bill was the consequence of a lengthy, evidence-based, serious consultative process that sought cross-party consensus from the very beginning. It reflects many of the recommendations made by the Calman commission, which was established by the then Labour Government following the direct call from the Scottish Parliament for such a group to be set up. Important issues of constitutional change should not be marked by megaphone diplomacy and a never-ending series of demands. Constitutional change must always be based on hard evidence, consensus and consultation, and it should be clearly shown how it will improve the devolution settlement. It is not, for us, a marker on the route to separation.

Labour’s position is that it is not in Scotland’s best interests for the Scottish Government to play constitutional games and demand powers. It is time to start using those they already have, and to knuckle down to the hard task of getting the Scottish economy back on track, lowering record unemployment and generally making Scotland better. Although it is all too easy in the political game to focus on process rather than on policy, the important parts of the Bill are, first, to improve legitimacy and accountability to the Scottish electorate, and, secondly, to use these powers, along with the extensive range of powers granted in the Scotland Act 1998, for Scotland’s benefit.

I would like to spend a little time discussing the Supreme Court new clauses, which unfortunately we did not have time to discuss this evening, and which were not available in Committee. We welcome the fact that the Government did, as we requested, table the new clauses before the Commons stages were completed, and obviously we will want to discuss them in more detail when they reach the House of Lords, but I would like to put on the record what principles should be followed in referring cases to the Supreme Court. Labour fully agrees that the UK Supreme Court should retain a role in determining human rights and European law issues. The UK Supreme Court enables Scots to access justice without the expense and delay of having to go to Strasbourg, and without having to wait for years to have their cases heard. We believe that no one living in Scotland should have less access to the enforcement of their human rights than any other citizen living elsewhere in the UK.

Why would the Scottish Government want to make it more difficult for individuals in Scotland to access justice? Let us recall that it was a famous Scottish case to the Strasbourg Court in the 1980s that brought about the abolition of the belt in schools across the UK when the Court found in favour of two Scottish mothers, Grace Campbell and Jane Cosans. In those days, before the Human Rights Act 1998, cases took years to be heard, and in the meantime tens of thousands of children in Scotland and across the UK were belted right around the place in schools. The Human Rights Act is not about protecting bad people or about an easy escape route from jail; it is about protecting everyone from prejudice and harm.

[Pete Wishart]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her history lesson, but she will know, as the Secretary of State does, that the amendments concerning the Supreme Court are totally unacceptable to the Scottish Government, and will be unacceptable to the Scottish Parliament too. May I suggest to her and the Secretary of State that the expert group under Lord McCluskey should be allowed to do its work before anything further is done regarding the Supreme Court in this House?

[Ann McKechin]

What I would say to the hon. Gentleman is that we are aware that the McCluskey review is ongoing, and we will wish to consider its conclusions carefully when it reports. We will return to further analysis of the report in the Lords, which I hope will be available by the time this Bill reaches the other place.

We cannot continue this evening without mentioning the extraordinary attack that the First Minister and his Secretary for Justice made on both the Supreme Court and individual Scottish judges who sit in it, when they stated that the UK courts should have no jurisdiction in Scottish criminal cases. Let us be clear: no one is attacking the right for Scotland to retain its unique criminal legal system—I declare an interest, as a non-practising member of the Law Society of Scotland. However, on the other hand, those attacks smack of a political establishment that is too ready to attack anyone who dares to contradict its mantra, rather than one that is prepared robustly to tackle institutional complacency. It is entirely demeaning to Scotland’s international reputation when Scotland’s leading politician uses the language of the playground bully when describing the key relationship between the Executive and the judiciary. Mr MacAskill has referred to the UK Supreme Court as an “ambulance-chasing court”, despite it hearing on average only one Scottish case a year since devolution, and he has ignored the fact—or perhaps he was totally ignorant of it—that his own Scottish Crown Office is making referrals to the very same court.

--- Later in debate ---

[Pete Wishart]

We said on Second Reading that we would seek to strengthen and improve the Bill, offer real scrutiny and support any measures that brought significant and substantial new powers to Scotland. We are pleased that, in a number of areas, this is a better Bill today than the one presented on Second Reading.

I would also like to pay tribute to many Members who participated in the debates, particularly to those who participated in the Calman commission, and to thank people for all the hard work that was done in the Scottish Parliament Bill Committee. Although we did not necessarily agree with everything that was said, I appreciated the conscientious and diligent approach to the work.

Is this the Bill that Scotland urgently requires? I have to say that, unfortunately, the answer is no. Although we have managed to secure some more job-creating powers, this Bill falls way short of the ambitions of the Scottish people as directly expressed only a few short weeks ago, and it still lacks the measures that could have helped to develop our economy and make it grow.

Some of the new provisions are, of course, welcome. We welcome the acceptance of the amendments on borrowing as well as the devolution measures on airguns, speed limits and drink-driving, which will make Scotland a safer place. However, the Unionist parties seem almost incapable of preventing themselves from making re-reservations, which are a million miles away from where the Scottish people are in questions about their constitutional future.

[Mr Russell Brown]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way; he obviously has some time left. I hope that in the next few minutes he will explain what Bill the people of Scotland are looking for.

[Pete Wishart]

I think that we had something a few weeks ago that was called an election, and manifestos were presented for it. One manifesto had plans for including job-creating powers in the Scotland Bill and the other manifesto was produced by the Calman commission parties. I think that the Scottish people made clear which direction of travel they support.

[Mr Brown]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Pete Wishart]

I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman again.

We know what the Scottish people want when it comes to such matters. I was disappointed to hear what was almost a rant from the hon. Member for Glasgow North (Ann McKechin). Members’ personal attacks on the First Minister suggest that they have learnt absolutely nothing. Negativity does not win elections, but we hear continued, incessant negativity.

[Sir Robert Smith (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Pete Wishart]

I do not have time to give way.

I can only ask Members to continue down that route so that we can continue to secure victories such as the one we secured only a few short weeks ago.

[Sir Robert Smith]

rose—

[Pete Wishart]

I have only 10 minutes left.

The Bill contains unpalatable measures that are totally unacceptable to the Scottish Government, and which were aired a moment ago, concerning the Supreme Court.

[Sir Robert Smith]

rose—

[Pete Wishart]

I will give way, for the very last time.

[Sir Robert Smith]

The hon. Gentleman spoke of a personal attack on his leader from the Opposition Front Bench. Does he not think that the head of a Government in a proper, modern, functioning democracy should show respect for the courts, which protect the individual citizen from abuse of power by the state?

[Pete Wishart]

I am almost grateful to the hon. Gentleman, because he has referred to a measure I want to deal with. The measure relating to the Supreme Court that was passed today is totally unacceptable to the Scottish Government, and will be unacceptable to the Scottish Parliament as well. When the last Scottish Parliament Bill Committee considered the Government’s proposals, even that Unionist-led Committee did not see fit to pass them. I do not think that a new Scottish Parliament Bill Committee will be any better disposed towards them.

Had I been given an opportunity to debate the issue, I would have suggested a sunset clause, so that nothing could be done until the expert group in the Scottish Parliament finishes its work under Lord McCluskey. That is the time for us to discuss how to resolve what is a real issue.

[Sir Menzies Campbell]

rose—

[Pete Wishart]

I have said that I will not give way again, and I will not, even to the right hon. and learned Gentleman. Others wish to speak.

There are real difficulties, but the solution offered by the Secretary of State will not be acceptable to the Scottish Parliament. The most critical aspect of the Bill, however, involves not the unpalatable measures that we have discussed today, but the measures that the Bill omits: measures for which the Scottish people voted when the Bill was last considered by the Scottish Parliament. What they want are job-creating powers and control over the Crown Estates so that we can further the renewables revolution in Scotland.

Given our mandate, the Scottish National party will revisit those issues in the future. On balance, however, we accept that the Bill contains substantial new powers, and we will not oppose its Third Reading.

I suppose that we can look at the Bill in two stages—pre and post its testing by the Scottish people. The Calman parties stood on their record and presented it as a major constitutional issue when they fought the election, while the Scottish National party stood on a programme involving the creation of new jobs and powers for the Scottish Parliament. The Scottish people gave the Scottish National party an overwhelming mandate to pursue that agenda, and we will continue to present the case for real job-creating powers. We will not be satisfied until we have those powers in the Scottish Parliament.

The Bill will now go to the House of Lords before it is returned to the Scottish Parliament for a further legislative consent motion. I say to the Secretary of State and the Government—

[Jim Sheridan]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Pete Wishart]

I will not give way again. I say to the Secretary of State—

[Jim Sheridan]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Pete Wishart]

I am not going to give way to the hon. Gentleman. Must I say that a third time?

I say to the Secretary of State that he should not use the fact that there are no Scottish National party members in the House of Lords to introduce any further unpalatable measures, because that would be totally unacceptable. It is democratically elected Members who should decide the fate of our nation, not unelected appointees, donors and cronies.

[Jim Sheridan]

rose—

[Pete Wishart]

I am not going to give way to the hon. Gentleman. As he is standing right next to me, I do not know why he cannot hear me.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Jim Sheridan) must resume his seat.

[Pete Wishart]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. It takes a long time for Members to understand that I am not going to give way.

Once the Bill has completed its passage in the House of Lords it will return to the Scottish Parliament, and a further legislative consent motion will be required because of the many amendments passed by the House of Commons. I know that colleagues in all parties in the Scottish Parliament will want to look closely at a number of those amendments, and I know that the Secretary of State and the House will respect the views of the Scottish Parliament. I know they will accept that the Scottish Government have a massive mandate.

Many Members have talked about this being part of the devolution story, and it is. This is the second major Bill on devolution to have come before the House. The devolution story will continue to unfold, and we will continue to go down that road, but a new story is now also starting to emerge. It is about a new journey that Scotland is about to embark upon, because at some point over the next few years we will have a proper referendum on the future of Scotland—a proper, constitutional referendum that will be about independence, and I am absolutely sure that the Scottish people will make the right choice and that Scotland will once again join the nations of the world.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—