Oral Answers to Questions
Pete Wishart Excerpts(9 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
David Mundell
I agree with my right hon. Friend. He may be aware that my colleague John Lamont MSP has been making exactly that call.
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)
As we await the dualling of the A1, has the Minister heard of the success of the average speed cameras on the A9? Accidents have been cut by 97%, speeding is down by 90% and the road experience has been totally transformed. Will he now get his right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury to abandon his reckless and irresponsible campaign to take those cameras down and put my constituents at risk once again?
Mr Speaker
Order. I think I was very generous. The hon. Gentleman started banging on about the A9, rather than the A1, but we will let him off on this occasion.
Scottish Representation in the Union
Pete Wishart Excerpts(9 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Carmichael
Those matters would, of course, have to be considered by the House before it countenanced a change to Standing Orders of the sort that I have outlined. The example about the Greens would have to be taken into account and it might determine the size of any such Committee. I say to my hon. Friend gently that this House has tackled many bigger conundrums and challenges than that, and we have shown ourselves to be equal to the task. Although his point is legitimate and thoughtful, I do not see it as a barrier to a change of the sort that my party favours.
It might be helpful to add a little context to the question of Scotland’s representation in the Union, so I will briefly remind the House of the recent constitutional events that brought us here. On 18 September, the people in Scotland voted to secure Scotland’s place in the United Kingdom and to keep the advantages of the UK pound, UK pensions, UK armed forces, and a strong UK voice in the world. They voted for the strength and security that the United Kingdom provides through our single domestic market, our social union, and our ability to pool and share risks. However, people in Scotland were also clear that they wanted change. They wanted a strengthened, more accountable Scottish Parliament, with more decisions that affect Scotland being made in Scotland. The United Kingdom Government made a commitment to delivering the vow made by the three party leaders—in respect of which the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath made such a decisive intervention—and to delivering further powers to the Scottish Parliament early after the next general election. Despite the ambitious time scale, all deadlines in the vow have been met.
Immediately following the independence referendum, the Prime Minister established the Smith commission as an independent body to convene cross-party talks on further powers for the Scottish Parliament. The heads of agreement were published before St Andrew’s day, in line with our commitment, and were welcomed by the UK Government. The next stage of our commitment was to publish draft legislation, setting out what the agreement would look like in law in advance of Burns night. Two weeks ago, ahead of schedule, the Government published the draft clauses with an accompanying Command Paper.
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)
The Secretary of State has got part of his history wrong, because since the vow there is now the vow plus that has been advocated by the Labour party. We are in a constant state of flux and constitutional change in Scotland. Where do the Government see it ending? We have the vow plus from Labour, but what is the view of the UK Government?
Mr Carmichael
I thought I was making a mistake in giving way, and I am afraid the hon. Gentleman’s question confirms that. His party did a brave thing in taking part in the Smith commission—for the first time ever, it was an historic moment to get all five parties from the Scottish Parliament around one table. He was part of that consensus; perhaps he did not like it and was one of those who put pressure on John Swinney and others to run away from the settlement that they had just signed up to.
Rather than coming up with such points, the hon. Gentleman would do better first to calm down and relax a little, and he could then tell the House what he and his party will do with the powers that will come to the Scottish Parliament as a result of the Smith commission. One thing he does not want to accept is that as a result of the Smith commission, Scotland will have the third most powerful devolved Parliament anywhere in the world. A tremendous amount of good can be done with the powers that will be given to the Scottish Parliament, and that is where the debate ought to be, rather than the constant whinge about vows or vows plus.
Constitutional Law
Pete Wishart Excerpts(9 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Margaret Curran (Glasgow East) (Lab)
On the day that Scottish Labour has set out how we will enhance the vow in our home rule Bill if and when we are elected, it is fitting that we are debating, for the first time since the Smith agreement, powers to be transferred to the Scottish Parliament.
It is worth reminding the House of how we have reached this stage. The result of the referendum on 18 September was emphatic. The call for change was equally significant, and it was a call that we heard. Labour promised people safer, faster, better change with a no vote in September, and that is exactly what we have delivered. The cross-party Smith agreement reached just 10 weeks after the referendum vote was the first time that all Scotland’s parties had reached that degree of consensus on new powers for Scotland. The Smith agreement gives Scotland modern home rule, with extensive new powers over jobs, tax and welfare, and that is what we will legislate for if we are in power after May. Today’s discussion and agreement of this order should be another demonstration to the people of Scotland that the vow has been delivered and that we are standing true to the word we gave during the referendum campaign. The timetable set out by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown) has been met.
As the Secretary of State explained, the order deals specifically with the power that was promised in section 25 of the final report of the Smith commission—namely, that control of the franchise for Scottish Parliament elections be transferred to the Scottish Parliament. Last year, Labour Members called for these powers to be brought forward quickly, and we are pleased that the Government are now doing so. As the Secretary of State said, it is obviously for the Scottish Parliament then to determine what the franchise should be, but it is clear that all the parties at Holyrood will support the lowering of the voting age to 16. It is right that we are debating these powers today so that we can give a guarantee that 16-and-17 year olds will be able to vote in the next Scottish Parliament elections in 2016. I hope that the Scottish Government will move to ensure that those same young people are able to vote a year later in Scottish local government elections.
Too many people, too often, are cynical about our young people, but the referendum campaign in Scotland showed many of them at their very best, engaging with politics, getting involved in the campaign, and participating in record numbers in debates in schools and college across Scotland. I am sure that many hon. Members can pay tribute to the debates held in their constituencies during the referendum campaign. The young people in my constituency of Glasgow East were a great credit to the referendum campaign and, in particular, to their schools. They organised very balanced debates to inform themselves and encourage participation.
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)
The hon. Lady is obviously going to congratulate the Scottish Government on introducing votes for 16 and 17-year-olds; I am sure she is getting round to that. What I remember about the debate on giving votes to 16 and 17-year-olds is a lot of whingeing and whining by Labour Members telling the Scottish Government that it could not be done and finding all sorts of reasons why it would not be possible. Does she not recall any of that?
Margaret Curran
I hope that the hon. Gentleman, who perhaps has the greatest expertise in whingeing, will join me in paying tribute to those involved in the Smith commission for bringing this forward. If we all agree on something, let us for once stress the fact and say, “Isn’t it good that we’re all agreed on this progress for Scotland?”
Research by the Electoral Commission has shown that about 75% of 16 and 17-year-olds voted in the referendum—a very high proportion considering that it was the first vote to which they were entitled. I hope that we can speak positively about those young people and be constructive in our comments as we welcome this landmark for 16 and 17-year-olds in our country. I recognise the positive energy and enthusiasm that those young people brought to the referendum and can now, I hope, bring to Scottish elections as well. It does not matter whether they voted yes or no; what matters is that they participated, and that is something we want to encourage. What matters is that with this order, and with the actions that the Scottish Parliament will take, we can strengthen our democracy and increase democratic participation.
The changes that we are discussing have very broad support in Scotland. They have been welcomed by a large body of pressure groups and organisations representing young people, including the Scottish Parliament’s cross-party group on children and young people, Young Scot, LGBT Youth Scotland, Children in Scotland, the Scottish Youth Parliament, and the Scottish Trades Union Congress. As Young Scot said in its statement calling for votes at 16 in Scotland,
“Scotland will be viewed as a world leader by fully engaging and empowering its 16 and 17 year olds as fully franchised citizens active in the political life of the country.”
As has been the case in the past, Scotland can lead the way on this change and show that our young people have what it takes to engage in our democratic process. However, as was indicated earlier, Labour Members would go much further. The order meets the agreement made in the Smith commission on votes at 16 and 17 in Scotland, but we believe that there should not be two-tier voting across the country. As the Secretary of State said in response to questions from my hon. Friends, it is reasonable to ask, as my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North West (John Robertson) did at Prime Minister’s questions, when we will get the opportunity to pursue this policy. If the Prime Minister indicated that there would be a vote, it is reasonable for the Government to say when it is likely to take place. If our young people in Scotland have what it takes to decide the future of their country in the referendum and, soon, the shape of the Scottish Government, they also have what it takes to decide the shape of the UK Government. That is why Labour would extend the franchise in all UK elections so that 16 and 17-year-olds can also vote in general elections. Taking a lead from Scotland, Labour would extend votes at 16 and 17 to the other devolved Administrations, English local government and the London Assembly, truly empowering young people across the United Kingdom. It is about time that our young people were given a voice, regardless of the type of election or where in this country they live. As I said, the Prime Minister was recently forced to concede that.
It is welcome that the Secretary of State has brought forward this order and that we are delivering these powers ahead of the general election, honouring the commitment given during the Smith agreement. I have raised with him several times the possibility of extending this principle to other areas of the Smith agreement, notably the devolution of employability support. I again push him to listen to Labour’s calls for immediate devolution in that regard and to bring an order to this House to achieve that. He has shown his competence in introducing this order; perhaps he could extend that to an order on employability support. Flattery does not seem to be having any impact on him, but it was worth a try, and I will keep trying. Devolving these powers should not wait until after the election. They are another step towards delivering the modern home rule that was at the heart of the Smith agreement. That is indeed the first step in delivering more powers for Scotland. Labour’s home rule Bill, which we intend to introduce in the first 100 days of the next Labour Government, will give Scotland the full powers it needs, as agreed during the Smith commission and announced today. We thank the Secretary of State for bringing this order before the House today, and give it our full support.
Angus Robertson
The hon. Gentleman makes a good point, although widening the franchise will make that much easier for future generations, through engagement in schools, through modern studies, and with political parties and local representatives. That will help to join up, in a much more tangible way, the political world with what happens in schools. However, he points out the challenge of those age cohorts who have not had that experience, and we all need to work hard to bridge that gap.
By enfranchising 16 and 17-year-olds, we can encourage schools to hold political debate and involve democratically elected representatives. Some schools have concerns about managing the process fairly, but it is not beyond the wit of those schools to do so, and as we know—because we attended many of these events—it works. All of us, having gone through the referendum experience, will want to ensure it is not a one-off. That we can do it for Scottish Parliament elections is great; that it will happen for local government elections is fantastic; that it will not happen for Westminster elections is shameful.
I note that there are two Conservative Members in the Chamber. I observe that 58 of the 59 Members from Scotland belong to political parties that support lowering the voting age in Westminster elections, yet it is not happening. It is for Conservative Members to reflect on what message it sends to people in Scotland when yet again decisions are being made, or rather when progress is not being made because there is not a willingness to recognise the democratic wishes of people in Scotland.
It is unimaginable now that we might go back to a situation in which 16 and 17-year-olds could not vote. I shall spare the blushes of some people in Scottish politics, and not quote their words in the run-up to the referendum.
Angus Robertson
My hon. Friend encourages me. I shall give one quote. The Scottish Secretary’s predecessor told the Press Association on 19 February:
“Sixteen and 17-year-olds should be barred from voting in a referendum on independence for Scotland.”
It was inexplicable—now it just sounds ridiculous. Why on earth would he say such a thing? I have no idea. Once we have lowered the voting age, nobody will argue that it was not the sensible thing to do. When this place finally gets round to lowering the voting age for 16 and 17-year-olds in Scotland and the rest of the UK, I shall be all in favour of it. It will play a part in reconnecting younger people in society with the political process, which over time will lead to a reconnection with the whole of society.
Pete Wishart
I am sure my hon. Friend is doing all he can to spare the blushes of our Labour colleagues regarding some of their comments in advance of this order. Does he agree, however, that we now have to work together—it is great that the Labour party has embraced this measure—and ensure that our young people get to vote in all subsequent elections, whether for Holyrood or Westminster?
Angus Robertson
My hon. Friend makes a good point. It is up to all of us. What will be in the manifestos of the political parties? If the overwhelming majority of Members returned from Scotland are in favour of lowering the voting age, that is what should happen, as should be the case with every other major policy decision.
This is a rare event in the Chamber. Almost all Scotland’s parliamentarians in this place agree on Scotland’s constitutional progress, but we should reflect on the fact that it was not always that way. It is amazing how when one moves beyond the introduction of such a measure, everyone is suddenly in favour of it—even those who only a year or two before were opposed or highly sceptical. I am really pleased that the SNP and the Scottish Government, when given the chance to put their money where their mouth was, delivered on what was promised decades ago—that younger people in Scotland should be able to vote. That should happen in all subsequent elections, for the Scottish Parliament, for local government and for the Westminster Parliament.
Pamela Nash (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for calling me to speak in this momentous debate for the young people of Scotland. I am often referred to as a young person in debates such as this because I am the youngest MP in Parliament. I feel increasingly fraudulent about that claim, however, as I must be—now in my 30s—the oldest youngest MP for quite some time! I continue to appreciate being referred to as a young person. [Interruption.] I thank hon. Members for saying that I do not look my age—and I am glad that that will now be on the record for eternity.
Today’s order will devolve the control of the franchise of the Scottish Parliament to its rightful place—the Scottish Parliament. It seems ludicrous now that that was not done at its establishment. There appears to be a consensus among the parties represented in the Scottish Parliament that the voting age should be lowered to 16. Even the Tory leader Ruth Davidson, who had previously said that she was opposed to this move has reportedly, like many others, changed her view. She said that her referendum experience of young voters had changed her mind. I look forward to her Westminster colleagues following suit. Many others previously unsure about the move to lower the voting age now concede that there is no going back after the referendum in Scotland, where we saw our young people thoughtfully and passionately engage in the debate on the future of their country.
As I say, there has been consensus, but I was disappointed by the tone adopted by the hon. Members for Moray (Angus Robertson) and, in an intervention, for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart). They seemed to be trying to seek divisions in the debate when there is cross-party support for the devolution of the power and for votes at 16 in elections for the Scottish Parliament. At the time, some did not agree that young people of 16 or 17 in Scotland should have the vote in the referendum. There will be some examples of that, of course, but my overwhelming recollections of the debate and the conversations people were having at the time was that there was support for votes at 16. There was, however, strong scepticism—even from myself, a long-term supporter of votes at 16—about the SNP’s view that the power should be devolved for the purpose of the referendum when they had not called for the franchise to be devolved previously.
Pete Wishart
The hon. Lady is, of course, right about the consensus: we all agree on all this. Surely, however, she could bring herself to acknowledge the fact that it was the Scottish Government who introduced this measure. No Labour Members have mentioned the role of the Scottish Government, and they seem reluctant to say that it was the SNP Scottish Government who introduced votes for 16 and 17-year-olds first.
Pamela Nash
I welcomed it at the time, and I congratulated the Scottish Government on it. I am happy to do so again tonight, but it was not done on their own—there was cross-party support for it at the time. I welcome the fact that they did it, but there is this overwhelming scepticism about why it had not happened in the past and that over the years of the SNP Government they had not once asked for the devolution of the franchise and the ability to lower the vote to 16. I was disappointed that it took them so long. However, I am happy that the franchise is to be devolved, and that it is the policy of my party to allow votes for 16-year-olds throughout the United Kingdom and not just in Scotland.
Let me say a little about my career before I entered the House. As some may know, I was a Member of the Scottish Youth Parliament. At that time, “Votes at 16” was a big campaign. I was very much a part of that campaign, along with the rest of the Youth Parliament, and I am still a keen campaigner today. I remember visiting for the first time, as a Member of the Youth Parliament, a class of 16 and 17-year-olds—who were not much younger than I was—at Calderhead school in Shotts, which is still my constituency. I clearly recall that, when I asked those young people whether they wanted the vote, most of them said that they did not. I have had the same experience several times since, as a Member of the Scottish Youth Parliament and also as a Member of this Parliament.
Those young people told me that they did not think they knew enough about politics and current affairs to make the decision, and also felt that many of their peers would not take it seriously. I pointed out to them that I knew people of every age who that might apply to, and that no one was suggesting that 40 and 50-year-olds should not be able to vote on political issues, or should be subjected to a competence test before being able to do so—and neither should we suggest that. People of all ages should be able to use their knowledge and experience of life to choose who they want to represent them, and in my view 16 and 17-year-olds are no less capable of doing that than those aged 18 and over.
Some people—and I have heard it in this place—use such anecdotes and polls that show that young people do not want the vote at 16 and 17 to say that they should not be given the vote. I would argue that the level of self-awareness among these young people, and their readiness to research, learn and take their votes seriously, suggests that they are more than ready to take on the responsibility of choosing their representatives—and it is a responsibility. We must remember that, and highlight it. We often discuss the right to vote, but it is not just a right; it is a responsibility as well. It is a shame that a third of people of all ages did not vote in the last general election, and I hope that that will change in the next election.
My main reason for campaigning for votes at 16 has already been mentioned by other Members in this debate. Lowering the voting age will ensure that many more young people will still be in full-time education as they prepare to cast their first votes. I hope that young people who are still at school or college will learn about the responsibility that they must take, and about the importance and impact of their votes. I hope that they will be more likely to vote because members of their peer groups will initiate conversations about the upcoming election and encourage them to participate. I agree with others that, in casting the first vote for which they are eligible, they will establish a habit for life.
We often hear about voter apathy, although the Scottish referendum was a recent exception to the rule. In fact, the turnout for the 2010 general election, especially among young people, was higher than the 2005 turnout: it rose from 38.2% to 51.8%. That represents a change in a trend that had lasted for decades. We must nurture the momentum, and encourage young people to participate fully in our electoral system.
I am delighted that we are taking this important step towards giving a vote in next year’s Scottish parliamentary elections to 16 and 17-year-olds in my constituency and throughout Scotland, and I look forward to the day when that is replicated throughout the United Kingdom.
Draft Scotland Clauses
Pete Wishart Excerpts(9 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
David Mundell
I certainly agree with the right hon. Gentleman’s final statement. We have to move the debate on, so that it is a debate about what the powers of the Scottish Parliament are used for, rather than a debate about powers, which always seems to be predicated on blaming someone else for the lack of action by the Scottish Government. I hope that today will be a watershed and that the debate in Scotland will be about what the Scottish Government are doing with the extensive powers the Scottish Parliament has and those that it is going to receive.
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)
How come the UK austerity parties are so far behind the curve when it comes to more powers for the Scottish people? The Scottish people thought that they were getting real home rule, as the right hon. Member for Gordon (Sir Malcolm Bruce) described it, or “almost federalism”, which is the phrase that was used. Instead, we have this veto-ridden document. Is not the only way the Scottish people will get the further powers they want to have more SNP MPs? That is why we are at 52% in the polls.
David Mundell
I could not disagree more with the hon. Gentleman, but he would not expect it to be otherwise. Some of the questions that he has raised today and on other occasions need to be addressed to John Swinney and Linda Fabiani, who were the SNP members of the Smith commission. If these powers were so important to them, why were they not deal-breakers in reaching the Smith agreement? Instead, they signed an agreement at 8 o’clock one night and at 8 o’clock the next morning, they set about deriding it. This agreement is what the people of Scotland voted for by a significant majority. More than 2 million people in Scotland voted for a Scottish Parliament with more powers, and that is what the draft clauses deliver.
Oral Answers to Questions
Pete Wishart Excerpts(9 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Carmichael
Indeed. This is something we hear from communities across the country in Scotland. Power in Scotland has been sucked up, particularly from local councils, and exercised at the centre by the Scottish Government. That was not how devolution was ever intended to work, and they need to change their approach.
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)
The Smith commission is not the only example of parties working together. Yesterday, we saw a fantastic example, when Scottish Labour walked through the Lobby with the Conservatives to support Conservative austerity. Does the Secretary of State envisage any other such “better together” moments coming before the next general election?
Mr Carmichael
The only remarkable thing about that is that it tells us absolutely nothing about what the SNP would do to tackle the deficit, if—heaven help us—they were ever in a position to influence it.
Smith Commission
Pete Wishart Excerpts(10 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Carmichael
I do not think there is much debate, Mr Speaker; I do not set myself up for that claim. On the Crown Estate, my hon. Friend is right: that is one of the report’s most significant proposals for our coastal and island communities. Indeed, it requires the Scottish Government, when they have devolved control of the Crown Estate, to pass it on to coastal and island communities. We all know what happens when power is devolved to Edinburgh: it tends to stick there. Scotland now has, as a result of seven years of SNP government, one of the most centralised Governments anywhere in Europe. The report mentions Orkney, Shetland and the Western Isles, as my hon. Friend says, but it begins that recommendation by referring to
“local authority areas such as”.
I think that could well include his constituency.
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)
I too welcome the Smith commission’s proposals for Scotland. [Hon. Members: “Hooray!”] I will support any process that transfers powers from unelected Tories in Scotland to the Scottish people. Does the Secretary of State even start to recognise the palpable sense of disappointment that exists in Scotland this morning, whether among Scottish people who wanted maximum devolution and expected something close to home rule following the type of talk in the run-up in the referendum, whether among those in the voluntary sector who expected the full transferral of welfare powers, or whether among those in the trade union movement who wanted real job-creating powers and say that they are underwhelmed by the proposals? While we all welcome the proposals, does he at least start to recognise the disappointment at the fact that they could have gone much further?
Mr Carmichael
I fully accept that the hon. Gentleman wants independence and always has done. That is why we had a vote. It pains me to tell him that he lost, however, and it is about time that he and his party came to terms with that. For him to try to use this process to get independence by the back door does not respect the views of the Scottish people as expressed on 18 September. It is perhaps about time that he thought he has a duty to speak for the 60.19% of his own constituents who rejected independence on 18 September.
Mr Carmichael
I apologise for missing the early part of the hon. Gentleman’s question because of the constant sotto voce commentary from the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart).
Mr Carmichael
Did I say it was sotto voce? It seems to have ratcheted up a little. The hon. Gentleman had his chance when he was called by you, Mr Speaker.
The hon. Member for Glasgow North West (John Robertson) is absolutely right. This is a time to heal the divisions and bring the people of Scotland together. We had a vote, prior to which we said we would deliver change and today we have told the people of Scotland what that change will be. It is time to get together and use the powers that the Scottish Parliament has and will get, and to use them for the good of the Scottish people and the Scottish economy.
UK Government: Scotland
Pete Wishart Excerpts(10 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Gordon Brown (Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath) (Lab)
I have a petition to present to the House—signed by 120,000 people in Scotland, yes voters and no voters in the referendum alike—which shows that people are determined that the vow made by all the three main party leaders on the Tuesday before the referendum is kept. It was organised by 38 Degrees, whom I congratulate on its initiative. Its preamble regrets, and indeed opposes, the Prime Minister’s attempt on the day after the referendum to amend the vow on Scotland’s future, and asks him to keep to his original vow free of any new conditions.
Today’s debate becomes even more relevant after what the Leader of the House—I am pleased that he is with us in the Chamber—said on Tuesday when he made it clear that he intends to move ahead with what he called English votes for English laws. In my brief speech, I want to show that that would in effect reduce the rights of Scottish representatives at Westminster. I am grateful to the Secretary of State, who is also with us, for replying to the debate.
Today, I want to look at where we can agree, rather than where we disagree, to see whether it is possible to move beyond an agreement simply on the timetable to one on the powers of the Scottish Parliament, and whether there is a will on all sides of the House to resolve issues of English as well as Scottish, Welsh and Northern Ireland representation and rights. In an attempt to be constructive, I will put forward five suggestions that might help to avoid what must never be allowed to become a constitutional impasse in this House and this country.
First, I believe that we can all agree on 16 new powers for the Scottish Parliament, which range from devolution of attendance allowance and housing benefit, which have been agreed by all parties, to the conduct of elections. There are areas where we would have to ask the Conservatives to accept Labour and Liberal Democrat proposals, covering the entrenchment of the Scottish Parliament in the constitution and new powers over the Work programme, the Crown Estate, the rail franchise, borrowing for infrastructure, and Executive authority for UK health and safety, equalities and employment law. There are also areas where I would ask Labour and the Liberal Democrats to accept Conservative proposals—those for a fiscal commission and for an annual statement for taxpayers on how and where the Scottish Parliament’s money is spent. Given what each party has said in its submissions and afterwards, I believe that there is scope for agreement on every one of these new powers. I hope that the Secretary of State will say that he also believes that that can happen.
Secondly, on tax, the three remaining powers out of the 16 relate to income tax, fairness in taxation and VAT. There is general agreement that we should devolve, first, a wider power to set an income tax rate in Scotland, and secondly, a power to set top rates of tax too. I suggest, however—I will explain why in a minute—that we should reject the 100% devolution of income tax. We should instead agree to retain income tax as a shared tax across the United Kingdom, with 75% of it devolved to the Scottish Parliament, alongside the devolution of 50% of VAT revenues. That will ensure that the test of accountability is met, with the Scottish Parliament being responsible for raising the majority—54%—of its spending in 2016, the year in which the proposals would be implemented.
Thirdly, and I would like to think that we can all agree on this, the status of Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland in this House should not be downgraded. As was recognised by the Strathclyde commission—I want the Leader of the House to read that report from his party—in contradiction to statements subsequently made by the Prime Minister and the Leader of the House, Scottish MPs, like Welsh and Northern Ireland MPs, should continue to vote on all issues that come to the Floor of the House of Commons. This is what the Conservative party said in evidence before the referendum:
“In our view, it is important that any sense be resisted that MPs for Scottish, Welsh or Northern Irish constituencies somehow perform any lesser a function than MPs representing seats in England. The establishment of stable constitutional arrangements for the future of the UK must address this. It would be unfortunate if the feeling were to gain ground that there were two classes of MP. Even under a scheme of enhanced devolution, such as we have proposed in this report, MPs for Scottish constituencies will continue to have significant responsibility for safeguarding the interests of those whom they represent.”
It was therefore not the intention of the Conservative party before the referendum to withdraw Scottish Members of Parliament from voting on tax laws or other laws within the UK. That, and not the current position that the Prime Minister expresses, should be our guide in resolving these issues.
I have always said that we should be prepared to consider a change in Committee procedures on England-only Bills, under which English MPs would form the Committee that debates them. However, we should insist —I will explain why later—that when any Bill comes to the Floor of the House on Report or on Second or Third Reading, the whole House and nothing but the whole House is able to vote.
My fourth proposal is that we should agree that the case exists for far-reaching changes in our constitution. That requires a public debate, which could take the form of a convention that engages all the regions and nations, and civic society. The Secretary of State will be able to answer for this, but I believe that the Liberal Democrats agree with the Labour party on that course.
Finally, we should all agree that we must focus not simply on the constitution, but on the issues that were raised in the referendum by the citizens of Scotland, not just in respect of the powers of the Scottish and UK Parliaments, but in respect of what we do with those powers. How we can create better jobs and a better national health service, and how we can wage a war against poverty as part of our commitment to social justice—those are the policy issues that were raised in the referendum and we should give our attention to them immediately.
The constitutional crisis that is in the making—for that is what it is—has to be addressed. I am pleased that the Leader of the House is listening. The crisis arises from the statement that was made by the Prime Minister the morning after the referendum, when he promised English votes for English laws. In practice, the proposal turns out not to be any new English rights of representation, but a reduction in Scottish rights of representation in this House of Commons. That issue was clearly material to the referendum. It is the failure to tell people of the proposed change in Scottish representation before the vote that has fuelled the demonstrations, petitions and allegations of bad faith, betrayal and breach of promise that have dominated too much of the Scottish political debate since the referendum.
Conservative Members should understand that the Conservative plans for the constitution do not end there. Under the proposal to devolve all income tax to the Scottish Parliament, Scottish MPs would be removed not just from ordinary law-making on English matters, but from the most decisive votes that a Parliament can have—votes on income tax rates and, thus, on passing the Budget. With Wales on the point of demanding income tax powers and Northern Ireland seeking corporation tax powers, we could find, at a stroke, that Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish MPs are excluded from the right to vote in Westminster on Budget and key tax decisions. In the end, that might extend to London, which is also seeking its own powers of taxation.
The proposal to devolve 100% of income tax and then to exclude Scottish MPs from voting on income tax is, in my view, both anti-Scottish and anti-British. It is anti-Scottish because it would exclude Scots from voting on key matters and make them second-class citizens in the House. It is anti-British because it would abandon income tax as a shared tax and because it threatens to end the whole system of pooling and sharing resources across the United Kingdom that underpins the unity of the United Kingdom. It looks like a Trojan horse for fiscal autonomy, which would split the Union and enable the SNP to get through the back door what it cannot get through the front door in a vote of the Scottish people.
Mr Brown
England makes up 84% of the Union. Scotland makes up 8%, Wales 5% and Northern Ireland 3%. When that is translated into Members of Parliament, the 533 English Members can outvote the 117 parliamentarians from the rest of the UK at any time and routinely if they choose. The English predominance is so great that every generation has had to balance the power of the majority to impose its will with some protection for the interests of the minority nations.
America, Australia, Spain, Switzerland, Mexico, Brazil, Germany and many other countries, through their constitutions, have found ways to manage the gross inequalities in the sizes of their regions, provinces or nations. The provisions that those countries make for minority states or regions show that a blanket uniformity of provision, such as English votes for English laws simply mimicking Scottish votes for Scottish laws, does not ensure fairness of treatment.
The House knows from our debate on Tuesday that in America, the smallest state of just half a million people has the same number of Senators as the largest state of 38 million people. Tasmania, the smallest state in Australia with 700,000 people, has the same Senate representation—12—as New South Wales, which has 7 million people. This is true of the Spanish Senate, the Swiss Council of States, the South African National Council of Provinces, and the Brazilian, Nigerian and Mexican Senates. In Germany, the state of North Rhine-Westphalia—in a constitution written by the UK—has about 30 times the population of the state of Bremen, but only double the number of Bundesrat seats. We are not unique. Countries have to make special arrangements that recognise the position of minority nations or regions, and ensure that uniformity of provision is not the means to ensure equality and fairness of treatment.
The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr Alistair Carmichael)
I congratulate the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown) on securing today’s debate. Further, I congratulate, and commend him, on the role he played in the course of the independence referendum campaign. Nobody who heard his speeches and witnessed his passion and enthusiasm would have been in any doubt about the importance of the contribution he made in securing a united future for us all on 18 September. I know that he, like me, felt that he was fighting a campaign not just for himself but for his children and their generation. I venture to suggest that his contribution to it gives him a legacy of which they, in time, will come to be truly proud.
I want to make a few observations on the general state of the debate today. Shortly thereafter I will come on to address the points that have been made by the right hon. Gentleman in his speech. This has been a week when the topic of the referendum and its consequences have never been far from the Chamber. This is the fourth day this week, in fact, that I have been at the Dispatch Box. I welcome that. It is a good and right thing for the United Kingdom Parliament to be considering this issue.
Right hon. and hon. Members across the House have expressed their support for our still United Kingdom, a good illustration of what it means to be part of a country that shares risks and pools its resources. Scotland has come through years of fundamental uncertainty. The referendum outcome has put an end to it. With a positive choice from more than 2 million people in Scotland to remain within the United Kingdom, now is the time for us all to put aside party interests and to work to build a better United Kingdom for all: a future with a strong Scottish Parliament within a secure United Kingdom, because that was the clear verdict handed down by the people of Scotland.
The First Minister and the Deputy First Minister said during the campaign that, in their view, the referendum was a once-in-a-generation, perhaps once-in-a-lifetime, event. Both Governments agreed from the outset that the objective was to hold a referendum that would be legal, fair and decisive. That referendum was delivered. But decisive means that a decision has been made, not that the question should be asked again in three years’ time. Had the result gone the other way, it would have been considered unacceptable for those of us who campaigned to keep the United Kingdom together to demand a re-run in 2017, and so it is wrong now for nationalists to manoeuvre for that outcome. People voted clearly and decisively to reject the Scottish National party’s core proposition. It is not for anyone to tell them that they got their answer wrong. Uncertainty will only try people’s patience and sap business confidence, just as it did in Montreal. The SNP has been given an answer by voters in Scotland. Now is the time to acknowledge and accept it and work in the interests of 100% of the people of Scotland.
Pete Wishart
I grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way, unlike the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown). It took two hours for the Prime Minister to come up with English votes for English laws after the referendum. It has now taken four weeks for the Barnett formula. Seventy Members of Parliament have signed a motion for a debate for Barnett to be reviewed. Barnett was in the vow. Is Barnett safe?
Mr Carmichael
Yes. Barnett is safe, because it was in the vow. I caution the hon. Gentleman. He seeks time and again to suggest that, somehow or another, the vow made by the party leaders—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman asked his question, now he can sit and listen to the answer. He says time and again that somehow the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition and the Deputy Prime Minister were not acting in good faith. He seeks at every turn to undermine public confidence in the vow. If he still wants to pursue the cause of independence, and if he wishes not to accept the verdict of the people of Scotland expressed on 18 Sept, that is fine. But if he and his party are taking part in the Smith commission in good faith, frankly they should accept that all of us are doing so in good faith.
For the SNP to accept the verdict of the people, they must accept that the Smith commission’s work will not deliver the content of its White Paper or other outcomes detrimental to the core unity of the UK family—and this comes to the heart of the contribution from the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath. The SNP will not get independence by the backdoor. The vow given by the party leaders during the referendum campaign and the timetable that he and others supported are designed to strengthen Scotland within a secure United Kingdom. That is what people voted for, and that is what they will get—more powers for the Scottish Parliament within a modernised United Kingdom and delivered to the timetable we promised. In fairness, the soon-to-be First Minister has acknowledged in her party’s submission to the Smith commission that the outcome of this joint working will not be independence. It is important that negotiations take place with a genuine recognition of that fact.
The right hon. Gentleman listed 16 areas in which agreement could easily be sought. He will forgive me if I do not address all 16 now, not least because, with the Government having tasked Lord Smith with constructing a consensus, it would be wrong for me, as a Minister, to second-guess the outcome. However, the Smith remit states that his heads of agreement should be consistent with respect for the decision of the people of Scotland on 18 September. In other words, they must be consistent with the continuation of the constitutional framework and integrity necessary to maintain a United Kingdom. The four nations within the family must continue to operate as a single country.
I also draw to the right hon. Gentleman’s attention the terms of the Command Paper published on Monday. Chapter 2 reminds us of the principles that underpin the Scotland Act 2012: any proposal should first have cross-party support; it should be based on evidence; and it should not be to the detriment of other parts of the UK. On all three points, if Smith came up with proposals that undermined our constitutional integrity, they would not be consistent with the framework that we have set him in the Command Paper. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will take comfort from that.
I have always said that—and this is truer today than it has ever been—the independence referendum offered us the opportunity not just to finish the job of devolution to the Scottish Parliament by giving it the extra powers the right hon. Gentleman and I believe it needs in relation to taxation, welfare and so on, but to implement a process of constitutional change across the whole of the UK. I respectfully say to him and the rest of the House that ultimately the logical conclusion of this journey is a federal structure within the UK. The only way to achieve that in our lifetime is by building the strongest, broadest consensus, and that requires a constitutional convention of the sort to which he referred. Indeed, he and I both know, because we have been around this course several times in Scotland, that that is the way to deliver constitutional change.
That requires us to bring together others besides just the political parties—it will always fail if it includes only the political parties, because unfortunately they always see things through the prism of their own self-interest. For that reason, we have to bring in wider voices—civic society, the business community, the trade unions, the Churches and just interested citizens who have something to say. It is for that reason that, as somebody who passionately believes in the United Kingdom, I see an opportunity opening out to us now to build a new constitutional architecture. In that respect, I very much hope that the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath will remain engaged in the debate, because I believe he has a substantial contribution to make to it.
We have an unprecedented opportunity. The Smith commission can move forward through the collective endeavour of all five of Scotland’s biggest political parties. Never before has so wide a spectrum of parties come together in Scotland’s interests. That is something to applaud and welcome. All those taking part in this work must be willing to compromise, as the right hon. Gentleman has said today—again, I commend him for the thought that he has obviously put into this already. We have an opportunity to harness the energy of both sides of what was a quite remarkable debate and, as a result, secure a better deal for all of Scotland. The Commission will look at serious and weighty issues: taxation, welfare and the role of the Scottish Parliament in our public life. The challenge is to empower Holyrood further and, as a result, make it more accountable to those who elect it. Lord Smith of Kelvin is an able man facing a considerable task. With genuine good will on all sides, he is also the man who can see that task through.
Of course, this process is not without consequences for the rest of the United Kingdom. The right hon. Gentleman has already touched on the subject of English votes for English laws. It is clear from the debate we had in the House on Tuesday, and indeed from contributions at Scottish questions yesterday, that that will be a live debate for some time to come. As I said at Scottish questions yesterday, in my view it is a solution that, if seen as an end in itself rather than a step along the road, risks creating new problems to replace the ones that already exist in our current constitutional settlement. However, this is a genuine issue that requires genuine consideration within that wider context. The debate itself showed the strength of feeling and brought to light the complexities and intricacies of finding a solution that will strengthen the United Kingdom’s democracy. Again, the one thing that was apparent at the end of six and a half hours’ debate—I was here for nearly all of it—was that there is not yet any clear consensus in England on what the future shape of the constitutional architecture should be.
Mr Carmichael
I am glad that the hon. Gentleman accepts at last that the United Kingdom parties are proceeding in good faith. It would be a shame if he were unable ever to stand up and say it in public. [Interruption.] We are getting on with it. The hon. Gentleman sits there chuntering from a sedentary position, but he ignores the fact that we have already delivered, ahead of timetable, the Command Paper that was part of the vow. He might not like to accept that we are delivering—that we are doing what he said—but he cannot deny it and that is why he remains in his seat.
In the few seconds that remain to me, let me say that it is clear that the referendum was won decisively. It might not have been welcomed by the nationalists, but everybody else was pleased that we got the decision that we wanted and that will indeed be good for our children in the future as the years progress.
Question put and agreed to.
Scotland within the UK
Pete Wishart Excerpts(10 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Carmichael
There are indeed many lessons to be learned from this, and their full extent will probably not be apparent for some time to come. This statement is an important part of the process, because it is very important that the Government, with the official Opposition as well, are able to demonstrate to the people of Scotland that we are making good the commitment that we made in the course of the referendum campaign. Politicians doing what they say they will do in that way is probably the most important thing we can do to restore faith in politics.
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)
The Secretary of State is, of course, right: the referendum was an incredible, transformational event that gripped and energised our whole nation. I am sure he will want to join me in congratulating the Scottish people on the way in which they went about that business. He is also right to say that Scotland is moving on. According to one opinion poll, two thirds of the Scottish people want devolution maximum—everything devolved, other than foreign affairs and defence. Three quarters have said that they want all taxation devolved to Scotland. This is the thing, isn’t it? There might be a Command Paper, but the people in charge of this process are the Scottish people themselves and we will be judged by their good judgment on what they want for their future.
Mr Carmichael
May I say again that I welcome the participation of the hon. Gentleman’s party in the Smith process? I very much hope—in fact, I believe—that that is being done in good faith. However, perhaps the hon. Gentleman should take heed of the 60.19% of the people in his own area who voted to remain part of the United Kingdom. If he tries to subvert the Smith process by getting independence through the back door, as others have said, he will pay a heavy price.
Oral Answers to Questions
Pete Wishart Excerpts(10 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Speaker
Order. In case the House is not aware, I can inform colleagues that the House of Commons has received its accreditation from the Living Wage Foundation.
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)
3. What steps he is taking to inform the public about the Scottish independence referendum.
The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr Alistair Carmichael)
To inform the debate, a variety of information, including a range of detailed analysis papers and a booklet for each household in Scotland, has been published. I have also participated in public debates and will continue to do so to set out the benefits of Scotland’s remaining in the United Kingdom.
Pete Wishart
For which we are eternally grateful, but is not the best way to inform people to debate? Instead, we have the leader of the no campaign, his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, running a mile, feart to do just that? What about the substitute-designate? It will be a slaughter worse than the Bannockburn re-enactment if they put up the angry, agitated Alistair to debate with the First Minister. The Secretary of State himself could do it; he is good at this stuff—he could even take Rhona with him. But what we really need is the organ grinder, not one of the Alistair monkeys to debate with the First Minister.
Mr Carmichael
That was pitiful. I cannot believe it sounded good even when the hon. Gentleman rehearsed it in the mirror this morning. It is typical, though, of what we hear from the Scottish nationalists. They are desperate always to talk about how we will debate. They do that only because they want to avoid the actual debate, because they know that the force of argument is on the side of those of us who want to remain in the United Kingdom.
Oral Answers to Questions
Pete Wishart Excerpts(10 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Carmichael
The only foregone conclusion about a currency union is that it will not happen. It will not happen because that is the advice that has been given by the permanent secretary to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. That advice is not going to change, and the outcome of that advice is not going to change.
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)
The Chancellor’s sermon on the pound was supposed to bring the Scottish people back into fearful line, but as the opinion polls have shown, the Scottish people will not be discouraged by this; instead, they are emboldened and angered. The Scottish people will no longer be told by Westminster. Will the Secretary of State tell us what has happened to the search for the Minister who told the truth? Have they made any progress, or do they perhaps need our help?
Mr Carmichael
Mr Speaker, I am delighted that you were able to fit the hon. Gentleman in; otherwise, we would all have missed his monthly comedy turn. It is quite remarkable that he chooses to ignore the advice given by the permanent secretary to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, setting out why a currency union would be bad for the rest of the United Kingdom and bad for an independent Scotland. Why does the hon. Gentleman want something that would be bad for Scotland?