Scotland Bill

Simon Hoare Excerpts

Monday 8th June 2015 Commons Chamber

[Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to be called in this debate and to speak after some excellent speeches. The hon. Member for Livingston (Hannah Bardell) left us tantalisingly in the air for her quote, which we look forward to hearing on another occasion. I first met the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Ruth Smeeth) while waiting for our IT to be sorted out—she was there two and a half hours after me—and I am glad to see she has resolved her problems and is in her place. She spoke passionately about her constituency, as did the hon. Members for East Renfrewshire (Kirsten Oswald) and for Workington (Sue Hayman).

Right hon. and hon. Members may wonder why a Member of Parliament for one of the southernmost seats of England, North Dorset, sought to speak on the Second Reading of the Scotland Bill. I did so as a fellow Celt, albeit a Welshman, who fought two seats in Wales before securing victory in North Dorset. I was very much involved in fighting the then Labour Government’s campaign in Wales. The genie was out of the bottle: there is now a settlement, and we live with the consequences—some of the downsides and some of the upsides.

In an intervention earlier, my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Heidi Allen) talked about trust. At that point, SNP Members laughed slightly, though I was pleased that, in his speech, the hon. Member for Moray (Angus Robertson) accepted the purpose of the point she made—that in this debate we need to have trust. It may be that my following remarks are out of keeping or out of step with what a new Member should say, but that has never stopped me in the past and it will not stop me now.

It is probably quite hard to build the relationship of trust required, because the political landscape shifted very considerably on 7 May. Those of us who would describe ourselves as strong Unionists—by intellect as much as by heart, gut and passion—were left aghast at the nationalist tide, coming so recently after a referendum that said, “No, we don’t want to go down that particular route.” It has left the Labour party bereft of seasoned colleagues, expert opinion and wise heads in this House. It should be no surprise to anybody, not least the leadership of the nationalists, that their success has left a huge sense of head-scratching and bewilderment on the Conservative Benches as much as it has among Labour Members. We need to build trust among ourselves and with the nationalist party, just as it needs to build trust with us. I would guess that many SNP Members do not believe in their hearts that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and the Government are serious about that, but I do not think that anyone who listened to my right hon. Friend’s opening speech could have been left with any impression other than one of his absolute and passionate commitment to delivering the additional powers that Scotland and the Scottish people want.

We will be judged on the basis of our actions in that regard. We will be judged on the basis of how we vote, and how we engage in the debate. I am pleased to see that the hon. Member for Moray is nodding. May I ask something of him and his colleagues? Conservative Members—along with Labour Members—take a different view of the final destination for Scotland. We want to see a proud Scotland in a strong and robust United Kingdom; SNP Members want to see a strong Scotland that is an independent force in the world. They have advised us that they are not seeking to pick off the scabs of the referendum debate, and that they are here to try to make the settlement—a settlement on which the Scottish people agreed back in September—work. May I ask them, and their leadership, not to freeze us out of that debate?

The fact that we are Unionists, and the fact that we may come from other parts of the Celtic regions or elsewhere, do not mean that we are any less sincere, or any less committed to the success that we want Scotland to be. The tone of some SNP speeches today seemed to suggest—almost as if certain Members were delegates for Miss Sturgeon and the Scottish Government—that those who were not part of the Holyrood project somehow had no right to take part in the debate. The hon. Member for Moray looks confused, but we all know that tone and body language are important, and as I sat on this side of the House, listening to all the speeches, that was the impression with which I was left. In my humble judgment, such a tone will not lead to the relationship of mutual trust and certainty that all quarters of the House need to build if we are to make this settlement work.

As I have said, our view and our vision of the ultimate destination is different from that of the SNP, but we want the Scotland Bill to work. Scotland is a proud and vibrant part of the United Kingdom, and we—Conservative Members—wish it to remain so. That will pose some challenges if, for example, the SNP continues its tsunami of decapitation in next May’s Holyrood election. I am tempted to call this the Madame Defarge Parliament, because I believe that more heads have been removed than at any time since the French Revolution. I am not complaining about that, for the will of the Scottish people was expressed in the ballot box, but if it continues next May it may destabilise a little further the foundations of trust that we are seeking to build and on which, through the Bill, we are seeking to deliver the pledges and promises that were made after the referendum.

I wish my right hon. Friend success in piloting the Bill on the Floor of the House. We wish to take part in the debate, sincerely, pragmatically and positively, but let me end by saying again that I hope SNP Members do not freeze us out of that debate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Emily Thornberry]

The right hon. Gentleman will, I am sure, realise that we have all moved on in the last 100 years and that things change and we have become different people, but I think the majority of people in these islands identify as British. We saw that in the referendum result and the feelings expressed across the whole of this nation, and the important thing is that we remain a United Kingdom. With the devolution being introduced today, which will be a continuing devolution, we must nevertheless remain a United Kingdom. I believe I speak on behalf of the vast majority of people in Great Britain when I say that.

What concerns me about the Bill, however, is how the Sewel convention will be implemented. The Smith commission recommends that the Sewel convention be placed on a statutory footing. However, despite the Secretary of State’s contention that the Bill will implement the commission’s recommendations in full, in my view clause 2 falls short of fulfilling that promise.

In the 1998 debate on the Scotland Bill of that year, Lord Sewel said:

“However, as happened in Northern Ireland earlier in the century, we 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.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 21 July 1998; Vol. 592, c. 791.]

In seeking to put this convention on a statutory footing, the Bill uses identical language, stating that

“it is recognised that the Parliament of the United Kingdom will not normally legislate with regard to devolved matters without the consent of the Scottish Parliament.”

What does that mean? Does that mean we will not normally legislate with regard to devolved matters without the consent of the Scottish Parliament unless the UK Parliament does not like it? It seems rather an odd way of proceeding and it is a funny way to write the law.

In its report on the Government’s draft proposals, the House of Lords Constitution Committee described this in much more measured terms than I would. [Interruption.] It says

“the use of the word normally…is unusual in legislation and is undefined.”

[Interruption.] The Secretary of State, who is the only Scottish MP on the Government Benches, should listen: the House of Lords Constitution Committee says his legislation is nonsense, and he should listen.

The inevitable question is what the Government mean by “normally”. Language that may be appropriately applied to a convention may well be inappropriate in statute. For instance, we might pass legislation that says, “Normally, it is illegal to steal someone’s wallet”—except when it is legal—or, “Normally, millionaires should pay their fair share of tax”, although perhaps that is a bad example. How about this example, then? Legislation might say, “Normally, it would be illegal to blow up the Houses of Parliament,” but there might be circumstances in which it was legal. This is the legislation being put before us by the Government today.

[Simon Hoare]

What is the normal response when the hon. Lady sees a white van?

[Emily Thornberry]

The normal response to silly questions like that is to pass on and not make comment, because the hon. Gentleman belittles himself and this place by descending to that.