Oral Answers to Questions

Stewart Hosie Excerpts

Wednesday 7th May 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Carmichael]

That would be a matter to be determined in the event of Scotland voting to leave the United Kingdom. I very much hope that will not come to pass.

[Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP)]

The Bank of England has already sensibly engaged in technical discussions with the Scottish Government. As each day passes and a yes vote on independence becomes more likely, is it not about time this Government abandoned their bellicose scaremongering and also engaged in sensible discussions with the Scottish Government on how these institutions can continue to work, in the best interests of both countries?

[Mr Carmichael]

Both Governments agreed in the Edinburgh agreement that there would be no question of pre-negotiation. That was a sensible situation and I am astonished that the hon. Gentleman now seeks to walk away from it.

Oral Answers to Questions

Stewart Hosie Excerpts

Wednesday 19th March 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Carmichael]

My hon. Friend invites me to look into the workings of the First Minister’s mind—not a particularly edifying enterprise, and one that goes beyond even my ambition. My recollection is that when the First Minister made that remark, he wanted us to be independent in Europe. I cannot remember whether that was the time when we were going to be part of the arc of prosperity, but it seems to be all change these days. The truth of the matter is that the First Minister does not care about the pound or anything other than independence.

[Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP)]

On 29 January, the Financial Times reported that on independence, with £100 billion of sales, Scotland would be one of the top 35 exporting countries in the world. If the Secretary of State has his way—I am sure that he will not—when does he intend to run around to the good people of England explaining the impact on their currency when £100 billion of Scottish export sales are no longer receipted in sterling?

[Mr Carmichael]

The hon. Gentleman should listen to some of the experts. The Institute of Directors, for example, has said in terms, that the well rehearsed risks of a currency union far outweigh the problems of the sort of transaction costs that the hon. Gentleman is talking about. He needs to listen to the experts and tell us what he is going to do instead.

Scotland’s Place in the UK

Stewart Hosie Excerpts

Thursday 6th February 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Tyrie]

I think it crucial for us to understand that a banking union could well trigger the migration of banks to London, where they would be able to benefit from the “lender of last resort” facilities provided by the Bank of England.

Let me say something about what a common fiscal policy would entail. It would mean, for instance, pre-approval of budget proposals, which would be accompanied by intensive and very intrusive oversight of budgetary outcomes. It would require rigorous powers to insist on overshoots being corrected quickly and reversed, backed up by credible sanctions for non-compliance.

In order to carry credibility, such powers would probably need to be directly applicable in law on both sides of the border. What that means in practice is that the Bank of England and the Treasury would have the power to direct a large part of Scottish economic and financial policy. For example, the Scots would probably be required to seek their approval before they could borrow in order to build schools and hospitals.

Is it realistic to imagine that all those in Scotland who had just voted for independence would readily accept such intensive supervision and direction from the rest of the United Kingdom? I doubt it.

[Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP)]

The Chair of the Treasury Committee is making an interesting assessment, but what he is saying is not necessarily the case. If the stability arrangements were made at the aggregate deficit or debt level, and if both countries were required to adhere to them, the line-by-line scrutiny of spending plans he describes would not be necessary, would it?

[Mr Tyrie]

Countries in the eurozone were required to abide by the stability and growth pact, and look where that took us. We need something much more robust than that to make a currency union work, and I am pretty confident that it would not be any more acceptable in Scotland than it will be in England.

Let me now say something about the effects of a currency union on the rest of the United Kingdom. It would, after all, have to be a two-way street. Is it realistic to expect the rest of the UK—much the bigger partner, both economically and in terms of population—to accept Scottish oversight of fiscal policy here? Is it realistic to expect the rest of the UK to risk the need for what most durable currency unions have eventually required, namely fiscal transfers? Is it realistic to expect the rest of the UK to sign up to a currency union that could carry the risk that all those rules, albeit tough rules, would fail, and whose failure would trigger the need for bail-outs? I do not think that such arrangements would be acceptable to the electorate. What is more, I doubt that a majority could be mustered for them in the House of Commons.

Of course, the leaders of both countries might try to get a currency union past their respective Parliaments without fully explaining the consequences, but I am on my feet now because I want to try to prevent that from happening. There would be shades of the eurozone in such an attempt, but it would be a fool’s errand.

A currency union created in such circumstances would, sooner or later, be tested by the markets. Either the rules would be tough enough to bite, or, if they were not tight enough, there might be a bail-out. Alternatively, we might experience both the pain and the bail-out, as happened in the eurozone: we might experience the pain of the bail-out south of the border, and the pain caused by the biting of the rules north of the border.

Not enough attention has been paid to the political consequences of botching these currency arrangements. Whatever the economics of trying to create a currency union, I think that it is bad politics for these islands at this point. The eurozone has provided a reminder not just of the economic difficulties of creating durable currency unions, but of the political damage and fall-out that come with flawed arrangements. We need, above all, to put what Lord Lang, in the other place, described as “the politics of grievance” behind us as we make our efforts to renew the relationship between Scotland and the rest of the UK. But it seems to me that a currency union would risk the opposite. As its full implications became clear, it would create the conditions for lasting resentment on both sides of the border, and it is just such resentment that we must do everything possible to avoid in the search for a stable economic and political relationship between those on the two sides of the border.

I urge the Governments on both sides of the border to explain how all the difficulties that I have outlined could be addressed, well before the Scottish referendum. Not to do so would be to deceive our respective electorates into believing that there is some third way, some relatively painless option, enabling the Scots to imagine that they could be fully in control of their own affairs and that the rest of the UK could avoid large contingent obligations. If, as I have concluded, those difficulties cannot be adequately addressed in the current circumstances, the two Governments should rule out a currency union now.

Oral Answers to Questions

Stewart Hosie Excerpts

Wednesday 18th December 2013 Commons Chamber

[Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP)]

The UK Government’s attitude to the living wage was encapsulated by the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson) earlier this year when she said:

“There is no recognised definition of a national living wage.”—[Official Report, 10 June 2013; Vol. 563, c. 211W.]

She went on to explain that the Government had therefore made no assessment of its consequences, were it to be introduced. Should not the Government move quickly to introduce a living wage for their employees, wherever they might be based in the UK, rather than hiding behind the vacuous argument that it is too difficult to calculate, given that we know it will be £7.65 an hour in Scotland and £8.80 in London next year?

[David Mundell]

It is never a surprise to hear the Scottish National party mention London in the same breath as Scotland. As I said to the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Mr Roy), the Government believe that the living wage is a concept that should be supported, where employers can afford it and where it is not introduced at the cost of jobs.

Oral Answers to Questions

Stewart Hosie Excerpts

Wednesday 13th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[David Mundell]

My hon. Friend is quite right to point out the irony. Most policies pursued by the Scottish National party are about breaking up Britain, but on this issue it appears to want to bring Britain closer together.

[Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP)]

The Minister’s answers simply will not do. If he was serious about improving transport links between Scotland and England, HS2, which is a massive investment, would not start in London and grind to a halt halfway through England in Manchester or Leeds; it would carry on to Glasgow and Edinburgh along the west and east coasts of Scotland. I ask him to go one better than the Department for Transport and tell us whether the Government have even a time scale for developing a plan for completing HS2 to Scotland.

Oral Answers to Questions

Stewart Hosie Excerpts

Wednesday 9th January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Michael Moore]

There have been no such discussions. The important point is that sterling has served Scotland and the whole of the UK well for 300 years. We have seen in the eurozone the risk of having a formal monetary union without a fiscal union. A fiscally independent Scotland would create real complications in that regard. All this would have to be negotiated after the referendum vote, and it would take some persuading for people in the rest of the UK to take on the role that the Scottish National party wishes for it.

[Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP)]

The Minister knows very well that the Scottish Government intend that Scotland should continue to use sterling after independence, and as sterling is a fully convertible and floating currency there is precisely nothing to stop that. While it makes far more sense to have a formal union, does he not agree that a stability pact based around debt and deficit levels is perfectly sensible but can in no way be portrayed as a foreign currency running Scotland’s economy?

Oral Answers to Questions

Stewart Hosie Excerpts

Wednesday 21st November 2012 Commons Chamber

[David Mundell]

I can advise my hon. Friend that by 2020, there will be 8,000 jobs based at Faslane, following the recent announcement by the Secretary of State for Defence of an additional 1,500 jobs. There is absolutely no certainty about what would happen to anybody employed in the Ministry of Defence or the defence industries in Scotland under an independent Scotland.

[Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP)]

The list of recent investment and job announcements in Scotland has been quite remarkable, particularly in the renewables sector. The Minister will know there were £2.3 billion-worth of completed projects to July this year, and that there is a future pipeline of £9.4 billion with many thousands of jobs attached. Each of those investment decisions has been taken in the sure and certain knowledge that the referendum is coming and independence is likely. Why does the Minister think that these investment decisions continue to be made, and why is nobody listening to his scare stories?

[David Mundell]

I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman’s analysis. These investments are taking place despite the uncertainty, not because of it. I tend to agree with the chief executive of Aggreko, who said yesterday in giving evidence to a parliamentary Committee that the supposed benefits of independence were “small and tenuous” and unlikely to arise, while the dangers were “large and serious”.

[Stewart Hosie]

The Minister mentions uncertainty, but the only uncertainty we have seen is the massive increase made in the North sea supplementary charge with no discussion with the sector, and the uncertainty for employees now that this Government are making it easier to sack people. Is it not the case, as Douglas Sawers of Ceridian said when he made a significant investment earlier this year, that in the event of independence, the Scottish Government’s approach will be to make Scotland more, not less, competitive? Is that not the truth? Instead of scare stories, we are going to move to independence with a Government who will make Scotland more, not less, competitive?

[David Mundell]

When the people of Scotland make a decision on independence in the referendum, they must be sure that that decision is a long-term one. Independence is not for Christmas 2014. If the hon. Gentleman looked at the Institute for Fiscal Studies report, he would see that it says that an independent Scotland would face much harder decisions than the rest of the UK in the longer term.

Referendum (Scotland)

Stewart Hosie Excerpts

Monday 15th October 2012 Commons Chamber

[David Mundell]

I can assure my hon. Friend that it will not create a precedent. The franchise for parliamentary and local government elections throughout the United Kingdom will be determined by opinions in this House. At the moment, the Government have no proposals to change the voting age, and I do not believe there is a majority in the House to do so.

I say to my hon. Friend and others who share his views that they must now take their arguments to Scotland and the Scottish Parliament, so that the Scottish Government can be held to account when they bring forward their proposals. This is a moment for the Scottish Parliament to demonstrate its own robust ability to scrutinise legislation. When it identifies complexities with enfranchising 16 and 17-year-olds, of which there are many, it can hold the Scottish Government to account and argue against the proposal.

[Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP)]

I thank the Minister for his statement, although he will forgive me if I do not welcome the final two or three paragraphs. However, I thank him for very early sight of it.

This decision is historic, and I agree with the Minister that it is the most important that we will ever take. It also has the potential to be exciting and transformative for Scotland when the Scottish people vote yes. I very much welcome the 2014 timeline, which was of course the Scottish Government’s favoured position, and the extension of the franchise to 16 and 17-year-olds—also a Scottish Government position.

Does the Minister agree that the most exciting part of this is that, as he said, the Scottish Parliament will be the final determiner of the question? It has the only mandate of any Parliament in the UK to set a question on independence for Scotland.

[David Mundell]

I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman did not tell us that the Scottish National party wanted only one question, as well.

I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman, because his question reveals his party’s obsession with process. What is important, ultimately, is not who legislates on the referendum but the decision that the people of Scotland take. They will have the opportunity to end the uncertainty and vote to remain part of the United Kingdom.

Oral Answers to Questions

Stewart Hosie Excerpts

Wednesday 20th June 2012 Commons Chamber

[Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP)]

I am glad that the Secretary of State welcomed the 14,000 fall in unemployment—that is good news—and I am sure he will also want to welcome today’s news on foreign direct investment into Scotland creating jobs, but of course he is right that we must create the right environment for businesses to employ people. That means downward pressure on costs, particularly fuel prices, which are recognised as one of the most significant cost pressures that businesses face. Will he therefore ask his Treasury colleagues to cancel the fuel duty rise planned for August?

[Michael Moore]

I point out to the hon. Gentleman that thanks to the Government’s actions in introducing the fuel duty stabiliser and abandoning the escalator we inherited from the Labour party, we are doing a lot to help motorists, and will continue to do so.

Scotland Bill

Stewart Hosie Excerpts

Thursday 26th April 2012 Commons Chamber

[David Mundell]

Along with the redoubtable Wendy Alexander, Annabel Goldie, Lord Browne of Ladyton, Lord Stephen and my right hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael), I took part in the very first meeting that led to the establishment of the Calman commission. I am pleased and proud today to be part of what I hope will be the successful conclusion of the commission’s work. The return of the Scotland Bill to this House comes after the other place has given the Bill a great deal of detailed scrutiny and consideration for many months. Indeed, in handling the Bill in the Lords, Lord Wallace of Tankerness was compared to Kate Adie. That comparison is not correct: he was more like General Montgomery, because he was at the forefront of the action rather than a mere commentator.

Since the Bill was last in this House, there have been two very significant developments. The Scottish Government have changed their position from one of opposition to one of support for the Bill, including many of the amendments we will consider today. On 21 March, the Secretary of State confirmed in a written ministerial statement the terms on which agreement had been reached with the Scottish Government on the Bill, and on 18 April the Scottish Parliament passed the legislative consent motion for the Bill unanimously.

When the Bill was last in this House, it appeared that the Scottish National party would never join the consensus that has been shared throughout both the Calman commission process and the parliamentary process on the Bill.

[Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP)]

I know that the Minister wants to pretend that this Bill is incredibly important, but in fact it is a rather modest Bill. If I may correct him—I know that he sometimes struggles with detail—he will remember that on Second Reading, I made it clear that we would not stand in the way of the Bill. I welcome the changes that the UK Government have made, in particular to remove some of the re-reservations, and I hope that we can now get on and pass this modest little measure.

[David Mundell]

I also remember the occasion on which the Scottish National party voted against the Bill, as we will detail in respect of the specific amendments that come forward. Several changes have been made to the Bill, but all of them have been on the basis of assurances provided by the Scottish Government as to how the matters will be conducted.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Mundell]

The right hon. Lady may recall that during previous consideration of the Bill, I identified London SNP as a quite different body from the Scotland-based SNP. At the same time as the SNP in London opposed the Bill, more sensible forces in the Scottish Parliament were looking to bring forward what will be a significant package of measures that will strengthen devolution by increasing the financial accountability and responsibility of the Scottish Parliament.

[Stewart Hosie]

Instead of misrepresenting me, why does not the junior Minister understand that the only reason the Scottish Parliament was able to agree the legislative consent motion was because the UK Government agreed to remove the idiotic re-reservations that they had planned; agreed to take out some of the significant and damaging things that they had intended with the Supreme Court; and, fundamentally and very sensibly, agreed proper commencement procedures, about which I will say more later?

[David Mundell]

I am sure that the SNP at Westminster group leader’s substitute will recognise that when this Bill was previously debated in this Parliament, the Scottish National party indicated that it had six demands that it required to be reflected on the face of the Bill before it would support it. None of those six demands is in the Bill as we debate it today or as it was debated in the Scottish Parliament, where it received unanimous support—including that of all members of the Scottish National party present.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stewart Hosie]

The Minister will concede, I hope, that notwithstanding this change there is no material difference between the Bill as it was and the amendment to the title of the Crown Estate Commissioner?

[David Mundell]

The amendment changes the title. If the hon. Gentleman is alluding to whether the Scottish Government, in their discussions on the Bill, put forward a requirement for further devolution of the Crown Estate, I can tell him that they did not. It was not a red line for the Scottish Government.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Bain]

That is a very interesting point put with typical style by my hon. Friend.

As a party that first supported devolution more than a century ago, we are pleased to see the Scottish Parliament strengthened by the Bill’s progress through the House and the other place.

[Stewart Hosie]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Bain]

I was about to leave this point, but I will give way.

[Stewart Hosie]

The hon. Gentleman’s introductory remarks are interesting. Can we take it, given that he is speaking from the Opposition Front Bench, that the position of the British Labour party is no devolution of corporation tax to Scotland, under any circumstances, even if the evidence tells us that the power it might give would be incredibly beneficial for jobs and working people?

[Mr Bain]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[David Mundell]

I shall make a few points on the issues pertaining to this group of amendments. I can assure the right hon. Member for Stirling (Mrs McGuire) that we on the Government Benches always listen to her wise counsel. I will deal with the specific points she raised, which are important—regardless of when or where they are raised.

As the matter was raised by the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart), let me be clear about the position on joint commencement. The Scottish Government sought a specific provision for joint commencement in this Bill. The request was refused, as it was unworkable—like so many proposals advanced either by the SNP in London or the Scottish Government. Instead, we focused on delivering this Bill. At last, that objective is shared by the Scottish Government.

Of course we want to achieve circumstances in which joint commencement can take place. I shall quote from a letter sent by the Secretary of State on 20 March to Bruce Crawford and John Swinney:

“Consistent with the principle of consent, our two governments should reach agreement on implementation issues, including adjustments to the block grant, to take account of the Scottish Parliament’s new fiscal powers.”

That is the Government’s position.

Let me respond to a point made by hon. Member for Dundee East (Stewart Hosie). He seemed to suggest that evidence had been produced to support the Scottish Government’s and indeed the Scottish National party’s suggestion that corporation tax should be devolved. Again, I am sure that he would not wish to mislead the House into thinking that actual evidence had been produced to support that proposition. Indeed, it was not.

[Stewart Hosie]

The Minister’s memory is appalling. I intervened on the Labour Front-Bench spokesman to ask the Labour party’s position on corporation tax. I said no such thing about evidence being provided to the UK Government. I am sure Hansard will bear that out. If, however, the Minister wants to carry on and embarrass himself further, I will be delighted to listen.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I would obviously not allow the Opposition Front-Bench team to respond. I am sure that, as we go through the further provisions, everyone will be able to discuss the issues about taxation that they wish to raise.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Bain]

The other implication of devolving corporation tax for it to be reduced to the levels that apply in the Republic of Ireland is that £2.6 billion would be lost from the Scottish block as a result. That would not be in the interests of economic growth, services, health or education in Scotland. As PricewaterhouseCoopers said in its report to Scottish Parliament’s Bill Committee on the Bill, the cut in corporation tax was only the 16th or 17th highest reason for companies investing in the Republic of Ireland, while most of the investment in the Republic of Ireland occurred when corporation taxes were not at the reduced level. The case for devolving corporation tax has therefore not been made. As we have seen in the past few days, with confusion over income tax policy and no rule on what debt levels a separate Scottish state would have, the First Minister’s plans for separation seem to be dissolving into yet another omnishambles.

[Stewart Hosie]

As we are debating this matter, can we have confirmation that the British Labour party is now completely opposed to the devolution of corporation tax to Scotland, even if the evidence was that it would benefit Scotland through economic growth and jobs for ordinary working people? Is that correct?

[Mr Bain]

Let me, as a member of the Scottish Labour party, tell a member of the London Scottish National party that our commission will look at the evidence on all fiscal matters. However, strong evidence has already been presented that goes against the devolution of corporation tax. No convincing evidence has been presented by either the Scottish Government or the Scottish National party to show how simply basing a policy on corporation tax would produce additional jobs and growth.

--- Later in debate ---

[Iain Stewart]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention but I do not think that you would be terribly enamoured of me, Madam Deputy Speaker, if I widened the debate into a discussion of the Barnett formula and fiscal matters more generally. My hon. Friend is right, however, that that is not part of the Bill. It is a subject to which I think we will return on another day.

In conclusion, I welcome Lords amendment 18, which would make a sensible change to the Bill. I welcome the Bill as a whole, as it is a sensible change and a sensible evolution of the devolutionary process, and I think that it will be welcomed both north and south of the border.

[Stewart Hosie]

I want to say only a few words about this group of amendments. They are very welcome, particularly the scratching out of some of the re-reservations. We tabled amendments, of course, to remove the re-reservation of insolvency and health professional regulation matters in a previous stage, but the Government rejected them at that point, as did the British Labour party. I am delighted that there is now unanimity that those re-reservations should be removed.

[David Mundell]

Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that he also tabled an amendment at an earlier stage to remove the re-reservation of Antarctica and that the re-reservation of Antarctica remains in the Bill?

[Stewart Hosie]

Indeed it does. We can safely say that we have no territorial claims on Antarctica. This is a Scotland Bill, and the re-reservation removal is sensible.

Lords amendment 18 deals with reports on the implementation and operation of financial measures in the Bill. That is a sensible provision, and it is linked closely to the commencement of those financial provisions. We made that point repeatedly throughout debates on the Bill. In the Committee of the whole House, on the second day of debate, we discussed commencement powers to ensure that things were done at the correct time. We had a good debate on six separate commencement provisions for various financial measures. We said:

“If the commencement arrangements are left unchanged, many of the most important questions about the Bill will be left unanswered.”—[Official Report, 14 March 2011; Vol. 525, c. 89.]

On Third Reading, we said that the amendments that we had tabled on commencement would ensure that the tax provisions could not

“be brought into effect unless the Scottish Parliament...specifically consented.”—[Official Report, 21 June 2011; Vol. 530, c. 248.]

That was not just a point of principle—matters that affect the Scottish Parliament should be decided by the Scottish Parliament—but concerned some practical, technical issues. If a number of fiscal measures were introduced at the wrong time in the economic cycle that could be detrimental economically. Several Labour Members understood that point, and did so very clearly indeed, and it was interesting that Labour abstained from decisions on commencement—the party did not object to it, and I am glad that it welcomes what we have at the moment.

I want to take the opportunity, unusually, to be generous to the Secretary of State. The discussions and negotiations between his team and Bruce Crawford, the Cabinet Secretary for Parliamentary Business and Cabinet Strategy, and the letter that the Secretary of State sent to Bruce and to the Cabinet Secretary for Finance, Employment and Sustainable Growth, John Swinney, were extremely helpful, particularly the part of the letter that said:

“Consistent with the principle of consent”—

which was what we were determined to deliver—

“our two governments should reach agreement on implementation issues, including adjustments to the block grant…Each government should also provide assurance to its Parliament before the relevant provisions of the Bill are brought into force and before implementation arrangements are brought into effect.”

That agreement on the requirement properly to engage the Parliaments, and the principle of consent, were what we were trying to achieve. For the avoidance of doubt—and I have said this to the Secretary of State for Scotland, so it is not a surprise to him—of course there will be a bun fight about the contents of the Bill. Of course the matters that are being devolved do not go far enough for the Scottish National party—that is not a huge surprise—but making sure that we avoid the dangers of the financial provisions commencing at the wrong time was always the key thing that we needed to change. The Secretary of State knows that, so I very much welcome that exchange of letters to ensure that commencement is done properly on the basis of consent.

[Michael Moore]

Allow me to be equally generous to the hon. Gentleman in accepting the points that he has made. From the outset, we have made it clear that we want to reach agreement on all those provisions before they are implemented. What he and his colleagues originally wished for was joint commencement powers, which are not in the Bill. However, we are committed, as we properly have to be, to working with the Scottish Government, of whatever colour, to ensure that those proposals are implemented properly.

[Stewart Hosie]

I thank the Secretary of State. Irrespective of the final mechanism, which was a subject of some negotiation, the provisions, which allow us to proceed on the basis of consent and agreement, effectively deliver the protections against the commencement of fiscal provisions at the wrong time, which was a key objective in getting to where we are.

[Rory Stewart (Penrith and The Border) (Con)]

It seems a little dry to focus on Lords amendment 18 with reference to clause 37, but it is a central issue. It is not a dry issue at all. As my hon. Friends the Members for Carlisle (John Stevenson) and for Milton Keynes South (Iain Stewart) pointed out, this is central to two issues that define the Union. The first is the issue of borrowing and finance, and the second is that of what my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle called the issue of transparency. These two principles of borrowing and transparency—borrowing defined in clause 37 and transparency in Lords amendment 18—show why the Union matters. Transparency matters because an enormous amount of the pressure for separation from Scots, and from some English people, comes from suspicion—suspicion about money. Borrowing matters because borrowing shows why the Union can operate well.

The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Glasgow North East (Mr Bain), pointed out three things which the clause delivers. It delivers, first, decentralisation. An important part of decentralisation is fiscal responsibility. It delivers, secondly, a lever for growth, but the third and most important thing that it delivers is macroeconomic stability within the context of the United Kingdom. This is central because the biggest argument for the Union, the thing that underlies the dry language of the Bill, is why being part of a bigger country matters—why, to put it in the most brutal terms, we do not want to be Denmark.

Why is it that our ancestors got on their Viking boats, left Denmark and came here? The answer is, of course, that there are benefits in size. There are benefits to having an economy 12 times the size of Denmark’s. There are benefits to having a population 12 times the size of Denmark’s, with the corresponding borrowing and fiscal responsibility. That perfect balance enshrined in clause 37 and revealed in amendment 18 is the balance that comes from the benefits of autonomy combined with the benefits of size.

[Stewart Hosie]

I am desperately looking forward to the hon. Gentleman explaining when a Viking decided to leave Denmark to come and be part of the British state. I like the hon. Gentleman, but I think his history is rather askew.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

Order. Actually, I would not like the hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart) to explain that in the context of these amendments, and I am sure he is coming back to what is relevant to them.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Mundell]

There has been much debate about the role of the Lord Advocate and the Supreme Court in Scottish criminal proceedings. That debate has come a long way, and there is now agreement that the Supreme Court should have a role in relation to the European convention on human rights and EU law issues arising in Scottish criminal appeals.

The amendments tabled by the Government in the Lords took account of the many views expressed on these issues, including those of the expert group set up by the Advocate-General for Scotland. It would be appropriate at this point to remark on the passing of Paul McBride QC, who served on the expert group. Paul McBride was a well respected lawyer in Scotland and a highly regarded member of civic Scotland, and he is greatly missed by all who knew him and by the wider legal community. The amendments also took account of the views of the review group led by the noble and learned Lord McCluskey. On Report in the other place, he commented on the Government’s amendments. The end result of that process is something that even I could agree to about 98% of—which for anyone, never mind a lawyer, is a pretty good outcome, given where the debate started. In addition, the amendments tabled by the Government reflected the agreement that was reached with the Scottish Government to ensure that the legislative consent motion in support of the Bill was passed in the Scottish Parliament.

Lords amendments 9 and 19 to 22 replace clause 17 and make further provision about Scottish criminal proceedings. Subsection (2) of the new clause inserted by Lords amendment 21 would make the same provision as provided for by clause 17(2). That would mean that acts or failures to act by the Lord Advocate in prosecuting any offence, or as head of the system of criminal prosecutions and investigations into death in Scotland, would not be ultra vires should those acts be incompatible with the European convention on human rights or EU law. However, it will still be possible for acts of the Lord Advocate to be unlawful under section 6(1) of the Human Rights Act 1998 if the Lord Advocate acts in a way that is incompatible with the convention.

Lords amendments 19 to 21 provide for a new route of appeal to the Supreme Court for compatibility issues—questions raised in criminal proceedings about convention and EU law issues. Those issues would no longer be able to be raised as devolution issues. Lords amendment 21 would provide a right to appeal a compatibility issue from the High Court, acting as an appeal court, to the Supreme Court. The permission of the High Court or the Supreme Court would be needed for most appeals. An application for permission to appeal would have to be made within specified time limits, which could be extended if the Court considered that equitable.

Lords amendment 21 provides that the Supreme Court would only be able to determine a compatibility issue and would then have to remit the case back to the High Court. The High Court would then decide what steps needed to be taken in the light of the Supreme Court’s decision. For example, the Supreme Court would not be able to decide to overturn an accused’s conviction; that would be for the High Court to decide.

[Stewart Hosie]

I welcome that part of the group, but will the Minister make it absolutely clear—I believe he is just about to do so—that what we are seeing with these changes is an ending of the Supreme Court’s ability to substitute its decision for that of the High Court?

[David Mundell]

On this occasion, I am able to welcome the hon. Gentleman’s welcome. The provisions in the Bill, if these amendments are approved, will mean exactly that: the Supreme Court will not be able to substitute its own judgment for that of the High Court.