Tommy Sheppard
Main Page: Tommy Sheppard (Scottish National Party - Edinburgh East)Department Debates - View all Tommy Sheppard's debates with the Scotland Office
(9 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)
Let me start with some context. We are discussing this Bill because of what happened on 18 September last year when the Scottish people were invited to give their views on whether Scotland should become a self-governing nation. They voted no to that proposition by 55% to 45%. I cannot look into their minds and know the settled will of all those who voted in that referendum, but I know that the 55% who voted no included plenty of people who thought that the Union as it exists today is exactly the type of place they would like to live in. They had no quarrel with it; they liked the constitutional settlement.
Also among that 55%, and the group that made the difference to the outcome, were people who believed what they were told by the leaders of all the Unionist parties, which was that the 18 September vote was a vote not for the status quo, but for a new relationship within the Union, where additional powers would be transferred. That was the vow signed by the leader of the Conservative party, and by two other party leaders who must now be described as “former”. That vow was put front and centre before the electorate, and that is why people voted no in the referendum.
The Smith commission considered what that new relationship would be, and there was a five-party discussion. It is in the nature of such things that if we are seeking consensus, the bar will be pretty low, and the Smith commission published a report on how proposals for greater devolution might be implemented. At the time, the SNP signed off on those proposals, but we said that they were only a floor and not a ceiling to our aspirations for self-government. We also said that Smith did not go far enough to satisfy the vow.
Alberto Costa
Again, part of the disrespect agenda. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that last year’s referendum was once in a lifetime—yes or no?
Tommy Sheppard
I never said that. I accept—every Government should accept this—that no Government have the right to stand in the way of people who wish for a particular direction. We sought a mandate, and we got a mandate. Whatever happens today, let us please understand that the Bill does not satisfy the aspirations of the Scottish people for greater control over their own affairs. The Bill is a response to the Smith commission. We are still waiting for the Government’s response to the general election, when the people of Scotland made their view quite clear. Whatever happens today, this is not over. We shall be coming back during the next five years of our domain in this Chamber to argue again and again for more powers for the Scottish Government to satisfy the aspirations of the Scottish people. If that takes a further Scotland Bill at some later stage, so be it.
Danny Kinahan (South Antrim) (UUP)
Does the hon. Gentleman understand that the rest of the United Kingdom would also like a say in this debate? This debate is not just about Scotland; it is about the Ulster Scots, in my case, and about everyone else. SNP Members have a good indication of how the Scottish feel, but the rest of us have not had the chance to discuss the same point with our electorate. The message that I was getting loud and clear from my Northern Irish electorate when knocking on doors—
Danny Kinahan
The message I got from my electorate is that the Union is in danger and they do not want the Union to fall apart. They want all of us working together.
Tommy Sheppard
The hon. Gentleman must speak for the people who elected him, and I will speak for those who elected me. I am discussing the Scotland Bill, as amended—that is what I have been speaking about, and what I intend to speak on. The Bill falls far short of the expectations not just of the SNP, but of the people of Scotland. Civic society, trade unions, Churches and voluntary organisations throughout Scotland are disappointed at the poverty of ambition shown by the Secretary of State and the Government in the Bill.
Let me return to the Bill, because that is all we currently have—I do not normally read when making a speech, but I will read this quote so that I do not get it wrong. The Secretary of State said, on 8 June:
“I am absolutely clear that the Scotland Bill does fulfil in full the recommendations of the Smith commission.”
He has obviously had the benefit of a relaxing summer to consider the situation and determine whether that statement was in fact true. It now seems that it cannot have been true, because we have no fewer than 128 amendments from the Government to their Bill. I submit that never in the field of discussion of legislation has a Bill been so amended by its proposers and still managed to fall so far short of its declared objectives.
None the less, it is welcome that second thoughts are being had and that some improvements are being made. The first improvement is on the question of permanence, although I wonder why it has taken until now to happen. It is good that new clause 12 contains the agreement that the Scottish Parliament will not be taken away, dissolved or otherwise removed without first a plebiscite among the Scottish people to see what they want to do. I am pleased that the Secretary of State, in tabling that new clause, recognises where sovereignty lies on that question. It should lie with the people of Scotland whose government we are discussing. I invite the Secretary of State to support new clause 36 which would enshrine that principle of sovereignty a little more. It provides that in future discussions about the arrangements for the government of Scotland, it should be the people of Scotland’s Parliament that determines what those discussions are and the timetable by which they are put to the people in a referendum. That is only a logical extension once it has been conceded that sovereignty should lie with the people. If it is not the Scottish Parliament that should consider and respond to a future referendum, should there be one, who else should do so? It would be ridiculous for this Parliament to retain that power for itself.
The Smith commission was clear when it said that the Sewel convention should be enshrined in statute. The Bill still—after all this time—does not make that happen. The Sewel convention says that the “imperial Parliament” —to quote the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh)—should not interfere in devolved decisions by the Scottish Parliament or other devolved Assemblies. The SNP’s new clause would enshrine that convention in law and enshrine the principle of subsidiarity—decisions being taken as close to the people as possible.
Ian Murray
Given the codification of the Sewel convention in new clause 36, I give the hon. Gentleman—my constituency neighbour—a commitment that we will support him if he presses it to a vote this evening. Perhaps we will attract further support and it will be carried.
Tommy Sheppard
I am grateful to the shadow Secretary of State for his support on this matter. The principle is clear: you do not keep a dog and bark yourself. Once power has been devolved to organisations, they must be allowed to get on with it.
I was disappointed that the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen) took almost 20% of the time available for this debate not to discuss constitutional principles about the governance of Scotland, but to pursue his concerns about the decentralisation of services. What we are discussing is a change in the constitutional arrangements between Scotland and England within the Union. We are talking about giving more authority and competences to the Scottish Government, and that is not the same thing as the decentralisation and better administration of public services in England. The hon. Gentleman was wrong to do that and is unlikely to have made friends to support his argument as a result.
My final point is on full fiscal autonomy. I think that some of our opponents thought that when we did not get that through the last time, we would forget about it. Believe me, we have not forgotten about it. We want the Scottish Government to have control over the economy in Scotland. We want the ability to grow our economy and for our priorities to be set in line with the aspirations of the people who live in Scotland. I heard some interesting arguments from the hon. Member for Gainsborough and others in favour of full fiscal autonomy, but I have yet to hear a principled argument against it. The hon. Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray) often talks of a black hole, but that is not an argument in principle against full fiscal autonomy—against giving the Scottish Government control over economic affairs. It is an argument for saying that we should prepare for that devolution of powers and make sure that we get it right. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will come round to that way of thinking. We will object to the proposal to give a Conservative Secretary of State the power to set up a commission to look into whether full fiscal autonomy could happen, because he has already made his intentions in that regard clear.
We will come back to this issue, and it will be the subject of future debate in Scotland. The grandest commission of all on this debate will be the electorate of Scotland, who will get another opportunity in six or seven months’ time to decide whether they want better economic powers for their Government. We will get another mandate and come back to make that argument again.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Moray referred to the fiscal framework. It is not for us today to get involved, or even seek to influence, the discussions between Scottish and UK Ministers on the fiscal framework, but we have to be clear about what is at stake. The Smith commission was clear: it said that whatever powers are devolved to Scotland in this or any other settlement, it should be at no detriment. In other words, at the point of transfer of the power, the Scottish budget should not suffer as a consequence. I want to hear from the Secretary of State whether he believes in that principle. Is it guiding his discussions with Scottish Ministers? If it is used simply as a device to cut the Scottish budget and not provide adequate funding for the delivery of the new powers, he will do his cause a great disservice and hasten the day that we come back with a new Bill that will be a considerable improvement on this one.
Ian Austin
In September 1997, I travelled from Dudley to Glasgow and Edinburgh to support the late Donald Dewar and Scottish Labour’s campaign for a yes-yes vote in the devolution referendum—[Interruption.]
Dr Whiteford
The hon. Lady needs to remember that a great deal of the public sector is already devolved and these issues have been worked out. We already have devolution of a whole range of public services, with some issues negotiated at a national level and some at a UK-wide level, so her point seems rather redundant, frankly.
The Scottish Parliament has a good track record of advancing progressive equality measures, and our proposals would enable further progress in gender, disability, LGBTI and race equality—for instance, by improving protections from discrimination and by ensuring a more balanced representation of women in public life and on boards. It is worth pointing out that the full devolution of equality and equal opportunities has been supported by leading equality organisations such as Engender, Inclusion Scotland, the Equality Network and the Coalition for Racial Equality and Rights, whose executive director, Jatin Haria, said:
“Devolution brings power closer to people—and this is particularly important for marginalised and discriminated groups. In addition, many areas which intersect with equality law are already devolved and different in Scotland (e.g. policing or health) and further devolution of equality legislation would better allow the Scottish Parliament to push for specific outcomes which could lead to real improvements in the life chances and experiences for all people living in Scotland.”
New clause 28 and amendment 168 relate to the vexed and long-standing question of the Crown Estate. Amendment 168 would leave out clause 31 and new clause 28 would replace it. Clause 31 is not true to the spirit of the Smith commission, which recommended the full devolution of responsibility for the management of the Crown Estate’s economic assets in Scotland, including the Crown Estate’s seabed, and mineral and fishing rights, and the revenue generated from these assets. Clause 31 is also overly complicated and excludes certain Crown Estate assets, such as Fort Kinnaird, over which my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East (Tommy Sheppard) has raised concerns.
Tommy Sheppard
One of the largest investments of the Crown Estate in Scotland is in the Fort Kinnaird retail park in Edinburgh East. I have been pressing the Secretary of State on why it is excluded from the transfer. Does my hon. Friend agree that his explanation so far is not very convincing? He says that it cannot be transferred because it is part of a commercial arrangement, but we are only talking about the transfer of the Government’s responsibilities and the Government component in the relationship.
Dr Whiteford
I agree with my hon. Friend, who makes his point well.
As someone who represents coastal communities that have for many decades been held back by the shortcomings of the way that the Crown Estate has operated in Scotland, I for one cannot wait to see those public assets brought under proper democratic accountability and working for the good of those communities. New clause 28 would reduce complexity by removing the reservation relating to the management of the Crown Estate and provide the Scottish Parliament with full legislative competence in relation to the management of the Crown Estate in Scotland. It would also transfer any functions of the Crown Estate Commissioners in relation to rights to the continental shelf beyond the 200 nautical mile-limit adjacent to Scotland. Up to now, Parliament has not made a good job of scrutinising the activities of the Crown Estate. We have an opportunity today to put that right by opening the Crown Estate to better public accountability and putting its assets at the service of our communities.
There are a number of amendment on a miscellaneous range of subjects, all of which would strengthen the Bill, and I want to touch on those before concluding. New clause 29 would give the Scottish Parliament control over the regulation of party political broadcasts for local elections and Scottish elections as well as any referendums held in Scotland in devolved competences, as per the Smith commission recommendation at paragraph 23. That seems to have been missed out of the legislation to date.
New clause 30 devolves broadcasting by amending schedule 5 to the Scotland Act 1998. This would not impact directly on the delivery of the Smith commission proposals on the BBC and Ofcom, both of which are being delivered through memorandums of understanding. Rather, if passed, it would provide for a wider role for the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government in broadcasting policy in future.
Amendments 182 and 183 relate to gaming machines and licensed betting premises, and replace the reference to “betting premises” with the more general reference to “gambling premises”, giving full effect to the Smith commission recommendation in paragraph 74.
New clause 31 would give the Scottish Parliament general legislative competence over agriculture, aquaculture and fisheries levies. For me, this reform cannot come soon enough. It would bring to an end the absurd and unacceptable situation whereby Scottish fishermen are paying levies that are used to promote their Norwegian competitors’ fish instead of being used to promote Scottish seafood and to develop new products and markets. For instance, the UK Sea Fish Industry Authority currently organises the UK fish and chip shop awards, which is used by the Norwegian Seafood Council to promote frozen Norwegian fish into the UK market. The finalists of the 2016 awards are even being taken to Norway to learn about the supply of fish from Norway to the UK.
I have no problem at all with fair competition, but I have a massive problem with fishermen in my constituency being forced to pay levies that are then used by a publicly funded body to undermine their own businesses. It needs to end. That is just one reason why the Scottish Seafood Association and others support the devolution of these levies, which could be much better used to promote our locally sourced top-quality produce.
New clause 32 would give Scottish Ministers full powers and the flexibility to decide who would run rail services, in line with paragraph 65 of the Smith commission recommendations, and would allow public sector operators to bid for rail franchises.
Amendments 184 to 188 all relate to fuel poverty support schemes in clause 50, and would provide scope to reshape fuel poverty programmes in Scotland, while amendment 189 removes restrictions on the consultation process with the Scottish Government and Scottish Parliament in relation to the renewables incentive scheme. Again, this would bring the Bill into line with the Smith commission recommendation for a formal consultative role and enable the development of the intergovernmental concordat that we believe is necessary.
Lastly, new clause 33 would enact a formal consultative role for the Scottish Government and the Scottish Parliament in setting the strategic priorities of the Civil Aviation Authority, which I know is a very important issue for my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Hannah Bardell).