Scotland Act 1998: Section 35 Power
Wayne David Excerpts(1 year, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Jack
No. The Minister for Women and Equalities, my right hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Kemi Badenoch), tells me that the UK Government consulted a number of years ago, and Wales would have been included in that consultation. The point is that there is no democratic vandalism, or whatever the hon. Gentleman was saying. The Act that contains section 35 is entirely democratic, and we are now using that order to protect women and children’s safeguards, which we believe are undermined by the cut-across in two GB-wide laws.
Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)
In his response to the shadow Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray), the right hon. Gentleman said that section 35 of the 1998 Act was not an instrument of last resort, but the memorandum of understanding signed in 2012 made it an instrument of last resort by common agreement, so what discussions on a constitutional basis has the Secretary of State had with the First Minister of Scotland to avoid this impasse?
Mr Jack
It is not the last resort. What I said to the shadow Secretary of State was that we have 28 days in which to take legal advice and act. Failing that, the Bill goes for Royal Assent. That is the timeframe we operate in. There is then the opportunity for further discussions with the Scottish Government to see if we can get the legislation in scope. We made the same offer with the UNCRC (Incorporation) (Scotland) Bill, which we took to a section 33 order, and that offer still stands. We are happy to discuss with the Scottish Government what amendments could be made to the Bill to get it in scope so that it does not have adverse effects on UK-wide legislation. There is never quite a last resort when you can go on talking, discussing and trying to resolve your differences.
Scotland Bill
Wayne David Excerpts(9 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)
In contrast with the previous speech, which was an ill-informed diatribe criticising the Scottish Government, I rise to address the Bill before us today. I am going to use what precious time I have to speak in favour of amendment 204.
Amendment 204 would introduce a subsection to clause 11 that would remove the Human Rights Act 1998 from the list of protected provisions in schedule 4 to the Scotland Act 1998. This would have the effect of removing the Human Rights Act from the list of enactments that cannot be modified by the Scottish Parliament. If the Scottish Parliament was able to modify the Human Rights Act, that would allow the Scottish Government and the Scottish Parliament fully to establish a human rights regime in Scotland regardless of whether the Act was repealed by the UK Parliament in London.
The UK Government, which have no mandate in Scotland, have repeatedly made clear their intention to repeal the Human Rights Act and to replace it with a Bill of Rights. They have made it clear that they scorn European and international norms on human rights and the jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights. They have made it clear that they want to replace the Human Rights Act with a watered-down version of the rights and protections that everybody in the UK currently enjoys. We saw that very much trailed in The Sunday Times yesterday.
We in Scotland do not wish to have the terms of the debate on human rights in Scotland dictated by the UK Parliament, because in Scotland we have a very different agenda. There is no mandate in Scotland for repeal of the Human Rights Act. Preserving the Human Rights Act was an issue during the campaigns in both the independence referendum and the general election. The SNP has consistently opposed repeal, and as my right hon. Friend the Member for Moray (Angus Robertson) said, we won the general election in Scotland. Indeed, including Labour’s and the Liberal Democrats’ sole representatives in Scotland, 58 out of 59 Scottish MPs oppose repeal.
Joanna Cherry
I think I will make some progress, if the hon. Gentleman does not mind.
Last year, the Scottish Parliament voted by 100 to 10 to endorse the Human Rights Act, and civic society in Scotland, from the Scottish Trades Union Congress to the Church of Scotland, also opposes repeal. Nevertheless, this UK Government have repeatedly confirmed that they intend to go ahead with repeal and that it will apply equally in Scotland as in England, Wales and Northern Ireland.
In Scotland, we are concerned by repeated statements from Ministers of this Government suggesting they believe they could repeal the Act without consulting the Scottish Parliament. Their argument seems to be that they would not need a legislative consent motion, but that is incorrect. Human rights are not a reserved matter under the devolution settlement. Schedule 4 to the Scotland Act 1998 protects the Human Rights Act against modification by the Scottish Parliament, but human rights per se are not a reserved matter. They are not listed as such among the reserved matters in schedule 5 to the 1998 Act. It was part of the late Donald Dewar’s scheme that all matters would be devolved unless specifically reserved, and human rights are not specifically reserved.
Moreover, human rights and the European convention on human rights are written into the Scotland Act, meaning that the Scottish Parliament and Scottish Ministers cannot pass legislation that is incompatible with the convention.
Joanna Cherry
It is hard to take that seriously. Since we have been in the House, we have, through the judicious questioning of Ministers, established that one of their main concerns about the Human Rights Act is the fear they should have to take account of—that is all the Act says—the decisions of the Strasbourg Court. Given that they fear having to take account of European and international norms, I can only assume they want to replace the Act with a considerably watered-down version of the ECHR and the Act. That is merely a logical deduction.
I wonder if I might give way to the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Wayne David), on the Labour Front Bench, who wished to intervene earlier.
Wayne David
It was only about five minutes ago, but I thank the hon. and learned Lady very much indeed. I agree with her comments about the Human Rights Act, but would she accept that what she says about Scotland also applies to Wales and to Northern Ireland especially?
Joanna Cherry
I do. As our First Minister has made clear, and as I have made clear in the House several times, we will do everything we can to preserve the Act for the whole of the UK. Were the Government to recognise that human rights are not a reserved matter and that therefore there has to be a legislative consent motion, we in Scotland could help friends across the House by refusing legislative consent for the repeal of the Act, which would be one way of keeping it for the whole of the UK.
Ian Blackford
I want to make some progress.
Labour Members need to start learning the lesson that Scotland rejected them for a reason. They had better start to get on side with us and the people of Scotland. Tonight is a chance for the House to understand that Scotland expects powers for the Scottish Parliament to be delivered so that Scotland’s destiny can be put in Scotland’s hands. That will not happen by voting for a Bill that leaves us with a hand tied behind our backs while a Tory Government do their worst to the poor and disadvantaged in our society.
Our amendments allow us to deliver on the interests of our people. We need a Parliament that will allow us to stand up for the people of Scotland and recognise that the people are sovereign. Let me finish by quoting Charles Stewart Parnell:
“No man has the right to fix the boundary to a march of a nation. No man has the right to say thus far shalt thou go and no further.”
It is in that context that we need powers to determine in Scotland when and if we want to have a referendum. It is in that context that the House should listen to the elected Members of the people of Scotland.
Wayne David
The acid test of this Bill is whether it delivers on the vow and the recommendations of the Smith commission. Objectively, assuming that all the Government amendments are agreed, we believe that the Bill goes a long way to delivering on the Smith commission. That is not to say that the Government have delivered on absolutely everything. They clearly have not, and I have to say that it is a sad reflection on this Government that they have come to this point kicking and screaming. Since the beginning of the Smith commission’s report in November 2014, the Government have had a long and painful journey.
Nowhere is the Government’s change of heart more clear than in respect of Government new clause 12. It was constantly argued by Opposition Members in Committee that the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government ought to be described as “a permanent part” of the United Kingdom’s constitutional arrangements. We argued that the phrase “recognised as permanent” was less than what was recommended by the Smith commission and that, as the Scottish Parliament’s Devolution (Further Powers) Committee correctly argued, the use of the phrase “recognised as permanent” had the effect of weakening the Smith recommendations. I am pleased that the Government have listened.
Some might think that this is all about constitutional navel-gazing, but it is an extremely important point that the Scottish Parliament be placed on a firm constitutional footing and that the sovereignty of the Parliament rests with the people of Scotland. I have, however, a question for the Secretary of State on the issue of the UK’s parliamentary sovereignty.
We all know that a classic theory of UK parliamentary sovereignty is stated in Dicey’s “Introduction to the Law of the Constitution”. According to this classic theory, Parliament can make a law on any subject it pleases, and there are no fundamental laws that restrict its powers. The Government’s new clause 12, I would suggest, is a departure from that theory, which I welcome. Does the Secretary of State agree that in passing new clause 12 we are making modest but significant constitutional history?
New clause 13 is about the functions exercised by Scottish Ministers in respect of elections. It is essentially technical, but on the issue of elections, I refer briefly to amendments 37 and 43. Of course, a vital part of any democracy is free and open elections, and we support Government new clause 13 and Government amendments 35 to 43. I am glad that the Government have recognised the need to devolve some of the responsibilities of the Electoral Commission. It is surely only appropriate that the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 is amended so that the functions of the Electoral Commission are devolved for elections to the Scottish Parliament.
I note that the Government have introduced the significant amendment 43, which deals with the so-called “Digital Service”. As I understand it, this relates to the ability to register online to vote. Given the introduction of individual elector registration, this is very important. I ask the Minister for clarification on two points. First, although there is reference in the Bill to Scottish Ministers making regulations subject to the negative procedure, it is repeated in amendment 43, so I would appreciate it if the Government could explain what exactly this negative procedure is and how it will work?
Secondly, with regard to the online registration system, could there be confusion about which electors are able to vote in which elections? The Scottish Parliament has rightly decided to introduce votes for 16 and 17-year-olds at all Scottish elections, but these individuals will be denied the vote in Westminster elections. Is there not a danger of widespread confusion, particularly if the online registration technology is being used for both Westminster and Scottish elections?
If I am pleased that the Government have listened to the debate, particularly as far as new clause 12 is concerned, I am disappointed that they have not brought forward an amendment on the Sewel convention and its workings. We argued in Committee, as did SNP Members, that we were concerned about the narrow interpretation of the Sewel convention, which concerned the more general devolved competence. Moreover, there is the imprecision of the word “normally”. As I said in the Committee of the whole House:
“How long is a piece of string?”—[Official Report, 15 June 2015; Vol. 597, c. 99.]
The word “normally” is legally imprecise, which is why amendments 7, 8, 9 and 10, to remove the offending word, were tabled by the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael), who sadly cannot be with us today.
New clause 35, tabled by the right hon. Member for Moray (Angus Robertson), seeks to place the Sewel convention on a statutory footing. This was, of course, recommended by the Smith commission, and we are happy to support the new clause, if it is pressed to a vote. However, if we are supporting new clause 35, we are certainly not supporting new clause 36, also tabled by the right hon. Member for Moray. It deals with future referendums on Scottish independence. I note that in the right hon. Gentleman’s statement to the press over the weekend, he said:
“Whether or not Scotland has a referendum in the future should be up to the people—and in the hands of the Scottish Parliament—rather than the UK Government.”
Callum McCaig (Aberdeen South) (SNP)
Paragraph 18 of the Smith commission report states:
“It is agreed that nothing in this report prevents Scotland becoming an independent country in the future should the people of Scotland so choose.”
If the people of Scotland do not have the power to choose, how is that provision to stand the test of time?
Wayne David
I may be mistaken, but I thought the Scottish people had made a decision—a very firm and clear-cut decision. If there is a move towards having a referendum in the future—
Callum McCaig
On the history of this issue, the referendum happened in September, and the Smith commission from which I have directly quoted, happened after that. All the parties decided that nothing should prevent Scotland from becoming independent, should the people so wish—yet that is exactly what these provisions are trying to do.
Wayne David
No one is seeking to deny the people of Scotland anything. I simply remind the hon. Gentleman that a prominent member of the SNP said that the result was gold-plated, and that the Scottish Parliament has the power at present to have a referendum. The amendment seeks to take away the caveats that are based on discussion and all the more reasonable for that.
Ian Austin
Does my hon. Friend agree that this obsession with organising another referendum proves the central point made by me and others in this afternoon’s debate—that the SNP is much more interested in breaking up Britain than in getting on and delivering for the people of Scotland by improving the health service, improving education and providing the homes that the people of Scotland need?
Wayne David
I could not agree more. In my book, devolution is not about divorce, separation or schism. It is not about balkanising Britain. It is about establishing a new partnership, so that the people of Britain can work together in a constructive and harmonious way.
Patrick Grady
I may have misheard the hon. Gentleman, but it sounded as if he said that the Scottish Parliament had the power to call a referendum. The Scottish Parliament explicitly does not have the power to call a referendum, which is why we want to give it that power by means of our amendment.
Wayne David
What the amendment seeks to do is take away caveats that are essential in defining the partnership and the harmonious discussions that must take place. It is not simply a question of the Scottish Parliament deciding by itself what it wants to do.
Ian Blackford
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for being so gracious with his time. This is a very important point, because it comes down to the issue of whether the Scottish people, in electing a Government who want to have a referendum on independence, have the power to do so. If the House does not accept our amendment, that power will reside with Westminster, and not with the Scottish people or the Scottish Parliament. It has nothing to do with caveats.
Wayne David
I think that the obsession with having a referendum at all costs is very sad for the people of Scotland.
Wayne David
No. I have given way four times already.
Sometimes SNP Members have to be told, and I am telling them now. The situation is as I have described it. We are not prepared to have a referendum, and we are not prepared to allow a constitutional debate to be hijacked by the referendum issue in an attempt to manoeuvre the situation and bring about a break-up of the United Kingdom. That is not what devolution is all about, and it is not what the Smith commission was all about. The Smith commission was all about people working together.
Several hon. Members rose—
Wayne David
I want to make a bit of progress now.
The fact is that these are not dry constitutional issues, but issues that have an impact on everyday life, as is shown clearly by what is happening in Scotland in connection with the Trade Union Bill. Under the Sewel convention, a legislative consent motion is necessary for Westminster legislation to secure the consent of the Scottish Parliament if it is to apply in Scotland in a devolved area. According to a strict legal interpretation, this Bill seeks to amend the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, and therefore, it is argued, does not encroach on areas of devolved competence. In practical terms, however, it will encroach very much on areas of devolved competence by imposing requirements on local authorities in Scotland.
We believe it is wrong that the UK Government are able to legislate for devolved authorities in this way. That is why all Labour-led councils in Scotland—and one led by the SNP— have agreed to a stance of non-compliance. The Westminster Government have not sought a legislative consent motion from the Scottish Parliament, but Labour will present such a motion in order to deny the Bill competence over Scotland’s devolved services.
I have mentioned local authorities. New clauses 7, 8 and 9, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen), make the point that true supporters of devolution believe that power should reside at the most appropriate level, as close to the people as possible. They recognise that there is a very real issue in Scotland, namely that, in the view of many, the Scottish Government are more concerned about exercising power itself than about empowering people in their local communities. Members of the SNP claim to be good Europeans, but I am afraid they show little practical support for the adoption of the European principle of bringing power closer to the people. They have a chance to put that right tonight.
As was noted when we discussed it in a Committee of the whole House, part 2 of the Bill devolves significant new powers to Scotland in relation to income tax and other taxes. The Scottish Parliament will have control over income tax rates and thresholds, and complete freedom when it comes to the levels at which those rates and thresholds are set. That is significant, as the estimated devolved income tax liabilities in 2013-14 amounted to nearly £11 billion. The collection and deployment of such a considerable sum confers—rightly—a substantial degree of responsibility on the Scottish Parliament. If they wish, a Scottish Government, whatever their political complexion, can increase or decrease that liability.
Sir Edward Leigh
I refer the hon. Gentleman to his own new clause 1. Do I take it that because the Labour party wants an independent commission to examine the issue of full fiscal autonomy, it is increasingly open minded about the issue, and does the hon. Gentleman think that that would be one route towards getting rid of the grievance mentality among those in Scotland? If they had to take full responsibility for their decisions, it would be very difficult for them to blame a United Kingdom settlement.
Wayne David
We believe that the facts should be allowed to speak for themselves. In our view, the case has not been made and cannot be made, but what we want to see is a transparent, independent body that will reach that conclusion, and we are confident that it will do so. That is why we support the proposal for an independent commission.
Ms Ahmed-Sheikh
Does the hon. Gentleman agree with the shadow Chancellor, who, earlier this year, walked through the Lobby with us to vote for full fiscal autonomy?
Wayne David
He did that for his own reasons, and for different reasons. What was obvious to me, and very telling, was the fact that the Tory right and the Scottish nationalists were at one. Representatives of English nationalism and Scottish nationalism went through the Lobby together in their hordes: the nationalists and the extreme right! That says it all, does it not?
Nick Thomas-Symonds (Torfaen) (Lab)
I know that my hon. Friend, like me, is a student of history. He will know of the test set by that great socialist R. H. Tawney, who said of political institutions, “It is not about paragraphs in a constitution; it is about the practical effect that the institutions make.” Does my hon. Friend agree that it would be useful to know from SNP Members what, practically, they intend to do with their new powers?
Wayne David
Yes, indeed. They are very strong on rhetoric, as we have heard this afternoon. They have had strong election results, but I suspect that that will not apply for much longer, because the Scottish people will rumble them when they dig beneath the rhetoric and find that there is very little substance there.
Sir Edward Leigh
Could it just be that the Tory right, as the hon. Gentleman describes it, and the present Labour shadow Chancellor both recognise that the one way to defeat nationalism is to have a real Parliament in Scotland with full power over what it taxes and spends and that at that stage the SNP will have to take responsibility for its own actions? It will become a grown-up political party and we will start to defeat it in Scotland.
Wayne David
One of the key reasons why we are broadly in support of what the Government are belatedly proposing is that we believe it will give new responsibilities to the Scottish Parliament to try to achieve substantial things on behalf of the Scottish people. I think there is a case to say that responsibility and power go together, and that is why these measures are a step forward.
Ian Austin
A moment ago my hon. Friend expressed surprise that the SNP and the Tory right were voting together on full fiscal autonomy, but I am bemused about why he is surprised given that it was the SNP who brought down the Labour Government in the 1970s and ushered in 18 years of—[Interruption.] I do not know what the hon. Member for Ochil and South Perthshire (Ms Ahmed-Sheikh) is shouting for, given that she was until very recently a Tory herself. They ushered in 18 years of Thatcherism and all the problems about which they are now whingeing. [Interruption.]
Wayne David
All I would say is that it is quite clear that the truth hurts sometimes, does it not? They have been rumbled absolutely.
I will make a little progress in a slightly more sedate manner, if I may. Reference has been made to our new clause 1, which would establish an independent commission on full fiscal autonomy to scrutinise the potential impact on Scotland’s economy and public finances. It would require the Secretary of State for Scotland to establish an independent commission of external experts, appointed in consultation with the Treasury Committee and Scottish Affairs Committee, to publish a report by 31 March 2016 setting out an analysis, objectively and fairly, of the impact of the policy of full fiscal autonomy.
VAT is another important issue. Our amendments 27 to 29 would place an additional £5 billion of reserves under the direct control of the Scottish Parliament by assigning 100% of Scottish revenues from the standard and reduced rate of VAT to the Scottish Parliament, as opposed to 50%, for which the Bill currently allows. Of course, under EU regulations, which do not allow for differential rates of VAT in the same state, the actual setting of VAT would have to remain reserved. However, this is not an argument against assigning the revenues generated in Scotland to the Scottish Consolidated Fund. As was said on Report, given that the Scottish Government would have
“no control over VAT, why assign only half of it? Why not assign it all? The Scottish Government could then quite rightly benefit, if there was a benefit, from the entire rise in VAT in Scotland rather than just half of it and could take responsibility if there was a shortfall, not just for half the shortfall.”—[Official Report, 29 June 2015; Vol. 597, c. 1256.]
It was said that that would be a good thing. Those were not my comments, or indeed the comments of another Member of the Opposition; they were the comments of the hon. Member for Dundee East (Stewart Hosie), who also happens to be the SNP’s spokesperson on the economy. Oddly, given his full-blooded support for devolving 100% of VAT, the SNP has not actually got round to tabling an amendment that would produce this effect, and when the Labour party tabled an amendment proposing that, did the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues welcome it? No, they did not. Instead, they issued a press release in which the hon. Gentleman himself denounced it as a “gimmick”. Well, I do not think it is a gimmick and I am sure the people of Scotland do not think so either.
New clause 4 would review the impact of the new income tax powers on the operation of gift aid in Scotland to guard against unintended and negative consequences for charities. Gift aid is worth over £1 billion a year to charities and over £100 million in Scotland. Any threat to its smooth operation must, therefore, be closely guarded against. The problem that Labour’s new clauses seek to address is that gift aid is UK-wide, linked to tax paid, and predicated on a single tax structure. I would welcome in the Secretary of State’s response any assurances he can provide to charities in Scotland on the issue of gift aid.
New clause 11 would require the Secretary of State to lay before the House of Commons a full record, including minutes of meetings and correspondence at ministerial level, of discussions between the Secretary of State, the Treasury and Scottish Ministers relating to the non-budget expenditure to be voted by Parliament authorising the payment of grants to the Scottish Consolidated Fund for that financial year. We would of course be happy to work in partnership with the Scottish Parliament on such a report, although it is similarly in the gift of the Scottish Government to produce their own report, and I hope that they would share it with us as well. We would thereby have regular updates on the health of these negotiations, which currently take place to a large extent behind closed doors. The purpose of this new clause is to ensure transparency and accountability in the process leading to the annual settlement between the Treasury and Scottish Ministers of the block grant to the Scottish Consolidated Fund.
It is worth noting that the Scottish Parliament’s Finance Committee produced a report on intergovernmental relations in late June. It makes for interesting and important reading. It is generally critical of the state of intergovernmental relations, which are described as taking place “below the radar.” It is said that relations should be made
“more formal and more transparent.”
The Committee also recommended that consideration should be given to establishing an independent body to advise on the calculation of the block grant and an independent arbiter to resolve disputes on issues such as the block grant adjustment. The Labour party would certainly support any such moves to that effect, and it is in the interests of introducing greater accountability, transparency and formality to these negotiations that our new clause 11 has been tabled.
I am grateful for being allowed to speak in some detail about some of the amendments, but they are important; these are important issues. I hope that the House will give sympathetic consideration to the points I have made this evening.
Scotland Bill
Wayne David Excerpts(9 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Chris Stephens
I declare my membership of Unison and my trade union activity over the past 20 years. It was disappointing to hear the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Wayne David) shout across to SNP Members that we do not care for workers and working people—I hope he will reflect on that because a number of SNP Members have been involved in trade union activity in the past.
Wayne David
If the hon. Gentleman was concerned about workers throughout the United Kingdom, he would certainly accept Labour’s amendment to consider all the pros and cons of a case for the fragmentation of the national minimum wage.
Chris Stephens
I care about workers across the world, and I will be quoting from the Scottish Trades Union Congress and stating how it views the situation.
In speaking to new clause 47, I will not only outline why we believe it to be necessary, but produce supporting evidence from independent organisations in Scotland that have stated the clear benefits they see from devolving employment law. We believe that having such powers at Holyrood is essential to driving forward fairer pay and better working conditions in Scotland. Our priority is empowering Scotland to tackle inequality, for which we have a clear mandate from the voters. If the route out of poverty is work, it follows that we must argue for real powers to deliver it.
A coherent and integrated Scottish employment policy would address inequality and poverty by helping to get people into work, sustain employment and tackle low pay. That is why we seek the devolving of the national minimum wage to Scotland as a priority, as that would enable the Scottish Parliament to do more to address low pay and in-work poverty.
Our 2015 general election manifesto set out plans to raise the minimum wage to £8.70 by 2020, which is equivalent to the average national minimum wage growth between 1999 and 2007, and would go some way to reversing the below-inflation increases that took place between 2007 and 2014. Putting that power firmly in Scotland’s hands would allow us to legislate for further increases to match the living wage over time. Devolution would also allow the Scottish Government to integrate national minimum wage policy into the devolved income tax and welfare systems to ensure a targeted and joined-up approach to addressing in-work poverty.
Why do we need employment law to be devolved? The recent report by Citizens Advice Scotland, “Fair Enough?”, sets out in detail the problems with the current employment law system. Last year, the service dealt with 46,540 cases of unfair treatment in the workplace, and fully expects that number to rise. Those cases include dismissal for unfair reasons such as sickness, attempting to take holiday or even pregnancy. Some workers were even informed of their dismissal by text message. That backs up my own experiences before arriving in this place, where—even in local government—employers engaged in behaviour that they thought they could legally get away with rather than adhere to best practice.
There is widespread anger in Scotland at the attacks on employment rights, equalities and trade union rights from the coalition, and now from the majority Tory Government. Their approach is leading to an economy in which work is less well paid, less secure and less permanent. Local economies suffer in a low-wage, low-reward economy. A better way is required. For example, devolution of this issue would enable us to end the unfair and exploitative zero-hours contracts that create unacceptable levels of uncertainty and financial insecurity for low-paid workers.
Our policy approach to employment law and workplace issues is evidence-based. In February 2014, the Scottish Government commissioned the “Working Together” independent review of progressive workplace policies and practices in the public and private sectors in Scotland. The review group was convinced that the economic and social challenges and opportunities facing Scotland were more likely to be addressed successfully in an environment where trade unions played their full part.
Following the review, the Fair Work Convention was established to develop a fair employment and workplace framework based on national and international research and leading-edge practice for Scotland, and to deliver a practical blueprint for implementation by 2016. It will provide independent advice to the Scottish Government on all matters relating to fair work, and it could play a bigger role in future years. For instance, the Fair Work Convention could work with ACAS, trade unions and other stakeholders, such as Citizens Advice Scotland, to promote awareness of basic rights at work and how to assert them for employees and employers alike. The convention could also take on a role overseeing enforcement of employment law under Scots law. In other words, we have thought through how this would work in practice.
There is a strong economic argument that devolving employment law would bring opportunities for innovation that would enhance productivity, workplace development, labour market security and resilience. We observe a lack of coherence in the Government’s proposals because they would devolve the administration of tribunals, but not the substantive laws they administer, including employment law. Far from settling the issue, that keeps the pot boiling: a lack of clarity and purpose in legislation means that the only guarantee is that it will be revisited at some point. This is an opportunity to do it right the first time.
Andrea Leadsom
Thank you, Sir David.
Clauses 46 and 47 deliver the Smith commission agreement and provide Scottish Ministers with greater influence over the strategic direction of the Commissioners of Northern Lighthouses and of MG Alba. They achieve that by enabling Scottish Ministers to appoint a member of the Northern Lighthouse Board and by giving Scottish Ministers the power to approve Ofcom appointments to MG Alba.
Clause 48 provides that the Secretary of State will be required to consult Scottish Ministers when setting the strategic priorities in relation to the exercise of functions in Scotland regarding the activities of Her Majesty’s Coastguard and the safety standards of ships. These functions are exercisable by the Secretary of State for Transport, but are in practice carried out in the UK by the Maritime and Coastguard Agency, an Executive agency of the Department for Transport.
The Smith commission agreement was explicit in the devolution of the power to allow public sector operators to bid for rail franchises funded and specified by Scottish Ministers, and clause 49 achieves that.
Clauses 50, 51 and 52 implement the Smith commission agreement and devolve design and implementation powers relating to energy efficiency and fuel poverty to Scottish Ministers, while reserving responsibility for the overarching aspects that affect all consumers in Great Britain, such as scale, costs and apportionment of obligations, as well as the obligated parties. The clauses contain safeguards to give effect to the Smith commission agreement that the devolution of these powers
“be implemented in a way that is not to the detriment of the rest of the UK or to the UK’s international obligations and commitments on energy efficiency and climate change.”
It is the Government’s position that such provisions are necessary. Specifically, we believe that it would be in the interests of UK and Scottish Ministers that the benefits provided to consumers in one part of Great Britain should be proportionate to the costs on consumers in that part of Great Britain.
Scottish Ministers should be able to design supplier obligations for Scotland, but costs should be proportionate across regions, removing the possibility of competitive distortions and cross-subsidy by consumers across Great Britain. We will look at ways of making the costs of obligations clear and equitable between Scotland and the rest of Great Britain.
Clause 53 creates a formal consultative role for Scottish Ministers in the design of renewable electricity incentive schemes that will apply in Scotland. Clause 54 will enable Scottish Ministers to take decisions on safety zones for renewable energy installations in Scottish waters by making Scottish Ministers the appropriate Ministers, and it will enable them to take responsibility for ensuring that offshore renewable energy installations are removed or decommissioned at the end of their useful life. It ensures that consent to and decommissioning of offshore renewable energy installations and the management of Crown Estate assets in relation to such installations are the responsibility of Scottish Ministers, rather than being divided between Scottish Ministers and the Secretary of State.
Clause 55 delivers the Smith commission agreement by devolving to Scottish Ministers, when acting jointly with the Secretary of State, the power to require the Competition and Markets Authority to carry out a market investigation reference when they suspect that features of a market are preventing, restricting or distorting competition. Clause 56 requires Scottish Ministers to lay Ofgem’s annual report and accounts before the Scottish Parliament. To enable that, it ensures that copies will be provided to Scottish Ministers.
Clause 57 gives effect to two key elements of paragraph 38 of the Smith commission agreement relating to Ofcom. It gives Scottish Ministers the power to appoint one member to the Ofcom board to represent the interests of Scotland, and it requires Ofcom’s annual report and accounts to be laid before the Scottish Parliament. Clause 58 gives effect to paragraphs 39, 40 and 41 of the Smith commission agreement relating to the appearance of the Northern Lighthouse Board, Ofcom and Ofgem before the Scottish Parliament on matters relating to Scotland.
Finally, part 7 contains standard technical clauses, including general provisions associated with the Bill, such as transitional provisions, commencement arrangements and the short title.
Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)
Before speaking to amendments 157 and 158 to clause 49, I would like to comment on clauses 50 and 51, which relate to fuel poverty support schemes and energy company obligations. I would like the Minister to explain—indeed, to justify—why those clauses are constructed as they are. They amend existing primary legislation, but they are far from clear.
Our starting point must be paragraph 68 of the Smith commission’s report, which states:
“Powers to determine how supplier obligations in relation to energy efficiency and fuel poverty… will be devolved. Responsibility for setting the way the money is raised… will remain reserved.”
Importantly, it then states:
“This provision will be implemented in a way that is not to the detriment of the rest of the UK or to the UK’s international obligations and commitments on energy efficiency and climate change.”
Indeed, paragraph 68 is one of the more prescriptive in the report.
Clauses 50 and 51 also state clearly that any action proposed by Scottish Ministers should not be to the detriment of the United Kingdom as a whole. I want to press the Minister on the criteria to be used by the Secretary of State to determine whether a course of action proposed by Scottish Ministers would be to the detriment of the UK. That is clearly stated in clause 50, and at several points in clause 51. Specifically, proposed new section 14A(8)(b) in clause 50 refers to schemes likely to
“cause detriment to the United Kingdom”.
However, it does not state how detriment in all cases may be judged to have occurred. Proposed new section 14A(9) states that
“considerations that the Secretary of State may take into account include the costs imposed on suppliers by virtue of schemes made, or to be made, by the Secretary of State and the Scottish Ministers under section 9.”
That is section 9 of the Energy Act 2010.
In clause 51, proposed new section 33BCA(7) and others make similar references to “detriment” and to “costs”. Here, too, the phrase “may take into account” is used, which strongly implies that the Secretary of State will not be obliged to take costs into account. It seems that he will also be able to take other, non-specified factors into account. The same can be said of other amendments to existing legislation proposed in clause 51.
What I find worrying about the proposed new sections in clauses 50 and 51 is the lack of specificity and the significant discretion placed in the hands of the Secretary of State. Apart from the politics of this, there is a question of the lack of clarity and, with it, the possibility of any course of action being justiciable. I am not a lawyer—I am an ordinary person—but my experiences over the past decade or so tell me that if there is a lack of clarity in legislation, all too often it is the judges who end up providing that clarity.
I am thinking of the action taken two years ago by the UK Government against the Welsh Government. The Welsh Government wanted to protect Welsh agricultural workers after the UK Government abolished the Agricultural Wages Board, and the UK Government lost the case in the Supreme Court. That is simply an example that springs to mind of what can happen when legislative imprecision leads to legal problems. I would welcome the Minister’s response to the points I have made.
Let me turn to clause 49—Rail: franchising of passenger services. It amends section 25 of the Railways Act 1993 to remove the prohibition on public sector operators bidding for a franchise in relation to a Scottish franchise agreement. The Smith commission’s report stated clearly, in paragraph 65:
“The power will be devolved to the Scottish Government to allow public sector operators to bid for rail franchises funded and specified by Scottish Ministers.”
Labour’s amendment 157 would take a small but significant step further, but in a way that is in keeping with the spirit of the Smith commission’s report. In proposing to allow not-for-profit operators, it echoes the proposal by Gordon Brown prior to the referendum.
Dr Philippa Whitford
In fact, the Scottish Government did not have the power to choose to give that franchise to a public service within Scotland, so to criticise them for giving it somewhere else seems a little perverse.
Wayne David
I will come to that, because it is an entirely predictable response from the SNP.
It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that the decision was indeed somewhat perverse. I say that because the Scottish Government could have delayed the tendering process in the full knowledge that they would soon have the power to award a franchise to a public or not-for-profit operator that could reinvest any profits back into Scotland’s railways, but they chose not to delay. They knew the legislation was coming and pre-empted it.
Dr Whitford
The Scottish Government have put a break in the franchise so that if we are lucky enough to have this power in the Scottish Parliament by 2020, we can give the franchise to our own public sector.
Wayne David
I am glad that the SNP accepts the point I am making.
It would have been better if, instead of putting nationalist sentiment first, the SNP considered harsh economic reality and the wellbeing of the Scottish people, but no—it decided to press ahead. As SNP Members are well aware, rail passengers are suffering badly as ScotRail has adopted an approach to industrial relations that the Scottish TUC’s Graeme Smith has described as “nothing short of shambolic”. Few would disagree with that comment.
Yesterday, ScotRail cancelled a third of its usual Sunday services after pay talks with train drivers’ union ASLEF stalled. Abellio ScotRail has written to staff to offer voluntary redundancy, even though the franchise was supposed to guarantee that that would not happen. In the light of these developments, it is important for us to say clearly that Abellio’s workforce planning and industrial relations are shambolic—and that is an understatement.
Why on earth is what is happening on the Scottish railways being allowed to happen? Surely what is needed is in-depth scrutiny and a review of the previous tendering arrangements. In tabling amendment 158, our desire is not merely to put the spotlight on the foolish behaviour of the SNP Government in Scotland, but to ensure that they learn the lessons so that their mistakes cannot be made again. I hope that Members on both sides of the Committee will feel able to support our amendment on that basis.
Mr Graham Allen (Nottingham North) (Lab)
Before I deal with the amendments and new clauses in my name, I should like to address a few words, through you, Sir David, to the other place. The way in which we are considering this Bill means that a large group of new clauses that try to give real life to the Smith commission proposals will not even be discussed this evening. They would give Scottish local authorities the general power of competence already enjoyed by English local authorities. They also refer to subsidiarity and to devolving power genuinely not just to the Scottish Parliament—of which I am one of the biggest supporters—but to Scottish local government. The new clauses would actually allow local government in Scotland to be constitutionally defined so that no one, either in this place or in the Scottish Parliament, could ever take away the rights and liberties of Scottish local government.
It is a flaw in our legislative process when we are not even allowed to debate those very important issues in our own Parliament. They have not even been dismissed. I very much hope that colleagues in the other place will note that those issues have not had a hearing. I think that many people—democrats from all parties—who were excited about the possibilities of what arose from the referendum and the Smith process will feel that this House has cheated them out of a proper debate on some of the wider issues of devolution.
This is going to happen again on another day, when the English version of devolution will be debased and devalued by a mere rearranging of the EVEL deckchairs in the House of Commons. I think people will live to regret that day, too.
Mr Allen
Yes, but I think 6% of the United Kingdom electorate voted for the SNP, so if we get into statistical battles—[Interruption.] We are in the federal Parliament now. Those who get annoyed must understand that this is not Holyrood and MPs are not entitled to do to local government in nations outside Scotland what has been done to local government inside Scotland. That writ, where what the SNP says goes and we must do, does not extend to the federal Parliament. So I would say to the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey that in the rough and tumble of debate on the Union, there is a fundamental question. Some people wish to have devolution and some people wish to separate—I regard that not as pejorative but as accurate—and those debates must be heard here, even if the electoral system has handed a large number of seats to one particular party. It is a matter of respecting the views of everyone else. If that is done, that party might be able to claim that it represents the people of Scotland. But it cannot claim to be the exclusive voice of Scotland when so many people did not vote for that party and, of course, a large majority rejected the fundamental platform on which the SNP stands—separation from the Union.
Wayne David
We have heard a great deal about the fact there are 56 SNP Members. We are debating the Scotland Bill, so where are they? There are fewer than a dozen SNP Members in the Chamber. So much for being the voice of Scotland! [Interruption.]
The Temporary Chair (Sir David Amess)
Order. Before the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen) responds to that intervention, may I remind the Committee that the knife falls at 10 pm, and other hon. Members wish to speak? I have been very lax in allowing Members to drift on to the third group, which is not for discussion. I would ask the hon. Gentleman to draw his remarks much more closely to the amendments.
Scotland Bill
Wayne David Excerpts(9 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Stewart Hosie
Air passenger duty is to be devolved to Scotland, as it has been to Northern Ireland, albeit in a limited way. I very much welcome that. It is for each of the component parts that have responsibility for a tax to use it wisely in the interests of the people. I think we would agree that serious, proper and justifiable tax competition to grow our economy and attract investment would be a good thing, and I hope the hon. Gentleman agrees that it is always odd to hear Government Members purport to support tax competition except, of course, when it begins to affect them.
Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)
It is interesting to hear the hon. Gentleman setting out some of the economic and fiscal priorities of a future SNP Government. Would they increase or reduce corporation tax?
Stewart Hosie
Yes, a future SNP Government would increase it, decrease it, keep it the same and use the amount raised in an intelligent way. I know the hon. Gentleman thinks he has asked a really clever question, but we have just had the 2015 election and I am not going to write the 2016 manifesto today.
To answer a little more clearly, we have argued for targeted reductions in corporation tax in order to promote investment in key industries. We have highlighted for many years the relatively low private sector research and development spend in Scotland. However, given that R and D tax credits can be claimed only by companies liable for corporation tax, in order to develop a comprehensive, joined-up approach to encourage more innovation, we need to move to full fiscal autonomy, including the devolution of corporation tax and all related allowances, in order to be able to use that lever.
Stewart Hosie
It is extraordinary! UK debt is £1.5 trillion and the Government are borrowing £75 billion more this year than UK tax revenue would allow, and they have the audacity to question whether the Scottish Government, who have balanced the books every year, could do so in the future. If we have the right tools and levers, of course we can do the job. The hon. Gentleman’s argument is fundamentally that there would be a cost to Scotland of full fiscal autonomy. As we have seen, our opponents tend to quote figures for this financial year, whereas we would move to full fiscal autonomy only over the medium term.
The second key issue, as the IFS has said on many occasions, is that our opponents fail to take account of the potential positive impact on Scotland’s economy of full fiscal responsibility. The entire point of FFA is to empower our Parliament to take decisions for the benefit of Scotland’s economy to deliver full tax and investment powers and to enable Holyrood to make better spending decisions.
Wayne David
This is an important point. The hon. Gentleman says he is in favour of moving towards fiscal autonomy, but only in the medium term. How long is the medium term?
Stewart Hosie
I support moving to full fiscal autonomy because, as the N-56 think-tank said, it produces an opportunity, not a threat. There was a time when there were 40 Scottish Labour MPs sitting behind the Opposition Front Bench shouting their heads off, but now there is barely a whimper, barely a squeak—not a cogent, credible argument from a party about to get into bed with the Tories to say no to Scotland.
Wayne David
I beg to move amendment 39, page 2, line 2, leave out “But it is recognised” and insert “Notwithstanding subsection (7) above”.
The Temporary Chair (Mr David Crausby)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 56, page 2, line 2, leave out “not normally” and insert “never”.
The Amendment would require the Sewel Convention, requiring the legislative consent of the Scottish Parliament, to be observed in all legislation of the Parliament of the United Kingdom.
Amendment 4, page 2, line 3, leave out “normally”.
Amendment 19, page 2, line 3, after “legislate”, insert “(a)”.
Amendment 20, page 2, line 3, after “matters”, insert
“and (b) to alter the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament or the executive competence of the Scottish Government”.
Amendment 41, page 2, line 4, at end add—
“(9) A Minister of the Crown in charge of a Bill in either House of Parliament must, before second reading of the bill—
(a) make a statement to the effect that in his view the provisions of the bill do not constitute legislation with regard to devolved matters; or
(b) make a statement that the consent of the Scottish Parliament to the Bill is being sought, or will be sought, and specifying the matters in respect of which consent is being sought; and that the Bill will not be presented for Royal Assent without such consent. Such a statement must be in writing and be published in such manner as the Minister making it considers appropriate”.
Amendment 45, page 2, line 4, at end add—
“(9) A Minister of the Crown in charge of a Bill in either House of Parliament which makes provision with regard to devolved matters must, before Second Reading of the Bill—
(a) make a statement to the effect that the Bill has the consent of the Scottish Parliament (“a statement of consent”); or
(b) make a statement to the effect that although he is unable to make a statement of consent the Government nevertheless wishes the House to proceed with the Bill.
(10) A statement—
(c) under subsection (9) must be in writing and be published in such manner as the Minister making it considers appropriate; and
(d) under subsection (9)(b) must also state the Government’s reasons for wishing the House to proceed with the Bill.
(12) In this section, “devolved matters” include—
(e) the legislative competence of the Parliament; and
(f) whether, and the extent to which, functions are exercisable by the Scottish Ministers.”
In paragraph 70 of its Ninth Report of Session 2014-15 (HC 1022), the House of Commons Political and Constitutional Reform Committee suggested that one approach to giving the Sewel Convention the force of statute would be the addition of a requirement for the Government to set out its reasons for legislating on a matter covered by the Sewel Convention without the consent of the Scottish Parliament where it seeks to do so.
Clause stand part.
New clause 5—Application of the Human Rights Act 1998 to Scotland—
The application of the Human Rights Act 1998 to Scotland shall not be repealed in so far as it affects Scotland without the express consent of the Scottish Parliament.”
The New Clause states the intention that the express consent of the Scottish Parliament would be required before any repeal by the Parliament of the United Kingdom of the Human Rights Act 1998 as it applies to Scotland.
New clause 10—Consent of the Scottish Parliament to certain Westminster Acts—
(1) In section 28 of the Scotland Act 1998 (Acts of the Scottish Parliament), at the end add—
“(8) But the Parliament of the United Kingdom must not pass Acts applying to Scotland that make provision about a devolved matter without the consent of the Scottish Parliament.
(9) A provision is about a devolved matter if the provision—
(a) applies to Scotland and does not relate to reserved matters,
(b) modifies the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament, or
(c) modifies the functions of any member of the Scottish Government.
(10) In subsection (8), “Acts” includes any Act, whether a public general Act, a local and personal Act or a private Act.
(2) After section 28 of the Scotland Act 1998 insert—
“28A Duty to consult the Scottish Government on Bills applying to Scotland
(1) A Minister of the Crown shall consult Scottish Ministers before introducing any Bill into the Parliament of the United Kingdom for an Act of that Parliament that would make provision applying to Scotland.
(2) Where the Bill is for an Act making provision that would require the consent of the Scottish Parliament by virtue of section 28(8), the requirement to consult under subsection (1) includes a requirement that a Minister of the Crown give the Scottish Ministers a copy of the provisions of the Bill that apply to Scotland no later than—
(a) 21 days before the proposed date of introduction, or
(b) such later date as the Scottish Ministers may agree.
(3) The requirement in subsection (2) does not apply if—
(c) the Scottish Ministers so agree, or
(d) there are exceptional circumstances justifying failure to comply with the requirement.
(4) The reference in subsection (1) to an Act of Parliament is a reference to any Act whether a public general Act, a local and personal Act or a private Act.”
This new clause would ensure that the UK Parliament can only legislate in devolved areas with the consent of the Scottish Parliament. It puts the Sewel Convention onto a statutory footing, as agreed by the Smith Commission.
Wayne David
I rise to speak to amendments 39, 4 and 41 on the Sewel convention. As Members will know, the convention is quite well established. In the debate on the Scotland Bill in 1998, Lord Sewel, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the Scottish Office, said that
“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.]
That was accepted, and the Sewel convention became a reality.
As the Law Society of Scotland has said, it is true that since the enactment of that Bill there is agreement that the convention has been successful, and it has been adhered to by successive Parliaments. The Smith commission gave a firm commitment:
“The Sewel Convention will be put on a statutory footing.”
That was a clear and unambiguous statement. On the face of it, the Government’s draft legislation honoured the commitment that had been given, but I suggest that there are weaknesses in what the Government have proposed in this Bill.
I want to refer to the excellent work done by the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee. It has been pointed out that the Sewel convention has been distilled in the Government’s interpretation of it. Clause 2 refers only to the convention’s applicability in respect of devolved matters, and the convention also applies to legislation affecting the competences of the devolved institutions. We are concerned that, in some ways, what has happened in practice is not quite recognised in the Bill.
We are also concerned about the way in which the convention is to be placed on a statutory footing. Students of British constitutional history will recognise that, according to Dicey’s principle, this British Parliament has ultimate sovereignty. Such a statutory footing recognises that constitutional reality, but does not challenge it or take it forward in any way whatever. That is somewhat unfortunate and certainly worthy of debate. The statutory footing, in reality, does not count for anything because what we have is essentially a summation of the Sewel convention that is little more than a political statement. Indeed, the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee quoted academics as saying that the clause was “legally vacuous” and
“like a bowl of jelly”.
We should be concerned about that.
It is noteworthy that the House of Lords Constitution Committee, which is highly regarded by many people, said, in its rather more sedate way, that
“it can be said that the new provision will recognise the existence of the Sewel convention rather than turn it into a legally binding principle.”
That is an extremely important phrase. Although those of us who are committed firmly to the Sewel principle recognise that there is no challenge to the convention, who knows what will happen in the future? That is why it should be legally binding, not just on this Government, but on all future Governments of any political complexion. Those issues need to be aired fully in considering the Sewel convention, because they are important and fundamental to the Bill.
Mr Graham Allen
This is not some constitutional nicety; it is about the circumstances in which the UK Parliament is allowed to legislate on a matter that is covered by the convention, without the consent of the Scottish Parliament. I hope that my hon. Friend will press the Secretary of State very hard on this matter. The Secretary of State might want to take it away and look at the wording. As my Political and Constitutional Reform Committee said:
“The presence of the word ‘normally’ in the Convention is clearly problematic when it comes to giving it the force of a statute, and we recommend that this be addressed in any redraft of the clause.”
As well as pressing the Secretary of State on this matter now, perhaps my hon. Friend will return to it on Report so that we can all be satisfied that the Scottish Parliament’s sovereignty is not in question.
Wayne David
My hon. Friend has put his finger on another important issue that was considered carefully by his Committee. When the word “normally” is used, I ask, “How long is a piece of string?” It is legally imprecise, which is a cause for concern. That reinforces my earlier point.
The Secretary of State gave evidence to the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee, but I suspect that his response was not wholly acceptable to its members. I therefore hope that he has refined his response and will give more robust answers to the questions that I have put to him. We wait with interest to hear what he has to say.
Finally, new clause 5, which was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen), refers to the application of the Human Rights Act 1998 to Scotland. It is extremely important constitutionally that devolution has, to a large extent, been underpinned by human rights legislation, in particular the 1998 Act. That is certainly the case as far as Wales is concerned, it is extremely important as far as Northern Ireland is concerned, and it has an important bearing as far as Scotland is concerned.
In the past few years, the Scottish Parliament has taken a number of initiatives with regard to human rights. I commend those initiatives. It is easy to take them forward in Scotland because it has a different legal system from England and Wales. The Scottish Human Rights Commission has published “Scotland’s National Action Plan for Human Rights”. Whatever one’s political allegiance, those positive measures should be welcomed.
I would not like to see any piece of legislation that does not take those measures into account or that does not fully take into account how devolution in Scotland rests firmly on the principle of extensive and liberal human rights. I hope that the Committee agrees with the Opposition on that point. If any action is taken against the Human Rights Act by this Government, whatever form it takes, there should first be the express consent of the Scottish Parliament.
Mr Graham Allen
It is a pleasure to speak on this group of amendments. I will speak not about the Sewel convention, because that clause should be put right in a relatively straightforward way by the Secretary of State, but about the implications for the Human Rights Act 1998 of what we are considering.
New clause 5 would ensure that, were the Human Rights Act abolished, renewed, revived or changed by this place in whatever shape or form, the Scottish Parliament would be able to maintain the Act, as it would like to do. That is a principle of devolution that I would like to be applied to England, Wales and Northern Ireland within an overarching federal settlement, so that we can be sure that fundamental human rights are close to the people and cannot be dispensed with on the whim of a federal Parliament.
Whenever I talk about these things, people say, “Here we go again—dry constitutionalism”, so I want to say a little about this dry constitutionalism. This is all about defending the victims of crime, those who have disabilities, women who are facing sexual and domestic violence, and the victims of child trafficking. It is about fundamental human rights.
The rights that are listed were not written by some recent bureaucrat in the Commission in Brussels, but by an eminent group of Conservatives led by David Maxwell Fyfe, a former Conservative Home Secretary and, I think, a boss of the intelligence services, so no woolly liberal radical he. Having been affected by the appalling suffering of the second world war, he pulled together the European convention on human rights. I cannot commend him highly enough. It was drawn up not by Mr Delors or the current President of the European Commission, but in response to the plight of refugees and the torture and inhumanity of the second world war. David Maxwell Fyfe and a number of British civil servants drafted these human rights, which have been adopted across the European Union. The rights also arose out of the United Nations charter.
The rights that are listed include things that we take for granted: the right to life, liberty and security of person; the right to a fair trial; protection from torture and ill treatment; freedom of thought, conscience, religion, speech and assembly; the right to marry; the right to free elections; the right to fair access to the country’s education system; and the right not to be discriminated against.
There are many arguments about how the convention is enforced and used across the European Union, and about our interaction with the continental courts system. Is it perfect? Of course it is not. However, we should not dispense easily with something that has had a good 60 or 65 years’ service, and that has allowed people in this country who were struggling for their rights to pursue their cases, defeat the domestic courts and have things overturned in their favour. I do not want to use this just as a prelude to the arguments we will have on human rights later, but I will certainly do my best, if Mr Crausby is not listening too intently, to make sure we have a proper debate.
David Mundell
I answered the hon. Gentleman’s questions when he was part of the Constitutional and Political Reform Committee, and I understand the strength of his views, but it was the view of the Smith commission that the convention should be set out in such a Bill, which is what the UK Government are doing. It is a fundamental principle of United Kingdom constitutional law that the United Kingdom Parliament is a sovereign legislature. The people of Scotland voted last September to remain part of that United Kingdom. Therefore, it is right that this Parliament, while respecting the Scottish Parliament and its right to legislate, continues to be able to legislate for all matters without restriction on its sovereignty.
Furthermore, I believe amendment 56 is unnecessary. The Bill adopts the language that formed the basis of the Sewel convention. When Lord Sewel said that he 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”,
he did not intend his words to carry a technical meaning. The same expectation exists in clause 2. The wording used will take the convention’s ordinary English language meaning.
The Smith commission recommended that the Sewel convention be put on a statutory footing—no more, no less. That is what the Bill seeks to achieve. Accepting amendment 56 would be to go further than was recommended, radically alter how the convention was intended to operate, and attempt to limit the authority of the UK Parliament. For those reasons, I urge hon. Members to resist it.
Amendments 41 and 45 seek to make additional stipulations to the Sewel convention. I reiterate that the Bill already establishes that the UK Parliament will not normally legislate with regard to devolved matters without the consent of the Scottish Parliament. That convention operates effectively at present. The amendments would add unnecessary bureaucracy to the procedure. I do not believe that the statutory requirements that would be placed on Members of the UK Parliament by the amendments would add any value to a process that operates well, and that is being placed on a statutory footing by the Bill.
On amendments 19 and 20, and new clause 10, as I have said, the Bill adopts the language that formed the basis of the Sewel convention. As I said in previous remarks, when Lord Sewel said that he 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”,
he did not intend those words to carry a technical meaning. We have established that the Bill clearly states that the UK Parliament
“will not normally legislate with regard to devolved matters without the consent of the Scottish Parliament.”
That is what the well-established Sewel convention does, and it has been consistently adhered to by successive UK Governments. We have had more than 15 years of good practice of the convention. It has not been breached. In the context of my earlier remarks, I do not accept that it could be. I believe that that current good practice will continue.
The hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen) referred to the Government’s plan to reform the Human Rights Act and its incompatibility with the devolution settlements. Amendment 5, which he tabled, would make it more difficult for the UK Parliament to repeal the Act. Let me be clear about the Government’s intentions: we are committed to human rights and have pledged to bring forward proposals for a Bill of Rights. The protection of human rights is vital in a modern and democratic society. This Government will be as committed as any to upholding those human rights. The purpose of a Bill of Rights is not the diminution of rights, but to reform and modernise our system, and to restore credibility to the human rights legal framework.
The Government know that our proposals for reform are likely to be significant. As such, we will consult widely on the reforms. We are aware of the potential devolution implications of reform and will engage with the devolved Administrations as we develop proposals. We are currently developing our proposals and it would not be sensible to prejudge that process at this stage through the amendment. I hope the hon. Gentleman reconsiders his statement that he wishes to press it to a Division.
I believe I have addressed all the proposals. The Government are not persuaded by them at this stage but, as I have indicated, I will discuss the report of the Scottish Parliament Devolution (Further Powers) Committee when we meet next week.
Wayne David
We shall not be pressing any of our amendments to a vote. I note that the Secretary of State has said that he is not convinced “at this stage”, and I take that to mean that he is open to persuasion and willing to listen. I hope he will be persuaded by arguments that will be put to him in the other place, and, indeed, by Members of the Scottish Parliament, which he will visit shortly.
There is something of a mismatch between theory and practice here. Theory has it that this Parliament is absolutely sovereign, but, in practice, the very existence of devolution puts constraints on that sovereignty, as does the very fact that we are members of the European Union. I think that we have reached a point at which that needs to be legally recognised. There is no doubt that the word “normally” is legally imprecise, and if it ever arose in a court of law, enormous difficulties would result because of that conflict between theory and practice.
I take on board what the Secretary of State has said, and I hope that we shall see some movement. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 3
Elections
Angus Robertson
I beg to move amendment 60, page 2, line 7, leave out “Section B3 of”
Wayne David
I wish to focus on two issues, the first of which is individual electoral registration. We know full well that IER is imminent. There is some debate with the Electoral Commission, which is conducting its assessment, as to the completeness of the registers and whether or not IER will be introduced at the end of 2016 or 2015. Labour Members think it is essential that we have a complete register as far as is humanly practicable. We urge the Government and all other bodies to ensure that every effort is made to get as many people on to the register as possible. What is essential in any democracy is that people who are entitled to vote are on the register and able to choose whether to cast their vote.
That is why we think it is important that this be not only a responsibility of central Government, but a devolved matter. As we have heard, the Scottish Parliament has some responsibilities already on the conduct of elections. I am sure it shares our view of wanting to make sure that as many people as possible who are able to vote are on the electoral register. Our amendments provide practical means of providing that assessment, but we also urge that every consideration be given by the Scottish Parliament to ensuring that we do have people on that register.
As things stand, the Electoral Commission has indicated that as many as 7.5 million eligible voters are not registered. Multiple elections are coming up next year, including the Scottish Parliament elections, and the Government need to take action, as does everybody else, to ensure that a boost is given to electoral registration. We think that lessons can be learned from Scotland’s extension of the franchise in the referendum to 16 and 17-year-olds and the effort made to ensure that a special procedure was in place to ensure the maximum registration of young people. Those lessons need to be learned, acted upon and taken much further.
Labour Members are particularly concerned about the need to ensure that as many young people as possible register and that procedures are in place to ensure that college and university students are able to do so. We would like registration to be carried out en bloc by the student authorities, as it used to be. Given the increase in the private rented sector, there is a particular need for its involvement. The Government should be working much more closely with letting agencies so as to include reminders to register for all new tenants. Those issues are very important and I hope they will be given due consideration.
We would also like to press our amendment 43, on the European Union referendum. We are fully aware that that Bill is passing through this House, but the great concern out there in the country is to ensure that we have a proper, reasonable, rational and focused debate on Britain’s membership of the European Union. For that debate to take place, it is imperative that there are no other elections that will take people’s attention away from the central direction on which they must focus. We are mindful that the Electoral Commission, which has studied this matter in a great deal of depth, has said unequivocally that there should be a separation between the European Union referendum and other elections. It takes an emphatic stance. It says:
“It is important that voters and campaigners are able to engage fully with the issues which are relevant at these elections. It is also important that any debate about the UK’s membership of the European Union takes place at a time that allows the full participation of voters and campaigners, uncomplicated by competing messages and activity from elections which might be held on the same day.”
That is a pretty emphatic message by the non-political objective observers—people who have the responsibility to ensure that elections and referendums are conducted fairly and honestly. I strongly urge the Government to accept that amendment. If they are not minded to do so, we give notice that we will be pressing it to a vote.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (John Penrose)
I thank the hon. Members for Moray (Angus Robertson), for Nottingham North (Mr Allen), and for Caerphilly (Wayne David) for their contributions to the debate on this group of amendments on the significant electoral powers that will be transferred to the Scottish Parliament and Scottish Government. I hope to respond to as many points as I can, but first let me deal with a number of minor and technical Government amendments before I get on to the meat of the points that have been made during the debate.
Government amendments 93, 94 and 97 amend and clarify the reserved undevolved powers in clause 3 in respect of enforcement provisions within the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 where they apply to other provisions that are also reserved. Government amendments 95 and 96 remove sections that do not need to be reserved in the 2000 Act as well. Amendments 106 and 107 are minor and technical amendments. Amendment 106 repeals the subsections inserted into the Scotland Act 1998 by section 13 of the Scotland Act 2012. Clause 11 brings the function of making an Order in Council under sections 15(1) and (2) of the 1998 Act within devolved competence and those subsections are therefore no longer required. Amendment 107 repeals section 13 of the Scotland Act 2012 entirely.
Amendment 101 relates to clause 5, which concerns the timing of Scottish parliamentary elections and local government elections in Scotland. It will ensure that general elections for the Scottish Parliament cannot be held on the same day as general elections to the UK Parliament or to the European Parliament or a local government election in Scotland. That is in line with the Smith commission agreement, as we heard from the hon. Member for Moray.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be pleased to hear that the purpose of amendment 101 is to remove the provision from the clause that says that a general election to the Scottish Parliament cannot be held in the two months preceding a general election to the UK Parliament or a general election to the European Parliament. That brings us more closely in line with the Smith commission, and is, I hope, an example of cross-party working.
Amendments 92 and 98 are also minor and technical. The purpose of amendment 92 is to protect the individual electoral registration digital service from future technical changes, such as the transfer of functions between UK Ministers. Effectively, it is nothing more than a future-proofing move. If amendment 92 were not made, the effect may be to place an unintentional constraint on the future actions of both the UK and Scottish Governments. The amendment should protect against the potential need to amend the Act as the registration of electors and verification of applications to register via a digital service evolves.
Amendment 92 means that the definition of “digital service” and of “elections in Scotland” in clause 3 is no longer required. Amendment 98 therefore removes those definitions. It does not make the reservation any wider but gives additional clarity over what is to remain reserved—I am talking about the digital service itself but not the powers that have been devolved to the Scottish Parliament.
Amendments 99 and 100 are again minor and technical. Their purpose is to reflect the changes made to the reservation of the IER digital service in clause 3 by amendment 92. Amendment 99 ensures that subsection (4) of new section 12 of the Scotland Act 1998 refers to the amended reservation of the digital service in clause 3—I trust that everybody is taking notes and following closely. Amendment 100 removes the now unnecessary definition of the digital service in clause 4, again as a result of the amended reservation of the digital service in clause 3.
Amendments 102 to 105 are technical amendments that reflect the changes made to the reservation of the IER digital service in clause 3 by amendment 92. Amendment 102 ensures that the regulation-making power of Scottish Ministers in this provision refers to the amended reservation of the digital service in clause 3. Amendment 103 removes the definitions of “the digital service” and “the use of the digital service” from the clause, as they are no longer technically required. Amendment 104 ensures that clause 6 refers to the amended reservation of the digital service, as made by the amendment to clause 3. Finally, amendment 105 removes the definitions of “the digital service” and “elections in Scotland” that are also no longer required as a result of that further amendment.
Let me turn to the other amendments that are part of this wider group. I will start with amendment 42 and the elements of amendments 60 and 61 that relate to clauses 3 and 5 and the continued reservation of certain combinations of polls. The clauses fulfil the Smith commission agreement devolving significant electoral powers to the Scottish Parliament while ensuring that polls for Scottish parliamentary general elections will not be held on the same day as UK parliamentary general elections, European parliamentary general elections or ordinary local government elections in Scotland, which have already been devolved.
Scotland Bill
Wayne David Excerpts(9 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)
Today we have had a very good debate. We have had no fewer than 25 speeches and 16 maiden speeches. I shall dwell for a few moments, if I may, on some of the maiden speeches from both sides of the House today.
The first maiden speech was delivered by the hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Alberto Costa), who informed us that he was a Scottish Member, though he was of Italian extraction, but that he was proudly British. We then heard from the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Margaret Ferrier), and from the hon. Member for Eddisbury (Antoinette Sandbach), who said that she had a great parliamentary ambition—she hoped to be a member of the ladies tug-of-war team. We hope that she is successful in that. She neglected to mention that she used to be a Member of the Welsh Assembly as well. I should have thought that that was of note.
I was pleased to hear the hon. Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) say that he had a Welsh—or Celtic, as he called it—background. We went on to hear from the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) in a very statesmanlike speech. We heard a notable maiden speech from my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Vicky Foxcroft), who distinguished herself by reciting “The Red Flag”. I hoped she would sing it as well. We had a maiden speech also from the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson), who observed that she had characteristics similar to those of James Bond. I suggest that is because Sean Connery is an SNP supporter. We heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris), who is carrying forward the socialist tradition with great pride, if Members understand what I mean.
We then heard from the hon. Member for Aberdeen South (Callum McCaig) and from my hon. Friends the Members for Bristol South (Karin Smyth) and for Manchester, Withington (Jeff Smith), who mentioned Bruce Springsteen. That honourable and distinguished cast was reinforced with the mention of Robbie Williams by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Ruth Smeeth). We heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Sue Hayman), the hon. Member for East Renfrewshire (Kirsten Oswald), and the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Douglas Chapman), who recommended that hon. Members bring their wallets when they come to his constituency. I am certain they will take note of that.
The prize, if there is a prize, for the most engaging maiden speech this evening must go to my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner), who mentioned that he was successful in being elected to this House at the fifth attempt. He must have the House of Commons prize for perseverance.
Taken together, the speeches today demonstrated the geographic and cultural diversity of the House of Commons and of our country, and the political differences that exist across our nation. The debate today also demonstrated how politics in Scotland has changed over the past 12 months. In the space of less than a year Scotland has experienced two extraordinary democratic processes—the referendum and the general election. In the general election the people of Scotland decided who they wanted to represent them in the United Kingdom. At that point I expected a cheer, but SNP Members have probably run out of breath because of all the barracking they have been giving some of us today. In the referendum, after an unprecedented national debate in Scotland, the people of Scotland decided to remain part of the United Kingdom.
Many lessons can be drawn from those two events. What is clear beyond any shadow of doubt is that in the referendum the people of Scotland voted to remain part of a family. They voted to share economic risks and opportunities with the rest of the United Kingdom. They decided to pool resources. They voted for a fair distribution of tax and spending. They voted to tackle international issues on a collective basis and they voted for common domestic concerns to be tackled co-operatively.
Importantly, the Scottish people also voted for social solidarity with people from all parts of the United Kingdom, as my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray) noted earlier. Today I am speaking very much as a Welshman and as someone who is proud of his identity, and indeed of his accent. I recognise that many of the concerns, hopes and aspirations of my Caerphilly constituents are shared by working people in Cowdenbeath, Carlisle, Coventry and Cornwall.
John Redwood
Can the hon. Gentleman sketch for us how Labour would have a fair financial settlement between Wales, England and Scotland? How would the block grant for Scotland be adjusted?
Wayne David
Well, we of course have an agreement—a fiscal framework—and we have a cast-iron commitment to ensuring that the Barnett formula remains in place. We have also suggested the need for a Barnett floor in Wales, in order to tackle underfunding, and I think that that principle should also be considered for the rest of the United Kingdom.
One of the key messages of the referendum campaign is that the ties that hold us together are important and real. Another lesson, however, is that there is a need for radical constitutional change. Yes, the Scottish people wish to remain part of the United Kingdom, but they also want the ability to determine their own priorities and shape their own nation’s future.
Labour, as one of the signatories to the Smith agreement, welcomes the Bill. It will make real many of the commitments made by the Smith commission, and it will take Scotland forward in a number of important respects, such as a new constitutional commitment on taxation and welfare. But the Bill also has its shortcomings. Scotland needs to have the ability to make different choices from those of a right-wing Government based here in London. That is why Labour will be putting forward amendments in Committee to strengthen the Bill. We want the Scottish Parliament to be unfettered in adding to UK benefits, and we want it to be able to create new benefits of its own. We will also seek to amend the Bill so that housing benefit is devolved in full.
My hon. Friend the Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry) made a number of pertinent references to the Sewell convention and the need for it to operate effectively. Sound references were also made to the Human Rights Act, which needs careful consideration, because aspects of the devolution settlements in Wales and Scotland, and especially in Northern Ireland, are clearly based on that Act. Any tinkering with that Act by the Conservative Government, or even its abandonment, needs careful consideration of the implications for devolution.
Stewart McDonald
Given that the Scottish Parliament has voted to extend equality at every opportunity it has had to do so—something that this House cannot come close to claiming—do the hon. Gentleman and his party share my disappointment that full devolution of equality law is missing from the Bill?
Wayne David
There is already a reference to equality in the Bill, but it is one of the things that will need to be considered carefully in Committee, because the detail of the proposed legislation is important, but so too is the spirit.
Pete Wishart
I know that the hon. Gentleman is only here because there is no other Scottish Labour MP to make the speech, but does he not think that the Scottish Labour party really needs to rethink its whole approach to issues such as the Scotland Bill and to start reinventing itself in order to gain credibility in Scotland?
Wayne David
I think that it is important to recognise that meaningful constitutional change will require all sections of this House to unite wherever possible. I urge my SNP colleagues to recognise that this is not just a constitutional norm, but a way to make practical progress. I urge the hon. Gentleman to be gracious and generous in his comments, and perhaps we can have a discussion outside the House as well as in the Chamber.
When we consider this Bill in Committee, after discussions outside the Chamber as well as inside, it is important to take into account the work that the Scottish Parliament has been doing in this regard. I have been taking particular note of the Scottish Parliament’s Devolution (Further Powers) Committee and the work of the House of Lords, which was mentioned earlier. It is also important that we refer to the work that has already been done by the House of Commons Political and Constitutional Reform Committee. It is a great shame that the Government wish to do away with that Committee at a very crucial time.
Mr Graham Allen (Nottingham North) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for his generous remarks about the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee and the excellent job that it did on pre-legislative scrutiny of the Smith commission proposals. On the excellent list of devolved powers that are going to Scotland, is there anything in the water in Northern Ireland, Wales or England that would prevent us from having a similar list of powers should those nations within the Union feel that that was appropriate?
Wayne David
I thought that my hon. Friend might respond to the generous but accurate remarks that I made about him and his Committee. I hope that other Committees of the House will be able, in one way or another, to take forward the effective work that his Committee has done. We are naturally focusing on Scottish devolution, but devolution is a process that must encompass, in different ways, all parts of the United Kingdom. It is a principle that is in tune with the demands of the age. Devolution is undoubtedly the way forward for Scotland. It was Labour’s Keir Hardie, a Scotsman who represented a Welsh seat—he was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds)—who pioneered devolution, it was Labour that created the Scottish Parliament, and it is Labour that really wants to take devolution forward within the context of the United Kingdom and is determined to press for it, in different ways, for the whole of the UK.
First, to consider how devolution can be developed most effectively and appropriately for different parts of the United Kingdom, we need a constitutional convention, for which Labour has argued for some time. Such a convention would look at not only devolution but the interface between those sets of constitutional changes and the other consequential changes that need to be made so that we can have a modern democracy fit for purpose.
Where decentralisation has not yet come about, people throughout the country want it, and they are right. Devolution is necessary if we are to meet the challenges we face in the modern world. In the 21st century, decision making needs to be as close to the people we represent as possible. Local, regional, Scottish, English, Welsh and Northern Irish decision making needs to be at a level that is effective, that can engage with people, and that reinforces all our people’s diverse senses of identity. On that basis, we give our support to the Second Reading of this Bill so that this House, in Committee, will have a chance to make it much better and much stronger.
Scotland within the UK
Wayne David Excerpts(10 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Carmichael
I reiterate that I hesitate to use terms such as “in tandem” because they might suggest a link that could cause delay for one process or the other. It is apparent to me that there is an increased appetite for discussing constitutional change, especially in England. I see that among my own family living in England. I think that it is entirely healthy, and I will encourage it in any way I can. The hon. Lady mentioned devolution to cities. I believe that this Government’s record on city deals and on giving opportunities and resources to cities represents one of our biggest successes. It has probably brought more significant change to the way in which England is governed than many people realise.
Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)
I strongly support more powers for the Scottish Parliament, but as the Secretary of State has said, there is a growing appetite for more devolution throughout the whole of the United Kingdom, perhaps in different forms. Will he therefore support the sensible suggestion that the way forward might well be to have a constitutional convention?
Scotland’s Place in the UK
Wayne David Excerpts(10 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr William Bain (Glasgow North East) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered Scotland’s place in the UK.
Let me begin by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for North East Derbyshire (Natascha Engel) and other hon. Members who serve on the Backbench Business Committee for granting the House the opportunity to debate a proposition that will dominate much of this referendum year across our islands: Scotland’s place in the United Kingdom. As we shall no doubt hear in the debate, this is a question of identity and economics. Above all, it is a battle of visions for the future of Scotland—one with huge implications for the future of other multinational states across the world.
I reject the binary and false choice that some seek to make in this debate that people have to choose between Scottishness or Britishness and cast their vote accordingly on 18 September. I am a proud Scot, but see no contradiction between that patriotism and my strong sense of Britishness—or, indeed, my additional citizenship of the European Union. In an increasingly interconnected world characterised by ever-evolving apps and networks, the concept of mutually exclusive identities does not reflect the real lived experience of billions of people.
Before I was elected to this House, I worked in universities in both Glasgow and London. I saw the challenges they faced in common. I never looked on the young people from east London, whom I taught in this great city, as strangers or foreigners; in fact, they were often fascinated by the study of devolution in my constitutional law classes. I knew them as people with whom I share an identity, and want to continue sharing a state with, for the benefit of all of us.
Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)
In this debate on the future of the Union, will my hon. Friend acknowledge that the Union is not merely between Scotland and England, but Wales and Northern Ireland too?
Mr Bain
My hon. Friend makes an important point and I am pleased that we have Members from all parts of the United Kingdom in the Chamber for this debate.
As a student, I campaigned for a devolved Scottish Parliament and marched to The Mound in Edinburgh; never with a flag in my hand, but with hope in my heart that powers should be exercised at the most appropriate level for the purpose of improving the lot of ordinary people in Scotland. I did so because I believed, and still believe, that decision making in many public services and on many economic policies is best exercised at a more localised level. However, I strongly believe in retaining the advantages of a collective macro-economic framework, of a collective social security system and of cross-UK business, borders and diplomatic policies used to promote greater justice at home and across the world.
We ought to recognise the great force for good the Scottish Parliament has been in Scottish politics, whether on housing policy, land reform or other policy areas, and never has it been greater than this week, when it passed a Bill, in its own way, to secure equality before the law for LGBT people living in Scotland. This was an expression of Scotland’s values being complementary to, not divergent from, those in other parts of the United Kingdom.
The devolution settlement has evolved before, it will change again in 2015 and 2016, with the introduction of significant new financial responsibilities over borrowing and income tax, and it can accommodate further reforms in the future. In the 1997 referendum, the late John Smith was proved correct—strong devolution within the United Kingdom was the settled will of the Scottish people—and I believe we will express that loudly and clearly again in this upcoming referendum.
Scotland’s Constitutional Future
Wayne David Excerpts(12 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Michael Moore
The consultation is open to everyone in Scotland and across the United Kingdom, and indeed elsewhere, should they wish to offer their opinions. I am confident that we will get a good response, and I hope that we will then be able to chart a way to getting a legal, fair and decisive referendum and a proper decision on Scotland’s place in the United Kingdom.
Mr Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)
I understand that the Scottish First Minister has announced that there will be a referendum in the autumn of 2014. Will the Secretary of State give his reaction to that indication, and tell us whether it is correct?
Oral Answers to Questions
Wayne David Excerpts(13 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister
I happily confirm all those things. I believe that if we are really serious about rebalancing our economy and ensuring that we get growth across the country, and not just in the south-east, the time for high-speed rail has come. That is why it has my strong support.
Mr Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)
Q12. The Secretary of State for Wales has said that she is prepared to be sacked because of her opposition to Government policy on high-speed rail. Will the Prime Minister take her up on that very kind offer?
The Prime Minister
I prefer to focus on the fact that in one year as Welsh Secretary, she has secured something that 13 years of Labour Welsh Secretaries never achieved, which is the electrification of the line between Paddington and Cardiff.
Oral Answers to Questions
Wayne David Excerpts(13 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Michael Moore
First, may I highlight the fact that, under the complex energy management arrangements for the grid, arrangements have to be made from time to time to ensure that we can stop or increase energy production? Through those arrangements, payments are made for stopping and increasing production; that is understood. The Government have set out an ambitious programme for energy reform through our energy market reform proposals. The consultation on that programme was recently concluded, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change intends to publish a White Paper on the subject in the near future. Through that, and through other measures such as the transmission grid charges review, we will seek to ensure that we have the capacity and capability to exploit the renewable energy potential not only of Scotland but of the whole United Kingdom. Our other initiatives relating to the green investment bank and the offer to the Scottish Government to release the fossil fuel surplus are indicative of our intention to play a full part in the renewables revolution.
Mr Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)
What meaningful discussions has the Secretary of State had with the Scottish Government on this vital issue? [Interruption.]
Michael Moore
I am afraid that I did not hear the hon. Gentleman’s question. I wonder whether he could repeat it.
Michael Moore
There have been regular and ongoing discussions with the previous Scottish Government on these issues. I have to record great disappointment that despite our offer to release the fossil fuel surplus—something that eluded the previous Government—they were not keen to take it up. I hope that the new Government elected tomorrow, with Liberal Democrats at the core of it, will take up that very positive measure.