Scotland Bill
The next item of business is a debate on motion S4M-02625, in the name of Bruce Crawford, on the Scotland Bill, which is United Kingdom legislation. I invite Mr Crawford to speak to and move the motion.
15:30
The Scottish Government is today inviting the Parliament to consent to the Scotland Bill, which was introduced into the UK Parliament on 30 November 2010. The Government remains clear, however, that the bill represents a missed opportunity. To stimulate the economy, we need much greater financial responsibility, which will allow us to boost our recovery, invest in our public services and support long-term sustainable growth. The Scotland Bill falls way short of delivering the economic levers to stimulate the economy and create jobs.
The bill is also a missed opportunity because it does not address issues of concern to the chamber and wider Scotland such as the Crown estate, broadcasting, representation in Europe and welfare reform. The question remains how the UK Government—and the parties of that coalition here and the Opposition here and at Westminster—will address those issues in the future. However, I will come back to that question later.
In the meantime, it is important to get on the record where there have been important changes to the bill since we last considered it. Crucially, there has also been agreement between the Governments on how the bill’s financial provisions will be implemented. Those changes and that agreement were reached following negotiation between the Scottish and UK ministers. We put forward pragmatic and reasonable propositions to ensure that any potential for harm to this institution and the people of Scotland was removed. The UK Government responded and, as a result, we now judge that any harm that was proposed by the bill to devolved government in Scotland has been removed. The bill also provides additional responsibilities for the Scottish Parliament and Government. That is why we have lodged a motion recommending that the Scottish Parliament consent to Westminster passing the bill.
This Parliament last considered the bill in March 2011, following the report of the first Scotland Bill Committee. We passed a motion agreeing that Westminster should consider the bill further. However, the Parliament was very clear that we needed to consider the bill and any amendments again before our final consent could be given. Following the election in May last year, the Scottish Government made a number of proposals for improvements to the bill including devolution of the Crown estate and corporation tax. The Government also pressed its previous proposals to remove the harmful aspects of the bill.
Can the cabinet secretary remind us of the six proposals that the Government made after the last election and tell us how many of them have been included in the amended Scotland Bill?
Every party in the chamber has publicly said that Scotland should be granted more powers than are currently in the bill. However, we live in pretty strange times when our opponents would rather deny their own policies than be seen to agree with the Government—and we wonder why the public are losing faith in politics. The Scottish people elected the Scottish Government with a mandate to secure these improved provisions in the bill. It is not the Scottish Government that Labour takes so much joy in opposing, it is the people of Scotland.
How many proposals?
I have just dealt with that point. Those proposals included a role for this Parliament in commencing the finance provisions of the bill as well as the removal of proposed reservations on health professions, insolvency and international obligations. The bill and our proposals were scrutinised by a second Scotland Bill Committee, which was chaired by Linda Fabiani. I thank her and the committee members for the work that they did. Particular mention should be made of David McLetchie who, along with the clerk, served on both committees. Maybe that makes me a bit of a sook with David McLetchie.
Nae point.
Yes, there is nae point.
Following negotiations between the Governments, a number of legislative and non-legislative measures have now been agreed to improve the bill and address our concerns. It is important that Parliament knows about those, so I will list the major ones. Consistent with the principle of consent in the UK Government’s statement of funding policy, both Governments should reach agreement on implementation issues, including adjustments to the block grant, to take account of the Scottish Parliament’s new fiscal powers. Each Government should also provide assurance to its Parliament before relevant provisions of the bill are brought into force and before implementation arrangements are brought into effect.
The Governments will develop an adjustment to the Scottish block grant based on the proposals of the Holtham commission on the funding of the Welsh Assembly Government. There will be transparency for both Parliaments on implementation and a statutory duty on both Governments to report regularly to their respective Parliaments on the implementation of the financial aspects of the bill.
There will also be discussions between the Governments on devolving additional taxes and on the arrangements for borrowing.
On the non-financial matters, the role of the UK Supreme Court in Scottish criminal cases will be properly defined with one procedure. The system and the need for certification will be reviewed in three years in a process chaired by the Lord President.
The reservations on health professions and corporate insolvency procedures, including those in relation to registered social landlords, will be removed from the bill.
The provision on the partial suspension of acts of the Scottish Parliament that are referred to the UK Supreme Court will also be removed, and the status quo on shared executive competence to implement international obligations will be maintained. There will also be a review of the regime for marine conservation.
I turn to the costs that will be associated with Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs implementing the Scottish rate of income tax. The UK Government has estimated those costs to be up to £45 million. We have argued that the UK and Scottish Governments should share the costs of setting up the Scottish rate in recognition that it is a UK Government policy and to provide an incentive to maximise value for money.
UK ministers have refused that proposal, so the costs of implementation must be met in full from the Scottish budget. That presents the Scottish Government and Parliament with a significant issue in terms of lack of accountability: HMRC will manage the implementation but will not be formally accountable to us for how it is spending our money. It is therefore vital that we find ways of sharing oversight of the project and ensure as best we can that HMRC maximises value for money while providing the best possible service to Scottish taxpayers. The Governments have therefore set up joint assurance mechanisms at senior official level, and implementation will be overseen by ministers through the Joint Exchequer Committee. The bill also now requires statutory reports from both Governments to the Parliaments on progress with implementation.
The proposal to adopt the Holtham commission methodology for the mechanism for calculating the block grant adjustment is much better than the Calman proposals that the UK Government originally supported. Under Calman, the block grant adjustment would have been calculated once—in the first year—and the proportion would have remained the same every year thereafter. Scotland would have lost out if the block grant adjustment was bigger than receipts from the Scottish rate of income tax—in other words, if UK public spending grew faster than Scottish-rate tax receipts. Therefore, the effect on the Scottish budget would have depended on movements in UK public spending, over which Scotland has no control or even influence.
As members know, we argue that, in past years, Scotland would have lost substantial amounts of money from the Calman approach. However, under the Holtham approach, the adjustment to the block grant will be recalculated each year, based on changes to the UK tax base on which the Scottish rate is levied. That means that, if Scottish rate tax receipts grow faster than the corresponding UK tax base, our budget will benefit. That is, Scotland will benefit if earnings and employment in our economy perform better than those in the rest of the UK. That is a better, more principled, arrangement and I am genuinely glad that the UK Government has adopted a different approach.
There is also a clear undertaking that both Governments should reach agreement before the package is implemented. The Scottish Government recognises clearly that it needs to seek the agreement of this Parliament as part of that process.
The Scottish Government freely admits that it would like more. Scotland can, should and will be independent. However, the Scottish National Party has never stood in the way of any legislation that will help the people who live in Scotland.
There was a time when the bill did more harm than good. It promised a financial mechanism that could have cut spending in Scotland by billions of pounds had it operated from 1999. That mechanism has now gone, and the damaging reservation provisions in the bill have also been removed, as I outlined earlier. We are therefore satisfied that the bill no longer poses a threat to devolved interests. In the Scottish Government’s judgment, the package of changes makes it possible for the Parliament to support the bill.
However, the bill could have been so much better. It could have provided real economic levers, for example by devolving corporation tax. A more competitive corporation tax rate in Scotland would boost output, investment, exports and overall employment. The UK Government is, even now, examining a lower corporation tax rate for Northern Ireland to boost its economic performance, yet there has been no action here.
The bill could have provided us with better capital borrowing powers, as recommended by both Scotland Bill Committees and the Scottish Affairs Committee, yet there has been no action on that. The management of the Crown estate in Scotland has been identified by everyone from Ian Davidson to both Scotland Bill Committees and even Tavish Scott as unsatisfactory and ripe for reform, yet there has been no action on that. Calman recommended a formal role for the Scottish Parliament in welfare, and the Welfare Reform Bill has shown the need for that. More intergovernmental dialogue was promised by the UK Government last June, yet there has been no action on that.
The purpose of our proposals was to strengthen the Parliament and improve the lot of the people of Scotland.
The minister did not mention alcohol duty. Is that because he is embarrassed by the fact that he did not present the proposals until after the committee had taken evidence on that, which made that evidence worthless? The Scottish Government changed its proposal from devolution to assignation. The process was a shambles.
I will take no lectures from anybody who is associated with the UK Government on issues to do with alcohol. The member is following us everywhere as far as that is concerned.
We believe fundamentally that decisions on our nation are best taken by the people who live here. They are the ones who are likely to care the most about the outcomes. That is a question of democracy. Let me finish by showing how democracy in Scotland is being undermined.
First, in the May 2011 election, the Scottish Government stood on a clear programme of improvements to the Scotland Bill. The Government was returned with an overwhelming mandate. We put forward our proposals for changes—backed by the people—to the bill. We provided detailed plans and answered questions when they were asked, but those very reasonable proposals fell on the stony ground of the anti-independence parties’ intransigence. It is for others to justify that stance—I hope that they will do so today—despite the fact that many of their number are now arguing that many of those self-same powers should be devolved to the Scottish Parliament.
Secondly, we are now looking forward to a referendum on our nation’s future. Independence, or what? It is for the Scottish Government to define the benefits of independence. We have done that, and we shall, but those who are telling Scotland to vote no refuse to say what that vote would mean. It is simply unacceptable to go into a referendum on the greatest question that our nation has faced in 300 years without telling the people of Scotland what they are voting for. “Only when you vote no can we work out what happens next,” is the only position that the anti-independence parties seem to share. Their proposition is everything that a referendum must not be. The anti-independence parties’ position is unfair to the people. It is not open with the people, it is not clear to the people and it is profoundly undemocratic.
The Scotland Bill has now been bypassed by history and events. Its promoters are already looking past it, although so far they have been reluctant to say what they can see. The Government has a clear view. Independence is the only state that will allow Scotland to flourish to the full. We will allow the people that choice. In the meantime, we have secured a bill that will not harm Scotland’s interests and will provide some increase in responsibilities to this Parliament.
I move,
That the Parliament, further to motion S3M-8114 passed on 10 March 2011, notes the letters exchanged between the Scottish and UK governments on 21 March 2012 and agrees that the Scotland Bill, introduced in the House of Commons on 30 November 2010, as amended, should be considered by the UK Parliament.
15:44
I welcome the opportunity to take part in this afternoon’s debate on the Scotland Bill. I confirm that the Labour Party will support the motion at decision time.
As a member of the Scotland Bill Committee, I compliment the Scotland Bill Committee team for the amount of work that they put into the committee. I also want to compliment—I know that some of the SNP members are chuckling—the convener, Linda Fabiani, for the way in which she chaired the committee.
The bill that has now been produced has a substantial package of measures that the Scottish Parliament should welcome. The income tax proposals give us the ability to raise our own taxes up to 10p in the pound. The importance of that is the responsibility that it attaches to the Scottish Parliament. In the time in which I have been a member of the Scottish Parliament, what has struck me about the discussions on the budget allocations from UK Governments is that the SNP’s approach always amounts to saying, “Gie’s our money. We want our money now.” The SNP always wants to complain and to cast up to London, but it is not prepared to face up to the responsibility of running the budget through the Scottish Parliament. I firmly believe that the proposals in the Scotland Bill will mean that the Scottish Parliament will be more accountable to the people of Scotland.
Mr Kelly talks about more responsibility, but does he believe that the bill provides the right level of responsibility, or does he think that we should have more, such as for raising an amount in tax that is at least as much as our expenditure?
What struck me from our discussions in the Scotland Bill Committee on having more powers over income tax and how that would operate is that, as the SNP gets the opportunity to be handed more powers, it always seems to find an opportunity to complain about the process, rather than grasping the nettle and taking the powers forward. I sometimes wonder whether, if Scotland voted for independence, the SNP would be lost because part of its way of operating would be gone—it would not have London to complain about any more, which has been a substantial part of its modus operandi.
It is to be welcomed that the borrowing powers in the Scotland Bill have been extended. It is a matter of fact that we live in economically difficult times. The benefit of giving the Scottish Parliament greater opportunity to borrow and therefore to invest in capital infrastructure is that we will be able to create more jobs at a time of economic downturn.
As Mr Crawford said, the bill deals with other issues such as the provision of additional powers on landfill tax and stamp duty. Further, I believe that the opportunity provided by the bill to use the Scottish cash reserve will help with transition issues. Since the creation of the Scottish Parliament, the end-year flexibility fund has always had a surplus. Creating a Scottish cash reserve and the ability to build up moneys will be to the advantage of the Scottish Government.
The bill also has additional powers over air weapons, drink-driving limits and speed limits. There are cross-party concerns about drink driving and the number of accidents on our roads in Scotland. The additional powers will help to tackle those issues.
I welcome, too, the substantial discussions that have taken place on the issue of the UK Supreme Court. The finished product in that regard makes the process more efficient in terms of appeals and it tidies up the Scotland Act 1998 in relation to acts of the Lord Advocate.
Fundamental to the transition to the new tax system is the no-detriment principle. I welcome the fact that discussions have taken place and that a constructive agreement has been reached, so that both Governments can be satisfied that, as we move through the transition period, Scotland’s financial position will not be disadvantaged.
Labour believes that the bill should have gone further on a number of matters. We would have liked the borrowing ability to be extended by a greater amount. We have consistently argued that air passenger duty should be devolved. The business community has promoted that, and being able to decide that duty here would be a greater economic tool in Scotland’s toolbox. There was cross-party agreement on the Scotland Bill Committee on greater devolution of the Crown estate. My colleague David Stewart will hold a members’ business debate on that tonight, which I have no doubt will give us an opportunity to explore some of the issues in more detail.
Supporting the LCM does not mean that we should not allow ourselves to examine the SNP’s record. We should not forget that John Swinney decried the initial proposals as a poison pill. In the aftermath of the 2011 election, the First Minister made—from the seat that Bruce Crawford is in now—his clarion call for the six demands. Those demands have melted away to a damp squib. Part of the reason for that is that the case that was presented by the Scottish Government lacked detail—indeed, it had all the detail of a poorly prepared student essay. That is why the proposals melted away.
I will look at some of the proposals in a bit more detail. The Scottish Government said clearly that it would use corporation tax powers to lower that tax, but it must say how it would prevent corporations such as Amazon from avoiding paying corporation tax and how it would avoid a race to the bottom.
There are fundamental issues for the SNP as a party. It tries to put itself forward as a low-tax party, but the other side of low taxes is public spending cuts. Perhaps we should not be surprised about that, because the SNP Government goes into the council elections while passing on 89 per cent of all the cuts from the UK Government.
Given what he says, will the member explain how, in Stirling Council, in my constituency, the Labour Party, in conjunction with the Tories, was able to put forward a motion that cut the council tax?
Make no mistake, Mr Crawford—the SNP Government is passing on £658 million of cuts to local councils. We will remind the SNP of that from now until polling day.
What is before us in the LCM is a substantial package of measures, which will be of major benefit to Scotland’s Parliament and will bolster Scotland’s economy. We will support the measures at 6 o’clock.
15:54
Like James Kelly, I commend Linda Fabiani for her convenership of the Scotland Bill Committee. I very much enjoyed my participation in it, as I enjoyed my participation in its predecessor in the previous session of Parliament.
The legislative consent motion that the Scottish Government has lodged can be viewed as a humiliating climbdown or a tactical retreat. Perhaps it is a mixture of both. When one looks back on the heady days of last summer and reflects on the rhetoric of the First Minister and his so-called six demands, there is no doubt that people unaccustomed to humility should now be eating a large slice of humble pie.
The six demands were, in some cases, matters that were already works in progress following the recommendations of the previous Scotland Bill Committee, for example in relation to borrowing powers and devolution of certain aspects of the property rights of the Crown Estate in Scotland. The broadcasting proposition was of little substance, and the demand that a Scottish minister should be able to bagsy a seat at all meetings of the Council of the European Union, as part of a UK delegation—even when the European Union did not provide enough seats in the first place—was clearly nonsense.
As all the evidence showed, fellow EU member states see plenty of Mr Lochhead and other Scottish ministers at relevant Council meetings. The key to successful representation of UK and Scottish interests is effective co-ordination and preparation by the UK Government and all our devolved Administrations, well in advance.
The big-ticket items in the six demands were the two tax demands. First of those was the devolution of corporation tax. However, after the production of a paper that argued that a three-point cut in corporation tax could generate a modest number of jobs over an inordinate length of time and a minuscule increase in the Scottish growth rate—all contentious propositions—the bigger-picture scheme for a new corporation tax system for Scotland in the devolved settlement has simply petered out, in the midst of total failure to address all the problematic areas of profit shifting, brass plating and cannibalisation of the tax base, which would benefit no one except the tax-dodging multinational companies of which the SNP is so fond.
Members will recall that another key demand was for control over excise duties. The most telling lessons can be learned from what happened in that regard. The demand was subsequently refined to cover only alcohol but, when industry experts such as the Scotch Whisky Association pointed out that we cannot have different excise duty rates north and south of the border without establishing customs posts to police the tax border, the SNP sounded yet another retreat. The SNP said that excise duties and alcohol were no longer to be devolved, but we should simply get more money because it was estimated that we pay more in duty in the first place—although of course if the minimum pricing policy works there will be less revenue, rather than more, in the long term.
The issue is significant. Although the concept of independence is becoming lighter and lighter by the week, it still has at its heart the establishment of an independent country and in that respect differs fundamentally from other models of devolution, which proceed on the basis that we should be part of the UK but have greater fiscal powers than we currently have. It is clear that under the so-called devo max option we would have full fiscal powers and we would stump up for our share of the costs of NATO and the British nuclear deterrent. Even under the more limited devo plus scheme, the Scottish Parliament would have responsibility for all excise duties.
When it came down to it in the context of the Scotland Bill, however, even the SNP was unable to produce a scheme for the devolution of excise duties on alcohol that was workable on a UK basis, for the simple reason that excise duties are levied and collected at the point of production or importation and not at the point of sale, and are quite different from a sales tax or VAT. Given that the devolution of excise duties on not just alcohol but other subjects, which amount to nearly £5 billion of revenue, is a key principle of so-called devo plus, the proposition seems to contain a major flaw at the outset.
I am genuinely pleased that the motion will be approved by the Parliament, because it demonstrates exactly the sort of process whereby constitutional change within the UK should be enacted by the collaborative efforts of all parties—the use of a commission or convention, engagement with civic Scotland and, ultimately and however reluctantly, the participation of a hostile party that is opposed to the very concept of a UK.
The history of the Scotland Bill and this Parliament’s consideration of it, over two parliamentary sessions and by two separate committees, demonstrates that there is a fundamental difference between the concepts of devolution and independence. The Scotland Bill is there to strengthen devolution in a UK context and makes no apology for doing so.
The SNP cares nothing for our partnership in the UK. Consequently, the latest Scotland Bill Committee majority report duly recommended that everything and a’thing be devolved, even in instances in which not a shred of evidence was submitted to justify such a proposition. That shows the incompatibilities that will continue to exist until we resolve the basic question of independence on the one hand or remaining in the United Kingdom on the other. That is why we need a clear-cut question in a referendum—and, frankly, the sooner that is, the better.
16:00
It is interesting that we have just heard two representatives of the anti-independence parties, but they have not said anything yet about what they would wish to offer to Scotland.
I will speak on behalf of my parliamentary group and with personal views but, before I do so, as the convener of the Scotland Bill Committee mark 2 I thank everybody who has been involved in the process—members, support staff, witnesses and participants—for the commitment that they have shown and the generally reasonable manner in which business has been conducted. Despite the fluster and bluster that we are hearing today, the committee worked in a very reasonable manner. There was sensible discussion, which was reflected in the discussions between the two Governments in the efforts to reach agreement.
We have agreed measures to resolve concerns about the risks that the bill as originally conceived would have posed to Scotland’s public finances. There is agreement on implementation issues and, of course, the Scottish Government has said that it will seek the Scottish Parliament’s agreement to changes in Scotland’s funding arrangements now and in the future. That is what democracy is about. The main thing is that the financial risks inherent in the block grant adjustment as originally proposed by the Calman commission have been changed, which is extremely welcome. Key changes have been made, and the bill now differs substantially from the one that was introduced in 2010.
It is important that things have clearly moved on since 2010—indeed, they have shifted quite a way from the time of the Calman commission recommendations. The country is still having a debate, and it is generally agreed that we will move further. There is a Lib Dem commission and a Labour commission, and even the Prime Minister says that further devolution will come. The question, of course, is when. If the original bill ever was a line in the sand, as one person called it, that line has been well and truly crossed. That is the problem with lines in the sand: the tide of public opinion washes them away.
Almost everyone now wants even more powers than there are in the bill. I certainly do. I want independence. I want those who live in Scotland to have the right to make the decisions that affect us; after all, those who live here are surely the best placed to do that. I look forward to the referendum in 2014 and believe that people will recognise then that the current bill was a missed opportunity and that they will not trust the anti-independence parties, which consistently make promises but do not deliver when the opportunity presents itself.
The bill was an opportunity to get powers to give Scotland the tools to stimulate the economy and create jobs, to make our control over income tax greater so that, for example, the Scottish Parliament would have flexibility on income tax rates for all bands, and to get welfare benefit powers to balance economic and social policies. Even on that issue, on which a degree of unanimity exists, no quarter was given.
I am sure that David Stewart’s members’ business debate tonight will reinforce the consensus in Scotland on the devolution of the management and revenues of the Crown estate. Indeed, it is incongruous that, in 1998, the Lib Dems wished to amend the Scotland Bill to devolve the Crown estate but that the proposal is now opposed by a Lib Dem Secretary of State for Scotland.
Perhaps we should not be surprised that, in 1998, the Lib Dems also proposed amending the Scotland Bill to allow Scottish Executive ministers to have the right of statutory representation in the Council of Ministers. Of course, in his submission to the Calman commission on behalf of the Scottish Lib Dems, Tavish Scott, who was then their leader, called for corporation tax to be devolved, with
“all revenues accruing directly to the Scottish Parliament”.
Then there is broadcasting.
I note all the things that the member has said, but I think that she fails to understand the point. We made a submission to the commission as part of a process that was considering the issues in detail. We were not going to rush headlong into doing those things, as the SNP wanted to do last year.
Can I presume that it is the same with broadcasting—the Lib Dem Steel commission wanted greater accountability for that—and excise duty? In the Lib Dem submission to the Calman commission, Tavish Scott called for tobacco and alcohol duties—along with fuel duty and vehicle excise duty—to be devolved, with
“all revenues accruing directly to the Scottish Parliament”.
The real issue of financial harm to Scotland, which was inherent in the original proposals, has been lifted. The Scottish Government has done a sound job in looking after Scotland’s interests in that regard. We should not underestimate the shift that has taken place. We should have the goodness, across the chamber, to recognise that.
I think that the bill can be supported because of that change—there is no harm to Scotland as a result of the proposals—and that the legislative consent motion can be agreed. However, Scotland deserves more and, indeed, should have more. It is the responsibility of every representative in this Parliament to lay out their case for what, in their opinion, Scotland can and should be. The SNP is clear about that: it wants independence and it wants decisions to be made in Scotland. I believe that that is what will happen.
16:06
The Calman commission was established by the then Labour leader Wendy Alexander prior to the 2011 election, and the subsequent Scotland Bill that emerged from it was a genuine attempt, which will ultimately be successful, to increase the powers of this Parliament and further the devolutionary process. A consensus emerged among a number of parties in Scotland that this Parliament should have greater powers than it does now, which is a view that I believe reflects the wishes of the Scottish people.
Others opted out of the Calman commission and did not support the Scotland Bill. They said that it did not go far enough. They believed that there were flaws in it that would, in their own words, force us to go down the route of progressive taxation—as if that is a bad thing. They believed that the bill would make us uncompetitive and less attractive to foreign investment.
Those people belong to the Friedman school of economics and have a philosophy underpinned by a belief that progressive taxation will be a disaster for Scotland. They have a vision for Scotland of trickle-down economics with low personal taxation, even lower corporate taxes and a deregulated economy in which the likes of Trump, Souter and the rest dictate economic policy.
Will the member take an intervention?
Not at the moment.
I state openly that I hope that the Scotland Bill will enable a move forward to genuinely progressive taxation that seeks to redistribute the undoubted wealth held by a small but powerful minority in this country. I want taxation that supports the economy, develops public services and plays a civilising role by protecting the weak and vulnerable from the uncompromising nature of the market. However, that is not the view of Scotland that the SNP wants to see.
Who could forget the dear leader, full of typical bravado, bouncing into Whitehall post-election with his list of six demands? Were they demands to tackle poverty, to end tax avoidance and to stop the draconian welfare cuts proposed by the coalition? No, of course they were not.
Will the member take an intervention now?
I will not take one now, because you are mentioned later in my speech, so you will probably want to come in then.
The First Minister wanted powers over excise duty; powers over broadcasting, which is a particular fixation of Ms McAlpine; a seat at the EU table; the Crown estate; borrowing powers; and, of course, the power to lower corporation tax.
You expressed your concern about welfare. I think that this Parliament is united—certainly Labour and the SNP are united—in agreement that the welfare changes at Westminster hurt the most vulnerable and poorest in our society. Why is Labour therefore not supporting the Scotland Bill Committee’s recommendation that welfare be devolved to this Parliament?
I remind all members to speak through the chair.
I do not think that you are in a very strong position to argue over what you want in the Scotland Bill, since you did not want it in the first place.
Of course, the First Minister said that if he did not get these powers he would not support the Scotland Bill. The committee convener, Ms Fabiani, said that she would not support the bill because
“the Bill does not go far enough and its provisions, if enacted, represent a significant risk to public finances in Scotland ... the Bill delivers a very limited amount of financial accountability”.
Ms McAlpine said:
“London will cut our grant—they won’t say how exactly—and replace the shortfall with a limited share of income tax. It’s a cash grab, pure and simple.”
Were those genuine beliefs, or cynical posturing? If they were genuine beliefs, what has changed?
Will the member give way?
Will the member give way?
No, thank you.
We should not be surprised by the SNP’s budget day backtrack—not just on this bill, but on everything else that it wanted to ditch. Saying one thing to give a false impression while all the time planning to do something else has been the party’s core constitutional tactic for decades. The Scottish Constitutional Convention, the creation of the Parliament and now the Scotland Bill are all examples of the SNP noisily opposing the process of devolving government and power and then jumping aboard the train once all the hard graft has been done.
Where are all the fundamentalists these days? At one time, nationalists would have stuck firmly to their principles and opposed the bill, but not now. What is the view of Ms McAlpine, Ms Fabiani, Mr Doris, Mr Mason and Mr Gibson?
Will the member give way?
I will not give way at the moment.
Those members vehemently opposed the Calman commission and the Scotland Bill. Do they have a view, or are we all gradualists now?
Will the member give way?
Will the member give way?
I give way to Ms Fabiani.
I wonder whether Neil Findlay realises that negotiations have taken place that have changed the very things on which he accuses us of backtracking, and that the bill has changed fundamentally from the bill that was introduced in 2010. For the record, I never said that I would oppose the bill full stop.
Yes, you did.
I said that I would oppose the bill if the harm to Scotland was not altered. It has been altered, and that is the position now.
We know that negotiations have taken place. The First Minister has told his back benchers what the line is, and they will all fall into line tonight at 6 o’clock. Are we all gradualists now? Are SNP members going to sell out on everything that they ever believed in? Are they all more protective of their own positions—
Will the member give way?
Sit down.
The member is in his last minute—he is just finishing.
Are SNP members more protective of their own positions than they are of their principles? What will the cybernats say about their sell-out? They are never usually reticent about attacking people in other parties. It is surely time for all the fundamentalists to unite and challenge the great leader—or do they, as I suspect, have the backbone of a jellyfish?
Five and a half of the six demands that the First Minister made have been dumped. He has been completely outmanoeuvred by that nice man Mr Moore. The First Minister is a man of some talents, but I do not think that I am divulging any great state secret by saying that negotiation is not one of them. I offer him this: I have a few friends in the trade unions, and I am sure that they can get him on to a basic shop stewards negotiating course. It certainly looks like he needs it.
I am afraid that the member must conclude.
In conclusion, my view on the Scotland Bill and the debate on any element of constitutional change is that any model that is discussed must have at its core the desire and mechanisms to start to redress the unacceptable levels of poverty and inequality in this country.
I am sorry, but the member will have to finish at that.
Thank you, Presiding Officer—I have enjoyed my time this afternoon.
16:13
I commend Linda Fabiani for her convenership of the Scotland Bill Committee. She was full of humour, professionalism and efficiency, and she always allowed us to have our say, sometimes at great length.
I think that we all recognise that the Scotland Bill marks a significant step forward. It is a significant step, for us as Liberal Democrats, towards a home rule Parliament in the United Kingdom. The details of the bill—which have been covered this afternoon and include income tax, air weapons, drink-drive limits, national speed limits, stamp duty, landfill tax and borrowing powers—are significant steps towards what we want to achieve.
Other members have referred to the fact that we have wanted other powers too, and there is no denying that. In fact, we are proud of our long tradition of campaigning for a home rule Parliament, and we have worked together with others to deliver that. Those changes will bring significant fiscal responsibility and control over our own affairs here to the Scottish Parliament.
We should remember that the Calman commission was set up by the Parliament not one year ago, but four years ago. Its work led, after much considered debate, to the white paper that the Labour Party presented to the House of Commons during the previous Parliament. Subsequently, all three of the parties that supported the Calman commission put the implementation of its recommendations in their manifestos.
One of the first acts of my colleague Danny Alexander, who was initially the Secretary of State for Scotland following the last general election, was to press ahead with the Scotland Bill. It has received extensive scrutiny from two committees of the Scottish Parliament and in an extended session at Westminster, and it has been the subject of endless debate in the media. The bill has been scrutinised endlessly.
We must contrast that with what the SNP has done. Initially, it refused to take part in the Calman process; it even refused to submit evidence to the commission. When it came to the Scottish elections, the SNP had six big demands. Although it whispered those demands during the election campaign, they were red lines that it insisted the UK Government had to agree to—but it failed to make its case.
Anyone who watched the proceedings of the Scotland Bill Committee will have been surprised at the level of ineffectiveness of the Scottish Government. The first paper that it produced was on the Crown estate. It was seven pages long, two of which were a history lesson; another page consisted of a map. The remaining pages were poorly argued proposals for the devolution of the Crown estate. The paper was not prepared properly.
I turn to broadcasting. Stewart Maxwell likes rugby, and most of the Scotland Bill Committee’s evidence session on the broadcasting element of the Scottish Government’s demands was about rugby and Stewart Maxwell’s interest in it. I do not have anything against rugby, but that is not what we were talking about.
We thought that the Scottish Government’s proposals on corporation tax would be similar to those for Northern Ireland, but that turned out not to be the case. Northern Ireland wanted control of the headline rate, whereas the Scottish Government wanted full devolution of the tax. We did not discover that until much later in the process, when the Scottish Government presented its paper to the committee, by which time much discussion had already taken place. Again, the Government’s paper was flimsy, poorly argued and poorly prepared.
We have heard about what happened on excise duty. We were a long way into the process before we received the Scottish Government’s paper. We had already taken evidence from the alcohol groups, some of which said that devolution of excise duty would be a good thing, when we discovered that we were talking only about assignation rather than devolution, because of the implications for customs posts. It was a catalogue of errors and blunders.
Will the member take an intervention?
Not just now.
To top it all, we had the Scottish Government’s demand for full fiscal autonomy, which was slipped in at the end of the process. The Scotland Bill Committee considered the Scottish Government having control of 8 per cent of taxes—that is what the SNP asked for as part of its six big demands. From the evidence that the committee received on the 8 per cent figure, a majority of members on it—not including me—felt justified in asking for control of 100 per cent of taxes, or full fiscal autonomy. Despite the fact that the committee considered the devolution of only two taxes, the SNP reckoned that we could devolve all taxes. That is how shambolic the process was.
Mr Rennie seems to be traducing the Scottish Government for demanding things that we understand the Liberal Democrats want. He has referred to the Scotland Bill as being a step forward. What other steps does he want to take? Why is he not arguing for the secretary of state to devolve control of those matters now?
Because a process has to be gone through. Constitutional change is the result of a process. It must be a considered process and one that involves cross-party support and consensus. The SNP has always misunderstood that. Neil Findlay quite rightly highlighted the SNP’s inability over the decades to work with other parties. What has happened here is another example of that. It is necessary to work together to get such things delivered. Of course we want what the member is referring to—that is why we have a home rule commission.
John Swinney described the bill as dangerous, a poison pill and a dog’s breakfast—those were his concerns about the bill. He also threatened to veto the bill and demanded a joint commencement order. The SNP thrashed, wailed and protested, but then it all stopped. On what basis? On the basis of two reviews and a couple of letters. Bruce Crawford did a commendable job in trying to big up all the significant changes that had been achieved, but they were not big changes. What was offered was already part of the process. If that satisfies him, that is fine.
I have an apology to make to Bruce Crawford. I said on the news a few weeks ago that he was the worst negotiator in the northern hemisphere. I have reflected on my rather hasty remarks and I take it all back. He is a parliamentarian of the kind that I can only aspire to be, but even he could not have got a deal with the hand that he was dealt. He would not be able to negotiate with anyone in the northern hemisphere or southern hemisphere to get a satisfactory result from the case that was put forward after last May’s election, which was ill prepared, poorly argued and more focused on easy headlines than on serious constitutional change.
We need to learn the lessons of this process. The lessons are that the SNP rushed at this process. We need to think about that in the context of the independence debate. If the SNP’s argument for independence is as poorly prepared as their arguments around the bill have been, independence will be a shambles.
16:20
The Scotland Bill is a wishy-washy, paler than pale imitation of even devo max or devo plus, never mind real home rule under independence. As the cabinet secretary said, it represents a missed opportunity for Scotland, and it has been overtaken by the real debate on the referendum on independence. I suppose that the only saving grace is that the repatriation to Westminster of powers over things such as health professionals, corporate insolvency and the registration of social landlords has been abandoned and some of the risk that the original bill would have posed to our public finances has been removed.
We are also to get the power to set the drink-drive limit and the national speed limit, but even those powers have been tainted by Westminster's pathological reluctance to cede power. We are getting only the power to set the drink-drive limit, not legislative devolution over drink driving; and we are getting only the power to set the national speed limit, not the power to set limits for vehicles such as lorries.
Nevertheless, this is a welcome debate. Hopefully, it will allow us to move forward on drink-driving limits, which is a matter that I have been pursuing since I was elected in 2007. I believe that the drink-driving limit should be reduced from 80mg of alcohol per 100ml of blood to 50mg. Of course, in December 2008, the Parliament voted to back that measure. As that was more than three years ago, members might therefore ask why a reduction in the drink-drive limit in Scotland has not yet happened. The answer is simple. Westminster has dragged its feet on the matter—or maybe, as Willie Rennie would say, that is all part of the process.
As with the Scotland Bill, the UK Government has a poor record on this issue. Before the 1997 election, and again in 1998, the Labour Party announced that it intended to reduce the legal limit to 50mg. That was nearly 15 years ago. However, in March 2000, the UK Government announced that it had decided not to lower the limit, because it was awaiting possible moves to harmonise drink-driving limits in the European Union.
In January 2001, the EU adopted a recommendation to harmonise the drink-driving level at 50mg or less. However, that was not binding on member states, and the UK announced in 2002 that it had no plans to change the limit. That was the position until early in 2007, when the second review of the UK Government's road safety strategy was published. It stated that the case for a reduction in the blood alcohol limit would again be kept under review.
As with the Scotland Bill, there has been a great deal of prevarication, and the process is a good example of what Westminster does when it does not really want to do something. In June 2007, the UK minister with responsibility for road safety, Stephen Ladyman, offered some hope to those of us who want a reduction in the limit by saying again that the UK Government was in favour of moving to a 50mg limit but it first wanted to see evidence that it would be properly enforced by the police. Later in 2007, he said that the Government would publish a consultation paper to gauge public opinion on reducing the limit.
No consultation paper appeared, so I continued to press the Department for Transport, which eventually told me, early in 2008, that it was pressing ahead with the consultation document and that it would give careful consideration to the views of interested parties in Scotland and elsewhere.
We heard nothing more until November 2008, when the road safety compliance consultation informed us that, once again, the drink-driving limit was to be kept under review and that more time was needed in which to collect evidence. That is more evidence of the Westminster process—dragging its heels to avoid doing things that it does not want to do.
A further consultation came out in April 2009, which led to a statement in December 2009 that there may, indeed, be a case for reforming the current legal framework covering drink driving but—wait for it—further advice was needed from an independent expert who would report by the end of March 2010.
Of course, he never did, and Labour lost the UK general election that year and the Tories and Liberal Democrats took over. Since then, there has been no progress, as they have continued the pattern of prevarication established by Labour by insisting that we must wait for the Scotland Bill.
In recent years, several EU countries have reduced their limits to 50mg, including France, Germany, Spain, Denmark and, just last year, Ireland. Of the 27 states, 24 now have a limit of 50mg or less. That leaves only Malta and Luxembourg—two huge European states—and the UK with an 80mg limit.
There has been no need for such a delay. Even Sir Kenneth Calman, the father of the Scotland Bill, said, a few years ago:
“I think there are lots of bits ... which ... can be implemented quickly and easily without too much fuss”.
That included the drink-driving limits, which could have been implemented by administrative order two years ago. However, we have had to wait for the bill to get to where we are today. Given that there are 15 deaths a year in accidents involving drivers whose blood alcohol level is between 50mg and 80mg, that prevarication has probably cost 30 lives. The Westminster Government has played politics with those people’s lives and should be ashamed of itself.
Once the bill is approved, I would hope that the Scottish Government would implement a reduction in the drink-drive limit as soon as possible, along with random breath testing. I look forward to everyone in the chamber getting behind that and to the resulting reduction in the number of deaths on Scotland’s roads.
16:26
I welcome the opportunity to speak in the debate as Parliament discusses the legislative consent motion, unites—at least for now—on a cross-party basis and appears to be about to agree that the Scotland Bill, as amended, should be considered by the UK Parliament.
The Scotland Bill is the culmination of years of work by respected academics, business, community and trade union representatives and Scotland Bill Committees in both Parliaments in this and previous sessions. I put on record my support for the work done by those committees. In the main, the bill reflects the recommendations of the Commission on Scottish Devolution.
The Labour Party has continued to give broad support to the Scotland Bill but has tabled amendments at every stage to improve it. In the latest report of the Scottish Parliament Scotland Bill Committee, we welcomed the new changes while stating that it would have been beneficial if powers over air passenger duty were included and the limits on borrowing powers extended.
While we feel that the bill would have been strengthened if those measures had been included, the Scotland Bill is still the biggest ever devolution of tax powers and responsibilities. It makes us as MSPs much more accountable and responsible for raising money as well as spending it. There is a simple test for the bill, which is whether it makes the Scottish Parliament stronger. I do not think that anyone could say no to that.
There are measures that Labour would like to be included, but we support a number of the amendments that the UK Government proposes. There is the concession on national speed limits to extend the devolution of powers to cover all classes of vehicle. We would have had a very confusing situation here if we had had Scotland-specific speed limits for cars and UK-wide speed limits for all other vehicles. That was a sensible step to ensure that visiting drivers know that any changes in speed restrictions will affect them as soon as they cross the border regardless of whether they are in a car travelling on business or in the same car with their family, towing a caravan on a Scottish holiday.
There is the power over drink-driving limits, which I hope will strengthen this Parliament. I fully support Mr Thompson’s aspirations. I hope that when the power is devolved, we can work towards a zero tolerance approach to drink-driving.
We support the creation of the post of Crown Estate commissioner with special responsibility for Scotland, which provides clarity over the role and responsibilities of the new post and ensures Scottish interests will be represented in the Crown Estate.
There are a number of other amendments with which we are content, although we await full details of the discussions between the Scottish and UK Governments on how certain issues will be overcome.
One of the main aspects of the Scotland Bill is the additional borrowing powers that the Parliament will be given. Capital spending is crucial in this economic situation to drive the economy forward. There is a slump in the construction industry, while there is massive demand for social housing.
Parents expect their children to be educated in buildings fit for the 21st century, and businesses need a modern transport infrastructure in order to thrive in Scotland. Perhaps most important of all, we have queues and queues of people waiting to work—graduates who cannot get a job after working hard at university; school leavers desperate for apprenticeships; and families struggling with the effects of unemployment for the first time in a generation.
Although borrowing powers will not give us everything we need at the stroke of a pen on a cheque book, they will mean that we can continue to invest in vital areas in years when capital budgets are falling and can spread costs to years when we predict that budgets will start to increase.
I take Mark Griffin’s point, but the way in which the borrowing powers are set up means exactly the reverse: the larger the capital budget, the more we can borrow; and the less the capital budget, the less we can borrow. That does not seem to be the right way round.
I take that point on board. However, any additional borrowing powers would give us the power to boost the economy when it is lagging and when budgets reduce. Having the borrowing power would increase our capacity. We would be able to boost the economy by creating desperately needed new jobs and opportunities and, at the same time, by creating the sort of infrastructure improvements that businesses need to flourish and grow. That is how we will make Scotland an attractive place for business and investment—and for the job creation that comes with them.
What would not be helpful is corporation tax competition with our closest neighbour. We know that corporation tax is one of the most volatile sources of revenue available to government, and the immediate impact of reducing the tax rate would be to take funding away from key public services in the hope of attracting businesses to Scotland to make up the shortfall. Even if that were the case and businesses were willing to relocate, would it necessarily bring the associated jobs and investment, or would it simply be an accounting procedure that meant that a company already trading and operating across the UK would simply pay corporation tax in Scotland? All we would be doing would be robbing Peter in the rest of the UK to pay Paul in Scotland. What would be the reaction from the rest of the UK? Would they sit idly by as corporation tax revenues flowed into Scotland?
Will the member take an intervention?
Sorry, but I am in my final 15 seconds.
As I was about to say, I really do not think that they would sit idly by. As soon as it could be managed, corporation tax in the north of England would be reduced to entice companies back over the border. Gradually, the reduction in corporation tax would spread across the whole of the UK in a race to the bottom, with the losers being the public purse and the public services funded by it.
As I said earlier, the key test of the Scotland Bill as it stands is whether it makes our Parliament stronger, and stronger in the right areas. In my opinion, it passes that test.
16:33
As a member of the Scotland Bill Committee, I, too, congratulate Linda Fabiani on her convenership and on the good humour with which business was conducted by all the participants across all the political parties.
Scrutiny of the bill did not receive a lot of media attention, which perhaps tells us everything that we need to know about it. An aspect that was completely ignored was the original proposal—now happily abandoned—to re-reserve the regulation of certain health professionals. That little-known clause may be more significant than we think, for the bill—as amended after discussions between the UK Government and the Scottish Government—now passes the test set by the doctors of ancient Greece. The Hippocratic oath was,
“I will do no harm.”
As it stood before the adjustments, the bill was harmful. However, as Mark Griffin has reasonably said, it offered some advances. The capital borrowing powers, although they do not go far enough, are welcome. The bill also provides a framework, however flawed and however short of what we might wish for, for collecting some income tax. Belatedly, the bill also recognises something that everyone in Scotland recognised a long time ago—that we have a Government and not an Executive.
However, until the recent agreement between the UK Government and the Scottish Government, the bill was harmful and did not pass the Hippocratic oath test. In particular, the re-reservation of powers was insulting to the Scottish Parliament. One aspect that did not get a great deal of attention was the proposal to partially suspend acts of the Scottish Parliament so that they could be challenged in the Supreme Court.
One act of the Scottish Parliament that was challenged in the Supreme Court was our legislation on compensation for the victims of asbestos, and I am glad to say that the Supreme Court upheld the Scottish Parliament’s position on that. If partial suspension had been allowed, that kind of challenge would have been more frequent and common. As Professor Tierney of the University of Edinburgh said when he was advising the committee, the idea of partial suspension was extremely disrespectful to the Parliament. I am pleased that it has been abandoned as a result of the negotiations between the two Governments.
Re-reservation of powers also included a clause that would have allowed international agreements to be made in devolved areas between the UK Government and other Governments, and that would ride roughshod over Scottish ministers. I am pleased to see that that proposal has also been abandoned.
However, the area that could have caused most harm was in the financial powers on which Calman focused, particularly the method by which the block grant would have been cut; that has already been outlined in the debate. Professor Gerard Holtham pointed out in written and oral evidence to committees of both Parliaments that the proposals under Calman were detrimental to Scotland. His arguments were conducted from a unionist point of view. In his submission, he said about the settlement and the proposals to cut the block grant:
“The integrity of the Union might be questioned if there were a persistent and growing divergence between the resources available for public services in one area of the Union and those in others.”
Now, unlike Professor Holtham, I do not stay awake at night worrying about the integrity of the union, but I do worry about what is good for Scotland and Scotland’s wellbeing. Throughout the committee’s scrutiny of the bill, there was an insistence that all would come good in the end, that it would be all right on the night, and that this Parliament should agree to an LCM while not knowing how its future finances would be arranged and on the basis of proposals that had never been subjected to an economic analysis to see how they would affect the country’s economy. So I am very pleased that Professor Holtham’s solution has been taken on board. Although I do not think that it goes far enough, it is at least not harmful.
The member is raising questions about the country’s finances. Can she point to strong evidence that a cut in corporation tax of the size that the Scottish Government is talking about will benefit the Scottish economy? Where is the evidence?
The paper submitted by the Scottish Government proposed a modest cut in corporation tax and showed that it would create a considerable number of jobs over a period of time. If we look around the world, we can see that there are different ways of looking at the issue; we do not have to look at it in crude terms. [Interruption.]
Could I have some silence please?
Order.
The committee discussed the particular areas and industries that would benefit from a cut in corporation tax. The video games and other digital industries in Canada have really flourished at the expense of our games industry. There are lots of examples from all round the world; otherwise, why would corporation tax be an issue at all?
The anti-independence parties have been gloating a lot today and saying that we should be eating humble pie. However, the reality of devolution is that the sovereignty of the Scottish people is denied. Last year, the Scottish people made their aspirations very clear and the gloating from the anti-independence parties because those aspirations have been refused by the London Government shows them up. It would have been better for Scotland if the bill had been toughened up and the six demands, which were based on issues that had received cross-party consensus, had been agreed. The bill would then have benefited Scotland, and it would have benefited the anti-independence parties because they would have had something better to sell going into the referendum.
I would be grateful if you would close, Ms McAlpine.
As it is, they have nothing to sell. They will be the ones who are eating humble pie so they had better get used to the taste.
16:39
We spent many hours on the Scotland Bill in committee and it is good to be able to debate the bill in the chamber. The committee certainly covered a lot of ground. It is perhaps disappointing that some of the UK representatives did not engage more in debate when they came along to the committee, but rather just defended their position.
I will comment on some of the financial aspects of the bill. First, the only red line was concerned with income tax and the adjustment to the block grant. Secondly, it is disappointing that there has been no movement on corporation tax, especially as that could have been used to create jobs. Coverage has mainly focused on dramatic reductions to the main rate, but the more likely option is that there would be minor reductions. In fact, that is what the UK is doing and we do not hear people saying that there is a race to the bottom and that it should not happen, nor do we hear the Tories saying that there should be an EU corporation tax rate.
Minor reductions are part of a competitive world and could lead—and, in fact, have led—to more tax being paid in total. Further, we can use capital allowances to target particular areas or industries. The UK eventually did that for the games industry. The advantage of a smaller country is that it can be much more nimble and can respond more quickly to such needs.
Some have said that, if we want better services, we need more tax and so we should never cut corporation tax. However, that argument is too simplistic. It is perfectly feasible to hold a left-of-centre position and generally support better services through taxation while supporting a lower corporation tax rate, or at least targeted capital allowances. The reason why that is possible is that we are competing internationally for jobs. If more companies operate in Scotland, that means more jobs in Scotland, which I—for one—want. It is disappointing that other parties oppose corporation tax powers for ideological reasons. That damages the availability of jobs to people in Scotland.
If Scotland cut corporation tax and created a race to the bottom, that would simply mean that businesses would pay less corporation tax and less money would come in to pay for services. In no way could that be called a left-wing position—it is a very right-wing position on tax.
If the member listens to what I am saying and looks at the evidence, he will find that countries can attract businesses and jobs and can sometimes get more taxation by lowering their tax rate. That has been proven to apply to income tax, too. I certainly support progressive taxation, but there are limits. The income tax rate of 98 per cent when I was growing up was probably too high.
Another financial power is the power to borrow. Nobody says that Scotland would or should be as stupid as the UK has been in the way that it goes about borrowing. Obviously, borrowing means that eventually the money has to be repaid. It is not wise for a country to borrow beyond its ability to repay, although that has certainly been practised at Westminster. Prudential borrowing means borrowing according to the ability to repay, depending on the savings that can be made and the expected income. That has worked well for local authorities throughout Scotland and beyond and would be a perfectly good model for the Scottish Parliament to operate on. In fact, it would be a good model for Westminster to operate on, too. It should just borrow what it can afford and save up for rainy days.
More flexible borrowing powers would mean that we could pay for capital investment in things such as housing. When we invest in housing, that gives us not only more homes, which people desperately need, but more jobs. Once again, the Opposition parties that do not support borrowing powers are damaging the chances of Scots, particularly young Scots, to get jobs.
Another financial measure that could have been in the bill is the power over air passenger duty. Heathrow and other London airports might be jam-packed full and might be happy if passenger numbers reduce, but that is not the case for Scotland. We want business and tourism to grow, so we need a growth in passenger numbers. Devolving power over APD would have helped that.
Welfare powers were not initially on the agenda for the Scottish Government or the Scotland Bill Committee, but the third sector clearly emphasised that we should consider the issue, so it was added to the original list of six items. As we are responsible for housing and social care, it makes sense that we should have involvement in benefits.
I will conclude by commenting on the attitude of some of the UK representatives—especially Michael Moore—at the committee. Throughout the sessions, it was disappointing that he and his colleagues took the attitude that they did. There was no sense that they were negotiating, listening or showing respect for the Parliament or the people of Scotland who elected the Government in 2011. Instead, we heard repeatedly from the UK Government that it was elected in 2010 and had a mandate to do whatever it wanted. It really was like the traditional colonial power telling the natives that they should be grateful for whatever crumbs came their way. We had a delegation from Western Australia, where there have been long negotiations between Canberra and Perth, and they found it incredibly hard to believe the attitude that London was taking. Recently, The Economist magazine has also taken a very patronising view of Scotland.
The bill is a missed opportunity and is well past its sell-by date even before it is on the shelf. The UK Government will have to do much better if it wants to con the Scots.
16:45
The Scotland Bill is evidence of Scottish Labour’s continued commitment to developing devolution. I am full of praise for all who contribute to this crucial work, both in Scotland and at Westminster—indeed, to everyone in Scotland who has worked, over the ages, to give Scotland’s people a greater say in their affairs. The bill is an important step in strengthening the Scottish Parliament and I am glad that the SNP Government has finally dropped its opposition to this move. The Parliament will rightly be in charge of raising a significant proportion of the money that it spends, making it more accountable to the people of Scotland. The SNP might want to talk down the significant powers that the bill contains in an attempt to save face after its humiliating 11th-hour climbdown, but Labour firmly believes that the Scotland Bill is a hugely significant and positive advancement of devolution.
Annabel Goldie is in the chamber today. I attended a Remploy conference not long ago and sat next to a stranger who said that they had been sitting opposite or in the same carriage as her during a recent train journey. I am reminded of the saying during the war years that “walls have ears”, as she was overheard saying to her travelling companion that had it not been for Donald Dewar we would never have had devolution and the Scottish Parliament. That is absolutely correct. He is one example of all the Labour people who have campaigned over the years to increase the voice of the people of Scotland. They also include Wendy Alexander and Iain Gray, who negotiated with Westminster to get the Calman commission and to take the work forward.
Labour is determined to enhance devolution even further—there is no full stop to devolution—but this is a significant moment for all of us who believe in a stronger kingdom, a Scottish Parliament and a strong Scotland within the United Kingdom. Contrary to what Bruce Crawford said, the Scotland Bill not only paves the way to strengthening the powers of the Parliament, but structures how we get the answers that we need to many questions if we are to be well informed when we make our choice about whether Scotland should have independence.
On that point, I say the following to the First Minister and his colleagues. In the context of a referendum, they should never put off until tomorrow what they can and should do today. They have the right to put the referendum off until 2014, but while one is planning life, life has a habit of taking control. Experience teaches us that, as the years fly by, the things that we plan and hope for sometimes happen and sometimes do not. They should not miss the historic opportunity that they have to hold their referendum sooner rather than later, as later may be too late. It is a gamble that only they can decide to take, and fate may or may not be with them.
During consideration of the bill, among the various proposals that were considered at Westminster, I was taken by Jack Straw’s proposal in the House of Commons and a related amendment that was lodged by Lord Forsyth of Drumlean in the House of Lords, which I think was agreed. In the context of the future and ensuring that we are as well informed about the impact of independence as we can be, their point is important and it should be incumbent on the Scottish Government to consider the proposal, too. They asked the UK Government for a clear undertaking that every Government department will set out in a green paper—in objective, not political, terms—what the consequences of independence would be and what issues would need to be addressed. I, too, worry about what is good for Scotland and for the people whom I represent. Therefore, in my opinion, that is not something that we can wait for, but something that we should be doing now.
One by one, the departments should set out what the issues are. It would be totally disastrous and quite wrong if we were to allow Government departments to get involved in advocacy as opposed to providing information. That would undermine the debate. There are plenty of advocates for the union. We need the facts. The First Minister is fond of quoting Burns:
“But Facts are cheels that winna ding”.
We want the facts.
There are obvious, large-scale issues, such as what would happen to our nuclear deterrent, given the fact that the Scottish Government is opposed to nuclear material being on Scottish soil, and what the costs and employment consequences of that would be. There are also issues about public sector pensions, as Scotland has a disproportionately large number of people involved in public service because of its long tradition of such service.
On banking and finance, the Treasury should indicate what would happen to organisations such as the Royal Bank of Scotland—for example, how could it possibly meet its requirements for raising capital in the independent Scotland? What would happen on the currency? What would happen on the role of the Bank of England? How would we avoid a situation like that in Greece?
The Department of Energy and Climate Change should set out what would happen in respect of interconnectors and how the so-called green policy of being entirely dependent on renewables would work in an independent Scotland. It might be cheaper for England to buy its electricity from France, where it is generated by nuclear power, than from Scotland, but the business model for the Scottish Government’s green agenda depends on being able to add to the bills of English, Welsh and Northern Irish consumers. [Interruption.]
Courtesy, please.
Lord Gordon of Strathblane suggested that
“the perceived impartiality of such a series of reports might be improved if it was handled by ... economists of sufficient stature that they would put their own reputation for impartiality above any party advantage.”
He hoped that
“if the membership of such a committee could be agreed with the Scottish Government, there would be no come-back ... there are economists, including economists of a nationalist tendency, who would not put their own reputations on the line by being seen patently to lie about the consequences of certain things.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 28 March 2012; c 1423.]
If there are other people like me in Scotland who are passionately proud of being Scots and of all that we stand for, they, too, will agree with what the noble Lords Gordon and Forsyth said.
I would be grateful if you would close, please.
I am very much an emotional person and if I allowed my heart to rule my head I would vote for independence, but, like many, I am a canny Scot and, in the main, my head rules my heart.
You must close please, Ms Eadie.
I worry for the future of my children, my grandchildren and my constituents.
Thank you very much.
I hope that the Parliament will agree to the motion this evening.
16:52
And now back to the Scotland Bill.
I support colleagues who have rightly pointed out the fact that the Scotland Bill that is going through Westminster is a missed opportunity. That is not to say that it will not bring some additional powers to the Scottish Parliament. The final version will be a marked improvement on what the UK Government originally proposed.
However, an opportunity seldom comes along in which public opinion, the majority view of the Parliament and the recommendations of a parliamentary committee are all in agreement and, at the same time, a legislative vehicle that would allow those aspirations to be fulfilled is going through the UK Parliament. Therefore, it is a source of regret that the UK parties have not stepped up to the mark and supported further devolution now. We know that they support jam tomorrow, just not today.
I will concentrate on what has been achieved in some of the policy areas that are addressed in the bill—particularly the provisions on the Supreme Court—through the good work of the Scotland Bill Committee and the negotiations between the UK and Scottish Governments and, therefore, why the Parliament should agree to the LCM.
Before I get on to the Supreme Court, I will mention the attempt to re-reserve Scottish procedures for insolvency.
The Scotland Bill Committee stated in its report:
“In the case of corporate insolvency, we do not consider that there is sufficiently clear evidence that makes the case for any change. In our view, it is not necessary to address any issues relating to different regimes for insolvency north and south of the border through reserving matters to the UK Government and Parliament”.
Unfortunately, not all of the committee supported that recommendation, with Labour, the Tories and the Lib Dems supporting the re-reservation of powers to the UK. However, I am delighted that the UK Government accepted the view of the majority of the committee and has agreed to delete the re-reservation clause on insolvency.
Another area of concern to the committee was the clause on the implementation of international obligations, as others have mentioned. The committee recommended that the clause should be removed as it was unnecessary and had a potentially very wide application. Although David McLetchie for the Tories supported the UK having that power—against the evidence that the committee received—it is pleasing that the UK Government once again accepted the recommendation of the majority of the committee on the matter and will delete the clause.
Another of the welcome changes that are being made is an amendment that will extend an existing power in the Scotland Act 1998 potentially to protect all acts of the Scottish ministers from becoming retrospectively null should a court decide that the acts were outwith devolved competence. That is an important step forward in ending an anomaly that has the potential to cause major and potentially extremely expensive headaches for Scottish ministers.
Another change by the UK Government is its agreement to the committee recommendation to delete the clause in the Scotland Bill that would have allowed for the partial suspension of acts of the Scottish Parliament. The majority of the committee expressed serious concerns about that provision, agreeing that it had the potential to introduce significant unintended consequences and delay. Labour, the Tories and the Lib Dems again dissented from the majority view, but both Governments agreed with the majority recommendation that the provision in the Scotland Act 1998 provides a clear incentive to ensure that all legislation that is introduced in the Scottish Parliament is prepared within competence, and that the clause is therefore unnecessary.
I turn to the Supreme Court. The issue produced a lot of controversy when it was first raised, but I am glad to say that, for the most part, it has been amicably resolved. Although there are still outstanding issues surrounding the Supreme Court and its impact on Scots law, a number of extremely important issues have been amicably dealt with. I do not have time to cover all the changes to the Scotland Bill concerning the operation of the Supreme Court, but I wish to highlight a small number that, had they not been dealt with, would have had a damaging effect on Scots law.
Before the member continues, will he confirm that the Supreme Court will still have a role in Scotland?
I am surprised that Willie Rennie does not know that the Supreme Court will still have a role in Scotland. I am happy to confirm that that is the case.
One of our committee’s most important recommendations was:
“We recommend that the Supreme Court’s considerations should be limited strictly to the compatibility question, referring the case back to the High Court for disposal.”
The UK Government has accepted that recommendation and an amendment will be made to the Scotland Bill to restrict the power of the Supreme Court to that of adjudicating on a compatibility issue, reserving to the High Court the application of the Supreme Court’s decision. That will end the Supreme Court’s ability to substitute its decision for that of the High Court. The point is extremely important for the maintenance of the role of the High Court within our legal system in Scotland, and I am happy to welcome the UK Government’s change of position on it.
A number of other recommendations and suggestions were accepted by the UK Government, including ensuring that the Lord Advocate and the Advocate General continue to have a power of reference to the Supreme Court, providing time limits for compatibility appeals to the Supreme Court, and allowing lower courts to refer compatibility issues to the High Court. Those changes and others show that the work of the Scotland Bill Committee and the efforts of the Scottish Government have improved the Scotland Bill by a considerable margin.
The main area that has been left unresolved with regard to the relationship between the High Court and the Supreme Court is that of certification. The committee spent a long time looking at that matter and made a considerable effort to look at both the oral and written evidence that we received on it. It is therefore disappointing that the UK Government has not agreed to accept our recommendation. It also rejected the view of the Lord Advocate and the Lord President on certification.
The Lord President wrote to the committee to express the view of the judges in the Court of Session, stating that they
“commend the proposal that the High Court should be brought into line with the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) and the Court of Appeal of Northern Ireland by the requirement of certification by these intermediate appeal courts as a precondition of any criminal case being taken to the UK Supreme Court.”
Although it is unfortunate that the UK Government declined to accept those views in support of certification, I am pleased that the new scheme of operation will be subject to a review after three years. I also welcome the fact that the review will be chaired by the Lord President and the fact that the Scotland Bill will include the power specifically to allow the introduction of certification after the conclusion of that review.
In conclusion, the Scotland Bill is a missed opportunity—of that there is no doubt. However, with regard to what it does contain, it can be seen that the Scotland Bill Committee’s work had a positive impact on the bill, and I am therefore content to agree to the motion this evening.
16:59
I welcome today’s debate. I will support the motion at 6 o’clock with the full understanding that doing so will bring the Parliament closer to the position that I wish for it, namely that of a normal, independent Parliament.
It is obvious that members and parties across the chamber will vote for the LCM for different reasons. Some will do so because they see it as limiting our ambition and opportunities, while others will do so because they see it as a step in the right direction towards independence.
I do not doubt that some people have suggested in the past that devolution will kill independence stone dead. However, we on the SNP benches know that that is not true. Others should appreciate that the demand for independence is not decreasing. However, the Scotland Bill that is going through Westminster is a missed opportunity—of that, there is no doubt.
I wonder whether the member can help us. Will there be anyone on the SNP back benches who will stick to their principles and vote against the LCM, given that they said that the bill was a dog’s breakfast and a mess, or will they all turn up like sheep at 6.00 and press the wee button?
That is quite rich coming from a Labour Party member who earlier talked about socialism and all his socialist ideals. I do not see much socialism from the Labour Party these days.
The Scotland Bill will be out of date, as the Prime Minister has already promised more powers if Scotland votes no in 2014. That jam tomorrow or on-a-promise suggestion from the Prime Minister is just incredible. Those who were involved in the 1970s devolution campaign will remember the promise then from Sir Alec Douglas-Home, who promised a better deal if Scots voted no to devolution. What Scotland obtained was certainly not a better deal: 18 years of Tory misrule that decimated shipbuilding, mining, engineering and steel communities the length and breadth of Scotland.
David Cameron made a very interesting statement in his speech of 16 February this year when he was up in Edinburgh:
“When the referendum on independence is over, I am open to looking at how the devolved settlement can be improved further. And yes, that means considering what further powers would be devolved.”
It was disappointing that the Prime Minister did not provide any further details on that suggestion. After questioning, he seemed to backtrack immediately by saying that the independence issue needed to be dealt with before how
“to improve the devolved settlement”
could be considered and discussed. It was not that that was going to happen, but that it could happen. The Prime Minister’s Tory on-a-promise suggestion may not happen at all.
The people of Scotland will not be hoodwinked in 2014, but I am sure that they will welcome the further powers that are coming to Scotland through the Scotland Bill. Not only are the borrowing powers that are coming to Scotland additional powers for the Scottish Government, they will provide it with the flexibility to deal with employment and infrastructure opportunities.
However, the bill is a missed opportunity for a variety of reasons, one of which involves the Crown estate. As there is a members’ business debate on that issue after this debate, I do not intend to say too much about it. I have no doubt that the next debate will cover a lot, but we should consider the wider support for the devolution of the Crown estate from, for example, the Scottish Affairs Committee in the Westminster Parliament, the Lib Dems, who proposed a related amendment to the Scotland Bill in 1998, the Calman commission and both the Scotland Bill Committees of this Parliament. It is therefore perfectly reasonable to regard the Scotland Bill as a missed opportunity for the devolution of the Crown estate.
Earlier this afternoon we debated project transmit, and some wider energy issues were touched on during that debate. We all know and understand the huge economic opportunity that energy policy presents for Scotland. We also know that offshore developments will play a major part in achieving the renewables targets of Scotland, the UK and the EU. The Crown estate plays a crucial role in that regard. I commend the Scottish Affairs Committee for its report in which it highlighted that rights to the sea bed and out to 200 nautical miles should go to Marine Scotland. The report stated that that body should oversee the management and use of the sea bed. It is just a shame that the UK coalition Government of Lib Dems and Tories did not see the need to transfer those powers to the Scottish Parliament, despite the fact that they have supported that proposal.
I am proud to be an SNP member of this Parliament and I look forward to our agreeing to the LCM tonight, not because it is the end of the process but because it is a step closer to our destination of independence.
So far, the debate has been typical. Mr McLetchie is not here at the moment, but he said in his usual Tory fashion that he wanted to limit Scotland’s ambition and opportunities. We heard the total hypocrisy of the Lib Dems and their long, drawn-out home rule process—whatever that will be and whenever it will happen. Labour has managed to make a positive advance for the Parliament appear to be a retrograde step.
The bill will be out of date by the time that it receives royal assent. The people of Scotland will not be fooled again by the Tory Prime Minister offering jam tomorrow without telling us what the ingredients are. By autumn 2014, the people of Scotland will have the opportunity to decide for themselves exactly what they want for their nation—continued limitation of ambition in the union or responsibilities and being a normal independent nation.
17:05
I was a member of the committee that scrutinised the UK Government’s Scotland Bill and its potential impacts on Scotland and, in the end, I supported the majority of the majority report. I associate myself with colleagues’ comments and I thank the committee’s convener, its staff team, the witnesses and other committee members.
After all the intergovernmental negotiations, I have been left with some concerns, which I raised at our last committee meeting, when we looked at the legislative consent memorandum. I remain concerned about the lack of joint commencement powers for the financial provisions—the income tax powers and the subsequent reduction in the block grant. As the cabinet secretary said, we as a Parliament have an important duty to ensure that Scotland is not left in a worse position as a result of the financial changes.
I welcome the fact that the Government has been exercised about that issue in negotiating agreements on the principles—if not yet all the detail—of how our block grant will be amended. I also welcome the statutory duty to report regularly to Parliament and the assurances that the two Governments should reach agreement on implementation issues, as was described in the letter of 21 March to the committee.
However, what is on the table is not joint commencement powers but letters that have been exchanged between our two Governments and agreements on scrutiny. I asked at the last committee meeting what weight those letters hold, as they seem to be no more than a gentleman’s agreement. Since then, the Cabinet Secretary for Finance, Employment and Sustainable Growth has given further assurances in his letter of 14 April, which confirms that
“By convention, such a public undertaking by a UK or Scottish Government is regarded as a commitment, even in the absence of legal agreement or statutory provisions. We would expect future UK and Scottish Governments—of any complexion—to uphold the agreement until the new arrangements are in place.”
I value the flexibility that such mutual trust and good faith give our Governments and I have absolutely no reason not to trust the sentiments that were expressed in the letters about joint agreement, but a public commitment is clearly less than what the Scottish Government asked for.
On 17 November, the Cabinet Secretary for Finance, Employment and Sustainable Growth told the committee that, in light of the fact that
“the mechanism for adjusting the block grant has yet to be decided ... We are ... in the dark about how to forecast the financial effects of the bill on future Scottish budgets, never mind the uncertainties inherent in forecasting.”—[Official Report, Scotland Bill Committee, 17 November 2011; c 563.]
We now have agreement on the principles of the mechanism to amend the block grant, but I register my concern that the precise detail is vital, too.
I, too, am keen to note that the world has moved on since the bill started its progress. I guess that that is inevitable for a bill that started life as a commission in 2007. The constitutional issues that we are addressing are important, but they are somewhat superseded by debates on independence and other options that might be put to the people in a referendum.
I am concerned that the devolution of powers under the bill is partial and piecemeal. The devolution of speed limits for cars but not heavy goods vehicles and on some but not all roads is the clearest example of the unnecessarily piecemeal approach, and I am glad that there is agreement in Westminster to address that. There is no point in partial devolution of regulations, which would add unnecessary complexity for the people who are affected.
As others have noted, there are lost opportunities that should have been grasped. Unfortunately, I cannot attend David Stewart’s members’ business debate tonight on devolution of the Crown estate, but I fully support his motion. The Crown estate issue is emblematic of the case for devolving power and highlights the point that devolution should not stop in Edinburgh. More powers for Scotland should not simply mean more powers for Holyrood; they may mean double devolution to the local authority and community level.
The Scottish Affairs Committee report, “The Crown Estate in Scotland”, which was published on 19 March, concluded that simply handing the Crown’s marine responsibilities to Holyrood would not address the fundamental problems that have been identified and that the assets are not being managed to maximise the public good. The committee concluded that devolution of the powers should be based on
“further decentralisation to the maximum extent possible ... to local authority and local community levels”.
I repeat that devolution should be about not securing more power for the Scottish Parliament but ensuring that decisions are taken as close as possible to the people who are affected by them.
Many members are in a bind. The SNP is in a bind, because it wants Scotland to be a nation state and the bill contains some of the tax-raising powers that characterise a state. Greens are unhappy with the bill, but we do not want to reject further devolution, however limited it is. We have missed opportunities, largely because the process has not been fully participative, whatever Michael Moore thinks. Therefore, it will be with zero real enthusiasm that we will support the legislative consent motion at decision time.
The important driver is the devolution of decision making to as close as possible to the people whom it affects.
17:11
I am in the same position as the majority of members of the Scottish Parliament who represent pro-independence parties. The logic is undeniable. We believe in Scottish independence and if more powers—however modest they are—are being offered to the Scottish Parliament by an anti-independence UK establishment, it would be wrong to reject them out of hand.
However, two key questions must be considered. First, are the financial arrangements that underpin the new powers in the Scotland Bill designed to operate to the detriment of the Scottish people? In other words, are they designed to be a Trojan-horse cash-cutting exercise? When the provisions were first published, I thought that that was a possibility and I had significant concerns, but having heard from the Scottish Government I think that the danger has abated, because reassurances have been given. Joan McAlpine talked about that aspect of the issue. On that test, I can support the Scotland Bill, although I do so with no great enthusiasm.
Secondly, will the Scotland Bill process sideline the move towards our independence referendum in 2014? The answer to the question is increasingly self-evident. If anything, the strikingly modest provisions in the bill have added fuel and energy to the drive for Scottish independence. History will show that the entire Calman process and subsequent Scotland Bill were a significant error on the part of the anti-independence parties, given the sheer lack of ambition.
Will the member give way?
I will perhaps give way to Mr Rennie later.
For evidence of that error, we need only consider the current clamour from the anti-independence parties to present themselves as offering powers beyond those that are provided for in the Scotland Bill, if and only if Scotland votes no in an independence referendum. The Scottish people can smell a rat. The failure of the anti-independence parties to define further devolution is a significant weakness, which will be increasingly exposed as the months roll by and we draw closer to the independence referendum.
The independence parties know what powers we want to be transferred to Scotland. Sovereignty and self-determination are clearly understood and respected throughout our nation. The devolutionists’ line of “thus far and no further”, which they take without offering a definition of “thus far”, is untenable—although we know that “thus far” takes all the anti-independence parties beyond the provisions of the Scotland Bill. We can describe the tactics and principles of the unionist parties as being designed only to offer devolution that goes far enough to scupper a yes vote on Scottish independence and no further. The devolutionists have no ideological position on which powers they want for Scotland; they just want to block Scottish independence. Such tactics have been exposed as inconsistent and opportunistic. On that note, I will take an intervention from Willie Rennie.
Is Bob Doris not a bit concerned in the run-up to the independence referendum that the proposals that his Government will put forward will be shambolic, just as the proposals that were put forward to amend the Scotland Bill were? Was he not embarrassed by that process? Is he not concerned that the independence campaign will be a shambles?
I am embarrassed by Mr Rennie’s intervention. The only thing that is shambolic is the unionist parties’ position. Mr Rennie was keen to talk about the process earlier. The reason that there will be an independence referendum in autumn 2014 is to put a clear choice on independence to the Scottish people. Mr Rennie will give them no choice. He will say, “Vote no and take your chances.” That is simply not tenable.
I return to the idea of Scotland being in financial detriment if we give permission to the UK Government to pass the Scotland Bill. I have previously said that I believe that the Scottish Government has given reassurance on that, but I want to look at the idea of financial detriment from a different angle.
We repeatedly hear about fiscal responsibilities, which it is important to gain. I understand why some people argue that the more responsible a Parliament is for directly raising its own income, the more responsibly it is likely to use those powers in governing and marshalling finances. On one level, I cannot fathom why a UK Government does not want to go further in giving Scotland even more borrowing and fiscal powers within the UK, as it would not shoulder any of the risk. The Parliament and Scotland would have to borrow. If growth did not come, the Parliament would shoulder the risk. However, some of the gains when unemployment fell and from income tax receipts, national insurance, VAT, increased fuel consumption and the related duty that would be collected, profits from businesses, and benefits that would come from growth would also accrue to the UK Exchequer. Therefore, why does the UK Government stand in the way of Scotland having more powers? There is an ideological objection to Scottish independence. We and the UK Government know that Scotland will be more prosperous and socially just with independence.
Saying “thus far and no further” will not cut it, but, today, I will support the LCM.
17:17
I am delighted to be able to speak in the debate, as it is the culmination of a process in which I have participated from the very beginning. I think that I am the only one here who was at Wendy Alexander’s lecture on St Andrew’s day in 2007, in which she outlined her view of the challenges that devolution faces and her proposal to create a commission to meet them. There were three principles at the heart of her speech. The first was that the devolution settlement can change without breaking the social, economic and political partnership of the United Kingdom. The second was that any such change should be developed in Scotland. The third was that the Parliament should be accountable for raising more of our resources as well as for spending them.
The Calman commission studied devolution settlements across the world and reached a similar conclusion. It said that the Scotland Act 1998 had created a Parliament with an unusually high degree of legislative devolution, but in contrast, it enjoys unusually limited fiscal devolution. The commission’s proposals, which were developed by a powerful group of economists and endorsed unanimously by the commissioners, who were drawn from right across the spectrum of Scottish political and civic life, were designed fundamentally to rebalance that position, and that is still the essence of the measures that we are debating.
The Parliament should face the responsibility of setting the rate of income tax that Scots pay, and we should reap the consequences or the benefits of that. It should have the power to borrow and to choose to spend future resource in order to allow us to invest in and shape that future. That is a grown-up power for a grown-up Parliament, and it is a job-creating power for a Parliament that should be spending more of its time creating more jobs with the powers that it already has.
As we have heard, the detail that flows from the changes can be complex. However, we should not let the devil in the detail blind us to the power in the principle of the legislation or the uniqueness of its passage.
Mick McGahey, of the National Union of Mineworkers, famously said that
“there is nothing more painful than the birth of an idea.”
Those days back in 2007 were painful ones for Wendy Alexander, yet she brought forward this idea, which has prevailed in spite of everything.
First, the Scottish Parliament itself, in what was at the time a dramatic act of defiance, seized the Parliament’s authority in the teeth of opposition from the SNP Government of the day. In spite of it being in defiance of the Government, a heavyweight and wide-ranging commission was recruited.
As it was recognised that legislative power in this area lay in Westminster, the UK Government was engaged too and a commitment was made that proposals would be pursued, with this Parliament having a de facto veto through the requirement for the LCM that we are debating today.
If that was not remarkable enough, the Scotland Bill survived elections in both Parliaments, which produced in one a coalition led by a party that has only one member of Parliament in Scotland and many MPs who wear their antipathy to devolution on their sleeve. In this Parliament, there was the glorious contradiction of a majority nationalist Government that was hell-bent on refusing, discrediting and sabotaging the offer of more powers for Scotland.
However, common sense has prevailed. As Mr Crawford outlined at some length, the UK Government has shown flexibility and agreement has been reached. That is testimony to all those involved: Wendy Alexander and also Annabel Goldie and Nicol Stephen, who set the process in motion; the two Scotland Bill Committees of this Parliament; and the ministers of all the Governments involved. It is testimony, too, to the strength of devolution itself. It nails the lie that those of us who oppose separation must therefore oppose change, too. That has never been the case. Donald Dewar never said that devolution is a process, but he said that
“It would be absurd to pretend that ours is the last word on the constitutional settlement.”
The truth is that the whole story of devolution has been a story of change in powers and responsibilities. When I worked in the Scotland Office, we devolved rail infrastructure to this Parliament and with it a budget of £300 million a year. Powers over energy consents have been devolved as the industry has changed. The current UK Government is devolving council tax benefit, although that was once an issue of great contention.
The SNP’s argument seems to be that the Scotland Bill is not perfect and that some of its supporters admit that, but the understanding that waiting for a perfect blueprint for devolution would mean waiting for ever, and the profound belief that it should not be beyond the wit of future politicians to deal with anomalies and make changes, is what unlocked the modernisation of our constitution in 1999. We can arrange our constitutional affairs in a partnership of nations whereby we pool sovereignty so that we can share risk, resources and opportunities flexibly and responsibly and make changes. That is a wholly different matter from the once-and-for-all question of whether we want to see that partnership ended irrevocably.
If we support the LCM, we will show that we have the wit to improve devolution and the willingness to set aside what divides us in order to do what is right and what the people of Scotland want us to do—by that, I simply mean strengthen the powers of this Parliament. Today will not be the last word on the constitution, but it can be a memorable moment to the credit of this Parliament.
17:24
In welcoming the debate, I have noticed that there is concern from the sidelines, on the Tory benches, about the use of the term “anti-independence parties”. I look forward to the day when I can describe Mr Johnstone and all members of the Scottish Parliament as pro-independence.
Many members—SNP members at least—have correctly said that they consider that the Scotland Bill is a missed opportunity. I concur with that position, and I will return to that point later.
It is useful to recall how we got to the position of having a Scotland Bill. Iain Gray is quite right—the Scotland Bill came about through the Calman commission. He referred to Wendy Alexander’s announcement about the process in October 2007—he is right, I was not there, but he was. What he failed to mention, of course, was that the only reason that Wendy Alexander made that announcement was in response to the election of an SNP minority Administration in 2007. That is proof—
Will the member take an intervention?
I will let Mr Gray in in a minute.
That is proof—if any more proof was needed—that the SNP is the driver of constitutional change.
Wendy Alexander is not here to answer for herself, but does Mr Hepburn not think that if he examined the whole of her political life, he would see that it was devoted to devolving powers to Scotland? That was a ridiculous, ridiculous statement to make.
Well, Mr Gray can say that—perhaps he thinks that it is just a coincidence that an SNP minority Administration had been elected. Maybe that is the best position that he can come to.
The Scotland Bill has largely been overtaken by events. I referred to the election of an SNP minority Administration, but last year we had the election of an SNP majority Administration, and in 2014 we will have a referendum that will allow our country to move forward to independence. Indeed, many of the provisions in the Scotland Bill will not even come into effect until after that referendum, by which time they will definitely have been truly overtaken by events.
James Kelly suggested that the bill represents a substantial transfer of powers to this Parliament. That is a matter of opinion, but I cannot help but note that Mr Kelly said that the bill should have gone further: even he believes that there should be a more substantial transfer of powers.
The cabinet secretary said early on that the bill, as it was initially proposed, was damaging. There has been some movement in that regard, which I welcome, particularly in relation to the agreement that the Scottish Government will be involved in agreeing any changes to the Scottish block grant with the Westminster Government. Any such changes will be brought to this Parliament, which is as it should be.
There have been a number of changes that should be welcomed; they have been set out by members and would not benefit from repetition.
Which of the Scottish Government’s six demands have been included in the changed bill?
That was an utterly pointless intervention, Mr Kelly—thank you for wasting our time.
I have already stated, as other members have done, that overall the bill is an opportunity missed. Stuart McMillan mentioned the Crown estate, so I will not go into much detail on that, but it could usefully have been more fully devolved. There should have been higher limits for revenue and capital borrowing and earlier capital borrowing on a prudential basis without the need for Treasury consent, and—reflecting Labour’s position—borrowing powers should have been more substantial. I would have thought that James Kelly would have agreed with that. It is a little odd that speed limits and drink-driving restrictions have been somewhat but not entirely devolved; Dave Thompson eloquently set out why those areas should be fully devolved.
The area of benefits is another opportunity missed. The Calman commission recommended that the Scottish Parliament should have a role in welfare provision. Recommendation 45 of the Scotland Bill Committee—I congratulate the committee, particularly the convener, Linda Fabiani, on its work—states:
“We recommend that the Bill be amended to provide full fiscal autonomy for the Scottish Parliament and enable the devolution of welfare and benefits.”
The Scottish Federation of Housing Associations also stated its view that the matter should be devolved. There is a substantial body of opinion that those areas should be devolved. The cabinet secretary correctly stated that the current UK Welfare Reform Bill demonstrates absolutely the necessity of the devolution of those powers. As a member of the Parliament’s Welfare Reform Committee I readily agree, because we are seeing the evidence on the damaging effects of the UK welfare reform agenda.
In its submission to the Welfare Reform Committee, Citizens Advice Scotland estimated that the change from disability living allowance to personal independence payments would mean that
“75,000 people of the 225,000 to be assessed and migrated from DLA to PIP will no longer be entitled to their previous benefit”
and that it would disenfranchise
“one in three working age DLA clients in Scotland from their current DLA entitlement.”
In yesterday’s evidence to the Welfare Reform Committee, the Child Poverty Action Group said that the UK Government’s welfare reform agenda would leave 100,000 more children in poverty by the end of this decade. The Scottish Federation of Housing Associations has set out clearly the damage that will be done to its sector by that agenda, and a substantial body of evidence on that area was presented to the Scotland Bill Committee.
I believe that we could constitute a welfare system in Scotland that better interacts with the policy direction that the Parliament chooses if we had the relevant powers. I think that we should have those powers. The Scotland Bill was an opportunity to provide them, but the opportunity was missed.
Willie Rennie suggested that the SNP is not interested in serious constitutional change but, despite saying that the bill was a step forward, he singularly failed to say what, in his view, the next steps should be. Mr Rennie would do well to recognise that serious constitutional change will be on offer in 2014. That is not an opportunity that will be missed.
17:31
I am pleased to be able to speak in the debate. I have made a note not to speak on trains. I say to Mrs Eadie that I am just relieved that what was overheard was so benign; it could have been a lot worse.
Legislative consent motion debates may appear to be dry, technical, box-ticking exercises, but the motion that we are considering is anything but. Arguably, it is the most important LCM that the Parliament has ever debated, because the Scotland Bill significantly changes the face of devolution. It is also the culmination of the lengthy and comprehensive process of examination, investigation, consultation and evidence taking that the Calman commission carried out. I am grateful to Iain Gray for commenting in detail on that process, and I pay tribute to Wendy Alexander and the then Liberal Democrat leader Nicol Stephen, who, with me, were involved in its inception.
The Calman process has been augmented and, in fairness, complemented by parliamentary process here and at Westminster and by the discussions between the Westminster and Scottish Governments, to which Mr Crawford referred.
Back in 2007, I was clear that the devolution settlement was inadequate, and I think that that was universally recognised. At that time, the only constitutional alternative was the SNP’s separation agenda. Whatever the passion among the SNP’s ranks for that agenda, it is not universally shared throughout Scotland. There is an alternative and more dominant passion to keep Scotland within the UK with a beefed-up, dynamic and fiscally accountable Scottish Parliament, and that is what the Scotland Bill delivers.
Back in December 2010, I said in the chamber that the Scotland Bill marked
“a watershed in the life of the Scottish Parliament.”
I observed that the bill did not tweak and tinker and that it was “not merely an MOT.” I said that it was a road map for our future, the purpose of which was to strengthen Scotland’s position within the UK, to make devolution work better and to respond to the wishes of the Scottish people. I said that if the powers in the bill were used properly, they would allow Scotland to become
“a more dynamic and prosperous place.”—[Official Report, 9 December 2010; c 31363, 31365.]
Those remain my sentiments.
On the back of the Calman commission, the Prime Minister and the coalition Government at Westminster have delivered a substantial transfer of powers to the Scottish Parliament. Crucially, the real fiscal accountability that the Scotland Bill offers means that the Parliament and every MSP will have to think about how money is raised, not just about how it is spent. That is a critical discipline, the absence of which has diluted political responsibility and accountability to date. The Parliament has been the poorer for that omission.
A number of members—notably Iain Gray—have referred to the important development of fiscal accountability but, interestingly, if my notes are correct, SNP members have not been among them.
These powers will create exciting new political opportunities and will hopefully encourage political innovation and new ways of thinking. At my party’s conference in Troon, in March this year, the Prime Minister stated:
“In the Scotland Bill we've got a huge transfer of fiscal powers. New borrowing powers. A cash reserve. A Scottish income tax. Indeed the proportion of the Budget that can be raised in Scotland will more than double … So this is a Bill delivered in Westminster, supported by the Scottish Government, consented to by the Scottish Parliament.”
To me, that represents not only a significant constitutional development for Scotland and the Parliament, but respect in operation, because that is exactly what we have had. We have seen Scotland’s two Governments and two Parliaments working together—not always seeing eye to eye, which is accepted, but all seeing the need for progress and co-operating to achieve that. That, to me, is mature politics.
As Iain Gray said, the Calman commission represented a genuine, cross-party, cross-border response to improving the devolution settlement. It has created a viable legacy and a basis for change. Unlike the SNP’s national conversation, the Calman commission was approved and validated by this Parliament in 2007. Its remit was to review the provisions of the Scotland Act 1998, recommend changes to the present constitutional arrangements that would enable this Parliament to better serve the people of Scotland, improve financial accountability and secure the position of Scotland in the UK. I argue that the Scotland Bill delivers that in spades.
We are about to enter phase 2 of devolution and embrace an exciting new era for Scotland. That is why there is a legitimate and clear choice for the Scottish people. I seem to have an authoritative ally for that view in Bruce Crawford. The clear choice is between separation and leaving the United Kingdom, and strong devolution and staying in the United Kingdom. Linda Fabiani also seems clear about that choice and, apparently, she is confident about the outcome.
So, what is the problem? Why the delay? Scotland should be allowed to make that choice, and to do so as soon as possible. The delay is unnecessary, unhelpful and corrosive to business confidence and stability. I urge the Scottish Government to let Scotland speak as soon as possible.
I support the motion.
17:37
This has been an important debate. After a long process from Calman to the bill, it is good that we can reach a consensus of sorts that the Scotland Bill should be passed, because, as James Kelly and others have said, this is an important moment for the Parliament and devolution. Today, we are endorsing a bill that will provide new powers for the Scottish Parliament. Not only will it allow greater financial accountability through the provisions on income tax, stamp duty and other financial provisions, it will bring important financial powers too, with the greater borrowing powers that will be in the hands of the Scottish Government being of particular significance for the economic strategy that can be set by this Parliament. It is right that we have the legislative consent motion before us today and that it be approved by Parliament.
When, after the election last May, the First Minister made a series of demands for extra powers to be included in the Scotland Bill and, in doing so, announced that a reconstituted Scotland Bill Committee was to be established, it was perhaps not something that all of us came to with unbridled joy, but I am happy to say that I enjoyed my time on the committee. Although members disagreed on fundamental areas of policy, there was, on a number of issues, good and helpful discussion, and even at times a degree of consensus, as we have heard throughout the debate. Although I disagree with the convener virulently on a number of aspects of her analysis, I congratulate her on the way in which she carried out her important role, with sterling support from her deputy convener, James Kelly, who also deserves great praise.
The process of scrutinising the bill further and of testing the cases that were made in a number of areas by the Scottish Government and UK ministers was useful. Of course, we have not reached agreement on all issues—that is only to be expected, given the differing views of the parties on the constitutional question. However, in a number of areas we have reached significantly greater consensus. The Crown estate is one important issue, which Dave Stewart will discuss in members’ business this evening. On other issues, such as the relationship between the Scottish courts and the Supreme Court, we do not have agreement but we are at least approaching greater consensus. We all accept that there has been progress on the Scotland Bill and that the debate on the constitutional settlement will now move on from the bill and the work of the Calman commission.
Labour has never suggested that it would not take time to arrive at the right settlement of powers for this Parliament. In our role, with the Liberals and Conservatives, in constituting the Calman commission, we make it plain that we have never seen the Scotland Act 1998 as something to be preserved in aspic. We will debate the pace, scope and detail of further devolution, but further devolution will come. We have always maintained that the Scotland Bill will be an important step forward in the powers of this Parliament.
I was concerned earlier in the process at the sabre rattling of the SNP—or perhaps we should now call it the anti-United Kingdom party—and its threats to thwart the passage of the legislation. The prospect that its ministers might turn down increased powers struck me as bizarre and unjustifiable.
Although I greatly enjoyed Mr McLetchie’s analysis of the SNP’s discomfort on the issue, we must recognise that the Scottish ministers have engaged constructively with their UK counterparts. We should welcome the position that has been reached today because it is sensible and correct.
It was not unreasonable for Scottish ministers to press the UK Government on the impact of the changes in tax. Alison Johnstone made a fair point on that issue. It is important that we can be confident that the operation of the new powers will not lead to an unfair diminution of income to the Scottish Government. Members will know that Mr Kelly and I pressed UK ministers hard on the issue of the no-detriment policy. We were satisfied early on that UK ministers had made the appropriate commitments. I do not quite understand why it took so much longer for SNP ministers to accept those reassurances, but they have done so and they were right to do so.
As many members have said, there are important measures in the bill that will benefit Scotland. To have turned down this opportunity to have far greater borrowing powers would have been extreme folly and economically damaging to Scotland in the long run.
As members know, Mr Kelly and I pressed for the borrowing provisions in the legislation to be extended beyond what is currently in the bill. We are disappointed that they have not been. However, £1.5 billion of borrowing is nevertheless an important step forward for the Scottish Government and the Parliament. When we have at least a degree of consensus on the importance of investing capital in infrastructure to grow our economy, securing that borrowing capability was always going to be crucial.
There is much to welcome about what we would be achieving by agreeing to the LCM today. However, an aspect of the process that I found in one sense deeply worrying and, in a more partisan sense, quite encouraging, was the fiasco around the evidence for some of the SNP’s demands for powers additional to those outlined in the bill.
Although we had some interesting, if brief, discussion of an area not raised by ministers—namely aspects of the welfare system that it may or may not be beneficial for Scotland to have devolved to it—for a number of the key demands that were presented with great fanfare by the First Minister, the case was routinely threadbare or nonsensical. In particular, the case for corporation tax devolution not only failed to persuade committee members but achieved the admirable feat of forming a coalition of opinion between the Confederation of British Industry and the Scottish Trades Union Congress, both of which rejected the Scottish Government’s proposal. Stephen Boyd of the STUC in particular decimated the case and made powerful points about the damage that would be caused by unhealthy tax competition within the United Kingdom. That addresses comments made earlier by Mr Mason, who unrealistically tried to describe it as a left-wing policy. That is an impossible square to circle.
If the member is critical of competition on corporation tax within the UK, is he also critical of such competition within the European Union? Does he think that there should be one uniform rate for the EU?
The European Union has been quite clear that it is going to crack down on unhealthy tax competition, and it is right to do so. It is nonsensical for the SNP to say that we can cut corporation tax, lose hundreds of millions of pounds in income, and spend millions and millions more on services left, right and centre to keep all its promises. The SNP’s position on the economy is entirely incoherent. A right-wing policy on taxes and a left-wing policy on social funding do not add up, and the SNP will be found out by the electorate.
The case that was made for the devolution of excise duty was Keystone cops stuff from the Scottish Government. Alex Salmond demanded the devolution of duty on alcohol and tobacco. We repeatedly asked how that would work and, after many weeks, answer came there none. By the time we took evidence on the proposal, we still did not have a paper from the Scottish Government. We had heard on the grapevine that it was not worried about cigarettes any more; it just wanted the excise on alcohol. When the back-of-the-fag-packet case for the devolution of excise duty finally emerged, it was only for the assignment of revenue. That came from a party that had derided proposals for assignment when Calman considered them.
For each of the First Minister’s demands, the Labour Party made clear that the test should be whether the devolution of the powers would benefit Scotland and our economy and that we should not seek more powers for their own sake. On those key issues, the SNP’s case was found to be wanting again and again, as I believe the case for breaking up the United Kingdom will be found to be wanting.
We in this chamber will not agree on whether Scotland’s best future lies with separation or with a strong devolved settlement, but I am pleased that we can agree the motion tonight and endorse the important measures in the bill. They will strengthen devolution, give more powers to the Scottish Parliament and, if those powers are used wisely, they will strengthen our economy and our country.
I call Alex Neil to wind up the debate. Mr Neil, you would be doing us all a great service if you could continue until 5.59.
17:46
Thank you, Presiding Officer. I am happy to go beyond that if it is required.
I am not.
I begin by paying tribute to my colleague Bruce Crawford, who has handled the negotiations with the UK Government with aplomb and skill. I say to Willie Rennie—and I only take Rennies when I have a headache—that Nick Clegg could learn a lesson or two from Bruce Crawford. If he had followed Bruce Crawford’s example, he would not have ended up in the mess that he is in as a poodle of the Tories at Westminster.
To provide some information, Presiding Officer, I say that Mr Neil might get on better if he took Rennies for indigestion, not for a headache.
As long as Miss Goldie is prepared to administer them, Presiding Officer.
Despite having majorities in both Parliaments, it has taken the unionist parties—I should say, the anti-independence unionist parties—five years to deliver this modest measure, and they have the cheek to complain that we are going to deliver independence in three years.
When the vote is taken in a few minutes’ time, it seems that the Parliament will take a unanimous decision to agree to the LCM. If I may say so, however, the unionist parties do so because they see the measures in the bill as being symbolic of their aspirations for Scotland. We will vote for the LCM, but we see the measures as modest, albeit moderately useful, and going nowhere near matching the aspirations of the Scottish people.
Miss Goldie quoted David Cameron as saying that the bill represents a huge transfer of fiscal power to the Scottish Parliament. Let us get real. Before the bill, the Scottish Parliament controlled 7 per cent of the tax revenue in Scotland. When the bill becomes an act we will control 16 per cent of the revenue, so the total value of that massive fiscal transfer is 9 per cent of the total revenue. That is by no means a massive transfer of resources. The reality is that this is a modest measure by any standard. I suspect that, if members went to Princes Street and asked people what is in the Scotland Bill, very few of them would be able to tell members and certainly none would get excited about the prospect.
Does the minister not feel just a tinge of embarrassment about the way in which his Government has prosecuted the case for the six whopping demands that Alex Salmond made last year?
I will answer that, but first I want to refer to the fact that Mr Rennie has gone on and on about a shambles. It is ironic for anyone whose party is in the current Government at Westminster to call anyone else shambolic because, with the granny tax, the charity tax and the power strike that did not take place, that Government is the very meaning of the word “shambolic”.
I will go through the six demands. I do not feel a tinge of embarrassment about them; I feel a tinge of disappointment for the Scottish people. They were clear demands for measures that would have been of major benefit to the people of Scotland. One of the demands was for the transfer to this Parliament of responsibility for welfare benefits. That would have meant that we could change the crazy policy of the Tories and Liberal Democrats and that the £2.4 billion that our deprived communities will be robbed of every year as a result of their welfare reforms would have remained in Scotland.
Will the member give way?
I will in a minute when I get through the six points.
The second major point was on representation in Europe. If we had had representation in Europe down the years, the Scottish fishing industry for one would be in far better shape than it is now.
The third point related to the Crown estate. Many members whose parties will vote for the bill support our demand for the devolution of the Crown estate. I find it hard to understand why the Liberal Democrats, who are in government at Westminster, do not demand that. Mr Rennie should consider that with a tinge of embarrassment, because devolution of the Crown estate was even supported by the House of Commons committee, which recognised the massive benefit that the measure would provide to the Scottish people.
Air passenger duty is another example. The UK Government is prepared to transfer responsibility for air passenger duty to Northern Ireland but not to Edinburgh, yet it has the cheek to complain that we are in favour of tax competition. What will happen when air passenger duty is transferred to Belfast? That will be unfair competition for every airport in Scotland, yet there has been not a word of protest about that from the unionist parties.
Broadcasting is another example. If we had control of broadcasting, we could begin a real cultural renaissance here in Scotland.
The most important point is on borrowing powers. Particularly at this time, through the ability to create jobs by the prudent use of borrowing powers, we could do far more for unemployed people in Scotland. That use of borrowing powers would, at a stroke, reduce by about 50 per cent the cost of the money that is available to the Scottish Government that is not part of our main grant. By definition, over a period, if the costs of borrowing reduce by 50 per cent, we could afford to borrow twice as much as would otherwise be the case. That is an important economic power to have. Although the modest borrowing powers are welcome, they are nowhere near the level that we require.
The level of ignorance on corporation tax—in the Labour Party, in particular—is incredible. Does the Labour Party not realise that Gordon Brown made a big issue of reducing corporation tax? He did that to bring benefit to the UK economy. Before the crash, in every country—whether you look at Ireland or the UK—where the rate of corporation tax was reduced in stages, revenue did not fall at any time. In fact, quite the opposite occurred. Every year the revenue went up. It went up because the impact was to create jobs, more investment and wealth, and more revenue for the Exchequer. The Labour Party, in particular, should study history and economics, because the reality is that a staged reduction in corporation tax is a major way to create jobs and new wealth in any modern economy.
Will the member take an intervention?
I will certainly take an intervention from Mr Findlay, who I hope has learned something.
I have very much learned something, because Mr Neil spoke of levels of ignorance. Maybe he wants to speak to the failed negotiator sitting next to him and the one sitting behind him, because the demand for the devolution of welfare was not one of the six demands. Perhaps Mr Neil needs to think about that.
There is no doubt that it was a demand of the Scottish Government—but do not worry: we may not have got it this time, but in two years we will have total control over the whole lot.
We are told by the Prime Minister—this is the old ruse to which a number of members have referred—“Vote no in the independence referendum and we could give you more devolved powers.”
I intervene for the sake of completeness. Mr Neil has spent the past 10 minutes listing all the things that the Scottish Government failed to achieve, but he missed out the devolution of excise duty.
If I have time, I will cover that as well, because that, too, will be transferred in two and a half years.
The Tories must think that our heads button up our nationalist backs if they think that, as a nation, we are going to be kidded on again that, if we vote no to independence, they could deliver more powers for Scotland. The reality is that they have no intention of delivering any more powers for Scotland. The Tories have fought devolution tooth and nail. When they were fighting devolution, we heard all the scare stories about devolution that we are now hearing about independence.
The member is in his last minute.
I heard the Tories talking about economic uncertainty. Every survey by Ernst & Young and everyone else shows that, far from there being uncertainty, Scotland is top of the league in the UK for inward investment and for confidence of the international business community. That is despite the Government in London and because of this Government in Edinburgh. If we had the powers of an independent country, we would deliver a lot more.