Claim of Right for Scotland

Tommy Sheppard Excerpts

Wednesday 4th July 2018 Commons Chamber

[Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)]

I find it rather interesting that, in the course of a debate of almost three hours, we have not heard anyone speak against the notion of the claim of right. However, I caution colleagues against being deluded by any faux agreement on this matter, because I am confident that many Members who are not in the Chamber tonight would find it presumptuous that a group of citizens in one part of this island should assert the claim to be able to control their own destiny. They would do that because they regard this as a single nation, and they regard the people of Scotland, while important, as having no other rights than the people of the west midlands or East Anglia.

I am pleased that most contributors to the debate have realised that the basis of our constitution is different from that. We may have a single polity, but we have a multinational country that is based on serial Acts of Union that bring its component parts together. Once we understand that, the claim of right has to be the intellectual corollary of that position. A Union can be maintained only by consent, and if the people of Scotland do not give their consent to maintaining it, it will naturally fall.

The idea of popular sovereignty for the people of Scotland is quite old fashioned. In two years, we will celebrate the 700th anniversary of the declaration of Arbroath, and that document is worth looking at. It was in fact a letter from the nobles of Scotland to the then Pope to ask him to intervene. Much of the language is archaic, and much of it is reverential, but in that document is the grain of something that was never before expressed. It says clearly that if the King of Scotland does not represent the wishes of the people, the people will find themselves a King who will. It is the first expression in modern times of the notion of popular sovereignty.

That idea has ebbed and flowed over the seven centuries in between. Three hundred years ago, it inspired the dissenters who were resisting the fledgling Union because they felt it was a matter of being sold out by the Scottish aristocracy. Two hundred years ago, it fuelled the friendly societies and people such as Thomas Muir who were working for popular democracy and universal franchise. One hundred years ago, it motivated the Red Clydesiders and people such as John Maclean. The idea of Scottish popular sovereignty has been consistent throughout the centuries, but never more so than the present day, and never more so than 20 years ago, when the Scotland Act 1998, for the first time in all those centuries, actually asked the people what form of government they would like. A massive majority of them—three quarters—voted to establish the Scottish Parliament.

We are having this debate about the claim of right for Scotland because we believe that the devolution settlement is very much under threat, and we wish to alert the House and the country to what is going on. The Secretary of State for Scotland says that there is no power grab, but in fact a powers bonanza. In a previous debate, the hon. Member for East Renfrewshire (Paul Masterton) listed a whole range of things that would become the responsibility of the Scottish Parliament after Brexit. However, we misunderstand if we think that responsibility is the same as power. At the same time as those areas of responsibility are being transferred to the Scottish Parliament, the Scottish Parliament’s ability to do anything about them is being limited and constrained like never before. It is intended that so many areas—not just the ones transferring from Brussels, but those that are currently the exclusive competence of the Scottish Parliament—will in future be subject to UK-wide frameworks.

We do not yet have an idea—I see that today’s fisheries White Paper does not have an idea—of exactly how those frameworks will work. We have so far been talking about the principle, but it is the principle that is important. If we picture a UK-wide committee to talk about fishing policy, the interests of Scottish fishermen would be represented by the Scottish Government, and likewise for the Welsh and Northern Irish, but who will speak for the fishermen of England? That will be the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs—a Department in Westminster. At the same time, if there is a divergence of opinion or a difference of view, DEFRA will determine what actually happens. That is not a partnership; it means that the devolved Administrations will be subject to and subservient to the will of the majority. The Secretary of State may say that Scotland is part of the UK, but I tell him that Scotland is not part of England, although that is in effect what such an arrangement would lead to.

[David Duguid (Banff and Buchan) (Con)]

I would like to take issue with the hon. Gentleman’s statement about Scotland not being part of England, given that in fact Scotland has never been—certainly in the life of this Parliament—part of England, and that was not what the Secretary of State said.

[Tommy Sheppard]

I think that the hon. Gentleman might have prepared that better. The point I was making is that, in effect, such an arrangement will make Scotland—and Wales and Northern Ireland for that matter—subservient to the will of the Government in this place, which is contrary to the whole spirit of devolution.

Twenty years ago, when the architects of devolution—Donald Dewar in this place, and John Sewel in the other—were framing the proposals, they understood the need to try to make sure that the process was seen as a genuine commitment to the decentralisation of political power. They therefore enshrined a principle saying that if matters were devolved to the Scottish Parliament, this place would not interfere in those matters and would not determine anything about them without the consent of the Scottish Parliament. That principle has stood for 20 years and has not been challenged across the House. Yet, last week, we made history, because for the first time, a United Kingdom piece of legislation that required the consent of the Scottish Parliament was made law although that consent was not given. That is a problem for everyone and it will have to be addressed.

[Luke Graham]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Tommy Sheppard]

I fear we are running out of time, so I will not take the hon. Gentleman’s intervention.

Many Members have talked about the 2014 referendum and the idea—my leader expressed this so well in his opening remarks—that for those 15 hours on 18 September 2014, sovereignty was genuinely in the hands of the people of Scotland. They had a choice to make between two alternative futures, and they chose one. I did not agree with the choice that they made, but I fully respect it—I respect it completely as a decision that they took. However, I tell the House that in the same way that a dog is not only for Christmas, sovereignty is not only for 18 September 2014. Sovereignty means having the ability to change your mind if circumstances change—the ability to adapt and take a new view.

The shadow Secretary of State asked us to imagine a situation—my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry) commented on this—where a Scottish Parliament was elected in which a majority of its Members had stood on a manifesto suggesting that the people should be consulted in a referendum. She suggested that if the majority voted for that to become the policy of the Scottish Parliament, it would be inappropriate for this Parliament to stand in its way. That was the hon. Lady’s suggestion, and I agree with it. The problem is that this is not a matter of hypothesis for the future; this is real, because that was exactly what happened in the Scottish general election 26 months ago, when a mandate was sought and a mandate was given.

As others have said, that mandate is extant, but it will be for the judgment of the Scottish Parliament to determine, when the dust settles on this Brexit mess we are currently in, whether it believes that it is in the best interests of the people of Scotland that they be consulted again on their constitutional future and on whether they wish to remain part of an isolationist United Kingdom or to be part of opening up to the world and playing their role as an independent country. That day will come, and the claim of right for Scotland means that the people will have the right to exercise their decision on that matter when that time comes.

Glasgow School of Art

Tommy Sheppard Excerpts

Tuesday 19th June 2018 Commons Chamber

[David Mundell]

I most certainly will do that. The effort to raise funds after the 2014 fire was tremendous. One way in which the Government can help is through Government funding, which can be a catalyst for other funding coming in. That was very much the case in 2014, and it is very much in my mind at this time.

[Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)]

This was a cruel and gut-wrenching blow to the people of Glasgow, coming just as the refurbishment from last time was nearing completion. Last night in this House we demonstrated our ability to disagree with each other and have a vigorous debate, but I am pleased that this morning we are seeing all shades of political opinion in Scotland come together in solidarity with the people of Glasgow as they deal with this great tragedy. I want to ask a couple of specific questions. Yesterday, the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government said that it was a matter for the owners of buildings to determine whether or not to install sprinklers. What action does the Secretary of State for Scotland think the Government should take to ensure that sprinklers are installed in such public buildings? He mentioned the need for a thorough investigation. Does he agree that erroneous press speculation on the cause of the fire before that investigation is complete is unhelpful and undesirable?

[David Mundell]

I certainly agree with the hon. Gentleman’s last point: press speculation on the cause of the fire is very unhelpful. We need to let those people who are carrying out the professional investigation get on with it. I also agree that it is important that all levels of government—the city council, the Scottish Government and the UK Government—work together, and whatever our other differences, I absolutely commit to do that. The issue of sprinklers has been debated extensively in the House in recent times. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that a sprinkler system was in the process of being installed in the building, but sadly that process had not been completed.

Sewel Convention

Tommy Sheppard Excerpts

Monday 18th June 2018 Commons Chamber

[Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)]

It is important in this debate that we distinguish between competences, which are a list of nominal responsibilities, and power, which is the ability to exercise change in those particular areas. I have no doubt in my mind that we are in the middle of a process that is seeing a major transfer of power from the devolved authorities of the United Kingdom to the centre. I caution the hon. Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray) to look at the detail of what is happening, and not to be seduced by Conservative Members who say, “There is nothing to see here. Move on. Keep calm.”

The truth is that this is happening in two ways. First, a convention that has existed for 20 years is being torn up, which is extremely important because the genesis of the Sewel convention was to give assurance to those who wanted to believe that devolution actually meant something, that power would be exercised by the devolved authorities. The convention was there to say that it was not a matter of the Scottish Parliament making a decision that could be overridden. If we set the precedent where this is reversed, the situation is that it can be at any time in the future.

The second way in which power is being transferred is through the talk of joint arrangements. I am not against having joint arrangements—there are plenty of opportunities where we should be co-ordinating things—but the devil is in the detail and the principles that the Government are putting forward are not fit for purpose. Let me illustrate that with an example. Imagine you have a committee that is to discuss farming policy. On that committee, Scottish farmers will be represented by the Scottish Government and Welsh farmers will be represented by the Welsh Government, but who will represent the interests of English farmers? It will be the United Kingdom Department. I think English farmers should have a say, but I do not think it is fair that the body that advocates for them should also sit as judge and jury if there is a difference of opinion in that committee. That is what is being proposed. That means that every time there is a difference of opinion the smaller party will lose out to the larger one. So if the Scottish Government want to take a policy on genetically modified crops, they could be overridden. If they want to take a policy on weighting subsidies for a cold climate, they could be overridden. On and on there is the opportunity to do that. That is what we mean by a power grab.

I believe in devolution. I tell the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) that I was a member of the Scottish constitutional convention.

[Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)]

My hon. Friend rightly says that he believes in devolution. Are not the actions of the UK Government at the moment just the latest in a long pattern where the Conservatives have been against devolution? They have voted against it at every opportunity.

[Tommy Sheppard]

That is absolutely the case.

I say to the right hon. Gentleman that I do believe in devolution. I was a member of the Scottish constitutional convention that drew up the proposals, but I, like many people involved at that time, also respect the right of the Scottish people to become a self-governing nation if they so wish. It is disingenuous to say that, just because we support independence, that means that we are not genuine in our desire to protect devolution.

Mr Speaker, I will take your admonishment and I will finish there, even though I have so much more to say.

[Mr Speaker]

I am sure you do. It was not admonition; I just want to accommodate colleagues.

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill: Sewel Convention

Tommy Sheppard Excerpts

Thursday 14th June 2018 Commons Chamber

[David Mundell]

Obviously I agree with my hon. Friend. Some people have sought to interpret the Sewel convention as meaning “never” or “not at all” or “not in any circumstances,” when the wording of the convention is clear—it is “not normally.” As I have said in previous answers, no one would dispute that these are not normal times. Indeed, that was the reflection of Michael Russell when issues of this nature were being considered in the Scottish Parliament.

[Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)]

Why is the Secretary of State misleading Members of this House and misrepresenting the views of the Scottish Parliament? He must surely know that the Scottish Government have no objection to common arrangements and that there has been no attempt to have a veto. In fact, the Scottish Government have sought to have a partnership, with a common agreed disputes procedure when differences might arise. Instead, his Government have insisted that common arrangements must make the devolved authorities subservient to the wishes of the United Kingdom Government. Given his misinterpretation of the facts, would it not be better for him to step aside and make way for someone who can better broker these discussions and seek agreement?

[David Mundell]

We have just heard from an expert in misinforming on the facts. His is not a fair or accurate interpretation of anything that has happened, but it belies the SNP’s fundamental view of the United Kingdom. Scotland is not a partner of the United Kingdom; Scotland is part of the United Kingdom.

Referendum on Scottish Independence

Tommy Sheppard Excerpts

Monday 13th November 2017 Westminster Hall

[Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)]

Sir Roger, you had the misfortune not to witness, although you will have heard about it, the hon. Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray) complain at the start of our debate that the mover of the debate from the Petitions Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Martyn Day), was subject to bias and seemed to favour one of the petitions over the other. Since then, two and a half hours have elapsed and, by my count, we have had two speeches in favour of one of the petitions, assuming we put the mover of the debate in that camp, and 15 in favour of the other. It is good to see such a balanced debate.

[Douglas Ross]

On a point of order, Sir Roger, could you clarify whether you have been unable to call a number of Scottish National party Members who hoped to contribute? Or is it the fact that we had only those two speeches because only two SNP Members put in to speak?

--- Later in debate ---

[Tommy Sheppard]

Sir Roger, I none the less rest my case. Anyone looking at the transcript of the debate will see that it is far from open and is, indeed, one-sided. For the avoidance of doubt, I have a very short amount of time and a lot has been said so I will not take any interventions—Conservative Members should, therefore, be comfortable in their seats.

Before going on to talk about the referendum, I want to make two points about the nature of the campaign for Scottish independence. The first point is for the benefit of the hon. Member for Stirling (Stephen Kerr) and some others who have spoken. They would be doing a great disservice to themselves, and indeed to the movement for national autonomy in Scotland, if they were to reduce the campaign to the aspirations of the Scottish National party. Many people involved in the campaign for Scottish independence would not even describe themselves as nationalists—they view themselves as internationalists, as republicans, as social democrats, as liberals, as Greens. They see themselves pretty much as anyone who wants to see change in their country and has become frustrated and impatient with the ability and capacity of the British state to reform itself and achieve that change. It is a very diverse and multifaceted movement, and it would be wrong to dismiss it in the way Members have done today.

Secondly, I want to say to the hon. Member for Glasgow North East (Mr Sweeney), who otherwise made a very reasoned contribution, that this is not a question of identity. I speak as someone who was born and brought up in Northern Ireland and carries a British and an Irish passport. It is not a question of identity—far from it. If there was any nation that had a surfeit of icons for its identity it would be Scotland. We have the flags and emblems; what we lack is the ability to control our own lives, use our own natural resources and chart the destiny of our country. It is about empowerment and power, and people would do well to understand that that is the nature of the debate that is happening in Scotland.

The campaign against a second independence referendum is predicated pretty much on accusing people like me of disrespecting the result of the 2014 referendum. I want to say, as many people from my party have said so many times since then, that that is not true. We respect the result of the 2014 referendum. We acknowledge that a clear majority of our neighbours and citizens voted to remain in a political union of the United Kingdom. But we say that if circumstances were to change in a way that would invalidate the options presented in 2014 that should call for a rethink, in the same way as when someone gets back from the shop, opens the box and finds that what is inside is not as described on the cover, they have a right to get their money back. People would, in my view, have the right to get their vote back if what happened was not what they had voted for, turned out not to be what came about. That is why the question of a change in circumstances is so important.

This is obviously an abstract theory. We were asked to identify what we would mean by a change in circumstances so dramatic that it would occasion an early second referendum. We said, “For example, one thing might be Scotland being taken out of the European Union against its will”. That was stated as an example, by the way, before the Brexit vote and before we knew how Scotland would vote or, indeed, how people in the rest of the United Kingdom would vote. That change of circumstance came to pass.

We did not just outline those circumstances as some theoretical point of discussion. My view is that if circumstances changed in that way, there would be justification for a second independence referendum. I accept that people here will disagree with that, but it is a legitimate point of view. In order to test that point of view and see whether people agreed with it, we did what a normal political party would do: we wrote it into our manifesto for the 2016 Scottish general election—an election that we won. [Interruption.] It is on page 26, if Members want to go and check. We said clearly that circumstances such as Scotland being taken out of the European Union against its will would create an argument for a second independence referendum.

[Bill Grant]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Tommy Sheppard]

The hon. Gentleman must have difficulty hearing; I said I was not taking any interventions. Please be seated. [Interruption.]

[Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)]

Order.

[Tommy Sheppard]

We put that commitment in the manifesto, and we won that election. A majority of the Members of the elected Scottish Parliament believe that if Scotland is taken out of the EU against its will, that would be justification for consulting people again on the question of Scottish independence.

That was the situation as it was then, but what happened after Britain voted to leave the European Union? Did Nicola Sturgeon suddenly run in and say, “That is it. We are going to execute this. We want a second referendum now”? No, far from it. [Interruption.] If the Tories stop braying for a moment, I will tell them what happened. A Scottish Government who believed in Scottish independence and the European Union produced a document that argued for neither. It argued for a compromise solution in Brexit that would allow differential arrangements in Scotland to respect Scottish public opinion and protect Scottish interests. That is what we put to the British Government in December 2016, and in the new year it was thrown back in our faces. By Easter this year, it was perfectly clear that whatever option came out of Brexit, it was not going to afford for any differential solution in Scotland. What changed things was the election on 8 June.

People have talked about reflection and modesty. I accept that 480,000 people who voted for the SNP in 2015 declined to do so in 2017. Most of them—the vast majority—stayed at home and did not vote for anyone else. I accept that the confusion around the second referendum was a large part of many of those people’s thinking. That uncertainty is clearly there in the minds of many people, and that gives us cause for reflection, but the main thing that changed on 8 June was that the Conservative Government lost their majority, so the range of options for Brexit changed. It is an irony that the Scottish Conservatives think that the pause button has been pressed on the second referendum timetable because they won their seats, when in truth it was paused because the Tories lost seats in England and we now have a hung Parliament and do not quite know what the outcome of Brexit will be. In fact, the level of confusion and uncertainty is greater than ever. We now say that we have to wait and see what Brexit delivers to be able to decide whether we go forward with a second independence referendum.

There are only two ways that things can go from here. One is that the United Kingdom Government come to an agreement with the Scottish Government and the Brexit process goes through with the consent of the Scottish Parliament. That is one possible outcome. The other option is that the United Kingdom Government ignore the representations of Scotland, overrule them and proceed regardless. In those latter circumstances, the mandate from 2016 is still there and will be executed, because we will give the people of Scotland the right to decide whether they want the isolationist economic chaos that Brexit represents or whether they want to revisit the decision taken in 2014 and this time decide they would be better off taking matters into their own hands, and taking back control to Scotland.

Scotland’s Fiscal Framework

Tommy Sheppard Excerpts

Wednesday 24th February 2016 Commons Chamber

[Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)]

My constituents will welcome this agreement. In particular, they will welcome the fact that the Scottish Government were able to persuade the Treasury to abandon its initial position, which would have meant £7 billion of cuts to Scottish finances, and to come to the Smith position that there should be no detriment. They will observe though that had that been the original position for the Treasury, we might have been able to get this agreement before Christmas rather than spend all this time on it. Will the Secretary of State confirm that it is now the case, beyond doubt, that the principle of no detriment to the Scottish budget is enshrined in his Government’s thinking both now and in the future?

[David Mundell]

Yes, as is the other element of the Smith commission consideration of no detriment, which is taxpayer fairness—not just in Scotland, but across the UK.

Scotland Bill

Tommy Sheppard Excerpts

Monday 9th November 2015 Commons Chamber

[Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)]

Let me start with some context. We are discussing this Bill because of what happened on 18 September last year when the Scottish people were invited to give their views on whether Scotland should become a self-governing nation. They voted no to that proposition by 55% to 45%. I cannot look into their minds and know the settled will of all those who voted in that referendum, but I know that the 55% who voted no included plenty of people who thought that the Union as it exists today is exactly the type of place they would like to live in. They had no quarrel with it; they liked the constitutional settlement.

Also among that 55%, and the group that made the difference to the outcome, were people who believed what they were told by the leaders of all the Unionist parties, which was that the 18 September vote was a vote not for the status quo, but for a new relationship within the Union, where additional powers would be transferred. That was the vow signed by the leader of the Conservative party, and by two other party leaders who must now be described as “former”. That vow was put front and centre before the electorate, and that is why people voted no in the referendum.

The Smith commission considered what that new relationship would be, and there was a five-party discussion. It is in the nature of such things that if we are seeking consensus, the bar will be pretty low, and the Smith commission published a report on how proposals for greater devolution might be implemented. At the time, the SNP signed off on those proposals, but we said that they were only a floor and not a ceiling to our aspirations for self-government. We also said that Smith did not go far enough to satisfy the vow.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alberto Costa]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Tommy Sheppard]

I would be happy to give way if we will get a joke.

[Alberto Costa]

Again, part of the disrespect agenda. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that last year’s referendum was once in a lifetime—yes or no?

--- Later in debate ---

[Tommy Sheppard]

I never said that. I accept—every Government should accept this—that no Government have the right to stand in the way of people who wish for a particular direction. We sought a mandate, and we got a mandate. Whatever happens today, let us please understand that the Bill does not satisfy the aspirations of the Scottish people for greater control over their own affairs. The Bill is a response to the Smith commission. We are still waiting for the Government’s response to the general election, when the people of Scotland made their view quite clear. Whatever happens today, this is not over. We shall be coming back during the next five years of our domain in this Chamber to argue again and again for more powers for the Scottish Government to satisfy the aspirations of the Scottish people. If that takes a further Scotland Bill at some later stage, so be it.

[Danny Kinahan (South Antrim) (UUP)]

Does the hon. Gentleman understand that the rest of the United Kingdom would also like a say in this debate? This debate is not just about Scotland; it is about the Ulster Scots, in my case, and about everyone else. SNP Members have a good indication of how the Scottish feel, but the rest of us have not had the chance to discuss the same point with our electorate. The message that I was getting loud and clear from my Northern Irish electorate when knocking on doors—

[Danny Kinahan]

The message I got from my electorate is that the Union is in danger and they do not want the Union to fall apart. They want all of us working together.

[Tommy Sheppard]

The hon. Gentleman must speak for the people who elected him, and I will speak for those who elected me. I am discussing the Scotland Bill, as amended—that is what I have been speaking about, and what I intend to speak on. The Bill falls far short of the expectations not just of the SNP, but of the people of Scotland. Civic society, trade unions, Churches and voluntary organisations throughout Scotland are disappointed at the poverty of ambition shown by the Secretary of State and the Government in the Bill.

Let me return to the Bill, because that is all we currently have—I do not normally read when making a speech, but I will read this quote so that I do not get it wrong. The Secretary of State said, on 8 June:

“I am absolutely clear that the Scotland Bill does fulfil in full the recommendations of the Smith commission.”

He has obviously had the benefit of a relaxing summer to consider the situation and determine whether that statement was in fact true. It now seems that it cannot have been true, because we have no fewer than 128 amendments from the Government to their Bill. I submit that never in the field of discussion of legislation has a Bill been so amended by its proposers and still managed to fall so far short of its declared objectives.

None the less, it is welcome that second thoughts are being had and that some improvements are being made. The first improvement is on the question of permanence, although I wonder why it has taken until now to happen. It is good that new clause 12 contains the agreement that the Scottish Parliament will not be taken away, dissolved or otherwise removed without first a plebiscite among the Scottish people to see what they want to do. I am pleased that the Secretary of State, in tabling that new clause, recognises where sovereignty lies on that question. It should lie with the people of Scotland whose government we are discussing. I invite the Secretary of State to support new clause 36 which would enshrine that principle of sovereignty a little more. It provides that in future discussions about the arrangements for the government of Scotland, it should be the people of Scotland’s Parliament that determines what those discussions are and the timetable by which they are put to the people in a referendum. That is only a logical extension once it has been conceded that sovereignty should lie with the people. If it is not the Scottish Parliament that should consider and respond to a future referendum, should there be one, who else should do so? It would be ridiculous for this Parliament to retain that power for itself.

The Smith commission was clear when it said that the Sewel convention should be enshrined in statute. The Bill still—after all this time—does not make that happen. The Sewel convention says that the “imperial Parliament” —to quote the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh)—should not interfere in devolved decisions by the Scottish Parliament or other devolved Assemblies. The SNP’s new clause would enshrine that convention in law and enshrine the principle of subsidiarity—decisions being taken as close to the people as possible.

[Ian Murray]

Given the codification of the Sewel convention in new clause 36, I give the hon. Gentleman—my constituency neighbour—a commitment that we will support him if he presses it to a vote this evening. Perhaps we will attract further support and it will be carried.

[Tommy Sheppard]

I am grateful to the shadow Secretary of State for his support on this matter. The principle is clear: you do not keep a dog and bark yourself. Once power has been devolved to organisations, they must be allowed to get on with it.

I was disappointed that the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen) took almost 20% of the time available for this debate not to discuss constitutional principles about the governance of Scotland, but to pursue his concerns about the decentralisation of services. What we are discussing is a change in the constitutional arrangements between Scotland and England within the Union. We are talking about giving more authority and competences to the Scottish Government, and that is not the same thing as the decentralisation and better administration of public services in England. The hon. Gentleman was wrong to do that and is unlikely to have made friends to support his argument as a result.

My final point is on full fiscal autonomy. I think that some of our opponents thought that when we did not get that through the last time, we would forget about it. Believe me, we have not forgotten about it. We want the Scottish Government to have control over the economy in Scotland. We want the ability to grow our economy and for our priorities to be set in line with the aspirations of the people who live in Scotland. I heard some interesting arguments from the hon. Member for Gainsborough and others in favour of full fiscal autonomy, but I have yet to hear a principled argument against it. The hon. Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray) often talks of a black hole, but that is not an argument in principle against full fiscal autonomy—against giving the Scottish Government control over economic affairs. It is an argument for saying that we should prepare for that devolution of powers and make sure that we get it right. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will come round to that way of thinking. We will object to the proposal to give a Conservative Secretary of State the power to set up a commission to look into whether full fiscal autonomy could happen, because he has already made his intentions in that regard clear.

We will come back to this issue, and it will be the subject of future debate in Scotland. The grandest commission of all on this debate will be the electorate of Scotland, who will get another opportunity in six or seven months’ time to decide whether they want better economic powers for their Government. We will get another mandate and come back to make that argument again.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Moray referred to the fiscal framework. It is not for us today to get involved, or even seek to influence, the discussions between Scottish and UK Ministers on the fiscal framework, but we have to be clear about what is at stake. The Smith commission was clear: it said that whatever powers are devolved to Scotland in this or any other settlement, it should be at no detriment. In other words, at the point of transfer of the power, the Scottish budget should not suffer as a consequence. I want to hear from the Secretary of State whether he believes in that principle. Is it guiding his discussions with Scottish Ministers? If it is used simply as a device to cut the Scottish budget and not provide adequate funding for the delivery of the new powers, he will do his cause a great disservice and hasten the day that we come back with a new Bill that will be a considerable improvement on this one.

[Ian Austin]

In September 1997, I travelled from Dudley to Glasgow and Edinburgh to support the late Donald Dewar and Scottish Labour’s campaign for a yes-yes vote in the devolution referendum—[Interruption.]

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Whiteford]

The hon. Lady needs to remember that a great deal of the public sector is already devolved and these issues have been worked out. We already have devolution of a whole range of public services, with some issues negotiated at a national level and some at a UK-wide level, so her point seems rather redundant, frankly.

The Scottish Parliament has a good track record of advancing progressive equality measures, and our proposals would enable further progress in gender, disability, LGBTI and race equality—for instance, by improving protections from discrimination and by ensuring a more balanced representation of women in public life and on boards. It is worth pointing out that the full devolution of equality and equal opportunities has been supported by leading equality organisations such as Engender, Inclusion Scotland, the Equality Network and the Coalition for Racial Equality and Rights, whose executive director, Jatin Haria, said:

“Devolution brings power closer to people—and this is particularly important for marginalised and discriminated groups. In addition, many areas which intersect with equality law are already devolved and different in Scotland (e.g. policing or health) and further devolution of equality legislation would better allow the Scottish Parliament to push for specific outcomes which could lead to real improvements in the life chances and experiences for all people living in Scotland.”

New clause 28 and amendment 168 relate to the vexed and long-standing question of the Crown Estate. Amendment 168 would leave out clause 31 and new clause 28 would replace it. Clause 31 is not true to the spirit of the Smith commission, which recommended the full devolution of responsibility for the management of the Crown Estate’s economic assets in Scotland, including the Crown Estate’s seabed, and mineral and fishing rights, and the revenue generated from these assets. Clause 31 is also overly complicated and excludes certain Crown Estate assets, such as Fort Kinnaird, over which my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East (Tommy Sheppard) has raised concerns.

[Tommy Sheppard]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Dr Whiteford]

After that I cannot really refuse.

[Tommy Sheppard]

One of the largest investments of the Crown Estate in Scotland is in the Fort Kinnaird retail park in Edinburgh East. I have been pressing the Secretary of State on why it is excluded from the transfer. Does my hon. Friend agree that his explanation so far is not very convincing? He says that it cannot be transferred because it is part of a commercial arrangement, but we are only talking about the transfer of the Government’s responsibilities and the Government component in the relationship.

[Dr Whiteford]

I agree with my hon. Friend, who makes his point well.

As someone who represents coastal communities that have for many decades been held back by the shortcomings of the way that the Crown Estate has operated in Scotland, I for one cannot wait to see those public assets brought under proper democratic accountability and working for the good of those communities. New clause 28 would reduce complexity by removing the reservation relating to the management of the Crown Estate and provide the Scottish Parliament with full legislative competence in relation to the management of the Crown Estate in Scotland. It would also transfer any functions of the Crown Estate Commissioners in relation to rights to the continental shelf beyond the 200 nautical mile-limit adjacent to Scotland. Up to now, Parliament has not made a good job of scrutinising the activities of the Crown Estate. We have an opportunity today to put that right by opening the Crown Estate to better public accountability and putting its assets at the service of our communities.

There are a number of amendment on a miscellaneous range of subjects, all of which would strengthen the Bill, and I want to touch on those before concluding. New clause 29 would give the Scottish Parliament control over the regulation of party political broadcasts for local elections and Scottish elections as well as any referendums held in Scotland in devolved competences, as per the Smith commission recommendation at paragraph 23. That seems to have been missed out of the legislation to date.

New clause 30 devolves broadcasting by amending schedule 5 to the Scotland Act 1998. This would not impact directly on the delivery of the Smith commission proposals on the BBC and Ofcom, both of which are being delivered through memorandums of understanding. Rather, if passed, it would provide for a wider role for the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government in broadcasting policy in future.

Amendments 182 and 183 relate to gaming machines and licensed betting premises, and replace the reference to “betting premises” with the more general reference to “gambling premises”, giving full effect to the Smith commission recommendation in paragraph 74.

New clause 31 would give the Scottish Parliament general legislative competence over agriculture, aquaculture and fisheries levies. For me, this reform cannot come soon enough. It would bring to an end the absurd and unacceptable situation whereby Scottish fishermen are paying levies that are used to promote their Norwegian competitors’ fish instead of being used to promote Scottish seafood and to develop new products and markets. For instance, the UK Sea Fish Industry Authority currently organises the UK fish and chip shop awards, which is used by the Norwegian Seafood Council to promote frozen Norwegian fish into the UK market. The finalists of the 2016 awards are even being taken to Norway to learn about the supply of fish from Norway to the UK.

I have no problem at all with fair competition, but I have a massive problem with fishermen in my constituency being forced to pay levies that are then used by a publicly funded body to undermine their own businesses. It needs to end. That is just one reason why the Scottish Seafood Association and others support the devolution of these levies, which could be much better used to promote our locally sourced top-quality produce.

New clause 32 would give Scottish Ministers full powers and the flexibility to decide who would run rail services, in line with paragraph 65 of the Smith commission recommendations, and would allow public sector operators to bid for rail franchises.

Amendments 184 to 188 all relate to fuel poverty support schemes in clause 50, and would provide scope to reshape fuel poverty programmes in Scotland, while amendment 189 removes restrictions on the consultation process with the Scottish Government and Scottish Parliament in relation to the renewables incentive scheme. Again, this would bring the Bill into line with the Smith commission recommendation for a formal consultative role and enable the development of the intergovernmental concordat that we believe is necessary.

Lastly, new clause 33 would enact a formal consultative role for the Scottish Government and the Scottish Parliament in setting the strategic priorities of the Civil Aviation Authority, which I know is a very important issue for my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Hannah Bardell).

Scotland Bill

Tommy Sheppard Excerpts

Monday 6th July 2015 Commons Chamber

[Drew Hendry]

rose—

[Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)]

rose—

[David Mundell]

Let me complete this point. Fort Kinnaird is held by an English limited partnership in which the Crown Estate manages an interest alongside other commercial investors. The partnership owns property in other parts of the United Kingdom. Fort Kinnaird has never been wholly and directly owned by the Crown. Revenues from the Crown Estate’s interest in Fort Kinnaird will therefore continue to be passed to the UK Consolidated Fund for the benefit of the UK as a whole.

The hon. Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray) raised the coastal communities fund. Coastal communities funding has been allocated for 2014-15, 2015-16 and 2016-17. The Government have committed themselves to the coastal communities fund until 2016-17. Devolution of the Crown Estate in Scotland will not impact on this funding.

In answer to the points raised by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve), the position on the Crown Estate Commissioners is that they will still be able to make commercial investments in Scotland, as and when opportunities arise in the Scottish market.

Scotland Bill

Tommy Sheppard Excerpts

Monday 15th June 2015 Commons Chamber

[Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)]

We are talking here about the government of Scotland, so I hope it is not contentious to say that what should be uppermost in all our minds are the views of the people who live there. I am very much in favour of evidence-based policy, by which I mean that we should try to make things right according to the facts of the situation. We are in a fortunate position in this debate because we do not have to guess what the people of Scotland think, as they have been consulted quite extensively over the past year.

We are having this debate today because of the referendum that took place on 18 September, when the people of Scotland voted on whether they wanted to be an independent country. They decided by 55% to 45% that they did not want to be an independent country and leave the United Kingdom, and I respect that result and that opinion. But no one can deny that one thing that swung that vote in favour of the no campaign was the intervention by the leaders of all three Unionist parties who promised substantial new powers for Scotland should it decide to stay within the United Kingdom. The vow that was published and signed in The Daily Record and promoted the length and breadth of the country was definitely a major factor on which the outcome of that result depended.

The response was to set up the Smith commission, and Lord Smith has now reported and given his view. We took part in that commission and we signed up to it, but we made it very clear that the Smith commission is a floor, not a ceiling, on the ambition of Scotland for additional powers. We made that clear from the word go. We argued for that in the run-up to the election. There was a raging debate during the election campaign about whether the Smith commission was an adequate response to the wishes expressed by the people of Scotland in the referendum. We said that it was not, but that it was a start and that we needed to go further to satisfy the aspirations and hopes that were given to us by the Prime Minister, by Gordon Brown and by others who said that we would get substantial new powers. They said that we would have home rule and that it would be as near to federalism as possible. That is what the people of Scotland were promised, and the Smith commission does not add up to that. We took that argument and put it before the Scottish people in a general election, and we asked them to say whether they agreed with our analysis that we should go beyond the current Smith commission. What happened? They voted for us. They voted for us not just by a little bit but by a lot. More than 50% of the people who turned out at that election voted for members of the Scottish National party—I ask Members to try to get the name of our party right.

The question now is: does the Bill before us respond to what happened at the general election. I must say—the Secretary of State can correct me if I am wrong—that the Bill looks as though it was drafted before the election; its clauses are very similar to those that were published in January. The speed with which the Bill was published makes me think that there has been very little reflection over what happened at the election, and over the views of the Scottish people. Very little has been included in the Bill in response to those things.

I ask the Secretary of State and the Government to consider making changes to the Bill so that it reflects the views of the people of Scotland, delivers the promises of the Smith commission and, where possible, goes beyond the commission to do things on which Smith is silent—I am talking about the administrative changes that the third sector and specialist organisations in Scotland are asking for and that could easily be granted—and responds to our argument for granting substantial new powers that would be tantamount to the vow that was made.

One thing the Secretary of State could do quite easily is say, “We will accept the amendments about the permanence of the Scottish Parliament, albeit within our flawed and unwritten constitution.” The Government could make a statement that “This Chamber agrees that the Scottish Parliament will never ever be taken away without a referendum of the people who live in Scotland.” It would cost the Government nothing to accede to that amendment, so why do they not do it? They would be demonstrating some respect towards the people who have sent us to this Chamber to argue these points.

Let me turn now to the issue of full financial autonomy. Last week, I was in the strange position of finding myself misquoted by the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State, shadow Ministers and—just to complete the pack—the leader of the Scottish Liberal Democrats in the Scottish Parliament. I did not know whether to feel victimised or honoured. I am delighted, both in recent press articles and in this Chamber today, to be able to put the record straight. I am absolutely committed to the idea that the Scottish Government should be responsible for raising the revenues that they spend. To be honest, that should be a non-contentious point. In any structure in the world where there is a federal relationship and a federal-type Government, or even a devolved Assembly, those arrangements are commonplace. I have yet to hear the argument against that view.

[Ian Paisley]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. Indeed, he is my hon. Friend, as he is both a canny Ulster man and a County Antrim man. Of course he will know in his heart—the heart of a County Antrim man—that before a person can say that they want to spend money on something, they should know the price. Does he agree that, before we vote on his party’s amendments tonight, it is important that we know the price, especially for corporation tax? What will it mean for the ordinary Scot?

[Tommy Sheppard]

I am a Derry man as it happens. If the hon. Gentleman wants to make a point of such substance, perhaps he should indicate to the Chair and take part in the debate. What we are talking about is a matter of political principle. It is about the direction in which we want to go forward. It is entirely possible, with good will, to put in place proper fiscal arrangements.

I wish to turn to the amendment of the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh). I have not been in this job long—

[Ian Murray]

rose—

[Tommy Sheppard]

May I deal with this point, and then take an intervention? I have not been in this job long, but I am surprised—I expect I will be surprised by various things over the next five years—to find such a passionate and eloquent exposition from the Conservative Back Benches of a position with which I agree. I suspect that there is little else on which the hon. Gentleman and I would agree. On this point, he makes his case very well. However, I wonder whether there is an element of mischief at the back of his mind. Perhaps he believed the propaganda from his own Front Bench several weeks ago that we were weakening in our commitment to full financial autonomy, and he thought that he might embarrass us in this debate today. I must reassure him that we are not lukewarm and our commitment is not weakening. In fact, we like the idea so much we have brought our own amendment before the Committee. I am intrigued at the suggestion that all we need to do is vote for it—

[Sir Edward Leigh]

I am completely sincere. I believe that the case for full fiscal autonomy is unanswerable in logic.

[Tommy Sheppard]

I am pleased to hear it. I therefore expect the hon. Gentleman to vote for our amendment later.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

Vote for mine.

[Tommy Sheppard]

Why do we not do a deal? I will try to ensure that all my colleagues vote for the hon. Gentleman’s amendment, if he makes sure that all of his party do as well. Perhaps we can have it sewn up by 10 o’clock this evening. The strange thing about this debate so far—

[Sir Edward Leigh]

This is very important. The hon. Member for Dundee East (Stewart Hosie) made an absolute commitment that he would vote for my new clause. I will press it to a Division and at 10 o’clock I expect to see the hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Tommy Sheppard) in the Lobby.

[Tommy Sheppard]

If the new clause is moved, the hon. Gentleman will see me there, for sure. I hope that I will see him in the Lobby to vote on our amendment.

The interesting thing about the debate so far is that the case has not been made against full fiscal—

[Ian Murray]

rose—

[Tommy Sheppard]

Is this perhaps on the subject of the hon. Gentleman’s misrepresentation of my views?

[Ian Murray]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who has just confirmed that he will walk through the Lobby with the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh). He said on the radio—I was on with him—that the delivery of full fiscal autonomy for Scotland would be utterly devastating. Does he stand by those comments?

[Tommy Sheppard]

The hon. Gentleman must apologise for misquoting me. I said—[Interruption.] Yes, I have the transcript as well as the hon. Gentleman. I said in the context of a debate that if this was done wrongly it would be possible to get it wrong. To my mind, that is a tautology: if we do not do something right, we get it wrong. The hon. Gentleman then decided that that somehow meant that I was against the whole principle of full financial autonomy and took to the Twittersphere to promote that. It does not, I am not and the fact that he had to do that shows the paucity of the arguments against our proposals.

We have yet to hear the argument against full financial autonomy for the Scottish Government, and I hope that we shall before the debate concludes. We have heard talk of a black hole, which other people will regard as a deficit when in fact it pertains to all economies at this point in time. We have heard that a policy of principle should be based on a snapshot from one point of time in an academic survey of what might happen in a year that will not even be covered by the process. That has somehow been extrapolated into an argument of principle against the proposal. It is not. If it was, would that mean that if there was not a deficit but a surplus in the Scottish budget, as there has been on many occasions, the policy would be flipped again and autonomy would suddenly become okay? We need to hear the arguments of principle against the proposal.

The difference between us is that, although there is a deficit in the Scottish budget, the SNP believes that it is possible for Scotland to prosper if it has control of its own resources, if it can manage its own economy, if it can grow its own revenue base and if it can steward its own budgets properly. Full financial autonomy would mean that the people of Scotland could get the benefits of that economic growth. That seems a laudable objective.

[Mr Kenneth Clarke]

rose—

[Tommy Sheppard]

I am sorry, but I am just coming to the end of my speech.

My hon. Friend the Member for Dundee East (Stewart Hosie) has given some clear examples of how economic powers could be deployed. If Members, many of whom are on the Labour Benches although some might be on the Government Benches, are against that in principle, they need to tell us. If they are against it just because of the economics that might pertain to it, it is entirely possible to make an argument about equalisation measures and other mechanisms that could be introduced if we wanted it to happen. They need to tell us why on principle they do not want it to happen. I hope that we will hear that before the night is out, but in the meantime I commend the amendments to the Committee.

[Ian Murray]

May I personally congratulate the hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Tommy Sheppard) on his stunning victory at the general election? I miss my colleague, Sheila Gilmore, whom I wish well, but I congratulate him.

It is a great pleasure to speak in support of our amendments. I could not help noticing that Lionel Richie was in the Gallery earlier, and I hope he enjoyed the first part of our debate as much as we enjoy his music.

These days in Committee are important in ensuring that the Smith agreement is delivered in full in both spirit and substance, as we said consistently on Second Reading. It is also essential to ensure that we go further than the Smith agreement, as Labour has said time after time, and we have set out a number of clear improvements.

Scotland has had an in-depth and passionate debate about its future and concluded that a fair and more prosperous Scotland is best delivered by shared tax and spending across the UK, with Scotland taking more control over the levels of tax and spending alongside greater accountability. I agree with the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) that if anyone is under any illusion that the centre of political gravity in Scotland is not at Holyrood, they have not grasped the modern political landscape in Scotland. That is why the clauses and amendments recognise the Scottish Parliament as the seat of political power and the catalyst for change in Scotland. Our amendments attempt to deliver that change. This is a great responsibility on us all, but in the end it is much more important that we debate how powers are used than where they lie. We have tried to tease out some of those issues in interventions today, but without much success.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Mundell]

The hon. Gentleman has already spoken a great deal on the subject this evening. I would also like to see empirical evidence to back up the suggestion made by the hon. Member for Edinburgh East that the vow and the offer of additional powers made a significant change to the referendum result, because I do not believe that such empirical evidence exists.

[Tommy Sheppard]

Is the Secretary of State suggesting that they had no effect at all? In that case, what was the point of them?

[David Mundell]

What I am suggesting is that the hon. Gentleman cannot bring forward a shred of evidence to suggest that those proposals changed the referendum result and that somehow the people of Scotland have been defrauded. The people of Scotland voted decisively no in the referendum. They voted for a strong Scottish Parliament within the United Kingdom. The vow, which was set out in the Daily Record and other outlets, was taken forward on the basis of the Smith commission, of which the Scottish National Party was a part and to which it was a signatory. I received an interesting letter today from John Swinney, the Deputy First Minister of Scotland, who was a signatory to the Smith commission recommendations. He now tells me that the Smith commission recommendations, which he signed, were incoherent. I do not understand how he came to sign those recommendations if he genuinely believed that they were incoherent. If that was the case, he should have been making some of the arguments that we have heard this evening and during the general election campaign.

Scotland Bill

Tommy Sheppard Excerpts

Monday 8th June 2015 Commons Chamber

[David Mundell]

As my hon. Friend is aware, that proposal was in the Conservative party manifesto and it will be brought to this Parliament. [Interruption.] I think we have concluded on the issue of what devolution means throughout the United Kingdom.

The Conservative-led coalition Government passed the Scotland Act 2012—the biggest single transfer of fiscal responsibility to Edinburgh in 300 years. They also oversaw significant further devolution to Wales and Northern Ireland, as well as groundbreaking work on city deals and a step change across England with the work towards the creation of the northern powerhouse. The Bill before the House today represents a further step forward in the governance of Scotland and our United Kingdom.

The settled will of the Scottish people is now that Scotland should remain part of the United Kingdom. As such, this Bill demonstrates the Government’s determination that the Scottish Parliament should be made more powerful, more accountable yet autonomous, and better equipped to serve the people of Scotland. It is the fulfilment of our manifesto commitment that the all-party Smith commission agreement should be implemented in full. The fact that the Bill was introduced on the first day after the Queen’s Speech and that its Second Reading is taking place at the first opportunity since the general election speaks volumes for the Government’s determination to honour that manifesto commitment and get on with the job.

[Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)]

I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on his new position and on beating off the opposition that he no doubt had in getting it. Does he not have cause to reflect that, whereas the previous Government in which he served as a Minister had the support of about a quarter of the elected Members of this House from Scotland, he is now this Government’s sole representative in Scotland? Does not that place on him a moral obligation to discuss with the elected representatives of the people of Scotland how to take forward this Bill? Is he not concerned that the all-party group in the Scottish Parliament that considered his draft proposals says that they do not equate to the proposals made by the Smith commission?

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Interventions must be brief.

[David Mundell]

I was intending to cover a number of the points that the hon. Gentleman raises. I have met the Scottish Parliament committee that was set up in relation to the Bill, and I am going to appear before it to give evidence directly on 25 June. I am in ongoing and constant dialogue with the Scottish Government in relation to this Bill. This very morning, I had a very cordial meeting with John Swinney, the Deputy First Minister, who is responsible for constitutional matters. During the four days when the Bill will be debated on a line-by-line basis, I will be very pleased to hear the suggestions and proposals that come forward from the hon. Gentleman’s group and, indeed, from any Members of this House.

[Tommy Sheppard]

What, then, is your observation on the fact that an all-party group of the Scottish Parliament, including members from your own party, has come to the conclusion that the proposals before us do not put into effect the Smith commission proposals? What is your reflection on that?

--- Later in debate ---

[Tommy Sheppard]

The SNP remains committed to a situation in which the Scottish Government will have full financial control over their own affairs and be able to raise their own revenues. We want that to be done in a responsible way that does not disadvantage the people of Scotland. During the election campaign, we were treated by your party to a grotesque caricature of our proposals. I point out to you and ask you to reflect on the results of that election campaign, when people rejected what you said. You said that if they voted SNP they would bring on themselves some sort of economic Armageddon. The people did vote SNP and rejected your view.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I do not have a party and I did not say any of the things that have just been attributed to me, but I know that the hon. Gentleman will become a seasoned practitioner before very long.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Jones]

No, I will not.

The hon. Member for Moray set the tone. We keep hearing from the SNP that if something is said, it is actual fact. I think that the movement towards full fiscal autonomy is one thing that the SNP wanted and actually did mention in their manifesto. I hope that they will table amendments, because it would not be in the interests of working people in Scotland. It might be in their interests with Barnett in place, but it is clear that Barnett would eventually wither away, and, given the demographics and economics of Scotland, there would then be a black hole.

[Tommy Sheppard]

Does the hon. Gentleman not accept that the working people of Scotland were consulted on this matter, that they cast their votes in the general election, and that they voted for our party? Not only did they give us the majority of seats, but more than 50% of the electorate voted for us. Does the hon. Gentleman not respect that decision by the working people of Scotland?

[Mr Jones]

I do, and I expect the hon. Gentleman to respect their position in relation to how they voted in the referendum. [Interruption.] Hon. Members from the SNP say they do, but they conveniently forget that.

[Tommy Sheppard]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Jones]

No, I will carry on.

The important point is that we need a system that is not only fair to the people of Scotland but, as the hon. Member for Warrington South (David Mowat) said, fair to the people of the United Kingdom. We cannot have the devolution in Scotland that the Bill proposes without it affecting my constituents in North Durham and the constituents of many other Members.

Devolution raises many practical issues. One example is air passenger duty. Newcastle airport is a great example of the local council, five local authorities and the private sector working together to ensure for the region a vibrant airport with international links. It employs 3,500 people directly, with a further 8,000 people employed in the region.