Scotland Bill

Lord Campbell of Pittenweem Excerpts

Monday 29th February 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord McCluskey]

My Lords, that was my 14th point. My notes state that the arrangements for resolution of these disputes read like the draft of a script for a BBC drama that would put “War and Peace” to shame.

[Lord Campbell of Pittenweem (LD)]

My Lords, I have been provoked to make a contribution arising out of the nature of the debate. I hope it is not a question of piling Pelion upon Ossa for yet another lawyer to offer what may be an obstacle. The right of judicial review may apply in circumstances where either of the two institutions makes a decision that does not pass the test of reasonableness. If there were such an application for judicial review in relation either to the conclusions or to the implementation of the conclusions of this agreement, that would certainly bring the validity of the agreement under considerable scrutiny.

Others have referred to the imperfect nature of dispute resolution. In the worst case the Supreme Court, which has just been referred to, could find itself engaged in these matters. That is more akin, of course, to a Supreme Court in the United States rather than the one we consider here. Therefore, there might be fundamental constitutional implications and unintended consequences from what is proposed.

[The Earl of Kinnoull (CB)]

My Lords, I want to come in on a similar theme and echo the earlier words of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead. At roughly one o’clock last Monday my email system received a helpful letter from the noble Lord, Lord Dunlop. I thank both Ministers, who have been unfailingly courteous and very helpful in these extraordinary circumstances. That was said earlier and I wish to say it as well. The letter I received at one o’clock on 22 February was extremely complimentary about the negotiating position of the Government. It enclosed a letter to Pete Wishart. Paragraph 3 of that letter said:

“The UK government agrees with the Committee that the Indexed Per Capita … model would ‘breach the second no detriment principle, that of taxpayer fairness’. This model would see Scotland benefitting from an ever-increasing share of income tax from the rest of UK, irrespective of the Scottish Government’s policy decisions or relative economic performance”.

That is clear.

The following day—less than 24 hours later—we were told that the fiscal framework had been agreed. Paragraph 17 of that states:

“For a transitional period covering the next Scottish Parliament, the Governments have agreed that the block grant adjustment for tax should be effected by using the Comparable Model (Scotland’s share)”—

that sounds okay—

“whilst achieving the outcome delivered by the Indexed Per Capita … method for tax and welfare. This will ensure that the Scottish Government’s overall level of funding will be unaffected if Scotland’s population grows differently from the rest of the UK”.

I know this point has already been put to the Minister but I put it forcefully again and ask whether those two paragraphs can be reconciled clearly for the House so that we can understand what happened. I suspect that, quite simply, the white flag was run up to conclude negotiations for political expediency.

I now turn to the review clause and to the point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope. Paragraph 23 states:

“The two governments will jointly agree the method as part of the review. The method adopted will deliver results consistent with the Smith commission’s recommendations, including the principles of no detriment, taxpayer fairness and economic responsibility”.

That means essentially that all one has managed to do is to kick the hand grenade six years down the line. It will blow up and there will be a terrible constitutional crisis in Britain. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Pittenweem, and other noble Lords that we need to head this off at the pass. I urge the Minister and the Government to do something about this issue before the Bill goes on to the statute book.

Scotland Bill

Lord Campbell of Pittenweem Excerpts

Tuesday 24th November 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Campbell of Pittenweem (LD) (Maiden Speech)]

My Lords, I am not entirely clear how to respond to that but I think that the good people of Pittenweem will make their own judgment.

I hope that it will not be thought presumptuous of me to suggest that we should be loath to draw any parallels between the Schleswig-Holstein question and any of the contents of the Bill. It will be remembered that one of those who claimed to understand the question went mad, and it may be thought an unfortunate omen.

Contrary to expectation, this is not the first time that I have spoken in your Lordships’ House. The last occasion was more than 30 years ago but I have good cause to remember it well. Outside, there was a most Indian of Indian summers; inside, being after 1 October, the central heating was going full bore, and I was dressed in full court dress and wearing the necessary full-bottomed wig when appearing before the judicial committee in the Chamber. Notwithstanding that ordeal, worse was to be suffered. I spent a whole day being eviscerated by Lord Bridge of Harwich, whom some of your Lordships will remember for his robust interventions on the judicial committee. It is only very recently, and reluctantly, that I have come to the view that perhaps he did not care for my argument.

For maiden speakers, the advice is clear: be grateful, be short and be uncontroversial. I believe that I will be able to meet the first two of these but I have some reservations about my ability to adhere to the third. I am indeed grateful to all those who have successfully piloted me through the necessary steps to enable me to become a Member of your Lordships’ House but I have little doubt that I shall be seeking their indulgence for some considerable time to come. However, if I may offer a tentative conclusion, it is now patently clear to me that the House of Lords is run by the attendants. I am left with the feeling of a junior who has left to join the seniors, and I mean no adverse implication by that characterisation. As for being short, I believe that I can meet this requirement, as in my previous life I never showed any enthusiasm for long distances or indeed endurance events.

However, it is the third of those pieces of advice of which I am less confident. This is a debate nominally about Scotland but, as has been made clear in some of the contributions, it is also about the future of the United Kingdom. In the febrile and sometimes intimidating environment of Scottish politics, it is almost always necessary to state one’s qualifications for joining in the debate, and that is why I will state mine.

I was born in Scotland, my parents were Scottish, I went to school and university in Scotland, I am married to a Scot, I qualified in and practised Scots law, I represented a Scottish constituency for 28 years and I am the chancellor of Scotland’s oldest university. I believe that I have the right to participate in any debate about the future of Scotland and the United Kingdom wherever it may be held. But my pride in Scotland is not exclusive: I am equally proud to be a citizen of the United Kingdom. At Murrayfield I cheer for Scotland, although not always to good effect; at the Oval I cheer for England; and, wherever the Ryder Cup is played, I cheer for Europe. These are not competing but complementary affiliations.

So why should I be proud to be a citizen of the United Kingdom? Here are a few reasons. This country has had no civil war since the last convulsions of Jacobitism in 1745. It successfully resisted the fascism and the communism which blighted so many countries in Europe. It invented the welfare state and created the National Health Service. Human rights are at the very heart of our governance and we have a judiciary, both north and south of the border, of enviable independence. Our freedom of speech, expression and assembly are admired by liberals everywhere. Beyond that, we are permanent members of the Security Council of the United Nations, the G8, NATO, the European Community and the Commonwealth. We have much to be proud of in our unique contribution to international affairs.

And yet our union is under threat. I have no doubt that the people of Scotland agreed that we are better together but, following the events of the last few weeks, I am equally convinced that we are safer together. I simply do not believe that an independent Scotland would be capable of providing the level of security required if we are to live in safety. A failure to do so would have dangerous implications not only for Scotland but for the rest of these islands. If we are to preserve our union, I believe that we need to legislate for a new Act of Union; legislating for England, Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland, and setting out clearly the responsibilities and rights of all four nations. If you advance that proposition, you have to answer the question of what form such a reinvigorated union should take.

Until very recently the F-word was not mentioned in polite society, and certainly not before the BBC’s 9 pm watershed. But now, it is in common parlance. My personal view, agreeing with that of my noble and learned friend Lord Wallace of Tankerness, is that the case for federalism has never been more popular or stronger than it is now. This is not the occasion for a detailed debate on a new Act of Union or indeed on the principle of federalism itself. However, I hope that we shall return to these matters early here. If I may, out of nostalgia as much as anything else, I will say as I said on the previous occasion when I spoke in your Lordships’ Chamber: my Lords, I rest my case.

Smith Commission

Lord Campbell of Pittenweem Excerpts

Thursday 27th November 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Carmichael]

First, let me try to adopt a more appropriate tone than the hon. Gentleman has perhaps just done and congratulate him on his recent election to the position of deputy leader of his party. It is unfortunate that he did not use the word “welcome”; there are significant job-creating powers in this package and the Scottish Parliament already holds significant job-creating powers. If Nicola Sturgeon is sincere when she says that she wants to govern for the whole of Scotland, she should get on and use the powers that she has, welcome the ones that she is getting and use them for the benefit of the people of Scotland.

The hon. Gentleman predictably and depressingly seeks to suggest that this is not a fulfilment of the vow. Well, the vow is on the front page of the Daily Record. For the benefit of the House, I have brought that paper with me today. The front page says, “The vow delivers.” Let me draw the House’s attention to the article itself. On page 3, it says that

“it’s is now clear that they”—

David Cameron, Nick Clegg and Ed Miliband—

“have stood behind this agreement to deliver change. Lurid claims to the contrary by some pro-Yes commentators”—

it must have known what the hon. Gentleman was going to say—

“have been shown to be false.”

That is the assessment of one of Scotland’s leading papers. It is more to be relied on than the views of the hon. Gentleman.

[Sir Menzies Campbell (North East Fife) (LD)]

My right hon. Friend can now be assured of some favourable remarks in relation to what he has just said about the Daily Record. He will not be surprised that I, rather less grudgingly, welcome both the process behind the proposals and the proposals themselves. Does he understand that I welcome the accusation that these proposals are federal in nature, because it is in federalism that we will find the best constitutional solution to meet the aspirations of all four of our nations and, at the same time, secure the advantages of a secure United Kingdom? Is not the truth now that we should all be federalists?

[Mr Carmichael]

Speaking for myself, I always have been a federalist. Indeed, I understand that I can now count on the support of the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown) in that aspiration. May I also recognise the pivotal role that my right hon. and learned Friend took in the formulation of my own party’s proposals? His commission was the first intervention in this debate, and it very much established the tone and set the bar at a level that others felt it necessary to clear. Ultimately, a federal structure is what this country needs. It works perfectly well—in fact it works much better—in countries around the world. Clearly, it will take time. What we are about here today is delivering in the here and now on the pledge that we made in the referendum.

Scotland within the UK

Lord Campbell of Pittenweem Excerpts

Monday 13th October 2014 Commons Chamber

[Sir Malcolm Bruce (Gordon) (LD)]

rose—

[Sir Menzies Campbell (North East Fife) (LD)]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Ah! Two distinguished Liberal Democrat knights in heated competition—what a delicious choice! I call Sir Menzies Campbell.

[Sir Menzies Campbell]

Does my right hon. Friend understand the general welcome there has been in Scotland for the fact that change in Scotland should not be held up to enable England to catch up? Having agreed that position, is it not right for the Government, and indeed for him today, to say that, although not in lockstep, there will undoubtedly be progress on constitutional change for the other nations that form the United Kingdom? Particularly with regard to any possible change in the role of Scottish MPs, does he agree that however superficially attractive it might appear, changes to the Standing Orders would be inappropriate, and that such a change to the role of Scottish MPs should undoubtedly be enshrined in primary legislation?

[Mr Carmichael]

My right hon. and learned Friend is entirely correct about that. This should be something that does more than just affect just the Standing Orders of this House. Indeed, even if it were to be done in that very narrow way, he would, I suspect, be one of the first to remind me that the House guards very jealously, through your office, Mr Speaker, its right to determine its Standing Orders for itself. It has never normally been the practice for Government to lead on these matters.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lord Campbell of Pittenweem Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd July 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Carmichael]

I absolutely 100% and without any reservation condemn any intimidation, wherever it may appear. This is by a country mile the single most important issue that we, the people of Scotland, will ever have to resolve for ourselves. Nobody should feel that they are constrained in having their say or asking questions about what it would mean for them, their family or their business. Anybody who tries to silence people on the other side of the debate should be no part of it.

[Sir Menzies Campbell (North East Fife) (LD)]

Is not the role of our Government to provide answers to the questions that those arguing for independence refuse to provide—either because they do not know the answer or because they do not want us to know the answer?

[Mr Carmichael]

Indeed, that is the case. It has been remarkable that on every occasion when we could have been given hard facts and information by the Scottish Government throughout this exceptionally long campaign, we have instead been given opinion and assertion. People are not stupid, though. They draw their own conclusions from that, as was apparent from yesterday’s YouGov poll in The Times.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lord Campbell of Pittenweem Excerpts

Wednesday 7th May 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Carmichael]

The hon. Gentleman invites me to look into the future and make a prediction, which is never an easy prospect—it is an unwise prospect for anyone in politics. The truth of the matter is that all these things are uncertain, and they bring enormous risks in areas where we do very well as a result of being part of the United Kingdom.

[Sir Menzies Campbell (North East Fife) (LD)]

To echo the hon. Member for Moray (Angus Robertson), what could be more demeaning and insulting than to lead the Scottish people to believe that there are no risks in independence, and that a currency union is a foregone conclusion?

[Mr Carmichael]

The only foregone conclusion about a currency union is that it will not happen. It will not happen because that is the advice that has been given by the permanent secretary to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. That advice is not going to change, and the outcome of that advice is not going to change.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lord Campbell of Pittenweem Excerpts

Wednesday 19th March 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Carmichael]

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

[Sir Menzies Campbell (North East Fife) (LD)]

Does it not tell us all we need to know about those arguing for independence that when the Governor of the Bank of England, in an impartial and carefully produced speech, draws attention to the reservations he has about a currency union, he is dismissed out of hand by the Scottish National party?

[Mr Carmichael]

In that respect, the Governor of the Bank of England is in very good company—he is with the President of the European Commission, the Prime Minister of Spain and the permanent secretary to the Treasury. The truth of the matter is that, day by day, bad news comes to those who want to remove us from the United Kingdom, and they are just not prepared to listen to it.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lord Campbell of Pittenweem Excerpts

Wednesday 5th February 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Carmichael]

Make no mistake, Mr Speaker, we know exactly why the nationalists want that debate between the Prime Minister and Alex Salmond: they are trying to set the decision up as a contest between Scotland and England, which it absolutely is not. This is about Scotland’s best-placed constitutional future, and it is to be decided by Scots in Scotland.

[Sir Menzies Campbell]

My right hon. Friend will be aware that the First Minister dismissed Mr Dudley’s remarks as purely a personal opinion. In the light of that, may we take it that all those in the business sector who have apparently subscribed to independence can have their opinions dismissed in the same way?

[Mr Carmichael]

I would dismiss nobody’s opinion and I would engage with people of all shades of opinion across this debate, but the fact is that Bob Dudley is not a lone voice. He is part of a growing chorus from the business community in Scotland who highlight the dangers that would come from independence. They all say the same—it would be a risk to their business because of the uncertainty of the future position of the currency and membership of the European Union. On those two key issues, the nationalists have no comfort for business.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Menzies Campbell (North East Fife) (LD)]

Does my right hon. Friend share the anxiety of many of us that the programme for the destruction of chemical weapons in Syria has fallen so badly behind?

[The Prime Minister]

I agree with my right hon. and learned Friend that after a very promising start, with chemicals not only being discovered and removed but destroyed, there seem to be indications that the programme is now slowing and that not all the necessary information is forthcoming. I discussed the issue in a telephone call with President Putin some 48 hours ago. Britain will continue to put pressure on all parties to ensure that chemical weapons are produced and destroyed.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lord Campbell of Pittenweem Excerpts

Wednesday 18th December 2013 Commons Chamber

[Sir Menzies Campbell (North East Fife) (LD)]

No pressure, then, Mr Speaker. When my right hon. Friend is giving proper consideration to the future of the fisheries industry in Scotland, will he pay particular attention to the village-based fisheries industry? That is a particular issue in areas such as my constituency, based as it is on Pittenweem and surrounding ports. It is essential that the interests of the village-based fishing industry are not subjected to the sometimes overbearing influence of those who go further out to sea.

[Mr Carmichael]

I know from my constituency experience that the small inshore fleet is of great importance to the communities represented by me and my right hon. and learned Friend. His point is well made, and it is important that we do what we can to sustain the fleet in those small ports.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lord Campbell of Pittenweem Excerpts

Wednesday 26th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[Michael Moore]

I commend the Scottish Chambers of Commerce for the work that it is doing, along with others. This week, the Scotland Institute has also highlighted some important deficiencies in the nationalists’ arguments on defence. Our papers on devolution, on the currency and on financial services are setting out the arguments and analysis so that Scotland can make an informed choice. I remain confident that we will decide to stay part of the United Kingdom.

[Sir Menzies Campbell (North East Fife) (LD)]

May I commend my right hon. Friend on the positive case that he is making? As he has just been joined on the Treasury Bench by the Secretary of State for Defence, will he ensure that all Government Departments including the Ministry of Defence take every opportunity to examine critically the defence proposals of the Scottish National party and the Scottish Government, which have yet again been the subject of strong criticism in an independent report this week?

[Michael Moore]

My right hon. and learned Friend makes a very important point. I can assure him that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence is very much engaged in this entire debate. Central to that debate will be the SNP’s attempt to have it both ways by reluctantly and belatedly signing up for NATO—three quarters of Scots support it, so that was perhaps inevitable—while not being willing to accept the obligations and rules that go with it, including a nuclear umbrella as part of the strategic concept.