Scotland Bill
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean Excerpts(8 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
My Lords, I do not often disagree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, but I think he was walking something of a tightrope there, for obvious reasons.
What is wrong with this first clause is the whole approach to the Bill. The Government, in advance of even knowing what the conclusions of the Smith commission would be, undertook to implement them and expected both Houses of this Parliament to ratify them. In speaking in support of the amendments tabled by my noble friend Lord Norton, I draw the attention of the House to page 7 of our Constitution Committee’s sixth report of Session 2015-16 on the Scotland Bill. Paragraph 8 states:
“The Bill contains a number of provisions of the highest constitutional importance. In affirming the permanence of the Scottish Parliament and Scottish Government and declaring that they are not to be abolished except following a referendum in Scotland, and in giving statutory recognition to the Sewel convention, the Bill carries potential implications for Parliament’s own sovereignty”.
Too right it does.
Paragraph 9 states:
“In our report on the Draft Clauses”—
which were contained in the document which was ironically entitled Scotland in the United Kingdom: An Enduring Settlement—
“we expressed concern at ‘the failure of the UK Government directly to address the implications of these proposals for the United Kingdom as a whole.’ We questioned how any process that did not consider the future of the Union ‘could provide for an “enduring” settlement’, and recommended that ‘the Government give urgent consideration to the consequences of the Draft Clauses for the constitution of the United Kingdom as a whole. This should happen before they are passed into law.’ There is little evidence that such consideration has been given to date”.
That conclusion is something of an understatement, to put it mildly.
If we look at the Smith commission proposals in respect of these amendments and the clause which we are discussing—a point I made at Second Reading—we see that under the heading, “A More Autonomous Parliament”, the Smith commission report stated:
“The Scottish Parliament will be made permanent in UK legislation and given powers over how it is elected and run. The Scottish Government will similarly be made permanent”.
It does not say, “We recommend that Parliament considers how it could be made permanent”, but that it will be made permanent.
Lord Hope of Craighead
I draw the noble Lord’s attention to the fact that the heads of agreement built on what he said by stating:
“UK legislation will state that the Scottish Parliament and Scottish Government are permanent institutions”.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
Indeed. Perhaps I have missed out on this modernisation process that is going ahead, but I understood that laws are made by Parliament and receive the assent of the Crown. I did not think that they were made up by subcommittees of appointed party politicians meeting in secret and then getting together with the leaders of the parties, who did not in any way consult their parties, with Parliament then being expected to rubber-stamp them. This takes us back to the time of Henry VIII. We could save a great deal of money by getting rid of this whole apparatus of Parliament and leaving it to the leaders of the parties to get together, decide things and agree that they will be passed into law and leave the monarch with the dubious task of having to give Royal Assent to such matters.
A colleague I was speaking to earlier said, “I’m not coming in for the Scotland Bill. I’ve really had enough of Scotland”. I said, “But it’s not about Scotland; it’s about the United Kingdom”. He said, “Oh, I didn’t realise that”. It would appear that the Government do not realise that, either, judging by the nature of this clause.
Lord Hunt of Chesterton (Lab)
I believe that some of our legislation has now been privatised. Is that not the reason for the noble Lord’s problem?
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
All I can say is that it needs a bit of competition, then. I support my noble friend’s amendments.
The Lord Bishop of Chester
My Lords, it is always dodgy for bishops to speak about Scottish matters. The kirk has sometimes considered the possibility of introducing bishops but the one condition it has always applied is that they must not be like English bishops—they must be quite different.
I have some credentials inasmuch as I have had a close association with Scotland for 40 years, since I went to Edinburgh as a student. I have had a house in Scotland for 30 years, I have two Scottish degrees and one Scottish wife, who has kept my feet on the ground over the years. I shall also retire to Scotland shortly, and very much look forward to doing so.
My observation, from my perspective, is that when Parliament, a London-centred body, speaks about Scotland, the Scots always perceive it as being rather patronising and as not taking them seriously. That was the underlying dynamic which led to such a close shave in the referendum. I speak as a unionist through and through, but the Scots felt that they were not taken seriously. When the Scottish Parliament was created, it was not created but reconvened. It was made clear when it first met that it was a reconvening rather than a wholly new event. One has to acknowledge that over the years Scotland, for most of its history, has felt itself to be an independent country, and it participates in the union as an independent country.
When I first saw these clauses, they jarred with me. They remind me of when I go to services and an enthusiastic minister overemphasises the wrong word: I hear, “This IS the word of the Lord”, and I think, “Oh, is it?”. Sometimes, if you emphasise a word you create an uncertainty by emphasising the wrong part of the sentence. “This IS a permanent part of the UK” almost creates a doubt because the emphasis is in the wrong place. My second reaction when I read this was, “Death and taxes are permanent—we are now to add the Scottish Government”.
The absence of a written constitution means that constitutional elements are enshrined in our Acts of Parliament. This is being enshrined in the Bill because we do not have a written constitution. It is a fact of life that the Scottish Government and Scottish Parliament are a permanent feature, and at the end of the day, it is probably wiser to say that than to raise doubt about it.
To remove this part of the clause from the Bill at this point would be utterly disastrous and give all the wrong signals. For whatever reason it has got here—and it may be that I do not know about the legislative process—to remove it would give all the wrong signals. In the Bill, we must not create the sense—
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
If the clause is dishonest in the information which it conveys to the public, how can it be wrong to remove it or amend it as such, and how can it be disastrous to amend it in a way which makes it clear what its real meaning is?
The Lord Bishop of Chester
If the people of Scotland are told, “We toyed with the thought of saying that it was a permanent Parliament but we decided that it wasn’t”, it will simply give the wrong message. Of course I agree that laws can be changed, just as if you have a written constitution it can be changed by some process. However, it corresponds with the reality on the ground.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness (LD)
My Lords, as the noble Lord has just indicated, it is very clear that there are implications for the rest of the United Kingdom. It is just a great pity that the Government will not accede to the request from all sides of the House and all parts of the United Kingdom for a constitutional convention, in which many of these relationships could be properly looked at. The right reverend Prelate reminded me that we have to be careful with the wording here. To say so stridently that the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government are permanent will start raising doubts about whether anyone would think anything else. That is why care has to be taken here.
In the 1990s I was part of the Scottish Constitutional Convention. It came up with the blueprint for the Scottish Parliament, which, to its credit, the Labour Party, elected in 1997, faithfully put into legislative form. I remember many discussions in the constitutional convention about how to entrench the Parliament. We kept going round in circles on the issue of parliamentary sovereignty and on whether we should have a referendum. In the end, the convention decided that it could make no such proposal. The Labour Party proposed a two-question referendum. My party and I were opposed to that as it was not what the convention had agreed, but I think that I was wrong. The fact that we had a referendum in 1997 and that the Parliament was established on the basis of a very strong popular vote in Scotland meant that it found its own form of political entrenchment. We could go round in circles here having a highbrow constitutional discussion on the nature of the sovereignty of Parliament.
The noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, used the words “political reality” in moving his amendment. At the end of the day, we come back to political reality. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, that if the people of Scotland voted to abolish the Scottish Parliament, primary legislation in this Parliament would be required for that to happen, but of course if this Parliament chose to ignore what the people of Scotland said, that would bring about a constitutional crisis because political reality would kick in. That is why I also disagree with the amendment in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead. He is saying that if the Parliament were removed, it would have to be done not only on the vote of the Scottish people but on the vote of the Scottish Parliament. The Scottish Parliament might well vote to get rid of the Parliament because it was not doing a particularly good job. Therefore, you do not give the veto to the people whom you want to get rid of and who have a vested interest in keeping the Parliament.
These things are hypothetical because, quite simply, I do not see them happening. That is why I think that political reality is more relevant to this debate than highbrow discussions on parliamentary sovereignty. As ever, I give way to the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
On the subject of political reality, is it not the policy of the noble and learned Lord’s party to have a constitutional convention with a view to creating a federal United Kingdom? What happens if we have a provision in law saying that the Scottish Parliament as it stands is permanent and the rest of the United Kingdom wishes to alter the structure and have a federal constitution along the lines that he suggests and that is blocked because of these provisions? Perhaps he thinks the political reality is that what he wishes for will never happen, but surely it is wrong to create inflexibility, given that he and his party accept that the present system is not a stable, lasting settlement.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
The noble Lord makes a very good point. But under any federal system there would be a Scottish Parliament. I echo again Section 1(1) of the Scotland Act 1998: there still would be a Scottish Parliament. It may have a different form and different powers, but there still would be a Scottish Parliament. I do not think anyone is suggesting that the Scottish Parliament that we refer to in Clause 1 of this Bill is for ever frozen in aspic or that it would not inherit other powers at some time to come.
The issue is indeed one of political reality. We are also duty bound to have regard to the wording of this part of the clause.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
Is the noble and learned Lord saying that when the clause heading says:
“Permanence of the Scottish Parliament”,
this is not referring to all the powers and privileges of that Parliament but just to the name, and that the powers could be changed? Is he saying that the effect would be that we could take away all its powers but, provided that there was still a building and something called the Scottish Parliament, that would be covered?
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
Let me get back to political reality. I do not believe that that would happen. But I think it is very likely that we will have some measures in the future—probably the not-too-distant future—under which more powers are given to the Scottish Parliament. Therefore, it comes back to the same thing: to the political reality. If there was a move resulting in a constitutional convention or a federal system for the United Kingdom, which my colleagues and I aspire to, the political reality of that would see it delivered.
I have much sympathy for the points made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, because I simply do not know what is meant by,
“with due regard to the other provisions of this Act”.
No doubt the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, will tell us in his reply what the importance of including those words is.
I also wonder what is meant in subsection (3), which says:
“In view of that commitment it is declared that the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government are not to be abolished except on the basis of a decision of the people of Scotland voting in a referendum”.
I do not think that the “people of Scotland” is anywhere defined in this. Is it the people resident in Scotland, which was the qualification for the referendum in 2014? At that time, many noble Lords received many representations from expatriate Scots living abroad or living in London who consider themselves to be part of the people of Scotland. So would they be part of the referendum that is proposed by the Government with regard to the future of the Scottish Parliament? That is why I think that the wording proposed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, in the second part of his amendment—
“a majority of those voting at the referendum”,
which has been held in Scotland—has greater clarity than the Government’s wording of this particular clause.
Just as Parliament could, technically, repeal the Statute of Westminster of 1931 but would never dream of doing it, the constitutional reality of the sovereignty of Parliament is not relevant to this. At the end of the day, what will matter is what the people actually want.
The Marquess of Lothian
I accept the noble and learned Lord’s suggestion. The word “permanent” is the one that concerns me. I do not think heads of agreement can change the British constitution—only Parliaments can change the British constitution. We could say something along the lines that we envisage that this will last for a long time or for ever, but we cannot say that it will because that is what transgresses against the sovereignty of Parliament.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
I am grateful to my noble friend but I think the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, was referring to the heads of agreement in the Smith commission. The Smith commission was simply a group of Scottish politicians or representatives from Scottish politics meeting in secret, having a chat and producing heads of agreement. To argue that the Government somehow have to go along with that because they said in advance that they would accept the Smith commission’s recommendations means that the whole object of having a Bill and everything that we are engaging in is a waste of time. That cannot be acceptable.
The Marquess of Lothian
I do not disagree with my noble friend. What I said was that I do not think that heads of agreement can change constitutions, nor do I think that Governments, by heads of agreement, can change them. The constitution can only be changed, Parliament by Parliament, by Parliament itself, and that is what this clause seems to argue against. I would very much like to think that we could withdraw this clause and, if necessary, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, has said, find another way of expressing our hope that what is being done today may go on for a very long time.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
These are clearly very deep waters, into which a non-lawyer plunges with some concern. I am very glad that I understood part of what the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, said. I agree with him about the need for a convention.
My real worry about all this is that I do not believe in declaratory law. I strongly believe in 2% of GNP on defence; I strongly believe in 0.7% on aid; I strongly believe in emissions controls—but I do not believe in putting these things on the statute book. I do not believe in emissions control targets with no known means of fulfilling them. I do not believe in law that sends a message. A law is not worth having unless it changes something. I subscribe to the doctrine explained by the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey.
At Second Reading, we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, who is our prophet in these matters. He said:
“The Scottish Parliament is already permanent under the terms of the Scotland Act; it remains in being unless this Parliament legislates otherwise. New subsections (1) and (2), introduced by Clause 1, do not make it any more permanent than it already is”.—[Official Report, 24/11/15; col. 638.]
I understand the conundrum about the Smith commission, well explained by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, but it seems to me that the noble and learned Lord’s own amendment, with the noble Lord, Lord Norton, goes two-thirds of the way to delivering what he feels we are required to do. Amendment 6 does not require subsection (1). The arguments of the noble Lord, Lord Norton, have demolished subsection (1).
What we need is something that says: “The provisions of the Scotland Act, which established the Scottish Parliament, shall not be repealed unless the Scottish Parliament has consented and”—here I part company with the noble Lord, Lord Lang; I think there is a need for a referendum—“a referendum has been held in Scotland on a proposed repeal and a majority of those voting have supported it”. We do not make it any more permanent by stating its permanence, and if a new provision adds nothing, we should not make it. It is permanent because it is on the statute book. I agree that in the real world the Scottish Parliament would not vote for its own abolition, but that gives a meaning to permanence.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
What about England? I agree it is not the real world but one can imagine circumstances in which the Scottish Parliament has been given all these powers and has got itself into a right mess and the people of Scotland wish to come back and be part of Westminster. It is entirely conceivable that people in England and Wales will want no part of that. So where is the opportunity for the United Kingdom to look at this as a whole?
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard
I do not think the noble Lord has quite understood my proposal. My proposal is that the language in the amendment in the names of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, and the noble Lord, Lord Norton, should be preceded by the words: “The provisions of the Scotland Act establishing the Scottish Parliament may not be repealed unless”—and then the two conditions laid out in the amendment. It follows that I mean there would need to be a vote of this Parliament as well as of the Scottish Parliament, and the referendum that the noble Lord, Lord Lang, would not want but I think is necessary.
I have to say to the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, that I think the idea of a supermajority in this Parliament is a very bad one. I think supermajorities in general are a bad idea. Just as we should not add to the statute book provisions which add nothing, so we should not complicate our procedures by inventing a supermajority.
Lord McAvoy
To echo the noble Lord, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard, I am not a lawyer and will not get into the detail of that. But as we are getting a wee bit into the nitty-gritty, the noble Marquess, Lord Lothian, and quite a few other Members of this House are in many ways responsible for the attitude in Scotland towards devolution and “getting away from English Tory rule”. I condemn that attitude. The onus is on the Labour Party to win a UK election but the language used and the attitude shown by some Members of your Lordships’ House only confirm to the Scottish National Party that “The English are hostile to us”. I humbly ask that Members of your Lordships’ House be a wee bit more circumspect and not allow the Scottish National Party to portray legitimate concerns as hostility to the existence of a Scottish Parliament. I genuinely urge that.
Several noble Lords have mentioned permanence, which relates directly to what I have attempted to describe—the seeming hostility among many people in England towards Scottish devolution. The permanence issue was agreed in the Smith commission. The commission has been portrayed as politicians deciding things behind closed doors, but there people were behind closed doors with a mandate from the different parties. Getting agreement through the Smith commission was surely an example of delegated democracy at work, because if some things had not been agreed to, there would have been no Smith commission. It is slightly wrong to try to devalue the Smith commission.
The point about permanence is there to reassure the people of Scotland. We can, quite rightly, take the view that it would be impossible or wrong to do, and all the rest of it, but symbolism is important. The clarity of words is important, because we are not all politicians sitting in the House of Lords or even the House of Commons—we are dealing with ordinary folk here. The issue about permanence is completely understandable and gives an assurance. I do not think there is any chance of anybody here in your Lordships’ House or the other place doing down Scotland. I do not believe that. Everybody keeps on saying we have to deal with the political reality, but the reality in Scotland is that many people believe that we here are out to do Scotland down in some way.
In short, we oppose all the amendments—
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
I will just gently point out to the noble Lord, in relation to his point about the use of language, that throughout the 1980s the Labour Party referred to the Conservative Government as not having a mandate in Scotland. That was the language of nationalism. The nationalists were opposed to devolution, and the Labour Party believed that devolution would kill nationalism stone dead. If symbolism and the Smith commission are so important, why was it that, with the Smith commission and the commitment to implement its recommendations, all three unionist parties in Scotland were reduced to one seat?
Lord McAvoy
The emotional state of the Scottish electorate after the Scottish referendum is still to be analysed by a number of people and institutions. I do not know what happened and will be bold enough to say that the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth of Drumlean, does not know exactly what happened. But it certainly happened. He refers to people in the Scottish Labour Party thinking that nationalism would be killed off by a Scottish Parliament, but I am not one of those. It is about showing the Scottish people that we are trying to do our best for them. I agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, that a constitutional convention is required. In the long run, it must be required, because these issues keep cropping up.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
I am slightly behind my noble and learned friend’s speech, but I wanted to check the facts. He has made great play of the importance of including the word “permanence” as a result of the recommendations of the Smith commission. Will he explain why the Bill as originally presented to the House of Commons made no mention of permanence and why Part 1 was headed “Constitutional Arrangements” and “The Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government”?
Lord Keen of Elie
In the course of the Bill’s consideration, steps have been taken to strengthen the political statement contained in Clause 1. Indeed, the noble Lord’s proposed Amendment 2 picks up this very point. He noticed that in the other place the words “recognised as” were removed from Clause 1 for the same purpose. Perhaps I anticipate the further contribution that the noble Lord may wish to make to this debate.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
Forgive me, but as in the best parliamentary answers, my noble and learned friend is telling me something I already know. My question was: if the Government thought that they were meeting the obligations of the Smith commission by presenting the Bill as it was originally presented, that they met the terms of the Smith commission and that that is the overriding purpose and the agreement, why was it necessary to add these words which create such difficulty, as is clear from the speeches made in the House? My noble and learned friend has not really answered the point.
Lord Keen of Elie
With respect, I rather thought that I had answered the point made by the noble Lord, but let me reiterate it. The word “permanence” appears in the Smith commission agreement. After further consideration, it was felt that in order to strengthen the political statement contained in Clause 1 that word should feature in the clause itself.
I return to Amendments 6 and 7 which seek to alter the basis upon which any decision would be made with regard to the provisions of Clause 1. As was observed, it is not anticipated that there will at any point in the future be a referendum upon that issue, but nevertheless as this matter proceeded in another place it was again considered that this would strengthen the political statement that is being made here. Let us be clear: the use of a referendum in this context is consistent with precedent. In 1997, the people of Scotland supported the creation of a Scottish Parliament on the basis of a referendum. In 2014, in the independence referendum they reaffirmed their wish to have two Parliaments and two Governments for the purposes of reserved and devolved administration in Scotland. Therefore, it is appropriate that any question about the abolition of the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government, which is not envisaged, should be based on the expression of the will of the people of Scotland in a referendum. Let me be clear: that is a theoretical point. There has never been any question that the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government are anything other than permanent parts of the United Kingdom’s constitutional arrangements. That remains the case.
It is unusual, but not wholly exceptional, for a clause of a Bill such as this to contain a political statement, an affirmation of the status quo, a declarator that it will not change, and that is the fundamental purpose of Clause 1.
Lord Keen of Elie
I cannot agree with the interpretation of sovereignty the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, puts forward. At the end of the day, if there was a referendum—and we are talking about a theory, not political reality—it would be necessary for there to be legislation to implement the outcome of that referendum if it involved the abolition of the Scottish Parliament. No one in reality is contemplating the abolition of the Scottish Parliament. The whole purpose of Clause 1 is to make clear the permanence and the recognition of the permanence of the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government. The noble Lord, Lord Purvis, has to recognise that the outcome of any referendum could be implemented only by way of legislation that went through this, the sovereign Parliament of the United Kingdom. That is the only point I seek to make.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
I may be able to help my noble and learned friend to get off this line of argument. I have been reflecting on what he is saying about this clause, which is essentially that the sovereignty of the United Kingdom Parliament remains unaltered, and that what is contained in this clause is simply a declaratory political statement. Can he explain to me what a declaratory political statement is? Is a political statement one that says something but means something else? He appears to be saying that the statement is that the Scottish Parliament is permanent, and at the same time that it is not permanent because this place is sovereign. Is his definition of a political statement one which can mean whatever you want it to mean and which is basically not entirely straightforward?
Lord Keen of Elie
I do not accept that expression of the position. As I said at the outset, the whole purpose of Clause 1 is to make a political statement that reflects the terms of the Smith commission agreement, which determined that there should be an expression to the effect that the Scottish Parliament is permanent. We acknowledge that, and that is the political statement being made. It is a declaration of will. However, we also recognise, as I believe this House will recognise, that the United Kingdom Parliament is ultimately sovereign and supreme. I am seeking to make that point. At the end of the day, this Parliament is sovereign, and it cannot disclaim that sovereignty.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
My Lords, we have had quite a good debate already—some two hours or more —on Clause 1, but I would like to move Amendment 2. Anticipating what the noble Lord, Lord McAvoy, would say when he advised us to tread carefully on people’s dreams and anticipating that the Front Bench might not be inclined to listen immediately to the wise words of my noble friend Lord Norton of Louth, I tabled Amendment 2, which at least softens the impact of the clause as currently drafted.
The effect would be to introduce after “are” the words “recognised as” so that it would read, “The Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government are recognised as a permanent part of the United Kingdom’s constitutional arrangements”. Adding “recognised as” implies that there is another party, which is the sovereign Parliament.
I am looking forward to hearing the Minister explain why he is not prepared to accept the amendment—in the unlikely event that he is not prepared to accept it—because these words were in the original Bill presented to the House of Commons. They were taken out as a result of representations from the Scottish nationalists. The Scottish nationalists may have a mandate in Scotland and they may have a mandate in the House of Commons in that they represent 56 seats—
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
The noble Lord, Lord McAvoy, says under his breath, “54”. I do not wish to go into the half-life period of nationalist Members of Parliament and the reasons for their disintegration, but 56 were elected and I will not be tempted down that particular road.
They were elected on a mandate that is destroying the United Kingdom. We had a referendum in which the people of Scotland clearly expressed the view that they wished to remain part of the United Kingdom. I do not buy the argument that we should immediately incorporate into the Bill suggestions from people who do not believe in devolution. The noble Lord, Lord Maxton, was kind enough to point out that the Scottish nationalists were against devolution. I was against devolution. I believed that it would result in a platform for the nationalists that would eventually threaten the existence of the United Kingdom. I am sorry to say that that has proved to be the case. Alex Salmond voted against devolution and was against it because he shared the view of the Labour Party that devolution would kill nationalism stone dead. It is true that we were both against the constitutional convention, but for different reasons. The nationalists, of course, proved to be luckier than their judgment. So the Government have taken out “recognised as” and we now come back to what exactly the Government are doing with their political statements. Are these political statements words that are meant to appease the nationalists, but they do not mean what we say they mean? That was a point made in the previous debate.
I say to my noble and learned friend the Minister that we can vote in Committee. We choose not to vote in Committee so that Ministers have an opportunity to listen to the debate and come back with their thoughts and reflections. They might not necessarily come back with thoughts and reflections in line with the representations that have been made. But if Ministers are not prepared at the Dispatch Box to listen to well-argued arguments and instead say at this stage in Committee that they are not prepared to go away and think about it, perhaps we need to start thinking about dividing the Committee. My noble friend the Chief Whip is not in his place, but it is not unreasonable, in return for not seeking to divide the Committee, that Ministers should listen to the arguments and give a clear undertaking that they are prepared to consider them and come back on reflection.
In moving the amendment, I am simply requesting that the Government put back into the clause the words that they themselves thought necessary when they introduced the Bill to the House of Commons, particularly in the light of the vigorous debate we have had and the concerns that have been expressed. Including the words “recognised as” would at least offer some respite to those of us who feel that we may be pulling the wool over the eyes of the electorate with the clause as it stands.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chester told us that it would be absolutely disastrous in Scotland to change the clause. I think it would be even more disastrous to present a fraudulent clause that gives a false impression of the position and could be a source of bitterness in future years. After all, we won the referendum campaign as “Better Together”; we do not want to end up as “bitter together”.
The Lord Bishop of Chester
My Lords, perhaps I may clarify a point. I would not want to introduce a question mark over the commitment to permanence. Perhaps I may try an analogy, although it may not work. When I solemnise the marriage of a couple as a permanent union, I do so because of the significance of that, but knowing full well that future circumstances might make that union untenable. That is the possibility. It is simultaneously true that one is committed to the permanence of something but can recognise that circumstances can change in the future. That is simply the nature of a vow—a word that we have not used this afternoon but has been used in previous debates. A vow is a solemn intention, and the commitment to permanence in the Bill is in a sense a solemn commitment. That is what it is and it is the basis on which it has been included. To withdraw it would simply send the wrong signal. That is not to say that something is then set in stone and Parliament cannot change it; that is clearly not our constitutional arrangement, but it is, as it were, the solemn commitment to the people of Scotland that is enshrined in the use of the word “permanent” in the legislation.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
I am most grateful to the right reverend Prelate, but the vow is something that was dreamed up, as I said at Second Reading, by the editor of a tabloid newspaper, the Daily Record. The party leaders, some of whom are no longer with us as party leaders, who signed up to it were unaware that it would be presented on the front page of that newspaper as a vow. It is the old story. When you complain to an editor about a newspaper story, they always say, “I am terribly sorry. It was the subeditors who wrote the headlines and they did not really read the text”. In this case, that is the status of the vow. I hesitate to intrude on the right reverend Prelate’s territory, but I certainly would not confuse it with the marriage vows, which, in my own case, I took as being absolutely permanent and for life. My worry about the Bill is that this marriage of the United Kingdom is being turned into a system where we appear to be living apart from each other, in houses next door to each other with different regimes operating in those houses, but that is for another day. I beg to move.
Lord Lang of Monkton
My Lords, I rise briefly to support my noble friend Lord Forsyth, who is absolutely right. The fact that the Government had the wording as per his amendment in the original Bill represents what must have been their best thought, after careful preparation, on what should be in the Bill. They have succumbed unnecessarily to pressure in another place and now we are faced, as in a number of other areas in the Bill, with what they must consider second best. I do not think that is good enough for an important Bill of this type, and I urge my noble and learned friend to accept the amendment.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
My Lords, that was an interesting response because, first, my noble and learned friend has underlined, quite rightly, the importance of not having declaratory material in legislation. However, we have just spent the best part of two and a half hours trying to persuade him of that. Secondly, he also made the very sensible point that the whole point of these proceedings is that Governments, legislatures and draftsmen are not infallible, and he took it upon himself to remove that original wording from the original Bill, or at least his colleagues in the House of Commons did.
The Marquess of Lothian
My noble friend is being asked to withdraw the words he is trying to insert because we do not know who is recognising? Subsection (3) of the proposed new section contains the words, “it is declared”. Do we know who is declaring?
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
My noble friend has stolen my thunder. He is absolutely right. The whole point and discussion we have had has been about the nature of the declaratory legislation. Of course, it would have been open to my noble and learned friend if he thought that the effect of my amendment, which after all was originally the Government’s proposal, was that it would create uncertainty, as my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay indicated. He made the point that there are recognitions and declarations being made when it is not clear who is making them.
We could change the amendment. The Minister could bring back an amendment saying that it is recognised by the UK Parliament, or whatever he thought appropriate. However the truth of the matter is that those words were removed for a purpose, and the purpose was to make the subterfuge which is being presented to the Scottish people that somehow this Scottish Parliament has a degree of independence of its own. That is being done for political reasons. I think that they are foolish political reasons because they are creating a false position as to the reality.
Lord Davidson of Glen Clova
I take the point that issues of politics can intrude into questions of drafting, but if the noble Lord looks at Clause 2 he will see that the words—I hope I am not stealing his thunder in this regard—“it is recognised” are also found there. Does he take exception to that?
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
I was not taking exception to anything. I was simply suggesting to the Government that they got it right when they added the words, “it is recognised” to the original Bill, and they got it wrong when they took them out. Fortunately I am not a lawyer, but as a layman, removing the words “it is recognised” indicates that no other party is involved in considering the status of the Parliament.
Lord Norton of Louth
Would my noble friend not wish to call in aid Clause 2 where the Government wish to insert the Sewel convention with the words, “But it is recognised”?
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
That is the same point, and I am trying to get on to Clause 2. I have to say to my noble and learned friend that as ever, and always, I am trying to be helpful to the Government, I thought that perhaps on reflection they might wish to add those words. I hope that the Minister will consider the debate we have had on these matters and perhaps come back with his own wording. The clause, as it stands, is completely unsatisfactory, but I beg leave to withdraw my amendment and give notice that we may return to this at a later stage in the proceedings of the Bill.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
This amendment again relates to an issue that we touched on in our discussion of earlier amendments. The amendment would require that any referendum, as proposed in new Section 63A(3) as inserted by Clause 1, regarding the abolition of the Scottish Parliament, which I must say is highly unlikely, should be a referendum for the whole of the United Kingdom. If there were circumstances where perhaps we had a new Act of Union, or we were establishing a new federal constitution, or—this is hard to imagine—the Scottish Parliament was to be abolished, it would have huge implications for the rest of the United Kingdom.
If there was to be a referendum, it would be, as provided in the Bill,
“on the basis of a decision of the people of Scotland”.
We have had some debate as to who the people of Scotland are and whether Mr Andy Murray is in that category. If there was to be a referendum, I accept that proposals would need to be brought forward for its conduct, but at a later stage in the Bill we give the powers to set the rules and nature of referendums to the Scottish Parliament. Would that apply to this particular referendum? It seems to me that if we were making a huge change, where we were bringing back into the United Kingdom a system of government—perhaps into this Parliament or some other system of government—that that would be a matter for the whole of the United Kingdom, not just the people of Scotland. Therefore, my amendment would simply substitute “Scotland” with “the United Kingdom”. I beg to move.
Lord Empey
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, makes a good point in so far as referenda in one part of the United Kingdom clearly have implications for the others, but there would be fairly significant inconsistency. If we look at the Belfast agreement and its proposals for a referendum in Northern Ireland, it is exclusive to the people of Northern Ireland. If the carry-through from his amendment would be that the people of the rest of the United Kingdom would have to vote in that referendum as well, that would mean that there could be two different outcomes. So clearly there are difficulties.
I fear that we are trying to treat the Smith commission and the political issues swirling around it as if they were a treaty rather than a piece of domestic legislation. That is why we are getting ourselves into difficulty here. This amendment would need to be looked at very carefully because of the inconsistencies that could arise. I accept entirely that additional powers to a devolved region would affect everybody else, but, equally, a referendum regarding sovereign status is a very different thing.
Lord Keen of Elie
I am obliged to noble Lords. I reiterate that the purpose of the Bill is to implement the recommendations in the Smith commission agreement. I noticed that the noble Lord, Lord Smith, has already observed that the terms of the Bill do that. This provision is consistent with the spirit of the agreement. It is also with precedent, if I can put it in that context. The referendum in 1997 over the matter of devolution was a referendum of the people of Scotland. The referendum on independence in 2014 was a referendum of the Scottish people. It is considered appropriate that we should continue with that model. I note that the noble Lord, Lord Empey, pointed out that the Northern Ireland Act 1998 proceeds in a similar vein. So it is consistent and appropriate that, for the purposes of this Bill, any such referendum—the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, himself acknowledges how extremely unlikely it is that that would even be contemplated —should be a referendum of the Scottish people. I therefore urge him to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
I am most grateful, but before my noble and learned friend sits down, could he tell me where in the Smith commission agreement there is a proposal that there should be a referendum of this kind?
Lord Keen of Elie
There is no express reference in the Smith commission agreement to a referendum. As my noble friend is aware, that provision was brought into the Bill in the belief that it would strengthen the political statement contained in Clause 1 with regard to the permanence of the Scottish Parliament.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
I know that the noble Lord has not been following our proceedings so closely, but the point being made here was not about the status of the Scottish Parliament. In our earlier discussions I made the point that I cannot imagine circumstances in which we would want to abolish the Scottish Parliament, but it might be, for example, that the noble Lord’s party’s proposals to create a federal constitution and to have a new Act of Union were implemented. That might mean dissolving or altering the Scottish Parliament as it stood.
I do not like Clause 1 and new subsection (3), which provides for this referendum. I tabled the amendment to make the point that the future of the Scottish Parliament were it to be changed, now that we have gone down this road so far—and will have gone further when the Bill becomes an Act of Parliament—must be a matter for the whole United Kingdom. I cannot conceive of any other circumstances in which that would happen. I suppose that it could be that the nationalists had made such a hash of it that people in Scotland were pleading for the thing to be shut down and then come back. However, there would then be issues for the Welsh, the English and the Irish about the funding, the obligations and other matters that would arise. All this is pretty hypothetical and extreme but it has been put there in order to mislead people about the nature of devolution, which is power devolved from this sovereign Parliament. It is important that the legislation should not seek to mislead people.
“( ) Nothing in this section alters the sovereignty of the United Kingdom Parliament.”
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
My Lords, I hope I will get a bit of a break after this one. Having argued earlier that it was completely inappropriate to use legislation to write political graffiti—which is what the Government are doing—I reluctantly came to the conclusion that we would perhaps be unable to persuade the Government to rub it out. This amendment, therefore, adds some graffiti of my own. It does what I have been saying we should not do, which is to use legislation to make declaratory statements. However, the declaratory statements included in the Bill as it stands are so misleading that it is essential to add this amendment which simply adds, after line 17, the words:
“Nothing in this section alters the sovereignty of the United Kingdom Parliament”.
I have not been counting, but I have heard my noble and learned friend say that so many times. As he has argued that it is necessary to have declaratory statements in the legislation for a political purpose, that there is nothing wrong with it and that there are precedents for it; and as he has said over and again that nothing in this Bill alters the sovereignty of the United Kingdom Parliament, I am looking forward to him accepting the amendment with enthusiasm.
Lord McAvoy
My Lords, is it not the case that the sovereignty of the UK Parliament is already protected by Section 28 of the Scotland Act 1998, which provides that the UK Parliament can always legislate for Scotland?
Lord Tebbit (Con)
My Lords, I have tried to follow this. It is not unduly easy but it would help me greatly if my noble and learned friend, in his reply to the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, could explain where it is set out in the legislation, as a declaratory statement, that nothing in it affects the sovereign power of this Parliament. If he is unable to find that bit, would it not be a good idea to do as my noble friend Lord Forsyth says and put it in?
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
Perhaps I can help my noble and learned friend. Throughout this afternoon, he has argued that it is essential—for political reasons—to put in Clause 1 words that say the Scottish Parliament is permanent. He has argued that we should understand that no Parliament can bind another and that the sovereignty of the UK Parliament remains. All my amendment seeks to do is to add a few words to the clause which give the reassurance that he has been giving to the Committee. I am not a lawyer, but after Pepper v Hart and all that, what is said at the Dispatch Box does actually matter. For him to say that he could not add it to the clause because it would be redundant or that you can find, buried in the previous Scotland Act—
Lord Mackay of Clashfern
It has to be remembered that this Bill is amending the Scotland Act. This provision, which my noble friend Lord Forsyth of Drumlean wants to put in, happens to be there already in Section 28(7). That is my objection. Repetition may be a good idea, for all I know, but it is there already. The point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, about unnecessary legislation might come into this. There does not seem to be much need for it, especially when Clause 1 refers to the other provisions of the Scotland Act, into which this is being embedded.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
I shall give way to my noble and learned friend in a moment. I wish to deal with the points that have been made and what my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay indicated the section said. I have huge respect for him. You always know that the Government are in difficulty when he has to come to their aid. He said that the relevant provision was already in the Bill. However, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, has pointed out, it says nothing of the sort. If this provision was already in the Scotland Act, my noble and learned friend could have said, “In order to make that clear, we will move that provision into this clause in the new Bill”. It is not necessary to duplicate it. The point is that the Scotland Act, as amended by this Bill—if it becomes an Act—will have in it sentences which, to say the least, are very provocative in terms of the continuing powers of sovereignty of this Parliament. Therefore, it is not unreasonable to think that any declaration about the sovereignty of this Parliament should be placed alongside the provision in that section of the Act.
I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, because I thought that what my noble and learned friend said from the Dispatch Box was a little misleading, to say the least.
The Lord Bishop of Chester
My Lords, I think that nothing in this Bill qualifies the ultimate sovereignty of the UK Parliament. My concern about the proposed insertion reflects what I said earlier—namely, that we need to recognise that devolution is changing the way the United Kingdom is governed. It just is. The Scotland Bill, when enacted, will have a major effect in Scotland in ways that I suspect the Scots have not taken on board. The noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, has made this point before. Normally, I agree with what he says. However, we need to face the fact that although devolution will not change the ultimate sovereignty of this Parliament, it does change the character of governance in this country. We need to accept that, go with it and own it, even if we do not like it.
There has been some discussion about whether or not devolution aids the separatist cause. I suspect that if we had not had devolution, and certainly if we did not have this Bill and the Smith commission, there would be much more of a threat to the union than is the case. The cultural forces of separation are much deeper than whether we draft a Bill this way, that way or the other. Although in one sense I am not bothered whether or not this provision is added to the Bill, it is symptomatic of an attitude which does not face the reality of what devolution is all about.
The Marquess of Lothian
My Lords, I put a question to my noble friend Lord Forsyth. Having listened to this argument, does he agree with me that—perhaps I am being oversuspicious—somehow what this clause is about is trying to say to the people of Scotland, “It is all right. This is for ever”, and then saying to this House, “We know that it does not really mean that, because the sovereignty of Parliament means that it might not be for ever in future”? But then my noble friend comes along and says, “Let us put that bit into this provision”. The reason why my noble and learned friend the Minister is resisting it is because that would defeat the purpose of trying to persuade—I think dishonestly—the people of Scotland that the permanence means what it says.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
My noble friend puts it so succinctly. I wish that I had the ability to put it as concisely as he does. I absolutely agree. My noble and learned friend the Minister wanted to intervene. I will happily give way to him if he still wishes to make his point.
Lord Keen of Elie
I apologise to my noble friend Lord Forsyth. I must confess that I was unclear who was intervening on whom. I add to the point made by my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern. As I understand the point he was making—it was one that I had endeavoured to make before, but obviously had not made clearly—it is simply that Clause 1 is amending and introducing Section 28(8) of the Scotland Act 1998. It is necessary to read that in conjunction with Section 28(7) of the Scotland Act 1998, which refers to the ability of this Parliament to legislate in respect of Scotland on all matters. That is a matter to which the noble Lord, Lord McAvoy, alluded earlier as well. That is why the issue of sovereignty—the supremacy of this Parliament—is already contained in the relevant section of the Scotland Act, as it will be amended by this clause of the Bill.
Lord Keen of Elie
I accept that correction from the noble and learned Lord. I believe that Section 63 would be amended under Clause 1. However, essentially, the point is that if you read through the whole of Section 28, subsection (7) of that section makes it absolutely clear that this Parliament remains supreme and sovereign in the matter of legislation for Scotland, whether it be reserved or devolved.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
My Lords, I think this may be a good moment for me to withdraw my amendment. However, before doing so, I gently point out to my noble and learned friend the very wise words of my noble friend the Earl of Lothian.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
The Marquess of Lothian. I am sorry. My noble friend has had so many names that I find it difficult to keep up. If we are to take the Government at their word—I always do, of course—they have said that it is necessary to have in the Bill a piece of declaratory legislation that makes it clear that the Scottish Parliament enjoys permanence, but at the same time the sovereignty of this Parliament remains unaffected, then the two should be put together and put in the Bill. For lawyers to argue that if you read a particular section and interpret it in a particular way, it means something else, simply will not do in the context of a view that it is necessary to write graffiti on legislation. I do not think that the Government should be doing that at all. However, if they are doing it, then what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. I am very disappointed that my optimism has proved confounded, but I will certainly want to return to the matter.
Lord McAvoy
The noble Lord is trying to paint a picture of government intransigence. As the Government’s Official Opposition, as distinct from the unofficial opposition, I suggest that one cannot complain when changes are made in the other place thanks to debate, and the Government see the worthiness of that and accept it, and then complain because they do not accept the noble Lord’s amendment. I think he is painting a totally unfair picture of the Government.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
For a moment, when the noble Lord referred to the Official Opposition and the unofficial opposition, I thought he was referring to the new leader of the Labour Party. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
My Lords, surely the Government can accept this amendment. The Sewel convention, as its name suggests, was a convention established by Lord Sewel during the passage of the first Scotland Bill. The Government are proposing in Clause 2 of the Bill to incorporate the Sewel convention into statute, so that it will have a statutory effect. Therefore, it will cease to be a convention; it will be part of statute. My amendment seeks to remove the words “The Sewel convention” from the Bill, as the Bill seeks to put the Sewel convention on a statutory basis. Henceforth, the Sewel convention will be a section of the consolidated Bill. Surely my noble and learned friend the Minister has been given some discretion in his brief to accept this amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Norton of Louth
My Lords, I signed this amendment, and support it. I want to reinforce what my noble friend Lord Forsyth has said. In a way, this will lead into a much fuller discussion on the next set of amendments looking at the content of the clause. But my noble friend is absolutely right about the heading. Either you have a convention or you have a statutory provision. You cannot have a convention in statute, although that is what the Government are seeking to do. This would remove doubt on that point and I concur completely with what my noble friend has said. We will be coming back to the actual substance in more detail, but I think this is a necessary change to the clause.
Lord Keen of Elie
My Lords, first, there is the question of whether the heading is a matter for the parliamentary draftsmen rather than this House, and that is an issue, in my respectful submission. But let us turn to the substance of the—
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
I did take advice on this. The amendment has been tabled so the amendment is in order, surely.
Lord Keen of Elie
I was going to continue by saying that, the amendment having been tabled, I would look to its substance, which is that the heading should be, “Competence of the Scottish Parliament”. I am reminded of Voltaire’s observation about the Holy Roman Empire, that it was,
“neither holy, nor Roman, nor an empire”.
Clause 2 is not about competence; nor is it about the Scottish Parliament. It restates in statutory terms the procedural convention of the United Kingdom Parliament with respect to its legislation for devolved matters. If we were to have a heading, “Competence of the Scottish Parliament” when in fact we are dealing with a matter that concerns the legislative competence of the United Kingdom Parliament, in my respectful submission, we would not only puzzle historians but confuse everyone else with regard to the content of the relevant clause.
I note what has been said about the present heading. I will reflect upon the observations made about that heading. But given that it is strictly a matter for the draftsmen, I go no further at this time. I hope that my noble friend will see fit to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
My Lords, I am very happy to withdraw it. I am grateful to my noble and learned friend for relieving me of the responsibility for adding to the statute book the words, “Competence of the Scottish Parliament”. But the point remains that it would be ridiculous to put the Sewel convention into statute and to retain a reference to the Sewel convention. If he is saying, as the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, has very helpfully indicated, that in the consolidated Bill the words “the Sewel convention” will disappear from statute and that the Sewel convention will cease to exist as such because it will now be incorporated in statute, I am absolutely delighted. I am happy to withdraw the amendment with that reassurance. Perhaps he could just give us that assurance and then there will be less for him to reflect on.
Lord Keen of Elie
The term “the Sewel convention” will remain in this Act but will not appear in the amended Scotland Act 1998, which is going to be the relevant amended legislation.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
Right, well, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment but give notice that we will return to this at a later stage in the Bill.
The Duke of Montrose (Con)
My Lords, I support my noble friend Lord Lang in what he said. The wording of this clause reflects what I understood that Lord Sewel said in this House at the time of the passing of the Bill. It says that,
“the Parliament of the United Kingdom will not normally legislate with regard to devolved matters”.
When that was said before, I think that all of us here—my noble friend Lord Lang reinforced this—thought that it referred to Schedule 5, non-devolved matters, so that a Sewel Motion would be needed for anything discussed in this House outwith Schedule 5.
I have watched over the years as this matter has gradually crept out. The noble Lord, Lord Stephen, mentioned the various steps along which the Civil Service has progressed in making this convention. It was always a fairly constitutional matter and they were chipping away at what we understood could or could not be discussed. To just leave the wording as it is tells only half the story. We must find out what exactly the convention has developed into and what wording would describe it if we want to have it as either a convention or whatever it is. At least we have it on the Floor of the House now and can begin to look at what it should be.
Having seen the wording when the Bill was published, I asked a Written Question of my noble friend the Minister. I asked,
“how many times the Scottish Parliament has passed a legislative consent motion … regarding matters that were not at that time devolved under Schedule 5 to the Scotland Act … and in each case what reason was given”.
The Minister kindly replied with one example, but I think there must be many more. His example was that,
“section 10 of the Scotland Act 2012 made provision for certain elements in relation to air weapons to be within the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament”,
the argument being that things that were about to be devolved should be subject to a legislative consent Motion. We need to know exactly how far this goes and what its meaning will be.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
My Lords, I will speak briefly to support my noble friend Lord Norton’s remarks and the amendment of my noble friend Lord Lang. I will not go through all the arguments about sovereignty again because we have done them to death. I will also speak to Amendment 17, which for some reason was put in an earlier group. I tabled it as a probing amendment but having listened to the debate I really think my noble friend needs to go back to the drawing board on this. It surely makes sense to put into statute the Sewel convention and then abandon it as a convention, as we discussed earlier. Of course, when we discussed English votes for English laws, I predicted that by giving the Westminster Parliament an English veto on legislation it would be only a matter of time before people argued that there ought to be a Scottish veto, as the noble Lord, Lord Stephen, did in the context of the Sewel convention.
What my noble friend Lord Norton said was very wise. We need to work out what this convention means and we need to put that in the Bill in a way that is apparent. To reassure the noble Lord, Lord McAvoy, who worries about how this will be seen by nationalists north of the border and that some people are trying to refight the battles of 1997, I see no reason why we should not just cut this Gordian knot and leave the Scottish Parliament to legislate on all devolved matters. What happens is that it piggy-backs on legislation that is carried down here and then finds it very convenient to blame Westminster for passing the legislation to which of course it was a party.
This Bill hands a huge new set of powers to the Scottish Parliament, with huge new responsibilities. The whole purpose of the Bill is apparently about making the Parliament accountable to the Scottish people. Well, why not let them get on with passing the legislation necessary to meet their responsibilities? I think that the Sewel convention should be toughened up. It should be made stronger and should basically provide that the Parliament of the United Kingdom will not legislate with regard to devolved matters. It is up to the Scottish Parliament. Why would we wish to do so?
Lord Maxton
I am trying to follow the noble Lord’s arguments carefully but it seems that, even with the new powers that we should be or are giving under this legislation, there will still be matters for instance in transport where we might pass legislation that will affect Scotland. I travel on a train from Euston up to Glasgow every week and back down every Monday. That is partly covered by transport legislation from this House. Is the noble Lord saying that once it crosses the border it should then be covered by legislation for Scotland?
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
Well, devolution was not my idea but that seems to be what it means. You cannot have it both ways. Presumably, if we were bringing in legislation that would affect the noble Lord’s travel across the border there would be the normal consultation process. My argument is: what is wrong with letting the Scottish Parliament get on with passing the necessary legislation? If it is a devolved matter, it is a matter for the Scottish Parliament. Then we do not have a problem with the Sewel convention. Provided we retain the sovereignty of this Parliament, there is nothing whatever to stop us passing legislation in times of emergency, war or whatever else that could apply. In the Bill as presently constituted, this word “normally” is fine for a convention but ridiculous for a statute.
Having argued that this should be set down properly in the Bill, explaining how it will work as a matter of statute and not as a convention, if we were to retain the convention and were looking at what the convention would be that we sought to enshrine in statute, I would say that it is recognised that the Parliament of the United Kingdom will not legislate with regard to devolved matters. It is entirely up to the Scottish Parliament, if it wishes us to legislate, to argue for the contrary.
Of course, the great irony in this—as the noble Lord, Lord Gordon of Strathblane, indicated—is that we are legislating on a monumental scale now in this Bill without the consent of the Scottish Parliament. There is the distinct possibility, as we still do not have the fiscal framework, that the consent of the Scottish Parliament might not be forthcoming and that we might have to do it all over again. So there is a thought.
My noble and learned friend needs to look at these amendments and think about them and come back with a clause in statute that actually defines what the Government believe that the Scottish Parliament and the Westminster Parliament should do with—in the words of the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey—absolute crystal clarity, so that we do not have this business of blaming Westminster any longer for legislation that was covertly supported by the Scottish Parliament. If it has that responsibility, it may very well find, as the Westminster Parliament does, that it has to be discriminatory about what it wants to put on the statute book—and it may very well find that it is no longer able to get away with sitting for a mere one and a half days a week.
Lord Davidson of Glen Clova
My Lords, there has been a widespread and interesting debate on this very important area of legislation. The noble Lord, Lord Norton, said that the debate had been useful to move matters forward, and I respectfully agree. It has provided the Minister with a smorgasbord of possibility.
The noble Lord, Lord Stephen, is correct in identifying the utility in having clarity where the UK Government may or may not have power where legislative consent Motions may come into being. That is quite clear. The alternative that is proposed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, is a carefully laid out analysis of what the actual problem has been and how it may be converted into statute. If one is going down the route of statute rather than maintaining convention in place, this appears a helpful and clear way forward.
The fact that the executive competence of the Scottish Parliament comes into play is a matter that has troubled people from time to time. One example might be the position of Scottish law officers. In Scotland, Ministers are in charge of day-to-day management of prosecution. Some people might think that that was anomalous. In fact, had the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, been here this evening—he is in a more illustrious place—he would recollect saying many years ago that the position of the Scottish law officers in being prosecutors and Ministers was anomalous. Those are the sort of issues that with this approach are clearly put back into the Scottish Parliament to be dealt with by either the Parliament or the Scottish courts.
As for the problems that have arisen when legislative consent Motions have been deployed, they have in fact worked extremely well over 15 years. The notion that in some way they have subverted the sovereignty of the United Kingdom and this Parliament is, I would suggest, somewhat of a chimera. As the Minister has already indicated on a number of occasions, the sovereignty of this Parliament has not been subverted, and is not subverted. So on the notion in the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Lang of Monkton, that sovereignty should be made absolutely clear, on this side of the House we would accept what the Minister has said repeatedly—and we have that before us, if we look at Pepper v Hart—that this Parliament remains sovereign.
On the vexing question of the word “normally”, we support its deletion. We appreciate that the word, despite the helpful guidance from the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, is not easily understood in applying matters of statutory interpretation. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Drumadoon, was a witness and saw the uttering of the legislative consent words, and he very helpfully set out that words can appear without necessarily having the fully considered import that a draftsman might bring to bear. The noble Lord, Lord Empey, made the point very clearly in the context of Northern Ireland. So although it may be thought by some, possibly, that deletion of “normally” is in fact an extension of legislative consent, we on this side would support it. If it is seen as in some way increasing a fetter on Ministers, so be it in order that clarity might be produced.
We oppose Amendment 18 advanced by the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, on the basis that we see that the UK remains the UK. If there is war or a national emergency, the constituent parts of the United Kingdom can be relied on to pull together. We also oppose Amendment 17, proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth of Drumlean, perhaps unsurprisingly. The legislative consent Motion procedure has been successful over 15 years; either of the amendments proposed, setting out the statutory basis of the legislative consent Motion, would resolve the issue but there has not been a debate about this being an unsuccessful mechanism. It has worked not as a way in which to pose the Scottish Government against Her Majesty's Government but, most of the time, has resulted in co-operation, with the Scottish Government bringing issues to Her Majesty’s Government for discussion.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
Has the noble and learned Lord not seen the statements made by senior Ministers in the Scottish Government to the effect that, if they do not get what they want out of the fiscal framework, they will veto the legislation and prevent it coming on to the statute book. I am not sure how, given the importance of this legislation and the background to it, the noble and learned Lord can say that the system is working perfectly well.
Lord Davidson of Glen Clova
The noble Lord will of course be aware that I have seen those statements and have been interested in what they in fact mean. But he will also recollect that we say, from this side of the House, that given the discussion about the fiscal framework and possible use of legislative consent Motions in that regard, we see the co-operation that has taken place between the Scottish Government and Her Majesty's Government in the past as something in which we can repose a good deal of trust that it will continue in relation to this process with the fiscal framework. Our trust may be misplaced, but we conceive otherwise. The noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, cannot see any more than I can into the future, but we are in a position where we repose trust in the process, at least from this side.
In relation to the various amendments before the House, we accept that a number of them are useful. None the less, we oppose Amendments 13 and 18.
Lord Keen of Elie
It merely means that in respect of matters that are English measures, there must be an element of English consent, but I do not accept that that derogates from the sovereignty of this Parliament. In due course, this Parliament might decide to legislate contrary to those provisions.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
While it is true that legislation still requires the consent of both Houses, EVEL gives a group of Members of the House of Commons who are English MPs the ability to veto a provision so that it proceeds no further. I think that is the point that the noble Lord is making.
Lord Keen of Elie
The term “veto”, if you wish to employ it, is there. It means that English measures require the consent of English Members, but it does not derogate from the sovereignty of this Parliament.
Clause 2 delivers paragraph 22 of the Smith agreement which sets out quite clearly that the Sewel convention will be put on a statutory footing. As with Clause 1 on permanence, the Smith commission agreement did not intend that the constitutional position should be changed, but that legislation should accurately reflect the position that already exists and has existed for 15 years.
I shall put this into context. Section 28(7) of the Scotland Act 1998 makes it perfectly clear that this Parliament can legislate in respect of Scotland in all matters, including devolved matters. It preserves the sovereignty of this Parliament.
Lord Keen of Elie
I am obliged to his Grace. That does not, and that is why the convention is expressed as it is in Clause 2. There has been Devolution Guidance Note 10 with regard to how from time to time the convention may operate, but those are working arrangements which may alter from time to time and should not be enshrined in statute. That is not considered appropriate. That is why Clause 2 is in the terms in which it is found—because it reflects paragraph 22 of the Smith commission agreement.
My understanding of why the Sewel convention came to be expressed as it was is that Section 28(7) of the Scotland Act allows this sovereign Parliament to legislate, notwithstanding the terms of the 1998 Act, in respect of all matters pertaining to Scotland. There was, I apprehend, concern that if, for example, in a devolved area of competence, such as education or health, the Scottish Government got into serious difficulty, this Parliament might be open to the criticism that it had done nothing about it, even though it reserved to itself the power to legislate for Scotland on devolved matters in terms of Section 28(7). Therefore, the convention was expressed that normally this Parliament will not legislate for Scotland in devolved areas. That was expressed in those terms in order that this Parliament would not face criticism that it had done nothing as the health or education service in Scotland had deteriorated in the face of legislation from the devolved Parliament. That is the background to the introduction, as I understand it, of the Sewel convention. It works both ways.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
I am most grateful to my noble and learned friend. Does that mean that as the number of passes being achieved by school leavers since I left office back in 1997 has fallen by 20% compared with England, there is still the possibility that we might intervene in the hash that is being made of the education services by the present Government in Scotland? I assumed that the answer to that question would be absolutely not, so what is my noble and learned friend getting at?
Lord Keen of Elie
The point is that in terms of Section 28(7) we in this Parliament could, on the face of it, intervene in such a matter. That was the whole point of the convention: to make it clear that normally we would not do so. I may have misunderstood the intervention of my noble friend Lord Forsyth but, with respect, it seems to me that that is precisely why the Sewel convention was expressed in the terms in which we find it—so that if educational attainment in Scotland was failing we would not be faced with the criticism that the United Kingdom Parliament had done nothing about it because conventionally we would not normally intervene in a devolved matter, but we retain sovereignty and we have the right to do so. That is why the Sewel convention is expressed in the manner in which it is. The intention is not that Clause 2 should give rise to any justiciable issue. It is a political expression of the convention in statutory form. That is why the term “normally” appears within Clause 2. It makes it clear that this is not a justiciable issue. It is quite clear that in terms of the Smith commission agreement the Sewel convention will be expressed in statutory terms. It is there, but whether this Parliament would consider it appropriate to legislate for Scotland in a devolved area, which it can do pursuant to Section 28(7) of the Scotland Act 1998, is a political issue. It would not be for a court to decide what “normally” meant in that context. It would be a political issue. If it could be litigated in court and made justiciable, the question would be: what possible remedy could the court provide other than a political one? That is why it takes us back to the simple proposition that Clause 2, as set out, would not give rise to a justiciable issue. I give way to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
My Lords, before my noble friend withdraws his amendment, can I ask my noble and learned friend a question, as he would not accept an intervention? We are in Committee. I am not a lawyer, but earlier in our discussions I gave the example of where the Scottish Government have fallen down on education in the context of his remarks that we retain the right to pass legislation on education, health or other matters where we feel that they are falling down. I put that forward as a debating point, but in circumstances where a Government, perhaps led by me, decided to do this, it would be outrageous if it was a political decision to intervene on an education matter based on a belief that the Scottish Government —an elected Government—were not doing their job. Therefore, if I were on the other side, leading the Scottish Government, I would go straight to the courts and say, “This word ‘normally’ does not provide for the kind of intervention which is being provided”. I do not understand why my noble and learned friend says that the courts would not take a view of what “normally” meant, and in fact, in this case, if I were the judge I would say, “Actually, ‘normally’ means ‘exceptional’”, but they may take a different view. That is what is causing the concern among the lawyers. However, in common sense terms, to have a word such as “normally” and to argue that there would not be judicial challenge and that, if there was, the courts would just walk away from it, cannot be right. Can my noble and learned friend explain why I am wrong?
Lord Keen of Elie
I do not accept the proposition that my noble friend Lord Forsyth advances. The position is that this Parliament is sovereign; in terms of Section 28(7) of the 1998 Act it may legislate for Scotland in all and any matters, including devolved matters. The Sewel convention simply expresses the view that this Parliament will not normally do so. However, that does not fix some black-line test to be applied by the courts as to what is normal and abnormal; it will be a matter for Parliament going forward to decide if or when it would ever legislate for Scotland in respect of a devolved matter.
Scotland Bill
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean Excerpts(8 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Dunlop
That it be an instruction to the Committee of the Whole House to which the Scotland Bill has been committed that they consider the bill in the following order:
Clauses 1 to 12, Clauses 34 to 41, Schedule 2, Clauses 42 to 64, Clauses 13 to 18, Schedule 1, Clauses 19 to 33, Clauses 65 to 70, Title.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for agreeing to take Parts 1 and 2 of the Bill at the end, but could he give us an assurance that we will have the fiscal framework by the time we get to Parts 1 and 2, as recommend by both the Economic Affairs Committee and the Constitution Committee of this House?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Scotland Office (Lord Dunlop) (Con)
I know that this is a matter of great importance to my noble friend and the whole House. We debated the fiscal framework very fully at Second Reading, and there is nothing further that I can add. However, I can confirm that the relevant parts of the Bill will not be taken in Committee until after the new year, and that gives us space to make progress with the fiscal framework negotiations.
Scotland Bill
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean Excerpts(8 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Dunlop
Fundamentally, I think it was the economic arguments that were decisive in the referendum. When the country is at stake, you want to do everything possible to maximise the no vote. That was what was done.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
Could my noble friend confirm that, according to the article written by the editor of the Daily Record, the vow was all his idea and was put together by Gordon Brown and the editor of the Daily Record as a publicity stunt?
Lord Dunlop
I am not quite clear whether he is saying that it was my idea or Gordon Brown’s. The key point about the vow is that three UK party leaders agreed it.
On the night of the referendum, as I waited for the results to come in, I listened carefully to what my noble friend Lord Forsyth of Drumlean had to say on the BBC’s “Scotland Decides” programme. He cut straight to the chase, as he so often does:
“The three party leaders made a promise—which I think they’ll find very difficult to deliver—but it has to be delivered”.
I agree with him—no one said it would be easy. Indeed, I can safely say to this House in all humility that, today, I am gaining some appreciation of what my noble friend foresaw. This Bill is the fulfilment of that promise. It has to be delivered. Yes, there has been scepticism. Would all parties come to the negotiating table? Would they stay? Would someone walk out before a deal was struck? Could all the milestones be met? For the first time in the history of devolution, all five of Scotland’s main political parties came together, stayed and reached a unique agreement. Every one of the milestones have been met on time.
Here, I want to pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Kelvin. Hot on the heels of leading the fabulous Glasgow Commonwealth Games, he skilfully steered the process to a successful conclusion. We owe him a debt of gratitude. It is good to see him in his place today and back in rude health.
Much has been said about the Smith commission reaching an agreement of such great constitutional significance after only an eight-week process, yet the agreement was the culmination not of an eight-week process but a four-year process which started in 2011 with the election of a majority SNP Government. So the Smith commission agreement did not emerge from a vacuum. It emerged from four years of lively constitutional discussion and debate in Scotland, which was informed by the body of evidence compiled by the Calman commission, and from a discussion punctuated by the publication of numerous reports from Scottish Labour’s devolution committee, the home rule commission chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Pittenweem, and the commission chaired by my noble friend Lord Strathclyde, alongside academic and think tank contributions, such as Reform Scotland’s devo plus and IPPR’s devo more reports. Indeed, I believe the Smith agreement was made possible because common ground had already been established by this body of preceding work.
Delivering the agreement in full is therefore a manifesto commitment of not only the Conservative Party but the Labour Party, the Liberal Democrat party and the Scottish National Party. So this Scotland Bill is not just a manifesto Bill; it is a super-manifesto Bill. Its provisions were agreed in the other place, where the Government listened to the debate, responded to the scrutiny and tabled more than 100 amendments on Report, and where the Bill was passed unopposed at Third Reading.
The Daily Record declares its famous vow met, and Gordon Brown says that the Smith commission recommendations, which arose from the vow, are delivered. The noble Lord, Lord Smith, has confirmed that the Bill honours what was agreed by the five parties. “A promise made is a promise kept” is surely an absolute precondition for earning the trust of the people of Scotland. Ahead of next year’s Scottish Parliament elections, the debate in Scotland is increasingly turning to how the powers are used, as it certainly must.
This Bill is not simply about keeping a promise. It is about bringing a better balance to Scotland’s devolution settlement and strengthening the union as a result. The Scottish Parliament was created with extensive spending powers—its budget today is around £30 billion— but little responsibility for raising the funds it wants to spend. The result is a fiscal gap and an accountability deficit. Before the Scotland Act 2012 is fully implemented, the Scottish Parliament controls almost 60% of public expenditure in Scotland yet is responsible for raising only some 10% of its funding. Once this Bill comes into effect, the Scottish Parliament will be responsible for raising more than 50% of what it spends. Holyrood will be transformed from a pocket-money Parliament, reliant on an annual cheque from the Treasury, to the powerhouse Parliament the people of Scotland want it to be. If the Scottish Government want a higher level of public services than the rest of the UK, they will have first to explain to voters in Scotland how they intend to pay for them.
Of course, some argue this Bill does not go far enough, yet it will make the Scottish Parliament one of the most powerful devolved Parliaments in the world. No amount of devolution is going to be sufficient for those who believe in independence, but a majority of people in Scotland rejected independence and voted to retain the benefits of being part of the UK: the security of our own shared independent currency, backed by the strength and stability of the Bank of England; the job and business opportunities of a deeply integrated single market; our social union, in which risks and resources are pooled; and common defence and security in an uncertain world. Indeed, I am delighted that Scotland is to be home to the new maritime patrol aircraft and another squadron of Typhoon fast-jets. These are the UK benefits that the Smith agreement and this Bill are careful to protect. We have heard a great deal about full fiscal autonomy. I will be clear: full fiscal autonomy ends the pooling and sharing of risks and resources across the UK. It would be bad for Scotland and bad for the UK as a whole, and that is why we rejected it.
I turn to the provisions of the Bill itself. Part 1 takes forward the Smith agreement that the permanence of the Scottish Parliament and Scottish Government be set out in UK legislation, and that the Sewel convention be put on a statutory footing. This reflects the existing political understanding and does not alter the principle of parliamentary sovereignty. The Scottish Parliament will be very largely responsible for how it runs itself, how it is elected and the people who can vote to elect it. Part 2 covers taxation. Maintaining the integrity of our single market and minimising business burdens means that not all taxes are candidates for devolution. Central to the debate is the devolution of income tax on earnings, building on the Scotland Act 2012 tax devolution, which comes into effect in April, and providing the Scottish Parliament with £11 billion of revenues. Income tax is paid by voters and is highly visible; whoever levies it is accountable to those paying it in the most direct way. While the definition of income remains reserved, the Scottish Parliament will have full control over rates and bands of income tax. It will be able to set a 0% rate, if it can afford to do so.
However, the Smith commission agreed that national insurance contributions should be reserved, so Scottish taxpayers will continue to help fund UK-wide services. Alongside income tax devolution sits VAT assignment. Differential VAT rates inside a member state are against EU law. This Bill assigns half of all VAT receipts raised in Scotland: £4.5 billion of revenue. Assigning a share of VAT was first suggested by the Calman commission. The more the Scottish economy grows, the greater the share of VAT revenue Holyrood will keep. That is an incentive to achieve growth. With the devolution of location-specific air passenger duty and the aggregates levy, the Scottish Parliament will have a mix of taxes and vitally important decisions to make.
Part 3 of the Bill means that the Scottish Government will be responsible for welfare provision in Scotland, worth approximately £2.7 billion last year, and able to take decisions for a number of types of social security benefit, discretionary payments, and employment support. Universal credit and its legacy benefits, such as pensions, remain reserved, although Scottish Ministers will be able to vary certain limited aspects. Devolving labour market benefits would undermine their role as automatic stabilisers and potentially put undue pressure on Scotland’s finances in the event of a localised economic shock. What the Bill does devolve are benefits strongly linked to powers already exercised by Scotland, such as social care and health. The Scottish Parliament will have responsibility for benefits to meet extra costs paid to carers, disabled people, those who are ill, and those who require help with winter fuel, funeral, and maternity payments. When people most require help, the Scottish Government will be able to tailor that help to particular Scottish circumstances.
The Smith agreement was also of the view that the Scottish Government should be able to top up reserved benefits: the Bill allows this to happen. On Report, the Commons approved a new government clause enabling the Scottish Parliament to create new benefits in devolved areas of responsibility. We must be clear about these new welfare powers. If the Scottish Government wish to make supplementary payments to people in receipt of a state pension or universal credit, for example, or create new benefits in devolved areas, they should be able to do so. However, crucially, they must be able to pay for it from their own revenues.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
I am sorry to interrupt again, but can my noble friend explain what the second no-detriment principle contained in the Smith commission report means—the idea that both sides, north and south of the border, should compensate each other for changes in policy—and how that relates to the welfare and other provisions in the Bill?
Lord Dunlop
I shall come on to speak about the fiscal framework. The Government of Scotland and the UK Government are negotiating the fiscal framework and exactly how we put those principles, including the no-detriment principles, into practice. I will come back to that.
The Bill also enables the devolution of many other responsibilities, from the management of the Crown Estate’s economic assets in Scotland to the management and operation of reserved tribunals. The Commons also agreed the devolution of abortion policy, which the Smith agreement concluded was an anomalous reservation. There are also significant measures relating to transport and energy.
I want to say something about the fiscal framework, to which my noble friend has alluded, the importance of which is rightly recognised by many of your Lordships. I am particularly grateful for the work done on this by the Economic Affairs Committee. The Government agree with the committee that the relationship between the fiscal framework and the legislative powers in the Bill is critical. It underpins the transfer of tax and welfare powers to Holyrood. The issues raised by the committee’s report are exactly those being addressed in the detailed negotiations between the UK and Scottish Governments. Both Governments have agreed not to provide a running commentary—negotiating in public is not conducive to reaching an agreement.
We are committed to reaching an agreement as soon as we can after tomorrow’s spending review and the draft Scottish budget on 16 December. We cannot guarantee when the negotiations will end—that is not in our gift—and to try unilaterally to set a specific date risks weakening our negotiating position. I hope the House will understand both Governments need time and space to reach an agreement that is right for Scotland and the UK as a whole and is built to last.
Lord McAvoy
Once again, the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth of Drumlean, shouts encouragement to me. The facts of life are that we are in a very complicated situation. It would be foolish for anyone—me, my noble friend Lord Reid of Cardowan, or even, dare I say, the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth of Drumlean—to make specific, hard-line declarations of what is to be expected, when it should happen and what we do if it does not happen.
I believe that there is good faith—I have no reason to think otherwise—in the discussions between the United Kingdom Government and the Scottish Government. Your Lordships’ House should remember that the onus is on the UK Government to come up with a negotiated deal but the onus is also on the Scottish Government to come up with a deal. The people of Scotland voted to stay in the United Kingdom—not unanimously but there was a lot of support for the vote—so there are strictures awaiting anyone who plays games with these very important negotiations. It is not often I say this but I believe we have to trust the Government and the Scottish Government to deliver for the Scottish people.
The Labour Party supported many of the amendments that the Government brought forward in the other place, not least because the concessions had been debated thoroughly. However, that was not true for all the amendments, particularly those concerning the devolution of abortion law. I put on record that our concern is not about the issue of abortion—as we all know, that is different from constitutional matters—but about process. We will be calling for extensive consultation with relevant groups and representatives in Scotland to see what support there is for this proposal. This is not a reflection on the Scottish Government; this is about following the advice of the Smith commission.
Beyond these issues, we will be keen to debate a number of the transport provisions, most notably those surrounding the British Transport Police. Clause 43 follows the recommendation of the Smith commission that the functions of the British Transport Police should be devolved; but not to abolish them, which is what is being proposed by the Scottish Government, who want to transfer the existing functions of the British Transport Police to Police Scotland—more centralisation. This news has been met with strong criticism from trade unions and British Transport Police itself. This is something that we will explore in Committee.
We also intend to extend the Scottish Government’s capacity to bring about equality, particularly in relation to the functions of Scottish and cross-border authorities. That means increasing the accountability of the Equality and Human Rights Commission to the Scottish Parliament. This House has an excellent record of bringing about greater levels of equality in public life.
The final point to make on specific areas of the Bill that we hope to improve is about the Crown Estate, which again will be the subject of much debate in Committee. Although we are largely supportive of the measures the Government have brought forward, we seek clarification on a number of issues, which we will do in Committee. There are issues that need to be examined.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
I am most grateful to the noble Lord—I can tell he is reaching the end of his remarks. Could he have a go, on behalf of the Official Opposition, at explaining to us how the second no-detriment principle will work?
Lord McAvoy
Your Lordships’ House should be aware that I was sitting here a few minutes ago, before I started, wishing that the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth of Drumlean, would ask that question. The noble Lord was a driving force in imposing the poll tax in Scotland, which was certainly to the detriment of Scotland. He did not give any consideration to the detriment to his country then. I am really glad that the noble Lord asked that question.
Lord McAvoy
The answer is that we will not support anything that we know is detrimental to our nation—unlike the noble Lord during the poll tax debacle.
The passage of the Bill through your Lordships’ House was always going to strike a different tone from its passage in the other place—the noble Lord has confirmed that—for a variety of reasons that I mentioned during the start of my speech. However, the concessions made on Report and the acceptance of amendments from Labour and other opposition parties has meant that the Bill, as drafted, delivers the vow in full. That has to be stated time and time again.
Your Lordships’ House has a genuine opportunity to focus on the detail of the Bill and to ensure that it meets the standards that the Scottish people deserve. This is what your Lordships’ House does best, and I caution those on the outside who snigger at or demonise the work that we can do in this Chamber, with insults such as “unelected cronies” and all the rest of it. As we set out to engage in a thorough, detailed and thoughtful debate, which has at its core the very best interests of the Scottish people, I am sure your Lordships’ House will live up to that. I am proud of a lot of what the House of Lords can achieve through the scrutiny and revision of legislation. I am also a proud Scot. Whatever people may say, these two facts are not contradictory.
The Bill is a real opportunity to provide a stable, durable devolution settlement and gives the Parliament the capacity to create a fairer, more prosperous Scotland. Once it has finished its passage through your Lordships’ House, we must turn our attention to ensuring that all these new powers are devolved and, crucially, to how they can be used. In the mean time, as always, there is more that can be done. We support the Bill.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
My Lords, nothing I said takes away from what I said at the outset: that it is very desirable that we see the fiscal framework. The Government should take from all sides of the House that there has been a view to that effect. While I think it is nonsense to expect the Government to reveal their negotiating hand in this debate, it is not unreasonable to ask, perhaps, for more transparency to show that progress is being made, and for the Government to enunciate some principles as to what they wish to see in the fiscal framework.
For example, one hopes that the Government’s negotiating stance is to seek fairness on all sides—for Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom. Their role is to take in the whole of the United Kingdom, not just the rest of the United Kingdom. The no-detriment principle should be at the point of devolution: that there is no detriment one way or the other when a particular tax is devolved. There should be a form of indexation—I do not underestimate the difficulties, but it should be one which in itself is neutral, with an automatic mechanism to avoid an annual row.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
Does not the noble and learned Lord think that there is a great irony that the Scottish nationalists are arguing that it is essential for the Scottish Parliament to be able to consider the Bill alongside the fiscal framework, in order to ensure the best interests of Scotland, when this is a Bill that will affect every part of the United Kingdom and the House of Commons has not had an opportunity to do what the nationalists are saying is essential, and quite rightly so, in a Scottish context?
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
My Lords, I am not sure what, if anything, was said in the House of Commons about the lack of the fiscal framework when the Bill was being debated there—in fairness, I am sure that it was discussed—but what I have said is that the Government should be seeking to negotiate for the whole of the United Kingdom: there should be fairness all round with regard to this.
Crucially, we should make it very clear that Scotland should bear the full fiscal consequences of its own decisions. There has been some suggestion somewhere that there has been a bit of “cake and eat it”: that somehow or other, if things go wrong, Westminster will top it up. There are those of us who believe that the important rationale for more tax powers is accountability, but that goes out the window unless—for better or worse—the Scottish Parliament accepts responsibility and accountability for the consequences of its decisions.
In conclusion, the important thing that many of us want is to get on and use the powers. From next April, there will be the Scottish rate of income tax. We look forward, once this Bill is implemented, to more than £15 billion-worth of tax powers and £3 billion-worth of welfare.
Lord Smith of Kelvin
What actually happened was that he signed up to every single word in that agreement. Immediately afterwards, as a lifelong nationalist, he said that he would always want much greater powers—and, indeed, independence. That was probably what he was going to say when he entered in—but they did not leave the table, and they signed up to every word in the agreement.
The agreement was published on 27 November and it was and is a political agreement. Then it had to be turned into law and, very importantly, in the months that followed, a commitment to implement the agreement was set out in the 2015 general election manifestos of the Conservative, Labour, Liberal Democrat and Scottish National parties. At the same time, teams of civil servants were busy translating the agreement into a Bill.
That leads me to my second point: does the Bill match the agreement? I believe that the Bill that we have before us honours the agreement among the five parties. Both the House of Commons and the House of Lords will have an important role to play in making sure that the Bill makes for good law, but I am also sure that this House will reflect very carefully before making any substantial changes to the Bill that would result in it differing significantly from the agreement.
I turn to my last substantive point: the issues that remain outstanding. Not all the agreement requires legislation. One crucially important part remains outstanding, as we have been hearing time and again: a new fiscal framework for Scotland. This is fundamentally important to making Scotland’s new powers work. It is the final piece of the interlocking jigsaw. As we have heard, it is not yet agreed and is being discussed between Governments. I am told by Ministers on both sides—I am taking a healthy interest in this—that conversations have been constructive and carried out in good spirit. I expect that to continue and to deliver an outcome in line with the principles set out in the agreement. It is vital that they do. I know that noble Lords and the Scottish Parliament will have views on how the Bill and fiscal framework should proceed. In my view, it is an issue to be discussed and agreed between both Governments, so I shall defer any questions on the parliamentary handling of this issue, at any rate, to the Government Front Bench.
That leads me to the final issue that I want to raise under the heading of unfinished business: the working relationship between a Scottish and UK Government.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
I am most grateful to the noble Lord, but before he moves on to that point, could he explain how he sees the second no-detriment principle operating, as the author of that idea?
Lord Smith of Kelvin
The principle is very simple. We established the principle that there should be two areas where there should not be detriment. In the second area, as I am sure the noble Lord is aware from his time working on budgets for Scotland, there is a very complex calculation even now, without these new powers, under the Barnett formula, whereby averages and so on are looked at. The noble Lord, Lord Hollick, expertly explained that it will be even more complicated in future. We arrived at a principle whereby, when taxes are raised, the money is kept and is available and, when taxes are reduced, the money comes off the block grant. There should be no change between the two countries aside from that. It is very complicated indeed, but it is rather like the Schleswig-Holstein question. I am not saying that no one remembers the answer to it, but it is that complicated. May I leave it at that? The noble Lord could perhaps ask future speakers as well.
The Bill is important to Scotland and to the rest of the UK. I think noble Lords will agree that it is one of the most important we are going to see in this Parliament.
To return to the point I was making before the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, intervened, in my view, relations between the UK and the Scottish Government are not good enough right now. We need to see greater respect from each Government to the other in public and in private. The agreement reached with the Scottish parties, and subsequently tested with the electorate across the UK, demonstrated a clear intent. I believe the Bill honours that intent and I hope noble Lords can work to support its progress, improving it where necessary, to deliver that intent into law.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
My Lords, I am delighted to take part in this important debate. For me, it is reaching the destination of a journey which started more than 16 years ago. I will explain further why my perspective on this Bill is slightly different from that of any other Member of this Chamber. I view it through the prism of having been a Member of the Scottish Parliament since 1999, a stalwart supporter of the union who fought with Better Together to reject independence, and a member of the Smith commission on which it was a great privilege to serve. It was a commission set up by the Prime Minister after the referendum to respond to a universal demand to broaden the powers of the Scottish Parliament.
This Bill is two things. It is a pragmatic response to a Scottish Parliament with power to spend money but with very little responsibility for raising it. It is also, very importantly, a political response to a manifest and tangible sentiment in Scotland which emerged during the referendum campaign from people who, although uneasy about independence, did not support the status quo and wanted a parliament with greater political responsibility.
To put this into some kind of context, when I was elected to the Scottish Parliament in 1999, I was not among those who thought it was the first stage of a journey to hell in a handcart. Nor did I share the views of those at the other end of the spectrum who, even then, flirted with full fiscal autonomy and greater spending flexibility. After several years of devolution, I recognised that the structure was flawed. The fault lines were prised open in 2007 when an SNP administration took office. Admittedly, it was constrained by being a minority administration, but that was a temporary abeyance. That period of political indigestion paved the way for the Calman commission to which some noble Lords have already referred. Its recommendations induced the Scotland Act 2012—a cautious, not extensive increase of powers.
In 2011, the election of the SNP to the Scottish Parliament with an overall majority introduced a completely new political dynamic in Scotland. Among other things, the SNP embarked on an almost daily, relentless gripe about the inadequacy of resources given to Scotland. It also possessed a clear mandate to hold a referendum on independence. However, something else was happening. There was a growing awareness among Scottish voters that things needed to change. For example, many were aware that, while welfare was interlinked with the devolved competencies of health, housing, local government, skills and training, welfare itself was reserved to Westminster. It was such inconsistencies that the SNP relentlessly exploited. There was a vacuum of any meaningful political responsibility in the Scottish Parliament, whereby the SNP could constantly criticise lack of resources and yet have responsibility for raising only a fraction of them.
Some have argued that the Bill before us was a panic reaction to a highly charged referendum debate. In fact, the deficiencies, frailties and inconsistencies of the devolution settlement were laid bare by the referendum debate. This Bill is a pragmatic response to that reality. At the heart of this is also an issue of political trust with the people of Scotland. Prior to the referendum, voters were demanding clarity from the individual political parties in Scotland—clarity about a commitment to extend the powers of the Scottish Parliament if Scotland voted no. That led to the collective undertaking by David Cameron, Ed Miliband and Nick Clegg—to which some noble Lords have already referred—to honour that commitment within a timescale. The first part of that commitment was the Smith commission, so ably chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Kelvin.
The Smith agreement is the genesis of this Bill, which has been passed by the House of Commons, was not opposed by the SNP and has received the approbation of Lord Smith himself. It is far-reaching and exciting legislation that delivers the Smith agreement. As a pragmatic and political response, it does what it says on the tin. In anticipation of these real political responsibilities, parties in Scotland are already drafting manifestos for the elections next May.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
My noble friend served admirably on the Smith commission. Can she explain to us how the second no-detriment principle will work?
Baroness Goldie
The noble Lion, my noble friend Lord Forsyth of Drumlean, may, with the passage of time, have lost a fang or two, but I have learnt that whenever the matter of devolution and the Scottish Parliament comes before him, his demeanour is more predatory than benign. I could not improve on the answer given to him by the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Kelvin.
Regarding the Economic Affairs Committee’s report advocating a delay in enacting the Bill, I have very real political concern because I have to look at all this through a political eye. Were such a delay to be a possibility, Nicola Sturgeon would be cracking open the champagne and thinking all her Christmases had come at once, because such a delay would write the script for her. I can hear the words tripping off her lips: “deception”, “betrayal”, “bad faith”, “broken trust” and “Westminster is a bunch of scheming ferrets”.
This Bill must be enacted. Were it not, the political breach of trust and the betrayal of commitments to Scottish voters would be unacceptable. However, the Economic Affairs Committee is absolutely right to identify that the fiscal framework consequential on the Bill is of huge importance. The Smith commission recognised that, as it did the need to retain the Barnett formula. As has been indicated, constructive discussions are ongoing between the two Governments about how the formula should be adjusted to reflect the changing circumstances consequential upon the Bill. That is not a reason for delaying the Bill; it is a reason for the intergovernmental discussions arriving at a stable and flexible solution that can withstand financial shocks.
The committee is right to identify these challenges, but the fiscal framework is a modus operandi for the two Governments to agree. As a member of the Smith commission, I was privileged to play a part in the genesis of the Bill; as a Member of the Scottish Parliament, I know Scotland needs this Bill; and as a proud Scot, I look to Westminster to deliver this Bill.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, and I am sure we can all agree that we are against detriment.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hollick, who chairs the Economic Affairs Committee, of which I am a member, for the brilliant way in which he introduced the substance of our report. It is a high-powered committee, very diverse in its nature, but we had no disagreements or arguments: the report is absolutely unanimous. It was described by one journalist in Scotland as delivering the political equivalent of a Glasgow kiss to the Government; he clearly does not understand that we are much more civilised in this House, but I am sure that my noble friend can feel the pain from some of the report’s recommendations. It is a double whammy, because the other great committee of this House, the Constitution Committee, has independently come out with exactly the same conclusion: that we should not proceed with the Bill without the fiscal framework.
This has been a very interesting debate. It is a great pleasure to have heard the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell. I have a lot of sympathy with his view that what we need is a new Act of Union which is well thought through and not based on a ragbag of conclusions. There was no greater joy in heaven than to hear the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, confess that perhaps devolution on a piecemeal basis had not quite worked out as he expected. I must say that I thought it would be a disaster, but I never expected that it would reduce the Labour Party to only one MP in Scotland. We were told that no party would have a majority. We were told that they had devised a scheme which would save the union and kill nationalism stone dead. I will not venture down an analysis of how well that has worked out.
I was disappointed to hear that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, managed to steal the mother of the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, from the Conservative Party, but I take comfort in the fact that his mother-in-law and his father-in-law, the very distinguished General Urquhart, were both stalwarts of my local branch when I was the Member of Parliament for Stirling.
I know that it is difficult to keep up with all the reports produced in this House, or sometimes even just to read the summary, but if your Lordships cannot bring yourselves to read the report of the Economic Affairs Committee, all you need to do is look at the title: A Fracturing Union? The Implications of Financial Devolution to Scotland. If you can get to the last paragraph of the first section, entitled “Executive summary”, it says all you need to know. You can forget what the members of the committee had to say. Under the heading “Huge risks to the union?”, it says:
“A number of witnesses expressed concern that overlooking the problems identified above is storing up trouble for the future, even threatening the existence of the Union. Professor David Heald, Professor of Accountancy, University of Aberdeen Business School, described the political climate around these issues as ‘toxic … the future of the United Kingdom remains at risk’”.
Professor John Kay, whom we all know as having three brains—it does not say that in the report, by the way— and who is the visiting professor of economics at the London School of Economics, thought that Scotland would drift towards independence,
“because it is the only way to resolve these problems”.
So there is a special responsibility on this House, on this Parliament, to seek to resolve those problems.
Here we have the Scotland Bill, all gleaming and new. The noble Baroness, Lady Liddell, the former Secretary of State for Scotland, knows of the complexities of the Barnett formula, and all the rest. In a fantastic speech, she said that she was the daughter of a bus driver and talked about the failure of education in Scotland—not least, actually, caused by the Labour Party’s refusal to embrace our education reforms in Scotland. I have to balance my remarks because I would not want to damage the noble Baroness by praising her too highly. During her excellent speech, I was reflecting that my father sold second-hand cars.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
Yes, and I am proud of that, just as the noble Baroness is proud of her origins. My mother used to polish the cars so that they were gleaming in the sunlight, in the hope that someone would come in to buy them.
So we have the Bill: all beautifully presented and put together. I do not think that my father would have got very far if he had tried to sell a car by saying, “I am terribly sorry, you can’t look at the engine. I can’t tell you about the gearbox. In fact, there might not be an engine—actually, it is confidential. But once you’ve bought the car, we can tell you whether the engine works, whether the gearbox works and whether the software works”. That is what we are being asked to do on the Bill: “We can’t possibly tell you about the fiscal framework”, which is the guts of the Bill, “because it is confidential. We are discussing it with the SNP. By the way, we are getting on very well; we have a long record of getting on very well with them”.
I thought that my noble friend Lord Dunlop had given me an assurance, in a private meeting back in the early part of the summer, that the Bill would not be introduced to this House without the fiscal framework. However, because I know the ways of the Civil Service, and of the Treasury and Governments, I thought that I would table a Written Question. I tabled it on 9 July—remember July? It was a long time ago. I asked Her Majesty’s Government,
“when they plan to publish the new fiscal framework agreed with the Scottish Government”.
The Answer I got was:
“The Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury and the Deputy First Minister met on 8 June where they agreed that they would aim to conclude negotiations on the fiscal framework that will underpin the financial provisions of the Scotland Bill by the autumn, in tandem to the timetable for the Bill”.
I thought that Answer was not quite consistent with what I thought my noble friend Lord Dunlop had said, so I put down another Question. I asked,
“whether they plan to take any stages of the Scotland Bill in the House of Lords before the fiscal framework has been agreed and published”.
The Answer I got on 22 July was:
“The Government intends to progress the negotiations on the fiscal framework in parallel with the Scotland Bill. At their meeting on 7 July, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury and the Deputy First Minister re-affirmed their aim to conclude negotiations on the fiscal framework by the autumn”.
Now is the winter of our discontent not made glorious summer by my noble friend. When I was in school, “in parallel” meant “alongside each other”. How can it be “in parallel” with the House of Commons when the Bill has left that House? In his speech, my noble friend said that the Bill was unopposed at Third Reading. Third Reading in the other place took all of 10 minutes, with the fiscal framework not known.
Of course, I understand the political difficulties that afflict my noble friend and the Government. We have heard a great deal about this amazing vow. I do not normally recommend the Daily Record for reading, but I recommend looking at its report on the anniversary of the vow on 17 September, where the editor says that it was all his idea. It was invented by him: he rang up Gordon Brown and said, “Gordon, can you get the other party leaders to do this and we will put it on the front page?”. Indeed, the description of the vow was not that of the party leaders but invented by a tabloid journalist. Noble Lords can imagine my astonishment on hearing this when we got evidence to our committee from a distinguished academic who told me that the vow was the nearest thing we had in Scotland to Magna Carta. So there we have it: the Daily Record is better than Magna Carta.
If we look at this vow—this vow which is of such importance—it contains the sentence:
“And because of the continuation of the Barnett allocation for resources and the powers of the Scottish Parliament to raise revenue, we can state categorically that the final say on how much is spent on the NHS will be a matter for the Scottish Parliament”.
That is what it said when it was signed by David Cameron, who is still a leader, Ed Miliband and Nick Clegg—both of whom have since disappeared, leaving us to sort out the problem. It is illiterate and completely wrong. How can you say that spending on the health service would be “protected” because of the Barnett formula and the tax-raising powers? The whole point about the Barnett formula is that the amount of money that goes to Scotland for health is determined by what is decided in England. That is why the report of the Economic Affairs Committee is right to emphasise that we need to move away from Barnett towards a needs-based system if Scotland is to get the share of grant that represents its needs. The whole thing—this clash between the Barnett formula and the impact of the tax-raising powers—is based on something put together by a tabloid journalist.
We then had the argument that we cannot delay the Bill and need to get on with it. This has been the problem all along. I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Smith, the Smith commission and the work that he did on it. However, I cannot think of any time in our history—perhaps we could go back to Henry VIII—when three privy counsellors could sit down and agree something that then had the force of law. Normally, Governments—the Executive—have to go to Parliament: it is a matter for Parliament, not Governments, to decide the fiscal framework. The only part of our parliamentary process in these islands now that seems to understand that—irony of irony—is the Scottish nationalists, who are saying, “We want to see the fiscal framework and the Bill. We are only prepared to consider them together and if we don’t think it works in a fair way, we will reject it”. It is a situation that has been denied to the House of Commons.
I would like to pick up the noble Lord, Lord Smith, on one point. In his foreward to the Smith commission report—there is a picture of him on the front—he says, under “A more autonomous Parliament”:
“The Scottish Parliament will be made permanent in UK legislation and given powers over how it is elected and run … The Parliament will also have the power to extend the vote to 16 and 17 year olds—”
So it goes on, using “will”. I am sorry, but it should perhaps say “should” or “we recommend that it might”. Whether or not it does is a matter for this Parliament—not for the Smith commission or the Government, but for Parliament. It is right that Parliament should have the opportunity to look at it.
I will make one final comment, because I realise that I am over my time. By the way, that is another disgrace: for us to be limited to six minutes on a major constitutional change is quite ridiculous.
Lord McAvoy
Before he sits down, could the noble Lord perhaps give us his understanding of no detriment?
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
God bless the man: I have an excuse to speak for another six minutes. First, all the evidence that we had from our witnesses—it is all on the internet; people can read it and it is available in the Printed Paper Office—is that no detriment is completely unworkable. The report says that if on either side of the border, a change of policy results in a change in the money available to either side, the other side should compensate it. I will give an example. When I was Secretary of State, they privatised water in England. In Scotland, my noble friend Lord Lang decided that we were in enough trouble; he did not privatise water. As a result, of course, Scotland no longer got the Barnett consequences of the public expenditure on water in England, because it was charged, and we had to find from within the Scottish block the money to pay for water.
My understanding of the no-detriment principle, if it means what it says on paper, is that in similar circumstances under the new arrangements, if in England they decided to privatise or stop doing something and that resulted in a lesser grant to Scotland through the part related to the Barnett formula, then England would have to send Scotland a cheque. That seems to be rather unworkable. The idea that because England, say, had privatised water, it should send a cheque to the Scots to enable them to continue with a state-run, inefficient system, does not seem to be practical politics. I might have got this completely wrong, but every time I ask the Minister or the author or its exponents what it means, they say, “This is a matter for negotiation and we cannot possibly comment, because it has all been done on a secret basis”. It is just not acceptable to proceed beyond Committee until we have answers to this and many other questions that I will seek to elucidate for my noble friend by tabling lots of amendments.
Lord Selkirk of Douglas (Con)
My Lords, it is a very great pleasure to congratulate my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering. Her speech was excellent and we look forward to very many more. She and I have both been advocates at the Scots Bar, but unlike many parliamentarians she has been both an MEP and an MP. Our training as advocates helps us to think straight—I like to hope so, at any rate. She will find this House full of dedication and good humour and—usually—engaging in the pursuit of excellence. I wish her every success and happiness here in the years to come. I also congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Pittenweem, on a characteristically memorable speech. It seems like only yesterday that I was his junior counsel in a thoroughly traumatic and tragic murder case. We are extremely glad to see him here and welcome his great experience, including as chancellor of St Andrews University, and his substantial expertise. His point about Scotland’s security will be an important marker in a debate which looks as if it will continue for a long time.
It will come as no surprise that I support the Bill and wish the Minister success with it. I do not think this House should try to halt its progress, as recommended by the Economic Affairs Committee. I fully appreciate the importance of the United Kingdom and Scottish Governments agreeing on a fair and workable fiscal framework in which to embed the new financial arrangements, but it should surely not prove beyond the wit of man and woman to reach such an agreement in the near future without any intervention from this House which would be both misinterpreted and badly received. When he winds up, it would be helpful if the Minister informed the House of his willingness to update it on the negotiations between the Treasury and the Scottish Government. I have a past interest in the first Scottish Parliament, since I served two terms as an MSP. I remember the excitement, enthusiasm and optimism of the opening day, which included a fly-past by Concorde and the Red Arrows.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
Does my noble friend really mean that he would like to see the Bill pass out of this Parliament, even if we have not got the fiscal framework and even if that resulted in Scotland being greatly disadvantaged?
Lord Selkirk of Douglas
My noble friend misunderstands the purpose of what I was saying. It would of course be 100% better if we had the fiscal framework before us. I hope the Minister will assure us that he will report back to the House on the progress of his discussions with the Scottish Government, because that is very important. However, if a Bill went through this Parliament on a subject which came under the devolved powers of the Scottish Parliament and that Parliament found it wholly unacceptable, it would not be implemented. I am not too concerned about the Minister asking for more time. He should be given the benefit of the doubt and supported. I hope he will come back with an agreement and that his confidence has not been misplaced.
I served as a member of the Calman commission which first reviewed the progress of devolution in the UK. It reported in 2009 and proposed an increase in the Parliament’s powers that is just beginning to come into force. We now have a Scotland Bill before us which gives extensive new powers to Holyrood promised in the famous vow. It is worth stressing that the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Kelvin, who chaired the all-party commission, is on record as stating that he believes that the promises in the vow have been met by the legislation proposed so far, as does Gordon Brown, who intervened so passionately during the referendum campaign. I very much hope that the new powers over setting a Scottish income tax and welfare spending will be available by 2017. This will mean that all parties in Scotland will have to publish their tax and spending plans in their manifestos for the election next May. For the very first time there should be no hiding place, especially for those who have taken refuge for years in simply blaming the United Kingdom Government for every financial problem. Accountability and transparency will be greatly enhanced and it is to be hoped that, instead of arguing endlessly about process, all Scotland’s politicians will have to convince the voters of the benefits of their policies.
One of the SNP’s former top advisers recently declared, in a powerful critique, that the economic plan for independence which it put forward last year is “broken beyond repair”, and that the Scottish Government currently have no credible alternative to Tory financial plans. For their part, however, unionists must not appear grudging and disgruntled at the progress of events since September 2014. There have been more than enough predictions of doom and gloom. Instead, I welcome the reality that the Scottish electorate will soon have the opportunity to make very important decisions about the kind of Scotland in which they wish to work, live and care for their families. I hope they will conclude that this legislation offers them a constitutional framework within which they can enjoy the best of both worlds: having one of the most powerful devolved Parliaments in the world, operating within the wider parameters of a very strong and extremely successful United Kingdom.
Lord Gordon of Strathblane (Lab)
My Lords, I welcome in particular three speeches: first are the two maiden speeches this afternoon from the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Pittenweem, and the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering; the third is the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Kelvin. In a debate on the Smith report, it is vital that one of the key issues to consider is whether the Bill meets in full what the report—adopted by all five parties—called for. It was vital that we heard directly from him that it does. I congratulate him on a very fine speech and it was very nice to see him back in the Chamber. I will also say that the three former Secretaries of State for Scotland did not do badly this afternoon, either; all of them made very good speeches.
We are where we are. The vow, the panic of the three party leaders, was frankly ludicrous but we are where we are. I judge this Bill partly by how far it meets the recommendations of the Smith commission but also by how far it genuinely delivers accountability. When you get into accountability, it is impossible to decide whether the Bill is good, bad or indifferent until we have the full fiscal framework. That does not mean delaying the Bill; it may mean asking the people who are examining this to maybe work a wee bit harder. Meetings once a month is frankly rather leisurely. What is wrong with once a week? Why can we not get them moving on this? It is impossible to reach a decision and the SNP are quite right. It is a disgrace that the Bill left the House of Commons without this ever being debated. I said to one of the SNP MPs the other day, “You guys should surely have made sure that this was fair to Scotland before you passed it,” and he said, “We’re leaving it to the Scottish Parliament to do that for us.”
That is fine for the SNP but it is not actually fine for either the Conservatives or the Labour Party to have allowed it through without scrutinising it properly. I hope that we will have that scrutiny here.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
Does the noble Lord think it is conceivable that it might have dawned on the SNP that in moving from a block grant, which is 20% more per head of population than the rest of the UK, towards a point where a large part of that is substituted by a tax-raising power where the tax base is not 20% higher, there is going to be a gap? Does he think that they are deliberately not reaching agreement because they do not want to face an election telling the Scottish people that there will be less money?
Lord Gordon of Strathblane
If the noble Lord waits until the end of my speech he will find that on this, as on so many other things, we are totally of one mind. The problem is that we had a very narrow escape last year. The fall in the oil price is not the fault of the SNP but had the vote gone 10% the other way we would have been landed in a situation where Scotland would be heading for bankruptcy very quickly. We lost our independence through bankruptcy way back in 1707 and the Darien scheme and we could well have been returned to it. It is vital that we put a cost on things.
Everyone has concentrated on the no vote and whether the vow mattered. I am rather more interested in the 45% of my fellow countrymen who voted for independence on a false prospectus because this document—the White Paper—which I imagine every Scot read cover to cover before using it as a very convenient doorstop, predicated oil revenues in 2016-17 of £6.8 billion. The oil revenues are of course a lot smaller. They then sneaked out a document without any ministerial statement, published in Oil and Gas Analytical Bulletin two hours before the Parliament closed for the summer recess, predicating oil revenues of £0.6 billion in 2016-17. That is a hole of very nearly £6 billion and compared to the proportionate effect of anything that George Osborne has in mind in welfare, it is six times worse than anything George Osborne is thinking about. We are heading for super austerity in Scotland if we are going to balance the books. It amazes me that my fellow countrymen are not constantly quizzing the SNP saying, “What taxes are you going to raise or what services are you going to cut to bring the books into balance?” They need not exactly balance—I fully accept that you can borrow—but you cannot go on borrowing for ever and ever.
It is very important that we put price tags on things, and there is a price tag I invite the Minister to consider. There was an amendment in the House of Commons asking for the Government to appoint a body, including representatives nominated by the Scottish Parliament, to estimate the effect of full fiscal autonomy. I think it should be possible to do that. It was voted against by the Government on the premise—mistaken, in my view—that we have done the sums already and we all know that. The trouble is that the Scottish people do not believe you. It is a tragedy and it is very unfair but I am afraid it is true. We need something that people believe in. The SNP rejected it because they did not think that anything appointed by the Conservative Government would be impartial because they are against full fiscal autonomy.
Now I am fairly certain that full fiscal autonomy is a disaster and I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth. I think the SNP feel it is a disaster as well but do you think they are going to admit it is a disaster? If full fiscal autonomy is a disaster then full independence, which goes one step further, is even worse. The SNP is unlikely to do that. It is more likely to pick holes in the way that the sums were calculated. That is why the report of the committee chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Hollick, is so important and that it is so important that we debate it.
Reference has been made, particularly by the noble Lord, Lord McCluskey, to the absence of the SNP. It is not our fault that it is not here: it has been given ample opportunity to have representatives here. It is very important that we hear the SNP viewpoint on what methodology is used to calculate the reduction in the block grant. I am quite prepared to take representations from the SNP and put them forward as amendments on the block grant here, if only to give them an airing. However, who knows? I might even agree with them. Nobody knows, because we do not know what the block grant reduction system will look like. It is very important that we get adequate information on that.
Likewise, we must make sure what the fiscal framework actually means. It is very complicated, and I entirely respect and do not mock the idea of it being negotiated behind closed doors. That is perfectly sensible. I think that we will have to wait for a complete package before either party wants to admit what they are negotiating on, because there will be trade-offs and compromises. I do not regard compromise as a dirty word in politics; it is what politics is all about. I am quite happy to wait until the conclusion of the process, but the parties must be told that there is no deal without the process being complete. Why should it be singularly the Scottish Parliament which can reject this purely on the grounds of the fiscal framework being wrong?
There was an interesting article last week, just before the committee of the noble Lord, Lord Hollick, reported, from Anton Muscatelli, the principal of Glasgow University. He said that, depending on which system is chosen, there could be a disastrous effect on the block grant. That was echoed by the committee in its report. To be honest, my concern is that whatever system is chosen, there will be a bad deal for Scotland, because the economics of independence, or of much more devolution, do not work. It is better to have a system where we spread risk throughout the entire United Kingdom.
I fully accept that the Scottish Parliament is elected; I am not. If its Members choose to go for that deal, that is entirely up to them and I will respect that decision—I will not leave Scotland as a result, or anything like that—but they must tell the Scottish people first. It is all very well accepting a bad deal if you think you will feel better about it because you are independent and doing it yourself. That is fine—I fully respect that—but to deceive the Scottish people would be totally wrong. So there is quite a lot we could go for here, but it is very important that we nail in advance any suggestion that the Treasury is choosing unfavourable methods of calculation—otherwise, the SNP will blame that for the breakdown of negotiations.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
I understand what the noble Lord is saying about delivering the Bill but if, when he sees the fiscal framework, it shows that Scotland will be financially worse off by a considerable degree, will he still be of the view that we have to get on with this and deliver it?
Lord Stephen
I very much take the view that, if that were the case, it would fracture the delicate political consensus that I have been speaking about. Therefore, I think it is up to the Minister and the Scottish Government to give everyone—the five parties of the Smith commission—confidence that we are on the right track in relation to the fiscal framework. If it cannot yet be published in full, why not look at other opportunities to publish an outline of the framework as agreed—the minutes of the meetings that have been discussing the framework have been spoken about—or a draft of the framework as it stands at this stage? Let us not hide it all. Let us get it out there in the open, and let us challenge the Scottish Government as well as the Government at United Kingdom level to open up on this issue and not have the discussions quite as much behind closed doors as currently appears to be the case.
The noble Lord, Lord Smith, emphasised that he was very much a Cross-Bencher and played no part in the policy as agreed by his commission. I am sure he was very modest in that regard. However, he mentioned two vital points in relation to all this. The first is that decentralisation to Scotland should not mean centralisation to one Government in Edinburgh. There should be decentralisation right across Scotland, and the mistakes of Police Scotland are a major warning to us all.
The second point is that all this should be about the good government of Scotland, which means parties and Governments working together and co-operating for the good of the people of Scotland. We would do well to bear that in mind over the next few weeks, not only as the Bill progresses through this place but in Scotland as well.
I turn to the main clauses of the Bill. On the constitutional changes, why not have a reformed, more modern constitution? Why not enshrine in legislation certain matters of great importance, such as the permanence of the Scottish Parliament? Why not have special majorities on other issues of great constitutional importance? Other countries do it. Our constitution can develop, change and be adapted to the needs of the 21st century. Why not also ask the Government to specify in the Bill before us today the current legislative consent rules rather than those defined back in 1998 before the Scottish Parliament was even created? It would be very interesting to hear the Minister’s response to the comments made in that regard by my noble and learned friend Lord Wallace of Tankerness.
The Liberal Democrats support the full tax-raising powers now found in the Bill. As my noble friend Lord Steel highlighted, a Parliament with such limited tax-raising powers as was the case with the Scottish Parliament back in its early years lacked accountability and responsibility from the start. It is no secret that the Liberal Democrats on the Smith commission, building on the work of the Liberal Democrat Campbell commission, supported bolder powers on welfare. We now see some of those powers coming forward, but I know that my noble friend Lord Kirkwood of Kirkhope will lead the Liberal Democrats’ charge on this issue with appropriate amendments in Committee—in a very responsible way, of course.
I want to pick up on the thanks expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Reid of Cardowan, to those who helped save the day in the referendum. Many in this Chamber deserve thanks as well, including the noble Lord, Lord Reid, himself, and so very definitely do Gordon Brown and Alistair Darling. But I hope also that the name of Charles Kennedy is remembered, as he gave a huge amount to the cause of home rule and federalism, and to speaking out strongly against the cause of nationalism.
Finally, I turn to the aid of the Minister and offer support. In echoing the words of my noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford, I shall try to help him out on the issue of detriment with the actual quote from Through the Looking-Glass:
“‘When I use a word’, Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less’. ‘The question is’, said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things’. ‘The question is’, said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be the master—that’s all’”.
So over to the Minister and to the next advocate in the debate.
Lord Davidson of Glen Clova
One of the problems one faces as an advocate is being tempted to follow what is put before one by a judge. One is quite often tempted down that road. What my noble friend is putting to me, in a style which is not wholly unfamiliar in the courts, is one such temptation. I would care to deflect it to the Minister. This is not something that the loyal Opposition can put into the discussions between Her Majesty’s Government and the Scottish Government but I respectfully suggest that this interesting proposition from my noble friend Lord Reid be introduced into those discussions.
It is clear that we have to find a mechanism that enables the discussion on this critical area to be slightly widened in its understanding. We have ended up with the Scottish Government’s view not being revealed other than in minutes that do not really set out what has happened. My noble friend Lord Foulkes raised the question of what plan B is. I think we can legitimately assume the answer is that there is no plan B and that negotiations will be successful. That may be reassuring for some people but for others perhaps it will not. My noble friend Lord McAvoy was clear that we simply have to trust Her Majesty’s Government and the Scottish Government to produce a result. It would be helpful if they gave us a basis for developing that confidence.
My noble friend Lady Liddell asked if we might see the minutes and papers. She was joined in that request by the noble Lord, Lord Stephen. These are interesting points but one can understand the competition between the politics of the issue and the scrutiny. It would be helpful if we were given some guidance as to where the balance lies. Scrutiny, after all, is the purpose of this Chamber.
I was just coming to the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth—
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
Might the noble and learned Lord turn his attention to telling us what the Opposition’s position is on whether consideration of this Bill should be delayed so that we are able to consider it with the fiscal framework?
Lord Davidson of Glen Clova
The answer that I have just foreshadowed is the question of trust. We are prepared to trust Her Majesty’s Government and the Scottish Government to conduct their negotiations. We would like to have some further basis on which to develop and strengthen that trust, which might even meet some of the requirements of the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth of Drumlean. He looks at me quizzically—
Lord Davidson of Glen Clova
One sometimes finds that there are questions that do not have a yes or no answer. The question of trust is something that one might reflect upon and, if that is lost in translation in some way, I would be happy to explain later.
The charge that the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, has made against the vow is that it reveals a certain degree of illiteracy. Be that as it may, as the noble Lord, Lord Stephen, pointed out, the vow is a fact; it has been acted on and here we are with the consequences of that vow. We can analyse questions of the Barnett formula, which have been discussed in this House over and over again, but perhaps that will not really add very much to the discussion of this Bill.
I am conscious that I am taking rather more time than perhaps—
Lord Dunlop
To answer the noble and learned Lord’s last point, we absolutely need the Act by the time the Scottish Parliament breaks for the election.
The second point I wanted to make is on ensuring that the fiscal framework receives detailed scrutiny. There has been widespread support around the House for that concept. I reassure noble Lords that both Governments aim to complete the framework as soon as possible to give both the Scottish Parliament and the UK Parliament time for due consideration of it. As mentioned by several noble Lords, the Government will keep updating Parliament after each negotiation session, as we have done. We will invite all relevant committees to look at the framework, including Lords committees and the Scottish Affairs Committee in the Commons. We will welcome their comments.
If legislation is needed to implement the framework, both Houses would be involved in that in the normal ways. There was such legislation in 2012, with primary legislation debated in both Houses. As I said in my opening speech and reaffirm now, the Government’s firm intention is for the fiscal framework to be available to the Scottish Parliament and both Houses of this Parliament before the Bill completes its passage. In response to my noble friend Lord Griffiths, I confirm that the intention is for this to be a detailed written agreement.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
Forgive me but, as I mentioned in my speech, my noble friend answered a Written Question in July saying that he expected the fiscal framework to proceed in parallel with the consideration in both Houses. He told us that the relations with the Scottish Government are very cordial and doing well. Why, then, is it taking so long to reach agreement? I listened to his words very carefully. Is he saying that he would be prepared for this Bill to complete all its stages without the fiscal framework being known because it is just so politically important to have it on the statute book before the elections? I cannot believe that he is.
Lord Dunlop
On my noble friend’s first point, it has been evident from the debate today that the framework is of critical importance. It raises very complex issues that need to be worked through to get it right. That is exactly what we are doing. I repeat what I said: the Government’s firm intention is for the fiscal framework to be available to the Scottish Parliament and both Houses of this Parliament before the Bill completes its passage. Clearly, a range of procedural options are available. We will need to consider them nearer the time in light of how negotiations progress.
Lord Dunlop
The Deputy First Minister has made it clear that, for the Scottish Parliament to give its legislative consent to the Bill, it would have to be satisfied that there was an agreed fiscal framework in place.
I return to the argument that I was making. If, unlike me, you believe that the Scottish Government are not serious about reaching agreement, that is not a good reason to delay the Bill—far from it. Doing so would hand the Scottish Government a get-out-of-jail-free card, which is not right for the people of Scotland, who expect these powers to be implemented.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
Could the Minister explain to me—perhaps I am being a bit thick—whether he thinks that the Scottish Parliament is right to insist on considering the Bill with a fiscal framework? I do. If so, why does he think that it is okay to have the House of Commons consider it without the fiscal framework and, perhaps, to have this House consider it without the fiscal framework?
Lord Dunlop
As has been clear from everything I have been saying, we want to get a fiscal framework agreed so that this House and the House of Commons can look at that agreement. This is what we are working to achieve.
The Smith commission secured the cross-party agreement of all five of Scotland’s political parties. The parties subsequently included manifesto commitments to deliver it and supported the introduction of the Scotland Bill. While there are those in the other place who do not consider the Scotland Bill goes far enough, there is support for it and for further powers for the Scottish Parliament. As the noble Baroness, Lady Liddell, pointed out, the nationalists like nothing better than to talk about process. We want political debate in Scotland to move on to a debate about policy and how the powers in this Bill that rebalance the devolution settlement by reintroducing real fiscal responsibility to the Scottish Parliament will be used. The Government look forward to engaging with this in full and I commend this Bill to the House.
Devolution
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean Excerpts(8 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they plan to establish a Constitutional Convention to consider the implications of devolution for each part of the United Kingdom; and whether they plan to publish a white paper setting out the consequences for the rest of the United Kingdom of fiscal autonomy for Scotland.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Scotland Office (Lord Dunlop) (Con)
The Government have no plans to establish a constitutional convention. Our focus must be on delivering the commitments that we made to the people of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. The Government do not support full fiscal autonomy for Scotland and have no plans to publish a White Paper on the issue. The Government’s priority is the delivery of a balanced constitutional settlement that is fair and sustainable for all parts of the United Kingdom.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
My Lords, that was not terribly helpful. Given that the Barnett formula allocates resources to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland on the basis of a set proportion of the amounts voted on English programmes by the House of Commons, how can it be fair, sensible or even democratic to introduce English votes for English laws while retaining the Barnett formula as the means of funding? Is it not high time that Conservatives returned to Conservative principles: that constitutional reform should be careful, cautious and on the basis of consensus?
Lord Dunlop
My Lords, the Government will honour the commitment to retain Barnett made by all three party leaders in the run up to the referendum. The fact that Barnett has endured for 40 years and 16 Scottish Secretaries shows that there are no easy alternatives. However, the significance of Barnett will reduce as the Scottish Parliament becomes 50% self-funded. The UK Government and the Scottish Government will agree a new fiscal framework to work alongside Barnett, which must deliver a financial settlement that is fair to both Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom. There will be more said in Statements in this House and the other place about English votes for English laws but Scottish MPs will continue to take part, as now, in the votes that determine the block grant allocations.
Smith Commission: Implementation
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean Excerpts(8 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
My Lords, does my noble friend not agree that, given that the SNP repudiated the Smith commission proposals before the ink was even dry on them, and given that the three unionist parties—the Conservative, Liberal and Labour parties—got only one seat at the subsequent general election, the Smith commission proposals are clearly not going to meet the aspirations of the Scottish people, and that we need a constitutional convention that will provide a solution that meets the needs of all parts of the United Kingdom and provides some stability, so that we can get on with discussing health and education and the things that matter to the people of Scotland?
Lord Dunlop
My Lords, it is not a characterisation I would agree with that the electorate of Scotland repudiated the Smith agreement. Every one of the manifestos of all the main parties, including the SNP, included a commitment to take forward the Smith agreement. Of course, there will be discussions, and I know that there are many views within this House about how best to do that, but the main objective—the Government’s main commitment and priority—is to take forward the commitment we made to implement the Smith agreement.