Graham Allen
Main Page: Graham Allen (Labour - Nottingham North)Department Debates - View all Graham Allen's debates with the Scotland Office
(8 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Carmichael
Amendments 16, 17 and 18 are essentially probing amendments, authored by the Law Society of Scotland. Subject to the response that we hear from Ministers and from those in other parts of the House, it is not my intention to seek to press them to a Division.
The amendments change the nature of clause 1 from one that recognises the permanence of the Scottish Parliament to one that declares it. The genesis of the clause was the Smith commission report, which required that there should be a statement in the legislation to follow it that the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government were permanent institutions. The form of words in clause 1 was inserted by the draft clauses published at the end of January, which recognised that permanence. The permanence of the Scottish Parliament is to be found not in any amendment or statutory enactment, but in the will of the Scottish people. It is a permanent institution because, frankly, it is unthinkable that it would be repealed at this point. For that reason, and given the comments of the Scottish Parliament’s Devolution (Further Powers) Committee, it is right that we should revisit the issue.
At the heart of this debate is the issue and the definition of sovereignty. The context is a classic Diceyan definition of sovereignty, which says that Parliament here is sovereign. Although matters have moved on somewhat over the years and although it remains the case that Parliament cannot bind its successors, it is undoubtedly the case that since the European Communities Act 1972 we have taken a different view of parliamentary sovereignty, one in which sovereignty is shared with the European Union, as it now is, in Brussels, the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly, the Northern Ireland Assembly and even the London Assembly. It was the subject of considerable debate during the constitutional convention back in the late 1980s and early 1990s.
The view that was taken then, which as I recall was contained in the claim of right, was that in Scotland the Diceyan version of sovereignty—that Parliament is sovereign—has never been the case, and that sovereignty has always been vested in and remained with the people of Scotland. From that point of view, I see considerable merit in amendment 58 in the name of the hon. Member for Moray (Angus Robertson) and his colleagues in the Scottish National party, requiring that if there were ever to be a repeal of the Scotland Act 1998 it could be done only with the consent of a majority voting in a referendum. That honours and respects the view that sovereignty lies with the people in Scotland.
However, even that clause could be got around by a simple repeal, a consequence of the doctrine that Parliament cannot bind its successors. As long as we try to do these things by way of primary legislation, we will keep tying ourselves up in knots and any solution that we bring forward will lack permanence and will be unsatisfactory.
Mr Graham Allen (Nottingham North) (Lab)
Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that the former Member for Monklands East and leader of the Labour party, John Smith, said that the British constitution, which embraces the Scottish constitution, should not be a matter of judicial archaeology—that was the phrase he used—but should be put down plainly as a written constitution for all to see? Is that where his argument is going? I hope it is.
Mr Carmichael
I have long held that view. I cannot remember a time in my conscious political being that I have held a view other than that. It is never going to be easy to get to that point, of course, and it will require a fundamental change in the way we do things. The reference to judicial archaeology is interesting, because it would render some of the things that were done in this place reviewable in the courts. As long as there is a proper separation of powers, I am quite happy with that.
Angus Robertson
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his election. I gently encourage him to remind himself of the position of the Conservative party in the run-up to the referendum on Scottish devolution. It was totally opposed to devolution, so he will perhaps understand why SNP Members, who have consistently supported home rule, wish to see that reflected in the legislation. He will have the opportunity to support the SNP amendment later.
Mr Graham Allen
If there is absolutely no threat whatever to the Scottish Parliament, why not put that fully on the face of the Bill, as the hon. Gentleman suggests?
Angus Robertson
The hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point. Hopefully, the Committee does not need to divide. If there is support from Labour and from the Government, everybody will be satisfied and we can move forward.
In legal terms, there is nothing to stop the Westminster Parliament from repealing clause 1, according to the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty and the associated norm that one Parliament cannot bind its successors. The Scottish Government produced an alternative clause that includes a double lock—it would require that the clause cannot be repealed without the prior consent of the Scottish Parliament, and without the people of Scotland voting to abolish the Scottish Parliament in a referendum conducted for that purpose. The Scottish Government clause forms the basis of our amendment.
John Redwood
We are where we are. Promises were made, I thought in good faith, by the three Front-Bench teams. They were not my chosen promises; they were made on behalf of the three Unionist parties. They did the job for the referendum, but they then did not do much of a job for the Unionist parties at the general election. However, we cannot now be seen to be delaying for any great length. There needs to be proper work—and I am sure that proper work is going on in the Government at the moment as they try to work out a financial settlement in parallel to this Bill. I am just suggesting that perhaps this Parliament needs to have some of that thinking shared with it.
Today is the first opportunity, within the clear parameters of new clause 3, to try to expose a bit of the thinking on how a limited amount of fiscal autonomy will work, and on how many of these taxes Scotland will not only collect, but be responsible for and have knocked off the block grant. As I remember it, when the leaders came up with this promise, Gordon Brown was a big voice—obviously, he was not one of the leaders at the time—for rather less fiscal autonomy. He was trying to stop Scotland controlling her own income tax revenues, so I do not entirely share the interpretation of the Labour Front-Bench team of what Mr Brown was trying to do at that point.
I will bring my remarks to a close with the simple conclusion that the world has moved on because of the general election result. The debate on money is taking place elsewhere, but we currently have a short debate about money here. I hope that the Front-Bench team will share some of its thoughts on money. Fiscal devolution seems to be attractive to many people in Scotland, but we need to know where it ends and how we sort out all those crucial issues about debt and borrowing as well as about shared policies such as pensions.
Mr Graham Allen
Sir David, it is a great pleasure to see you in the Chair this afternoon. Like many colleagues, I had assumed that you would be in your green tights dancing around the maypole with many other dignitaries at Runnymede. [Interruption.] Yes, the thought does bring tears to the eyes. I am talking about a serious occasion, but it is, by necessity, a backward-looking, occasion. Eight hundred years ago, in what was a great leap forward in its time, Magna Carta was sealed, if not signed. What we have been hearing about today—and this has been a really superb debate so far by all parts of the House—is the next 800 years. We are certainly looking at the foreseeable future and at our democracy. One thing we cannot do is go back to business as usual. We have a majority party in the House, and we cannot just ram stuff through the Commons. We must consider all these sorts of Bills seriously.
I mean no offence when I say that the Scotland Bill is not the property of the people of Scotland let alone of the political parties of Scotland. The Scotland Bill is about the Union. Whether we are in a transitional period or whether we have another 800 years of happy family relationships is still to be decided. As we discuss this Bill, the local government devolution Bill, and the European referendum Bill, those colleagues who are new to the House—to all parts of the House—should be excited that they have come here at this moment. It is a time of immense potential. People from all parts of this House have expressed the view that we need to look at this matter seriously. The word “statesmanlike” has been thrown around quite a bit, but it is pertinent to this debate. What we do today and over the next four Mondays will be of great importance to all of us in the Union.
Mr MacNeil
As usual, the hon. Gentleman is making a thoughtful contribution. He said that the Scotland Bill is the property of the House, but he will recognise that the House has been forced, kicking and screaming to reach the point it is at the moment. In the previous Scotland Bill, an amendment was moved to devolve Crown estate control to Scotland, and the House would not agree to it. It has now conceded on that point because of the weight and the power of the votes from the people of Scotland and it has done so easily. Is it not a huge mistake for this place to give away too little too late and not to listen to the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh)?
Mr Allen
I am probably one of the worst in this House for blaming Westminster. Westminster and, above all, Whitehall—that is a distinction that we can educate each other in over the next five years—deserve to have that blame attached to them, but the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues are now part of Westminster. They will need to use the Westminster system and to be a part of it, if only because they wish to get such Bills passed. The Bills that have been passed to free Scotland in the way that it needs to be freed up, that Nottingham, Leicester and Derby need to be freed up and that England, Wales and Northern Ireland need to be freed up have been passed by this place because of the efforts of people such as Donald Dewar and those who got the Scotland Act 2012 through and because of the efforts of all the parties in this House, who will, I hope, pass the Scotland Bill effectively through this Committee.
Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP)
The hon. Gentleman mentions Donald Dewar and I pay tribute to what Donald Dewar did. In the establishment of the Scottish Parliament, sections were given—such as health or education—so that the Parliament could make its own policies without controlling the budget. The problem with Smith is that it is made up of little bits and pieces that mean that the two Parliaments will be forever at each other’s throats. That cannot be sustainable.
Mr Allen
The problem with Smith, with 2012 and with Donald Dewar’s devolution is that none of them was perfect. To seek perfection is to be the enemy of good. This is a progress, a process and a way forward, and it might not turn out how any of us first imagined. One key point is for those who represent England—in my case, my city of Nottingham, of which I am very proud—is that nothing in this Bill should be unable to apply to the liberation and progress of such cities. Nothing in my city should restrain or inhibit the progress I would love to see my friends in Scotland achieving, too.
This is all about devolving power. I do not wish to sour the atmosphere, but sometimes separatism and devolution are sworn enemies. I hope that this is not one of those occasions. I hope that we can all see devolution as part of a process.
Mr Allen
If I may just make this point while I am thinking about it, I will then give way. If we continue that process, we might end up in a place that is better for everybody and we might end up with the sort of liberation of our localities and communities that we all want, whichever nation of the Union we represent.
Peter Grant
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the only real separatists in this House are those on the Government Benches, who would quite happily see Scotland dragged out of the European Union against the express wishes of its people?
Mr Allen
We all have a stronger common interest than we sometimes dare admit, and we certainly all have an interest in making devolution work. The bigger issues that I want to come on to concern some of the structures through which we might all work together to do some of that. Some were raised by my Select Committee, which was an all-party Committee of this House and proved that we can do other things and move forward on devolution.
Let us imagine where we might be in 20 years’ time with the federal Parliament, which this is. Even the strongest small c conservative—they can be found throughout the House—would not say that we will be in exactly the same place in 20 years as we are today. That would be inaccurate. We will definitely be in a different place. What will it look like? I suspect the position will unfold. It may not be devised at 10 o’clock tonight, as the amendments envisage, but there will be progress over those 20 years. What does it look like? For some it looks like separation or independence. For others, it looks like a Union refreshed and renewed. For me, it looks like my people in my area being allowed to make more decisions of their own as of right, not because people feel they are giving them a little play out of Westminster.
Mr MacNeil
I see that my patience has paid off and I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. Is not one of the problems, in yet another Scotland Bill three years after the previous one, that Westminster may give away a little bit here and a little bit there? Would it not be better to turn the telescope around and have the relationship that the Faroe Islands have with Denmark? They can take the powers that they want to take and it is not a big deal for Copenhagen to give Tórshavn those powers. In Westminster it seems a massive deal to give people control over the minimum wage in Scotland—a power that Labour blocked, for goodness sake. It should not be like that. If Scotland wants it, let Scotland take it and let this place be gracious about it.
Mr Allen
It is always good to knock off a quick anti-Westminster point, so I will join the hon. Gentleman and say that everything that he resents about Whitehall, I resent at least as much in so far as it impacts badly on one of the 10 poorest constituencies in the United Kingdom, so—I mean this in a friendly way—he does not need to lecture me about how inadequate Westminster and Whitehall are at freeing up and liberating people to get better jobs, improve skills and improve their schooling, all the things that all of us hold in common as we move forward.
What I am saying is that we need to figure out how progress that has been made in Scotland—massive progress, which I fully support—can be replicated, not just in a narrow sense of “This is good for us”, but if it is so good, how it can be good also for Wales, Northern Ireland and England.
Andrew Gwynne
I commend the work that my hon. Friend and his Select Committee did in the previous parliamentary Session. Although we are talking today specifically about the Scotland Bill, is this not also about how we re-engage the debate across the whole of the United Kingdom about how we bring powers down to the very local level so that what happens in Scotland today is valid for Nottingham, Manchester, Durham and other parts of the Union tomorrow?
Mr Allen
If we have now breached the principle and the wonderful idea of devolution—giving power away, not decentralisation, where Westminster and Whitehall can suck it back—let us look at devolution that is entrenched and can stand the test of time. I agree very much with getting the words right. My Select Committee was clear about the words reflecting the permanency of the Scottish Parliament.
The question is how we achieve permanency in an unwritten constitutional environment. We do it in two or three possible ways. One suggestion in one of my amendments—I tabled new clauses 6 to 9—is that the Scottish Parliament is protected behind the ingenious mechanism of the Parliament Act, which requires both Chambers to agree to any change in the status of those things that are protected. The other idea is related to Magna Carta, which is being celebrated today, and calls for a new Magna Carta—a written constitution. I commend the Scottish Executive for the work that they have already done on that. [Interruption.] If any hon. Member has something to say, please stand up and correct me. I am happy to take a correction.
Stewart McDonald
The legislation was changed from Scottish Executive to Scottish Government. It is not a briefcase.
Mr Allen
I am sorry for once that I gave way to an hon. Member because this is a serious debate. There is a precedent and if we can build on the precedent, however we name it, and make a broader constitutional settlement for the United Kingdom, there will be fewer occasions on which any of us need doubt when progress is made. If it is clear for every schoolboy and schoolgirl that the structure of their Government is there in writing, there is less likelihood that those powers can be sucked back into Westminster and Whitehall.
Mr Jackson
I declare an interest as an adjunct associate professor of British politics. I pay tribute to the fantastic work that the hon. Gentleman did in the previous Parliament. The point that SNP Members are missing is that the progress that has been made since the Scotland Act 1998 was as a result of the sovereignty of this Parliament. May I also respectfully correct the hon. Gentleman? We are not a federal Parliament, because that presupposes a codified written constitution setting out the powers, duties and responsibilities of the centre and the constituent parts of a sovereign nation.
Mr Allen
We might not yet be a federal Parliament officially, and we might not yet have the right words for it, but there is absolutely no question but that our Union is moving towards a federal basis, rather than the alleged parliamentary sovereignty referred to earlier. I hope that I live long enough to see parliamentary sovereignty in this House, because I have not seen much of it over the couple of decades I have been here.
The other thing that I think is really important to have clarified—this is also in the interests of my friends in the SNP—is the role of local government. If we have an overarching, federal structure in the United Kingdom, there are certain things that that structure needs to define. Human rights is a classic example, and I would argue strongly that so too are the rights of the sub-national tiers of government. Otherwise, all we would be doing is transferring state power from Whitehall to Holyrood. Some people say that that is precisely what has happened in Scotland, but I am sure that is a false accusation. However, in order to ensure the freedom of those who work at the grassroots, in our communities and neighbourhoods, defining the rights of local government, which is commonplace in every other western democracy, and to do that in our Union while it exists and is flourishing, would ensure that no such accusation could be levelled at my newly elected friends in the SNP.
Andrew Gwynne
My hon. Friend will remember that in the early 1990s there was a word that was in vogue in what was then the European Community: subsidiarity. Although it is a horrible word, it has a very serious meaning, which is that decisions should be taken as closely to the people as appropriate. Is not that just as relevant to the devolution debate? We should be talking about handing powers from this place not only to Holyrood, Cardiff Bay and Stormont, but even to places such as Manchester city region, and to local communities beyond.
Mr Allen
I think that devolution is so good that it should apply to everybody in the Union. I welcome the breakthrough that has been made in Scotland and hope to see a similar settlement for England, Wales and Northern Ireland. I often say—my hon. Friend will have heard this before—that subsidiarity is the ugliest word in the political lexicon to describe the most beautiful concept.
John Redwood
An important part of our Union is that there has been a transfer as well as a fiscal Union, so the richer parts pay in more, relatively, and the poorer parts draw out more. Does the hon. Gentleman feel that that could be sustained with full fiscal autonomy, or is that a problem?
Mr Allen
As far as I am concerned, the idea of income tax assignment was applied in the Scotland Act 2012. I think that it is the basis on which devolution can move further forward in Scotland, and certainly on which it can start to move forward more seriously in England so that we have not just piecemeal breakthroughs, as we are having at the moment, but something that can apply to every local authority throughout the whole of England and Wales and, if it wishes, Northern Ireland.
Mike Weir
I have listened carefully to what the hon. Gentleman has been saying, particularly about local government. Does he accept that it is not up to this place to determine the form of local government in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland? Decisions about local government are already devolved to the Scottish Parliament and the Assemblies of Wales and Northern Ireland. England may determine its own local government through this place, but questions about local government in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are not to be decided here.
Mr Allen
We need to think carefully about whether the rights that we would like to enjoy in our constitution should be placed at a federal level or at a national level. Let us fantasise about what would happen if, for example, the European convention on human rights was abolished and the right to torture people was established in part of the United Kingdom—[Interruption.] I know it is a silly example, but let me continue for a moment. I cannot imagine that we in the federal Parliament would not object to that ridiculous state of affairs. In some written constitutions, transcending values—concerning, for example, human rights, structures and democracy—may be in the federal constitution rather than in national constitutions. We need to debate that, and I hope that the hon. Member for Glasgow South will join in that debate rather than simply shaking his head, as he is doing.
Martin John Docherty
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for participating in this resolute debate about the future of Scotland and the British Parliament. I come back to the Statute of Westminster of 1931. Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that Scotland should be a dominion?
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)
On a point of order, Sir David. May we have a ruling that there is no such thing as the British Parliament; there is the Parliament of the United Kingdom?
Antoinette Sandbach (Eddisbury) (Con)
The hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen) seems to be advocating a written constitution, but the problem with that, as we have seen clearly with the Government of Wales Act 2006, is that it invites judge-made law. Recent Supreme Court decisions on the 2006 Act have led, in effect, to judicial decision making on a reserved powers model, which is not contained in the Act.
Mr Allen
I am sure that I would be called to order if I went into too much detail on the pros and cons of a written constitution. Suffice it to say that reams and reams of judge-made law exist, but our citizens are not allowed to see the basis on which that framework is put into place.
Mr MacNeil
Further to the point of order made by the hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley), France knows that it is France, but the UK does not seem to know that it is the UK. That is an extraordinary state of affairs.
The Temporary Chair
Order. Again I say to the Committee that that is a point of argument, not a point of order.
Mr Allen
Perhaps I can turn to a subject that will help the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar, who has intervened several times, in his future career: the House of Lords. I have tabled a new clause that would enable the nations of the Union to decide how they would like their representatives in the second Chamber to be chosen, elected or balloted for. Should the SNP have reached its zenith, and should it suffer a catastrophe after the next general election, I suggest that the hon. Gentleman may wish to have his name added to a list of such representatives put forward by the Scottish Parliament.
David Mundell
I have noted what my hon. Friend has said. At times today, I am sure that he will have been an honorary member of Team 57.
I want to make very clearly a point that echoes the evidence I gave to the Select Committee chaired by the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen). I regard a Scottish Parliament as a prerequisite of a United Kingdom. There will not be a United Kingdom if there is not a Scottish Parliament. I can understand why there is a lot of debate about the exact wording, and I will continue to listen to it, but I am absolutely clear that without a Scottish Parliament there will not be a United Kingdom, and that it is not sustainable to argue about lots of preconditions on that basis.
Mr Graham Allen
I thank the Secretary of State for listening to the proposal by the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee. Will he take away the idea that what he is saying are to be in the Bill, in so many words? What those words are to be should be left to him, and perhaps he can return to that on Report.
David Mundell
I said that I would reflect on a number of the issues raised by the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) relating to proposals by the Law Society of Scotland. Among those is the debate on the wording currently in part 1, and we will certainly look at that.
I do not accept amendments 58 and 59 because they refer to the term “constitution” whereas clause 1 refers to the term “constitutional arrangements”. The term “constitutional arrangements” is used to reflect the fact that the United Kingdom does not have a written constitution. That is a well-established constitutional arrangement of which a Scottish Parliament is a crucial and enduring part.
In new clause 2, the hon. Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray) proposes a constitutional convention. I have said at this Dispatch Box previously that I, and this Government, do not support a constitutional convention for reasons that have been well rehearsed, not least because—on this one matter I am in agreement with the Scottish National party—it would slow down the progress of this Bill, which I am committed to taking through Parliament as quickly as possible.
Other matters have been raised and we have debated them fully but they do not fully relate to the Bill. On that basis, I propose that we move to vote on the amendments.
Wayne David
I rise to speak to amendments 39, 4 and 41 on the Sewel convention. As Members will know, the convention is quite well established. In the debate on the Scotland Bill in 1998, Lord Sewel, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the Scottish Office, said that
“we would expect a convention to be established that Westminster would not normally legislate with regard to devolved matters in Scotland without the consent of the Scottish parliament.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 21 July 1998; Vol. 592, c. 791.]
That was accepted, and the Sewel convention became a reality.
As the Law Society of Scotland has said, it is true that since the enactment of that Bill there is agreement that the convention has been successful, and it has been adhered to by successive Parliaments. The Smith commission gave a firm commitment:
“The Sewel Convention will be put on a statutory footing.”
That was a clear and unambiguous statement. On the face of it, the Government’s draft legislation honoured the commitment that had been given, but I suggest that there are weaknesses in what the Government have proposed in this Bill.
I want to refer to the excellent work done by the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee. It has been pointed out that the Sewel convention has been distilled in the Government’s interpretation of it. Clause 2 refers only to the convention’s applicability in respect of devolved matters, and the convention also applies to legislation affecting the competences of the devolved institutions. We are concerned that, in some ways, what has happened in practice is not quite recognised in the Bill.
We are also concerned about the way in which the convention is to be placed on a statutory footing. Students of British constitutional history will recognise that, according to Dicey’s principle, this British Parliament has ultimate sovereignty. Such a statutory footing recognises that constitutional reality, but does not challenge it or take it forward in any way whatever. That is somewhat unfortunate and certainly worthy of debate. The statutory footing, in reality, does not count for anything because what we have is essentially a summation of the Sewel convention that is little more than a political statement. Indeed, the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee quoted academics as saying that the clause was “legally vacuous” and
“like a bowl of jelly”.
We should be concerned about that.
It is noteworthy that the House of Lords Constitution Committee, which is highly regarded by many people, said, in its rather more sedate way, that
“it can be said that the new provision will recognise the existence of the Sewel convention rather than turn it into a legally binding principle.”
That is an extremely important phrase. Although those of us who are committed firmly to the Sewel principle recognise that there is no challenge to the convention, who knows what will happen in the future? That is why it should be legally binding, not just on this Government, but on all future Governments of any political complexion. Those issues need to be aired fully in considering the Sewel convention, because they are important and fundamental to the Bill.
Mr Graham Allen
This is not some constitutional nicety; it is about the circumstances in which the UK Parliament is allowed to legislate on a matter that is covered by the convention, without the consent of the Scottish Parliament. I hope that my hon. Friend will press the Secretary of State very hard on this matter. The Secretary of State might want to take it away and look at the wording. As my Political and Constitutional Reform Committee said:
“The presence of the word ‘normally’ in the Convention is clearly problematic when it comes to giving it the force of a statute, and we recommend that this be addressed in any redraft of the clause.”
As well as pressing the Secretary of State on this matter now, perhaps my hon. Friend will return to it on Report so that we can all be satisfied that the Scottish Parliament’s sovereignty is not in question.
Wayne David
My hon. Friend has put his finger on another important issue that was considered carefully by his Committee. When the word “normally” is used, I ask, “How long is a piece of string?” It is legally imprecise, which is a cause for concern. That reinforces my earlier point.
The Secretary of State gave evidence to the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee, but I suspect that his response was not wholly acceptable to its members. I therefore hope that he has refined his response and will give more robust answers to the questions that I have put to him. We wait with interest to hear what he has to say.
Finally, new clause 5, which was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen), refers to the application of the Human Rights Act 1998 to Scotland. It is extremely important constitutionally that devolution has, to a large extent, been underpinned by human rights legislation, in particular the 1998 Act. That is certainly the case as far as Wales is concerned, it is extremely important as far as Northern Ireland is concerned, and it has an important bearing as far as Scotland is concerned.
In the past few years, the Scottish Parliament has taken a number of initiatives with regard to human rights. I commend those initiatives. It is easy to take them forward in Scotland because it has a different legal system from England and Wales. The Scottish Human Rights Commission has published “Scotland’s National Action Plan for Human Rights”. Whatever one’s political allegiance, those positive measures should be welcomed.
I would not like to see any piece of legislation that does not take those measures into account or that does not fully take into account how devolution in Scotland rests firmly on the principle of extensive and liberal human rights. I hope that the Committee agrees with the Opposition on that point. If any action is taken against the Human Rights Act by this Government, whatever form it takes, there should first be the express consent of the Scottish Parliament.
Mr Graham Allen
It is a pleasure to speak on this group of amendments. I will speak not about the Sewel convention, because that clause should be put right in a relatively straightforward way by the Secretary of State, but about the implications for the Human Rights Act 1998 of what we are considering.
New clause 5 would ensure that, were the Human Rights Act abolished, renewed, revived or changed by this place in whatever shape or form, the Scottish Parliament would be able to maintain the Act, as it would like to do. That is a principle of devolution that I would like to be applied to England, Wales and Northern Ireland within an overarching federal settlement, so that we can be sure that fundamental human rights are close to the people and cannot be dispensed with on the whim of a federal Parliament.
Whenever I talk about these things, people say, “Here we go again—dry constitutionalism”, so I want to say a little about this dry constitutionalism. This is all about defending the victims of crime, those who have disabilities, women who are facing sexual and domestic violence, and the victims of child trafficking. It is about fundamental human rights.
The rights that are listed were not written by some recent bureaucrat in the Commission in Brussels, but by an eminent group of Conservatives led by David Maxwell Fyfe, a former Conservative Home Secretary and, I think, a boss of the intelligence services, so no woolly liberal radical he. Having been affected by the appalling suffering of the second world war, he pulled together the European convention on human rights. I cannot commend him highly enough. It was drawn up not by Mr Delors or the current President of the European Commission, but in response to the plight of refugees and the torture and inhumanity of the second world war. David Maxwell Fyfe and a number of British civil servants drafted these human rights, which have been adopted across the European Union. The rights also arose out of the United Nations charter.
The rights that are listed include things that we take for granted: the right to life, liberty and security of person; the right to a fair trial; protection from torture and ill treatment; freedom of thought, conscience, religion, speech and assembly; the right to marry; the right to free elections; the right to fair access to the country’s education system; and the right not to be discriminated against.
There are many arguments about how the convention is enforced and used across the European Union, and about our interaction with the continental courts system. Is it perfect? Of course it is not. However, we should not dispense easily with something that has had a good 60 or 65 years’ service, and that has allowed people in this country who were struggling for their rights to pursue their cases, defeat the domestic courts and have things overturned in their favour. I do not want to use this just as a prelude to the arguments we will have on human rights later, but I will certainly do my best, if Mr Crausby is not listening too intently, to make sure we have a proper debate.
Mr Graham Allen
Incidentally, the draft of a written constitution done by the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee included the Bill of Rights.
The abolition of the Human Rights Act—or changes to it—was in the manifesto of the governing party, so it might feel that it ought to do it. Will the right hon. Gentleman reinforce the point, however, that, as we are proving this evening, good pre-legislative scrutiny on something so technical and detailed would prove an immense bonus to the Government in getting their proposals through?
Mr Carmichael
Indeed, that is the case. For all sorts of reasons, pre-legislative scrutiny is not always possible, but it ought to be the default in any sensible legislature.
The Secretary of State may intervene if I am wrong, but I understand that the Government have said they will not change the integration of the Human Rights Act in the 1998 Act and that it will continue to underpin the Scottish Parliament. Inevitably, then, any such change would not apply to Scotland. It is conceivable, however, that we might be left with a messy situation in Scotland where the Human Rights Act applied to some matters and not to others. I was practising in the Scottish courts as a solicitor when the Scotland Act came into force but before the Human Rights Act came into force across the whole of the UK. It meant we had to use a device known as a “devolution note” if we wanted to raise human rights matters in court. It was messy. It was necessary to get us through the year, but I do not want to go back to those days. Having a single regime of human rights protections that applies across the whole of the UK is absolutely necessary, and we tamper with it at our peril.
The Temporary Chair (Mr David Crausby)
The hon. Gentleman’s point of order is noted.
Angus Robertson
It is a pleasure to speak about this string of amendments and new clauses relating to elections to the Scottish Parliament and local authorities.
As Members will know, paragraph 23 of the cross-party Smith commission report recommended that the Scottish Parliament should have
“all powers in relation to elections to the Scottish Parliament and local government elections in Scotland (but not in relation to Westminster or European elections). This will include powers in relation to campaign spending limits and periods and party political broadcasts.”
Additional detail was set out in paragraph 24 of the agreement.
Clauses 3 to 9, which are the focus of this group of amendments, seek to address that recommendation. While the clauses have some merit, we believe that there are still a number of issues to be worked on with the United Kingdom Government. In particular, some parts of the clauses limit the Scottish Parliament’s powers beyond those proposed in Smith. As the Scottish Government said in their response to the report of the Scottish Parliament’s Devolution (Further Powers) Committee, clause 3 does not fully implement the Smith commission’s recommendation. That is why the Scottish Government have proposed an alternative to the clause, which forms the basis of our amendments.
Our proposal would replace, rather than amend, the section B3 Elections reservation in schedule 5 to the Scotland Act 1998. That is designed to make the effects of the clause clearer. We propose that part (A) should reserve elections for membership of the House of Commons and the European Parliament, while part (B) should refer to Scottish Parliament elections and local government elections in Scotland. Our amendments reserve the holding of a Scottish election vote on the same day as a UK parliamentary general election, a European parliamentary election, or an ordinary local government election in Scotland. That would implement paragraph 24(4) of the Smith report.
In their response to the Devolution (Further Powers) Committee, the Scottish Government said:
“We have removed paragraph (b) of the combination of polls provision in Part (B), which would have had the effect of reserving the combination of devolved polls. Should the timing rules be varied to allow ordinary Scottish Parliament and ordinary Scottish local government polls to coincide, then the Secretary of State would have had competence over the devolved conduct rules, which would otherwise both be the responsibility of the Scottish Parliament. This is clearly undesirable and goes beyond the Smith recommendation.”
The Scottish Government suggested alternative drafting in relation to the digital service, which they, and we, think is clearer about the actual effect of the reservation. The reference to the reservation of parts 5 and 6 of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 is the same as that in the Scotland Bill.
The Scottish Government have said that they are generally content with clauses 4 to 9, subject to the changes that they are proposing to the United Kingdom Government. The Secretary of State is no longer present, but no doubt his colleagues will be avidly taking notes about the Scottish Government’s suggestions. We have heard, in good faith, that they will be taken on board and considered in full, and hopefully they will be.
The Committee will excuse me if I rely heavily on the points of detail set out by the Scottish Government and shared with the UK Government and the devolution Committee of the Scottish Parliament. The first of those, in relation to clause 4, the part which enables Scottish Ministers to make provision by order for the combination of polls for a specified list of polls that currently may coincide, could be simplified. The reservation of the power to make combination rules could be removed from section B3, and the list of coinciding polls at section l2(2)(d) could be replaced with a provision that gives Scottish Ministers power to provide for the combination of polls and referendums that are within the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament.
The references to use of the digital service could be seen to conflict with clause 6. This currently gives Scottish Ministers some powers to make provision, with the agreement of the Secretary of State. This could be read as restricting the use of the digital service beyond what is actually needed or intended.
Clause 5(3) goes beyond what was recommended by the Smith commission. The Smith agreement clearly sought only to prevent the polls from being held on the same day. The Scottish Government would wish to adhere to that narrow limitation. Their preference would be for the words
“or within two months before”
to be omitted from clause 5(3).
In clause 6, the Scottish Government view is that the definition of
“use of the digital service”
is overcomplicated. They also believe that the inserted section 6(3) may be out of step with existing provision in this area, as it appears to suggest that a person cannot use the digital service unless they are eligible to register, when there is nothing to suggest any current restriction on those who may use the service. If the purpose of the digital service is to determine whether an applicant is eligible to register, this provision could be omitted.
Also in clause 6, and in common with the approach to the vetoes throughout the Bill, we believe that the provision at subsection 11—
“Regulations made by the Scottish Ministers by virtue of subsection (9) may not be made without the agreement of the Secretary of State”—
should be removed. We will, of course, return to vetoes at a later stage of our consideration.
On clause 7, the Scottish Government have noted that this power does not apply where any other poll is combined with a Scottish Parliament election. They accept this in principle as a practical approach, but they suggest that it should be limited to the combination of a Scottish Parliament election with any other poll that is outwith the Parliament’s competence. The provision as drafted would have the effect that, should the timing provisions be varied to permit Scottish Parliament elections to be combined with local government elections in Scotland, the combination rules would be reserved, which would be undesirable.
On clause 9, the Scottish Government argue that subsection (6) can be omitted as the Scottish Parliament (Elections etc.) Order 2010 is already devolved under the Scotland Act 2012. The Smith commission recommended that the Scottish Parliament should have all powers in relation to Scottish Parliament elections and elections to local government in Scotland. In doing so, the commission specifically stated that this would include party political broadcasts. There does not appear to be any provision to this effect in the draft clauses. We hope the Government will address this point in particular.
The Smith commission also recommended that
“the Electoral Commission will continue to operate on a UK-wide basis. The Scottish Parliament will have competence over the functions of the Electoral Commission in relation to Scottish Parliament elections and local government elections in Scotland. The Electoral Commission will report to the UK Parliament in relation to UK and European elections and to the Scottish Parliament in relation to Scottish Parliament and local government elections in Scotland.”
We believe that clause 3 does not fully deliver the second part of this recommendation. An alternative approach should be considered, to give greater clarity and to ensure that the Scottish Parliament will have competence over the commission’s functions in relation to Scottish Parliament elections and local government elections in Scotland.
These may seem very technical areas, but they are important. I note that those on the Treasury Front Bench have been listening with interest and they no doubt will look at the record. We hope they can be persuaded to accept amendment 60 later. If they do not, I trust they will be consulting colleagues about how to take on the technical improvements that we have outlined and that I have spoken in support of this evening.
Mr Graham Allen
I should like to speak to amendments 46 and 47, if I may. I am sure that colleagues will know that the largest amount of public consultation ever achieved by a Select Committee was on the “Voter engagement in the UK” report that the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee produced just before the last general election. The report covered a raft of ways in which we as a House and as politicians—and politics in general—could re-engage with people out there.
The Committee did some technical stuff, and I want to talk this evening about the amendments relating to automatic registration and online voting. Anyone who believes in devolution will know that it is not possible to mandate the nations of the Union to conduct themselves and their democracy in a specified way from the centre, or even from the federal Parliaments. There has to be a degree of discretion and a degree of trust, particularly when there is an institution with the status of a Parliament within one of our nations. I would argue that that should also apply to an Assembly and an Executive and that, when we get devolution in England, it should apply to the means of devolution here as well. I would argue strongly that that should take the form of constitutionally separate local government, which is commonplace in every western democracy apart from our own.
Anyone who believes in that, and who believes that there can be a rich diversity of approaches to our democracy to suit national and local characteristics, will understand that it is key to ensure that our colleagues in the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government maintain and extend their discretion on matters such as automatic registration and on the suggestion in my Committee’s report for online voting. It would be out of order to suggest that that happens overnight in other nations, but we are in the middle of discussing the Scotland Bill and it is highly pertinent to say that if the representatives in the Scottish Parliament wish it, they could take forward a proposal on automatic registration, just as they did so innovatively in relation to votes for 16 and 17-year-olds before the referendum.
Such a measure would be important because it would allow everyone to participate, and because we have a false dichotomy about how boundaries could change unless registered electors met a certain number. I will explain this to the Committee—I am getting there slowly. If a small number of people are registered, that does not mean that there is a small number of constituents. In fact, some colleagues argue strongly that the people who give us the highest number of casework items are those who are not on the register. Should we say to them, “Sorry, you’re not on the register so I’m not going to help you”? Of course not.
Automatic registration can be achieved using a number of devices. I am going to ask the hon. Member for Meon Valley (George Hollingbery) some questions about this afterwards, so I hope he is paying attention. I hope that it could be achieved through registration with the Department for Work and Pensions, for example, or through credit ratings or council tax forms. It is entirely possible to make registration almost automatic. I see the distinguished members of the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee nodding eagerly in approval of what I am saying.
The Committee also looked at online voting, and 16,000 people responded to our consultation on this. Lots of organisations also put out online information and questionnaires for us. The Committee found that the most popular option was online voting. It obviously appeals to particular groups of people at the moment, but it is clearly something whose time will come very soon. Sometimes the other place is innovative. On this occasion, there is so much we can learn from the way our devolved friends in the Scottish Parliament conduct their business. Why should they not be the first to trial online voting in certain well-prescribed circumstances, which they would keep an eye on and feel responsible for, and which I am sure they would make a success. I will not detain the Committee any further on this, other than to say that diversity, experimentation and creativity are the hallmarks of proper devolution and these are just two small ways in which we could encourage our friends in the Scottish Parliament to take devolution that little bit further in their own nation.