Scotland Bill

Martin Docherty-Hughes Excerpts

Monday 6th July 2015 Commons Chamber

[David Mundell]

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

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

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

[Martin John Docherty (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)]

Will the Secretary of State give way?

[David Mundell]

If I may, I want to comment on the important amendments dealing with abortion. The Abortion Act 1967 sets a common legal framework for abortion to be performed in Great Britain. New clause 56 would give the Scottish Parliament the power to amend that legislation—as, indeed, would new clause 66, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh). Clearly a number of views have been expressed in this Committee and in communications to Members of this House about the devolution of the policy and about the current policy. The Government do not consider the amendment appropriate at this time.

Hon. Members will be aware that abortion was one of the issues identified in the Smith commission agreement for further consideration. However, the Smith commission did not state that devolution should happen now, through this Bill. It stated that a process should be put in place to consider the matter further. In keeping with that recommendation, a process was established between the UK Government and the Scottish Government to consider the issue. Discussions are at an early stage. Accepting the amendment would pre-empt those discussions. However, as has been said a number of times in this debate, there is no reason why the Scottish Parliament should not be able to decide an issue of this significance, because it has demonstrated its ability to do so on numerous other significant issues.

I shall conclude my remarks as time demands. I recognise that there have been a number of constructive approaches from hon. Members, seen in their amendments to the equal opportunities clause. I think we all agree on the outcome we seek—that Scottish Ministers and the Scottish Parliament should have competence for socio-economic inequality and any duties attached to that. I have asked officials to look at the technical suggestions made to improve the drafting, but I want to put some matters on the record in my remaining time.

We believe that the clause provides a broad, flexible framework within the Scottish Parliament so that it can introduce additional equal opportunities measures, including gender quotas. I had a very useful meeting last week with Alex Neil to discuss this issue. The Smith commission agreed that the Equality Act 2010 should remain reserved and that the subject matter of the Equality Act 2006 falls within the scope of the equal opportunities reservation. That is why the clause is clear on this point. No reference was made in the agreement to devolving the functions of the Equality and Human Rights Commission. The commission is open to discussion as to how accountability to the Scottish Parliament for its activities in Scotland might be strengthened. I would expect that to be a matter of discussion with the Scottish Government, should they wish to make it so.

The Government do not, however, agree that legislation should determine the gender balance of the Scottish Parliament. That is for the electors and the parties in Scotland to decide. As for gender balance on boards, we believe that the clause delivers the Smith commission agreement, but I will take these points away and look further at the drafting suggestions.

[Martin John Docherty]

I am delighted that the Secretary of State has given way to me. Will he go back to the matter of the Crown Estate? He seems to be proposing a two-tier system in respect of the Crown Estate in Scotland. If the Government are going to bring forward English votes on English laws, the same system will not apply in England, and there is only one Crown Estate in England. It will eventually get all the money, whereas there is a two-tier system for Scotland—

Scotland Bill

Martin Docherty-Hughes Excerpts

Monday 15th June 2015 Commons Chamber

[Martin John Docherty (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)]

rose—

[Mr Allen]

I will give way to the hon. Gentleman. I am sure, since his Front-Bench colleague is telling him not to take too much time, that he will be brief.

[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?

[Mr Allen]

That was before even my time. I will allow the hon. Gentleman to educate me about that in the Tea Room.

Scotland Bill

Martin Docherty-Hughes Excerpts

Monday 8th June 2015 Commons Chamber

[David Mundell]

I had thought that being part of a larger number might change the hon. Gentleman’s habits, but he remains as ungracious as ever. The Bill contains no vetoes, as he will be well aware if he has read it in detail. What it contains are mechanisms to allow two Governments to work together on matters of shared interest and application. To me, the meaning of a veto is that when someone says they want to do something, someone else has the capacity to say, “No, you can’t.” Not a single provision of the Bill relates to such a proposal.

[Martin John Docherty (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)]

Does the Secretary of State fundamentally believe that the decisions of a democratically elected Government sitting in Edinburgh, who have 56 of the 59 Scottish Members in this House, should be challenged by him or any other Government Member with a veto?

[David Mundell]

I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman did not hear what I said in response to the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart). There are no vetoes in the Bill. The hon. Gentleman and others will see that clearly when we scrutinise it line by line.

--- Later in debate ---

[Emily Thornberry]

The normal response to silly questions like that is to pass on and not make comment, because the hon. Gentleman belittles himself and this place by descending to that.

[Martin John Docherty]

Does the hon. Lady believe the Secretary of State for Scotland should give more credence to the unelected upper Chamber than a cross-party report by the democratically elected Scottish Parliament?

[Emily Thornberry]

I simply think the Secretary of State for Scotland should not introduce legislation that says that we

“will not normally legislate with regard to devolved matters without the consent of the Scottish Parliament”,

because in my view that is not the sort of thing we normally put in legislation. The Bill has been rushed through at the last minute and has not been thought through properly. I strongly suggest that the Secretary of State pays attention to people who are better experts than he is, and makes sure his legislation is a little better than it is.

The Constitution Committee’s report went on to note that this measure, as drafted, would have

“little, or no, legal effect”.

[Interruption.] I am sorry to interrupt the Secretary of State once more. The Committee says this clause would have little or no legal effect, and I suggest he pays attention to that. It says that the clause would simply

“recognise the existence of the Sewel convention rather than turn it into a legally binding principle”.

In other words, it is a gesture and it does not actually mean anything. I strongly suggest the Secretary of State considers providing some clarity on that point. What do the words of the statute mean? What does he intend? Tell us what “normal” means, and what “abnormal” means, so we all know what we are talking about.

That point is as nothing compared with the nonsense and mess that the Bill will cause in relation to the Human Rights Act. The Government may or may not be changing the Human Rights Act in some way in the future after consulting people—who, we do not yet know. We do not know how it will be changed, but it appears that the Government do intend to change it. As the Secretary of State knows, an integral part of the devolution settlement is that Scotland has a role in the Human Rights Act, and that remains important. If the Government are to honour the spirit of the Sewel convention, they will need to seek the consent of the Scottish Parliament before proceeding on any wholesale reorganisation of the legislative framework upon which our basic human rights rest. The Government need to look at that.

The convention will be pushed to its limit whether it has a basis in statute or not. The Human Rights Act is embedded in Scotland’s devolution settlement, and while it remains for the UK courts to determine whether an Act of Parliament violates an individual’s convention rights, both schedule 6 and section 29(2)(d) of the Scotland Act 1998 gave the same power to the Scottish courts to invalidate Acts of the Scottish Parliament if they are judged to be incompatible with the UK’s obligations under the convention. The same prohibition on acting incompatibly with individuals’ convention rights is extended to Ministers in the Scottish Executive under section 57(2) of the 1998 Act. Since the passage of that Act, the Scottish Parliament has established a Scottish Human Rights Commission and a national plan for human rights, so human rights are without doubt a substantially devolved issue. What is more, the Scots were not exactly backwards in coming forwards on the need to preserve the Human Rights Act.

The Minister might remember that the Government spent the previous two years consulting on how to replace the Human Rights Act with their so-called British bill of privileges; they went around the country asking people their views, for suggestions, whether any rights had been forgotten and whether people would like to change this bit or that bit. The Minister might also remember the consultation’s reception in Scotland. When the Government asked Scottish people their views, how many were in favour of changing the Human Rights Act? None. The Government did not get a single person in Scotland to say that it was a good idea to change the Human Rights Act, so exactly how will they be able to implement the Sewel convention and somehow or other change the Human Rights Act in Scotland? How will that work? It is constitutional nonsense, and the Government should take it extremely seriously.

Following the election, the Scottish Human Rights Commission said:

“While we will examine any legislative proposals in detail, the Commission repeats its long-standing concerns about the regressive nature of many elements of previous proposals for a British Bill of Rights. These have included enabling the UK to pick and choose which judgments to accept from the European Court of Human Rights, reducing the scope of human rights laws so that they only apply to ‘the most serious’ cases, or to particular areas of law, and restricting the eligibility of rights on the basis of nationality or citizenship. Any and all of these changes would fly in the face of progressive protection for human rights and would have adverse consequences for people in Scotland”.

That is absolutely right. It is quite clear that the people of Scotland do not want the Government to interfere with their Human Rights Act, and the Government should leave it alone. Frankly, they should leave it alone for all of us.

The Government should not seek to change the Human Rights Act without first seeking the consent of the Scottish Parliament. It is clear that if the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice, the right hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove), went up to Scotland and asked people there whether the Government could change the Human Rights Act, they would probably tell him to sling his hook—or possibly something a little ruder.

Will the Minister assure the House that the Government’s intention is to honour the Sewel convention on a matter of such importance as fundamental human rights?