Pete Wishart
Main Page: Pete Wishart (Scottish National Party - Perth and North Perthshire)Department Debates - View all Pete Wishart's debates with the Scotland Office
(13 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Michael Moore
Those provisions are not in the Bill. That case has not been put forward in detail either by the Government of Scotland, of whom his colleagues are members, or by others. If such proposals were to come forward some time in the future, there could be a public debate, but as far as the Scotland Bill is concerned, it is consistent with the Calman commission and will make sure, formally, that we have a Scottish commissioner. That will ensure that Scottish interests on the Crown Estate are well represented in future.
As Secretary of State for Scotland, I am fully aware of my role in ensuring that we keep the Crown Estate focused on its interests across the whole of the United Kingdom. I have had two formal meetings so far and another is planned. That is probably as good a record as most recent Secretaries of State. I assure the hon. Gentleman and others who are concerned about the Crown Estate that we will continue to work to make it more accountable, more transparent and more focused on Scotland’s and the rest of the UK’s interests.
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)
I thank the Secretary of State, who is generous with his time. He keeps on saying that the provisions were in the Calman proposals, but only 35 out of the 63 proposals are in the Bill. Issues such as immigration, benefits, aviation and aggregates are all out. Why is the right hon. Gentleman so negative about so many of the Calman proposals, and why did he not implement those important measures?
Michael Moore
I understand that the hon. Gentleman will seek to catch your eye later, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am sure that he has studied the Command Paper along with the Bill in great detail, in which case he would have seen what we said about the aggregates levy and aviation duty. We made it clear that there is a difficulty with the aggregates levy because of issues before the courts, so it would be inappropriate to bring forward proposals at this stage. However, we make clear in the Command Paper our intention to devolve that area. Likewise on aviation duty, the Government are reviewing the position, and we still intend aspects of it to be devolved. It is the same with welfare. The Command Paper talks about the major reforms we are introducing and the fact that they will fully take account of devolution and reflect the spirit of what was in the Calman report. I hope that that goes some way towards reassuring the hon. Gentleman, although I suspect it will not.
Beyond the power to borrow up to £500 million for current spending, a Scottish cash reserve will be created so that the Government will be able bank and save money where tax receipts exceed those expected. These provisions will allow for effective financial management to deal with fluctuations in the new revenue stream of tax receipts.
We also set out in the Bill a brand new capital borrowing power of up to £2.2 billion. This will provide the Scottish Government with new means to invest in major infrastructure and other projects. It will be for Scottish Ministers and the Scottish Parliament to decide whether to borrow and, if so, for what purpose—a new Forth crossing, new hospitals, new schools or perhaps even a railway—and it will be for them to account to the Scottish people for those choices.
As a consequence of increasing the financial freedom and accountability of the Scottish Parliament to raise its own revenues, there will be a reduction in the existing block grant. The grant will continue to make up the remainder of the Scottish budget, however. That will ensure financial stability; it will ensure continuity of public service provision; and it will maintain the economic union that is so central to our United Kingdom. I know that views differ—both in this House, and further afield—on the broad issue of the block grant and, specifically, on the Barnett formula that underpins it. I do not expect those differences to be resolved today; indeed, the funding formula is not part of the Bill.
The Government have set out their position on the Barnett formula in their programme for government. While recognising the need to review the arrangements in time, our overriding priority is to tackle the deficit, and we will not consider a review until the public finances are returned to good health.
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)
Now that we have resolved that little matter, I beg to move an amendment, to leave out from “That” to the end of the Question and add:
That this House, while recognising the need to further enhance the powers of the Scottish Parliament, nevertheless believes that the measures the Scotland Bill seeks to devolve are inadequate to meet the ambitions of the Scottish Government for the people of Scotland; considers the measures relating to air weapons, road safety and drink driving to be incomplete; regrets that the Calman Commission’s recommendations to devolve the aggregates levy and air passenger duty, and to devolve responsibility for the marine environment to match the Scottish Parliament’s responsibility for fisheries, as well as its proposal for a Scottish role in welfare benefits, have all been abandoned; regards the proposals for the Crown Estates Commission as inadequate; deplores the proposals in the Bill to re-reserve already devolved responsibilities; concludes that the tax varying provisions would embed a long-term deflationary bias in Scotland’s budget and that the proposed borrowing powers remaining subject to HM Treasury controls and limits render them insufficiently flexible; and therefore considers the Bill as a whole to be unacceptable.
I welcome the Second Reading of this Conservative-led Government’s Scotland Bill, and, like my hon. Friends, look forward to debating the further transfer of powers and responsibilities to the Scottish Government. The House will find the Scottish National party a willing and diligent partner in ensuring that the Bill is debated properly. What we have seen today, however, is remarkable. We have seen a Liberal Secretary of State for Scotland lead, on behalf of a Conservative-led Government, a debate on a Conservative-led Scotland Bill that was initiated in the Scottish Parliament by a former leader of the Scottish Labour party. This is cross-Unionist consensus in all its Conservative-led glory. I believe that, given the consequent lack of scrutiny that will be offered by Her Majesty’s Opposition, along with the disappearance of what remains of independent thought on the Liberal Benches, the task of scrutinising the Bill will be left to the Scottish National party. It is we who will scrutinise the Bill in the interests of the Scottish people, and we will do so most diligently and sincerely.
Malcolm Bruce
If that is the attitude of the Scottish National party, why have its members taken no part in the constitutional convention or the Calman commission over the years, and then appeared at the last minute, in a grudging and curmudgeonly fashion, to take part in a debate that they have not entered into for 25 years?
Pete Wishart
It is a matter of principle. I know that the right hon. Gentleman knows very little about principle in the context of the Liberal Democrats, but we happen to believe in independence. It may have escaped his attention, but that is what our party is all about. The fact that a reference to independence was not included in—indeed, was intentionally excluded from—the wording of the Calman report meant that if we were to retain our principled position, we could not participate. That is what we call principle, and perhaps that is a little lesson for the right hon. Gentleman.
Anas Sarwar
The hon. Gentleman has criticised the Calman process, which involved three parties working together. We rarely agree on much, but we did agree on Scotland’s future. The SNP, however, had the “national conversation”, which cost almost £1 million, asked only seven questions, received a grand total of 222 responses, and has not resulted in a single new power for Scotland. It was nothing more than a vanity project for the SNP. It was not a national conversation, but a national waste of money.
Pete Wishart
I will take interventions in a minute, but, if hon. Members do not mind, I will make a little progress first.
As I was saying, scrutiny will be left to the Scottish National party. Throughout the Bill’s passage, we will support measures that will effectively transfer power from the House of Commons to the Scottish Parliament. We will offer solutions to the inconsistencies and problems that have been identified. We will strenuously oppose the parts of the Bill that suggest the re-reservation of certain matters such as the regulation of health professionals and insolvency. We will also strenuously oppose financial measures that would mean a cost to the Scottish people of £8 billion since devolution.
Michael Moore
I want to nail this nonsense about the £8 billion. Of course it is possible to take one particular year, which happens to be the worst year in the middle of the worst recession since the war, and to make assumptions about a 20-year period on the back of it, but that is complete and utter nonsense. It is not the way the figure should be calculated. I refer the hon. Gentleman to the figures from the Scotland Office, which show a £400 million surplus.
Pete Wishart
I am grateful to the Secretary of State for that correction. He has conceded that it is possible that this could have happened. However, I heard him say on the radio this morning that the figure was not £8 billion, but £700 million. That makes it all right, does it? That is all that Scotland would have lost over the past 10 years.
Michael Moore
The hon. Gentleman is usually fair, and I should hate him to miss the opportunity to be fair on this occasion. [Interruption.] Okay, I am being generous.
What I was doing was correcting the hon. Gentleman’s colleague in the Scottish Parliament, who had suggested that the figure could be £700 million. Again, it would depend on where the line in the sand was drawn. Conveniently, in this instance the line was drawn in 2010-11. When we roll forward to 2014-15, we arrive at a £400 million surplus rather than the nonsense of the £8 billion that the hon. Gentleman is talking about.
Pete Wishart
And the Secretary of State accuses me of being selective! It is not possible to be more selective than he has just been.
We will never agree on these issues. What we have seen as a result of the work of the Scottish Government is an £8 billion loss to the Scottish budget since devolution in 1999. The Secretary of State, making the same assumption, said that £700 million would be lost to the Scottish people over the past 10 years. That is unacceptable to us, and we will have nothing to do with it.
Stewart Hosie
I think that the Secretary of State is confused. He has talked of basing the figure on a single year, which was the worst year, and has said that there would not be an £8 billion shortfall. Of course he is right, but no one has ever said that. We are talking about the cumulative impact had the Bill been in operation between 1999 and 2011-12, not 2014-15. I am disappointed, because the Secretary of State is normally fair, but on this occasion he has failed even to understand the argument that has been advanced against him.
Pete Wishart
I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who knows about these issues and understands the difficulties that the Bill would create.
Why are we giving the Scottish Parliament new fiscal responsibilities that would damage it? That is one of the proposals that we will seek to correct during the Bill’s passage. We will be making suggestions about how it could be dealt with. We are prepared to work with the Government, because we want to improve and strengthen the Bill. We want to make it a powerhouse Bill that will serve our nation and be a credit to the communities that we serve.
As we have heard, the Bill has already been debated in the Scottish Parliament, and has been subject to what has been described as an independent Bill scrutiny Committee. I certainly hope that the proceedings in the House of Commons will be a bit more useful and relevant than what we have seen in the Scottish Bill Committee thus far. We have seen a Labour convener haranguing and harassing independent witnesses, as a result of which several have decided not to take part in the proceedings because of what they feel is an in-built bias. The Scottish Bill Committee seems to be more interested in considering options that are not even in the Bill than in examining the dangerous tax plans that it contains. I hope that we can do a bit better than that down here, Madam Deputy Speaker. As you know, and as we are already observing, Scottish debates in the House of Commons are always characterised by their good nature and conviviality.
Fiona O'Donnell (East Lothian) (Lab)
The hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways. He cannot say that he wants rigorous scrutiny, and then say that we were too hard on people who provided false information in support of his case.
Pete Wishart
I do not know what the hon. Lady is referring to. I have never said anything about false information.
In a spirit of consensus and co-operation, let us start with the issues on which we all agree, for obviously there are such issues. We all agree with the Secretary of State and with our Labour colleagues that devolution is, in the words of Donald Dewar, a process and not a one-off event, and that is important. We may disagree on the conclusion of that process—we believe in independence, and my Labour colleagues believe in something else—but we all agree that devolution is a process, and that we will continue to see a transfer of powers from the House of Commons to the Scottish Parliament.
A point was made earlier about the reference to the Scottish Government in the amendment. When I first came to the House 10 years ago, Labour Members were appalled at the prospect of a Scottish Government. The Secretary of State probably remembers the debates in which they expressed their view. They helpfully said, “They can call themselves ‘The White Heather Club’ if they want, but they will never be a Government.” We are a Government now, thank goodness, and the Labour dinosaurs, some of whom I see in their places, will never go back to having an “Executive” running Scotland. That is a good thing too.
An important new development is that we all agree now that some financial powers—fiscal powers—should be devolved to the Scottish Parliament. We never had that important source of agreement before. We fundamentally disagree on the measures in the Bill, but we agree that financial responsibility should be a feature of the Scottish Parliament. I look forward to that, and that is another area of agreement. We will oppose measures in the Bill, but it is good that we now all agree that financial powers are required for the Scottish Parliament.
The most important thing that everyone in this House can agree on—this ran through everything to do with Calman—is that the Scottish Parliament has been an overwhelming success. The Secretary of State is of course right to say that there is no question—only people on the fringes of politics in this House would even suggest this—of ever going back to having no Scottish Parliament again. What typifies that more than anything is the fact that a Conservative-led Government are legislating for more powers and responsibilities to be given to the Scottish Parliament, because only 12 short years ago the Tories campaigned so energetically against the Scottish Parliament. That shows the progress that we have made, and there will be areas of agreement as we go through the Committee stage in this House.
Although we agree on many things in the Bill, there are many things with which we fundamentally disagree.
Margaret Curran
The hon. Gentleman’s contribution seems to contain an inherent contradiction, because he is saying that he welcomes the Government’s introduction of this Bill, yet it is widely observed that they are doing this because of the work of the Calman commission and his party has criticised and refused to participate in its work. The Calman commission has led to great progress for Scotland but, yet again, the Scottish National party has opposed the Calman commission and held it back.
Pete Wishart
That was an unfortunate intervention, because I give the hon. Lady more credit than that. I was trying to think of issues on which we agreed and I thought that we would hear a more helpful intervention. It was just the Labour party resorting to type and it was unfortunate that we had to hear it.
Although we agree on much, there are a few areas where we disagree.
Pete Wishart
I will oblige the hon. Gentleman. The Bill is a massive wasted opportunity for Scotland, because so much could have been included in it and we could have done so much to improve the position of Scotland. The Bill could have included measures to help our economic performance and increase growth. The Bill seems to contain a wee modest set of proposals that lack any real ambition to propel Scotland forward; it offers few solutions to provide Scotland with what it needs to take our nation forward; and, as I have said, it offers nothing in the way of a framework to increase economic growth in Scotland.
Anas Sarwar
Will the hon. Gentleman give a direct answer to something? Why did the SNP not make a submission to the Calman commission?
Pete Wishart
The Calman commission was proposed by the three Unionist parties, and discussions have gone on all the time with the Scottish Government about implementing the Calman proposals. Who put two of the main Calman proposals—on airguns and speed limits—before the Scottish Parliament? We could have legislated on those last year. The SNP said that it was prepared to take forward the Calman proposals where they were useful and helpful to the people of Scotland. Who refused to allow us to take those proposals forward? It was the Labour party, so I will take no lessons about trying to ensure that the Calman proposals are taken forward.
Dame Anne Begg (Aberdeen South) (Lab)
Does the hon. Gentlemen agree that had the SNP been more engaged with Calman and taken part in the coalition building that was necessary to come forward with the Scotland Bill, it might have got more of its views reflected in the Bill? By not taking part in that process, the SNP ensured that those views were inevitably not considered.
Pete Wishart
Why was independence excluded in the setting up the Calman commission? Why could we not have included everything? Had we done so, everyone would have taken part and put forward their own proposals to move Scotland forward. But, with their legendary cunning, the oh-so-clever Unionists said, “How do we trap the Nats when it comes to looking at how devolution continues?” They resorted to type, as they did on the constitutional commission. These cunning Unionists sitting around the table said, “What we’ll do is exclude independence from any discussion about the future of Scotland,” and that is what they did.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (David Mundell)
May I ask the hon. Gentleman what happened to his party’s cunning plan: the referendum on independence?
Pete Wishart
The right hon. Gentleman asks a fair question, and he will find out the response in May, when a Conservative-led Government attempt to secure and save their seats in Scotland. Then we will have a debate about full powers for the Scottish Parliament and then we will see the result in his constituency and area.
I shall try to get back to what I was discussing. Believe it or not, I was still talking about areas of agreement, although I was moving on to areas of disagreement. As I said, the Bill contains modest ambition for Scotland but it also contains a range of very dangerous tax plans that could significantly hurt the Scottish economy and short-change the Scottish people. As we have seen in today’s exchanges, the tax plans are the most hotly contested, keenly debated and contentious part of these proposals. As I have said to the Secretary of State, by way of figures that he keenly and hotly disputes, this approach would have cost the Scottish people some £8 billion since the establishment of Scottish devolution in 1999. I heard him on the radio saying, “It would only have been £700 million”, but what we are starting with is devolving a series of measures—
Pete Wishart
I think we have been through all this before, but the Secretary of State might want another shot.
Mr Donohoe
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. May I suggest, Madam Deputy Speaker, that you gently remind the hon. Gentleman that he should speak to his amendment? He has been talking for some 15 minutes and I have not heard anything about the amendment.
Michael Moore
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) cannot keep repeating this figure of £700 million. I was pointing out how it was slightly unfortunate that his colleague in the Scottish Parliament, Fiona Hyslop, chose to use one figure and ignore the £400 million surplus, which is the more relevant figure.
Pete Wishart
I am grateful to the Secretary of State for finally clearing that up.
I was talking about a measure that is actually a Tory budget cut to the Scottish Parliament and, unfortunately, the nodding dogs of the Labour party are supporting the Conservative-led Government’s cuts and assault on the Scottish budget. Why have they taken us into this measure, which is to the great detriment of the Scottish budget? The SNP will not accept a Tory cut of this magnitude.
Gordon Banks
May I try to bring the hon. Gentleman back to his amendment, or even encourage him to start discussing it? Does he intend to vote against the Bill? After all, his amendment states that he
“considers the Bill as a whole to be unacceptable.”
Is he going to support new powers for Scotland or rule against them?
Pete Wishart
Hon. Members seems to want to hear so much about our amendment. It states that the Bill is unacceptable; a cut of this magnitude to the Scottish budget is unacceptable. As I said, the SNP will scrutinise the Bill as it goes through Committee. I am not expecting any scrutiny of the Bill from Labour Members; I just expect them to sit there agreeing, complicit with the Conservative-led Government. We have tabled a reasoned amendment and, thankfully, Mr Speaker has accepted it. However, we will allow the Bill to proceed to Committee and seek to improve it there. Right now, the Bill is a broken Bill that needs to be fixed. There are serious difficulties with it and we will try to improve it. The challenge for the Labour party is this: will it support us in trying to improve the Bill?
Sir Menzies Campbell
In the interests of clarity, will the hon. Gentleman tell the House whether he intends to divide the House on his amendment?
Pete Wishart
We would not table a reasoned amendment if we did not intend to divide the House. Of course we are going to divide the House. The Bill is unacceptable, as we have said. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman wants to go home, he can do so, although I would suggest that he hang around.
Pete Wishart
I am going to make a bit of progress because, to be fair, I have taken a number of interventions from the hon. Gentleman.
Pete Wishart
I will give way to the right hon. Lady later, but I now wish to get through my speech.
Parts of the Bill are unacceptable to us, but, in other ways, it is merely perplexing. We shall, thank goodness, finally get devolution on the regulation of airguns. I have campaigned on that issue, as have colleagues in the Scottish Parliament. Airguns cause such a blight to so many communities.
Pete Wishart
I want to make some progress.
Airguns blight so many communities in Scotland, but it is perplexing that we shall get devolution on all airguns except the most dangerous ones. I am sure that the less dangerous ones also have an impact on communities, but surely, by definition, the most dangerous ones must cause most of the damage. Similarly, we are going to get devolution on speed limits.
Pete Wishart
I am going to try to make a bit of progress, even though it is the Minister’s good self who wishes to intervene.
Thank goodness we are getting devolution on speed limits, because we have long argued for that. Some of my colleagues in the Scottish Parliament have campaigned hard for it. However, we find that we are not going to get control over freight, heavy goods vehicles or anything that is towing a caravan. The most perplexing thing of all—you will like this one, Madam Deputy Speaker—is that the regulation of activities in Antarctica are to be reserved to this House. Just in case anyone was in any doubt, Antarctica is now listed as being reserved to the Westminster Parliament. Colonies of penguins are already pulling down the saltire and hoisting the Union Jack in joyous celebration of that fact. Thank goodness for the Scotland Bill letting us know that fact about Antarctica!
Mrs McGuire
Will the hon. Gentleman please explain what the Scottish Government would do in their relationship with Antarctica if he had his way and the matter remained devolved to Scotland?
Pete Wishart
I know that it has been a feature of the Labour party in Scotland, particularly through its leader, to upset and antagonise friendly nations around the world. If you will excuse me, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will refrain from making any more comments about Antarctica.
How has the Bill been met in Scotland? There has been a curious sort of disappointment about it, and an “Is that it?” shrug of the shoulders. There has been no bunting hung out in the streets of Edinburgh, and no images of the Secretary of State emblazoned from the flagpoles of the nation. There is a real sense of frustration that civic Scotland has effectively been excluded from any proceedings on the Bill. We have heard many people ask why they were not consulted on it and brought on board. There has been very little consultation on the Bill, and there is a great deal of frustration about that.
This Bill is what happens when a cross-Unionist consensus gets put through the wringer by a Tory Government in Westminster. It was a Labour Government who initiated the Calman proposals, and it will be a Tory-led Government who will conclude them. In that process, the stuffing has been knocked out of some very good Calman proposals. As I have said, only 35 of the 60 proposals have survived.
Mr Donohoe
The Calman report proposed that air passenger duty should be included in the provisions, but it has been excluded for very good reasons. Can the hon. Gentleman give an estimate of the amounts that would be raised through air passenger duty from Scottish airports? And, just as an aside, can he tell us what the level of duty is at the moment for people travelling from Scotland to England?
Pete Wishart
The Secretary of State said in response to an intervention that air passenger duty could not be considered because it is being considered by Europe just now, but it was being considered by Europe when Calman was looking at these matters as well. There is no real difference between then and where we are now.
I am not just talking about aviation duty. I am talking about the fact that only 35 of the 60 Calman proposals have survived. This is a question not so much of Calman-plus, as the Secretary of State and the Liberals like to say, as of Calman-half. Useful Calman proposals such as those on the devolution of welfare measures—including much-needed measures on immigration—on the marine environment and on taxes on aviation and aggregates have been left out of the Bill. Other Calman proposals have been significantly watered down. They include the proposals on the administration of elections, which will still effectively be reserved to this House, on appointees to the BBC and on the Crown Estate, about which we have growing concerns.
We will be constructive in trying to get this Bill through, but I really hope that the Tory-led Government will take seriously our attempts to improve it. I do not know whether Labour Members will continue to be nodding dogs as the Bill goes through, or whether they will join us in trying to improve and strengthen the Bill to ensure that we get better legislation for the people of Scotland. It most definitely needs improvement if it is to meet the aspirations and ambitions of the Scottish people.
Mrs Laing
The hon. Gentleman is making an important point about the aspirations of the Scottish people. He also made an important point about the financial position. Is he arguing that £800 million—or a similar figure, whatever it might be—was spent in Scotland over the past decade and that, had the provisions of the Bill already been in place, it would not have been spent in Scotland? If that is his argument, where did that money come from?
Pete Wishart
As my hon. Friend has just said, it came from Scottish taxpayers. I am grateful to the hon. Lady for asking that question, because that is exactly what would have happened: we would have been deprived of that budget if these proposals had been in place. That is why we are saying that they are so dangerous, and why they should be considered once again.
When the 1998 Scotland Bill went through, the then Labour Government were prepared to accept only one amendment. It related to the devolution of the regulation of stage hypnotists. I am sure that stage hypnotists were delighted that they were going to be regulated from Scotland. As we take this Bill through the House, let us try to do a bit better than that. The fact that we are having this debate at all shows that we are on a journey down the road of constitutional reform. We will be having the debate in the run-up to May this year, and I know where I want it to conclude. We have the opportunity to strengthen the Bill.
Anas Sarwar
The hon. Gentleman has said repeatedly that he agrees with parts of the Bill, and he accepts that 35 new powers are being devolved to Scotland, but his amendment ends by proposing that the House
“considers the Bill as a whole to be unacceptable.”
Will the hon. Gentleman, who believes in independence, be voting against new powers for Scotland?
Pete Wishart
Of course we will not be voting against new powers for Scotland. We will be raising, throughout the Committee stage of the Bill, the dangerous proposed tax powers and the £8 billion that would have been lost to the Scottish people over the past 10 years had they been in place.
Mr MacNeil
Surely the big question for Labour Members is whether they want a strong Scottish Parliament to protect Scotland from any cuts that will come from the Tories and the Liberals. In the 1980s, we saw the Conservatives preferring Margaret Thatcher to independence; this time, we see Labour preferring a Tory Government to an independent Scotland. That is the reality.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primaralo)
Order. Perhaps we could now return to the amendment, Mr Wishart.
Pete Wishart
Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker. My hon. Friend has made his point in his typical and obligatory forthright manner.
Mr Alan Reid (Argyll and Bute) (LD)
I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman understands the procedures of the House. Does he not realise that, if his amendment were successful, these 35 new powers would not be transferred to the Scottish Parliament? He and his colleagues are trying to prevent the Scottish Parliament from getting the new powers.
Pete Wishart
This is a reasoned amendment. We are inviting the House to look at the many difficulties in the Bill and to consider how it might be improved.
Pete Wishart
I will not give way because I am about to finish my speech.
We have the opportunity to strengthen the Bill, and I want Labour colleagues to work with us to—
Pete Wishart
I am about to conclude, if the hon. Gentleman will allow me.
This is clearly an insufficient Bill, a broken Bill, a Bill that does not serve the interests of the Scottish people. There are many things that we could do if we could work together, but we have to hear from Labour Members that they accept that the proposed tax powers are dangerous and that we have to do something about them. We cannot have this Tory-led Government bringing forward a budget cut in disguise. We need Labour’s support if we are to try to prevent that.
Anas Sarwar
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Before the hon. Gentleman concludes, may I point out that I do not feel he has spoken about the amendment? I wonder whether he will do that before he concludes.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
Fortunately, it is not for the Chair to remind Members that they have not necessarily referred to every point in their amendments. Members of the House can draw their own conclusions.
Pete Wishart
Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am sure that the hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Anas Sarwar) will get to make his own point in his own forceful way if he catches your eye.
I was about to conclude, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I shall conclude on the subject of the reasoned amendment. I want right hon. and hon. Members to support our amendment. We want to try to improve this Bill. It is a broken Bill; it is a Bill that does not serve the people of Scotland. The tax powers will be dangerous if they are implemented. I hope that hon. Members will support our approach as the Bill goes through. Let us strengthen it and make it a powerhouse Bill that serves the people of Scotland. As it stands, it is a broken Bill that cannot serve the people of Scotland because of the financial powers in it. I urge everybody to support our reasoned amendment.
Ann McKechin (Glasgow North) (Lab)
It is now more than 12 years since the then Labour Government guided the pioneering Scotland Act 1998 through this House. I was proud to join thousands of fellow Scots of different political persuasions and of none in campaigning for its creation. It was undoubtedly one of Labour’s most important achievements. It has strengthened our democracy and brought government closer to the people and it works well in practice.
However, we recognised the need to review the challenges that the Scottish Parliament had faced in almost 10 years in operation—first, in how it could meet people’s desire to strengthen its functions, and secondly, in how to increase its financial accountability to the people of Scotland. The resulting Calman commission report was a serious, balanced and thorough analysis of Scotland’s constitutional arrangements. I would like to take this opportunity to commend Sir Ken Calman and his fellow commissioners for their work and the manner in which it was conducted. Despite the fact that the call for the establishment of the commission was initiated by a clear majority at Holyrood, it was rejected by the SNP Government, who preferred instead to engage in a costly, unpopular and one-sided so-called “national conversation” on a wholly independent Scotland.
Ann McKechin
The hon. Gentleman will no doubt remind us how much his national conversation cost, which resulted in not one piece of legislation and no change for the betterment of Scotland, whereas the Bill, we recognise, will strengthen our democracy and will be to the benefit of the people of Scotland.
Pete Wishart
The Calman commission cost £614,000, which is an extraordinary amount of money. It is what David McLetchie called “unionists talking to unionists”.
Ann McKechin
Sadly, the hon. Gentleman has not informed the House that his national conversation—the big blether with Alex—cost more than £1 million, and we have not had one single benefit as a result. That is a test that the very sensible people of Scotland will apply. They deserve better.
The Caiman commission agreed with our fundamental view, set out in our 2009 White Paper “Scotland’s Future in the United Kingdom”, that together the nations of the United Kingdom are stronger and that together we share resources and pool risks. Nowhere was that more apparent than in 2008 with the vital bail-out of our major banks by the Labour Government, which included two major Scottish institutions. The cash injected to salvage our Scottish banks was the equivalent of £10,000 for every man, woman and child in Scotland. Without the Union and the intervention of the UK Labour Government, Scotland would have been plunged into the depths of economic despair that smaller countries such as Iceland and Ireland, the previous poster boys of independence for the SNP, are sadly still suffering from.
Ann McKechin
SNP Members have made no mention today of an analysis of what would have happened under fiscal independence during the period from 2007 to 2009. In fact, the SNP has produced no governmental analysis for that period. Recent estimates by experts indicated that Scottish tax income would have dropped by nearly £2.5 billion—and that includes a per capita share of North sea oil, before the Secretary of State and his colleagues on the Front Bench ask about that. The SNP Government have continually failed to produce detailed modelling of their case for separation. The analysis has to be done not only in the good times but in the bad times as well.
Indeed, the SNP’s case for fiscal autonomy is so weak and unconvincing that its Ministers in Holyrood are now accused of having had to resort to playing fast and loose with the facts of economic research to substantiate any case at all. We are firmly of the view, based on sound, independent evidence, that the economic union is Scotland’s greatest economic opportunity and that together we are stronger.
Let us be clear that the Scotland Bill was born of consensus and consultation and is a model example that Government should always follow, whether here in Westminster or at Holyrood, before laying legislation on such fundamental constitutional reform. While in government, we sought political consensus from the start. We initiated independent commissions and reports, embarked on a robust consultation with the public, civic society and experts, and we listened carefully when those people spoke. There is no such consensus and there was no such consultation prior to the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill or, indeed, the Fixed-term Parliaments Bill, and the result has been rushed and biased legislation, which insults our democracy. The Tory-led Government have steamrolled those Bills through this House of Commons and into the House of Lords, showing scant regard for proper scrutiny and completely disregarding the opportunity to engage with interested parties and experts or the electorate whom they serve.
However, the Bill we are debating today is the antithesis of the Government’s other shoddy constitutional efforts. On the whole, it reflects most of the Calman commission’s recommendations, and accordingly there is much that we agree on. As the official Opposition, however, we will rigorously scrutinise the Bill to ensure that it represents the best deal for the people of Scotland. There are some areas of concern and issues that will require further clarification and amendment as we continue into the Committee stage, although I can assure the Secretary of State that we will not press the Antarctica clause to a vote. I am astonished that the dogma of the SNP is such that this one simple clause, which was clearly a mistake in the original legislation and has now, I understand, been corrected, will enable one of our finest universities to mount an expedition to Antarctica. Instead, the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) seems to be more concerned about where the First Minister might spend his summer holidays.
Pete Wishart
I am relieved that we will see no Labour amendments on Antarctica. I am grateful that the hon. Lady said that the Labour party will be engaged in scrutinising the Bill, which is good news. What sort of amendments can we expect to see tabled in Committee?
Ann McKechin
Unlike the hon. Gentleman, who wants to stop this process in its tracks this evening, I believe that the Bill requires a proper period of thorough examination. There will be amendments that we believe are appropriate on technical issues and on the substance of the Bill.
Fiona O'Donnell
I expect that it is a reflection of what has happened to my life since coming to this place.
I begin, rather unusually, by apologising to the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) for my rather bad-tempered intervention. It makes me angry when I hear the SNP, given its record, complaining about the process that has brought us here today, and the Calman commission. It also makes me angry when the hon. Gentleman questions whether the Bill will receive due scrutiny. I hope that, now he has heard the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North (Ann McKechin), he realises that Labour will give the Bill due scrutiny, and that he will also welcome the inquiry by the Scottish Affairs Committee, on which the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Dr Whiteford) serves. That will give us further opportunities to examine the Bill.
I remind the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire that the Calman commission consulted the public, experts and interested groups at 12 local engagement events all over Scotland. It received 300 written submissions, and held 50 public and 27 private evidence sessions. That compares more than favourably with the national conversation. The hon. Gentleman asked my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North how much it had cost. A conversation among Unionists is a far bigger conversation than one just among nationalists.
I am particularly pleased to be speaking in today’s debate because I follow in the footsteps of John P. Mackintosh. His approach was one of integrity and commitment, and he wanted genuine constitutional reform and the flourishing of the democratic expression of the Scottish people. I should like to remind Members who have visited the Scottish Parliament, and to inform those who have not, that the Donald Dewar room at Holyrood carries this quote from John P. Mackintosh:
“People in Scotland want a degree of government for themselves. It is not beyond the wit of man to devise the institutions to meet these demands.”
Labour finally devised the institution to meet those demands and delivered on Keir Hardie’s original aim of home rule. Another of my predecessors, John Home Robertson, not only believed in home rule, but lived and breathed it as he served East Lothian in both the House of Commons and the Scottish Parliament.
Constitutional reform should rise above party politics. The SNP has shown throughout today’s debate not only that its politics are separatist, but that its approach to politics—the way it does politics—is separatist. The Labour way is to work with other parties to achieve consensus, which is what it has done through the Scottish Constitutional Convention and the Calman commission. SNP representatives were absent from both, which must make theirs the longest political huff in history. They are less outside the tent than squatting on a different campsite altogether. Indeed, they have not been happy campers, although there have been an unusual number of references to caravans.
We today take Scotland forward to a new era. It is right and it is time that the Scottish Parliament takes greater responsibility for its expenditure and matches that with accountability. Of course, the Bill goes further than that in giving substantial borrowing powers to Scotland. I hope that we can now move away from a time when the SNP Government used every capital building programme as an opportunity to fight at Westminster, rather than as an opportunity to fight for Scotland.
SNP Members have still to tell us whether they will vote for the Bill or seek to wreck it today. They have an opportunity to see Scotland move forward, but they appear to be unwilling even now to rise to give us clarity on that question—[Interruption.]
Fiona O'Donnell
If the hon. Gentleman is bored, he could make the debate more interesting by intervening to answer that question, but he remains silent.
The SNP has argued for full fiscal autonomy for Scotland, but that is not what Scotland needs. Scotland needs the security that is offered by remaining part of the Union, which is what the Bill gives it.
What would the SNP have done with the banks in an independent Scotland? [Interruption.] Yes. I am afraid that it is all fantasy and Brigadoon on the SNP side. I urge SNP Members to think again—in the words of another Scottish poet—and to consider giving their support to the Bill. I also I urge them not to press to a Division an amendment that seeks to deprive Scotland of an opportunity to move forward.
I thank the House for the short time that it has indulged me, and urge hon. Members to support the Bill.
Graeme Morrice
I am obviously aware of the objection to the Bill from the SNP—it is an objection that we often hear—which is that it would mean less money for the Scottish Parliament. Indeed, the First Minister claims that the Scottish budget would have been considerably worse under Calman, compared with the current regime, yet Alex Salmond refuses to publish the numbers setting out what his plans for fiscal autonomy would have meant for the Scottish budget in the last 10 years.
Pete Wishart
It is not just the First Minister who has said that there is a fiscal drag with the current plans— £7 billion is what we argue—but the Secretary of State, who said that the figure would be £700 million, so we are in pretty good company. If that was the loss to the Scottish budget, would the hon. Gentleman object to these tax proposals?
Graeme Morrice
The reality is that Government expenditure in Scotland is considerably greater than the sums raised in taxes. In fact, in 2008-09, the last year for which figures are available, total public sector revenue in Scotland was £43.5 billion, whereas total public sector expenditure was £56.5 billion. Under the separation that Mr Salmond wants, that would lead to a fiscal deficit of £13 billion. Let us turn to the fallacy peddled by the SNP that only under a system of full fiscal autonomy would Scotland’s economy be able to generate growth. There is little evidence to suggest that this is the case. Professor Lars Feld, one of the world’s leading authorities on decentralisation, has concluded:
“We do not find any robust significant effect of decentralisation on economic growth”.
Professor Anton Muscatelli of Glasgow university has said that
“there is absolutely no statistical relationship between fiscal autonomy and growth, nor can there be.”
The Scottish Parliament’s competencies are already substantial, but we need to do more to increase accountability. Unlike the funding of most devolved regions by national Governments around the world, Scotland’s block grant is unconditional and can be spent in whichever way chosen. Voters in Scotland and Members of the Scottish Parliament are therefore not exposed to the choice between public expenditure and additional taxation. The Bill ensures that those choices are made. More shared taxes; new devolved taxes; greater borrowing; greater transparency; a fair balance of shared risk across the United Kingdom—that is a fair balance of new powers to create the accountability that the Scottish Parliament needs. The Scottish Parliament will be answerable to the Scottish people for the money that it raises and spends. That is what the vast majority of Scottish people want. They do not want separation, but they do want a Scottish Parliament that is responsible for the decisions that it takes, and that is why I am supporting this Bill.
Iain Stewart
My right hon. Friend makes an important point. The whole subject is difficult and complex, given the shorthand of Barnett and the vast difference between public spending in Scotland and England. In some areas, however, for the reasons that he has set out, there is a big difference, and those reasons will also be found in England. For instance, in remote parts of Cumbria or Devon, spending per head will be higher than in central London or Manchester.
Pete Wishart
If the hon. Gentleman looks at the study by Oxford Economics, he will find that London secures more public spending than any region or nation in the UK. If he and the hon. Member for Warrington South (David Mowat) are concerned about grant formula and Scotland’s spending relative to England’s, I have good news for them: they can vote to change that in the next few weeks and allow Scotland to have full fiscal responsibility. That would allow all the Barnett issues to disappear. If we were allowed to have the economic levers to grow our economy, we would be self-reliant on taxation.
Iain Stewart
As I said to the hon. Member for Angus (Mr Weir), if the hon. Gentleman allows me to make a little progress, I will come to the issue of full fiscal autonomy in a moment.
Clearly, the existing Scotland Act contains some fiscal powers for the Scottish Parliament: principally, the ability to vary the basic rate of income tax by 3p higher or lower than the UK rate. That has never been used, partly because the SNP Administration in Edinburgh has allowed the levy required each year for the mechanism to stay in place not to be paid. There is a more fundamental point, however: the administrative and set-up costs for making that small change in the income tax rate are disproportionate to the revenue that would be raised.
When the House was considering the Bill that became the Scotland Act 1998, it was calculated that it would raise, at the most, an additional £450 million. Given a total Scottish Office budget of over £22 billion, it was a tiny measure and would involve considerable start-up and administrative costs and not generate enough revenue. I can understand why it has not been introduced so far.
David Mowat
Paradoxically, the part of England that receives the most per head is London.
Pete Wishart
The hon. Gentleman said that London secures the most identified public spending—that is before we get into unidentified public spending. I am grateful to him because he has been very consistent in his view, which is a valid view held by Conservative Back Benchers, that Scotland’s budget should just be cut. Those on the Government Front Bench, with Labour support, want to cut Scotland’s budget through the financial measures in the Bill. The hon. Gentleman and I can surely agree that the way to resolve this is to give Scotland full financial autonomy on these issues—he would benefit and I would benefit. Surely that is the right way forward.
David Mowat
What I think we would agree about—I think this has been the consensus—is that we should have a needs-based formula. What possible objection could anybody have to a formula based on need? Members have mentioned adjustment for deprivation, and fine, let us go with that, but the difficulty that we have got into is that we have never adjusted the Barnett formula for population change.
John Robertson (Glasgow North West) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Warrington South (David Mowat). I also enjoyed the contribution of the hon. Member for Milton Keynes South (Iain Stewart). I have not read his book and, having listened to his speech, I do not think that I will buy it. [Hon. Members: “Oh!”] Let us face it, anyone who campaigned on a no/yes vote in the referendum for a Scottish Parliament meant, “I don’t want a Scottish Parliament, but give us the money anyway.” I have some problems with the economics of that position and wonder what the hon. Gentleman was thinking of at the time.
I am a unionist—with a small “u”. I am also a member of the Labour party. In the past 10 years, the Labour party has been the Unionist party in the House. We have supported the United Kingdom more than any other party. Around 2005 to 2010, the then Opposition, who now lead the coalition, had an anti-Scottish slant. I found it sad that we were treated in such a manner, but I have noticed that, since they came to power, we do not seem to hear the same anti-Scottishness from them. I am pleased about that, if nothing else.
Many hon. Members know that I followed Donald Dewar into the House. I had the pleasure of being his election agent in the 1997 and 1999 elections and of representing him in his constituency while he was away campaigning in 1998. Those of us who fought hard for a Scottish Parliament and an excellent vote, particularly in Donald Dewar’s constituency, had the reward of getting the Parliament. That is not to say that I agree with everything that has happened. I do not agree with hon. Members who said that this is the first time that we have revisited the Scotland Act 1998, because we have done that a couple of times. Yet Donald Dewar said to me that the Act was not to be played about with. Devolution might be a process and a project that will develop, but the Act should not have been tweaked as often as it has been. I hope that, if we tweak it this time, we will leave it to settle in properly. Ten years is not a long time for a political institution.
We still have to grow up when it comes to Scottish politics, as can be seen by some of the bunfights between the party that will remain nameless—I know that its Members count the number of the times that it is named—and Labour. It should not be a bunfight; we should think of the people of Scotland and try to do what is best for the nation.
The Bill goes a way along that road. Everything in it is not necessarily right, and some things that are not in it should be. Let me concentrate on those for a moment. The voting system for the Scottish Parliament is wrong. I particularly dislike the top-up of Members, and the votes of the people of Glasgow, part of which I have the honour of representing, are not proportionately counted.
There was a great deal of talk in debates on other Bills—they were not consulted on, just as this Bill was not consulted on—about how one person’s vote in one constituency is worth more than someone else’s vote in another. However, the second votes of 45,000 people in the Glasgow area do not count for the top-up list. Not one Member is elected by those 45,000 votes, which I believe is inherently wrong. It is not right to conduct a parliamentary election on first past the post and then, just because a party is so successful in gaining seats, for 45,000 votes to be discounted. I expect that 45,000 to be a lot more come the next election.
Pete Wishart
The hon. Gentleman is the epitome of reason, and his speech differs greatly from some of the incoherent rants from his colleagues—we are likely to hear more such rants from the next few speakers. Is he really suggesting that we get rid of proportional representation for the Scottish Parliament? Surely we cannot go back to the old days of Glasgow council, when Labour members gained majorities on vast minorities of support.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. Before the hon. Member for Glasgow North West (John Robertson) resumes his speech, I should say that he is now going through things that are not in the Bill. If he goes on at length on those matters, he is clearly going to make a lengthy speech before he even gets on to measures that are in the Bill. Will he now direct his comments towards what is in the Bill?
Gemma Doyle (West Dunbartonshire) (Lab/Co-op)
The hon. Member for Dundee East (Stewart Hosie) mentioned banter, and before I deal with the substance of the debate, I wish my hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (Fiona O’Donnell) a very happy birthday. She made an excellent speech, despite the rather churlish sedentary comments of another hon. Member. It was not quite as good a speech as she made last night—but for those who missed that particular speech, I am afraid that it is not in Hansard, which is probably just as well.
I welcome the opportunity to speak about the Bill, which will strengthen devolution and increase the accountability of the Scottish Parliament to the people of Scotland. It will build on the historic work of the Labour Government in establishing the Scottish Parliament.
I campaigned for a Scottish Parliament as a teenager in 1997, even though I was not old enough to vote in the referendum. In the past decade, devolution has proved to be the right form of governance for Scotland. The Parliament has delivered free personal care for the elderly, guaranteed a nursery place for every three and four-year-old and led the way for the rest of the UK, as my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow East (Margaret Curran) said, by introducing the smoking ban, among other measures.
The Scottish Parliament has been a great success, but after a decade of devolution, it was time to review how it works in practice. That is why the Labour Government established the Calman commission in response to the cross-party calls in the Scottish Parliament. The exception was, of course, the Scottish National party, which refused to have anything to do with those much-needed discussions.
Calman made several recommendations, including on tax-raising powers and responsibilities for capital borrowing. The Scottish Government have been accountable for spending taxpayers’ money for the past 12 years, and it is now appropriate that they will be accountable for how it is raised. The powers will increase the proportion of revenue that the Scottish Parliament raises from around 15% to 35% and give the Parliament the ability to borrow nearly £3 million in capital and revenue expenditure. Greater powers over taxation will give Members of the Scottish Parliament a significant ability to stimulate sectors of the Scottish economy.
Pete Wishart
I am sure that the hon. Lady listened carefully to my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee East (Stewart Hosie) when he explained his problems with the Bill. He described a deflationary bias that is built into the heart of its financial provisions. Why does the hon. Lady not think that there is a deflationary bias? How is there no deflationary bias in the proposals as they stand?
Gemma Doyle
If the hon. Member for Dundee East (Stewart Hosie) would like to discuss that with me, I would be happy to do so when he is in the Chamber or on another occasion.
In addition to new powers on funding, Calman also recommended devolving powers to regulate air weapons, set the drink-drive limit and determine national speed limits. The inclusion of the transfer of those powers in the Bill is welcome. However, some points of concern obviously remain, such as the aggregates levy, food labelling and charity registration. We would welcome an update from the Under-Secretary on those matters. On the whole, the Bill is the right approach to strengthening devolution and preserving the Union.
In addition, the vast majority of Scots want that approach. Polls show that most want more powers for their Parliament while remaining within the UK. Indeed, some might say that Scottish people know that they have the best of both worlds: an effective Parliament that enables them to find Scottish solutions to Scottish problems while being part of the fifth largest economy in the world.
As the nationalists encourage us to engage in flag waving and sentimentalism, we should keep sight of the vital importance of our economic and cultural partnership in the UK. As I have already mentioned, Calman was established as a consequence of cross-party support, but it did not receive unanimous backing. Far from seeking to strengthen devolution within the Union, it is the ultimate goal of the SNP to break up Britain and to break the historic, cultural and economic ties that bring strength to Scotland and breadth to Britain.
Rather than engage in the process of making the Parliament stronger, the SNP chose to indulge in its own national conversation, as my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow Central (Anas Sarwar) mentioned. By its own admission, it spent nearly £2 million on a conversation with itself on the terms of a referendum on full independence, which would have cost £9 million but was later abandoned anyway. That was a complete waste of money.
So obsessed is the SNP with its separatist agenda that it refused to accept that most Scots do not want independence. The SNP does not understand that the priorities of ordinary Scots are protecting and creating jobs, better schools and hospitals, and making our communities safer. That is why Scots are not listening to the SNP any more.
Gemma Doyle
I have already given way to the hon. Gentleman, so may I make some progress please?
One reason why Scots voted for devolution in ’97 was that they lived through a Tory Government in the ’80s who did not care about us, and who indeed used Scotland as a testing ground for their most reviled policy—the hated poll tax. The establishment of the Scottish Parliament should mean that we in Scotland have some defence against the worst excesses of any Tory Government, but that will not happen now that we have an SNP Government in Scotland.
People in my constituency have been hit by an SNP double whammy. An SNP-run council is mounting an attack on the most vulnerable by imposing unfair charges on the elderly and disabled, and an SNP Government are making cuts to local services that are deeper in my area than across the rest of Scotland. The figures bear that out. The SNP in government has seriously failed the people of Scotland and Scots continue to reject separation in massive numbers. As the SNP continues to pursue its obsession with separation, it becomes more and more out of touch by the day. That was highlighted by the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) when he spent his time failing to speak to his amendment, but talking about Antarctica and caravans.
Pete Wishart
It is really sad that we are back to incoherent ranting in interchangeable speeches from Labour Members. Will the hon. Lady talk about the Bill? What amendments would she like to see to improve the Bill? Where can we achieve cross-party consensus to achieve a powerhouse Bill? What valuable contribution will she make in Committee to improve the Bill?
Gemma Doyle
Just before I gave way, I mentioned the hon. Gentleman’s amendment, which I think was very generous of me, given that he did not speak to it at all.
The Calman commission concluded that the real way to strengthen devolution to make a real difference to the everyday lives of Scots is to give the Scottish Parliament some specific additional powers and some more responsibility for tax raising. The test of this Bill is whether it delivers those things effectively. I remain concerned about a few particular aspects of the Bill, but I hope that detailed scrutiny will make it stronger. On the whole, I believe that it will consolidate devolution and build on the transformation of the governance of Scotland delivered by Labour in 1999, and I look forward to supporting its progress through Parliament.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (David Mundell)
I begin by thanking all right hon. and hon. Members for their contributions to the debate. I shall try to deal with the detail raised in individual contributions as time allows.
Today’s debate is a testament to the significance of the Scotland Bill for the future of Scotland and the United Kingdom. Although the opening of the Scottish Parliament in 1999 was quite rightly greeted with much fanfare—I was pleased to play my part in that day, along with the hon. Members for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Cathy Jamieson) and for Glasgow East (Margaret Curran)—there was, as has been said, a recognition at that time of the view, which was personified by the then First Minister, Donald Dewar, that devolution was a process rather than an event.
Equally, it must be recognised that this Bill is part of a process within that process of devolution. It is part of the Calman process. The Calman process is one that I have been involved in from the very beginning. It began back in 2007, when I joined the then Scottish Secretary, now Lord Browne of Ladyton and the Government deputy Chief Whip, and the three parties’ leaders at Holyrood, Wendy Alexander, Annabel Goldie and Nicol Stephen—I pay tribute to them, as did the hon. Member for Glasgow North East (Mr Bain)—in seeking to establish an independent review of Scottish devolution, 10 years on. I want to put on record the Government’s thanks not just to them, but to the right hon. Member for East Renfrewshire (Mr Murphy) and all those who worked with him, to Iain Gray MSP and Tavish Scott MSP, who joined us over subsequent months in the cross-party steering group to lay the groundwork on how to implement the recommendations that emerged from the review.
It gives me great personal satisfaction to be part of a new coalition Government who are seeing Calman through. I know that the Opposition remain behind the process, too, and I was pleased to learn that on his visit to the Scottish Parliament on 30 June last year, the current Labour leader said that
“we also recognise the need for Scotland to have an ability to vary its tax rates on the basis of the Calman commission proposals.”
I am glad there is at least one thing on the blank sheet of paper.
I welcome the considered remarks of the hon. Members for Glasgow North (Ann McKechin) and for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Tom Greatrex). It was clear not just from their remarks but from many Back-Bench contributions from both sides of the House that this Bill will indeed receive due scrutiny in this House. Any suggestion to the contrary would be quite wrong.
Let me pick up on one or two of the points about taxation that the hon. Member for Glasgow North raised. I emphasise particularly that the Government, the Scottish Government and Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs are working together through the high-level implementation group and other forums to ensure that the tax system works in a way that minimises administration for business and makes it is as easy as possible for Scottish taxpayers to operate.
Our clear view is that the system that allows people resident in Scotland for tax purposes to have a distinct Scottish tax code will deal with many of the issues that have been reported. For example, the notion that everyone in Scotland will be required to fill in an income tax return when they do not do so currently is without foundation. I am sure that we will be able to return to these issues when we get into detailed examination of the Bill and debate the precise definition of “a Scottish taxpayer”. I am sure that hon. Gentlemen and, indeed, my hon. Friends, will come forward with the many and varied occupations that could provide a basis for challenging the definition of being resident in Scotland. I was not expecting to hear a reference to stage hypnotists today, but this shows the variety of issues in respect of which we can debate whether they should be devolved or not.
David Mundell
Of course, Antarctica is another issue—it became of interest to the Scottish National party only when it discovered that it might no longer be devolved. As became clear in the debate, SNP policy on it is not exactly clear.
The Calman process provides a great example of different political parties working together in the national interest, and I am sure that Opposition Members will in due course come to see the coalition Government in a similar light. If the Bill benefits from being cross-party, it also benefits from being cross-Parliament. I have no doubt that the Bill, and support for it, will be enhanced through being tested by the unique tricameral scrutiny to which it is subject—in this House, in the other place and in the Scottish Parliament.
I was extremely disappointed by the way in which Scottish National party Members derided the Scottish Parliament process of scrutiny, about which the hon. Member for Glasgow East spoke eloquently, and which is accepted as one of the great assets of the Scottish Parliament. As ever with the Scottish National party, however, the issue is not the level of scrutiny but whether the scrutineers agree with it.