Scotland Bill
Debate between Wayne David and Callum McCaig(8 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Wayne David
The acid test of this Bill is whether it delivers on the vow and the recommendations of the Smith commission. Objectively, assuming that all the Government amendments are agreed, we believe that the Bill goes a long way to delivering on the Smith commission. That is not to say that the Government have delivered on absolutely everything. They clearly have not, and I have to say that it is a sad reflection on this Government that they have come to this point kicking and screaming. Since the beginning of the Smith commission’s report in November 2014, the Government have had a long and painful journey.
Nowhere is the Government’s change of heart more clear than in respect of Government new clause 12. It was constantly argued by Opposition Members in Committee that the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government ought to be described as “a permanent part” of the United Kingdom’s constitutional arrangements. We argued that the phrase “recognised as permanent” was less than what was recommended by the Smith commission and that, as the Scottish Parliament’s Devolution (Further Powers) Committee correctly argued, the use of the phrase “recognised as permanent” had the effect of weakening the Smith recommendations. I am pleased that the Government have listened.
Some might think that this is all about constitutional navel-gazing, but it is an extremely important point that the Scottish Parliament be placed on a firm constitutional footing and that the sovereignty of the Parliament rests with the people of Scotland. I have, however, a question for the Secretary of State on the issue of the UK’s parliamentary sovereignty.
We all know that a classic theory of UK parliamentary sovereignty is stated in Dicey’s “Introduction to the Law of the Constitution”. According to this classic theory, Parliament can make a law on any subject it pleases, and there are no fundamental laws that restrict its powers. The Government’s new clause 12, I would suggest, is a departure from that theory, which I welcome. Does the Secretary of State agree that in passing new clause 12 we are making modest but significant constitutional history?
New clause 13 is about the functions exercised by Scottish Ministers in respect of elections. It is essentially technical, but on the issue of elections, I refer briefly to amendments 37 and 43. Of course, a vital part of any democracy is free and open elections, and we support Government new clause 13 and Government amendments 35 to 43. I am glad that the Government have recognised the need to devolve some of the responsibilities of the Electoral Commission. It is surely only appropriate that the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 is amended so that the functions of the Electoral Commission are devolved for elections to the Scottish Parliament.
I note that the Government have introduced the significant amendment 43, which deals with the so-called “Digital Service”. As I understand it, this relates to the ability to register online to vote. Given the introduction of individual elector registration, this is very important. I ask the Minister for clarification on two points. First, although there is reference in the Bill to Scottish Ministers making regulations subject to the negative procedure, it is repeated in amendment 43, so I would appreciate it if the Government could explain what exactly this negative procedure is and how it will work?
Secondly, with regard to the online registration system, could there be confusion about which electors are able to vote in which elections? The Scottish Parliament has rightly decided to introduce votes for 16 and 17-year-olds at all Scottish elections, but these individuals will be denied the vote in Westminster elections. Is there not a danger of widespread confusion, particularly if the online registration technology is being used for both Westminster and Scottish elections?
If I am pleased that the Government have listened to the debate, particularly as far as new clause 12 is concerned, I am disappointed that they have not brought forward an amendment on the Sewel convention and its workings. We argued in Committee, as did SNP Members, that we were concerned about the narrow interpretation of the Sewel convention, which concerned the more general devolved competence. Moreover, there is the imprecision of the word “normally”. As I said in the Committee of the whole House:
“How long is a piece of string?”—[Official Report, 15 June 2015; Vol. 597, c. 99.]
The word “normally” is legally imprecise, which is why amendments 7, 8, 9 and 10, to remove the offending word, were tabled by the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael), who sadly cannot be with us today.
New clause 35, tabled by the right hon. Member for Moray (Angus Robertson), seeks to place the Sewel convention on a statutory footing. This was, of course, recommended by the Smith commission, and we are happy to support the new clause, if it is pressed to a vote. However, if we are supporting new clause 35, we are certainly not supporting new clause 36, also tabled by the right hon. Member for Moray. It deals with future referendums on Scottish independence. I note that in the right hon. Gentleman’s statement to the press over the weekend, he said:
“Whether or not Scotland has a referendum in the future should be up to the people—and in the hands of the Scottish Parliament—rather than the UK Government.”
Callum McCaig (Aberdeen South) (SNP)
Paragraph 18 of the Smith commission report states:
“It is agreed that nothing in this report prevents Scotland becoming an independent country in the future should the people of Scotland so choose.”
If the people of Scotland do not have the power to choose, how is that provision to stand the test of time?
Wayne David
I may be mistaken, but I thought the Scottish people had made a decision—a very firm and clear-cut decision. If there is a move towards having a referendum in the future—
Callum McCaig
On the history of this issue, the referendum happened in September, and the Smith commission from which I have directly quoted, happened after that. All the parties decided that nothing should prevent Scotland from becoming independent, should the people so wish—yet that is exactly what these provisions are trying to do.
Wayne David
No one is seeking to deny the people of Scotland anything. I simply remind the hon. Gentleman that a prominent member of the SNP said that the result was gold-plated, and that the Scottish Parliament has the power at present to have a referendum. The amendment seeks to take away the caveats that are based on discussion and all the more reasonable for that.
Scotland Bill
Debate between Wayne David and Callum McCaig(8 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Wayne David
Well, things can be changed through political will. As I have said, where there is a will to make that change, a change can be made. A way can be found, if there is the desire to do so. I very much hope that the Government listen carefully to what has been said this evening.
I must say that something else worries me, too. I refer again to the letter to Cathy Jamieson from the Financial Secretary. The penultimate paragraph says:
“In 2011 the Scottish Government were explicitly advised of this potential consequence of changing from regional police forces to a single authority as part of the proposed revised funding model for Police Scotland. At the time they took the decision to make these reforms they would have known they would no longer be eligible for the VAT refunds as a result.”
There we have it in black and white: the Scottish National party Government were warned that their plans to reorganise emergency services would, in effect, cost millions in VAT refunds. Yes, cost savings might have been made; but they knew the situation and they were prepared to see that loss occur. They still pressed ahead with their plans. This is in part a mess of the SNP’s own making, compounded by an indifferent and apathetic Tory-led Government here in Westminster. The sensible thing surely would have been for the Scottish Government and the UK Government to have come together and sort out this problem before Police Scotland and the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service were constituted on an all-Scotland basis. That is the common-sense thing that should have happened. But that is in the past.
Callum McCaig (Aberdeen South) (SNP)
Will the hon. Gentleman enlighten this Chamber as to whether the situation we have here is what the Labour party has in mind when it talks about the pooling and sharing of resources?
Wayne David
The hon. Gentleman is really stretching things to try to make that point. What I am suggesting is that for devolution to be effective, there needs to be a consensus, a coming together or an agreement on the best way forward. I quoted an excellent example. Both services would have materially benefited if both the Government of the day and the SNP Government had had the wherewithal to come together and work things out sensibly.