The Scotland Bill

Written evidence submitted by the Church and Society Council of the Church of Scotland

1. Executive Summary

1.1. We welcome this opportunity to consider the Scotland Bill. As stated in our submissions to the Calman Commission [1] , our purpose is to engage in a conversation on ten years of devolution in practice and our vision of where Scotland should be going and the constitutional arrangements that might enable this vision to become reality. We do this through 60 years of support (with other churches) for a Scottish Parliament or Assembly; through our experience of engagement with Parliaments at Holyrood and Westminster since devolution and of the process and impact of post-devolution policies on communities across Scotland. The Church has not taken a view for, or against, independence; nor do we anticipate it doing so other than in the democratically expressed views of its membership.

1.2. We find the following principles valuable in reflection upon our concerns and experiences:

1.2.1. The Scottish tradition recognises the sovereignty of God, entrusted to the community of the realm – who may from time to time establish appropriate institutions at different levels through which sovereignty may be exercised. This is a tradition that underpins the Claim of Right which underpinned the creation of the Parliament. Sovereignty thus is not located in any one institution and all political institutions are provisional, an understanding we believe helps us approach all issues from the perspective of "what best serves the people of Scotland".

1.2.2. The principle of subsidiarity, "that nothing should be done by a larger and more complex organisation which can be done as well by a smaller and simpler organisation". This seems to point to the presumption, as in the Scotland Act, that matters are within the powers of the Scottish Parliament unless there is good reason for their retention at UK level. This, we think, offers criteria for which powers should be devolved.

1.2.3. The Church believes that human society is called to carry each others burden and to live sacrificially so others may simply live. Such thinking has led the Church to move towards acting in all ways with a bias to the poor both institutionally and as members following a faith. The question "what best serves the interests of the people of Scotland?" should be answered from the perspective of those at the margins of our society.

1.3. We welcome the broad principles contained in the Scotland Bill as progress towards a more accountable system. However, we are disappointed by the emphasis on the economic processes contained in the Scotland Bill without a corresponding emphasis on social justice. The absence of proposals to further devolve welfare provisions is in our view a serious omission.

1.4. This submission addresses issues contained in the Scotland Bill to which our vision of social justice can make a contribution.

2. Tax – raising and financial accountability

2.1. In the context of our commitment to tackling poverty and reducing inequality, we believe that substantial devolution of sufficient parts of the tax and benefit systems to give effect to distinctive priorities and approaches would better serve the people of Scotland. For example, if a Scottish Government were elected on a commitment to redistribute wealth, more levers should be available than the current power to vary income tax. We recognise the dangers of a devolved system focused entirely on dividing the cake, the size of which is determined elsewhere; people living in poverty deserve better than this. The proposed requirement for the Scottish Parliament to take responsibility for a proportion of taxation as well as for spending would better enable the Scottish Parliament and Government to respond to Scottish concerns and give effect to distinctive priorities.

2.2. The Church of Scotland believes that taxation, in whatever form it is achieved, should not be regarded as an imposition but a method of sharing what we have on the principle that we all benefit when our neighbour’s life is improved. It is through taxation that justice is seen to be real and human need is met. We take the view that whatever method is chosen to provide the funding for the Scottish Parliament should be judged against these three principles:

· Do they encourage us to share cheerfully?

· Do they enshrine justice and promote the interests of the weak before the interests of the powerful?

· Do they uphold the human rights of the individual and also contribute to the well-being of the community at large?

(Church of Scotland General Assembly 2003)

2.3. As a matter of principle, we would hope that the balance of taxation could veer more towards the direct rather than the indirect. We are aware that there would be costs in devolving tax-raising powers, but we are not aware of those in detailed economic terms. We believe, however, that the greater level of accountability of a Government that is responsible for raising as well as spending revenue and the opportunity for Government in Scotland to be able to define its own priorities to a greater extent would outweigh any disadvantages.

3. Relationship between taxation and social security

3.1. The purpose of tax, as outlined above, is about shared responsibility for our society. The Church of Scotland is concerned that by devolving part of the tax system without a corresponding change to the benefits system the Scotland Bill weakens the necessary relationship between tax and benefits. The DWP proposals for a Universal Credit increase the UK dimension of the benefits system at the expense of benefits administered by local authorities. This move is in the opposite direction to the general developments in the Scotland Bill. The current devolution settlement allows differences in social provision for example through the provision of free personal care and aspects of the additional support for learning provisions. Each makes particular demands on tax resources. The Church of Scotland regards this as the right and proper consequence of devolved decision-making. The common ground for all citizens lies in the fundamental principle of free access to those aspects of care and education which are not undermined by devolved decision-making which allows for the detail to be different. That difference should not be seen as an inequality of social citizenship (often described as a "postcode lottery") but a sign of effective devolved decision-making that reflects local need and aspiration.

3.2. We have previously made clear that we favour additional powers for the Scottish Parliament on the social security structure. Whilst a complicated matter, our perspective is in the context of our commitment to social justice which is deeply rooted and of critical concern to us. The existing devolution settlement does not adequately support our vision for social justice, which we acknowledge aims very high as a matter of principle. This is not to say that devolution arrangements are responsible for the alarming deterioration of aspects of social justice recently; the gap between the most affluent and the poorest continues to grow. Strengthening the devolution settlement so that powers can be brought to bear strategically on such issues, perhaps through fiscal policy and the tax and benefits system, may strengthen the response from all levels of Government. We would welcome the addition of such proposals to the Scotland Bill.

January 2011