15 Jun 2015 : Column 80
Mr MacNeil: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Ian Murray: I will give way to the hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford), who got in before the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar.
Ian Blackford: Will the hon. Gentleman not accept that the Scottish people voted overwhelmingly for the Scottish National party in the general election on 7 May? Fifty-six Members of Parliament were sent to this Chamber with the express view of the Scottish people that we want home rule—the home rule that Gordon Brown talked about before the referendum. Why does the hon. Gentleman not accept that Labour lost the general election in Scotland because it was out of tune with the Scottish people? It is about time it started to listen to what the people of Scotland want and to deliver it.
Ian Murray: It seems to me that the SNP, in its fantastic victory, on which I have congratulated and complimented its Members on a number of occasions from this Dispatch Box, does not want any scrutiny at all. Just because the SNP has made a proposal for full fiscal autonomy does not mean that we should not scrutinise that proposal. In fact, if it was not for the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), we probably would not even be discussing full fiscal autonomy today. He forced the hand of the Scottish National party so that it brought forward its manifesto commitment, which it was rowing back on incredibly quickly.
Stewart Hosie: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Ian Murray: Let me make a little progress and then I will give way, as the hon. Gentleman was generous in giving way to me.
In the past couple of years it has become increasingly apparent that devolution is a matter not just for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, but for England and the United Kingdom as a whole. The Labour movement has always been an engine of reform and the party of devolution. People want to see power devolved and exercised at local level, affording greater decision making and enhanced accountability.
Patricia Gibson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Ian Murray: I will give way, but let me make a little progress first as people want to speak on other amendments.
If those ambitions are to be realised, we need to depart from the divisive rhetoric employed during the general election campaign, which set Scots against the English and against one another and risks tearing the UK apart at the seams. Labour believes in the historic Union of the UK nations working together for the common good. However, it is clear that the Union now needs to evolve, and that evolution means dispersing power from the centre, from Whitehall and from this Parliament. With devolution to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland continuing apace, this evolutionary process is in danger of becoming lopsided.
That is why, had Labour won in May, we would immediately have started to devolve power away from Whitehall not just to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, but to the regions and localities across the
15 Jun 2015 : Column 81
United Kingdom. That is because we recognise that regions can and must be given more of a voice in our political process, and that we must find new ways to give further voice to regional and national culture and identity, and crucially without the strings that this Government have attached.
Stewart McDonald: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way and I apologise to my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson) for intervening first. The hon. Gentleman makes an important point about taking power out of the hands of this place and of the Scottish Parliament and giving it to local communities. Others on the Labour Benches have made the same point. Why then did Labour-controlled Glasgow city council continue to act as a roadblock against our legislation in the Scottish Parliament? I see him rolling his eyes and chuntering to his mate beside him. Why is Labour against our Bill in the Scottish Parliament to give power to local communities through the Scottish Parliament? Why is Labour such a roadblock in Glasgow?
Ian Murray: I am not sure of the entire detail of the proposal that the hon. Gentleman refers to, but there is a general consensus across Scotland that the Scottish Parliament has been one of the most centralist Parliaments in the world by grappling power away from local government. What we are trying to do as part of this Bill, which I think is a major positive, and I hope the Government—
Stewart Hosie: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Ian Murray: Will the hon. Gentleman allow me to answer the previous intervention first? He is a seasoned professional in this Chamber, so he should allow me to get at least halfway through the response to his hon. Friend’s intervention.
One of the key questions—I hope the Secretary of State and those on the Treasury Bench look at some of these principles in the context of the Bill—is whether those principles go further towards double devolution. There is no point in sending powers from one Parliament to another. [Hon. Members: “Give way!”] Those powers also have to be spread across Scotland from Holyrood to local authorities. Without that process, hon. Members cannot take power closer to the people they seek to represent.
I will give way to the hon. Member for Dundee East (Stewart Hosie) and then to the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson). [Interruption.] The hon. Lady can blame her boss if she likes; he wants to come in first.
Stewart Hosie: The hon. Gentleman suggested about 10 minutes ago that the Scottish National party was not going to table an amendment to deliver full fiscal autonomy, and he suggested that it happened only because of the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh). That is completely false. Amendment 89 is on the amendment paper to deliver full fiscal autonomy. Will the hon. Gentleman withdraw that daft allegation from the Labour Front Bench and, more importantly, confirm that Labour Members intend to go through the Lobby with members of the Tory Front-Bench team to stop power coming to Scotland?
15 Jun 2015 : Column 82
Ian Murray: It is wonderful. We are now being accused of voting not with the Tories, but with the Tory Front Bench, while SNP Members troop through the Lobby with the most right-wing Conservatives. It is incredible. The hon. Gentleman is not listening to the answer, although he insisted on the intervention. If he was so keen on full fiscal autonomy before he tabled amendment 89, he could have just signed new clause 3, tabled by the hon. Member for Gainsborough.
Sir Edward Leigh: My amendment gives what SNP Members say they want straight away, whereas their amendment is a bit of a fudge and slightly kicks the matter into the long grass. It is a bit like St Augustine saying, “Let me stop sinning, but not quite yet.”
Ian Murray: The SNP position can be summed up with the words, “What do we want? Full fiscal autonomy. When do we want it? We’re not quite sure.”
Patricia Gibson: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the powers proposed in the Smith commission report and in the Bill are utterly inadequate? By way of illustration, the powers of the Scottish Parliament are so feeble that it cannot even ban parking on pavements, such is its lack of teeth. Further, does the hon. Gentleman agree that all power should be devolved to Scotland unless there is a compelling reason to reserve that power at Westminster?
Ian Murray: The hon. Lady is right: there is a deficiency in respect of parking on pavements and all hon. Members have been lobbied about trying to change that in the Bill. We will table amendments, which she is welcome to sign.
Ian Murray: Let me give this commitment: if the hon. Lady brings forward an amendment on parking on pavements, we will sign it.
Let me explain why we tabled new clause 2 in terms of the constitutional convention and the practical steps we need to take so that, where appropriate and desirable, decisions are taken as close to communities as possible. Our new clause proposes that members of the constitutional convention must include members of the public, which is the key part of any constitutional convention, elected representatives across all levels of government, including this place and local government, representatives of civic society organisations and, in an advisory role, academia. What we cannot have is a Prime Minister and Government cooking up a devolution settlement in a back room of the Cabinet Office without proper recourse to the public. As I said on Second Reading, the Prime Minister’s cack-handed approach to the way he dealt with the post-Scottish referendum landscape has in itself threatened the very viability of the UK that Scots voted to maintain.
Let us have a wide-ranging discussion on the constitutional settlement of the whole of the UK. The recommendations by the constitutional committee would include, but not be restricted to, matters that we have already discussed today—the role and voting rights of Members in this Chamber, democratic reform of the House of Lords, further sub-national devolution to England, Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland, votes
15 Jun 2015 : Column 83
at 16 and codification of the constitution, the absence of a proper written constitution being one of the problems we have when discussing the Bill.
Our amendment 37 and 38 are very similar in substance to those tabled by the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael). The opening lines of the vow declared that
“The Scottish parliament is permanent and extensive new powers of the Parliament will be delivered”.
Equally, the Smith commission agreement said that
“UK legislation will state that the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government are permanent institutions”.
As I have said, the centre of political power in Scotland is the Scottish Parliament. It has powers over most things that affect the day-to-day lives of most Scots, but as things stand and as was noted by the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee, the Scotland Act 1998 stated:
“There shall be a Scottish Parliament”,
but did not provide that it be permanent, nor does it set out any special procedures or grounds on which it could be dissolved. Would there be a simple repeal of the Scotland Act?
There has been agreement among legal experts that the clause could be made clearer, more concise and more in keeping with the overall spirit and tenor of the Smith recommendations. For example, the Law Society of Scotland—I thank it and particularly Michael Clancy for all his advice on the legalities of these clauses—stated:
“The phrasing in the draft clause does not literally implement the terms of Paragraph 21 of the Smith Report. The use of the phrase ‘recognised as’ permanent has a different nuance from a statement that the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government are permanent institutions.”
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP): Given that the Scottish Parliament, at the insistence of the Labour party, was founded through the process of a referendum, will the hon. Gentleman support our clause to ensure that it cannot be abolished without a referendum?
Ian Murray: I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman has raised that point. That is exactly what our amendment does as well. We are very happy for SNP Members to sign our amendment, given that ours was tabled before theirs. We agree on this; there is no division on this. We need a robust devolution architecture. That means making sure that the legal restrictions in the Bill are removed so that we have a permanent Scottish Parliament in statute as well as in spirit.
Amendment 16 would alter clause 1 by exchanging the indefinite article for the definite article in reference to the Scottish Parliament. There is only one Scottish Parliament, after all, so there is no need for a double reference. Amendment 38 would add to clause 1 the stipulation that the Scottish Parliament and the Act on which it is predicated can be abrogated only with the consent of the Scottish people given effect by an Act of the Scottish Parliament. That is the referendum section of our amendment. I believe that amounts to what is known in constitutional law as contingent entrenchment. Given the limited time available, I will not go through the other issues relating to contingent entrenchment, but I am sure that the Secretary of State realises the
15 Jun 2015 : Column 84
desire of all three opposition parties to strengthen clause 1 and include a referendum requirement so that permanency is determined by the Scottish people. Amendments 58 and 59 make similar proposals.
7 pm
Let me touch on some of the other amendments we have debated in this group. My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen), who brings great knowledge to constitutional debates, promoted his amendment expertly, as he always does. We have also considered new clause 3, tabled by the hon. Member for Gainsborough, and amendment 89, tabled by SNP Members. As the hon. Member for Gainsborough has said time and again, new clause 3 would effectively deliver full fiscal autonomy now, not later. Amendment 89 effectively says, “Perhaps we should have full fiscal autonomy, but we are not sure and we don’t know when, so we reserve the right to do so at some unidentified point in the future.”
Let me be clear that we will support neither amendment, because they are not in the interests of the Scottish people. New clause 3 does what it says on the tin; it would deliver the key SNP manifesto promise of full fiscal autonomy at the commencement of this Bill. The Labour party and others have always said that the worst-case scenario for Scotland’s future would be an SNP group here in Westminster that pushes that promise of full fiscal autonomy and a Conservative majority Government who deliver it for them.
Ian Paisley: At the end of this debate, has the shadow Secretary of State any inkling whatsoever of when the Barnett formula calculations for Scotland would cease and what impact that would have on the rest of the United Kingdom?
Ian Murray: The Barnett formula would cease as soon as the powers for full fiscal autonomy were transferred. That is something everyone should be aware of. The hon. Gentleman has consistently challenged SNP Members to say what the cost of full fiscal autonomy would be for the ordinary Scottish person in the street, and we are yet to have an answer. We have been told, “Let’s get the principle of full fiscal autonomy together and then work out the consequences later.”
Ian Murray: I will give way again, but first let me make some progress.
It is simple: the pooling and sharing of resources across the UK, and the maintenance of the Barnett formula, benefits Scotland. The much-quoted Institute for Fiscal Studies, which the SNP continually rubbishes, has demonstrated beyond argument that full fiscal autonomy would result in Scotland having a deficit of some £7.6 billion. Before SNP Members jump up to challenge those expert figures, I want to put it on the record that that is over and above any current UK deficit and UK spending projections.
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP):
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that all this talk of black holes with full fiscal autonomy fails to recognise that a black hole exists already as a result of the policies of
15 Jun 2015 : Column 85
successive Westminster Governments, both Tory and Labour, and for which the Tories are now making the poorest and most vulnerable in our society pay? [Hon. Members: “Speech.”] The case that Labour is making in attacking full fiscal autonomy is that things are so bad that letting the Tories fix the deficit their way is better—
[
Interruption.
]
I am going to keep going—
[
Interruption
.
]
The Temporary Chair (Mr David Crausby): Order. Interventions should be short, and the Committee should be tolerant of that.
Joanna Cherry: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that his party should have more ambition for Scotland?
Ian Murray: This is the nub of the matter: if we try to scrutinise what would be a devastating policy for Scotland, we are accused of not being ambitious for Scotland. For the avoidance of doubt, that £7.6 billion is over and above the UK deficit. I agree with the hon. Lady that the Conservative Government made a complete shambles of getting rid of the deficit in the previous Parliament, breaking all their promises and only halving it. But the actual deficit—I have the IFS paper here—is not just £7.6 billion, but £7.6 billion over and above the current UK deficit, which is £14.2 billion. That is not a lack of ambition for Scotland, but a warning against a fiscal policy that would be folly for families up and down Scotland.
Ian Murray: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman, before he bursts a blood vessel.
Mr MacNeil: It is now clear that the policy of Labour’s Front Benchers is to leave Scotland’s tax powers in the hands of this Tory Government. The vow did not say that; the vow included full fiscal autonomy. Will the hon. Gentleman tell us when he changed his mind?
Ian Murray: The Bill before us will transfer nearly 50% of tax and 60% of spending to the Scottish Parliament. We promised to make it the most powerful devolved Parliament in the world, and that is a promise we will keep. As I have always said, we will ensure that the Bill is delivered in full, both in spirit and in substance. We will go further, as we will debate in Committee in due course.
Let me return to the £7.6 billion deficit—[Interruption.] I know that SNP Members do not like to talk about the £7.6 billion deficit, but it is important to get it on the record. It is unfortunate that they have consistently misquoted the figures from the Institute for Fiscal Studies, and indeed it has had to ask them to retract what they have said about its figures.
We have also heard no mention of the Office for Budget Responsibility’s oil report, which was published last week. It showed that the reliance on oil as an underpinning of the Scottish economy is no longer a viable projection. The collapse of revenues from oil will see the tax take from that source drop from £37 billion to just £2 billion over the 20-year period to 2040. That would be catastrophic for Scottish public finances. The question, then, is this: will SNP Members vote with the Tories to deliver what they want, as they have said
15 Jun 2015 : Column 86
they will do, or will they finally admit that their flagship policy of full fiscal autonomy is economically illiterate?
Ian Murray: And there is no better time to go to the hon. Member for Dundee East.
Stewart Hosie: The hon. Gentleman is extremely generous. He mentioned the OBR. He will want to confirm, for the sake of completeness, that the OBR itself has said that the forecasts were very uncertain, even over the short term. It implies 8 billion barrels of oil extracted, rather than the normal industry 14 billion to 24 billion, and of course the figures it uses are contradicted by other expert groups that have higher prices and higher forecast extraction figures.
Ian Murray: Well, the hon. Gentleman is wasted in this House; he should be in the City, buying and selling futures in oil price shares. I think that is the best way for him to go. The three points that fall from the OBR report are the unpredictability of the oil price, the difficulty of extraction in the North sea and the fact that, whatever way we look at it, oil revenues will be declining sharply over the next 20-year period. It would appear that the hon. Gentleman—[Interruption.] I am happy to take other interventions, but it is quite clear that SNP Members cannot defend their policy for full fiscal autonomy. Indeed, they should listen to their hon. Friend, the hon. Member for East Lothian (George Kerevan), who said that it would be economic suicide. He is an experienced journalist and economist, so they would do well to listen to him.
In conclusion, we will push amendment 38 to the vote because we feel that the permanency of the Scottish Parliament should have the underpinning of the Scottish people by any means that would be appropriate, including a referendum. We will push to a vote new clause 2, which proposes a constitutional convention to resolve some of the larger issues on a constitutional settlement across the country. We will oppose full fiscal autonomy in all its forms, because it would be bad for the Scottish people, bad for the Scottish economy and bad for the future of Scotland.
David Mundell: Today is the first of four days in Committee on the Scotland Bill. I assure the hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Tommy Sheppard), whose contribution I enjoyed, that I will be listening and reflecting. Contrary to the suggestion made by the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart), this is not the only opportunity for changes to be made to the Bill. I will be meeting the Devolution (Further Powers) Committee of the Scottish Parliament next week to discuss points that it has raised in its report.
I would not normally begin a contribution by suggesting that anyone read one of Gordon Brown’s books, but tonight I will do so. Gordon Brown has been misquoted a number of times in the Chamber today, and it is important to put on the record the fact that in his book “My Scotland, Our Britain: A Future Worth Sharing”, he states that neither his proposals nor those of any of the pro-UK parties involved a federal solution. Although they came close to the idea
15 Jun 2015 : Column 87
of home rule, they were not home rule. Therefore, it is a myth, which has been perpetuated this evening, that Gordon Brown has called for either federalism or home rule.
David Mundell: The hon. Gentleman has already spoken a great deal on the subject this evening. I would also like to see empirical evidence to back up the suggestion made by the hon. Member for Edinburgh East that the vow and the offer of additional powers made a significant change to the referendum result, because I do not believe that such empirical evidence exists.
Tommy Sheppard: Is the Secretary of State suggesting that they had no effect at all? In that case, what was the point of them?
David Mundell: What I am suggesting is that the hon. Gentleman cannot bring forward a shred of evidence to suggest that those proposals changed the referendum result and that somehow the people of Scotland have been defrauded. The people of Scotland voted decisively no in the referendum. They voted for a strong Scottish Parliament within the United Kingdom. The vow, which was set out in the Daily Record and other outlets, was taken forward on the basis of the Smith commission, of which the Scottish National Party was a part and to which it was a signatory. I received an interesting letter today from John Swinney, the Deputy First Minister of Scotland, who was a signatory to the Smith commission recommendations. He now tells me that the Smith commission recommendations, which he signed, were incoherent. I do not understand how he came to sign those recommendations if he genuinely believed that they were incoherent. If that was the case, he should have been making some of the arguments that we have heard this evening and during the general election campaign.
Mr MacNeil: Will the Secretary of State give way?
David Mundell: Not at this stage. The result of the general election represented a call from the people of Scotland for the delivery of the powers in the Smith commission recommendations. The Scottish National party set itself up as the voice of the people of Scotland to ensure that those powers were delivered, and they will be delivered in the Scotland Bill.
Ian Blackford: Will the Secretary of State give way?
David Mundell: Not at the moment. I have heard a number of small speeches from the hon. Gentleman, and I know the point that he wants to make.
I disagree with some of my right hon. and hon. Friends on the idea that conflict and division are inevitable when Governments work together. Despite what we regularly read in the media, see on television or hear in this Chamber, the Government work very closely with the Scottish Government on a range of important matters for the benefit of the people of Scotland. The Government remain committed to working continually for the benefit of the people of Scotland.
15 Jun 2015 : Column 88
7.15 pm
A good example of such work last week was the very constructive meeting between the Deputy First Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, at which they discussed the roll-out of the fiscal framework that will support the Bill. I assure my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) that details of that full fiscal arrangement will be brought to the House, as that agreement must proceed in parallel with the Bill. We are keen to put that fiscal framework into place.
Mr Kenneth Clarke: When pressed on the possible difficulties of fiscal autonomy, the reaction of Scottish National party Members is to point to the tremendous new levels of growth that will be achieved by the Scottish economy, and the added GDP that will flow from their enlightened measures. They are not the first politicians I have heard attribute those kinds of consequences to their economic policy. If their policy fails, they imply that any deficit would be the liability of the UK Government and the British taxpayer. Will my right hon. Friend assure me that a fiscal framework, which is still to be achieved, will include some real fiscal discipline? We cannot have an unsuccessful devolved Government running up enormous additions to the United Kingdom’s debt and deficit.
David Mundell: I can give that assurance. If it is to meet the various spending commitments that we hear sprayed around not only in the Chamber, but across Scotland, the Scottish National party will eventually have to tell the people of Scotland how much tax will rise to pay for all its proposed measures. The hon. Member for Dundee East (Stewart Hosie) carefully avoided any detail about tax when he set out the case for full fiscal autonomy. He criticised the proposals in the Bill for the devolution of income tax bands and rates, and he criticised the provision for a 0% rate. In fact, all he argued for was to enable the Scottish Government to reduce the personal allowance. I do not quite understand how that would benefit the less well-off in Scotland or the Scottish economy. The full range of other income tax powers worth £11 billion are coming to Scotland as part of the Bill.
John Redwood: When will the Secretary of State be able to share with Members the proposals to adjust the grant formula? Scotland will have higher spending and it will have tax revenues of its own, and my constituents in England are very interested in what the grant formula will look like.
David Mundell: I made it clear earlier that we would, in early course, bring forward details of the full fiscal framework as it is being negotiated.
I was not convinced by the arguments for full fiscal autonomy advanced by the hon. Member for Edinburgh East and others. I was not convinced by the red-blooded version that my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) set out for delivering the Scottish National party’s manifesto commitments, and I was not convinced by the SNP full fiscal-lite proposals—sometime, somewhere, somehow.
Ian Blackford:
The hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) gave an eloquent speech, in which he explained how the debate in Scotland had moved on.
15 Jun 2015 : Column 89
We won the election in Scotland, and the people of Scotland have demonstrated their desire for powers, for a purpose and for a Parliament. Is it not the case, as the hon. Gentleman said, that the Government are playing with the future of their own Union, which they want to defend? It really is about time that they listened to the Scottish people and delivered what the people of this country have asked for.
David Mundell: I said at the start of my remarks that I was listening to the Scottish people. The only people who are playing games are those who threaten another referendum in Scotland every time they do not get what they say they want.
The principal issue raised in relation to full fiscal autonomy is that it would mean Scotland having almost £10 billion less to spend by the last year of this Parliament. That is not good for Scotland, and that is why this Government will not support it. I am afraid that the only argument we have heard in support of these proposals was that heard during the referendum campaign—basically, “It will be all right on the night: trust us.” The people of Scotland decided on 18 September last year that they did not trust that argument, and I still do not trust it. Full fiscal autonomy would mean an end to the Barnett formula. It would mean that the Scottish Government had to fund all public spending in Scotland from their own resources. The Scottish Government would therefore be fully responsible for raising all the tax from Scottish taxpayers required to fund all spending in Scotland on public services, benefits and pensions.
Stewart Hosie: Can the Secretary of State confirm that in terms of the principles underlying Smith, we have no detriment and no advantage simply because of devolution itself, and that there will be a negotiated financial framework between the Scottish and UK Governments for the devolution in this Bill? Of course, we already have limited borrowing consent under the Scotland Act 2012 to fill holes in revenue, notwithstanding that the repayment terms were too short. Can he confirm that under the “no detriment, no advantage” principles there will be a negotiated financial framework for this Bill, and that there are already revenue-borrowing powers in statute?
David Mundell: I can confirm that the Scottish National party signed up to the Smith commission agreement, this Government are committed to delivering the Smith commission agreement, and the hon. Gentleman will therefore get what he is looking for in respect of the Smith commission agreement. There is not a shadow of a doubt about that.
Full fiscal autonomy would mean the end of Scotland pooling resources and sharing risks with the rest of the United Kingdom, and an end to Scotland being part of the UK’s hugely successful single market, which generates jobs, growth and prosperity. To all intents and purposes, the fiscal union between Scotland and the United Kingdom would end entirely, and the lesson of the eurozone is that it is extremely difficult to have a successful currency union without fiscal union.
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab):
I understand the Secretary of State’s desire to protect the Scottish people, but whether or not there is a £10 billion
15 Jun 2015 : Column 90
shortfall, if this is what the people of Scotland and the bulk of their representatives want, then why do not the rest of us, in the interests of the rest of the UK that we represent, let them have it, provided that we have a guarantee that we will not have to bail them out?
David Mundell: I do not accept the hon. Gentleman’s argument. A £10 billion shortfall in spending in Scotland would affect every school, every hospital, and every family by £5,000. I am not going to countenance that, and I am not going to support any amendments that would promote it.
We have had a lengthy discussion on full fiscal autonomy.
Sir Edward Leigh: Will the Secretary of State give way?
David Mundell: I will. [Hon. Members: “Oh!”] I will take my hon. Friend’s intervention because he proposed an amendment.
Sir Edward Leigh: Let me be quite clear: those of us who propose full fiscal autonomy and the scrapping of the Barnett formula are also arguing that there should be a block grant based on Scotland’s needs and not on England’s spending, so that there is a real Parliament making real decisions, which is what the Scottish people want.
David Mundell: I have noted what my hon. Friend has said. At times today, I am sure that he will have been an honorary member of Team 57.
I want to make very clearly a point that echoes the evidence I gave to the Select Committee chaired by the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen). I regard a Scottish Parliament as a prerequisite of a United Kingdom. There will not be a United Kingdom if there is not a Scottish Parliament. I can understand why there is a lot of debate about the exact wording, and I will continue to listen to it, but I am absolutely clear that without a Scottish Parliament there will not be a United Kingdom, and that it is not sustainable to argue about lots of preconditions on that basis.
Mr Graham Allen: I thank the Secretary of State for listening to the proposal by the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee. Will he take away the idea that what he is saying are to be in the Bill, in so many words? What those words are to be should be left to him, and perhaps he can return to that on Report.
David Mundell: I said that I would reflect on a number of the issues raised by the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) relating to proposals by the Law Society of Scotland. Among those is the debate on the wording currently in part 1, and we will certainly look at that.
I do not accept amendments 58 and 59 because they refer to the term “constitution” whereas clause 1 refers to the term “constitutional arrangements”. The term “constitutional arrangements” is used to reflect the fact that the United Kingdom does not have a written constitution. That is a well-established constitutional arrangement of which a Scottish Parliament is a crucial and enduring part.
15 Jun 2015 : Column 91
In new clause 2, the hon. Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray) proposes a constitutional convention. I have said at this Dispatch Box previously that I, and this Government, do not support a constitutional convention for reasons that have been well rehearsed, not least because—on this one matter I am in agreement with the Scottish National party—it would slow down the progress of this Bill, which I am committed to taking through Parliament as quickly as possible.
Other matters have been raised and we have debated them fully but they do not fully relate to the Bill. On that basis, I propose that we move to vote on the amendments.
Mr Alistair Carmichael: I am mindful of the fact that we have spent a considerable amount of time on this group of amendments, so I will not detain the Committee for long at this stage.
We have had a very good debate; in fact, two very good debates. On the first, there is among the three Opposition parties a broad measure of consensus that the Bill is capable of improvement. I will hold the Secretary of State to his word when he says that he will take that away and look at it. I remind him that while he might win a majority quite easily in this House, the Bill will also be scrutinised in the other place. I urge on him further consideration and suggest that the proposals brought forward by me and others tonight—I do not intend to press mine to a vote, but others who choose to do so will have my support—are reasonable.
I was very disappointed by the Secretary of State’s response on the constitutional convention. Ultimately, if we are to continue with this Union, a federal structure is inevitable. That will have to be grasped sooner or later, and the way in which that will be done is through the calling of a constitutional convention.
There has not been the same level of consensus on our other debate about the proposals for full fiscal autonomy. It has not been a particularly good debate: it has been characterised more by the heat it has generated than the light. Like the hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Tommy Sheppard), I favour the idea of evidence-based policy. I am not without sympathy for those on the SNP Front Bench when they say that they could do things differently with the extra powers that would be given to them. However, to simply say that it could all be done by generating extra economic growth is not good enough.
7.30 pm
When the deficit is of the scale outlined by the hon. Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray), it is incumbent on those wanting us to go down that road to say exactly what it would mean. What sort of reductions in public expenditure and what sort of increases in taxation would be necessary? What would be the new level of borrowing and how would it fit into a new fiscal framework?
Essentially, I do not think that the SNP’s proposals sufficiently respect what the people of Scotland voted for in the election. They voted for the continuation of a Union—
Mr MacNeil: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
15 Jun 2015 : Column 92
Mr Carmichael: No, I am just winding up.
They voted for a family of nations whereby we all put in and all take out at different times, with different measures and in different ways, with a single market, offering a single system of regulation and of business taxation. That is what my constituents voted for, both in this election and in last year’s referendum. For that reason, I will certainly not vote with the Scottish nationalists or, indeed, with the English nationalists on the Conservative Back Benches if they are minded to press their proposals to a vote. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment proposed: 58, in clause 1, page 1, leave out lines 7 and 8 and insert—
“(1A) The Scottish Parliament is a permanent part of the United Kingdom’s constitution.
(1B) Subsection (1) or (1A) may be repealed only if—
(a) the Scottish Parliament has consented to the proposed repeal, and
(b) a referendum has been held in Scotland on the proposed repeal and a majority of those voting at the referendum have consented to it.”—(Angus Robertson.)
This amendment is to ensure that the Scottish Parliament can only be abolished with the consent of the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish people after a referendum.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
The Committee divided:
Ayes 271, Noes 302.
Division No. 8]
[
7.31 pm
AYES
Abrahams, Debbie
Ahmed-Sheikh, Ms Tasmina
Alexander, Heidi
Ali, Rushanara
Allen, Mr Graham
Anderson, Mr David
Arkless, Richard
Ashworth, Jonathan
Austin, Ian
Bailey, Mr Adrian
Bardell, Hannah
Barron, rh Kevin
Beckett, rh Margaret
Benn, rh Hilary
Berger, Luciana
Black, Ms Mhairi
Blackford, Ian
Blackman, Kirsty
Blackman-Woods, Dr Roberta
Blenkinsop, Tom
Blomfield, Paul
Boswell, Philip
Bradshaw, rh Mr Ben
Brake, rh Tom
Brock, Deidre
Brown, Alan
Brown, Lyn
Brown, rh Mr Nicholas
Bryant, Chris
Buck, Ms Karen
Burden, Richard
Burgon, Richard
Butler, Dawn
Cadbury, Ruth
Cameron, Dr Lisa
Campbell, rh Mr Alan
Campbell, Mr Ronnie
Carmichael, rh Mr Alistair
Champion, Sarah
Chapman, Douglas
Chapman, Jenny
Cherry, Joanna
Coaker, Vernon
Coffey, Ann
Cooper, Julie
Cooper, Rosie
Cooper, rh Yvette
Corbyn, Jeremy
Cowan, Ronnie
Cox, Jo
Coyle, Neil
Crawley, Angela
Creasy, Stella
Cruddas, Jon
Cryer, John
Cummins, Judith
Cunningham, Alex
Cunningham, Mr Jim
Dakin, Nic
Danczuk, Simon
David, Wayne
Davies, Geraint
Day, Martyn
Debbonaire, Thangam
Docherty, Martin John
Donaldson, Stuart Blair
Doughty, Stephen
Dowd, Jim
Dowd, Peter
Dromey, Jack
Dugher, Michael
Durkan, Mark
Eagle, Ms Angela
Efford, Clive
Elliott, Julie
Ellman, Mrs Louise
Esterson, Bill
Evans, Chris
Fellows, Marion
Ferrier, Margaret
Field, rh Frank
Fitzpatrick, Jim
Flello, Robert
Fletcher, Colleen
Flint, rh Caroline
Flynn, Paul
Fovargue, Yvonne
Foxcroft, Vicky
Gapes, Mike
Gardiner, Barry
Gethins, Stephen
Gibson, Patricia
Glass, Pat
Glindon, Mary
Godsiff, Mr Roger
Goodman, Helen
Grady, Patrick
Grant, Peter
Gray, Neil
Green, Kate
Greenwood, Lilian
Greenwood, Margaret
Griffith, Nia
Gwynne, Andrew
Haigh, Louise
Hamilton, Fabian
Hanson, rh Mr David
Harman, rh Ms Harriet
Harris, Carolyn
Hayes, Helen
Hayman, Sue
Healey, rh John
Hendrick, Mr Mark
Hendry, Drew
Hepburn, Mr Stephen
Hermon, Lady
Hillier, Meg
Hodge, rh Margaret
Hodgson, Mrs Sharon
Hoey, Kate
Hopkins, Kelvin
Hosie, Stewart
Howarth, rh Mr George
Hunt, Tristram
Huq, Dr Rupa
Hussain, Imran
Irranca-Davies, Huw
Jarvis, Dan
Johnson, rh Alan
Johnson, Diana
Jones, Gerald
Jones, Graham
Jones, Helen
Jones, Mr Kevan
Jones, Susan Elan
Kane, Mike
Kaufman, rh Sir Gerald
Keeley, Barbara
Kendall, Liz
Kerevan, George
Kerr, Calum
Khan, rh Sadiq
Kyle, Peter
Lammy, rh Mr David
Lavery, Ian
Law, Chris
Leslie, Chris
Lewell-Buck, Mrs Emma
Lewis, Clive
Lewis, Mr Ivan
Long Bailey, Rebecca
Lucas, Caroline
Lucas, Ian C.
Lynch, Holly
MacNeil, Mr Angus Brendan
Mactaggart, rh Fiona
Madders, Justin
Mahmood, Mr Khalid
Mahmood, Shabana
Malhotra, Seema
Mann, John
Marris, Rob
Marsden, Mr Gordon
Maskell, Rachael
Matheson, Christian
Mc Nally, John
McCabe, Steve
McCaig, Callum
McCarthy, Kerry
McDonagh, Siobhain
McDonald, Andy
McDonald, Stewart
McDonald, Stuart C.
McDonnell, John
McFadden, rh Mr Pat
McGarry, Natalie
McGinn, Conor
McGovern, Alison
McInnes, Liz
McLaughlin, Anne
Meacher, rh Mr Michael
Meale, Sir Alan
Mearns, Ian
Miliband, rh Edward
Monaghan, Carol
Monaghan, Dr Paul
Moon, Mrs Madeleine
Morden, Jessica
Morris, Grahame M.
Mullin, Roger
Murray, Ian
Newlands, Gavin
Nicolson, John
O'Hara, Brendan
Onn, Melanie
Onwurah, Chi
Osamor, Kate
Oswald, Kirsten
Owen, Albert
Paterson, Steven
Pearce, Teresa
Pennycook, Matthew
Perkins, Toby
Phillips, Jess
Phillipson, Bridget
Pound, Stephen
Powell, Lucy
Pugh, John
Qureshi, Yasmin
Rayner, Angela
Reed, Mr Jamie
Reed, Mr Steve
Rees, Christina
Reynolds, Jonathan
Rimmer, Marie
Ritchie, Ms Margaret
Robertson, Angus
Robinson, Mr Geoffrey
Rotheram, Steve
Ryan, rh Joan
Salmond, rh Alex
Sharma, Mr Virendra
Sheerman, Mr Barry
Sheppard, Tommy
Sherriff, Paula
Shuker, Mr Gavin
Siddiq, Tulip
Skinner, Mr Dennis
Slaughter, Andy
Smeeth, Ruth
Smith, rh Mr Andrew
Smith, Angela
Smith, Cat
Smith, Jeff
Smith, Nick
Smyth, Karin
Starmer, Keir
Stephens, Chris
Stevens, Jo
Streeting, Wes
Stringer, Graham
Tami, Mark
Thewliss, Alison
Thomas-Symonds, Nick
Thompson, Owen
Thomson, Michelle
Thornberry, Emily
Timms, rh Stephen
Trickett, Jon
Turley, Anna
Turner, Karl
Twigg, Derek
Twigg, Stephen
Umunna, Mr Chuka
Vaz, rh Keith
Vaz, Valerie
Watson, Mr Tom
Weir, Mike
West, Catherine
Whiteford, Dr Eilidh
Whitehead, Dr Alan
Whitford, Dr Philippa
Williams, Mr Mark
Wilson, Corri
Wilson, Phil
Winnick, Mr David
Winterton, rh Ms Rosie
Wishart, Pete
Woodcock, John
Wright, Mr Iain
Zeichner, Daniel
Tellers for the Ayes:
Jonathan Edwards
and
Liz Saville Roberts
NOES
Adams, Nigel
Afriyie, Adam
Aldous, Peter
Allan, Lucy
Allen, Heidi
Andrew, Stuart
Ansell, Caroline
Argar, Edward
Atkins, Victoria
Bacon, Mr Richard
Baker, Mr Steve
Baldwin, Harriett
Barclay, Stephen
Baron, Mr John
Barwell, Gavin
Bebb, Guto
Bellingham, Mr Henry
Benyon, Richard
Beresford, Sir Paul
Berry, Jake
Berry, James
Bingham, Andrew
Blackman, Bob
Blackwood, Nicola
Blunt, Crispin
Boles, Nick
Bone, Mr Peter
Borwick, Victoria
Bradley, Karen
Brazier, Mr Julian
Bridgen, Andrew
Brine, Steve
Brokenshire, rh James
Bruce, Fiona
Buckland, Robert
Burns, Conor
Burns, rh Sir Simon
Burrowes, Mr David
Burt, rh Alistair
Cairns, Alun
Carmichael, Neil
Cartlidge, James
Caulfield, Maria
Chalk, Alex
Chishti, Rehman
Chope, Mr Christopher
Churchill, Jo
Clark, rh Greg
Clarke, rh Mr Kenneth
Cleverly, James
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Coffey, Dr Thérèse
Collins, Damian
Colvile, Oliver
Costa, Alberto
Cox, Mr Geoffrey
Crabb, rh Stephen
Crouch, Tracey
Davies, Byron
Davies, Chris
Davies, David T. C.
Davies, Glyn
Davies, James
Davies, Mims
Davies, Philip
Davis, rh Mr David
Dinenage, Caroline
Djanogly, Mr Jonathan
Donelan, Michelle
Double, Steve
Dowden, Oliver
Doyle-Price, Jackie
Drax, Richard
Drummond, Mrs Flick
Duddridge, James
Duncan, rh Sir Alan
Duncan Smith, rh Mr Iain
Ellis, Michael
Ellison, Jane
Ellwood, Mr Tobias
Elphicke, Charlie
Eustice, George
Evans, Mr Nigel
Evennett, rh Mr David
Fallon, rh Michael
Fernandes, Suella
Field, rh Mark
Foster, Kevin
Fox, rh Dr Liam
Francois, rh Mr Mark
Frazer, Lucy
Freeman, George
Freer, Mike
Fuller, Richard
Fysh, Marcus
Gale, Sir Roger
Garnier, rh Sir Edward
Garnier, Mark
Gauke, Mr David
Ghani, Nusrat
Gibb, Mr Nick
Gillan, rh Mrs Cheryl
Glen, John
Goodwill, Mr Robert
Gove, rh Michael
Graham, Richard
Grant, Mrs Helen
Gray, Mr James
Grayling, rh Chris
Green, Chris
Green, rh Damian
Greening, rh Justine
Grieve, rh Mr Dominic
Gummer, Ben
Gyimah, Mr Sam
Halfon, rh Robert
Hall, Luke
Hammond, Stephen
Hancock, rh Matthew
Hands, rh Greg
Harper, rh Mr Mark
Harrington, Richard
Harris, Rebecca
Hart, Simon
Haselhurst, rh Sir Alan
Hayes, rh Mr John
Heald, Sir Oliver
Heappey, James
Heaton-Harris, Chris
Heaton-Jones, Peter
Henderson, Gordon
Herbert, rh Nick
Hinds, Damian
Hoare, Simon
Hollinrake, Kevin
Hollobone, Mr Philip
Holloway, Mr Adam
Hopkins, Kris
Howell, John
Howlett, Ben
Huddleston, Nigel
Hunt, rh Mr Jeremy
Hurd, Mr Nick
Jackson, Mr Stewart
Javid, rh Sajid
Jayawardena, Mr Ranil
Jenkin, Mr Bernard
Jenkyns, Andrea
Jenrick, Robert
Johnson, Boris
Johnson, Gareth
Johnson, Joseph
Jones, Andrew
Jones, rh Mr David
Jones, Mr Marcus
Kawczynski, Daniel
Kennedy, Seema
Kinahan, Danny
Kirby, Simon
Knight, rh Sir Greg
Knight, Julian
Kwarteng, Kwasi
Lancaster, Mark
Latham, Pauline
Leadsom, Andrea
Lee, Dr Phillip
Lefroy, Jeremy
Leigh, Sir Edward
Leslie, Charlotte
Letwin, rh Mr Oliver
Lewis, Brandon
Lewis, rh Dr Julian
Liddell-Grainger, Mr Ian
Lidington, rh Mr David
Lilley, rh Mr Peter
Lopresti, Jack
Lord, Jonathan
Loughton, Tim
Lumley, Karen
Mackinlay, Craig
Mackintosh, David
Main, Mrs Anne
Mak, Alan
Malthouse, Kit
Mann, Scott
Mathias, Dr Tania
Maynard, Paul
McCartney, Jason
McCartney, Karl
McLoughlin, rh Mr Patrick
McPartland, Stephen
Menzies, Mark
Mercer, Johnny
Merriman, Huw
Metcalfe, Stephen
Milling, Amanda
Mills, Nigel
Milton, rh Anne
Mitchell, rh Mr Andrew
Morris, Anne Marie
Morris, David
Morris, James
Morton, Wendy
Mowat, David
Mundell, rh David
Murray, Mrs Sheryll
Murrison, Dr Andrew
Neill, Robert
Newton, Sarah
Nokes, Caroline
Norman, Jesse
Nuttall, Mr David
Offord, Dr Matthew
Opperman, Guy
Paisley, Ian
Parish, Neil
Patel, rh Priti
Paterson, rh Mr Owen
Pawsey, Mark
Penrose, John
Percy, Andrew
Perry, Claire
Phillips, Stephen
Philp, Chris
Pincher, Christopher
Poulter, Dr Daniel
Pow, Rebecca
Prentis, Victoria
Prisk, Mr Mark
Pritchard, Mark
Pursglove, Tom
Quin, Jeremy
Quince, Will
Raab, Mr Dominic
Redwood, rh John
Rees-Mogg, Mr Jacob
Robertson, Mr Laurence
Robinson, Mary
Rosindell, Andrew
Rutley, David
Sandbach, Antoinette
Scully, Paul
Selous, Andrew
Sharma, Alok
Shelbrooke, Alec
Simpson, rh Mr Keith
Skidmore, Chris
Smith, Chloe
Smith, Henry
Smith, Royston
Soames, rh Sir Nicholas
Solloway, Amanda
Soubry, rh Anna
Spelman, rh Mrs Caroline
Spencer, Mark
Stephenson, Andrew
Stewart, Bob
Stewart, Iain
Streeter, Mr Gary
Stride, Mel
Stuart, Graham
Sturdy, Julian
Sunak, Rishi
Swayne, rh Mr Desmond
Swire, rh Mr Hugo
Syms, Mr Robert
Thomas, Derek
Throup, Maggie
Timpson, Edward
Tolhurst, Kelly
Tomlinson, Justin
Tomlinson, Michael
Tracey, Craig
Tredinnick, David
Trevelyan, Mrs Anne-Marie
Truss, rh Elizabeth
Tugendhat, Tom
Turner, Mr Andrew
Tyrie, rh Mr Andrew
Vaizey, Mr Edward
Vara, Mr Shailesh
Vickers, Martin
Walker, Mr Charles
Walker, Mr Robin
Wallace, Mr Ben
Warburton, David
Warman, Matt
Watkinson, Dame Angela
Wharton, James
Whately, Helen
White, Chris
Whittaker, Craig
Whittingdale, rh Mr John
Wiggin, Bill
Williams, Craig
Williamson, rh Gavin
Wilson, Mr Rob
Wollaston, Dr Sarah
Wood, Mike
Wragg, William
Wright, rh Jeremy
Zahawi, Nadhim
Tellers for the Noes:
Margot James
and
George Hollingbery
Question accordingly negatived.
15 Jun 2015 : Column 93
15 Jun 2015 : Column 94
15 Jun 2015 : Column 95
15 Jun 2015 : Column 96
Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
The Sewel convention
Wayne David: I beg to move amendment 39, page 2, line 2, leave out “But it is recognised” and insert “Notwithstanding subsection (7) above”.
The Temporary Chair (Mr David Crausby): With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 56, page 2, line 2, leave out “not normally” and insert “never”.
The Amendment would require the Sewel Convention, requiring the legislative consent of the Scottish Parliament, to be observed in all legislation of the Parliament of the United Kingdom.
Amendment 4, page 2, line 3, leave out “normally”.
Amendment 19, page 2, line 3, after “legislate”, insert “(a)”.
Amendment 20, page 2, line 3, after “matters”, insert
“and (b) to alter the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament or the executive competence of the Scottish Government”.
Amendment 41, page 2, line 4, at end add—
15 Jun 2015 : Column 97
“(9) A Minister of the Crown in charge of a Bill in either House of Parliament must, before second reading of the bill—
(a) make a statement to the effect that in his view the provisions of the bill do not constitute legislation with regard to devolved matters; or
(b) make a statement that the consent of the Scottish Parliament to the Bill is being sought, or will be sought, and specifying the matters in respect of which consent is being sought; and that the Bill will not be presented for Royal Assent without such consent. Such a statement must be in writing and be published in such manner as the Minister making it considers appropriate”.
Amendment 45, page 2, line 4, at end add—
“(9) A Minister of the Crown in charge of a Bill in either House of Parliament which makes provision with regard to devolved matters must, before Second Reading of the Bill—
(a) make a statement to the effect that the Bill has the consent of the Scottish Parliament (“a statement of consent”); or
(b) make a statement to the effect that although he is unable to make a statement of consent the Government nevertheless wishes the House to proceed with the Bill.
(c) under subsection (9) must be in writing and be published in such manner as the Minister making it considers appropriate; and
(d) under subsection (9)(b) must also state the Government’s reasons for wishing the House to proceed with the Bill.
(12) In this section, “devolved matters” include—
(e) the legislative competence of the Parliament; and
(f) whether, and the extent to which, functions are exercisable by the Scottish Ministers.”
In paragraph 70 of its Ninth Report of Session 2014-15 (HC 1022), the House of Commons Political and Constitutional Reform Committee suggested that one approach to giving the Sewel Convention the force of statute would be the addition of a requirement for the Government to set out its reasons for legislating on a matter covered by the Sewel Convention without the consent of the Scottish Parliament where it seeks to do so.
New clause 5—Application of the Human Rights Act 1998 to Scotland—
The application of the Human Rights Act 1998 to Scotland shall not be repealed in so far as it affects Scotland without the express consent of the Scottish Parliament.”
The New Clause states the intention that the express consent of the Scottish Parliament would be required before any repeal by the Parliament of the United Kingdom of the Human Rights Act 1998 as it applies to Scotland.
New clause 10—Consent of the Scottish Parliament to certain Westminster Acts—
(1) In section 28 of the Scotland Act 1998 (Acts of the Scottish Parliament), at the end add—
“(8) But the Parliament of the United Kingdom must not pass Acts applying to Scotland that make provision about a devolved matter without the consent of the Scottish Parliament.
(9) A provision is about a devolved matter if the provision—
(a) applies to Scotland and does not relate to reserved matters,
(b) modifies the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament, or
(c) modifies the functions of any member of the Scottish Government.
15 Jun 2015 : Column 98
(10) In subsection (8), “Acts” includes any Act, whether a public general Act, a local and personal Act or a private Act.
(2) After section 28 of the Scotland Act 1998 insert—
“28A Duty to consult the Scottish Government on Bills applying to Scotland
(1) A Minister of the Crown shall consult Scottish Ministers before introducing any Bill into the Parliament of the United Kingdom for an Act of that Parliament that would make provision applying to Scotland.
(2) Where the Bill is for an Act making provision that would require the consent of the Scottish Parliament by virtue of section 28(8), the requirement to consult under subsection (1) includes a requirement that a Minister of the Crown give the Scottish Ministers a copy of the provisions of the Bill that apply to Scotland no later than—
(a) 21 days before the proposed date of introduction, or
(b) such later date as the Scottish Ministers may agree.
(3) The requirement in subsection (2) does not apply if—
(c) the Scottish Ministers so agree, or
(d) there are exceptional circumstances justifying failure to comply with the requirement.
(4) The reference in subsection (1) to an Act of Parliament is a reference to any Act whether a public general Act, a local and personal Act or a private Act.”
This new clause would ensure that the UK Parliament can only legislate in devolved areas with the consent of the Scottish Parliament. It puts the Sewel Convention onto a statutory footing, as agreed by the Smith Commission.
Wayne David: I rise to speak to amendments 39, 4 and 41 on the Sewel convention. As Members will know, the convention is quite well established. In the debate on the Scotland Bill in 1998, Lord Sewel, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the Scottish Office, said that
“we would expect a convention to be established that Westminster would not normally legislate with regard to devolved matters in Scotland without the consent of the Scottish parliament.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 21 July 1998; Vol. 592, c. 791.]
That was accepted, and the Sewel convention became a reality.
As the Law Society of Scotland has said, it is true that since the enactment of that Bill there is agreement that the convention has been successful, and it has been adhered to by successive Parliaments. The Smith commission gave a firm commitment:
“The Sewel Convention will be put on a statutory footing.”
That was a clear and unambiguous statement. On the face of it, the Government’s draft legislation honoured the commitment that had been given, but I suggest that there are weaknesses in what the Government have proposed in this Bill.
I want to refer to the excellent work done by the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee. It has been pointed out that the Sewel convention has been distilled in the Government’s interpretation of it. Clause 2 refers only to the convention’s applicability in respect of devolved matters, and the convention also applies to legislation affecting the competences of the devolved institutions. We are concerned that, in some ways, what has happened in practice is not quite recognised in the Bill.
We are also concerned about the way in which the convention is to be placed on a statutory footing. Students of British constitutional history will recognise that,
15 Jun 2015 : Column 99
according to Dicey’s principle, this British Parliament has ultimate sovereignty. Such a statutory footing recognises that constitutional reality, but does not challenge it or take it forward in any way whatever. That is somewhat unfortunate and certainly worthy of debate. The statutory footing, in reality, does not count for anything because what we have is essentially a summation of the Sewel convention that is little more than a political statement. Indeed, the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee quoted academics as saying that the clause was “legally vacuous” and
“like a bowl of jelly”.
We should be concerned about that.
It is noteworthy that the House of Lords Constitution Committee, which is highly regarded by many people, said, in its rather more sedate way, that
“it can be said that the new provision will recognise the existence of the Sewel convention rather than turn it into a legally binding principle.”
That is an extremely important phrase. Although those of us who are committed firmly to the Sewel principle recognise that there is no challenge to the convention, who knows what will happen in the future? That is why it should be legally binding, not just on this Government, but on all future Governments of any political complexion. Those issues need to be aired fully in considering the Sewel convention, because they are important and fundamental to the Bill.
Mr Graham Allen: This is not some constitutional nicety; it is about the circumstances in which the UK Parliament is allowed to legislate on a matter that is covered by the convention, without the consent of the Scottish Parliament. I hope that my hon. Friend will press the Secretary of State very hard on this matter. The Secretary of State might want to take it away and look at the wording. As my Political and Constitutional Reform Committee said:
“The presence of the word ‘normally’ in the Convention is clearly problematic when it comes to giving it the force of a statute, and we recommend that this be addressed in any redraft of the clause.”
As well as pressing the Secretary of State on this matter now, perhaps my hon. Friend will return to it on Report so that we can all be satisfied that the Scottish Parliament’s sovereignty is not in question.
Wayne David: My hon. Friend has put his finger on another important issue that was considered carefully by his Committee. When the word “normally” is used, I ask, “How long is a piece of string?” It is legally imprecise, which is a cause for concern. That reinforces my earlier point.
The Secretary of State gave evidence to the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee, but I suspect that his response was not wholly acceptable to its members. I therefore hope that he has refined his response and will give more robust answers to the questions that I have put to him. We wait with interest to hear what he has to say.
Finally, new clause 5, which was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen), refers to the application of the Human Rights Act 1998 to Scotland. It is extremely important constitutionally
15 Jun 2015 : Column 100
that devolution has, to a large extent, been underpinned by human rights legislation, in particular the 1998 Act. That is certainly the case as far as Wales is concerned, it is extremely important as far as Northern Ireland is concerned, and it has an important bearing as far as Scotland is concerned.
In the past few years, the Scottish Parliament has taken a number of initiatives with regard to human rights. I commend those initiatives. It is easy to take them forward in Scotland because it has a different legal system from England and Wales. The Scottish Human Rights Commission has published “Scotland’s National Action Plan for Human Rights”. Whatever one’s political allegiance, those positive measures should be welcomed.
I would not like to see any piece of legislation that does not take those measures into account or that does not fully take into account how devolution in Scotland rests firmly on the principle of extensive and liberal human rights. I hope that the Committee agrees with the Opposition on that point. If any action is taken against the Human Rights Act by this Government, whatever form it takes, there should first be the express consent of the Scottish Parliament.
Mr Graham Allen: It is a pleasure to speak on this group of amendments. I will speak not about the Sewel convention, because that clause should be put right in a relatively straightforward way by the Secretary of State, but about the implications for the Human Rights Act 1998 of what we are considering.
New clause 5 would ensure that, were the Human Rights Act abolished, renewed, revived or changed by this place in whatever shape or form, the Scottish Parliament would be able to maintain the Act, as it would like to do. That is a principle of devolution that I would like to be applied to England, Wales and Northern Ireland within an overarching federal settlement, so that we can be sure that fundamental human rights are close to the people and cannot be dispensed with on the whim of a federal Parliament.
Whenever I talk about these things, people say, “Here we go again—dry constitutionalism”, so I want to say a little about this dry constitutionalism. This is all about defending the victims of crime, those who have disabilities, women who are facing sexual and domestic violence, and the victims of child trafficking. It is about fundamental human rights.
The rights that are listed were not written by some recent bureaucrat in the Commission in Brussels, but by an eminent group of Conservatives led by David Maxwell Fyfe, a former Conservative Home Secretary and, I think, a boss of the intelligence services, so no woolly liberal radical he. Having been affected by the appalling suffering of the second world war, he pulled together the European convention on human rights. I cannot commend him highly enough. It was drawn up not by Mr Delors or the current President of the European Commission, but in response to the plight of refugees and the torture and inhumanity of the second world war. David Maxwell Fyfe and a number of British civil servants drafted these human rights, which have been adopted across the European Union. The rights also arose out of the United Nations charter.
The rights that are listed include things that we take for granted: the right to life, liberty and security of person; the right to a fair trial; protection from torture
15 Jun 2015 : Column 101
and ill treatment; freedom of thought, conscience, religion, speech and assembly; the right to marry; the right to free elections; the right to fair access to the country’s education system; and the right not to be discriminated against.
There are many arguments about how the convention is enforced and used across the European Union, and about our interaction with the continental courts system. Is it perfect? Of course it is not. However, we should not dispense easily with something that has had a good 60 or 65 years’ service, and that has allowed people in this country who were struggling for their rights to pursue their cases, defeat the domestic courts and have things overturned in their favour. I do not want to use this just as a prelude to the arguments we will have on human rights later, but I will certainly do my best, if Mr Crausby is not listening too intently, to make sure we have a proper debate.
8 pm
The sharp end of the debate on the Bill concerns the role of the Scottish Parliament. It just so happens that the guardians of human rights in Scotland are the Scottish Government and the Scottish Parliament, which is why clause 2 is a first skirmish in the battle to ensure that the Human Rights Act, in its form of maintaining the European convention on human rights, is central to what we do as Members of Parliament, regardless of party. Those rights are not important to those who are on top or in the majority. They are important to those who are losing. They are important to those who are suffering. They are important to people when arbitrary power is being used against them. This is the first little shot being fired. Perhaps it is like the part of the battle in the film “Zulu” when the first scouts encounter each other, but it is certainly really important.
I say to Scottish colleagues from all parties that the Scotland Bill is not just about Scotland. Obviously it is central, but it is not just about that. It reflects on every nation. It reflects on our values and what we stand for as a Parliament. I would therefore argue very strongly that my Scottish colleagues, even if they have some political reason not to want this as it stands, should, for the benefit of those who need the defence of the European convention on human rights, please stand up on this occasion not only for the Scottish people, vital as that is, but for the rest of the people in the Union who depend on these rights. This is an issue we will return to.
Angus Robertson: It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Crausby, and to follow the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen). I can give him the assurance that my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Scottish National party Benches will be resolute in our support of the Human Rights Act and the European convention on human rights.
I would like to speak to new clause 10. Paragraph 22 of the Smith report, entitled “Scottish Parliament consent to the UK Parliament making law in devolved areas”, recommended, simply and with no room for ambiguity, that
“The Sewel Convention will be put on a statutory footing.”
The details of clause 2 are therefore really important. The Scotland Bill, as drafted, seeks to implement this recommendation by adding a new subsection (8) to section 28 of the Scotland Act 1998. The positioning of this new provision is significant because the provision
15 Jun 2015 : Column 102
before it, section 28(7), makes an unambiguous assertion of Westminster’s parliamentary sovereignty and the legislative supremacy of the UK Parliament. Section 28(7) declares:
“This section does not affect the power of the Parliament of the United Kingdom to make laws for Scotland.”
This is therefore a clear statement that Westminster continues to have the legal power to legislate for Scotland across devolved, as well as reserved, areas of public policy. Clause 2 inserts section 28(8), which states:
“But it is recognised that the Parliament of the United Kingdom will not normally legislate with regard to devolved matters without the consent of the Scottish Parliament.”
In paragraph 61 of its report, the Scottish Parliament Devolution (Further Powers) Committee considered that the draft clause placed
“the purpose of the Sewel Convention in statute”—
“does not incorporate in legislation the process for consultation and consent where Westminster plans to legislate in a devolved area.”
In addition, the Committee recommended that the words “but it is recognised” and “normally” in the draft clause should be removed because they weaken the intention of the Smith recommendations. We agree with the all-party Committee’s analysis.
The current clause fails to implement the Smith recommendation in three respects. First, on amendments to the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament, the Sewel convention, as set out in devolution guidance note 10, also requires the consent of the Scottish Parliament to Westminster legislation that alters the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament or the Executive competence of Scottish Ministers. The clause does not refer to either of those categories. This is a significant omission. As the House of Commons Political and Constitutional Reform Committee noted, and as the hon. Member for Nottingham North no doubt remembers:
“We heard in oral evidence from Professor McHarg and in written evidence from Dr Adam Tucker and Dr Adam Perry that the draft clause failed to acknowledge the full scope of the Sewel Convention as it is currently applied in practice. The clause refers only to the Convention’s applicability in respect of devolved matters: it was pointed out to us that the Convention is also applied to legislation affecting the competences of the devolved institutions.”
This is reflected in the UK Government’s devolution guidance note 10, which states that a Bill requiring Scottish parliamentary consent under the Sewel convention is one which
“contains provisions applying to Scotland and which are for devolved purposes, or which alter the legislative competence of the Parliament or the executive competence of the Scottish Ministers.”
DGN 10 is referred to in the Command Paper, containing the draft clauses, as follows: “It is expected that the practice developed under Devolution Guidance Note 10 will continue.”
DGN 10 has no legal effect, but sets out how the UK Government Departments legislating in Scotland will meet the terms of the convention. This practice is not reflected in the drafting of clause 2.
Secondly, on statute as a convention, the clause puts the Sewel convention into legislation as a convention, rather than putting the convention on a statutory footing. As the Scottish Government have pointed out to the Scottish Parliament Committee, this is very different
15 Jun 2015 : Column 103
from precedents where the UK has placed other conventions on a statutory footing, such as the Ponsonby convention relating to treaty ratification. Again, as the House of Commons Political and Constitutional Reform Committee noted:
“We consider that draft clause 2 does not give the Sewel Convention the force of statute, but may strengthen the Convention politically. We believe it fails to acknowledge that the Convention extends to legislation affecting the competences of the devolved institutions. We recommend that the presence of the word ‘normally’ in the Sewel Convention, and the applicability of the Convention to legislation affecting the competences of the devolved institutions, be addressed in any redrafting of draft clause 2.”
Thirdly, on the consultation requirement, as has been widely noted and as set out in DGN 10, the effective operation of the Sewel convention depends on consultation between the Scottish and UK Governments, which the Secretary of State for Scotland made play of earlier. The clause, however, fails to include any consultation requirements.
The Scottish Government’s alternative clause, which we have tabled as a new clause, addresses those deficiencies and properly places the Sewel convention on a statutory footing. The opening subsection of the alternative adds to section 28 of the Scotland Act by providing a clear statement of the Sewel convention that the UK Parliament must not pass Acts applying to Scotland about a devolved matter without the consent of the Scottish Parliament. It then defines “about a devolved matter” to encompass all three categories covered by DGN 10: legislation in a devolved area; changing the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament; and adjusting the Executive competence of the Scottish Government.
The alternative clause then provides for a new section 28A to be inserted into the Scotland Act. This is a straightforward consultation provision requiring the UK Government to consult the Scottish Government before introducing to Westminster Bills that apply to Scotland. Where the Westminster Bill would require the consent of the Scottish Parliament under section 28, as amended, the UK Government should share a copy of the provisions of the Bill that apply to Scotland with the Scottish Government 21 days before introduction at Westminster. However, there is an understanding that, on occasion, it is necessary to expedite the legislative process, and therefore the alternative clause is pragmatic and flexible in allowing the consultation requirement to be curtailed in certain circumstances.
The Scottish Parliament has of course looked at the clauses proposed by the Government, and its Devolution (Further Powers) Committee considered
“that the current draft clause, whilst placing the purpose of the Sewel Convention in statute, does not incorporate in legislation the process for consultation and consent where Westminster plans to legislate in a devolved area. The Committee considers that it should do so. Moreover, the Committee considers that the use of the words ‘but it is recognised’ and ‘normally’ has the potential to weaken the intention of the Smith Commission‘s recommendation in this area and recommends that these words be removed from the draft clause.
For those reasons, I urge Members on both sides of the Committee to support the measure we are promoting. In response to the published Bill, the Committee called for the specified words to be removed from the clause, but there has been no change: clause 2 is identical to the draft clause 2 we saw those many months ago.
15 Jun 2015 : Column 104
Given everything we hear about reflecting, improvements, co-operation and the UK Government listening to the Scottish Government, the SNP and other parties, I would love to hear from the Secretary of State, whose ear I am hoping to catch, at what stage the Government intend to accept and implement these improvements. As drafted, the clause does not implement the Smith recommendation. As I have said, that critique was agreed by all parties in the Scottish Parliament, and I hope the UK Government will take that on board.
The clause puts the Sewel convention into statute, rather than putting it on a statutory footing, as required by paragraph 22 of the Smith report. In our view, the intention of the Smith recommendations was that key aspects of DGN 10 would be codified in statute. As it stands, the clause sets out the basic principle, but provides no statutory process for consultation and consent where Westminster plans to legislate for Scotland in devolved areas. As things stand, the Bill has not been drafted to take account of the shortcomings; does not put the Sewel convention on a meaningful statutory basis; does not adequately implement the Smith commission recommendations; and does not apply to changes to the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament or Executive competence of Scottish Ministers. That is why we will be pressing for these changes.
Mr Alistair Carmichael: Amendments 19 and 20 have their genesis in the efforts of the Law Society of Scotland and seek to achieve much the same ends as those already outlined by the hon. Members for Caerphilly (Wayne David) and for Moray (Angus Robertson). On a very literal basis, clause 2 does implement the Sewel convention, which is why the word “normally” is in there. When Lord Sewel, during consideration of the Scotland Act 1998 in the other place, gave his undertaking, the word “normally” was used. However, as has become apparent from the comments of the hon. Member for Moray and others, the operation of the convention over the years has been very different—we now have DGN 10—and on reflection, with the benefit of pre-legislative scrutiny, it should be revisited in the terms before the House. I do not necessarily expect the Secretary of State to accept the amendments, but I hope he will acknowledge that this is a legitimate point that it would cost the Government nothing to adopt. It would be an indication that they are listening and of their good will.
New clause 5 is in the name of the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen). I enjoyed the trailer for his Second Reading speech to the Human Rights Act abolition Bill—if we are ever to see it; it is notable, of course, that it was not in the Queen’s Speech. I hope that, having looked into the abyss and seen the myriad complications that would come from their proposal, the Government might find extensive and mature consideration necessary and that we might, in fact, never see that Second Reading.
8.15 pm
The purpose of the Bill is to cement and protect the integrity of the UK and Scotland’s position within it as a single constitutional unit. If we were ever to have a proper, federal written constitution, the Human Rights Act would be part of it at a federal level. There is no doubt in my mind about that. To have different regimes
15 Jun 2015 : Column 105
for something as fundamental as the Human Rights Act and the European convention in different parts of the UK would put further stress on the fabric that holds us together as a constitutional unit.
Mr Graham Allen: Incidentally, the draft of a written constitution done by the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee included the Bill of Rights.
The abolition of the Human Rights Act—or changes to it—was in the manifesto of the governing party, so it might feel that it ought to do it. Will the right hon. Gentleman reinforce the point, however, that, as we are proving this evening, good pre-legislative scrutiny on something so technical and detailed would prove an immense bonus to the Government in getting their proposals through?
Mr Carmichael: Indeed, that is the case. For all sorts of reasons, pre-legislative scrutiny is not always possible, but it ought to be the default in any sensible legislature.
The Secretary of State may intervene if I am wrong, but I understand that the Government have said they will not change the integration of the Human Rights Act in the 1998 Act and that it will continue to underpin the Scottish Parliament. Inevitably, then, any such change would not apply to Scotland. It is conceivable, however, that we might be left with a messy situation in Scotland where the Human Rights Act applied to some matters and not to others. I was practising in the Scottish courts as a solicitor when the Scotland Act came into force but before the Human Rights Act came into force across the whole of the UK. It meant we had to use a device known as a “devolution note” if we wanted to raise human rights matters in court. It was messy. It was necessary to get us through the year, but I do not want to go back to those days. Having a single regime of human rights protections that applies across the whole of the UK is absolutely necessary, and we tamper with it at our peril.
Mr Allen: On a point of order, Mr Crausby. It might help you to know that I will be requesting a vote on new clause 5 relating to the protection of the Human Rights Act in the Scottish context in due course after 10 o’clock.
The Temporary Chair (Mr David Crausby): The hon. Gentleman’s point of order is noted.
David Mundell: I am happy to respond to the points made and to restate, as I did on the previous group, that I will be meeting the Scottish Parliament’s Devolution (Further Powers) Committee next week, which will be an opportunity to explore some of the issues it raised in its report.
The Government’s starting point is that the Smith commission’s intention was not that the current constitutional position should be changed. Instead, the commission’s intention was that legislation should accurately reflect the political understanding of the convention, and that is exactly what I see the clause as doing.
Currently, the Government do not normally legislate in devolved areas without the consent of the Scottish Parliament. Clause 2 sets out that practice. In doing so, it puts on a statutory footing a convention that has been consistently adhered to by successive United Kingdom
15 Jun 2015 : Column 106
Governments. I understand the desire to put beyond doubt that we will seek the consent of the Scottish Parliament when legislating on devolved matters. However, in effect, amendment 56 seeks to limit the sovereignty of this Parliament by removing the word “normally” to state that the Parliament of the United Kingdom cannot legislate with regard to devolved matters without the consent of the Scottish Parliament.
In reality, the amendment would directly contradict section 28(7) of the Scotland Act 1998, which states that the section, which relates to Acts of the Scottish Parliament,
“does not affect the power of the Parliament of the United Kingdom to make laws for Scotland.”
The amendment would radically alter the way in which the practice was intended to operate as envisaged by Lord Sewel.
Mr Alistair Carmichael: The Secretary of State is making a compelling case for codification. On a number of occasions and in different ways, the House has limited its sovereignty, particularly in relation to the European Communities Act 1972. As I recall, there is judicial authority on that from the Factortame case. Surely he accepts that the mere act of putting a convention on a statutory footing is a change. For that reason, the adherence to the word “normally” is not appropriate.
David Mundell: It is not a change to how things are normally done, but a change to how they are set out on the face of legislation. As part of the Smith process, it was clear that people wanted the convention set out in the Bill, but I do not accept that they want a change to the convention as envisaged by Lord Sewel.
Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP): Surely not even the Smith commission wanted mere commentary to be dressed up as a clause. That is all clause 2 is—mere commentary. There is no binding or cogent constitutional governance in it.
David Mundell: I answered the hon. Gentleman’s questions when he was part of the Constitutional and Political Reform Committee, and I understand the strength of his views, but it was the view of the Smith commission that the convention should be set out in such a Bill, which is what the UK Government are doing. It is a fundamental principle of United Kingdom constitutional law that the United Kingdom Parliament is a sovereign legislature. The people of Scotland voted last September to remain part of that United Kingdom. Therefore, it is right that this Parliament, while respecting the Scottish Parliament and its right to legislate, continues to be able to legislate for all matters without restriction on its sovereignty.
Furthermore, I believe amendment 56 is unnecessary. The Bill adopts the language that formed the basis of the Sewel convention. When Lord Sewel said that he would
“expect a convention to be established that Westminster would not normally legislate with regard to devolved matters in Scotland without the consent of the Scottish Parliament”,
he did not intend his words to carry a technical meaning. The same expectation exists in clause 2. The wording used will take the convention’s ordinary English language meaning.
15 Jun 2015 : Column 107
The Smith commission recommended that the Sewel convention be put on a statutory footing—no more, no less. That is what the Bill seeks to achieve. Accepting amendment 56 would be to go further than was recommended, radically alter how the convention was intended to operate, and attempt to limit the authority of the UK Parliament. For those reasons, I urge hon. Members to resist it.
Amendments 41 and 45 seek to make additional stipulations to the Sewel convention. I reiterate that the Bill already establishes that the UK Parliament will not normally legislate with regard to devolved matters without the consent of the Scottish Parliament. That convention operates effectively at present. The amendments would add unnecessary bureaucracy to the procedure. I do not believe that the statutory requirements that would be placed on Members of the UK Parliament by the amendments would add any value to a process that operates well, and that is being placed on a statutory footing by the Bill.
On amendments 19 and 20, and new clause 10, as I have said, the Bill adopts the language that formed the basis of the Sewel convention. As I said in previous remarks, when Lord Sewel said that he would
“expect a convention to be established that Westminster would not normally legislate with regard to devolved matters in Scotland without the consent of the Scottish Parliament”,
he did not intend those words to carry a technical meaning. We have established that the Bill clearly states that the UK Parliament
“will not normally legislate with regard to devolved matters without the consent of the Scottish Parliament.”
That is what the well-established Sewel convention does, and it has been consistently adhered to by successive UK Governments. We have had more than 15 years of good practice of the convention. It has not been breached. In the context of my earlier remarks, I do not accept that it could be. I believe that that current good practice will continue.
The hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen) referred to the Government’s plan to reform the Human Rights Act and its incompatibility with the devolution settlements. Amendment 5, which he tabled, would make it more difficult for the UK Parliament to repeal the Act. Let me be clear about the Government’s intentions: we are committed to human rights and have pledged to bring forward proposals for a Bill of Rights. The protection of human rights is vital in a modern and democratic society. This Government will be as committed as any to upholding those human rights. The purpose of a Bill of Rights is not the diminution of rights, but to reform and modernise our system, and to restore credibility to the human rights legal framework.
The Government know that our proposals for reform are likely to be significant. As such, we will consult widely on the reforms. We are aware of the potential devolution implications of reform and will engage with the devolved Administrations as we develop proposals. We are currently developing our proposals and it would not be sensible to prejudge that process at this stage through the amendment. I hope the hon. Gentleman reconsiders his statement that he wishes to press it to a Division.
15 Jun 2015 : Column 108
I believe I have addressed all the proposals. The Government are not persuaded by them at this stage but, as I have indicated, I will discuss the report of the Scottish Parliament Devolution (Further Powers) Committee when we meet next week.
Wayne David: We shall not be pressing any of our amendments to a vote. I note that the Secretary of State has said that he is not convinced “at this stage”, and I take that to mean that he is open to persuasion and willing to listen. I hope he will be persuaded by arguments that will be put to him in the other place, and, indeed, by Members of the Scottish Parliament, which he will visit shortly.
There is something of a mismatch between theory and practice here. Theory has it that this Parliament is absolutely sovereign, but, in practice, the very existence of devolution puts constraints on that sovereignty, as does the very fact that we are members of the European Union. I think that we have reached a point at which that needs to be legally recognised. There is no doubt that the word “normally” is legally imprecise, and if it ever arose in a court of law, enormous difficulties would result because of that conflict between theory and practice.
I take on board what the Secretary of State has said, and I hope that we shall see some movement. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Elections
Angus Robertson: I beg to move amendment 60, page 2, line 7, leave out “Section B3 of”
The Temporary Chair (Mr David Crausby): With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 61, page 2, line 9, leave out from “Under the heading” to end of line 29 on page 3 and insert—
‘(2) In Part 2 of Schedule 5 to the Scotland Act 1998, for Section B3 (elections) substitute—
Elections for membership of the House of Commons and the European Parliament, including the subject matter of —
(a) the European Parliamentary Elections Act 2002,
(b) the Representation of the People Act 1983 and the Representation of the People Act 1985, and
(c) the Parliamentary Constituencies Act 1986,
so far as those enactments apply, or may apply, in respect of such membership.
Paragraph 5(1) of Part 3 of this Schedule does not apply to the subject matter of the European Parliamentary Elections Act 2002; and the reference to the subject matter of that Act is to be construed as a reference to it as at 24 July 2002 (the date that Act received Royal Assent).
(B) Elections for membership of the Parliament and local government elections
The holding of the poll at an ordinary general election for membership of the Parliament on the same day as the poll at—
(d) a parliamentary general election (other than an early such election),
(e) a European parliamentary general election, or
(f) an ordinary local government election in Scotland.
15 Jun 2015 : Column 109
(a) elections for membership of the Parliament, or
(h) local government elections,
with polls at elections or referendums that are outside the legislative competence of the Parliament.
Modifying the digital service for the purposes of applications for registration or for verifying information contained in such applications.
The subject matter of Parts 5 and 6 of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 in relation to polls at elections that are within the legislative competence of the Parliament where they are combined with polls at elections for membership of the House of Commons and the European Parliament.
“Digital service” has the meaning given by regulation 3(1) of the Representation of the People (Scotland) Regulations 2001 as at the day on which the Scotland Act 2015 received Royal Assent.
Paragraph 5(1) of Part 3 of this Schedule does not apply to the subject matter of Parts 5 and 6 of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000; and the reference to the subject-matter of those Parts of that Act is to be read as at the day on which the Scotland Act 2015 received Royal Assent.””
This amendment provides substitute text for the Section B3 Elections reservation in Schedule 5 to the Scotland Act 1998 which makes the effects clearer. Part (A) reserves elections for membership of the House of Commons and the European Parliament. Part (B) refers to Scottish Parliament elections and local government elections in Scotland.
Amendment 42, page 2, leave out lines 24 to 26.
Government amendments 92 to 98.
Amendment 44, in clause 4, page 3, line 42, at end insert
“including provisions about the impact of the ending of the transition to Individual Electoral Registration on the completeness of the register.”
Amendment 46, in clause 4, page 3, line 42, at end insert
“including the automatic registration of eligible electors,”.
The Amendment would give Scottish Ministers power to make provision for automatic registration for Scottish Parliament and Scottish local elections. In its Fourth Report of Session 2014-15 (HC 232), the House of Commons Political and Constitutional Reform Committee reaffirmed its view that voters should ideally be registered to vote automatically.
Amendment 47, in clause 4, page 3, line 42, at end insert—
“(b) about online voting in elections,”
The Amendment would give Scottish Ministers power to make provision for online voting for Scottish Parliament and Scottish local elections. According to the House of Commons Political and Constitutional Reform Committee in its Fourth Report of Session 2014-15 (HC 232), online voting could lead to a substantial increase in the level of participation.
Government amendments 99 and 100.
Amendment 43, in clause 5, page 6, line 8, at end insert—
“(c) A referendum called under reserved powers”.
Government amendments 102 to 105.
Government amendments 106 and 107.
15 Jun 2015 : Column 110
New clause 11—Electoral registration: requirement to produce report—
‘(1) The Electoral Commission shall prepare and publish guidance setting out, in relation to Scotland, how to further improve the electoral registration process and how to ensure the completeness of the electoral registers.
(2) Guidance under subsection (1) must in particular include—
(a) workable proposals for prompting people to register to vote or update their registration details when using other public services;
(b) whether to allow schools, universities and colleges to block-register students;
(c) whether to pilot election day registration; and
(d) other proposals to ensure that greater numbers of attainers join the electoral register.”
The New Clause would require the Electoral Commission to produce a report into ways of further improving the electoral registration process and of ensuring the completeness of the electoral registers in Scotland.
8.30 pm
Angus Robertson: It is a pleasure to speak about this string of amendments and new clauses relating to elections to the Scottish Parliament and local authorities.
As Members will know, paragraph 23 of the cross-party Smith commission report recommended that the Scottish Parliament should have
“all powers in relation to elections to the Scottish Parliament and local government elections in Scotland (but not in relation to Westminster or European elections). This will include powers in relation to campaign spending limits and periods and party political broadcasts.”
Additional detail was set out in paragraph 24 of the agreement.
Clauses 3 to 9, which are the focus of this group of amendments, seek to address that recommendation. While the clauses have some merit, we believe that there are still a number of issues to be worked on with the United Kingdom Government. In particular, some parts of the clauses limit the Scottish Parliament’s powers beyond those proposed in Smith. As the Scottish Government said in their response to the report of the Scottish Parliament’s Devolution (Further Powers) Committee, clause 3 does not fully implement the Smith commission’s recommendation. That is why the Scottish Government have proposed an alternative to the clause, which forms the basis of our amendments.
Our proposal would replace, rather than amend, the section B3 Elections reservation in schedule 5 to the Scotland Act 1998. That is designed to make the effects of the clause clearer. We propose that part (A) should reserve elections for membership of the House of Commons and the European Parliament, while part (B) should refer to Scottish Parliament elections and local government elections in Scotland. Our amendments reserve the holding of a Scottish election vote on the same day as a UK parliamentary general election, a European parliamentary election, or an ordinary local government election in Scotland. That would implement paragraph 24(4) of the Smith report.
In their response to the Devolution (Further Powers) Committee, the Scottish Government said:
“We have removed paragraph (b) of the combination of polls provision in Part (B), which would have had the effect of reserving the combination of devolved polls. Should the timing rules be varied to allow ordinary Scottish Parliament and ordinary Scottish
15 Jun 2015 : Column 111
local government polls to coincide, then the Secretary of State would have had competence over the devolved conduct rules, which would otherwise both be the responsibility of the Scottish Parliament. This is clearly undesirable and goes beyond the Smith recommendation.”
The Scottish Government suggested alternative drafting in relation to the digital service, which they, and we, think is clearer about the actual effect of the reservation. The reference to the reservation of parts 5 and 6 of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 is the same as that in the Scotland Bill.
The Scottish Government have said that they are generally content with clauses 4 to 9, subject to the changes that they are proposing to the United Kingdom Government. The Secretary of State is no longer present, but no doubt his colleagues will be avidly taking notes about the Scottish Government’s suggestions. We have heard, in good faith, that they will be taken on board and considered in full, and hopefully they will be.
The Committee will excuse me if I rely heavily on the points of detail set out by the Scottish Government and shared with the UK Government and the devolution Committee of the Scottish Parliament. The first of those, in relation to clause 4, the part which enables Scottish Ministers to make provision by order for the combination of polls for a specified list of polls that currently may coincide, could be simplified. The reservation of the power to make combination rules could be removed from section B3, and the list of coinciding polls at section l2(2)(d) could be replaced with a provision that gives Scottish Ministers power to provide for the combination of polls and referendums that are within the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament.
The references to use of the digital service could be seen to conflict with clause 6. This currently gives Scottish Ministers some powers to make provision, with the agreement of the Secretary of State. This could be read as restricting the use of the digital service beyond what is actually needed or intended.
Clause 5(3) goes beyond what was recommended by the Smith commission. The Smith agreement clearly sought only to prevent the polls from being held on the same day. The Scottish Government would wish to adhere to that narrow limitation. Their preference would be for the words
“or within two months before”
to be omitted from clause 5(3).
In clause 6, the Scottish Government view is that the definition of
“use of the digital service”
is overcomplicated. They also believe that the inserted section 6(3) may be out of step with existing provision in this area, as it appears to suggest that a person cannot use the digital service unless they are eligible to register, when there is nothing to suggest any current restriction on those who may use the service. If the purpose of the digital service is to determine whether an applicant is eligible to register, this provision could be omitted.
Also in clause 6, and in common with the approach to the vetoes throughout the Bill, we believe that the provision at subsection 11—
“Regulations made by the Scottish Ministers by virtue of subsection (9) may not be made without the agreement of the Secretary of State”—
15 Jun 2015 : Column 112
should be removed. We will, of course, return to vetoes at a later stage of our consideration.
On clause 7, the Scottish Government have noted that this power does not apply where any other poll is combined with a Scottish Parliament election. They accept this in principle as a practical approach, but they suggest that it should be limited to the combination of a Scottish Parliament election with any other poll that is outwith the Parliament’s competence. The provision as drafted would have the effect that, should the timing provisions be varied to permit Scottish Parliament elections to be combined with local government elections in Scotland, the combination rules would be reserved, which would be undesirable.
On clause 9, the Scottish Government argue that subsection (6) can be omitted as the Scottish Parliament (Elections etc.) Order 2010 is already devolved under the Scotland Act 2012. The Smith commission recommended that the Scottish Parliament should have all powers in relation to Scottish Parliament elections and elections to local government in Scotland. In doing so, the commission specifically stated that this would include party political broadcasts. There does not appear to be any provision to this effect in the draft clauses. We hope the Government will address this point in particular.
The Smith commission also recommended that
“the Electoral Commission will continue to operate on a UK-wide basis. The Scottish Parliament will have competence over the functions of the Electoral Commission in relation to Scottish Parliament elections and local government elections in Scotland. The Electoral Commission will report to the UK Parliament in relation to UK and European elections and to the Scottish Parliament in relation to Scottish Parliament and local government elections in Scotland.”
We believe that clause 3 does not fully deliver the second part of this recommendation. An alternative approach should be considered, to give greater clarity and to ensure that the Scottish Parliament will have competence over the commission’s functions in relation to Scottish Parliament elections and local government elections in Scotland.
These may seem very technical areas, but they are important. I note that those on the Treasury Front Bench have been listening with interest and they no doubt will look at the record. We hope they can be persuaded to accept amendment 60 later. If they do not, I trust they will be consulting colleagues about how to take on the technical improvements that we have outlined and that I have spoken in support of this evening.
Mr Graham Allen: I should like to speak to amendments 46 and 47, if I may. I am sure that colleagues will know that the largest amount of public consultation ever achieved by a Select Committee was on the “Voter engagement in the UK” report that the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee produced just before the last general election. The report covered a raft of ways in which we as a House and as politicians—and politics in general—could re-engage with people out there.
The Committee did some technical stuff, and I want to talk this evening about the amendments relating to automatic registration and online voting. Anyone who believes in devolution will know that it is not possible to mandate the nations of the Union to conduct themselves and their democracy in a specified way from the centre, or even from the federal Parliaments. There has to be a
15 Jun 2015 : Column 113
degree of discretion and a degree of trust, particularly when there is an institution with the status of a Parliament within one of our nations. I would argue that that should also apply to an Assembly and an Executive and that, when we get devolution in England, it should apply to the means of devolution here as well. I would argue strongly that that should take the form of constitutionally separate local government, which is commonplace in every western democracy apart from our own.
Anyone who believes in that, and who believes that there can be a rich diversity of approaches to our democracy to suit national and local characteristics, will understand that it is key to ensure that our colleagues in the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government maintain and extend their discretion on matters such as automatic registration and on the suggestion in my Committee’s report for online voting. It would be out of order to suggest that that happens overnight in other nations, but we are in the middle of discussing the Scotland Bill and it is highly pertinent to say that if the representatives in the Scottish Parliament wish it, they could take forward a proposal on automatic registration, just as they did so innovatively in relation to votes for 16 and 17-year-olds before the referendum.
Such a measure would be important because it would allow everyone to participate, and because we have a false dichotomy about how boundaries could change unless registered electors met a certain number. I will explain this to the Committee—I am getting there slowly. If a small number of people are registered, that does not mean that there is a small number of constituents. In fact, some colleagues argue strongly that the people who give us the highest number of casework items are those who are not on the register. Should we say to them, “Sorry, you’re not on the register so I’m not going to help you”? Of course not.
Automatic registration can be achieved using a number of devices. I am going to ask the hon. Member for Meon Valley (George Hollingbery) some questions about this afterwards, so I hope he is paying attention. I hope that it could be achieved through registration with the Department for Work and Pensions, for example, or through credit ratings or council tax forms. It is entirely possible to make registration almost automatic. I see the distinguished members of the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee nodding eagerly in approval of what I am saying.
The Committee also looked at online voting, and 16,000 people responded to our consultation on this. Lots of organisations also put out online information and questionnaires for us. The Committee found that the most popular option was online voting. It obviously appeals to particular groups of people at the moment, but it is clearly something whose time will come very soon. Sometimes the other place is innovative. On this occasion, there is so much we can learn from the way our devolved friends in the Scottish Parliament conduct their business. Why should they not be the first to trial online voting in certain well-prescribed circumstances, which they would keep an eye on and feel responsible for, and which I am sure they would make a success. I will not detain the Committee any further on this, other than to say that diversity, experimentation and creativity are the hallmarks of proper devolution and these are just two small ways in which we could encourage our friends in the Scottish Parliament to take devolution that little bit further in their own nation.
15 Jun 2015 : Column 114
8.45 pm
Wayne David: I wish to focus on two issues, the first of which is individual electoral registration. We know full well that IER is imminent. There is some debate with the Electoral Commission, which is conducting its assessment, as to the completeness of the registers and whether or not IER will be introduced at the end of 2016 or 2015. Labour Members think it is essential that we have a complete register as far as is humanly practicable. We urge the Government and all other bodies to ensure that every effort is made to get as many people on to the register as possible. What is essential in any democracy is that people who are entitled to vote are on the register and able to choose whether to cast their vote.
That is why we think it is important that this be not only a responsibility of central Government, but a devolved matter. As we have heard, the Scottish Parliament has some responsibilities already on the conduct of elections. I am sure it shares our view of wanting to make sure that as many people as possible who are able to vote are on the electoral register. Our amendments provide practical means of providing that assessment, but we also urge that every consideration be given by the Scottish Parliament to ensuring that we do have people on that register.
As things stand, the Electoral Commission has indicated that as many as 7.5 million eligible voters are not registered. Multiple elections are coming up next year, including the Scottish Parliament elections, and the Government need to take action, as does everybody else, to ensure that a boost is given to electoral registration. We think that lessons can be learned from Scotland’s extension of the franchise in the referendum to 16 and 17-year-olds and the effort made to ensure that a special procedure was in place to ensure the maximum registration of young people. Those lessons need to be learned, acted upon and taken much further.
Labour Members are particularly concerned about the need to ensure that as many young people as possible register and that procedures are in place to ensure that college and university students are able to do so. We would like registration to be carried out en bloc by the student authorities, as it used to be. Given the increase in the private rented sector, there is a particular need for its involvement. The Government should be working much more closely with letting agencies so as to include reminders to register for all new tenants. Those issues are very important and I hope they will be given due consideration.
We would also like to press our amendment 43, on the European Union referendum. We are fully aware that that Bill is passing through this House, but the great concern out there in the country is to ensure that we have a proper, reasonable, rational and focused debate on Britain’s membership of the European Union. For that debate to take place, it is imperative that there are no other elections that will take people’s attention away from the central direction on which they must focus. We are mindful that the Electoral Commission, which has studied this matter in a great deal of depth, has said unequivocally that there should be a separation between the European Union referendum and other elections. It takes an emphatic stance. It says:
“It is important that voters and campaigners are able to engage fully with the issues which are relevant at these elections. It is also important that any debate about the UK’s membership of the
15 Jun 2015 : Column 115
European Union takes place at a time that allows the full participation of voters and campaigners, uncomplicated by competing messages and activity from elections which might be held on the same day.”
That is a pretty emphatic message by the non-political objective observers—people who have the responsibility to ensure that elections and referendums are conducted fairly and honestly. I strongly urge the Government to accept that amendment. If they are not minded to do so, we give notice that we will be pressing it to a vote.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (John Penrose): I thank the hon. Members for Moray (Angus Robertson), for Nottingham North (Mr Allen), and for Caerphilly (Wayne David) for their contributions to the debate on this group of amendments on the significant electoral powers that will be transferred to the Scottish Parliament and Scottish Government. I hope to respond to as many points as I can, but first let me deal with a number of minor and technical Government amendments before I get on to the meat of the points that have been made during the debate.
Government amendments 93, 94 and 97 amend and clarify the reserved undevolved powers in clause 3 in respect of enforcement provisions within the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 where they apply to other provisions that are also reserved. Government amendments 95 and 96 remove sections that do not need to be reserved in the 2000 Act as well. Amendments 106 and 107 are minor and technical amendments. Amendment 106 repeals the subsections inserted into the Scotland Act 1998 by section 13 of the Scotland Act 2012. Clause 11 brings the function of making an Order in Council under sections 15(1) and (2) of the 1998 Act within devolved competence and those subsections are therefore no longer required. Amendment 107 repeals section 13 of the Scotland Act 2012 entirely.
Amendment 101 relates to clause 5, which concerns the timing of Scottish parliamentary elections and local government elections in Scotland. It will ensure that general elections for the Scottish Parliament cannot be held on the same day as general elections to the UK Parliament or to the European Parliament or a local government election in Scotland. That is in line with the Smith commission agreement, as we heard from the hon. Member for Moray.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be pleased to hear that the purpose of amendment 101 is to remove the provision from the clause that says that a general election to the Scottish Parliament cannot be held in the two months preceding a general election to the UK Parliament or a general election to the European Parliament. That brings us more closely in line with the Smith commission, and is, I hope, an example of cross-party working.
Amendments 92 and 98 are also minor and technical. The purpose of amendment 92 is to protect the individual electoral registration digital service from future technical changes, such as the transfer of functions between UK Ministers. Effectively, it is nothing more than a future-proofing move. If amendment 92 were not made, the effect may be to place an unintentional constraint on the future actions of both the UK and Scottish Governments. The amendment should protect against
15 Jun 2015 : Column 116
the potential need to amend the Act as the registration of electors and verification of applications to register via a digital service evolves.
Amendment 92 means that the definition of “digital service” and of “elections in Scotland” in clause 3 is no longer required. Amendment 98 therefore removes those definitions. It does not make the reservation any wider but gives additional clarity over what is to remain reserved—I am talking about the digital service itself but not the powers that have been devolved to the Scottish Parliament.
Amendments 99 and 100 are again minor and technical. Their purpose is to reflect the changes made to the reservation of the IER digital service in clause 3 by amendment 92. Amendment 99 ensures that subsection (4) of new section 12 of the Scotland Act 1998 refers to the amended reservation of the digital service in clause 3—I trust that everybody is taking notes and following closely. Amendment 100 removes the now unnecessary definition of the digital service in clause 4, again as a result of the amended reservation of the digital service in clause 3.
Amendments 102 to 105 are technical amendments that reflect the changes made to the reservation of the IER digital service in clause 3 by amendment 92. Amendment 102 ensures that the regulation-making power of Scottish Ministers in this provision refers to the amended reservation of the digital service in clause 3. Amendment 103 removes the definitions of “the digital service” and “the use of the digital service” from the clause, as they are no longer technically required. Amendment 104 ensures that clause 6 refers to the amended reservation of the digital service, as made by the amendment to clause 3. Finally, amendment 105 removes the definitions of “the digital service” and “elections in Scotland” that are also no longer required as a result of that further amendment.
Let me turn to the other amendments that are part of this wider group. I will start with amendment 42 and the elements of amendments 60 and 61 that relate to clauses 3 and 5 and the continued reservation of certain combinations of polls. The clauses fulfil the Smith commission agreement devolving significant electoral powers to the Scottish Parliament while ensuring that polls for Scottish parliamentary general elections will not be held on the same day as UK parliamentary general elections, European parliamentary general elections or ordinary local government elections in Scotland, which have already been devolved.
Ian Murray: Will the Minister explain why the entirety of the administration of Scottish parliamentary and local government elections is devolved to the Scottish Parliament while the UK Parliament reserves the right not to have Scottish parliamentary and local government elections on the same day? Why not devolve them all to allow the Scottish Parliament to make that decision?
John Penrose:
That is a question I asked myself a short while ago. The reason is very straightforward. Although the two powers are devolved, as the hon. Gentleman rightly points out, changing the rules surrounding them and on whether or not they can happen on the same day is a reserved power. As that is a reserved power, it makes sense to keep any potential combination of elections as a reserved power for the
15 Jun 2015 : Column 117
time being, as the two powers match up. Were it to be within the competence of the Scottish Parliament to vary that, it would make sense for the Scottish Government to have the power to adjust the combination rules. As it is, the two match up closely.
Pete Wishart: I am grateful for that explanation. The key issue we face in the next year is the prospect of an EU referendum being held on the same day as the Scottish parliamentary elections. Would he like to take the opportunity to say what he thinks about that and to rule it out? We cannot have 16 and 17-year-olds coming into the polling booth to vote in the Scottish Parliament election, possibly being ID-ed, and then being turned out as they cannot vote in the EU referendum.
The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Lindsay Hoyle): Order. We need to watch out so that we do not go outside the scope of what we are discussing. That is the danger. As much as the hon. Gentleman wants to tempt the Minister, I want him to try to stay within the scope of the Bill and to try to answer along those lines.
John Penrose: I shall endeavour to be as helpful as I can when I reach amendment 43, which is closely adjacent to the points made by the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart), without, I hope, trying your patience in the process, Mr Hoyle.
Clauses 3 and 5 fulfil the Smith commission agreement devolving significant electoral powers to the Scottish Parliament while ensuring that polls for Scottish parliamentary ordinary general elections will not be held on the same day as UK parliamentary general elections, European general elections or ordinary government elections, as we just discussed. The UK Government consider the timing and combination of polls to be intrinsically linked. I think that we might have covered that point, but I want to make sure that it is clear. That is why the combination of polls involving a reserved poll with a poll at a Scottish parliamentary election or local government election in Scotland continues to be reserved, as does the combination of a poll at a Scottish parliamentary ordinary general election with a poll at an ordinary local government election in Scotland. I urge Members to withdraw their amendments for the reasons that I have just given.
Amendment 43 seeks to ensure that it would not be possible for a Scottish parliamentary general election to be held on the same day as a referendum called under reserved powers. The hon. Member for Caerphilly gets top marks for ingenuity for trying to shoehorn into the Bill before us today a measure which affects tomorrow’s business. I understand that there are strong views on the issue and I promise him that we are considering them carefully. He will know that an amendment has been tabled for the business tomorrow which is very similar to this one and will allow the issue to be debated in some depth. I therefore encourage my right hon. and hon. Friends to resist the opportunity to support the amendment, if only because it would not be fair to Members of other devolved Parliaments and Assemblies, which may have elections on the same day as the Scottish elections next year, for such a measure to be dealt with in a Scottish Bill when we have the opportunity to deal with it properly tomorrow.
15 Jun 2015 : Column 118
9 pm
The hon. Member for Caerphilly was right to point out the Electoral Commission’s view on the combination of polls. The commission is very cautious and extremely concerned about excessive combination of polls because of the potential for confusion in electors’ minds. I hope we would all agree that this is a statement which is true within boundaries. We are all familiar with occasions— 7 May was a good example in many parts of the country—where there are general election polls on the same day as local election polls, so it is possible to combine some polls without any ill effects and electors are used to that. But if too many polls are combined on the same day, perhaps with combined ballot papers, the potential for confusion exists, which is why the Electoral Commission is so concerned.
Amendments 46 and 47 on electoral registration and voting were tabled by the hon. Member for Nottingham North. Members will be aware that the hon. Gentleman was Chair of the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee in the previous Parliament—indeed, he was waving around one of the Committee’s reports earlier. I thank him for his Committee’s work on the important issue of registration. His amendments relate to automatic registration and online voting. The Bill transfers order-making powers in clause 4—the new section 12—that provide Scottish Ministers with powers regarding the conduct of Scottish Parliament elections and the registration of electors at those elections. The Government consider that these will be sufficient for Scottish Ministers to provide, should they wish, for both automatic registration and electronic voting at Scottish parliamentary elections. The Government therefore consider the amendments unnecessary and beyond the remit of the Bill.
The hon. Members for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray) and for Caerphilly tabled new clause 11, which seeks to require the Electoral Commission to produce guidance on ways of further improving the electoral registration process in Scotland, and of ensuring the completeness of electoral registers in Scotland. Under the Smith commission agreement, the Bill devolves functions of the Electoral Commission to the Scottish Parliament in relation to Scottish Parliament elections. The provisions in the Bill will already allow the Scottish Parliament to make provisions for the Electoral Commission to produce such guidance in relation to Scottish parliamentary and local government elections in Scotland. The new clause is therefore not necessary and I hope the hon. Gentlemen will not press it when the moment arrives.
On individual electoral registration, I agree with the hon. Member for Caerphilly. Speaking from the Opposition Front Bench, he said it was essential that registers were as complete and as accurate as possible. I am sure that democrats in all parts of the House would applaud that sentiment. We want to ensure that that is happening wherever we can. A report from the Electoral Commission is due shortly which is designed to assess the effect of individual electoral registration, where it has gone well and where it has progressed more slowly, and to assess what benefits have resulted from it. It would therefore be premature to prejudge that report, but I am sure that the hon. Gentleman and I and pretty much everybody in the Chamber will examine it in detail when it comes out. I am sure it will contain some useful recommendations and some important facts for us all to consider.