My final point is on full fiscal autonomy. I think that some of our opponents thought that when we did not get that through the last time, we would forget about it. Believe me, we have not forgotten about it. We want the Scottish Government to have control over the economy in Scotland. We want the ability to grow our economy and for our priorities to be set in line with the aspirations of the people who live in Scotland. I heard some interesting arguments from the hon. Member for Gainsborough and others in favour of full fiscal autonomy, but I have yet to hear a principled argument against it. The hon. Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray) often talks of a black hole, but that is not an argument in principle

9 Nov 2015 : Column 81

against full fiscal autonomy—against giving the Scottish Government control over economic affairs. It is an argument for saying that we should prepare for that devolution of powers and make sure that we get it right. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will come round to that way of thinking. We will object to the proposal to give a Conservative Secretary of State the power to set up a commission to look into whether full fiscal autonomy could happen, because he has already made his intentions in that regard clear.

We will come back to this issue, and it will be the subject of future debate in Scotland. The grandest commission of all on this debate will be the electorate of Scotland, who will get another opportunity in six or seven months’ time to decide whether they want better economic powers for their Government. We will get another mandate and come back to make that argument again.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Moray referred to the fiscal framework. It is not for us today to get involved, or even seek to influence, the discussions between Scottish and UK Ministers on the fiscal framework, but we have to be clear about what is at stake. The Smith commission was clear: it said that whatever powers are devolved to Scotland in this or any other settlement, it should be at no detriment. In other words, at the point of transfer of the power, the Scottish budget should not suffer as a consequence. I want to hear from the Secretary of State whether he believes in that principle. Is it guiding his discussions with Scottish Ministers? If it is used simply as a device to cut the Scottish budget and not provide adequate funding for the delivery of the new powers, he will do his cause a great disservice and hasten the day that we come back with a new Bill that will be a considerable improvement on this one.

Ian Austin: In September 1997, I travelled from Dudley to Glasgow and Edinburgh to support the late Donald Dewar and Scottish Labour’s campaign for a yes-yes vote in the devolution referendum—[Interruption.]

Madam Deputy Speaker (Natascha Engel): Order. There is an awful lot of noise in the Chamber while the hon. Gentleman is on his feet.

Ian Austin: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

I remember helping to organise events at which Donald Dewar, the right hon. Member for Gordon (Alex Salmond), who has just left his place, and Sean Connery spoke at the Old Royal High School building, overlooking what would become the site of the new Scottish Parliament. SNP Members did not object so much then to people from England taking an interest in Scottish politics. That referendum led to the establishment of the Scottish Parliament, and the amendments to the Scotland Bill that Labour has tabled, which I wish to support today, will make it a permanent part of the UK’s constitution.

I promise that my speech will be the shortest we have heard today, but I want to set out some practical arguments in support of the case made for greater decentralisation by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen). As we have heard, these proposals constitute the biggest transfer of power since the Scotland Act 1998. The Bill will make the Scottish Parliament the most powerful devolved parliament in the world. It will raise 50% of its own expenditure, with power over most of the revenue from income tax and much of social security.

9 Nov 2015 : Column 82

Stephen Gethins (North East Fife) (SNP): Does the hon. Gentleman think that these proposals are—to quote a Scotsman—

“as close to a federal state as you can be”?

A simple yes or no answer will do.

Ian Austin: As I have said, the proposals will make the Scottish Parliament the most powerful devolved parliament in the world. Labour has been the driving force behind this Bill. We have pushed to ensure that Scotland has all the extra powers, including powers over welfare, to allow the Scottish Parliament to design a new social security system for Scotland and to ensure the Scottish Parliament will have the opportunity to mitigate the impact of Tory cuts to tax credits. Despite their desperation to be disappointed and their determination to stoke grievance and fuel resentment, SNP Members have said that this will give the Scottish Parliament the powers it needs to create a new social security system in Scotland. When asked whether the Bill gives Holyrood the power to make up any reduction in tax credits, Alex Neil, the SNP welfare spokesperson, said:

“The amendments...should give the Scottish Parliament those powers.”

Despite that, the nats have tabled a series of amendments, including 10 new clauses on national insurance, the living wage, employment legislation, industrial relations, benefits, full fiscal autonomy and the power to decide whether and when to hold another referendum.

6.30 pm

When we consider those powers, we ought first to look at the way the Scottish Administration have exercised the powers they already hold. After all, in 2001 Nicola Sturgeon said that

“a party that is now in the second term of office cannot avoid responsibility for its own failings.”

She is absolutely right. Like her, I think the nats should be judged on their record of running Scotland’s schools and hospitals. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North. The truth is that in Scotland’s schools the gap between the richest and the rest is growing, its hospitals are struggling and its housing system is in crisis. The separatists are now the establishment.

Dr Whitford: Our junior doctors in Scotland are not out on the streets marching and balloting for strike action. The hon. Gentleman might wish to make a direct comparison of performance before he attacks our NHS.

Ian Austin: I will come on to the SNP’s record on running the health service shortly, but before I do—[Interruption.]

Madam Deputy Speaker (Natascha Engel): Order. No shouting out, please. A Member is speaking and it is quite difficult to hear what he is saying. It is not appropriate to shout things out. If people want to speak they can intervene or stand up and take part in the debate. Let us have no shouting.

Ian Austin: I am afraid they are behaving like nationalist bullies the world over. They try to silence anybody who has a different view. They want to pretend that whether or not you are allowed to take part in a debate in this Chamber depends on where you represent and the accent you have. It is a complete and utter disgrace.

9 Nov 2015 : Column 83

Alberto Costa: Is it not a disgrace that the people of Scotland, including Labour supporters and Conservatives who voted decisively to reject separatism, are being completely ignored by SNP Members today?

Ian Austin: I completely agree with the hon. Gentleman. It is an absolute disgrace.

An even bigger disgrace is the state of education in Scotland, which is run by the SNP. The gap between the richest and the rest has persisted, meaning that the poorest children in Scotland are not getting the opportunities they should. Young people from deprived backgrounds who get to university are facing grants and bursaries that have been cut, making them the lowest in the UK. Every year, more than 6,000 children in Scotland leave primary school unable to read properly, and pupils from a wealthier background are twice as likely to get a higher A than pupils from deprived backgrounds. Pupils from wealthy backgrounds are twice as likely to go on to higher education as those from deprived backgrounds. In further education, 140,000 fewer students are going to college in Scotland, and funding for Scotland’s colleges has been cut by £53 million. Scotland has the lowest percentage of university entrants from the poorest backgrounds and the lowest proportion of entrants from state schools in the UK. As I said, grants and bursaries for poor students have been cut by 35%.

A moment ago, the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford) asked me about the health service in Scotland. The truth is that under the SNP standards have been slipping. Waiting time targets have been missed and pressure is increasing on nurses and doctors. Analysis from the impartial Scottish Parliament Information Centre shows that the SNP has not increased investment in the NHS as much as in England, despite rising demand. The accident and emergency waiting time target has not been met for six years. More than 400,000 people have had to wait more than four hours in A and E since 2011. The new flagship Queen Elizabeth University hospital in Glasgow posted the lowest waiting time targets since its opening: only 77% of patients were seen within four hours.

The hon. Lady asked what Scottish doctors are saying. Only one third of NHS Scotland staff say there are enough staff for them to do their job properly. Despite promising less private involvement in the NHS, spending on private health services is at its highest since devolution.

I also agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North on the case for greater decentralisation from Holyrood to local authorities, because that might enable local authorities in Scotland to tackle the housing crisis across the country. Scotland is facing its biggest housing crisis since the second world war, with nearly 180,000 people in Scotland on social housing waiting lists. Audit Scotland estimates that Scotland will need more than 500,000 new homes in the next 25 years. In 2007, the year Labour left office in Scotland, there were 25,741 housing completions. In 2014, there were just 15,000—a 40% reduction.

When I visited Edinburgh for a weekend last month, I was absolutely stunned—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil) thinks it is funny. The level of rough sleeping on the streets of Edinburgh is an absolute disgrace. His colleagues in the SNP should be thoroughly ashamed. Everyone knows that under the Conservatives rough sleeping is increasing

9 Nov 2015 : Column 84

right across the country, but I have to say that I saw many more rough sleepers on the streets of Edinburgh than I have ever seen on the streets of Birmingham, which is a much, much bigger city.

On full fiscal autonomy, I agree with new clause 1 and the case for a commission. The Institute for Fiscal Studies has said that the SNP’s plans would leave a £7.6 billion black hole in Scotland’s finances that the separatists have absolutely no idea how to fill. The nats might deny that, so let us have the full independent review that Labour is calling for and get the facts.

Having listened to the debate, you, Madam Deputy Speaker, would be forgiven for thinking that SNP Members would much rather invent rows with the rest of the UK than improve life for people across Scotland. Their whole approach is designed to drive up resentment and blame everyone else for their failings. Instead of being held to account for their record, they want to blame the nasty people down south for everything that goes wrong: everything that goes right in Scotland is down to the SNP; everything that goes wrong is down to the rest of us. The truth is that SNP Members are not interested in policy. They are obsessed with breaking up the country, but having been rejected in the referendum they are trying to engineer a separation by fuelling grievance in Scotland, winding up the English and undermining Labour, because they know they have more chance of a successful vote in a referendum with a Tory Government in place in Westminster.

They are more interested in breaking up Britain than they are in improving the health service, improving education and providing housing for the poorest people in Scotland. It is much easier to blame everything on a supposedly wicked Westminster than it is to try to use the powers they have to improve things in Scotland. In fact, the last thing they want to do is solve the problems in education, health or housing, because then they would not be able to stoke resentment, fuel grievance and blame the nasty English for causing them. It is, I am afraid, the perpetual nat whinge: blame everyone else for your failings and pretend that everything would be solved if only the country was broken up.

Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP): In contrast with the previous speech, which was an ill-informed diatribe criticising the Scottish Government, I rise to address the Bill before us today. I am going to use what precious time I have to speak in favour of amendment 204.

Amendment 204 would introduce a subsection to clause 11 that would remove the Human Rights Act 1998 from the list of protected provisions in schedule 4 to the Scotland Act 1998. This would have the effect of removing the Human Rights Act from the list of enactments that cannot be modified by the Scottish Parliament. If the Scottish Parliament was able to modify the Human Rights Act, that would allow the Scottish Government and the Scottish Parliament fully to establish a human rights regime in Scotland regardless of whether the Act was repealed by the UK Parliament in London.

The UK Government, which have no mandate in Scotland, have repeatedly made clear their intention to repeal the Human Rights Act and to replace it with a Bill of Rights. They have made it clear that they scorn European and international norms on human rights and the jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights. They have made it clear that they want to replace

9 Nov 2015 : Column 85

the Human Rights Act with a watered-down version of the rights and protections that everybody in the UK currently enjoys. We saw that very much trailed in

The Sunday Times

yesterday.

We in Scotland do not wish to have the terms of the debate on human rights in Scotland dictated by the UK Parliament, because in Scotland we have a very different agenda. There is no mandate in Scotland for repeal of the Human Rights Act. Preserving the Human Rights Act was an issue during the campaigns in both the independence referendum and the general election. The SNP has consistently opposed repeal, and as my right hon. Friend the Member for Moray (Angus Robertson) said, we won the general election in Scotland. Indeed, including Labour’s and the Liberal Democrats’ sole representatives in Scotland, 58 out of 59 Scottish MPs oppose repeal.

Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab): Will the hon. and learned Lady give way?

Joanna Cherry: I think I will make some progress, if the hon. Gentleman does not mind.

Last year, the Scottish Parliament voted by 100 to 10 to endorse the Human Rights Act, and civic society in Scotland, from the Scottish Trades Union Congress to the Church of Scotland, also opposes repeal. Nevertheless, this UK Government have repeatedly confirmed that they intend to go ahead with repeal and that it will apply equally in Scotland as in England, Wales and Northern Ireland.

In Scotland, we are concerned by repeated statements from Ministers of this Government suggesting they believe they could repeal the Act without consulting the Scottish Parliament. Their argument seems to be that they would not need a legislative consent motion, but that is incorrect. Human rights are not a reserved matter under the devolution settlement. Schedule 4 to the Scotland Act 1998 protects the Human Rights Act against modification by the Scottish Parliament, but human rights per se are not a reserved matter. They are not listed as such among the reserved matters in schedule 5 to the 1998 Act. It was part of the late Donald Dewar’s scheme that all matters would be devolved unless specifically reserved, and human rights are not specifically reserved.

Moreover, human rights and the European convention on human rights are written into the Scotland Act, meaning that the Scottish Parliament and Scottish Ministers cannot pass legislation that is incompatible with the convention.

Alberto Costa: Will the hon. and learned Lady give way?

Joanna Cherry: No, I will make progress. We have heard quite a lot from the hon. Gentleman already. These are important points of great concern to the Scottish electorate, and I want to make them very clear.

In Scotland, we have a national action plan for human rights, as well as a United Nations-accredited Scottish Human Rights Commission, and our commitment to human rights extends not just to the ECHR, but beyond that to social and economic rights.

Alberto Costa rose—

Joanna Cherry: The hon. Gentleman is clearly desperate to get his oar in, so I will give way.

9 Nov 2015 : Column 86

Alberto Costa: The hon. and learned Lady raises some important issues, but she is pre-judging what the Secretary of State for Justice might bring before the House. It might well be a beefed-up human rights regime that the Scottish people will want.

Joanna Cherry: It is hard to take that seriously. Since we have been in the House, we have, through the judicious questioning of Ministers, established that one of their main concerns about the Human Rights Act is the fear they should have to take account of—that is all the Act says—the decisions of the Strasbourg Court. Given that they fear having to take account of European and international norms, I can only assume they want to replace the Act with a considerably watered-down version of the ECHR and the Act. That is merely a logical deduction.

I wonder if I might give way to the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Wayne David), on the Labour Front Bench, who wished to intervene earlier.

Wayne David: It was only about five minutes ago, but I thank the hon. and learned Lady very much indeed. I agree with her comments about the Human Rights Act, but would she accept that what she says about Scotland also applies to Wales and to Northern Ireland especially?

Joanna Cherry: I do. As our First Minister has made clear, and as I have made clear in the House several times, we will do everything we can to preserve the Act for the whole of the UK. Were the Government to recognise that human rights are not a reserved matter and that therefore there has to be a legislative consent motion, we in Scotland could help friends across the House by refusing legislative consent for the repeal of the Act, which would be one way of keeping it for the whole of the UK.

6.45 pm

Our amendment 204 would give the Scottish Parliament the chance fully to implement a replacement for the Act in Scotland, were we to fail in our attempt to preserve it for the whole of the UK. The Government have said repeatedly that they do not recognise that human rights are a devolved matter—they say they are reserved—so we have to have a fall-back position in Scotland. I urge the Government—[Interruption.] They do not seem to be listening, but I urge them to remember their respect agenda and to return to the Scotland Act, with some decent lawyers, and look at it carefully. If they do, they will find that human rights are not a reserved matter but devolved. But they need not take my word for it; a sizeable body of academic opinion supports that assertion.

Our amendment recognises, when it comes to the proprieties of the devolution settlement, that the respect agenda, of which the Prime Minister has spoken so often, has been consigned to the dustbin of history, along with the assurance that Scotland is an equal partner in the Union and various other promises, including the vow, made by the Better Together parties during the independence referendum. As I have made clear, the SNP’s primary intention is to fight to retain the Human Rights Act for the whole of the UK, but the disrespect with which our previous amendments were met and the recent exclusion of all Scottish MPs from the Joint Committee on Human Rights gives me and my SNP colleagues no confidence that Parliament will respect the wishes of the Scottish electorate.

9 Nov 2015 : Column 87

Angus Robertson: Just now, in response to my hon. and learned Friend’s point about our being excluded from the Joint Committee, the hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Alberto Costa) said, “Good.” Might she take an intervention from him so he can explain why the party that represents almost every constituency in Scotland should be excluded from that important Committee?

Joanna Cherry: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for drawing that to my attention. I would be delighted to take that intervention. Will the hon. Gentleman, whom I believe is a lawyer of sorts, tell us and the people of Scotland why he thinks it acceptable for all Scottish MPs to be excluded from the Joint Committee?

Alberto Costa: It is important that we have sensible lawyers on the Committee. The hon. and learned Lady keeps stating that human rights are not a reserved matter, but they are a very obvious reserved matter. That is my point.

Joanna Cherry: I am sure viewers in Scotland and everyone reading Hansard tomorrow will be interested to hear that the hon. Gentleman thinks it acceptable to exclude every elected representative of the Scottish electorate from a Joint Committee whose purpose is to scrutinise Bills for human rights compliance across the UK.

Pete Wishart: The hon. Gentleman is probably equally delighted that there are six unelected donors and cronies from the House of Lords on that Committee, yet no place for any Scottish MP.

Joanna Cherry: I am sure he is. The hon. Gentleman’s interventions and speech underline the reality of our concern that the wish of the Scottish electorate to preserve the Human Rights Act will not be respected. I reiterate that we want to make common cause with the Labour party, the Lib Dems, Northern Ireland Members and Government Members to preserve the Act for the whole of the UK.

Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab): “They” want to?

Joanna Cherry: I want to. We want to.

Chris Bryant: You said “they”.

Joanna Cherry: I said “we”. Listen carefully. I know my accent is a bit difficult to follow, but I said “we”.

In conclusion, our primary intention is to preserve the Act for the whole of the UK, but the amendment would give us the option to implement the settled will of the Scottish people to keep the Act for Scotland, if we fail to keep it for the whole of the UK.

Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP): In the wake of Scotland’s referendum on independence last year, the Prime Minister set up the Smith commission to secure cross-party recommendations for the further devolution of powers to the Scottish Parliament. With regard to the constitutional aspects of the report, the Smith commission recommended that the permanence of the Scottish Parliament and Government be established in statute, ensuring that devolution could not be abolished at the whim of a Westminster Government. Therefore, I sincerely welcome the UK Government’s latest U-turn on this issue. The provision should have

9 Nov 2015 : Column 88

been included at the inception of the Scotland Bill, but I welcome the Government’s coming round to our way of thinking—better late than never, some might say.

The Smith commission report also stated that the Sewel convention should be put on a statutory footing by the UK Government. Unfortunately, the UK Government’s proposals in this area fall far short of Smith, despite the Prime Minister’s pledge to implement the commission’s proposals in full. Clause 2 of the Bill states that

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

The Government’s current position on the matter is ridiculous and risks weakening, not strengthening the Sewel convention, and it is at odds with the Smith commission report. The Government’s vow that they will “not normally legislate” in devolved areas will simply not suffice and raises serious concerns that it will set a dangerous precedent.

Indeed, from my work on the Immigration Bill Committee, I can already see one instance where the UK Government’s Bill encroaches on devolved areas in Scotland. For example, immigration is of course a competence reserved for the UK Parliament, but housing is not: it is devolved to the Scottish Parliament. Yet, as part of the Immigration Bill, the UK Government will introduce the right to rent. This is legislation that will compel landlords to establish a person’s legal status before they can offer a tenancy, introducing penalties for landlords who fail to comply. The UK Government’s “right to rent” provisions in the Immigration Bill will be extended to Scotland through secondary legislation without a legislative consent, or Sewel, motion being debated and passed by the Scottish Parliament. Furthermore, consultation with the Scottish Government on housing and with housing stakeholders in Scotland ahead of that Bill being introduced is said to have been rushed and extremely limited.

The Scottish Government are very concerned at this development and the Scottish housing Minister wrote to the Immigration Minister asking for a meeting on this very subject, only to be arrogantly rebuffed by him. In his reply, he said:

“The Right to Rent scheme and the new measures in the Immigration Bill relate to immigration control, which is not devolved”—

so far correct—but then said:

“These measures restrict access to housing”.

We have already established that housing is very much a devolved issue. So much for the respect agenda, much lauded by the Prime Minister.

The SNP’s new clause 35, which would place the Sewel convention on a statutory footing, is pragmatic and would ensure that the Bill lived up to the Smith commission’s recommendations. The UK Government’s approach to policy making where there are wider implications for devolved areas can be ignorant and churlish. There is no better example of that than the Conservatives’ much trailed desire to abolish the Human Rights Act.

Ian Murray: The hon. Gentleman is making an incredibly compelling argument about legalising and codifying the Sewel convention. If he wishes to push new clause 35 to

9 Nov 2015 : Column 89

the vote in a few minutes’ time, we would be more than happy to support him and take this forward. Otherwise, I am afraid it will be down to the other place to deal with.

Gavin Newlands: I appreciate the shadow Secretary of State’s support on this matter, which I will take up with my colleagues.

The Human Rights Act is vital to us in many ways. It gives us the right to life, freedom from torture, the right to liberty and security, freedom of thought, belief and religion, the right to private and family life, freedom of expression, assembly and association, and the right to free elections and education, to name a few. The Human Rights Act extends to all public authorities in Scotland—our schools, our local government, our NHS and our police. Amendment 204 would devolve responsibility for human rights to the Scottish Parliament, putting it beyond any doubt whatever, to help to safeguard human rights for those living in Scotland.

The potential abolition of the Human Rights Act will undoubtedly have profound implications for devolution in Scotland and across these islands. It would be an affront to democracy for the Conservative Government to use their slender majority in this House to abolish the Human Rights Acts when they do not command support in Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland. Our new clause 35 would require the UK Government, regardless of political hue, to seek a legislative consent motion in all instances of Westminster legislation affecting areas devolved to Scotland, and would require the UK Government to consult the Scottish Government on legislation that would have such an impact on Scotland.

The Tory Government—formed by a party to which the people of Scotland delivered a vote of no confidence at the last election; a party with only one MP in Scotland—have rejected every amendment put forward by the SNP Westminster group, a group that has 95% of Scotland’s MPs. That prompts the question: why are amendments to the Scotland Bill that are supported by an overwhelming majority of Scotland’s MPs ultimately rejected? The Conservatives—and, indeed, Labour—must stop ducking, diving and obfuscating when it comes to strengthening the Scotland Bill and must stop playing games with Scotland’s powers. The people of Scotland are watching. It is time they were listened to.

Ian Blackford: I rise to support new clause 36, which would give powers to Scotland over whether and when we hold a referendum. If it is right that there is mutual respect—we are told that there is—then the Scottish Parliament, elected by the Scottish people, has the right to determine its own destiny. The Secretary of State, and no doubt other Members, will be familiar with the words of Lord Cooper from 1953, when he stated that

“the principle of unlimited sovereignty of parliament is a distinctly English principle and has no counterpart in Scottish Constitutional Law”.

In other words, it is the people of Scotland who are sovereign. We come to this House with a mandate from the people of Scotland and that ought to be respected. My message to those on the Government Benches is that they drove through English votes for English laws—

Alberto Costa: The hon. Gentleman is standing in front of another distinguished Member, the right hon. Member for Gordon (Alex Salmond). Does he agree with him that last year’s referendum was a “once in a generation” affair? Yes or no?

9 Nov 2015 : Column 90

Ian Blackford: I always agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Gordon (Alex Salmond); the point is that it is the Scottish people who are ahead of this Parliament. We have to reflect on what is happening in this Bill. We were promised devo-max—as close to federalism as we could get; home rule in the spirit of Keir Hardie. It is this House and those on the Government Benches who are letting down the people of Scotland, and the people of Scotland will reflect upon that.

Ian Murray: I always enjoy listening to the hon. Gentleman making his passionate speeches in this Chamber. I wonder, for the sake of clarity, whether he could read the second line of what the former Prime Minister said about federalism.

Ian Blackford: The point is that the Scottish people were promised by Gordon Brown that we were going to get “powers for a purpose”—that we were going to have a powerhouse Parliament—and that is not what is being delivered tonight.

David Mundell: We are.

Ian Blackford: Despite what the Secretary of State says, the reality of the situation is that 70% of powers over taxation and 85% of powers over welfare will be held here at Westminster. I do not know what that is, but it is certainly not a powerhouse Parliament.

In the light of the challenges we face with the cuts to tax credits, which we will discuss in the second part of tonight’s debate, we need to make sure that the Scottish Parliament has the powers to protect the people of Scotland. We will be saying to the Labour party, “Come with us. Show that resolve,” to make sure that we can protect the people we need to protect in the country of Scotland.

Ian Murray: If the hon. Gentleman is truly passionate about protecting the people of Scotland, he will no doubt get to his feet and tell this Chamber and the people of Scotland that he will restore to them any losses from tax credits, as the Scottish Labour party has committed itself to do.

Ian Blackford: The Scottish National party in power in Scotland over the last few years has sought to mitigate the cuts that have come from Westminster, with £100 million invested for the Scottish people to offset the impacts of the bedroom tax. We will fight to defend the interests of the Scottish people, as we always have done.

Ms Ahmed-Sheikh: I would like to remind the House that, unlike the Labour party on the Benches next to us, we are not prepared to give up the fight on tax credits, which we will take to the very end. The measures have already been rejected by the Lords, but the Scottish Parliament is not a mitigating Chamber; it should be a legislative Chamber, and we will fight to ensure that cuts to tax credits are not inflicted on the vulnerable of this country.

Ian Blackford: I am grateful to my hon. Friend.

This is also about our ethos, the kind of society we are and what we will strive to do, because in Scotland we believe not in welfare, but in social security—we believe in offering protection to people—but we also believe in the principle that society is as strong as its

9 Nov 2015 : Column 91

weakest link. That is a very different concept from what we have in this Parliament, with the cuts that are coming through and those we know will come in the autumn statement.

Ian Austin: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Ian Blackford: No, I am going to make some progress, if the hon. Gentleman does not mind.

So I say to those in this House: will they respect the sovereignty of the Scottish people, who sent us to this House, or will they ignore the express wishes of the Scottish people? Let me say to Government Members that they have been rejected wholesale at the ballot box in Scotland. They should think very carefully before exercising a veto, which to all intents and purposes will be an English veto against Scotland. Perhaps in that regard the question we should put to the Secretary of State is: is he Scotland’s man in the Cabinet or is he the Cabinet’s man in Scotland? The Secretary of State should do the honourable thing—accept our amendment and stand up for the people of Scotland. What is it to be?

7 pm

And what about the Labour party, a party that once dominated the political landscape of Scotland? It is perhaps not yet extinct like the dodo, but more like a beached whale. Labour Members should show us that they want to protect Scotland. If they want to make a difference for Scotland, they should support our amendments tonight—or will they be siding with their colleagues in Better Together?

Ian Austin rose—

Ian Blackford: I want to make some progress.

Labour Members need to start learning the lesson that Scotland rejected them for a reason. They had better start to get on side with us and the people of Scotland. Tonight is a chance for the House to understand that Scotland expects powers for the Scottish Parliament to be delivered so that Scotland’s destiny can be put in Scotland’s hands. That will not happen by voting for a Bill that leaves us with a hand tied behind our backs while a Tory Government do their worst to the poor and disadvantaged in our society.

Our amendments allow us to deliver on the interests of our people. We need a Parliament that will allow us to stand up for the people of Scotland and recognise that the people are sovereign. Let me finish by quoting Charles Stewart Parnell:

“No man has the right to fix the boundary to a march of a nation. No man has the right to say thus far shalt thou go and no further.”

It is in that context that we need powers to determine in Scotland when and if we want to have a referendum. It is in that context that the House should listen to the elected Members of the people of Scotland.

Wayne David: The acid test of this Bill is whether it delivers on the vow and the recommendations of the Smith commission. Objectively, assuming that all the Government amendments are agreed, we believe that the Bill goes a long way to delivering on the Smith commission. That is not to say that the Government have delivered on

9 Nov 2015 : Column 92

absolutely everything. They clearly have not, and I have to say that it is a sad reflection on this Government that they have come to this point kicking and screaming. Since the beginning of the Smith commission’s report in November 2014, the Government have had a long and painful journey.

Nowhere is the Government’s change of heart more clear than in respect of Government new clause 12. It was constantly argued by Opposition Members in Committee that the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government ought to be described as “a permanent part” of the United Kingdom’s constitutional arrangements. We argued that the phrase “recognised as permanent” was less than what was recommended by the Smith commission and that, as the Scottish Parliament’s Devolution (Further Powers) Committee correctly argued, the use of the phrase “recognised as permanent” had the effect of weakening the Smith recommendations. I am pleased that the Government have listened.

Some might think that this is all about constitutional navel-gazing, but it is an extremely important point that the Scottish Parliament be placed on a firm constitutional footing and that the sovereignty of the Parliament rests with the people of Scotland. I have, however, a question for the Secretary of State on the issue of the UK’s parliamentary sovereignty.

We all know that a classic theory of UK parliamentary sovereignty is stated in Dicey’s “Introduction to the Law of the Constitution”. According to this classic theory, Parliament can make a law on any subject it pleases, and there are no fundamental laws that restrict its powers. The Government’s new clause 12, I would suggest, is a departure from that theory, which I welcome. Does the Secretary of State agree that in passing new clause 12 we are making modest but significant constitutional history?

New clause 13 is about the functions exercised by Scottish Ministers in respect of elections. It is essentially technical, but on the issue of elections, I refer briefly to amendments 37 and 43. Of course, a vital part of any democracy is free and open elections, and we support Government new clause 13 and Government amendments 35 to 43. I am glad that the Government have recognised the need to devolve some of the responsibilities of the Electoral Commission. It is surely only appropriate that the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 is amended so that the functions of the Electoral Commission are devolved for elections to the Scottish Parliament.

I note that the Government have introduced the significant amendment 43, which deals with the so-called “Digital Service”. As I understand it, this relates to the ability to register online to vote. Given the introduction of individual elector registration, this is very important. I ask the Minister for clarification on two points. First, although there is reference in the Bill to Scottish Ministers making regulations subject to the negative procedure, it is repeated in amendment 43, so I would appreciate it if the Government could explain what exactly this negative procedure is and how it will work?

Secondly, with regard to the online registration system, could there be confusion about which electors are able to vote in which elections? The Scottish Parliament has rightly decided to introduce votes for 16 and 17-year-olds at all Scottish elections, but these individuals will be denied the vote in Westminster elections. Is there not a

9 Nov 2015 : Column 93

danger of widespread confusion, particularly if the online registration technology is being used for both Westminster and Scottish elections?

If I am pleased that the Government have listened to the debate, particularly as far as new clause 12 is concerned, I am disappointed that they have not brought forward an amendment on the Sewel convention and its workings. We argued in Committee, as did SNP Members, that we were concerned about the narrow interpretation of the Sewel convention, which concerned the more general devolved competence. Moreover, there is the imprecision of the word “normally”. As I said in the Committee of the whole House:

“How long is a piece of string?”—[Official Report, 15 June 2015; Vol. 597, c. 99.]

The word “normally” is legally imprecise, which is why amendments 7, 8, 9 and 10, to remove the offending word, were tabled by the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael), who sadly cannot be with us today.

New clause 35, tabled by the right hon. Member for Moray (Angus Robertson), seeks to place the Sewel convention on a statutory footing. This was, of course, recommended by the Smith commission, and we are happy to support the new clause, if it is pressed to a vote. However, if we are supporting new clause 35, we are certainly not supporting new clause 36, also tabled by the right hon. Member for Moray. It deals with future referendums on Scottish independence. I note that in the right hon. Gentleman’s statement to the press over the weekend, he said:

“Whether or not Scotland has a referendum in the future should be up to the people—and in the hands of the Scottish Parliament—rather than the UK Government.”

Callum McCaig (Aberdeen South) (SNP): Paragraph 18 of the Smith commission report states:

“It is agreed that nothing in this report prevents Scotland becoming an independent country in the future should the people of Scotland so choose.”

If the people of Scotland do not have the power to choose, how is that provision to stand the test of time?

Wayne David: I may be mistaken, but I thought the Scottish people had made a decision—a very firm and clear-cut decision. If there is a move towards having a referendum in the future—

Callum McCaig: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Wayne David: I give way a second time.

Callum McCaig: On the history of this issue, the referendum happened in September, and the Smith commission from which I have directly quoted, happened after that. All the parties decided that nothing should prevent Scotland from becoming independent, should the people so wish—yet that is exactly what these provisions are trying to do.

Wayne David: No one is seeking to deny the people of Scotland anything. I simply remind the hon. Gentleman that a prominent member of the SNP said that the result was gold-plated, and that the Scottish Parliament has the power at present to have a referendum. The amendment seeks to take away the caveats that are based on discussion and all the more reasonable for that.

9 Nov 2015 : Column 94

Ian Austin: Does my hon. Friend agree that this obsession with organising another referendum proves the central point made by me and others in this afternoon’s debate—that the SNP is much more interested in breaking up Britain than in getting on and delivering for the people of Scotland by improving the health service, improving education and providing the homes that the people of Scotland need?

Wayne David: I could not agree more. In my book, devolution is not about divorce, separation or schism. It is not about balkanising Britain. It is about establishing a new partnership, so that the people of Britain can work together in a constructive and harmonious way.

Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP): Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Wayne David: I will, for the third time.

Patrick Grady: I may have misheard the hon. Gentleman, but it sounded as if he said that the Scottish Parliament had the power to call a referendum. The Scottish Parliament explicitly does not have the power to call a referendum, which is why we want to give it that power by means of our amendment.

Wayne David: What the amendment seeks to do is take away caveats that are essential in defining the partnership and the harmonious discussions that must take place. It is not simply a question of the Scottish Parliament deciding by itself what it wants to do.

Ian Blackford: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Wayne David: I will give away yet again.

Ian Blackford: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for being so gracious with his time. This is a very important point, because it comes down to the issue of whether the Scottish people, in electing a Government who want to have a referendum on independence, have the power to do so. If the House does not accept our amendment, that power will reside with Westminster, and not with the Scottish people or the Scottish Parliament. It has nothing to do with caveats.

Wayne David: I think that the obsession with having a referendum at all costs is very sad for the people of Scotland.

Ms Ahmed-Sheikh: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Wayne David: No. I have given way four times already.

Sometimes SNP Members have to be told, and I am telling them now. The situation is as I have described it. We are not prepared to have a referendum, and we are not prepared to allow a constitutional debate to be hijacked by the referendum issue in an attempt to manoeuvre the situation and bring about a break-up of the United Kingdom. That is not what devolution is all about, and it is not what the Smith commission was all about. The Smith commission was all about people working together.

9 Nov 2015 : Column 95

Several hon. Members rose—

Wayne David: I want to make a bit of progress now.

The fact is that these are not dry constitutional issues, but issues that have an impact on everyday life, as is shown clearly by what is happening in Scotland in connection with the Trade Union Bill. Under the Sewel convention, a legislative consent motion is necessary for Westminster legislation to secure the consent of the Scottish Parliament if it is to apply in Scotland in a devolved area. According to a strict legal interpretation, this Bill seeks to amend the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, and therefore, it is argued, does not encroach on areas of devolved competence. In practical terms, however, it will encroach very much on areas of devolved competence by imposing requirements on local authorities in Scotland.

We believe it is wrong that the UK Government are able to legislate for devolved authorities in this way. That is why all Labour-led councils in Scotland—and one led by the SNP— have agreed to a stance of non-compliance. The Westminster Government have not sought a legislative consent motion from the Scottish Parliament, but Labour will present such a motion in order to deny the Bill competence over Scotland’s devolved services.

I have mentioned local authorities. New clauses 7, 8 and 9, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen), make the point that true supporters of devolution believe that power should reside at the most appropriate level, as close to the people as possible. They recognise that there is a very real issue in Scotland, namely that, in the view of many, the Scottish Government are more concerned about exercising power itself than about empowering people in their local communities. Members of the SNP claim to be good Europeans, but I am afraid they show little practical support for the adoption of the European principle of bringing power closer to the people. They have a chance to put that right tonight.

As was noted when we discussed it in a Committee of the whole House, part 2 of the Bill devolves significant new powers to Scotland in relation to income tax and other taxes. The Scottish Parliament will have control over income tax rates and thresholds, and complete freedom when it comes to the levels at which those rates and thresholds are set. That is significant, as the estimated devolved income tax liabilities in 2013-14 amounted to nearly £11 billion. The collection and deployment of such a considerable sum confers—rightly—a substantial degree of responsibility on the Scottish Parliament. If they wish, a Scottish Government, whatever their political complexion, can increase or decrease that liability.

7.15 pm

Scottish Labour has already set out how we would use those new powers. We would reset the additional rate to 50p, so that those who earn over £150,000 a year would contribute a little more, as I think most fair-minded individuals would agree they can afford to do. We would not implement the Government’s plans to increase the higher-rate threshold, but we would use the money raised from not doing so—estimated to be over £400 million—to help to mitigate, in full, the impact of the Government’s work penalty: that is, the tax credit cuts. That decision will benefit a quarter of a million Scottish families who, thanks to the Government, must

9 Nov 2015 : Column 96

currently pay an average of £1,300 a year. It is an example of what can be done with new powers if we have the courage and conviction, and the political will, to use them correctly.

Labour Members support these powers. It will therefore come as no surprise that we remain utterly unconvinced by, and opposed to, the SNP’s amendment 224, which would go beyond the Smith commission and enable the Scottish Parliament to remove reservations on taxation, borrowing and public expenditure.

Over the past few months, we have learnt how confused members of the SNP are about the issue of fiscal devolution, or autonomy. The depth of their confusion was shown clearly in Committee, when I asked their economic spokesman whether a future SNP Government would increase or reduce corporation tax. The response to that perfectly reasonable question was

“Yes, a future SNP Government would increase it, decrease it, keep it the same and use the amount raised in an intelligent way.”—[Official Report, 15 June 2015; Vol. 597, c. 56.]

In other words, SNP Members are totally and utterly confused. They are interested in taxation power for the sake of it, rather than being interested in what they want to do with it. They have not thought this out, and they do not have a clue about it.

Sir Edward Leigh: I refer the hon. Gentleman to his own new clause 1. Do I take it that because the Labour party wants an independent commission to examine the issue of full fiscal autonomy, it is increasingly open minded about the issue, and does the hon. Gentleman think that that would be one route towards getting rid of the grievance mentality among those in Scotland? If they had to take full responsibility for their decisions, it would be very difficult for them to blame a United Kingdom settlement.

Wayne David: We believe that the facts should be allowed to speak for themselves. In our view, the case has not been made and cannot be made, but what we want to see is a transparent, independent body that will reach that conclusion, and we are confident that it will do so. That is why we support the proposal for an independent commission.

Ms Ahmed-Sheikh: Does the hon. Gentleman agree with the shadow Chancellor, who, earlier this year, walked through the Lobby with us to vote for full fiscal autonomy?

Wayne David: He did that for his own reasons, and for different reasons. What was obvious to me, and very telling, was the fact that the Tory right and the Scottish nationalists were at one. Representatives of English nationalism and Scottish nationalism went through the Lobby together in their hordes: the nationalists and the extreme right! That says it all, does it not?

Nick Thomas-Symonds (Torfaen) (Lab): I know that my hon. Friend, like me, is a student of history. He will know of the test set by that great socialist R. H. Tawney, who said of political institutions, “It is not about paragraphs in a constitution; it is about the practical effect that the institutions make.” Does my hon. Friend agree that it would be useful to know from SNP Members what, practically, they intend to do with their new powers?

9 Nov 2015 : Column 97

Wayne David: Yes, indeed. They are very strong on rhetoric, as we have heard this afternoon. They have had strong election results, but I suspect that that will not apply for much longer, because the Scottish people will rumble them when they dig beneath the rhetoric and find that there is very little substance there.

Sir Edward Leigh: Could it just be that the Tory right, as the hon. Gentleman describes it, and the present Labour shadow Chancellor both recognise that the one way to defeat nationalism is to have a real Parliament in Scotland with full power over what it taxes and spends and that at that stage the SNP will have to take responsibility for its own actions? It will become a grown-up political party and we will start to defeat it in Scotland.

Wayne David: One of the key reasons why we are broadly in support of what the Government are belatedly proposing is that we believe it will give new responsibilities to the Scottish Parliament to try to achieve substantial things on behalf of the Scottish people. I think there is a case to say that responsibility and power go together, and that is why these measures are a step forward.

Ian Austin: A moment ago my hon. Friend expressed surprise that the SNP and the Tory right were voting together on full fiscal autonomy, but I am bemused about why he is surprised given that it was the SNP who brought down the Labour Government in the 1970s and ushered in 18 years of—[Interruption.] I do not know what the hon. Member for Ochil and South Perthshire (Ms Ahmed-Sheikh) is shouting for, given that she was until very recently a Tory herself. They ushered in 18 years of Thatcherism and all the problems about which they are now whingeing. [Interruption.]

Wayne David: All I would say is that it is quite clear that the truth hurts sometimes, does it not? They have been rumbled absolutely.

I will make a little progress in a slightly more sedate manner, if I may. Reference has been made to our new clause 1, which would establish an independent commission on full fiscal autonomy to scrutinise the potential impact on Scotland’s economy and public finances. It would require the Secretary of State for Scotland to establish an independent commission of external experts, appointed in consultation with the Treasury Committee and Scottish Affairs Committee, to publish a report by 31 March 2016 setting out an analysis, objectively and fairly, of the impact of the policy of full fiscal autonomy.

VAT is another important issue. Our amendments 27 to 29 would place an additional £5 billion of reserves under the direct control of the Scottish Parliament by assigning 100% of Scottish revenues from the standard and reduced rate of VAT to the Scottish Parliament, as opposed to 50%, for which the Bill currently allows. Of course, under EU regulations, which do not allow for differential rates of VAT in the same state, the actual setting of VAT would have to remain reserved. However, this is not an argument against assigning the revenues generated in Scotland to the Scottish Consolidated Fund. As was said on Report, given that the Scottish Government would have

“no control over VAT, why assign only half of it? Why not assign it all? The Scottish Government could then quite rightly benefit, if there was a benefit, from the entire rise in VAT in Scotland rather than just half of it and could take responsibility if there was a shortfall, not just for half the shortfall.”—[Official Report, 29 June 2015; Vol. 597, c. 1256.]

9 Nov 2015 : Column 98

It was said that that would be a good thing. Those were not my comments, or indeed the comments of another Member of the Opposition; they were the comments of the hon. Member for Dundee East (Stewart Hosie), who also happens to be the SNP’s spokesperson on the economy. Oddly, given his full-blooded support for devolving 100% of VAT, the SNP has not actually got round to tabling an amendment that would produce this effect, and when the Labour party tabled an amendment proposing that, did the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues welcome it? No, they did not. Instead, they issued a press release in which the hon. Gentleman himself denounced it as a “gimmick”. Well, I do not think it is a gimmick and I am sure the people of Scotland do not think so either.

New clause 4 would review the impact of the new income tax powers on the operation of gift aid in Scotland to guard against unintended and negative consequences for charities. Gift aid is worth over £1 billion a year to charities and over £100 million in Scotland. Any threat to its smooth operation must, therefore, be closely guarded against. The problem that Labour’s new clauses seek to address is that gift aid is UK-wide, linked to tax paid, and predicated on a single tax structure. I would welcome in the Secretary of State’s response any assurances he can provide to charities in Scotland on the issue of gift aid.

New clause 11 would require the Secretary of State to lay before the House of Commons a full record, including minutes of meetings and correspondence at ministerial level, of discussions between the Secretary of State, the Treasury and Scottish Ministers relating to the non-budget expenditure to be voted by Parliament authorising the payment of grants to the Scottish Consolidated Fund for that financial year. We would of course be happy to work in partnership with the Scottish Parliament on such a report, although it is similarly in the gift of the Scottish Government to produce their own report, and I hope that they would share it with us as well. We would thereby have regular updates on the health of these negotiations, which currently take place to a large extent behind closed doors. The purpose of this new clause is to ensure transparency and accountability in the process leading to the annual settlement between the Treasury and Scottish Ministers of the block grant to the Scottish Consolidated Fund.

It is worth noting that the Scottish Parliament’s Finance Committee produced a report on intergovernmental relations in late June. It makes for interesting and important reading. It is generally critical of the state of intergovernmental relations, which are described as taking place “below the radar.” It is said that relations should be made

“more formal and more transparent.”

The Committee also recommended that consideration should be given to establishing an independent body to advise on the calculation of the block grant and an independent arbiter to resolve disputes on issues such as the block grant adjustment. The Labour party would certainly support any such moves to that effect, and it is in the interests of introducing greater accountability, transparency and formality to these negotiations that our new clause 11 has been tabled.

I am grateful for being allowed to speak in some detail about some of the amendments, but they are important; these are important issues. I hope that the House will give sympathetic consideration to the points I have made this evening.

9 Nov 2015 : Column 99

David Mundell: I think that during at least part of this debate some of the amendments tabled by both the Government and Opposition Members have been addressed and I am very pleased—unless I have picked this up wrongly in the course of the debate—that no one is suggesting they would wish to oppose the Government’s amendments.

I am afraid that today’s debate on full fiscal autonomy has, for me, been an unwelcome case of déjà vu, and I am afraid that even includes the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh). It would certainly be unwelcome to the people of Scotland if this proposal ever came to pass. It will come as no surprise to the House that the Government will not accept the SNP amendment relating to full fiscal autonomy. This Government are clear: it is not in the interests of the people of Scotland.

We do not need a commission either, because the analysis has been done. The Institute for Fiscal Studies has estimated that full fiscal autonomy would mean Scotland having almost £10 billion less to spend by the last year of this Parliament. That is not a good deal for Scotland and this Government will not support it.

Callum McCaig: Ironically, what gives us a real, and cruel, sense of déjà vu is that despite barely a dozen Conservative Members having been present during this debate to listen to the concerns of the people of Scotland, the Tories will march through the Lobby denying the people of Scotland what they want.

David Mundell: There is not a shred of evidence to suggest that the people of Scotland want full fiscal autonomy. The people of Scotland voted in a referendum—I know that is an inconvenience for the SNP on the road to independence—and voted decisively to remain within the United Kingdom.

7.30 pm

Several hon. Members rose—

David Mundell: I need to deal with the specific issues that have been raised, including gift aid. I commend the hon. Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray) for pursuing this issue, because it is important to the charitable sector. It came up when I addressed the Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations recently. I can confirm that the UK Government remain committed to working with the charity sector to ensure that gift aid works effectively for charities and their donors. This is something that we already do, and something that we will continue to do. We consulted the charity sector fully in advance of agreeing the arrangements for the continued operation of gift aid under the Scottish rate of income tax, which will come into effect in April 2016. Similarly, we are fully committed to consulting the charity sector, in Scotland and the rest of the UK, ahead of agreeing arrangements for the continued operation of gift aid under the devolution of income tax powers as proposed by the Bill.

The Government are fully committed to an ongoing dialogue with the charity sector before and after the enactment of the Bill to ensure that gift aid continues to operate effectively. It is our objective to maximise the amount of gift aid claimed on eligible donations. I hope that, on the basis of those reassurances, the hon. Gentleman will not press his new clause to a vote.

9 Nov 2015 : Column 100

Ian Murray: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for his clarification on gift aid. That is a significant concern for the charity sector in Scotland, which will welcome his reassurances. On that basis, we will not press new clause 4 to a vote.

David Mundell: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that.

I also thank the hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Tommy Sheppard). I usually disagree fundamentally with his contributions, but I always enjoy them. I also commend him on winning the new MP of the year award from The Spectator. He and the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands) touched on the Sewel convention—the legislative consent motion procedure in the Scottish Parliament. I am afraid that I do not agree with their proposals. The Sewel convention has been set out in the Bill, as required by the Smith commission.

Chris Stephens: Will the Minister give way?

David Mundell: I want to respond to all the points raised on the new clauses and amendments if I can.

The hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen) has put forward various suggestions on local government. On the one hand, I agree with the SNP that it is a matter for the Scottish Parliament to determine the nature of local government in Scotland. On the other hand, I agree with the hon. Gentleman that as many matters as possible in Scotland should be devolved locally. Indeed, that was one of Lord Smith’s proposals for the Bill.

On the question of permanence, I am glad that the current proposal, which I had previously shared with the Scottish Government and the Devolved Powers Committee, meets everyone’s aspirations. In response to the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Wayne David), this is an important proposal which demonstrates what the people of Scotland have clearly indicated they wish to see in the legislation. I am also pleased that the proposals relating to elections have been relatively uncontentious, as were the measures relating to a super-majority. I therefore hope that the amendments to those measures will not be pressed to a vote.

I am afraid that I cannot agree with Labour’s proposal for the full amount of VAT raised in Scotland to be assigned to Scotland. It was a key part of the Smith agreement that half the VAT revenue should be so assigned, in order to ensure a stable balance between encouraging Scotland’s economy to grow and insulating the Scottish Government’s budget from UK-wide economic shocks. I hope that the relevant amendment will therefore not be pressed to a vote.

The question of human rights was raised by the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry). I have found her previous contributions to this Parliament to be based on fact and not on politics, so it will not surprise her to learn that I was disappointed with her contribution this evening. This is an important issue. The House will be aware that we have outlined our proposal to reform and modernise our human rights framework by replacing the Human Rights Act with a Bill of Rights. Of course I am very aware of the possible devolution implications of reform, and we will engage with the devolved Administrations as we develop these proposals. We spoke about this matter in Committee, and the Government’s view has not changed.

9 Nov 2015 : Column 101

The Government are working on proposals for the reform of the human rights framework, and we will bring forward those proposals in due course, in consultation with the devolved Administrations.

The fiscal framework has also been discussed today. I want to put on record the fact that I am absolutely confident that John Swinney, negotiating on behalf of the Scottish Government, will be able to get a good deal for them. I have that confidence in Mr Swinney, and I know that he and the UK Government are absolutely committed to achieving that objective. We have had a number of detailed discussions on the fiscal framework, and we agreed at the start that we would not provide a running commentary on those negotiations. Nothing is agreed until everything is agreed. However, there is no suggestion that agreement cannot be reached, and it will be an agreement that is fair for Scotland and fair for the rest of the United Kingdom. I look forward to Members of this House and of the Scottish Parliament being able to properly scrutinise that agreement.

Sir Edward Leigh: Will my right hon. Friend deal briefly with amendment 224, which has been tabled by the SNP? According to its accompanying explanatory statement, instead of asking the House to impose full fiscal autonomy, the Scottish Parliament

“could then legislate in these areas to provide for full fiscal autonomy in Scotland.”

In other words, SNP Members do not actually want full fiscal autonomy yet. They are like St Augustine: they want to stop sinning, but not quite yet. I think we should call their bluff on this one.

David Mundell: Throughout the course of these debates it has been clear that the strongest advocate of full fiscal devolution in this House is my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh). He is willing to put his money where his mouth is. I am not willing to put the livelihoods of people in Scotland on the line just to demonstrate that some scheme would not work.

Mr Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP) rose—

David Mundell: I want to deal with new clause 36, which is an important proposal—at least the hon. Gentleman’s colleagues suggest it is. In September 2014, the people of Scotland voted decisively to remain part of the United Kingdom, and to retain our two Parliaments and two Governments. The SNP reassured us repeatedly in advance of the referendum that it would be a once-in-a-generation or once-in-a-lifetime event. The First Minister herself signed the Edinburgh agreement, which committed both of Scotland’s Governments to respect the outcome of the independence referendum. However much the SNP might dislike the fact, the 2 million people in Scotland who voted no voted to keep our United Kingdom. Their votes should be respected and not set aside as an unfortunate setback on the road to independence. Most people in Scotland support our place in the United Kingdom and do not want a second referendum—that is a fact that the SNP cannot face up to.

This new clause is a distraction from the real powers contained in this Bill. The Bill gives the Scottish Parliament significant new powers, with the strength of the United Kingdom. The SNP needs to tell us how it intends to

9 Nov 2015 : Column 102

use those powers for the benefit of the people of Scotland. I will therefore not be supporting new clause 36 and am again proposing that people support my amendments.

Question put and agreed to.

New clause 12 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 13

Functions exercisable within devolved competence: elections

“(1) The Scotland Act 1998 (“the 1998 Act”) has effect, in relation to any function so far as exercisable within devolved competence by virtue of a provision of section 3, as if references to a “pre-commencement enactment” were to—

(a) an Act passed before or in the same session as the relevant date,

(b) any other enactment made before the relevant date,

(c) subordinate legislation under section 106 of the 1998 Act, to the extent that the legislation states that it is to be treated as a pre-commencement enactment,

but did not include the 1998 Act or this Act (or any amendment made by either of those Acts) or (subject to paragraph (c)) an enactment comprised in subordinate legislation under either of those Acts.

(2) In this section—

(a) expressions used in the 1998 Act have the same meaning as in that Act;

(b) the relevant date is the date on which section 3 comes into force.”—(Stephen Barclay.)

This amendment makes provision for various existing functions of Ministers of the Crown in respect of elections to instead be exercised by Scottish Ministers, so far as such functions are exercisable within devolved competence by virtue of Clause 3.

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 1

Independent Commission on Full Fiscal Autonomy

“(1) The Secretary of State shall appoint a commission of between four and eleven members to conduct an analysis of the impact of Full Fiscal Autonomy on the Scottish economy, labour market and public finances and to report by 31 March 2016.

(2) No member of the House of Commons, the House of Lords, or the Scottish Parliament may be a member of the commission.

(3) No employee of the Scottish Government or of any government Department or agency anywhere in the United Kingdom may be a member of the commission.

(4) The Secretary of State shall, in consultation and with the agreement of Scottish Ministers, appoint as members of the commission only persons who appear to the Secretary of State to hold a relevant qualification or to have relevant experience.

(5) The Secretary of State shall not appoint as a member of the commission any person who is a member of a political party.

(6) Before appointing any member of the commission, the Secretary of State must consult—

(a) The Chair of any select committee appointed by the House of Commons to consider Scottish Affairs, and

(b) The Chair of any select committee appointed by the House of Commons to examine the expenditure, administration and policy of Her Majesty’s Treasury and its associated public bodies.

(7) The Secretary of State may by regulations issue the commission with terms of reference and guidelines for the commission’s working methods, including an outline definition of the policy of full fiscal autonomy for the commission to analyse.

9 Nov 2015 : Column 103

(8) The Secretary of State must lay copies of the report of the commission before both Houses of Parliament, and must transmit a copy of the report of the commission to the Presiding Officer of the Scottish Parliament.

(9) Regulations under this section must be made by statutory instrument, subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.”—(Ian Murray.)

The new Clause provides for the establishment of an independent commission to investigate the impact of FFA.

Brought up, and read the First time.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided:

Ayes 191, Noes 341.

Division No. 110]

[

7.39 pm

AYES

Abbott, Ms Diane

Abrahams, Debbie

Alexander, Heidi

Ali, Rushanara

Allen, Mr Graham

Allen, Heidi

Anderson, Mr David

Ashworth, Jonathan

Austin, Ian

Bailey, Mr Adrian

Barron, rh Kevin

Benn, rh Hilary

Betts, Mr Clive

Blackman-Woods, Dr Roberta

Blenkinsop, Tom

Blomfield, Paul

Bradshaw, rh Mr Ben

Brennan, Kevin

Brown, rh Mr Nicholas

Bryant, Chris

Buck, Ms Karen

Burden, Richard

Burgon, Richard

Burnham, rh Andy

Butler, Dawn

Byrne, rh Liam

Cadbury, Ruth

Campbell, rh Mr Alan

Campbell, Mr Ronnie

Champion, Sarah

Chapman, Jenny

Coaker, Vernon

Coffey, Ann

Cooper, Julie

Cooper, rh Yvette

Corbyn, Jeremy

Cox, Jo

Coyle, Neil

Creasy, Stella

Cruddas, Jon

Cryer, John

Cummins, Judith

Cunningham, Alex

Cunningham, Mr Jim

Danczuk, Simon

David, Wayne

Davies, Geraint

De Piero, Gloria

Doughty, Stephen

Dowd, Jim

Dowd, Peter

Dromey, Jack

Dugher, Michael

Durkan, Mark

Eagle, Ms Angela

Eagle, Maria

Elliott, Julie

Ellman, Mrs Louise

Esterson, Bill

Evans, Chris

Field, rh Frank

Fitzpatrick, Jim

Flint, rh Caroline

Flynn, Paul

Fovargue, Yvonne

Foxcroft, Vicky

Gapes, Mike

Glass, Pat

Glindon, Mary

Godsiff, Mr Roger

Goodman, Helen

Green, Kate

Greenwood, Lilian

Greenwood, Margaret

Griffith, Nia

Haigh, Louise

Hamilton, Fabian

Hanson, rh Mr David

Hayes, Helen

Hayman, Sue

Healey, rh John

Hepburn, Mr Stephen

Hermon, Lady

Hillier, Meg

Hodgson, Mrs Sharon

Hollern, Kate

Hopkins, Kelvin

Howarth, rh Mr George

Hunt, Tristram

Huq, Dr Rupa

Irranca-Davies, Huw

Jarvis, Dan

Johnson, Diana

Jones, Graham

Jones, Helen

Jones, Mr Kevan

Jones, Susan Elan

Kane, Mike

Kaufman, rh Sir Gerald

Keeley, Barbara

Kendall, Liz

Kinnock, Stephen

Kyle, Peter

Lavery, Ian

Leslie, Chris

Lewell-Buck, Mrs Emma

Lewis, Clive

Long Bailey, Rebecca

Lucas, Caroline

Lucas, Ian C.

Mactaggart, rh Fiona

Madders, Justin

Mahmood, Mr Khalid

Mahmood, Shabana

Malhotra, Seema

Mann, John

Marris, Rob

Marsden, Mr Gordon

Maskell, Rachael

Matheson, Christian

McCabe, Steve

McCarthy, Kerry

McDonagh, Siobhain

McDonald, Andy

McDonnell, John

McFadden, rh Mr Pat

McGinn, Conor

McGovern, Alison

McInnes, Liz

Mearns, Ian

Moon, Mrs Madeleine

Morden, Jessica

Morris, Grahame M.

Mulholland, Greg

Murray, Ian

Onn, Melanie

Onwurah, Chi

Osamor, Kate

Owen, Albert

Pennycook, Matthew

Perkins, Toby

Phillips, Jess

Phillipson, Bridget

Pound, Stephen

Powell, Lucy

Pugh, John

Reed, Mr Steve

Reynolds, Emma

Reynolds, Jonathan

Rimmer, Marie

Ritchie, Ms Margaret

Rotheram, Steve

Shah, Naz

Sharma, Mr Virendra

Sherriff, Paula

Shuker, Mr Gavin

Siddiq, Tulip

Skinner, Mr Dennis

Slaughter, Andy

Smeeth, Ruth

Smith, rh Mr Andrew

Smith, Angela

Smith, Cat

Smith, Nick

Smith, Owen

Smyth, Karin

Spellar, rh Mr John

Stevens, Jo

Streeting, Wes

Stringer, Graham

Stuart, rh Ms Gisela

Tami, Mark

Thomas, Mr Gareth

Thomas-Symonds, Nick

Timms, rh Stephen

Trickett, Jon

Turley, Anna

Twigg, Derek

Twigg, Stephen

Umunna, Mr Chuka

Vaz, rh Keith

Vaz, Valerie

Watson, Mr Tom

West, Catherine

Whitehead, Dr Alan

Wilson, Phil

Winnick, Mr David

Winterton, rh Ms Rosie

Woodcock, John

Wright, Mr Iain

Zeichner, Daniel

Tellers for the Ayes:

Holly Lynch

and

Jeff Smith

NOES

Adams, Nigel

Afriyie, Adam

Ahmed-Sheikh, Ms Tasmina

Aldous, Peter

Allan, Lucy

Andrew, Stuart

Ansell, Caroline

Argar, Edward

Arkless, Richard

Atkins, Victoria

Bacon, Mr Richard

Baker, Mr Steve

Baldwin, Harriett

Barclay, Stephen

Bardell, Hannah

Baron, Mr John

Barwell, Gavin

Bebb, Guto

Benyon, Richard

Beresford, Sir Paul

Berry, Jake

Berry, James

Bingham, Andrew

Black, Mhairi

Blackford, Ian

Blackman, Bob

Blackman, Kirsty

Blackwood, Nicola

Blunt, Crispin

Boles, Nick

Bone, Mr Peter

Bradley, Karen

Brady, Mr Graham

Brazier, Mr Julian

Bridgen, Andrew

Brine, Steve

Brock, Deidre

Brokenshire, rh James

Brown, Alan

Bruce, Fiona

Buckland, Robert

Burns, Conor

Burns, rh Sir Simon

Burrowes, Mr David

Burt, rh Alistair

Cairns, Alun

Cameron, Dr Lisa

Carmichael, Neil

Cartlidge, James

Cash, Sir William

Caulfield, Maria

Chalk, Alex

Chapman, Douglas

Cherry, Joanna

Chishti, Rehman

Chope, Mr Christopher

Churchill, Jo

Clark, rh Greg

Clarke, rh Mr Kenneth

Cleverly, James

Coffey, Dr Thérèse

Collins, Damian

Colvile, Oliver

Costa, Alberto

Cowan, Ronnie

Cox, Mr Geoffrey

Crabb, rh Stephen

Crawley, Angela

Crouch, Tracey

Davies, Glyn

Davies, Dr James

Davies, Mims

Day, Martyn

Dinenage, Caroline

Djanogly, Mr Jonathan

Docherty, Martin John

Donaldson, Stuart Blair

Donelan, Michelle

Double, Steve

Dowden, Oliver

Doyle-Price, Jackie

Drax, Richard

Drummond, Mrs Flick

Duncan, rh Sir Alan

Duncan Smith, rh Mr Iain

Edwards, Jonathan

Ellis, Michael

Ellison, Jane

Ellwood, Mr Tobias

Elphicke, Charlie

Eustice, George

Evans, Graham

Evans, Mr Nigel

Evennett, rh Mr David

Fabricant, Michael

Fallon, rh Michael

Fellows, Marion

Fernandes, Suella

Field, rh Mark

Foster, Kevin

Frazer, Lucy

Freer, Mike

Fuller, Richard

Fysh, Marcus

Gale, Sir Roger

Garnier, rh Sir Edward

Garnier, Mark

Gauke, Mr David

Gethins, Stephen

Ghani, Nusrat

Gibb, Mr Nick

Gillan, rh Mrs Cheryl

Glen, John

Goodwill, Mr Robert

Gove, rh Michael

Grady, Patrick

Graham, Richard

Grant, Mrs Helen

Grant, Peter

Gray, Mr James

Gray, Neil

Grayling, rh Chris

Green, Chris

Green, rh Damian

Grieve, rh Mr Dominic

Griffiths, Andrew

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

Hendry, Drew

Herbert, rh Nick

Hinds, Damian

Hoare, Simon

Hollinrake, Kevin

Hollobone, Mr Philip

Holloway, Mr Adam

Hopkins, Kris

Hosie, Stewart

Howarth, Sir Gerald

Howell, John

Howlett, Ben

Huddleston, Nigel

Hurd, Mr Nick

Jackson, Mr Stewart

Jayawardena, Mr Ranil

Jenkyns, Andrea

Jenrick, Robert

Johnson, Gareth

Johnson, Joseph

Jones, Andrew

Jones, rh Mr David

Jones, Mr Marcus

Kawczynski, Daniel

Kennedy, Seema

Kerevan, George

Kerr, Calum

Kinahan, Danny

Kirby, Simon

Knight, rh Sir Greg

Knight, Julian

Kwarteng, Kwasi

Lancaster, Mark

Latham, Pauline

Law, Chris

Leadsom, Andrea

Lee, Dr Phillip

Lefroy, Jeremy

Leigh, Sir Edward

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

MacNeil, Mr Angus Brendan

Main, Mrs Anne

Mak, Mr Alan

Malthouse, Kit

Mathias, Dr Tania

Maynard, Paul

Mc Nally, John

McCaig, Callum

McCartney, Jason

McCartney, Karl

McDonald, Stewart Malcolm

McDonald, Stuart C.

McGarry, Natalie

McLaughlin, Anne

McLoughlin, rh Mr Patrick

McPartland, Stephen

Menzies, Mark

Mercer, Johnny

Merriman, Huw

Metcalfe, Stephen

Miller, rh Mrs Maria

Milling, Amanda

Mills, Nigel

Milton, rh Anne

Monaghan, Carol

Monaghan, Dr Paul

Mordaunt, Penny

Morgan, rh Nicky

Morris, Anne Marie

Morris, David

Morris, James

Morton, Wendy

Mowat, David

Mullin, Roger

Mundell, rh David

Murray, Mrs Sheryll

Murrison, Dr Andrew

Neill, Robert

Newlands, Gavin

Newton, Sarah

Nicolson, John

Nokes, Caroline

Norman, Jesse

Nuttall, Mr David

O'Hara, Brendan

Offord, Dr Matthew

Opperman, Guy

Oswald, Kirsten

Parish, Neil

Patel, rh Priti

Paterson, rh Mr Owen

Paterson, Steven

Pawsey, Mark

Penning, rh Mike

Penrose, John

Percy, Andrew

Phillips, Stephen

Philp, Chris

Pickles, rh Sir Eric

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, rh Angus

Robertson, Mr Laurence

Robinson, Gavin

Robinson, Mary

Rosindell, Andrew

Rudd, rh Amber

Rutley, David

Salmond, rh Alex

Scully, Paul

Selous, Andrew

Shannon, Jim

Shelbrooke, Alec

Sheppard, Tommy

Simpson, rh Mr Keith

Skidmore, Chris

Smith, Chloe

Smith, Henry

Smith, Julian

Smith, Royston

Soames, rh Sir Nicholas

Solloway, Amanda

Soubry, rh Anna

Spelman, rh Mrs Caroline

Spencer, Mark

Stephens, Chris

Stephenson, Andrew

Stevenson, John

Stewart, Bob

Stewart, Iain

Stewart, Rory

Streeter, Mr Gary

Stride, Mel

Stuart, Graham

Sunak, Rishi

Swayne, rh Mr Desmond

Thewliss, Alison

Thomas, Derek

Thompson, Owen

Thomson, Michelle

Throup, Maggie

Tolhurst, Kelly

Tomlinson, Justin

Tomlinson, Michael

Tracey, Craig

Trevelyan, Mrs Anne-Marie

Tugendhat, Tom

Turner, Mr Andrew

Vaizey, Mr Edward

Vara, Mr Shailesh

Vickers, Martin

Walker, Mr Charles

Walker, Mr Robin

Warburton, David

Warman, Matt

Watkinson, Dame Angela

Weir, Mike

Wharton, James

Whately, Helen

Wheeler, Heather

White, Chris

Whiteford, Dr Eilidh

Whitford, Dr Philippa

Whittaker, Craig

Whittingdale, rh Mr John

Wiggin, Bill

Williams, Hywel

Williamson, rh Gavin

Wilson, Corri

Wilson, Mr Rob

Wishart, Pete

Wollaston, Dr Sarah

Wood, Mike

Wragg, William

Wright, rh Jeremy

Zahawi, Nadhim

Tellers for the Noes:

Margot James

and

George Hollingbery

Question accordingly negatived.

9 Nov 2015 : Column 104

9 Nov 2015 : Column 105

9 Nov 2015 : Column 106

9 Nov 2015 : Column 107

7.52 pm

Three hours having elapsed since the commencement of proceedings on the programme motion, the proceedings were interrupted (Programme Order, this day).

The Deputy Speaker put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that time (Standing Order No. 83E).

New Clause 35

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.

(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—

(a) the Scottish Ministers so agree, or

(b) 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.’—(Angus Robertson.)

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.

Brought up.

Question put, That the clause be added to the Bill.

The House divided:

Ayes 245, Noes 287.

Division No. 111]

[

7.52 pm

AYES

Abbott, Ms Diane

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

Benn, rh Hilary

Betts, Mr Clive

Black, Mhairi

Blackford, Ian

Blackman, Kirsty

Blackman-Woods, Dr Roberta

Blenkinsop, Tom

Blomfield, Paul

Bradshaw, rh Mr Ben

Brennan, Kevin

Brock, Deidre

Brown, Alan

Brown, rh Mr Nicholas

Bryant, Chris

Buck, Ms Karen

Burden, Richard

Burgon, Richard

Burnham, rh Andy

Butler, Dawn

Byrne, rh Liam

Cadbury, Ruth

Cameron, Dr Lisa

Campbell, rh Mr Alan

Campbell, Mr Ronnie

Champion, Sarah

Chapman, Douglas

Chapman, Jenny

Cherry, Joanna

Coaker, Vernon

Coffey, Ann

Cooper, Julie

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

Danczuk, Simon

David, Wayne

Davies, Geraint

Day, Martyn

De Piero, Gloria

Docherty, Martin John

Donaldson, Stuart Blair

Doughty, Stephen

Dowd, Jim

Dowd, Peter

Dromey, Jack

Dugher, Michael

Durkan, Mark

Eagle, Ms Angela

Eagle, Maria

Elliott, Julie

Ellman, Mrs Louise

Esterson, Bill

Evans, Chris

Fellows, Marion

Field, rh Frank

Fitzpatrick, Jim

Flint, rh Caroline

Flynn, Paul

Fovargue, Yvonne

Foxcroft, Vicky

Gapes, Mike

Gethins, Stephen

Glass, Pat

Glindon, Mary

Godsiff, Mr Roger

Goodman, Helen

Grady, Patrick

Grant, Peter

Gray, Neil

Green, Kate

Greenwood, Lilian

Greenwood, Margaret

Griffith, Nia

Haigh, Louise

Hamilton, Fabian

Hanson, rh Mr David

Hayes, Helen

Hayman, Sue

Healey, rh John

Hendry, Drew

Hepburn, Mr Stephen

Hillier, Meg

Hodgson, Mrs Sharon

Hollern, Kate

Hopkins, Kelvin

Hosie, Stewart

Howarth, rh Mr George

Hunt, Tristram

Huq, Dr Rupa

Irranca-Davies, Huw

Jarvis, Dan

Johnson, Diana

Jones, Graham

Jones, Helen

Jones, Mr Kevan

Jones, Susan Elan

Kane, Mike

Kaufman, rh Sir Gerald

Keeley, Barbara

Kendall, Liz

Kerevan, George

Kerr, Calum

Kinnock, Stephen

Kyle, Peter

Lavery, Ian

Law, Chris

Leslie, Chris

Lewell-Buck, Mrs Emma

Lewis, Clive

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 Malcolm

McDonald, Stuart C.

McDonnell, John

McFadden, rh Mr Pat

McGarry, Natalie

McGinn, Conor

McGovern, Alison

McInnes, Liz

McLaughlin, Anne

Mearns, Ian

Monaghan, Carol

Monaghan, Dr Paul

Moon, Mrs Madeleine

Morden, Jessica

Morris, Grahame M.

Mulholland, Greg

Mullin, Roger

Murray, Ian

Newlands, Gavin

Nicolson, John

O'Hara, Brendan

Onn, Melanie

Onwurah, Chi

Osamor, Kate

Oswald, Kirsten

Owen, Albert

Paterson, Steven

Pennycook, Matthew

Perkins, Toby

Phillips, Jess

Phillipson, Bridget

Pound, Stephen

Powell, Lucy

Reed, Mr Steve

Reynolds, Emma

Reynolds, Jonathan

Rimmer, Marie

Ritchie, Ms Margaret

Robertson, rh Angus

Robinson, Gavin

Rotheram, Steve

Salmond, rh Alex

Shah, Naz

Shannon, Jim

Sharma, Mr Virendra

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

Smith, Owen

Smyth, Karin

Spellar, rh Mr John

Stephens, Chris

Stevens, Jo

Streeting, Wes

Stringer, Graham

Stuart, rh Ms Gisela

Tami, Mark

Thewliss, Alison

Thomas, Mr Gareth

Thomas-Symonds, Nick

Thompson, Owen

Thomson, Michelle

Timms, rh Stephen

Trickett, Jon

Turley, Anna

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

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

Hywel Williams

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

Benyon, Richard

Beresford, Sir Paul

Berry, Jake

Berry, James

Bingham, Andrew

Blackman, Bob

Blackwood, Nicola

Blunt, Crispin

Boles, Nick

Bone, Mr Peter

Bradley, Karen

Brady, Mr Graham

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

Cash, Sir William

Caulfield, Maria

Chalk, Alex

Chishti, Rehman

Chope, Mr Christopher

Churchill, Jo

Clark, rh Greg

Clarke, rh Mr Kenneth

Cleverly, James

Coffey, Dr Thérèse

Collins, Damian

Colvile, Oliver

Costa, Alberto

Cox, Mr Geoffrey

Crabb, rh Stephen

Crouch, Tracey

Davies, Glyn

Davies, Dr James

Davies, Mims

Dinenage, Caroline

Djanogly, Mr Jonathan

Donelan, Michelle

Double, Steve

Dowden, Oliver

Doyle-Price, Jackie

Drax, Richard

Drummond, Mrs Flick

Duncan, rh Sir Alan

Duncan Smith, rh Mr Iain

Ellis, Michael

Ellison, Jane

Ellwood, Mr Tobias

Elphicke, Charlie

Eustice, George

Evans, Graham

Evans, Mr Nigel

Evennett, rh Mr David

Fabricant, Michael

Fallon, rh Michael

Fernandes, Suella

Field, rh Mark

Foster, Kevin

Frazer, Lucy

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

Grieve, rh Mr Dominic

Griffiths, Andrew

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

Hermon, Lady

Hinds, Damian

Hoare, Simon

Hollinrake, Kevin

Hollobone, Mr Philip

Holloway, Mr Adam

Hopkins, Kris

Howarth, Sir Gerald

Howell, John

Howlett, Ben

Huddleston, Nigel

Hurd, Mr Nick

Jackson, Mr Stewart

Jayawardena, Mr Ranil

Jenkyns, Andrea

Jenrick, Robert

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

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, Mr Alan

Malthouse, Kit

Mathias, Dr Tania

Maynard, Paul

McCartney, Jason

McCartney, Karl

McLoughlin, rh Mr Patrick

McPartland, Stephen

Menzies, Mark

Mercer, Johnny

Merriman, Huw

Metcalfe, Stephen

Miller, rh Mrs Maria

Milling, Amanda

Mills, Nigel

Milton, rh Anne

Mordaunt, Penny

Morgan, rh Nicky

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

Parish, Neil

Patel, rh Priti

Paterson, rh Mr Owen

Pawsey, Mark

Penning, rh Mike

Penrose, John

Percy, Andrew

Phillips, Stephen

Philp, Chris

Pickles, rh Sir Eric

Pincher, Christopher

Poulter, Dr Daniel

Pow, Rebecca

Prentis, Victoria

Prisk, Mr Mark

Pritchard, Mark

Pugh, John

Pursglove, Tom

Quin, Jeremy

Quince, Will

Raab, Mr Dominic

Redwood, rh John

Rees-Mogg, Mr Jacob

Robertson, Mr Laurence

Robinson, Mary

Rosindell, Andrew

Rudd, rh Amber

Rutley, David

Scully, Paul

Selous, Andrew

Shelbrooke, Alec

Simpson, rh Mr Keith

Skidmore, Chris

Smith, Chloe

Smith, Henry

Smith, Julian

Smith, Royston

Soames, rh Sir Nicholas

Solloway, Amanda

Soubry, rh Anna

Spelman, rh Mrs Caroline

Spencer, Mark

Stephenson, Andrew

Stevenson, John

Stewart, Bob

Stewart, Iain

Stewart, Rory

Streeter, Mr Gary

Stride, Mel

Stuart, Graham

Sunak, Rishi

Swayne, rh Mr Desmond

Thomas, Derek

Throup, Maggie

Tolhurst, Kelly

Tomlinson, Justin

Tomlinson, Michael

Tracey, Craig

Trevelyan, Mrs Anne-Marie

Tugendhat, Tom

Turner, Mr Andrew

Vaizey, Mr Edward

Vara, Mr Shailesh

Vickers, Martin

Walker, Mr Charles

Walker, Mr Robin

Warburton, David

Warman, Matt

Watkinson, Dame Angela

Wharton, James

Whately, Helen

Wheeler, Heather

White, Chris

Whittaker, Craig

Whittingdale, rh Mr John

Wiggin, Bill

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.

9 Nov 2015 : Column 108

9 Nov 2015 : Column 109

9 Nov 2015 : Column 110

9 Nov 2015 : Column 111

New Clause 36

Scottish independence referendum

‘(1) Paragraph 5A in Part 1 of Schedule 5 to the Scotland Act 1998 (general reservations) is amended as follows.

(2) In sub-paragraph (1), leave out “if the following requirements are met”.

(3) Leave out sub-paragraphs (2) to (4).’—(Angus Robertson.)

This new clause would permit the Scottish Parliament to decide whether and when to hold a referendum on Scottish independence.

Brought up.

Question put, That the clause be added to the Bill.

9 Nov 2015 : Column 112

The House divided:

Ayes 56, Noes 269.

Division No. 112]

[

8.4 pm

AYES

Ahmed-Sheikh, Ms Tasmina

Arkless, Richard

Bardell, Hannah

Black, Mhairi

Blackford, Ian

Blackman, Kirsty

Brock, Deidre

Brown, Alan

Cameron, Dr Lisa

Chapman, Douglas

Cherry, Joanna

Cowan, Ronnie

Crawley, Angela

Day, Martyn

Docherty, Martin John

Donaldson, Stuart Blair

Durkan, Mark

Fellows, Marion

Gethins, Stephen

Grady, Patrick

Grant, Peter

Gray, Neil

Hendry, Drew

Hosie, Stewart

Kerevan, George

Kerr, Calum

Law, Chris

Lucas, Caroline

MacNeil, Mr Angus Brendan

Mc Nally, John

McCaig, Callum

McDonald, Stewart Malcolm

McDonald, Stuart C.

McGarry, Natalie

McLaughlin, Anne

Monaghan, Carol

Monaghan, Dr Paul

Mullin, Roger

Newlands, Gavin

Nicolson, John

O'Hara, Brendan

Oswald, Kirsten

Paterson, Steven

Ritchie, Ms Margaret

Robertson, rh Angus

Salmond, rh Alex

Sheppard, Tommy

Stephens, Chris

Thewliss, Alison

Thompson, Owen

Thomson, Michelle

Weir, Mike

Whiteford, Dr Eilidh

Whitford, Dr Philippa

Wilson, Corri

Wishart, Pete

Tellers for the Ayes:

Jonathan Edwards

and

Hywel Williams

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

Benyon, Richard

Beresford, Sir Paul

Berry, Jake

Berry, James

Bingham, Andrew

Blackman, Bob

Blackwood, Nicola

Blunt, Crispin

Boles, Nick

Bone, Mr Peter

Bradley, Karen

Brady, Mr Graham

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

Cash, Sir William

Caulfield, Maria

Chalk, Alex

Chishti, Rehman

Chope, Mr Christopher

Churchill, Jo

Clark, rh Greg

Clarke, rh Mr Kenneth

Cleverly, James

Coffey, Dr Thérèse

Collins, Damian

Colvile, Oliver

Costa, Alberto

Cox, Mr Geoffrey

Crabb, rh Stephen

Crouch, Tracey

Davies, Glyn

Davies, Dr James

Davies, Mims

Dinenage, Caroline

Djanogly, Mr Jonathan

Donelan, Michelle

Double, Steve

Dowden, Oliver

Doyle-Price, Jackie

Drax, Richard

Drummond, Mrs Flick

Duncan, rh Sir Alan

Duncan Smith, rh Mr Iain

Eagle, Ms Angela

Ellis, Michael

Ellison, Jane

Ellwood, Mr Tobias

Elphicke, Charlie

Eustice, George

Evans, Graham

Evans, Mr Nigel

Evennett, rh Mr David

Fabricant, Michael

Fallon, rh Michael

Fernandes, Suella

Field, rh Mark

Foster, Kevin

Frazer, Lucy

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

Grieve, rh Mr Dominic

Griffiths, Andrew

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

Hermon, Lady

Hinds, Damian

Hoare, Simon

Hollinrake, Kevin

Hollobone, Mr Philip

Holloway, Mr Adam

Hopkins, Kris

Howarth, Sir Gerald

Howell, John

Howlett, Ben

Huddleston, Nigel

Hurd, Mr Nick

Jackson, Mr Stewart

Jayawardena, Mr Ranil

Jenkyns, Andrea

Jenrick, Robert

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

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, Mr Alan

Malthouse, Kit

Mathias, Dr Tania

Maynard, Paul

McCartney, Jason

McCartney, Karl

McLoughlin, rh Mr Patrick

McPartland, Stephen

Menzies, Mark

Mercer, Johnny

Merriman, Huw

Metcalfe, Stephen

Miller, rh Mrs Maria

Milling, Amanda

Mills, Nigel

Milton, rh Anne

Mordaunt, Penny

Morgan, rh Nicky

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

Parish, Neil

Patel, rh Priti

Paterson, rh Mr Owen

Pawsey, Mark

Penning, rh Mike

Penrose, John

Percy, Andrew

Phillips, Stephen

Philp, Chris

Pickles, rh Sir Eric

Pincher, Christopher

Poulter, Dr Daniel

Pow, Rebecca

Prentis, Victoria

Prisk, Mr Mark

Pritchard, Mark

Pugh, John

Pursglove, Tom

Quin, Jeremy

Quince, Will

Raab, Mr Dominic

Redwood, rh John

Rees-Mogg, Mr Jacob

Robertson, Mr Laurence

Robinson, Gavin

Robinson, Mary

Rosindell, Andrew

Rudd, rh Amber

Rutley, David

Scully, Paul

Selous, Andrew

Shannon, Jim

Shelbrooke, Alec

Simpson, rh Mr Keith

Skidmore, Chris

Smith, Chloe

Smith, Henry

Smith, Julian

Smith, Royston

Soames, rh Sir Nicholas

Solloway, Amanda

Soubry, rh Anna

Spelman, rh Mrs Caroline

Spencer, Mark

Stephenson, Andrew

Stevenson, John

Stewart, Bob

Stewart, Iain

Stewart, Rory

Streeter, Mr Gary

Stride, Mel

Stuart, Graham

Sunak, Rishi

Swayne, rh Mr Desmond

Thomas, Derek

Throup, Maggie

Tolhurst, Kelly

Tomlinson, Justin

Tomlinson, Michael

Tracey, Craig

Trevelyan, Mrs Anne-Marie

Tugendhat, Tom

Turner, Mr Andrew

Vaizey, Mr Edward

Vara, Mr Shailesh

Vickers, Martin

Walker, Mr Charles

Walker, Mr Robin

Warburton, David

Warman, Matt

Watkinson, Dame Angela

Wharton, James

Whately, Helen

Wheeler, Heather

White, Chris

Whittaker, Craig

Whittingdale, rh Mr John

Wiggin, Bill

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.

9 Nov 2015 : Column 113

9 Nov 2015 : Column 114

Clause 1

The Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government

Amendment made: 34, page 1, line 4, leave out clause 1.—(Stephen Barclay.)

This amendment leaves out Clause 1, which is replaced by New Clause NC12.

Clause 3

Elections

Amendments made: 35, page 2, line 21, leave out “and (2B)”.

This amendment devolves to the Scottish Parliament the power in new section 2(2B) of the Scotland Act 1998, inserted by Clause 5 of the Bill, for Scottish Ministers to make an order specifying an alternative day on which the poll for a Scottish Parliamentary general election shall be held.

Amendment 36, page 2, line 38, leave out from “elections)” to third “the” in line 40 and insert

“where a limit applies to expenditure in relation to a period determined by reference both to the date of the poll for an election within the legislative competence of the Parliament and to the date of”.

9 Nov 2015 : Column 115

Campaign expenditure by political parties and controlled expenditure by third parties, is regulated for specific periods before certain elections. This amendment provides for competence to be reserved in respect of such expenditure where these periods overlap, even if the relevant election polls are on different days.

Amendment 37, page 3, leave out lines 17 to 19 and insert—

“(a) section 1, except in relation to—

(i) financing the Electoral Commission,

(ii) preparation, laying and publication by the Commission of reports about the performance of its functions, and

(iii) provision by the Commission of copies of regulations made by it or notice of the alteration or revocation of such regulations,”—(Stephen Barclay.)

This amendment amends the exception to the reservation of section 1 of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 so that the financing, reporting and (for regulations it makes) notification functions of the Electoral Commission are devolved insofar as these matters apply in respect of elections to the Scottish Parliament.

Clause 4

Power to make provision about elections

Amendments made: 38, page 3, line 39, leave out “provision” and insert

“any provision that would be within the legislative competence of the Parliament, if included in an Act of the Scottish Parliament,”.

This amendment would have the effect that the powers of the Scottish Ministers under section 12 of the Scotland Act 1998 would be aligned with the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament.

Amendment 39, page 4, line 4, leave out from “polls” to end of line 24.

This amendment is consequential on amendment 38, as that amendment renders it unnecessary to specify the particular combinations of polls as regards which the Scottish Ministers may exercise powers under section 12 of the Scotland Act 1998.

Amendment 40, page 4, line 33, leave out “the use of”.—(Stephen Barclay.)

The effect of this amendment is that the restriction on the powers of Scottish Ministers regarding the Digital Service in new section 12(4) of the Scotland Act 1998 (see Clause 4) more accurately reflects the extent of the reservation of the Digital Service set out in Clause 3(5).

Clause 5

Timing of Elections

Amendments made: 41, page 6, line 10, at the end insert

“, unless the day of the poll is determined by a proclamation under subsection (5) as modified by subsection (5ZA).”

This amendment means that where Scottish Ministers make an order under section 2(2B) of the Scotland Act 1998 specifying an election date, and the Presiding Officer proposes a new date for the election under section 2(5) of that Act, the election will be held on the date proposed under section 2(5).

Amendment 42, page 6, line 13, at the end insert—

‘( ) After subsection (5) insert—

(5ZA) Where a day is specified by order under subsection (2B), subsection (5) applies as if the reference to the first Thursday in May were a reference to that day.”—(Stephen Barclay.)

The amendment is linked to amendment 41 and provides that the Presiding Officer’s power at section 2(5) of the Scotland Act 1998 to propose a new date for an election, applies in relation to a date specified for such a poll under new section 2(2B) of that Act.

9 Nov 2015 : Column 116

Clause 6

electoral registration: the digital service

Amendment made: 43, page 6, line 33,leave out subsections (2) and (3) and insert—

‘( ) In section 10ZC (registration of electors in Great Britain) at the end insert—

(4) The power to make regulations under this section, so far as it is exercisable by a Minister of the Crown to make provision about a UK digital service in relation to elections in Scotland, is exercisable by the Scottish Ministers concurrently with that Minister.

(5) The power of the Scottish Ministers to make regulations by virtue of subsection (4) is exercisable in the same ways and subject to the same provisions as their power to make other regulations under this section, except that—

(a) the power is not exercisable without the agreement of a Minister of the Crown, and

(b) regulations made by them in exercise of the power are subject to the negative procedure.

(6) In this section—

“election in Scotland” means—

(a) an election for membership of the Scottish Parliament, or(b) a local government election in Scotland;

“UK digital service” means a digital service provided by a Minister of the Crown for the registration of electors.”

( ) In section 10ZD (registration of electors in Great Britain: alterations) at the end insert—

(4) The power to make regulations under this section, so far as it is exercisable by a Minister of the Crown to make provision about a UK digital service in relation to elections in Scotland, is exercisable by the Scottish Ministers concurrently with that Minister.

(5) The power of the Scottish Ministers to make regulations by virtue of subsection (4) is exercisable in the same ways and subject to the same provisions as their power to make other regulations under this section, except that—

(a) the power is not exercisable without the agreement of a Minister of the Crown, and

(b) regulations made by them in exercise of the power are subject to the negative procedure.

(6) In this section “election in Scotland” and “UK digital service” have the same meaning as in section 10ZC.”

( ) In section 53 (power to make regulations about registration etc) at the end insert—

“(9) The power to make regulations under this section, so far as it is exercisable by a Minister of the Crown to make provision about a UK digital service in relation to elections in Scotland, is exercisable by the Scottish Ministers concurrently with that Minister.

(10) The power of the Scottish Ministers to make regulations by virtue of subsection (9) is exercisable in the same ways and subject to the same provisions as their power to make other regulations under this section, except that—

(a) the power is not exercisable without the agreement of a Minister of the Crown, and

(b) regulations made by them in exercise of the power are subject to the negative procedure.

(11) In subsection (9)—

“election in Scotland” means—

(a) an election for membership of the Scottish Parliament, or(b) a local government election in Scotland;

“UK digital service” means a digital service provided by a Minister of the Crown for the registration of electors.””—(Stephen Barclay.)

9 Nov 2015 : Column 117

By this amendment, the Scottish Ministers are given powers relating to the Digital Service, but may not without the Government’s consent require any changes to the Digital Service, prevent the Government from making any changes to the Digital Service, or require the continuation of the Digital Service.

Clause 7

Expenditure in connection with elections

Amendments made: 44, page 8, line 15, leave out from “apply” to end of line 16 and insert

“to a power so far as it relates to circumstances where a limit applies to expenditure in relation to a period determined by reference both to the date of the poll for an election for membership of the Scottish Parliament and to the date of any other election.”

This amendment is consequential on amendment 36 and ensures that the language of Clause 7 is consistent with the language of Clause 3.

Amendment 45, page 8, line 40, leave out from “apply” to end of line 41 and insert

“to a power so far as it relates to circumstances where a limit applies to expenditure in relation to a period determined by reference both to the date of the poll for an election for membership of the Scottish Parliament and to the date of any other election.”

This amendment is consequential on amendment 36 and ensures that the language of Clause 7 is consistent with the language of Clause 3.

Amendment 46, page 9, line 13, leave out from “apply” to end of line 14 and insert

“to a power so far as it relates to circumstances where a limit applies to expenditure in relation to a period determined by reference both to the date of the poll for an election for membership of the Scottish Parliament and to the date of any other election.”

—(Stephen Barclay.)

This amendment is consequential on amendment 36 and ensures that the language of Clause 7 is consistent with the language of Clause 3.

Clause 10

Super-majority requirement for certain legislation

Amendments made: 47, page 11, line 19, leave out

“the provisions of the Bill relate”

and insert

“any provision of the Bill relates”.

This amendment has the effect that the Presiding Officer must decide whether any provision of a bill relates to a protected subject-matter, rather than deciding more generally whether the provisions of a bill so relate.

Amendment 48, page 11, line 36, leave out

“the provisions of a Bill relate”

and insert

“any provision of a Bill relates”.

This amendment is consequential on amendment 47, as the Presiding Officer’s statement will now state the Presiding Officer’s decision as to whether any provision of a bill relates to a protected subject-matter.

Amendment 49, page 12, line 1, leave out from beginning to second “in” and insert—

‘( ) Section 32 (submission of Bills for Royal Assent) is amended as follows.

( ) ”.

This amendment is a technical amendment to reformat Clause 10 and introduce amendment 50.

Amendment 50, page 12, line 2, at end insert—

‘( ) After subsection (2) insert—

9 Nov 2015 : Column 118

(2A) The Presiding Officer shall not submit a Bill for Royal Assent if the Supreme Court has decided a reference made in relation to the Bill under section 32A(2)(b), unless since the decision the Bill has been approved in accordance with standing orders made by virtue of section 36(5).” ”

By this amendment, a bill that passed with a simple majority in respect of which the Supreme Court subsequently decides that a simple majority is sufficient, must be reconsidered before being submitted for Royal Assent.

Amendment 51, page 12, line 11, leave out

“the provisions of the Bill relate”

and insert

“any provision of the Bill relates”.

This amendment is consequential on amendment 47, as the Presiding Officer’s statement will now state the Presiding Officer’s decision as to whether any provision of a bill relates to a protected subject-matter.

Amendment 52, page 12, line 15, leave out

“the provisions of the Bill do not relate”

and insert

“no provision of the Bill relates”.

This amendment is consequential on amendment 47, as the Presiding Officer’s statement will now state the Presiding Officer’s decision as to whether any provision of a bill relates to a protected subject-matter.

Amendment 53, page 12, line 16, at end insert

“, unless the number of members voting in favour of the Bill at its passing is at least two-thirds of the total number of seats for members of the Parliament.”

By this amendment a bill may not be referred to the Supreme Court on the question whether the requirement for a two-thirds majority applies to the bill, if the bill passed with at least a two-thirds majority.

Amendment 54, page 12, line 19, leave out from “unless” to end of line 21 and insert

“since the notification the Bill has been approved or rejected in accordance with standing orders made by virtue of section 36(5).””.

This amendment is consequential on amendment 60. It enables a Law Officer to refer a bill to the Supreme Court regarding a protected subject-matter question even if he had previously notified he would not refer the bill, if the bill has since been reconsidered on any ground.

Amendment 55, page 12, line 21, at end insert—

‘( ) Section 33 (scrutiny of Bills by the Supreme Court) is amended as follows.”

This amendment is a technical amendment to reformat the introduction of subsection (9) of Clause 10, in light of the additional amendment to section 33 of the Scotland Act 1998 by amendment 57.

Amendment 56, page 12, line 22, leave out “to section 33”.

This amendment is consequential on amendment 56, which is a technical amendment to reformat the introduction of subsection (9) of the clause.

Amendment 57, page 12, line 23, at end insert—

‘( ) In subsection (2)(b) omit “subsequent”.

( ) In section 35(3) (power to intervene in certain cases)—

(a) in paragraph (b) omit “subsequent”, and

(b) in paragraph (c) after “section” insert “32A(2)(b) or”.”

This amendment is related to amendment 60. It changes the time limits that apply in sections 33 and 35 of the Scotland Act 1998 respectively, so that those time limits apply whenever a bill is reconsidered and regardless of the reason for the reconsideration.

9 Nov 2015 : Column 119

Amendment 58, page 12, line 26, leave out lines 26 to 29 and insert—

“(aa) the Supreme Court decides a reference made in relation to the Bill under section 32A(2)(b),”.”

This amendment is consequential on amendments 47 and 53, by which the key question is whether any provision of a bill relates to a protected subject-matter. It also simplifies the wording of new section 36(4)(aa) of the Scotland Act 1998.

Amendment 59, page 12, line 32, leave out from “if),” to “to” in line 34 and insert

“on a reference made in relation to the Bill under section 32A(2)(a), the Supreme Court decides that no provision that is subject to the reference relates”

This amendment is consequential on amendments 47 and 53, by which the key question is whether any provision of a bill relates to a protected subject-matter. It also simplifies the wording of new subsection 36(4A) of the Scotland Act 1998.

Amendment 60, page 12, line 35, leave out subsections (13) and (14) and insert—

‘( ) In subsection (5) for “any Bill amended on reconsideration” substitute “—

(a) any Bill amended on reconsideration in accordance with standing orders made by virtue of subsection (4)(a), (b) or (c), and

(b) any Bill reconsidered in accordance with standing orders made by virtue of subsection (4)(aa) or (4A),”.

( ) In subsection (6)—

(a) after “28(2)” insert “, 31(2A), 31A, 32A(2)(b)”;

(b) for “which has been amended on reconsideration” substitute “to which subsection (5)(a) or (b) applies”.”—(Stephen Barclay.)

This amendment, which is in part consequential on a number of other amendments, means that requirements regarding a final stage for a bill, and for approval of a bill following reconsideration to be treated as the passing of the bill, apply regardless of the ground for reconsideration.

Clause 11

Scope to modify the Scotland Act 1998

Amendments made: 61, page 13, line 8, after “(2)” insert “, (2B)”.

This amendment gives power to the Scottish Parliament to amend subsection 2(2B) of the Scotland Act 1998, which relates to the power of the Scottish Ministers to set the date of an election for membership of the Scottish Parliament in certain circumstances.

Amendment 62, page 13, line 14, after “28” insert “(4) and”.

This amendment gives power to the Scottish Parliament to amend subsection 28(4) of the Scotland Act 1998, which relates to the Clerks dating of Royal Assent for a Bill.

Amendment 63, page 13, at the end of line 14 insert—

(i) section 31(3),”.

This amendment gives power to the Scottish Parliament to amend subsection 31(3) of the Scotland Act 1998, which relates to determining through standing orders the form and manner of a certain statements by the Presiding Officer.

Amendment 64, page 13, line 16, leave out “39” and insert “38”.

This amendment gives power to the Scottish Parliament to amend section 38 of the Scotland Act 1998, which relates to Letters Patent and proclamations.

Amendment 65, page 13, line 19, leave out “(1B)(a) and (b),” and insert “(1)(a) to (c)”.

This amendment gives power to the Scottish Parliament to amend subsection 44(1)(c) of the Scotland Act 1998, which relates to the Lord Advocate and Solicitor General for Scotland’s membership of the Scottish Government.

9 Nov 2015 : Column 120

Amendment 66, page 13, line 22, after “47” insert “(2) and”.

This amendment gives power to the Scottish Parliament to amend subsection 47(2) of the Scotland Act 1998, which relates to the Scottish Parliament’s agreement to the appointment of ministers.

Amendment 67, page 13, line 24, after “49(2)” insert “, (3)”.

This amendment gives power to the Scottish Parliament to amend subsection 49(3) of the Scotland Act 1998, which relates to the Scottish Parliament’s agreement to the appointment of junior ministers.

Amendment 68, page 13, line 26, leave out “section 69(3)” and insert—

“(i) section 69(2) to (5), and

(ii) section 70(1) to (5) and (7) to (9),”

This amendment gives power to the Scottish Parliament to amend subsections 69(2) to (5) of the Scotland Act 1998, which relate to the Auditor General for Scotland, and subsections 70(1) to (5) and (7) to (9) of that Act, which relate to financial control, accounts and audit.

Amendment 69, page 13, line 28, after “91,” insert

“92(1), (2) and (4) to (6),”.

—(Stephen Barclay.)

This amendment gives power to the Scottish Parliament to amend subsections 92(1), (2) and (4) to (6) of the Scotland Act 1998, which relate to the Queen’s Printer for

Scotland

.

Bob Blackman: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Last night, on Remembrance Sunday, a picture of a swastika was projected on to the House of Commons with a message saying, “Modi not welcome”. As you will be aware, the Prime Minister of India, Narendra Modi, is visiting here later this week. Can you confirm that this will be thoroughly investigated, that it has nothing whatsoever to do with the Government or the House authorities, and that the perpetrators will be caught and suitably punished?

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle): On Remembrance Sunday there is no time when it is acceptable to project anything on to the House of Commons without permission, but to project a swastika on the visit of a state leader is totally unacceptable. The point has been made, and it will be taken on board and dealt with. I am absolutely convinced that the police will be looking into it as a matter of urgency.

Sir Edward Leigh: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Will you just explain the procedure of the House, because I have not been here very long—

Mr Deputy Speaker: I know that I do not need to explain it to you, and I do not need to waste any more time because we need to move on to the Bill.

Sir Edward Leigh: No, this actually is a genuine point of order.

Mr Deputy Speaker: I am surprised.

Sir Edward Leigh: I know they are very rare. Am I right, Mr Deputy Speaker, in thinking that it would be in order for any amendment to be moved? I am rather surprised that the SNP has not moved amendment 224 on “full fiscal autonomy but not quite yet”. Is there any reason that would have prevented it from moving that amendment?