Chamber
Meeting of the Parliament 10 March 2011
10 Mar 2011 · S3 · Meeting of the Parliament
Item of business
Scotland Bill
I pay tribute to my committee colleagues, who are all highly experienced parliamentarians in their own right, and to the clerks, to the Scottish Parliament information centre and to our advisers. Ours was the first-ever committee dedicated to considering a bill. According to the spin, we would simply rubber-stamp it, we would not study the Government’s alternative and we would make few improvements. In short, we would fail.
However, the committee’s collective commitment was to a report that was strong on analysis, rigorous about the evidence and short on rhetoric. Let me give just one highly topical example of the improvements that the committee is recommending. This morning, the Treasury announced that it intends to claw back end-year flexibility moneys; yet, if the recommendations of our report were implemented, such a step would be impossible—in the future, Scotland would have its own bank account including EYF moneys.
It is a commonplace among commentators these days to note the partisan nature of contemporary Scottish politics. However, this initiative has from beginning to end been cross-party, consensual and co-operative among the participating parties. I agree with Robert Brown’s recollection of the long home-rule tradition that many of us are proud to stand in. It is in that spirit that I recall more than two decades ago, as the claim of right was bringing forth the Scottish constitutional convention, learning from Donald Dewar that Scots prefer cross-party consensus when it comes to constitutional change. Donald’s inclusiveness shaped the first Scotland Bill, and this second Scotland Bill has been inspired by the same principle of cross-party working together to do the right thing by the nation.
Fourteen years ago, the first Scotland Bill got the powers of this place right for the times; this second Scotland Bill can get our finances right for the future. Both bills have set a framework and both bills have begun a journey. If enacted, the bill will deliver the most far-reaching transfer of financial powers from London since the creation of the union. Let me highlight why I believe that it deserves support.
First, the bill will lead to a real budget because, in the future, all Scottish political parties will have to make decisions about raising money as well as about spending it. No longer will Holyrood politicians of any persuasion be able to indulge in a lazy London blame game.
Secondly, the bill will expand the powers of the Parliament to invest in the nation’s future. Such powers could help to pay for the Forth road bridge, fund a major housing programme or support far-reaching decarbonisation. They will ensure that, in tough financial times, we continue to invest for our future.
Thirdly, the bill will allow our successors to make important choices. For example, on the future of Scottish universities, should not our successors have the right to consider a graduate tax? On the scourge of alcohol, should not our successors have the power to shape a proper pricing solution? When it comes to the climate change targets that we have set, should not our successors have the ability to create new financial incentives? Those who support the bill today will put that power into this Parliament’s hands. The bill is right for the times, right for the Parliament and right for the people of Scotland.
The committee’s recommendations fundamentally strengthen the bill’s commitment to consultation, co-decision making and future co-operation. That is good for Scotland and good for the United Kingdom. The report is not a “Take it or leave it” ultimatum, but a menu for dialogue.
I also pay tribute to the previous UK Government for embarking on the process in partnership with this Parliament, and to the current UK Government for living up to its respect agenda. It is long overdue that the Scottish Government has come on board. The SNP was big enough to think again in 1997, and it is time for it to do so once more.
The Parliament is, as Donald Dewar said, about shaping our future. Divided though we be on the destination, the bill serves Scotland better and deserves support from all parties. It is, quite simply, in the national interest.
It is time to back the bill.
15:30
However, the committee’s collective commitment was to a report that was strong on analysis, rigorous about the evidence and short on rhetoric. Let me give just one highly topical example of the improvements that the committee is recommending. This morning, the Treasury announced that it intends to claw back end-year flexibility moneys; yet, if the recommendations of our report were implemented, such a step would be impossible—in the future, Scotland would have its own bank account including EYF moneys.
It is a commonplace among commentators these days to note the partisan nature of contemporary Scottish politics. However, this initiative has from beginning to end been cross-party, consensual and co-operative among the participating parties. I agree with Robert Brown’s recollection of the long home-rule tradition that many of us are proud to stand in. It is in that spirit that I recall more than two decades ago, as the claim of right was bringing forth the Scottish constitutional convention, learning from Donald Dewar that Scots prefer cross-party consensus when it comes to constitutional change. Donald’s inclusiveness shaped the first Scotland Bill, and this second Scotland Bill has been inspired by the same principle of cross-party working together to do the right thing by the nation.
Fourteen years ago, the first Scotland Bill got the powers of this place right for the times; this second Scotland Bill can get our finances right for the future. Both bills have set a framework and both bills have begun a journey. If enacted, the bill will deliver the most far-reaching transfer of financial powers from London since the creation of the union. Let me highlight why I believe that it deserves support.
First, the bill will lead to a real budget because, in the future, all Scottish political parties will have to make decisions about raising money as well as about spending it. No longer will Holyrood politicians of any persuasion be able to indulge in a lazy London blame game.
Secondly, the bill will expand the powers of the Parliament to invest in the nation’s future. Such powers could help to pay for the Forth road bridge, fund a major housing programme or support far-reaching decarbonisation. They will ensure that, in tough financial times, we continue to invest for our future.
Thirdly, the bill will allow our successors to make important choices. For example, on the future of Scottish universities, should not our successors have the right to consider a graduate tax? On the scourge of alcohol, should not our successors have the power to shape a proper pricing solution? When it comes to the climate change targets that we have set, should not our successors have the ability to create new financial incentives? Those who support the bill today will put that power into this Parliament’s hands. The bill is right for the times, right for the Parliament and right for the people of Scotland.
The committee’s recommendations fundamentally strengthen the bill’s commitment to consultation, co-decision making and future co-operation. That is good for Scotland and good for the United Kingdom. The report is not a “Take it or leave it” ultimatum, but a menu for dialogue.
I also pay tribute to the previous UK Government for embarking on the process in partnership with this Parliament, and to the current UK Government for living up to its respect agenda. It is long overdue that the Scottish Government has come on board. The SNP was big enough to think again in 1997, and it is time for it to do so once more.
The Parliament is, as Donald Dewar said, about shaping our future. Divided though we be on the destination, the bill serves Scotland better and deserves support from all parties. It is, quite simply, in the national interest.
It is time to back the bill.
15:30
In the same item of business
The Presiding Officer (Alex Fergusson)
NPA
The next item of business is a debate on motion S3M-8114, in the name of Iain Gray, on the Scotland Bill, which is United Kingdom legislation. I invite membe...
Pauline McNeill (Glasgow Kelvin) (Lab)
Lab
Today is important for the Scottish Parliament and all those who believe in devolution for Scotland. As the Scotland Bill Committee’s report makes clear, the...
The Minister for Culture and External Affairs (Fiona Hyslop)
SNP
The Scottish Government has been extremely constructive not only with the bill committee but with the UK Government. We have made 30 different suggestions fo...
Pauline McNeill
Lab
The member does not recognise that, but I will come to that. Until now, Fiona Hyslop has argued for independence or full fiscal autonomy to the death. Nothin...
The Minister for Parliamentary Business (Bruce Crawford)
SNP
I do not think that you are very amusing at all, actually.
The Presiding Officer
NPA
Order.
Pauline McNeill
Lab
The Scotland Act 1998 was by any standard a landmark piece of legislation. It gave the Parliament very wide powers and, as the Calman commission showed, it g...
Tricia Marwick (Central Fife) (SNP)
SNP
Will the member give way?
Pauline McNeill
Lab
I will take a brief intervention.
Tricia Marwick
SNP
I was struck by the member’s assertion that the Scottish Parliament would be responsible for levying almost a third of the money that it receives. That is si...
Pauline McNeill
Lab
I have heard Tricia Marwick say that before, but the last time I heard her say it, she said that the figure was 15 per cent. I am reading from the committee’...
The Minister for Culture and External Affairs (Fiona Hyslop)
SNP
This debate is a staging post in the Scotland Bill process, and the Scotland Bill is a staging post on the constitutional journey to achieve more powers and ...
Robert Brown (Glasgow) (LD)
LD
I was intrigued by what the minister said about supporting the bill, with reservations. That is not quite what she said at the beginning, when she damned the...
Fiona Hyslop
SNP
We still think that there are fundamental flaws in the income tax proposals, not least because we have no idea how the Treasury will adjust the block grant. ...
Jeremy Purvis (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD)
LD
Will the minister give way?
Fiona Hyslop
SNP
I am moving on. The Scottish Government has provided the impetus for the current national debate on the way in which Scotland is governed. Our position is cl...
Fiona Hyslop
SNP
However, we recognise that some, including Mr Purvis, have other sincerely held views. Hence our national conversation provided a detailed and ambitious visi...
Margaret Mitchell (Central Scotland) (Con)
Con
Just to make it absolutely clear, I say that the referendum that is proposed in the amendment is on the LCM powers as proposed in the motion. It is clear tha...
Fiona Hyslop
SNP
The member might want to look closely at her amendment, because it talks about fiscal powers.The Government has taken the Scotland Bill on its merits. We sup...
Pauline McNeill
Lab
Why did the Government choose 1999 as the basis of its calculations? Does the minister accept that, if the Calman proposals were in place now, Scotland would...
Fiona Hyslop
SNP
As far as I remember, 1999 was the year in which the Scottish Parliament was established and devolution began. The projections that were provided to the comm...
Pauline McNeill
Lab
Will the minister give way?
Fiona Hyslop
SNP
I am moving on.It is important to point out that, although the bill seeks more powers for the Scottish ministers, it provides a net loss of powers to the Sco...
Jim Hume (South of Scotland) (LD)
LD
Will the member give way?
Fiona Hyslop
SNP
I am closing now.Throughout the process of constitutional debate that was initiated by the Government in the national conversation, we have been open to idea...
Margaret Mitchell (Central Scotland) (Con)
Con
Today’s debate is hugely important, and I fully recognise that, on the issue of the fiscal powers that should be available to Parliament, members will argue ...
Mike Rumbles (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD)
LD
I am trying to find out whether this is an opening speech for the Conservative party or an opening speech for Margaret Mitchell—I am not quite sure.
Margaret Mitchell
Con
This is an amendment speech. With his political experience, Mr Rumbles should know that.The Parliament has justifiably been proud that, since its inception, ...
Ian McKee (Lothians) (SNP)
SNP
Will Margaret Mitchell take an intervention?
Margaret Mitchell
Con
I am sorry—I am in my last minute.The only way to ensure that the Scottish Parliament genuinely seeks the views of and listens to the people whom it represen...