Chamber
Meeting of the Parliament 18 April 2012
18 Apr 2012 · S4 · Meeting of the Parliament
Item of business
Scotland Bill
It is interesting that we have just heard two representatives of the anti-independence parties, but they have not said anything yet about what they would wish to offer to Scotland.
I will speak on behalf of my parliamentary group and with personal views but, before I do so, as the convener of the Scotland Bill Committee mark 2 I thank everybody who has been involved in the process—members, support staff, witnesses and participants—for the commitment that they have shown and the generally reasonable manner in which business has been conducted. Despite the fluster and bluster that we are hearing today, the committee worked in a very reasonable manner. There was sensible discussion, which was reflected in the discussions between the two Governments in the efforts to reach agreement.
We have agreed measures to resolve concerns about the risks that the bill as originally conceived would have posed to Scotland’s public finances. There is agreement on implementation issues and, of course, the Scottish Government has said that it will seek the Scottish Parliament’s agreement to changes in Scotland’s funding arrangements now and in the future. That is what democracy is about. The main thing is that the financial risks inherent in the block grant adjustment as originally proposed by the Calman commission have been changed, which is extremely welcome. Key changes have been made, and the bill now differs substantially from the one that was introduced in 2010.
It is important that things have clearly moved on since 2010—indeed, they have shifted quite a way from the time of the Calman commission recommendations. The country is still having a debate, and it is generally agreed that we will move further. There is a Lib Dem commission and a Labour commission, and even the Prime Minister says that further devolution will come. The question, of course, is when. If the original bill ever was a line in the sand, as one person called it, that line has been well and truly crossed. That is the problem with lines in the sand: the tide of public opinion washes them away.
Almost everyone now wants even more powers than there are in the bill. I certainly do. I want independence. I want those who live in Scotland to have the right to make the decisions that affect us; after all, those who live here are surely the best placed to do that. I look forward to the referendum in 2014 and believe that people will recognise then that the current bill was a missed opportunity and that they will not trust the anti-independence parties, which consistently make promises but do not deliver when the opportunity presents itself.
The bill was an opportunity to get powers to give Scotland the tools to stimulate the economy and create jobs, to make our control over income tax greater so that, for example, the Scottish Parliament would have flexibility on income tax rates for all bands, and to get welfare benefit powers to balance economic and social policies. Even on that issue, on which a degree of unanimity exists, no quarter was given.
I am sure that David Stewart’s members’ business debate tonight will reinforce the consensus in Scotland on the devolution of the management and revenues of the Crown estate. Indeed, it is incongruous that, in 1998, the Lib Dems wished to amend the Scotland Bill to devolve the Crown estate but that the proposal is now opposed by a Lib Dem Secretary of State for Scotland.
Perhaps we should not be surprised that, in 1998, the Lib Dems also proposed amending the Scotland Bill to allow Scottish Executive ministers to have the right of statutory representation in the Council of Ministers. Of course, in his submission to the Calman commission on behalf of the Scottish Lib Dems, Tavish Scott, who was then their leader, called for corporation tax to be devolved, with
“all revenues accruing directly to the Scottish Parliament”.
Then there is broadcasting.
I will speak on behalf of my parliamentary group and with personal views but, before I do so, as the convener of the Scotland Bill Committee mark 2 I thank everybody who has been involved in the process—members, support staff, witnesses and participants—for the commitment that they have shown and the generally reasonable manner in which business has been conducted. Despite the fluster and bluster that we are hearing today, the committee worked in a very reasonable manner. There was sensible discussion, which was reflected in the discussions between the two Governments in the efforts to reach agreement.
We have agreed measures to resolve concerns about the risks that the bill as originally conceived would have posed to Scotland’s public finances. There is agreement on implementation issues and, of course, the Scottish Government has said that it will seek the Scottish Parliament’s agreement to changes in Scotland’s funding arrangements now and in the future. That is what democracy is about. The main thing is that the financial risks inherent in the block grant adjustment as originally proposed by the Calman commission have been changed, which is extremely welcome. Key changes have been made, and the bill now differs substantially from the one that was introduced in 2010.
It is important that things have clearly moved on since 2010—indeed, they have shifted quite a way from the time of the Calman commission recommendations. The country is still having a debate, and it is generally agreed that we will move further. There is a Lib Dem commission and a Labour commission, and even the Prime Minister says that further devolution will come. The question, of course, is when. If the original bill ever was a line in the sand, as one person called it, that line has been well and truly crossed. That is the problem with lines in the sand: the tide of public opinion washes them away.
Almost everyone now wants even more powers than there are in the bill. I certainly do. I want independence. I want those who live in Scotland to have the right to make the decisions that affect us; after all, those who live here are surely the best placed to do that. I look forward to the referendum in 2014 and believe that people will recognise then that the current bill was a missed opportunity and that they will not trust the anti-independence parties, which consistently make promises but do not deliver when the opportunity presents itself.
The bill was an opportunity to get powers to give Scotland the tools to stimulate the economy and create jobs, to make our control over income tax greater so that, for example, the Scottish Parliament would have flexibility on income tax rates for all bands, and to get welfare benefit powers to balance economic and social policies. Even on that issue, on which a degree of unanimity exists, no quarter was given.
I am sure that David Stewart’s members’ business debate tonight will reinforce the consensus in Scotland on the devolution of the management and revenues of the Crown estate. Indeed, it is incongruous that, in 1998, the Lib Dems wished to amend the Scotland Bill to devolve the Crown estate but that the proposal is now opposed by a Lib Dem Secretary of State for Scotland.
Perhaps we should not be surprised that, in 1998, the Lib Dems also proposed amending the Scotland Bill to allow Scottish Executive ministers to have the right of statutory representation in the Council of Ministers. Of course, in his submission to the Calman commission on behalf of the Scottish Lib Dems, Tavish Scott, who was then their leader, called for corporation tax to be devolved, with
“all revenues accruing directly to the Scottish Parliament”.
Then there is broadcasting.
In the same item of business
The Deputy Presiding Officer (John Scott)
Con
The next item of business is a debate on motion S4M-02625, in the name of Bruce Crawford, on the Scotland Bill, which is United Kingdom legislation. I invite...
The Cabinet Secretary for Parliamentary Business and Government Strategy (Bruce Crawford)
SNP
The Scottish Government is today inviting the Parliament to consent to the Scotland Bill, which was introduced into the UK Parliament on 30 November 2010. Th...
James Kelly (Rutherglen) (Lab)
Lab
Can the cabinet secretary remind us of the six proposals that the Government made after the last election and tell us how many of them have been included in ...
Bruce Crawford
SNP
Every party in the chamber has publicly said that Scotland should be granted more powers than are currently in the bill. However, we live in pretty strange t...
David McLetchie (Lothian) (Con)
Con
How many proposals?
Bruce Crawford
SNP
I have just dealt with that point. Those proposals included a role for this Parliament in commencing the finance provisions of the bill as well as the remova...
The Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning (Michael Russell)
SNP
Nae point.
Bruce Crawford
SNP
Yes, there is nae point.Following negotiations between the Governments, a number of legislative and non-legislative measures have now been agreed to improve ...
Willie Rennie (Mid Scotland and Fife) (LD)
LD
The minister did not mention alcohol duty. Is that because he is embarrassed by the fact that he did not present the proposals until after the committee had ...
Bruce Crawford
SNP
I will take no lectures from anybody who is associated with the UK Government on issues to do with alcohol. The member is following us everywhere as far as t...
James Kelly (Rutherglen) (Lab)
Lab
I welcome the opportunity to take part in this afternoon’s debate on the Scotland Bill. I confirm that the Labour Party will support the motion at decision t...
John Mason (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
SNP
Mr Kelly talks about more responsibility, but does he believe that the bill provides the right level of responsibility, or does he think that we should have ...
James Kelly
Lab
What struck me from our discussions in the Scotland Bill Committee on having more powers over income tax and how that would operate is that, as the SNP gets ...
Bruce Crawford
SNP
Given what he says, will the member explain how, in Stirling Council, in my constituency, the Labour Party, in conjunction with the Tories, was able to put f...
James Kelly
Lab
Make no mistake, Mr Crawford—the SNP Government is passing on £658 million of cuts to local councils. We will remind the SNP of that from now until polling d...
David McLetchie (Lothian) (Con)
Con
Like James Kelly, I commend Linda Fabiani for her convenership of the Scotland Bill Committee. I very much enjoyed my participation in it, as I enjoyed my pa...
Linda Fabiani (East Kilbride) (SNP)
SNP
It is interesting that we have just heard two representatives of the anti-independence parties, but they have not said anything yet about what they would wis...
Willie Rennie
LD
I note all the things that the member has said, but I think that she fails to understand the point. We made a submission to the commission as part of a proce...
Linda Fabiani
SNP
Can I presume that it is the same with broadcasting—the Lib Dem Steel commission wanted greater accountability for that—and excise duty? In the Lib Dem submi...
Neil Findlay (Lothian) (Lab)
Lab
The Calman commission was established by the then Labour leader Wendy Alexander prior to the 2011 election, and the subsequent Scotland Bill that emerged fro...
Joan McAlpine (South Scotland) (SNP)
SNP
Will the member take an intervention?
Neil Findlay
Lab
Not at the moment.I state openly that I hope that the Scotland Bill will enable a move forward to genuinely progressive taxation that seeks to redistribute t...
Joan McAlpine
SNP
Will the member take an intervention now?
Neil Findlay
Lab
I will not take one now, because you are mentioned later in my speech, so you will probably want to come in then.The First Minister wanted powers over excise...
Joan McAlpine
SNP
You expressed your concern about welfare. I think that this Parliament is united—certainly Labour and the SNP are united—in agreement that the welfare change...
The Deputy Presiding Officer (Elaine Smith)
Lab
I remind all members to speak through the chair.
Neil Findlay
Lab
I do not think that you are in a very strong position to argue over what you want in the Scotland Bill, since you did not want it in the first place.Of cours...
Linda Fabiani
SNP
Will the member give way?
Nigel Don (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
SNP
Will the member give way?
Neil Findlay
Lab
No, thank you.We should not be surprised by the SNP’s budget day backtrack—not just on this bill, but on everything else that it wanted to ditch. Saying one ...