Meeting of the Parliament 10 December 2014
I seem to have offended Ruth Davidson in the formulation of the Government’s amendment and in my comments on this subject. However, I find it rather strange that she has taken exception to my comments, given that I opened my remarks to the gathering at the national museum of Scotland by welcoming the additional powers that are coming to the Scottish Parliament and then pointing out the limitations of the settlement.
That is exactly the point that Ruth Davidson has just made, and which Lord Smith, too, reflected on: some parties will not believe that this is enough. It should not come as a particularly great surprise to anyone in the chamber that I did not believe that all of the powers that should have been delivered were delivered. As my colleagues have pointed out in their interventions, that view has been expressed by not just the Scottish National Party but a whole host of different organisations including the STUC, Engender and the Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations.
In the Government’s amendment, I have raised three issues that are substantively different from the proposition that the Conservatives have put forward, and they are material and serious points that the Parliament needs to reflect on. First, our amendment
“calls on both governments to produce draft clauses for the recommendations jointly to maintain this agreement”.
I cannot for the life of me understand why that proposition is not being taken forward; indeed, it was put to the Prime Minister in a letter from the First Minister.
It seems to me that as we translate the Smith recommendations—which Lord Smith says in his own report will have to be translated into practical detail as a consequence of the headline commitments that have been put into the agreement—that should be done in a spirit of openness and transparency. It should also be done in the spirit of efficiency, because it would be a much more effective way of taking that forward. What on earth is objectionable about such a proposition?
Secondly—and I hope that I might have some common ground with Ruth Davidson here; after all, it is why I intervened on her—our amendment
“looks for early action from both governments on implementation where possible and especially to allow the Parliament to extend the vote to 16 and 17-year-olds for the 2016 Scottish election”.
Ruth Davidson has accepted—indeed, she is committed to this—that there is an argument for taking steps outside a substantive piece of UK legislation to legislate to enable 16 and 17-year-olds to vote in the 2016 election. If we wait for the substantive UK legislation on this subject, that cannot happen. If we want it to happen, and I know that everyone in the chamber wants that to be the case, we need early action. There is unanimity in this Parliament on that point, and it seems to me from what the Secretary of State for Scotland told the Devolution (Further Powers) Committee last Thursday that the UK Government sees the argument for such a move.
I cannot for the life of me understand why there has been no reciprocal commitment to get on with legislating or taking forward actions that do not have to wait for substantive UK legislation. For example, the Calman commission recommended the devolution of air passenger duty back in 2010, and the Scotland Act 2012 contains a mechanism for devolving that power to the Scottish Parliament without the need for substantive legislation by the UK Parliament. I cannot for the life of me understand why that opportunity is not being seized to take the agenda forward and to devolve these responsibilities as quickly as possible.
In that respect, I was heartened by the comments that were made in a letter released just yesterday from Margaret Curran, the shadow secretary of state for Scotland, to the Secretary of State for Scotland. In that letter, she sets out a variety of areas on which she pledges that the Labour Party is willing to co-operate to advance these matters. After talking about votes for 16 and 17-year-olds, she says:
“I would also like to meet with you before Christmas to discuss what other proposals made by the Smith Commission may not require primary legislation and what powers we could seek to devolve through Section 30 orders.”
That appears to me to be a point in the process where the Labour Party has quite generously said, “Let’s get on with taking the steps. Why wait for the comprehensive piece of legislation?” Ruth Davidson concluded her speech with the great clarion call to get on with it. I want to get on with it.