Meeting of the Parliament 16 September 2015
I want to make progress, if the member will forgive me.
In the more detailed analysis of the Scotland Bill by the Devolution (Further Powers) Committee, the committee was principally concerned about four primary issues: the permanence of the Scottish Parliament; the Sewel convention; the welfare provisions; and the Crown Estate.
The statutory recognition in the bill of this Parliament as permanent, together with the obvious cross-party sentiment that the Scottish Parliament is permanent, means that the permanence of the Scottish Parliament is the political reality. To pretend otherwise is to dance on the head of a pin.
The Sewel convention has operated effectively and flexibly as a principle by practice and convention but, as is often the case with constitutional rules and protocols, it would be wrong to try to include in the Scotland Bill the process of legislative consent. That was not recommended in the Smith agreement, and in my opinion that was the right decision.
On welfare, which I accept is a sensitive issue, I argue that the provisions, which have been extensively altered since the draft clauses were published, reflect the Smith agreement. If there are constructive suggestions about how to clarify or improve on the welfare provisions, let us see the detail.
On the Crown Estate, the issue was always recognised as technically complex. I am sure that Mr Swinney and I agree that in the Smith commission the issue was regarded as particularly challenging, involving the Crown Estate—the body itself—the UK Government and the Scottish Government, all of which will require to co-operate and agree on the new arrangements. The bill is the enabling legislation for that to happen.
Let us be clear. The Scotland Bill does what it says on the tin. It is a major extension of powers to this Parliament, enacting what all parties signed up to in the Smith agreement. Should we close our minds to improving the bill? No, but we must first identify what changes are proposed and then be satisfied that they are improvements. The Secretary of State for Scotland has indicated that changes will be made at the report stage of the bill and has expressly said that he will reflect on Opposition amendments.
The real debate in Scotland has moved beyond the constitution. We cannot be hogtied and pulled back by the separatists to a question that was answered a year ago. We cannot get bogged down in the separatists’ neverendum, because their efforts to stay stuck in the past are pulling Scotland down and holding Scotland back. Instead of remaining divided over the constitution, we should be united about forging a new Scotland.
This is the big question for the Scottish Government. How do we use the powers that we have got and the ones that we will get to give Scotland an exciting, stable future in an increasingly uncertain and competitive world? We can rise to that challenge, but only by looking forward, not by looking back.
I move amendment S4M-14252.1, to leave out from first “further” to end and insert:
“regrets that the Scottish Government’s immediate reaction to the Smith Agreement was to criticise and disparage its recommendations; notes that the Smith Agreement proposes a very significant transfer of powers to the Scottish Parliament that will make it one of the most powerful sub-national legislatures in the world; considers that, in the context of rejection of independence by voters in Scotland in the 2014 referendum, the Smith Agreement and the Scotland Bill, reflecting changes to the original draft clauses, deliver on pledges to provide more powers for the Scottish Parliament; recognises that extensive constitutional change is best brought about by building a broad consensus between political parties and governments; calls on the Scottish Government to respect the result of the referendum by repeating its assurances that such a poll would be a once-in-a-generation event, and urges continuing objective and constructive scrutiny of the Scotland Bill so that where any improvements to the legislation can be identified appropriate changes can be made.”
Motions, questions or amendments mentioned by their reference code.