Hansard

Like many members, I have been reflecting on the events of the independence referendum. In the immediate aftermath, the decision left me utterly crushed, yet, strangely, a year later I find myself almost celebrating that historic occasion.

Perhaps that is something to do with my being a card-carrying member of the tartan army, which has enabled me to find some joy in glorious defeat. However, the referendum was also a remarkable democratic process, as John Swinney said, which led to Scotland becoming a different and better place, with the most extraordinarily engaged people and with the bar of expectations on what Scotland is capable of achieving raised to hitherto unforeseen heights.

It is in that context that we consider the now-infamous vow, which suggested home rule and near-federalism, and the Smith commission recommendations that we debate today.

I do not want to re-rehearse what many individuals and organisations have said about the Smith process being too rushed or about the bill not containing significant additional powers, although I sincerely hope that the UK Government responds to those calls. The Scotland Bill that is before the UK Parliament will soon enter its report stage, so we must do all that we can to persuade a Tory Government to implement Smith in full and to deal with the positive criticisms that are laid out in the constructive letter that was sent from the Devolution (Further Powers) Committee to David Mundell on Monday.

I strongly believe that, when we come to decision time, we should all support the Scottish Government’s motion because our speaking with one voice will provide the Parliament with its best opportunity of seeing the bill get as close as possible to delivering Smith in full, ensuring that there is clarity of intent and ironing out any potential dangers.

There are those—including the Prime Minister today at Prime Minister’s questions—who argue that the bill, in its current state, delivers Smith in full, but they know perfectly well that it does not. To pretend otherwise is to do this Parliament and, more important, the people of Scotland a disservice. The very reasonable letter that was sent to the Secretary of State for Scotland earlier this week outlined in considerable detail the scale of the job that remains to be done by the UK Government, which John Swinney has alluded to. I will concentrate on three key aspects.

First, I believe that there is, at the very least, potential for dispute over whether the Scottish Parliament will have the competence to create new benefits in devolved areas. There is a significant body of evidence that Parliament will be able to create new benefits only in a much narrower area because the legislative mechanism that the bill uses devolves responsibility for certain specific benefits through a series of new exceptions to the existing reservations in the Scotland Act 1998. It is argued that, if a new benefit is not provided for in the bill, it will remain explicitly reserved, with no exception.

That could have the perhaps unintended effect of limiting the policy flexibility of a future Scottish Parliament despite the fact that the Smith report makes it abundantly clear that it intends no such limitations, stating simply:

“The Scottish Parliament will have new powers to create new benefits in areas of devolved responsibility”.

As Professor Aileen McHarg said in her compelling evidence to the Devolution (Further Powers) Committee, it would be prudent to put the matter beyond doubt through the inclusion of an express provision in the bill. We should ask the UK Government to do just that.

Secondly, on the issue of risk and reward balance, many people, including Professor David Bell, have argued that the limited basket of tax-raising powers in the bill may not produce sufficient receipts to increase tax in proportion with future liabilities such as an ageing population. It is therefore imperative that the fiscal framework that is agreed between the two Governments deals with the specific detail of how such matters will be balanced out in future funding settlements. I say that because I cannot see any circumstances in which the Scottish Parliament can safely agree to any bill unless those matters are appropriately and transparently addressed in the fiscal framework.

Thirdly, and in conclusion, I will dance on the head of a pin on the matter of the permanency of this Parliament. We all know the difficulty in that area. In theory, no Parliament can bind in law its successors, and no rule suggesting that a particular institution be a permanent constitutional fixture can guarantee that. Therefore, whatever provisions are finally agreed in the bill, they are likely to be largely symbolic—I accept that. However, I believe strongly that symbolism and a statement of intent are hugely important as far as this institution is concerned.

The Scottish Parliament was brought into being through the consent of the people in a referendum; surely it goes without saying that it can be disestablished only with the consent of the Scottish people voting in a referendum. Such a provision must find its way into the bill. Yes, it would be highly symbolic; nevertheless, it would be a statement of intent recognising the sovereignty of the Scottish people.

I believe that all members of this Parliament are signed up to that concept. Therefore, it is up to us to put as much pressure as we can on the UK Government in the coming weeks to lodge appropriate amendments to ensure that the Smith commission’s proposals are delivered in full in the areas that I have outlined and in the areas that the Devolution (Further Powers) Committee has outlined in a wider context. I recommend that all members support the Government’s motion. We should unite behind it to make sure that we get the job done.