Hansard

I support the motion in Mr Swinney’s name and express my delight that we have arrived at this debate and this question. After all, like him, I spent 10 weeks of my life locked in the Smith commission, thrashing out an agreement on what further powers the Parliament should have.

The one major thing that Smith left undone was the fiscal framework, which was left to be negotiated between the Scottish and UK Governments. I confess that there were times when I thought that those negotiations would break down irrevocably and that the whole agreement would fall. That would have been a travesty.

Although the negotiations were in effect between only two parties—the Scottish National Party and the Tories—those parties were both signatories to the Smith commission report. If the Tory Government had failed to reach agreement, it would have betrayed the promise that was made to the Scottish people at the time of the referendum. Equally, had the Scottish Government failed to reach a deal, it would have meant the grotesque outcome of a nationalist Government being presented with the opportunity to make the Scottish Parliament one of the most powerful devolved legislatures anywhere in the world, through the biggest transfer of powers to Scotland since 1999, but letting that opportunity slip through its fingers.

Happily for me, I was not in the room, so I do not know why the agreement went to the wire, but I know that I agreed with John Swinney’s interpretation of no detriment in the Smith agreement, which is that it applies not simply on the day of devolution but over time, too. I supported him, too, in arguing that the adjusted block grant should not be reduced as a result of differential changes to population. He was correct in arguing that the Barnett formula, which is population based, already adjusts for that, so a further reduction would be superfluous.

I have the highest regard for Mr Swinney as a negotiator—in spite of his many flaws. I take the chance to congratulate him again on reaching a good deal for Scotland and securing the benefits of the Smith agreement and the consequent Scotland Bill. He deserves all our thanks for that. [Applause.]

The devolution story that brings us here this morning has both a longer-term narrative and a more immediate narrative. Mr Swinney also referred to that. From the moment that the Parliament began, it was clear that it was imbalanced. Our Parliament was created with a high degree of legislative competence—with full powers to legislate over many critical areas of our nation’s life—but it was clear that we had little fiscal or financial power. The original variable rate involved a flawed power and was—not surprisingly—never used. The Calman powers began to address that, but the Smith agreement and the Scotland Bill will write the next chapter in the story of devolution.

That is also the final chapter in the more urgent and febrile narrative that was born of the referendum campaign in 2014. The Smith commission and the legislative process that ensued delivered the vow that was made in the final days of that campaign—that remaining in the United Kingdom would mean not the status quo but rather a new devolution settlement and substantial new powers for the Parliament.

It is worth reminding ourselves of what that promise was, since it has been misquoted, misconstrued and used to mislead ever since. The promise was, first, to make the Parliament permanent; secondly, to have substantial devolution of powers over tax and welfare; and, thirdly, to protect the Barnett formula.

The first point was readily agreed in the Smith commission, although it is—admittedly—legislatively awkward to achieve. The second is indisputably delivered with the devolution of some £20 billion of taxation and more than £2 billion of welfare benefits, along with a new power to create our own benefits.

The third point—the protection of the Barnett formula—is delivered by the fiscal agreement, and thereby we continue to benefit from the pooling and sharing of resources across the United Kingdom. That is the bedrock of the social solidarity that binds us together in old age, in unemployment or in starting a family.

In passing, we should not forget that a number of other important responsibilities will devolve to us, such as powers over our democratic structure and elections and, topicaIly, complete control over unconventional gas exploitation—fracking. That has allowed Labour members to make it clear to the Scottish public that we would ban that process.

It is the powers over tax and welfare that will transform and have already begun to transform the Parliament. The debate is the latest thread in a third narrative that is deeper and longer. It was born of the arid years of the 1980s and early 1990s, when we faced a Government that was intent on attacking, not nurturing, our crucial public services, and which was determined to break, not work with, the institutions of social solidarity, such as trade unions. That Government saw division as something strong and bracing, not something weak and destructive.