Scotland Bill
House of Commons, 23 March 2016.
Lindsay Hoyle (Labour, Chorley)
I must draw the House’s attention to the fact that financial privilege is involved in Lords amendment 22. If the House agrees with the amendment, I shall ensure that the appropriate entry is made in the Journal.
Clause 3 — Elections
David Mundell (Conservative, Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale)
I beg to move, That this House agrees with Lords amendment 1.
Lindsay Hoyle (Labour, Chorley)
With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments 2 to 62.
David Mundell (Conservative, Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale)
This is a truly significant day for Scotland. If this Bill completes its parliamentary progress, it will add to the already extensive responsibilities of the Scottish Parliament a range of important new powers. It provides even greater opportunities for the Scottish Government to tailor and deliver Scottish solutions to Scottish issues. The Scottish Parliament that returns in May will be a powerhouse Parliament that has come of age. Crucially, it will be much more accountable to the people who elect it, which is the hallmark of a mature democratic institution.
I am pleased to say that Lord Smith of Kelvin has confirmed that the Bill puts into law the agreement that the five main political parties in Scotland reached, and that the fiscal framework that was agreed means that the recommendations of his commission have been delivered in full.
Last week, the Scottish Parliament debated the motion on whether to grant legislative consent to the Bill before us today, and the agreement was unanimous. Deputy First Minister John Swinney remarked:
“The Smith process delivered an agreement for additional powers that—if they are used in the right way—can benefit the people of Scotland.”—[Scottish Parliament Official Report, 16 March 2016; c. 3.]
I agree with him wholeheartedly on that.
The debate last week demonstrated the consensus among all parties in Scotland that these new powers present a tremendous opportunity for Scotland. That was clear in their unanimous vote to grant legislative consent to this Bill. This process goes to show that both of Scotland’s Governments and both of Scotland’s Parliaments can work effectively together in the interest of the people in Scotland and right across our United Kingdom.
No individual or party held a monopoly of wisdom as to how the Smith agreement might best be translated into legislation. Many people, both inside and outside this Chamber, have contributed to the Bill as it stands before us today. I thank hon. Members and noble Lords for their contributions as the Bill passed through this House and the other place.
John Redwood (Conservative, Wokingham)
I am grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way. When this important work was being done, there were obvious and big consequences for England. Which Minister or Ministers spoke for England during the negotiations?
David Mundell (Conservative, Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale)
My right hon. Friend has asked that question before. This legislation has been debated on the Floor of this House and on the Floor of the other place. Extensive scrutiny of the Bill has taken place. Indeed, there has been the opportunity to scrutinise the fiscal framework as well, so extensive scrutiny has been delivered in relation to this legislation for the people of England, Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland.
The Bill has been strengthened by the scrutiny it has received, and I am pleased that the amendments that I will cover shortly are a positive and constructive culmination of that process.
Angus MacNeil (Scottish National Party, Na h-Eileanan an Iar)
Going back to the previous intervention, it was obvious from the voices on the Scottish National party Benches that all the other Ministers, especially those from the Treasury, spoke for interests other than those of Scotland. Is it not time to move away from this form of devolution, whereby we effectively get the crumbs from the table at Westminster, to a model that Copenhagen shares with the Faroe Islands and Greenland, in which the larder is always open and they get to choose their own powers. Instead of taking the crumbs from Westminster, we should be able to take the powers that we want from Westminster when we want them.
David Mundell (Conservative, Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale)
The hon. Gentleman’s colleagues may agree with him, but I do not think that the people of Scotland do. The people of Scotland made it very clear in September 2014 that they wanted to remain part of our United Kingdom, but they wanted a Scottish Parliament with enhanced powers, which is what this Government are delivering. The hon. Gentleman strikes a rather sour note, given the consensus within the Scottish Parliament and among his colleagues in the Scottish Government—a consensus that recognises the importance of these powers that will be delivered by this Bill if it completes its passage today.
I also acknowledge the work of the Committees of both the Scottish and the UK Parliaments, including those chaired by the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) in this place, by the noble Lords, Lord Lang, Baroness Fookes and Lord Hollick, in the other place and by Bruce Crawford in the Scottish Parliament. The broad range of evidence and expertise they marshalled in the Bill’s scrutiny has improved it materially.
I also wish to thank the Deputy First Minister, John Swinney MSP, and Scottish Government officials for their always courteous engagement in this process. Scotland gets the best outcome when its two Governments work together.
I am truly grateful to all my officials at the Scotland Office and the officials from the 10 other Whitehall Departments whose hard work has got us to this stage. My noble Friends Lord Dunlop and Lord Keen of Elie have played an essential role in the Bill’s passage through the other place; I also commend Lord McAvoy and Lord Wallace of Tankerness in particular for their work. The origin of the Bill is the Smith agreement, and I once again pay tribute to Lord Smith of Kelvin and the representatives of all five of Scotland's main political parties for reaching an agreement that redefined the devolution settlement.
A number of technical amendments were made in the other place to ensure that the Bill devolves the powers intended effectively and efficiently. There were also substantive amendments related to the fiscal framework and responsible parking.
In line with the Smith Commission agreement, the fiscal framework agreement changes the powers available to the Scottish Government for both resource and capital borrowing. Lords amendments 22 and 58 set out clearly, and consistent with the existing legal framework, new borrowing powers for the Scottish Government. Lords amendments 23 and 59 deal with independent fiscal scrutiny in Scotland and the UK. Those amendments formalise the arrangements around the Office for Budget Responsibility’s access to information from Scottish institutions, notably the Scottish Fiscal Commission and the Scottish Government.
A number of minor and technical amendments were made to the welfare provisions in the Bill. Lords amendments 50 to 52 are minor amendments to ensure that powers and procedure for secondary legislation transfer effectively. Lords amendment 24 is technical in nature and ensures that executive competence will be transferred to the Scottish Ministers, so that they can make payments of Sure Start maternity grants, funeral payments, cold weather payments and winter fuel payments when clause 21 is commenced. Lords amendment 28, which proposes a new clause after clause 30, and Lords amendment 29 make it clear that the Social Security Advisory Committee and the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council will advise the Secretary of State only, and Lords amendments 25 to 27 are technical amendments made as a result of that change.
Lords amendments 1 to 20, on elections, are also technical amendments which clarify the provisions and improve the drafting. Lords amendments 17 to 20 in particular amend clause 11 on the supermajority provision in the Bill. The amendments enable a Bill in the Scottish Parliament to pass to Royal Assent if the Presiding Officer of the Scottish Parliament decides that a simple majority is required: the Bill is passed with a simple majority but is referred to the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court agrees that only a simple majority was required. Lords amendment 57 provides that clauses 3 to 12 will come into force on such a day as the Secretary of State may appoint by regulations made by statutory instrument. That will allow time for necessary consequential and saving provisions related to elections to be made.
Lords amendments 30 to 36 are technical amendments that would remove an unnecessary reference in clause 35 to the Equality Act 2006.
Amendments to clauses 39 and 40 and schedule 2 align the competence of the Scottish Ministers for road signs and speed limits with the competence of the Scottish Parliament. As a result, once the clauses are commenced, the Scottish Ministers will have the power to make regulations providing speed limit exemptions or to give general directions in relation to traffic signs and pedestrian crossings to the same extent as the Scottish Parliament has legislative competence. A considerable amount of work has already been done to develop a new set of regulations to prescribe speed limit exemptions. If they are to be truly effective, changes to relevant traffic signs regulations will also be needed. Traffic signs are already being devolved to the Scottish Parliament in other clauses of the Bill. Work on traffic signs regulations has also been part of a long-term project to bring in GB-wide revised regulations.
Those amendments will enable the Secretary of State, with Scottish Ministers’ consent, to make a single set of regulations that are GB-wide in their application and allow vehicles used for various purposes connected with devolved matters to have exemptions from both speed limits and certain road signs and general directions. The aim is to assist stakeholders and avoid duplication of work already carried out by the Department for Transport, benefiting everyone who needs to travel at speed on roads. In addition, these amendments treat amendments to section 87 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 made by the Road Safety Act 2006 as though they were in force when clause 38 comes into force.
In Committee, Labour tabled an amendment on responsible parking. The amendment was also raised in the other place. I have for some time been committed to seeking a solution to this issue. Lords amendments 38 and 46 seek to address the long-standing problem of irresponsible parking, which has a particular impact on people with disabilities, parents with pushchairs and the elderly, especially when vehicles have been badly parked on pavements. We took forward discussions with the Scottish Government on this matter, and, as a result of these discussions, amendments were tabled in the other place that will enable the Scottish Parliament to address this issue. This is a good example of the sort of running repair which from time to time it is prudent to make to the devolution settlement, and demonstrates the collaborative relationship between the two Governments.
Lords amendment 49 revises clause 45(8) on onshore petroleum to ensure that the Secretary of State’s enforcement ability in relation to reserved matters is preserved for licences in respect of onshore Scotland. Amendment 48 removes a redundant reference.
Clause 68 confers on the Secretary of State the power to make consequential, transitional and saving provisions by regulations. Lords amendments 53 to 56 amend this provision in response to feedback from the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee.
The Government made substantial amendments to the Bill on Report in this House. The Lords amendments are largely technical, but nevertheless include important provisions related to the fiscal framework and responsible parking. I am pleased that they were accepted in the other place. I urge the House to accept the Lords amendments.
Ian Murray (Labour, Edinburgh South)
The Secretary of State’s description of the road traffic changes had me mesmerised. I could have listened to him all evening. We thank him for that.
It is a great pleasure to speak on behalf of the official Opposition. I am not going to pretend that the passage of the Bill has been entirely enjoyable, smooth or stress-free, but we are where we are and it has definitely been worth getting to this place. Every Member of this House and the other place should be incredibly proud of what has been achieved in such a short space of time. Some will say the Bill does not go far enough, and some will be disappointed that it does not contain what they wanted, but I think today marks a historic day in the devolution journey of our Scottish Parliament.
When this Bill is passed—there is no longer any doubt that it will be passed today—Scotland will have one of the most powerful devolved Parliaments in the world. That is what the Labour party has always wanted from that process. It was the former Prime Minister, the former Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath, who devised the vow that promised more powers. Let us pay tribute both to him and to the Daily Record for publishing it at the time. [Interruption.] I knew I would get a reaction to that. If only I had said The National, the response from the SNP Benches might have been different.
That paved the way for the Smith commission, skilfully chaired by Lord Smith of Kelvin, who managed to negotiate cross-party agreement on the form that those powers should take. That in turn laid the foundations for the Bill before us today. It has now passed through this place and the other place. A revised fiscal framework has been agreed, crucially with the Barnett formula at its heart. As promised, the vow has been delivered, with Barnett protected. That was always a Labour party priority, as we recognise the integral role played by the Barnett formula in maintaining public spending in Scotland. That said, and as the Institute for Fiscal Studies astutely observed, during the fiscal framework negotiations it was, ironically, the SNP Government who insisted upon Barnett as sacrosanct. With the zeal of the convert, they argued vociferously for an approach
“which ensures the ongoing pooling and”
sharing
“of some proportion of ‘devolved’ revenues across the UK.”
Of course, as long-standing advocates of the Barnett formula and the principle of pooling and sharing resources that it enshrines, we gave the Scottish Government our full backing in those negotiations. I wonder whether that now means that the Scottish National party has renounced its No. 1 policy priority of full fiscal autonomy—perhaps we will hear this evening.
However, at least for the time being we have an agreement. The irony is that this Bill will wing its way to Her Majesty to receive Royal Assent, hopefully later tonight, on the eve of what would have been separation day in Scotland. It creates one of the most powerful devolved Parliaments in the world, as opposed to the White Paper prospectus promised by the SNP in 2014.
Some of the Lords amendments speak directly to that agreement, delivering, for example, the strengthened borrowing powers and the enhanced fiscal oversight of Scotland’s public finances that this fiscal framework provides for. Now that the last impediment to the Bill has been removed, we must focus on the powers that the Scottish Parliament is receiving. As the Secretary of State has said, the legislative consent motion has been passed by the Scottish Parliament.
Given that today is the last day of the current Scottish Parliament, it would be remiss of me not to pay tribute to all the MSPs, from all parties, who have served since 2011. With your indulgence, Mr Deputy Speaker, I will say a word or two about those MSPs, particularly Labour MSPs, who are retiring from the Scottish Parliament, having done so much in the process of getting this Bill here today. They include Hugh Henry, Duncan McNeil and Richard Simpson, who have served since 1999. There is my old university friend Richard Baker, who was first elected in 2003, and Margaret McDougall, Graeme Pearson and Drew Smith, who were elected in 2011. They all retire with our best wishes, especially Malcolm Chisholm, who was also a long-standing Member of this House. He retires leaving a distinguished record of public service to his constituents. We wish him well. It would also be remiss of me not to mention the right hon. Member for Gordon (Alex Salmond), who is not in his place. The Scottish Parliament’s loss is this place’s gain. Are we not lucky indeed?
With the passing of this Bill and the dissolution of the Scottish Parliament, we can today lay the old arguments of the referendum to rest, alongside any doubt that the vow has not been delivered. The conversation must now move on to how these powers are used—or not used in some cases. It is worth briefly reminding ourselves what those powers are, because they are considerable, and the Lords looked at them in great detail, for which we thank them. The Scottish Parliament has power over rates and bands of tax on all non-savings and non-dividend income. That means it can put taxes up or bring them down; it can increase or reduce the thresholds at which the different rates are paid; or it can choose to do nothing and keep things pretty much as they are, short of affording a tax break to higher earners—champions of the status quo perhaps—even if, in so doing, some people are abandoning a manifesto pledge to reintroduce the 50p rate for those earning over £150,000. That is what some have chosen to do, but that is not what we would do
I wonder how commentators have looked on that particular process. Owen Jones, who is often quoted by the SNP Members now beside me, called it
“a huge blow to their credentials”.
What does the Scottish Trades Union Congress think of the Scottish Government’s grand plans for devolved taxation in Scotland? It calls them
“a disappointingly timid approach to tax policy…Breaking the consensus on increasing the additional rate is difficult to fathom.”
It said it was an approach that is
“difficult to reconcile with the Scottish Government’s”
so-called
“social and economic objectives.”
For the past five years, many people had the mantra “more power for Scotland.” Today, when the Bill is passed, we will have a powerful Scottish Parliament—power not as a point of principle, but power to be used for positive, progressive change. I can tell the House, in no uncertain terms, that the Scottish Labour party will not settle for power for power’s sake. We will not settle for the political choice of austerity. This Bill goes straight to the heart of how we would do that. We will oppose austerity in the UK and we will oppose it in Scotland, and when we get into government we will reverse it. We will build a better and fairer Scotland for all, and taxation will not be our sole tool for doing so.
Lords amendment 22 strengthens the borrowing powers available to the Scottish Government, as agreed in the fiscal framework, allowing them to invest more in capital infrastructure or to smooth out fluctuations in devolved taxes.
In short, with those amendments and powers, the Scottish Parliament will have the power radically to reshape the social and political landscape in Scotland. As we all know, if we are to have the excellent public services and high standards of living enjoyed by countries in other parts of the world, we must have the revenues to pay for them, and that means making bold decisions.
Scottish Labour has already begun to set out how it would use the new powers that are coming to Scotland, along with those that Scotland already has, to maintain and increase levels of investment in education and public services. A Scottish Labour Government will depart from the discredited political doctrine of austerity and increase public spending over the lifetime of the next Scottish Parliament. We will be bold, and we will be radical, because that is the only way to really change people’s lives. We understand that having power is pointless if we are not prepared to use it. It is a shame that others—the Conservative Government and the SNP Scottish Government—will go into this election with a powerful Parliament offering a pale imitation of the status quo. After the blood, sweat and tears of getting this Bill on to the statute book, that is unfortunate. Faced with the choice between using the powers of the Scottish Parliament to invest in our economy or carrying on with the SNP’s cuts to schools, Labour will use those powers.
In the course of our consideration of the Bill, the Labour party has focused on securing practical, progressive changes to it. Where we felt it fell short of the Smith commission, we have sought to improve it. Where there has been disagreement, we have not declaimed noisily from the rafters, but sought to reach compromise. In adopting that approach, we have won valuable concessions from the Government—changes to the Bill that will make a real, practical difference to Scotland.
In this place, we secured the power to create new benefits in devolved areas, and we elicited welcome clarity on the application and extent of the provisions to top up existing benefits. That will allow the Scottish Parliament, effectively, to design a new social security system to suit the needs of Scotland. Given last week’s Budget, thank goodness it has that power.
In the other place, we campaigned successfully, as the Secretary of State said, for an amendment to the Bill to devolve competence over pavement parking to the Scottish Parliament. If hon. Members remember, it was the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Margaret Ferrier) who mentioned the issue on Second Reading in this place. The amendment marked the culmination of a lengthy process that started with a private Member’s Bill introduced by the former Member for Edinburgh North and Leith, Mark Lazarowicz, several years ago. I would point those who think that the amendment is a minor measure to the many charities—most prominently, Living Streets and Guide Dogs UK—that campaigned hard and long to secure it. I thank them today for their unstinting efforts.
Pavement parking is dangerous for pedestrians, especially people with sight loss, parents with pushchairs, and wheelchair users and other disabled people. By securing the amendment, we have cleared the way for the Scottish Parliament to take legislative measures to protect those people and to increase the safety of our streets.
The Government’s other amendments in the Lords are merely technical and tidying-up provisions, and we do not, of course, oppose any of them.
I would like to close by thanking those who have brought us to this juncture. The former Prime Minister deserves our thanks—it was his vow, which was itself a product of his passion for Scotland, that paved the way for the process that created the Bill. My right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband) also deserves our thanks for pushing forward with the vow and making sure we secured the new powers for Scotland in the legislative programme. In this place, I would also like to thank the Secretary of State and his team. He has always been an affable adversary and has shown a willingness to work constructively to improve the Bill. In particular, his staff deserve great credit for the way in which they have helped us navigate the Bill.
I thank Labour’s shadow Scotland team, especially my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Wayne David), who is not in his place today, due to illness. He has been invaluable in his willingness to step into the breach, even when the debate was at its fiercest. I give special thanks to the Clerks in the House of Commons Public Bill Office for their support and, more importantly, their patience, and to the impartial experts in the House of Commons Library. In the other place, I thank my right hon. Friend Lord McAvoy for leading on the Bill for the Opposition in such an energetic manner. I also thank my right hon. Friends Lord McFall and Lord Foulkes of Cumnock for their learned advice and support.
I would like to mention the Law Society of Scotland, which I worked with on a number of amendments, and which was always ready with an expert and impartial perspective. Michael Clancy of the Law Society—this is an interesting diversion and something we have not experienced before now—has sat under the Gallery in both this and the other place for every single Scotland Bill sitting since 1997, but he had to leave to catch his flight this evening so he has been unable to watch these proceedings and has missed the very last sitting. [Hon. Members: “It’s not the last!”] It is certainly the last sitting on this Bill; I am sure that everyone can agree with that. We wish him well and thank him for his advice. I also thank Lord Smith of Kelvin and the commissioners of all parties who played an integral role in the process.
It may not feel like it, but this is a historic day for Scotland that will fundamentally change its social and political landscape. All we have to do now is make use of these substantial powers. We take up that challenge. It is now up to others to do the same.
Angus Robertson (Scottish National Party, Moray)
I am delighted to follow the hon. Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray). It is a calumny that he has been described as negative. He spent much of his time at the Dispatch Box trying to be positive about the Scotland Bill. Parts of his speech were positive and we welcome that, and we also welcome the Secretary of State’s positive comments.
The Scotland Bill is an important step in extending the responsibilities of the Scottish Parliament and in Scotland’s journey towards greater self-government. That journey has quickened in pace since the Scottish National party was first returned to power in 2007. The Bill follows progress including the Scotland Act 2012, the independence referendum and the Smith commission itself. As Deputy First Minister John Swinney has said, the Bill delivers additional powers that can benefit the people of Scotland, including extended powers over tax, new powers over welfare, and responsibilities for the Crown Estate, tribunals and the licensing of onshore oil and gas activity.
The agreement on a fiscal framework published on 25 February increases the Scottish Parliament’s financial responsibility, is consistent with the Smith principles of no detriment, and is fair to the people of Scotland. As the Bill, including the amendments under discussion, provides useful powers and has moved towards delivering more of the recommendations made by the Smith commission reports, and as the agreement on the fiscal framework would be a fair basis for future funding consistent with the principles agreed by the Smith commission, the Scottish Government recommended that the Scottish Parliament should consent to the Bill. On 11 March 2016, the Devolution (Further Powers) Committee published its report on the Scotland Bill and the fiscal framework. Although it makes recommendations on specific policy areas, its overall conclusion is that the Scottish Parliament should consent to the Bill. That is what is before us. On 16 March, the Scottish Parliament consented to the legislative consent motion for the Bill.
The SNP has, of course, governed in Scotland for nine years, and every indication is that the people of Scotland have been delighted with the governance of Scotland under the SNP. I join the Labour party spokesman in paying tribute, as I did earlier today, to every outgoing Member of the Scottish Parliament—not least my right hon. Friend the Member for Gordon (Alex Salmond)—of all political parties, who have worked hard to achieve the best governance that decision-making closer to home can bring.
The outgoing Scottish Government have already acted with pace and creativity, in consultation with others, to be ready to use the limited powers—there are, of course, limits on the powers that are being devolved. That includes introducing a social security Bill within the first year of the new Scottish Parliament, to support the transfer and administration of Scotland’s new, devolved social security benefits. It also includes enhancing opportunities for employment and inclusive economic growth by improving support for people to move into employment through reform of the Work programme and linking employment programmes with training and education.
The outgoing Scottish Government have also committed to abolishing fees for employment tribunals, to reduce the burden of air passenger duty by 50%, and to promote equalities by taking early action on gender balance on public boards. They have also set out longer-term intentions for further income powers, are committed to a progressive taxation policy and have applied that to decision on existing tax powers. Commencement of most of the new powers will take place in 2016, but new arrangements for the use of major new powers on matters including tax and welfare will not be in place before April 2017 following scrutiny of the proposals by the Scottish Parliament.
On 11 March 2016, the Scottish Parliament’s Devolution (Further Powers) Committee published its final report and gave its unanimous recommendation that legislative consent be given to the Scotland Bill. That was described as
“a significant milestone in a remarkable political process”
by Committee convener Bruce Crawford MSP. I pay tribute to him and his colleagues on the Committee, as I do to my hon. Friend the Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart), the Chair of the Scottish Affairs Committee, for their work. Although the Scotland Bill and the Smith commission could have delivered more effective and coherent powers to the Scottish Parliament, the Bill provides useful additional powers in important areas such as taxation and social security.
The UK Government amended the Bill to reflect some of the comments of the Scottish Government, the Scottish Parliament and its Committees. With an agreed fiscal framework that increases the Scottish Parliament’s responsibility and protects the Barnett formula, the Scottish Government recommended that the Scottish Parliament consent to the Scotland Bill. The final report of the Devolution (Further Powers) Committee also had some important things to say:
“There are still some areas where we feel that the Scotland Bill continues to fall short of the spirit and substance of Smith…Nevertheless, the Bill has been improved during its passage through our detailed scrutiny and we welcome the fact that the Secretary of State for Scotland has been prepared to listen to the evidence we have presented and improve the Bill in other areas…in our view, on the basis of the information provided to date by both governments, we are prepared to endorse the fiscal framework underpinning the powers to be devolved to Scotland as part of this Bill. Therefore, on balance, we recommend that the Scottish Parliament gives its legislative consent to the Scotland Bill.”
UK Government amendments that implement more of the Smith report, including the permanence of the Scottish Parliament, are welcome. However, it needs to be said that the Scotland Bill continues to fall short of the spirit and the substance of Smith in some areas, including the devolution of employment programmes and the future operation of the legislative consent provision. It is important to understand that the UK Government can still effectively veto the exercise of devolved powers over universal credit by inserting their own date for the changes to commence. The social security provisions on discretionary payments and assistance are still subject to restrictions, notably for those who are under sanctions. The Smith report was clear that the Scottish Parliament should have complete autonomy over devolved benefits. The Scotland Bill is many things, but it is not federalism or near-federalism. Anybody who understands the powers of the German or Austrian Länder knows that to be true. It is an improvement, and it is progress.
We in the SNP thank all in the Scottish Government who have been involved, especially John Swinney. We also thank those on the UK Government side, even though—this is an important rider—I see that there is a Minister from the Treasury on the Treasury Bench, and we all know that the Treasury wanted a fiscal framework that would have made Scotland worse off by £7 billion. Thank goodness for the efforts of John Swinney and colleagues in the Scottish Government. I would like to take the opportunity to thank my SNP MP colleagues, who have worked so hard on the Bill throughout the parliamentary process. In fairness, it is also right to place on record the fact that Members in the other place spent a lot of time on the Bill.
Most importantly, I thank all those in Scotland who have believed in more powers. They did not draw lines in the sand or say, “This far, and no further”, as others have done, even in the recent past. Thanks to all those yes voters and all those SNP voters, Westminster has had to take note. This is just the latest stage on Scotland’s journey, and there will be many more. We agree with the amendments, and we wish the Bill to proceed. That is exactly what will happen today.
David Mundell (Conservative, Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale)
I will not detain the House for long, but I want to respond briefly to some of the points that have been made.
I add my best wishes to all Members of the Scottish Parliament who are leaving at this election, particularly my colleagues and others who were elected to the Scottish Parliament alongside me back in 1999. A number of people who have served in Parliament throughout that period are leaving, and others who are standing in the election will be leaving, although not necessarily of their own accord. We should wish them well.
I am very grateful to the hon. Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray) and the right hon. Member for Moray (Angus Robertson) for what they said about Scotland Office officials. They will both recognise that the Scotland Office is a small team, and bringing the Bill together, along with 10 other Whitehall Departments, has been a very significant undertaking for the Scotland Office. I pay particular tribute to the Bill team, who have navigated us to this point.
I also pay tribute to Michael Clancy and his efforts on behalf of the Law Society of Scotland. All Scottish Members, including the new ones at the last election, will have come to see Michael as one of the most dogged pursuers of improved legislation across the gamut of what affects Scotland in this place. I very much welcome his involvement.
My test for the Bill was the views of Lord Smith of Kelvin. He has been absolutely clear that, with the amendments made to the Bill on Report and with the fiscal framework as negotiated, the Bill fully meets the Smith commission recommendations. That is the test—the objective test—that should be applied to the Bill.
I welcome the contribution that all Members have made, particularly in Committee. We have had some lively discussions on the Floor of the House. I very much welcome the work of the Devolution (Further Powers) Committee in the Scottish Parliament. I have said in correspondence with Bruce Crawford—I am happy to put this on the record in this Parliament—that its scrutiny of the Bill has been exemplary and has contributed significantly to improving it. We of course recognise the detailed scrutiny of the Bill in the other place.
The Bill is now on the final stage of its journey, so it is appropriate briefly to consider what lies ahead. The co-operation between Scotland’s two Governments and Parliaments that has underpinned the Scotland Bill and fiscal framework will be fundamental to the success of the work that now needs to take place to implement the new powers. Last week, the Deputy First Minister and I discussed the initial plans for the transfer of powers following commencement, and I will continue that dialogue with the Scottish Government immediately after the Holyrood elections.
To date, both Governments have agreed that the full devolution of income tax rates and thresholds for non-savings and non-dividend income will commence in April 2017. Air passenger duty will be devolved in April 2018, and the implementation dates for welfare will be agreed by the joint ministerial working group on welfare. The majority of the remaining provisions will be commenced either on Royal Assent or two months after Royal Assent.
Political discourse in Scotland is already changing as a result of the Bill, moving on from a debate on process to one about how the powers will be used. I am expecting a lively debate during coming weeks about how these powers should be used for the benefit of the people of Scotland. I look forward to working further, after the elections, with the Scottish Government to ensure their smooth and effective transfer. I urge the House to accept the Lords amendments.
Lords amendment 1 agreed to.
Lords amendments 2 to 62 agreed to, with Commons financial privileges waived in respect of Lords amendment 22.
Bill Cash (Conservative, Stone)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Under section 5 of the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993—the Maastricht Act of Parliament —there is a requirement on the Government:
“Before submitting the information required in implementing Article 103(3) of the Treaty…to report to Parliament for its approval an assessment of the medium term economic and budgetary position in relation to public investment expenditure”. [Interruption.]
John Bercow (Speaker, Buckingham)
Order. This is a serious point of order to which I hope Members will want to attend. If they do not, they can always pursue their enthusiasms elsewhere. I want to listen to the hon. Gentleman’s point of order, as should those on the Treasury Bench.
Bill Cash (Conservative, Stone)
As the Minister knows, that provision concerns convergence criteria, and stability and growth factors. The trouble is that the document we have been given, entitled, “2014-15 Convergence Programme for the United Kingdom: submitted in line with the Stability and Growth pact”, contains in pages 141 to 145 a detailed assessment of the position on welfare caps and other spending, including matters relating to disability benefits and personal independence payments, about which there has been a great deal of controversy over the past few days.
I therefore submit to you, Mr Speaker, that it is impossible for the Government to be able to submit that document, which has now been significantly changed as a result of the controversy of the past few days, and it is therefore inappropriate for them to proceed with this debate. What is your view?
John Bercow (Speaker, Buckingham)
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order, which I think I will describe as a conscientious effort at derailment of the Government’s intended programme of business. I say that not in a pejorative sense, as it is a perfectly legitimate attempt. I hope that those on the Treasury Bench, and other Government Members, are cognisant of what the hon. Gentleman has said, and that they have followed the logic of his argument and the substance of his thesis. I am not altogether sure that all expressions on ministerial faces have been entirely comprehending of his point, even though it is pretty straightforward, but my advice to the hon. Gentleman is that if at the end of the debate he is dissatisfied, he will have to register that with his vote. He is saying that the terms of trade have changed, but that is often the case, and he should seek to catch my eye to develop his arguments more fully in the course of the debate.
Bill Cash (Conservative, Stone)
rose—
John Bercow (Speaker, Buckingham)
I am not sure that there is really a further point of order, but as it is the hon. Gentleman, I am minded to indulge him.
Bill Cash (Conservative, Stone)
Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I just wanted to mention the ministerial code. After all, it is incumbent on Ministers to give accurate information to Parliament, and I wish to register that point.
John Bercow (Speaker, Buckingham)
The hon. Gentleman has registered that point, although, as he will know, I am not responsible for the ministerial code. Others are, however, bound by it, and therefore have a responsibility to it. That point is on the record.
John Redwood (Conservative, Wokingham)
Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I wonder whether it would be sufficient for Ministers to report orally to the House on how they propose to amend the figures, which are clearly wrong.
John Bercow (Speaker, Buckingham)
It is entirely open to Ministers to do that in the course of the debate. I have no desire to steer the debate as that would be very wrong, but I have a hunch that if the Minister does not provide satisfaction on that front, he might be peppered with attempted interventions from either the hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) or the right hon. Member for Wokingham (John Redwood). We will leave it there for now.
Section 5 of the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993
David Gauke (Conservative, South West Hertfordshire)
I beg move to move,
That this House approves, for the purposes of Section 5 of the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993, the Government’s assessment as set out in the Budget Report and Autumn Statement, combined with the Office for Budget Responsibility’s Economic and Fiscal Outlook and Fiscal Sustainability Report, which forms the basis of the United Kingdom’s Convergence Programme.
After four days of debating the Budget I am sure the whole House will welcome a further opportunity to debate the UK economy, given the information that will be provided to the Commission this year under section 5 of the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993.
As in previous years, the Government inform the Commission of the UK’s economic and budgetary position as part of our participation in the EU’s stability and growth pact. The convergence programme explains the Government’s medium-term fiscal policies as set out in the 2015 autumn statement and Budget 2016. It also includes the Office for Budget Responsibility forecasts. As such, it is based entirely on previously published documents that have been presented to Parliament. It is the content, not the convergence programme itself, that requires the approval of the House for the purposes of the 1993 Act.
David Nuttall (Conservative, Bury North)
Will my hon. Friend explain, for the benefit of the House, what he understands by the meaning of the word “convergence”?
David Gauke (Conservative, South West Hertfordshire)
The important point here is that the United Kingdom is not obliged to converge with other EU member states. If I remember correctly, the terminology dates back to the Maastricht treaty, and this is a part of the process that originates from that. The UK is not subject to any sanctions as a consequence of our participation in this process, nor are we required to take any directions from the European Commission in respect of our economic policies.
John Redwood (Conservative, Wokingham)
But surely the purpose of tabling the numbers to the Commission is that it puts it under what it calls “surveillance”? It can then make an adverse report. It is very clear that the intention is that our budget deficit should never be more than 3% of GDP. I note that, for the first time in some time, the Government will at least get the budget deficit below 3%. I am in favour of doing that anyway, but is it not the case that they have to do that because that is what convergence is all about?
David Gauke (Conservative, South West Hertfordshire)
It is the case that the provision dates back to the Maastricht treaty—no doubt my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) can provide further details on its history—which was incorporated into the European Union (Amendment) Act 1993. That requires us to submit a report. The important point for the House is that this does not give the European Commission the ability to impose sanctions on the UK. I am in complete agreement with my right hon. Friend that the UK should not have excessive deficits, but that is a matter ultimately decided by this House, this Parliament and the elected Government of the United Kingdom.
Bill Cash (Conservative, Stone)
I know my hon. Friend listened to what I said in my point of order, so I would like to address the point to him personally. Section 5 states:
“Her Majesty’s Government shall report to Parliament for its approval”—
on the basis that it is accurate—
“an assessment of the medium-term economic and budgetary position”.
It is absolutely clear, unless he can tell me that this document was prepared since the controversy of the past few days, that this cannot be accurate and nor can it be a proper assessment. To report to Parliament something that is not accurate is quite an important and rather difficult problem for the Minister, is it not? What measures will he take to correct the position, so that Parliament can approve it on the basis of an accurate assessment?
David Gauke (Conservative, South West Hertfordshire)
I will return to that point later, but let me address it in short now. The information provided to the Commission under this process is and has always been based on information already published. It is not a new exercise. We do not ask the OBR to go through the process once again. It is required to produce its documentation and make its assessments at the times of Budgets and autumn statements, and we do not think that our requirement under European legislation is such that we should require the OBR to go through that process again.
The essential position of the public finances remains the same. Notwithstanding the announcement on personal independence payments, it remains the case that from next year debt will be falling every year, that the deficit will be falling each and every year of this Parliament and that we will be in surplus in 2019-20. I suspect that my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) would not be keen for us, as a consequence of this requirement—I suspect he is no enthusiast for our going through this process in the first place, but the fact is we have to go through it—
David Nuttall (Conservative, Bury North)
Why?
David Gauke (Conservative, South West Hertfordshire)
Because that is what the law requires us to do.
It would not seem proportionate, in these circumstances, to do anything other than submit documentation previously prepared by the OBR.
Bill Cash (Conservative, Stone)
I just want to put this to bed. I have made the point that the documentation cannot be accurate—unless my hon. Friend is going to tell me the Government have changed the figures since publication—but there is a second point. It appears from the figures, which can be a bit confusing for some people, that there is a black hole. Some people allege it is as much as £4 billion and others say it is only £1.3 billion—it relates specifically to PIP—but he will appreciate that it is not possible for the documentation to be accurate. This has nothing to do with the OBR as such—it is not the OBR report being submitted—but concerns the Government’s own assessment. Will he be kind enough to get that right? It is important that we are accurate.
David Gauke (Conservative, South West Hertfordshire)
Our principled approach over several years has been that the documentation provided to the Commission is based on the most recent publications. I do not think it would be sensible or proportionate to rerun elements of a Budget process purely for an EU audience. That would not be the right thing to do.
George Kerevan (Scottish National Party, East Lothian)
On the accuracy of the information being transmitted to the Commission, there is another matter, which has not been brought up. The figures for February’s tax receipts have led to a significant increase in February borrowing. It is therefore impossible in the final month of the financial year for the Government to hit their declared target for borrowing. It will be greater than the target—so, again, the information is inaccurate.
David Gauke (Conservative, South West Hertfordshire)
Again, I make the same principled point. We provide information already published in these reports—we do not seek to amendment it—although the hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point: should this be updated monthly in the light of public finance numbers? I would make a second point about the public finances, however. Having been in the Treasury for a little while now, I know that public finance numbers can be quite volatile, so one should take good news and bad on a monthly basis with a pinch of salt. It is only when one steps back that one has a good view of the overall position, and that is what the OBR does twice yearly.
On the process, I remind the House that although the UK participates in the stability and growth pact, by virtue of our protocol to the treaty opting out of the euro, we are required only to endeavour to avoid excessive deficits. The UK cannot be subject to any action or sanctions as a result of our participation in the pact. Following the House’s approval of the economic and budgetary assessment that forms the basis of the convergence programme, the Government will submit that programme to the European Commission. The Commission is expected to make its recommendations to all EU member states in mid-May. These recommendations will then be agreed by Heads of State or Government at European Council.
David Nuttall (Conservative, Bury North)
This process takes place, as we both know, every year, and we have this debate every year. What, however, is its purpose? What possible benefit is there in going through the motion or charade of submitting this document to Brussels every year? What are the benefits for this country and for my constituents?
David Gauke (Conservative, South West Hertfordshire)
Apart from the fact that the law requires us to do this, I would tell my hon. Friend that the UK has a proud record of structural reform. We are performing better than many other EU member states. To the extent that other such states are able to examine the measures that we have been taking to improve the performance of the UK economy and to the extent that they see it as an example well worth following, this will help to strengthen other EU member states’ economies, which might have a benefit to the constituents of my hon. Friend. The fact that we are leading the way as the fastest-growing major western economy means that we have a proud record. We should not be hiding our light under a bushel.
Budget 2016 set out the Government’s assessment of the UK’s medium-term economic and budgetary position. In uncertain times and against a deteriorating global economic outlook, the Budget delivers security for working people. It takes the next bold steps in the Government’s long-term economic plan. The UK is forecast to grow faster than any other G7 economy this year, with employment at record highs. Against that, productivity growth is weaker than forecast, while globally the economic picture is less positive than it was six months ago.
The OBR tells us that in every year of the forecast, our economy grows and so, too, does our productivity, but it has revised down growth in the world economy and in world trade. The OBR also notes concerns across the west about low productivity growth, and has revised down potential UK productivity growth. In the face of the new assessment of productivity and the slowing global economy, the OBR now forecasts that UK GDP will grow by 2% this year, 2.2% again in 2017 and then 2.1% in each of the three years after that.
I shall not go through all the figures that have been debated at some length relating to the deficit and the debt, and I shall not go through all the Government’s measures. What is clear is that we are restoring our public finances, heading towards a surplus at the end of this Parliament and reducing the deficit year on year. I hope that the House will, in line with section 5 of the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993, approve the economic and budgetary assessment that forms the basis of the convergence programme. I look forward to hearing this evening’s debate.
Rob Marris (Labour, Wolverhampton South West)
I have to say that I have some sympathy with the hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) and the right hon. Member for Wokingham (John Redwood). I draw the House’s attention to the wording of the motion, which states:
“That this House approves…the Government’s assessment as set out in the Budget Report and Autumn Statement”.
Even the Chancellor of the Exchequer does not accept the assessments made in the autumn statement, yet we are now going off to Brussels and—if the motion is passed; I hope it is not—saying that we accept them.
I hope you will give me a little latitude, Mr Speaker, because I would like to start by setting the scene of where we are with our economy and looking at some of the history behind it. We must look at credibility. In the 2015 general election, Labour lacked economic credibility and people voted accordingly. It is true that most of the economic meltdown in the UK in 2008 was due to world factors such as the Lehman Brothers collapse and so forth. Let me try, however, to dispose of the myth to which some in Labour still cling—namely, that there were no real problems with the UK economy when the world economic meltdown occurred in 2008 and that all Labour’s economic problems thereafter were due solely to world factors.
That analysis is just plain wrong, and most people know it. Most voters know that the Labour Government did great things to improve our society and our economy, but voters also know that Mr Gordon Brown made some fundamental economic mistakes—for example, the nonsense of his slogan “an end to boom and bust”, his light-touch regulation of the financial services sector, the disaster of the private finance initiative, and large deficits in the good times. Just before the world meltdown, the UK annual deficit was 3.1% of GDP.
As I have said in the House before, Mr Brown arrogantly ignored the warnings that some of us gave him well before the crash. I am angry and sorry that he made those mistakes, because they meant that the UK economy was not as well placed as it should have been before the world crash. Even without them, the UK’s defences would have been overtopped when the financial tsunami came across the Atlantic, but not by so much. Today, our economy faces what the current Chancellor has described as world headwinds, and because of the current Chancellor’s own mistakes, the UK is far worse placed to withstand those headwinds than it was in 2008, when the world tsunami hit. The national debt expressed as a percentage of GDP, for example, is far higher than it was in 2008, and it is now rising.
Bill Cash (Conservative, Stone)
In the light of the strictures that the hon. Gentleman has imposed on his former Prime Minister, may I just mention that the national debt, which is currently regarded as being about £1.5 trillion, rises to between £3 trillion and £4 trillion if, for instance, Network Rail and the pension liabilities are taken into account? Does the hon. Gentleman accept that that is the real position?
Rob Marris (Labour, Wolverhampton South West)
Network Rail should be included; future pension liabilities should not.
The Chancellor is fond of saying that the current Government and the last coalition Government have fixed the roof while the sun was shining, and that Labour failed to do so. Well, only 20% of infrastructure projects have been started over the last six years. Under Labour Governments we had many more hospitals and schools, and we also had the £12 billion decent home programmes for doing up social housing. As a result, there was a great deal more social housing, including housing association and council properties, than there has been under the current Conservative Government and the coalition.
I welcome the creation of 2 million more jobs since 2010—that is the jewel in the Chancellor’s crown—but it has been bought with a sea of debt, a point to which I shall return. The proportion of part-time workers in the work force has remained broadly the same for the last 10 years, but there is concern about the growth of zero-hours contracts, although I must say that that concern is sometimes overblown. There is also concern about regional imbalances between London and the rest of the country, although I am pleased to say, as a west midlands Member, that they have lessened somewhat in the last two years. However, according to the Office for National Statistics, median gross weekly earnings in the United Kingdom fell by about 4.5% in real terms under the coalition Government.
A theme of the Chancellor’s Budget statement was
“We choose to put the next generation first.”—[Official Report, 16 March 2016; Vol. 607, c. 951.]
What happened about student fees and loans in England? What happened about the abolition of the education maintenance allowance in England? What happened about the spiralling cost of housing in the last six years because the Government singularly failed to address that issue, thereby increasing intergenerational imbalance?
What happened about this Government’s selling of a record amount of state assets this year? Those assets could have gone to the next generation. What happened about this Government’s carrying on with the disastrous policy of PFI? And what happened about the deficit and the national debt?
We were told that the deficit was not going to be eliminated by 2015. Well, these things happen. Is it going to be eliminated by 2020? Barely any commentators besides the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself believe that. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury says this evening that we are doing better than other member states. I have to tell him that that is not true. In the G7, for example, our deficit compared with those of the other seven states is the sixth worst. Only Japan is worse. In 2014, the deficit in Greece—poor old meltdown Greece—was less as a proportion of GDP than the deficit in the United Kingdom. In 2015, according to the International Monetary Fund, they will be the same. That is not a great example to set.
The changes, positive as they may be, with some anaemic growth and considerable growth in employment, have been bought on a sea of debt. Government spending is out of control. Let us look at the national debt. I am grateful to the economist Richard Murphy for providing me with these historical figures. In 2014 prices, the average borrowing by Labour Governments for each year in office since the war was £26.8 billion. The figure for Conservative Governments was £33.5 billion. The average borrowing, in 2014 prices, for each year in office excluding the period since the world crash in 2008—it could be argued to be unfair to the last Labour Government and the Conservative-led Governments to include that period—was £17.8 billion for Labour Governments and £20.6 billion for Conservative Governments.
Let us look at the percentage of years in which debt was repaid by Governments since the war. Part of the national debt was repaid in a quarter of post-war Labour Government years; the same happened in 10% of Tory Government years since the war. Let us now look at the total repayments of the national debt made by respective Governments, in 2014 prices. Conservative Governments have managed to pay off £19.9 billion of the national debt. Labour Governments, who have far more economic credibility, have paid off £108.8 billion. This Government’s spending is out of control. The national debt is up two thirds in six years, and this year it is forecast to increase slightly as a percentage of GDP.
It is a good thing that Mr Brown kept the United Kingdom out of the euro. Had he not done so, we would be in special measures big time under the terms of the growth and stability pact. The treaty defines excessive budget deficits as those that are greater than 3% of GDP. The current Chancellor has failed that test six years running, and on current forecasts—they could of course change next week—he is set to scrape in under the wire at 2.9% this year. The other element of the definition of excessive budget deficits under the growth and stability pact is that public debt is considered excessive if it is greater than 60% of GDP. It should also be falling by 5% per year on average over a three-year rolling period. The current Chancellor is on track to fail that test 10 years running.
The Chancellor is borrowing on the credit card to pay the day-to-day bills. He is also borrowing on a mortgage to buy bricks and mortar. That is fine for infrastructure— that is what Labour would do and it is what many families do. We borrow on a mortgage to pay for the bricks and mortar, but we should not borrow on the credit card to pay the day-to-day bills.
This Chancellor has been in office for six years and it is time that he took some responsibility. Frankly, it is wearisome, juvenile and harmful to our economy to keep blaming the previous Labour Government. I urge all Members of the House to vote against the motion tonight.
John Bercow (Speaker, Buckingham)
Order. I will just point out for the benefit of the House that we have an hour and four minutes of the debate left, which should be enough.
Bill Cash (Conservative, Stone)
I have already made my point about the inaccuracy embedded in the report and need not repeat any of that; I am sure that the Minister heard what I said. In a way, it is an impossible situation for him, but that does not remedy the inaccuracy and I need to hear what the Government propose to do. It may be inconvenient or fortuitous, but the reality is that it is there. The approval by Parliament of these documents for the purposes of onward submission to the European Commission simply cannot be conducted on the basis of the documents under consideration. I will now park the issue, but I am inclined to vote against the Government this evening on account of the inaccuracy, because it just does not make sense. If the Minister wants to, I will be glad if he tries to put things right in some manner, even if only orally, but he may be unable to do so. It is perhaps just as well if I leave things as I have just stated.
What I really want to refer to is the question of national debt, which I mentioned in an intervention. The problem is that the stability and growth pact, the convergence criteria and the 3% are important because they are the basis upon which countries decide whether to run their economies in line with European law or to be cavalier, and there are massive problems in the European Union relating to all that. My right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) mentioned that we are just about on the cusp of 3% at the moment, but that is simply not the case in other countries, which raises an important question. For example, the Italians are in dire trouble and are in an enormous battle to try to get some wiggle room into the stability and growth pact, which has led to extremely bad relations with Germany.
If one looks at what happened in 2003-04, however, nobody blinked an eye when it suited Germany to play around with the pact and not comply with its provisions. Italy is in difficulties and Greece remains in monumental difficulties, infringing the rule of law in Europe as expressed in the stability and growth pact and the convergence criteria, but Germany insists that everybody else obeys the rules until it does not suit it to do so. I find that difficult to accept. In fact, I do not accept it; I reject it. Either there is a rule of law or there is not. The bottom line is that there is a great deal of talk in the European Union about the rule of law, but unfortunately Germany does pretty much what it wants
John Redwood (Conservative, Wokingham)
I remind my hon. Friend that, even today, when Germany would say that she is very virtuous in having no budget deficit, she still has a much bigger proportion of debt to GDP than the 60% criterion and no obvious means of getting back down there.
Bill Cash (Conservative, Stone)
My right hon. Friend is, of course, right about that, as he really understands all these things. There are massive problems with the whole of this European project, not only because of the inconsistencies but because of the laying down of requirements and obligations that are, in effect, disregarded when it suits certain countries but not when it suits others. The performance required under section 5 relates not only to the accuracy of the figures, to which I have already referred, but to social, economic and environmental goals, as set out in article 2 of the treaty, and a range of submissions in respect of article 103, which deals with economic growth, industrial investment, employment and the balance of trade.
I am happy to agree that the Conservative Government have managed to retrieve the appalling situation that faced us before 2010, but that does not alter the fact that we are talking about a debt level of £1.5 trillion when it is actually very much more than that. I have suggested that if we include the pension liabilities, it could be as much as £3 trillion to £4 trillion. One really has to take that on board, because if someone who was running a company conveniently parked an element of required debt, the auditors would never give them a clean bill of health. I do not see how pension liabilities can legitimately be off balance sheet, given the scale of this debt and the fact that all those public pensions have to be paid.
I want to move away from that issue, and I would be interested if the Minister would be good enough to refer to one these points in his reply, if he has time. I want to refer now to another aspect of this paper being presented to Parliament for its approval. Page 19 is headed: “Economic opportunities and risks linked to the UK’s membership of the European Union”. What follows on the whole of the page is a litany of reasons why we should stay in the EU. All the arguments of those who say, as I do, that we should leave are dismissed, and I find it tendentious. I have already criticised the three White Papers on the grounds that they lack accuracy and impartiality, which I was promised by the Minister for Europe when I put the point to him during a ping-pong between the Lords and the Commons on the duty to provide information under sections 6 and 7 of the European Referendum Act 2015. Yet, here we are, confronted with exactly the same problem. It is not just that there is inaccuracy embedded in this document, which I am bound to say I do not think the Government can get out of, but there is inaccuracy that conflicts with the provisions of those sections. There is a real list of problems here.
I should also mention the reference on page 19 to the virtues of the single market. I voted for the Single European Act in 1986 but I did table an amendment to say, in effect, that nothing in the Act shall derogate from the sovereignty of the United Kingdom Parliament. Things have moved on enormously since those difficult days, because if I table an amendment now to preserve the sovereignty of the UK Parliament, you, Mr Speaker, will allow it to be debated, and the Clerks of the House of Commons will not raise the difficulties that I was faced with then. In a nutshell, I was told by the then Speaker, and indeed by the Clerk of Public Bills, that I was not allowed to move such an amendment—it was as bad as that. Mr Enoch Powell came up to me in the Lobby and said, “I see that you have put down this amendment, and I agree with you.” As in so many other matters relating to economics, he was not exactly wrong.
Basically, this reference to the single market has to be weighed against whether or not it has achieved its objectives. Page 19 says that the single market is full of virtue and is entirely necessary for the United Kingdom.
The debate stood adjourned (Standing Order No. 15).