---

Scotland Bill

Indeed it does. We can safely say that we have no territorial claims on Antarctica. This is a Scotland Bill, and the re-reservation removal is sensible. Lords amendment 18 deals with reports on the implementation and operation of financial measures in the Bill. That is a sensible provision, and it is linked closely to the commencement of those financial provisions. We made that point repeatedly throughout debates on the Bill. In the Committee of the whole House, on the second day of debate, we discussed commencement powers to ensure that things were done at the correct time. We had a good debate on six separate commencement provisions for various financial measures. We said:"““If the commencement arrangements are left unchanged, many of the most important questions about the Bill will be left unanswered.””—[Official Report, 14 March 2011; Vol. 525, c. 89.]" On Third Reading, we said that the amendments that we had tabled on commencement would ensure that the tax provisions could not"““be brought into effect unless the Scottish Parliament...specifically consented.””—[Official Report, 21 June 2011; Vol. 530, c. 248.]" That was not just a point of principle—matters that affect the Scottish Parliament should be decided by the Scottish Parliament—but concerned some practical, technical issues. If a number of fiscal measures were introduced at the wrong time in the economic cycle that could be detrimental economically. Several Labour Members understood that point, and did so very clearly indeed, and it was interesting that Labour abstained from decisions on commencement—the party did not object to it, and I am glad that it welcomes what we have at the moment. I want to take the opportunity, unusually, to be generous to the Secretary of State. The discussions and negotiations between his team and Bruce Crawford, the Cabinet Secretary for Parliamentary Business and Cabinet Strategy, and the letter that the Secretary of State sent to Bruce and to the Cabinet Secretary for Finance, Employment and Sustainable Growth, John Swinney, were extremely helpful, particularly the part of the letter that said:"““Consistent with the principle of consent””—" which was what we were determined to deliver—"““our two governments should reach agreement on implementation issues, including adjustments to the block grant…Each government should also provide assurance to its Parliament before the relevant provisions of the Bill are brought into force and before implementation arrangements are brought into effect.””" That agreement on the requirement properly to engage the Parliaments, and the principle of consent, were what we were trying to achieve. For the avoidance of doubt—and I have said this to the Secretary of State for Scotland, so it is not a surprise to him—of course there will be a bun fight about the contents of the Bill. Of course the matters that are being devolved do not go far enough for the Scottish National party—that is not a huge surprise—but making sure that we avoid the dangers of the financial provisions commencing at the wrong time was always the key thing that we needed to change. The Secretary of State knows that, so I very much welcome that exchange of letters to ensure that commencement is done properly on the basis of consent.