Scotland Bill

That is true, but that is a slightly different point. The business community was absolutely clear that it was worried not only about uncertainty but that the SNP might end up having an anti-business or a business-unfriendly regime. For the purposes of this debate, however, I was not going to go down that particular route at the moment. It is fair to say that nobody who was raising arguments in favour of the devolution of corporation tax was suggesting that it should be raised, but there was an assumption that devolution was in order to reduce it. It was noticeable that even with the points that were made in the Committee and subsequently we have not heard an argument about how the initial gap between the moneys that were previously received from the UK Treasury and the reduced amount would be made up. Even if in the longer term corporation tax was going to result in a growth in business taxation, which I doubt, there would undoubtedly be a short-term shortfall, and we have not heard any solution as to how that would be bridged. I have great reservations about committing, in the current economic difficulties and a time of recession, to a set of policies that give more money to the private sector and rich people and that cut services for ordinary people who depend on those public services. That is the choice we are being asked to make. If we are all in this together, as has been suggested, how reasonable is it at a time when Scotland has economic difficulties and faces cuts in its budget, to suggest that the budget should be cut further to give a gratuitous tax break to business? That has to be further explored. As I said earlier, I do not think this is the end of the matter—it will run and run. That is why the Government have to make available as quickly as possible as much information as they can. I suspect that the Scottish Government produced their figures some time ago and sent them down and that they have either been misfiled in the Scotland Office or lost in the post. I simply find it impossible to believe that after all the huffing and puffing that was done, those figures have not been calculated and sent down here, and I urge the Minister to search at the very bottom of his filing tray just in case poor staff work has misfiled those important documents. We have to make sure that this issue is resolved as quickly as possible. The point on which the shadow Scottish Secretary was howled down was a very fair one. The interventions from the nationalists managed to distract her from making the important point that in 1988—it is true that was some time ago—Alex Salmond, who was then an SNP MP, was suspended from the House of Commons for attacking the Tory Government's reduction in corporation tax, calling the proposals an ““obscenity””. He might have been right then, but the policies he is adopting now seem slightly different, whereas, if anything, the economic situation is the same. I remember seeing that particular pantomime and, if I remember correctly, Mr Salmond decided to have his intervention because he believed that at a time of economic difficulty cutting taxes for business and for those who had most, for the wealthiest, was an inappropriate use of resources. Exactly the same economic situation pertains now and I think we need an explanation as to why what was an obscenity then is not an obscenity now. I recognise that times move on, cultures change and people develop, so if it was a youthful indiscretion, all well and good. If he tells us that, we may forgive and we may forget, but I very much doubt it. It would be helpful to the debate if that was clarified. My second major point is on excise duty. It is interesting that, along with others of the six measures, that one appeared at almost the last moment, like a rabbit from a hat. Some of the measures have been dealt with before, but the excise duty proposal has never been put to the House as something that should be included in the Bill. It looks rather like a development of the girn a day strategy—a grievance a day may break up the Union and if it is not one it will be another. I am at variance with some of the thrust of my party's policy on these measures. Alcohol prices ought to be increased. I am in favour of taking measures that reduce alcohol consumption, and I am willing to look objectively at evidence. If there are fruitful grounds for development, notwithstanding the difficulties, we should look at such measures on a UK basis. I recognise the difficulties in increasing excise taxes and duties in a single jurisdiction—the arguments about cross-border traffic and where the bonded warehouse would be. To be fair, I do not think that the SNP is in favour of customs posts at Berwick, Gretna and elsewhere, and allowing people to bring in only a certain amount of duty-paid English alcohol. I do not think SNP Members are suggesting that, but there is a real danger that their policy, adopted with the best of intentions, would be undermined by the white van trade. When cigarettes were smuggled, it was not simply that people brought in cigarettes bought in jurisdictions with low tax regimes; fake cigarettes were smuggled in also. They were not manufactured to the same standards and were actually poisonous, yet they were sold under the counter as reduced-tax cigarettes. People thought they were getting a bonus by buying cheap cigarettes, and the implication was that they were a proper product, but in fact often they were not. The cigarettes were produced in China or elsewhere and although they looked like a good deal they were rubbish and people's health was endangered. There is a real danger that we could be allowing an illicit trade, with smuggled rot-gut Scotch and other liquors marketed under false labels. Differential taxation regimes could take us down that road. This debate is likely to continue. There has been grave difficulty in Scotland about priorities and powers. The current squeeze on public expenditure means that, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field) said, we need to examine spending in different jurisdictions and the choices that are made. We could considerably enhance politics in Scotland by much more meaningful debate about choices. The differences between political parties have been blurred on a number of issues. We are spending ever-growing sums, but there is very little political debate about the choices to be made. We might debate the order in which additional money is spent, but we never debate who should lose as the result of someone else's gain. The question about different choices was one of the reasons why I signed up to the concept of devolution right from the beginning. If we want to move away from the grievance and dependency culture that so scars Scottish politics, we have to get back, to some extent, to the politics of class, and to the politics of real division—where choices are being made. It seems to me that the Bill and the rejection of all the nationalist amendments is a step towards that conclusion.