I have been listening carefully to the debate, but my brain might be addled as well. When did we start? I believe it was at 3.30 this afternoon—I am sorry, we started at 12.30 pm, so we have been debating for eight and a half hours. Perhaps I did not explain myself properly. I said earlier that I would move this amendment, but that before we introduce full fiscal responsibility we need a referendum. That is because if we had a referendum for plus or minus 3 pence on income tax, this will go a great deal further than that and therefore we need a referendum to give the authority to introduce that extra tax-raising power. However, my noble friend Lord Browne said earlier that the referendum result in 1997 gives us the necessary mandate to introduce full fiscal responsibility. No doubt he will repeat that when he comes to speak. What I want to know is what the Government think about it.
When I talk about full fiscal responsibility, that is not what some people talk about as devo-max. There are two things. One is the fiscal devolution, the tax-raising powers. The other is the spending powers, or the powers over services being devolved. We have effectively gone far enough in relation to that. Some people would argue that devo-max should include devolution of welfare, pensions or other aspects that are currently part of the United Kingdom responsibility. I would counter and argue very strongly against that. Donald Dewar, my noble friend Lord Sewel and others worked very hard on this to make sure that we gave maximum devolution of functions. We did that. Where we did not do it was to give the responsibility for raising the money to pay for exercising those functions. That is what I am arguing today.
I am moving the amendment regardless of whether I withdraw or press it. I have been trying to explain to some people outside this House, particularly one or two of the cybernats—with whom I have had a dialogue, believe it or not—that the purpose of the Committee stage is to explore issues, to listen to debate and, if necessary modify your view in relation to the arguments that have been put forward. We have not had any Divisions; we will, perhaps, on Report. I have listened to what my noble friend Lord Browne has said. If it is confirmed that this gives us the mandate, I would seriously consider withdrawing the amendment and not even moving it at a later stage.
Scotland Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
(Labour)
in the House of Lords on Thursday, 15 March 2012.
It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL)
and
Debate on bills on Scotland Bill.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
736 c517-8 
Session
2010-12
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 16:09:32 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_818600
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_818600
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_818600