SUBJECT: Further Powers for the Scottish Parliament

Official Response

REQUESTED BY: The Smith Commission

REFERENCE: OR-2014/11

DATE: 31 October 2014

SUBMITTED BY: Andrew Tomlinson, Associate Secretary, Church of Scotland Church and Society Council

Submission

This submission updates our earlier interim submission in light of some further consultation on the current context.

For many years, the Church’s approach to constitutional issues has broadly been based on the principles of (a) the sovereignty of God, entrusted to the community of the realm, ie the people of Scotland, who may therefore entrust decisions to such bodies as they may from time to time determine (as reflected in the Claim of Right); and (b) subsidiarity, ie that nothing should be done by a larger and more complex organisation at a higher level which can be done as well by a smaller and simpler organisation at a more local level.

Our view of sovereignty leads on the one hand to acceptance of the referendum decision as expression of the will of Scotland’s people, and on the other to a belief that, while legislative powers are devolved to the Scottish Parliament, devolution of power should not stop there. The inspiring range of people who saw in the referendum – many for the first time in their lives – a chance to make a real difference in their communities must not be cut off from the decision-making about powers, nor from the various ways in which these powers may be exercised.

The establishment of the Scottish Parliament arose from a broad consensus that a democratic deficit existed in Scotland. The original proposals of the Scottish Constitutional Convention (of which we were a key part) sought to address that deficit and were again based on a broad consensus across Scottish civic society. The history of the establishment of the Scottish Parliament shows the important and distinctive role of building consensus across a broad range of Scottish civic and political life and the development of important guiding principles supported by that consensus.

The new civic energy evident in the referendum campaign (not all from one side) is not just to be applauded while the parties negotiate a way forward with new powers; it should be reflected in the process. That does not mean reviving the Constitutional Convention; civic Scotland has moved on and new forms of engagement are needed. We believe the outcome of the Commission’s work should be tested in a citizen-led process, and any new settlement reviewed (say every five years) in a similar process.

Like many other groups, we are hoping to play a part in the wider civic process. On 5 November we are staging an event “Scotland’s Future Now” (live-streamed from Glasgow with satellite local meetings across Scotland) which in itself is part of that civic process, as well as taking forward our emphasis on reconciliation, shared purpose and values (as explored in the build-up to the referendum through “Imagining Scotland’s Future”).

The principle of subsidiarity seems to us to point, as reflected in the Scotland Act 1998, to the presumption that matters are within the powers of the Scottish Parliament unless there is good reason for their retention at UK level. Having decided to remain within the UK, broad powers at UK level in areas such as foreign affairs, defence, immigration and the economy seem to be implied.

During the recent referendum campaign, the Church of Scotland took no official view on the referendum question but encouraged its members and others to use the opportunity to “imagine Scotland’s future”. From this process of 32 events across Scotland, there emerged three key values: (1) equality (2) fairness and (3) justice.

These values remain central to our thinking on Scotland’s future now, after the referendum decision that Scotland should remain part of the UK but with enhanced powers beyond those already agreed.

Therefore we view the question of enhanced powers in terms of ensuring that we have the powers needed to realise these values in crucial areas of Scottish life; in particular, we look for powers to tackle the scandals of poverty and inequality in Scotland.

Therefore, we believe that the Scottish Parliament should have the main responsibility for the tax/benefit system, including the balance between different forms of taxation; we recognise that some areas of taxation (eg VAT) are constrained by EU commitments, but believe that a substantial portfolio of other taxation powers is needed to secure a measure of fiscal autonomy which would better enable the Scottish Parliament and Government to respond to Scottish concerns and give effect to distinctive priorities. We therefore envisage that both Parliaments would have taxation powers, and a fair system of allocation would be needed at the outset to avoid substantial initial disadvantage in either direction and to express a degree of solidarity across the United Kingdom, where prosperity is shared and those with broadest shoulders can carry the extra weight of supporting those less fortunate. Benefits, except pensions, should be a Scottish responsibility.

We are aware that there are complex interactions here, and we do not have the detailed expertise to be more precise in regard to taxation; these complexities and their impact are also part of our thinking in believing a five-year review to be wise.

We remain convinced, in light of the importance of broadcasting to the health of political and cultural life in Scotland, that current powers over broadcasting should be devolved, not to narrow the perspective to parochial concerns but to ensure adequate reflection of Scottish perspectives on a wider world.

With regard to immigration and asylum, while ultimate responsibility must remain with the UK Government, the experience of the Fresh Talent scheme and of the concordat on treatment of refused asylum seekers show that some flexibility is possible. While the legal framework remains UK-wide, how migrants and those seeking asylum are dealt with while here in Scotland (in terms of housing and support etc) should be a Scottish responsibility.

As climate change is a significant concern of the Church, we have supported the development of a Scottish strategy to tackle climate change; we also welcome steps over several years to develop specific policies to tackle fuel poverty in Scotland. We recognise the importance of energy policy for these aims and the constraints the current settlement puts on this; we believe that more would be achieved with further devolution of powers to the Scottish Parliament in this area.

Again, we recognise that this is a complex subject; that energy costs in Scotland are set in part by markets that operate at European or global scale; and that the role of the EU in regulating the energy industries is in some ways as important as the UK Government. A simple wholescale transfer of powers from the UK government to the Scottish Government will not necessarily be effective in helping to bring about the changes the church wishes to see in challenging fuel poverty and responding to climate change. However we are convinced that the powers of the Scottish Government in promoting renewable energy and addressing fuel poverty should be strengthened if possible.

To this end we ask that the Commission considers carefully the report and conclusions of the Expert Commission on Energy Regulation (Scottish Government, 2014) and in particular the advice it offers to ‘promote fairer, more affordable energy prices, given the need to address fuel poverty and measures to improve energy efficiency’. The report suggested that a Scottish Energy Regulator should be established to take over powers currently managed at UK level. This suggestion and others contained in the report are worth closer examination.

We would be happy to discuss these proposals with the Commission.

Note: We would add to this submission our broad support for the submission by Scottish Churches Housing Action (of which we are members).

The Church of Scotland, Church and Society Council, 121 George Street, Edinburgh, EH2 4YN

T: 0131 225 5722E: Number: SCO11353