THE Scotland Bill does not deliver the Smith Agreement in full, according to research by the House of Commons library.
The independent research backs up the findings of the cross-party Scottish Parliament Devolution (Further Powers) Committee which pointed out the shortcomings of the Bill last month.
In a clause-by-clause analysis of the Scotland Bill, the Commons’ librarians claim that proposals on welfare and the principle of “no detriment” agreed by Smith are missing.
Stewart Hosie, deputy leader of the SNP , said: “It is now increasingly clear that the Scotland Bill does not deliver the Smith Agreement in full. The analysis of the Bill by the House of Commons Library should act as a wake-up call to the UK Government. The Conservative Party signed up to the Smith Commission deal and they must not now renege on their commitments.
“The Scottish Government has already highlighted shortcomings in the Bill, as has the cross-party Scottish Parliament Devolution Committee. But the UK Government, once again, is not listening.
“This a big test for the UK Government. But as things stand, it looks like they are going to fail the people of Scotland once again.”
A Scotland Office spokesman said: “The Scotland Bill delivers the Smith Agreement in full. It is inaccurate to claim otherwise.”
The Commons debates the Scotland Bill next week.
Yesterday, ahead of their appearances at the Devolution (Further Powers) Committee, both Secretary of State for Scotland David Mundell and Deputy First Minister John Swinney wrote to the committee chair.
Mundell said that “opportunities” remained to “refine the bill”.
As reported in yesterday’s National, Swinney, on behalf of the Scottish Government, sent the new clauses ministers would like to see in the Scotland Bill.
The two men face the Committee tomorrow morning.
Today sees the first in a series of events organised by the Government to engage “civic Scotland to come together to discuss the devolution of social security”.
Speaking at the event, Julia Unwin, Chief Executive of the Joseph Rowntree Foundation is expected to say: “The next phase of devolution presents an opportunity to introduce greater powers and incentives to invest in poverty-reducing approaches, with the savings from improved outcomes retained by the Scottish Government, and the costs of additional spending met from within the Scottish budget.”
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules here