Business of the House
Angus Brendan MacNeil Excerpts(9 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Hague
It is absolutely clear that it is for local NHS commissioners to take decisions on which providers should deliver health care services in the best interests of their patients. TTIP will not change that in any respect. I can give my hon. Friend not only a Government statement, but the statement of the EU Trade Commissioner, who said on 13 September:
“Public services are always exempted—there is no problem about exemption. The argument is abused in your country for political reasons but it has no grounds.”
That should be reassuring to people around the country who might think there is some merit in the arguments put by trade unions and the Labour party, which are designed to scare people not to arrive at a good trade deal for this country.
Mr Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
May I draw the attention of the Government and the House to a new film drama, “A Dark Reflection”, which is about air that is contaminated by organo- phosphates entering the aircraft cabin as a result of oil breakdowns in engines, which is where the cabin air is drawn from or, from auxiliary power units or even de-icing fluids. Is it not time to have a debate about fitting air detection systems to aircraft to protect passengers and crew from aerotoxic poisoning?
Mr Hague
That is, of course, a wholly legitimate question to ask. We have just had questions to Transport Ministers and the hon. Gentleman’s question sounded a little bit like it had been left over from that. I have no doubt that Transport Ministers will notice that he has raised the issue. I cannot offer him a debate in the remaining small number of days before the end of the Parliament, but he has now managed to raise the issue on the Floor of the House.
Business of the House
Angus Brendan MacNeil Excerpts(10 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Hague
I absolutely join my hon. Friend in congratulating the principal of that academy. So often it is the principal or head teacher who sets the ethos and creates the performance of a school or academy. We should all be grateful to those who successfully transform educational institutions, and a great deal of that is happening among academies. My hon. Friend’s local example is a very strong one.
Mr Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
May we have a debate on the newspaper industry—local and daily, and perhaps with particular reference to the excellent new daily paper in Scotland from the Herald stable, called The National? After a few weeks, its circulation is almost up to that of The Herald itself and far higher than the established The Scotsman. Will the Leader of the House take this opportunity to join me in congratulating The National newspaper on that and on the jobs it has created? Finally, may I, on behalf of the SNP, wish you, Mr Speaker, and all hon. Members a merry Christmas—Nollaig Shona.
Mr Hague
I think that is not so much a question as an advertisement! I am sure readers in Scotland will be able to make up their own minds about what they want to read without our having to endorse it. There is always something a bit suspicious about newspapers being endorsed by politicians of any colour, and those politicians often live to regret it when the newspaper decides to change its editorial line. I caution the hon. Gentleman a little about that.
Devolution and the Union
Angus Brendan MacNeil Excerpts(10 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Dominic Raab (Esher and Walton) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House recognises the outcome of the referendum on Scottish independence; welcomes the freely expressed will of the people of Scotland to remain British; notes the proposals announced by Westminster party leaders for further devolution to Scotland; calls on the Government and Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition to bring forward proposals that are fair and reasonable for the whole of the United Kingdom, following a period of public consultation to enable people in all parts of the Union to express their views; and, in particular, calls on the Government to ensure such proposals include a review of the Barnett formula and legislative proposals to address the West Lothian question.
I begin by thanking the Backbench Business Committee and its formidable Chair, the hon. Member for North East Derbyshire (Natascha Engel), who is not in her place today, for the opportunity to have this debate. I would also like to thank the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field) for making common cause in co-sponsoring the debate and the motion. I thank, too, the 81 hon. Members from four parties who signed in support of the motion.
The great Scottish inventor of the telephone, Alexander Graham Bell, coined the phrase:
“When one door closes, another opens”.
For my part, I thoroughly welcome the outcome of the Scottish referendum and the decision of the Scottish people to remain part of the United Kingdom, but I also recognise—I say this at the outset—the division and the divide it has left north of the border and the consequences that need to be picked up south of the border. In the spirit of Bell, I want to focus on the positive opportunities ahead—opportunities to give greater expression to the Scottish desire for self-determination short of secession, and indeed opportunities for a wider democratic renaissance across the whole of the United Kingdom.
In truth, we have made some progress under the coalition. As a result of the Scotland Act 2012, the Scottish Government will raise around 30%—up from 14%—of their own tax revenue. All parties now pledge further tax-raising powers and greater control over social security. I say to those representing Scottish seats who want further devolution beyond the current consensus that I am rather sympathetic, and I will look at and listen to their ideas with an open and sympathetic mind.
Of course, beyond the UK, devo-max, as it is termed, can draw on a variety of federal models, including those of Germany, Canada and even Spain. Scottish National party Members and others will have noted that this would take us well beyond what was promised in the vow of the main party leaders in the Daily Record on 16 September.
Mr Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
The hon. Gentleman’s party leader, the Prime Minister, said during the referendum campaign that everything was possible and all was on the table. Does the hon. Gentleman disagree with that?
Mr Raab
This may be the easiest intervention I get today, but I do agree that everything is on the table and that everything is possible. In fact, if the hon. Gentleman listens closely as I develop my speech, he will find that I am rather sympathetic to taking further steps toward financial devolution, which the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues have proposed.
Equally, there needs to be recognition that with greater financial freedom and power, Scotland must expect to bear some additional responsibility. I am sure that as a matter of principle—regardless of the practicalities—all hon. Members would agree with that. A new deal for Britain must be fair to all parts of Britain. In my view, that means two things. First, if we went down the road of devo-max or fuller financial devolution, it would eventually render utterly untenable the Barnett formula used by the UK Government to subsidise the devolved Administrations. That formula is based on outdated spending patterns and population numbers and is already divorced from any objective assessment of real need across Britain. If Scotland now wants greater powers to tax and spend—as I said, I am sympathetic to that—it cannot expect the Union and taxpayers across the Union to keep subsidising them to the hilt on such an arbitrary basis, without fuelling resentment in other parts of the UK. I note that that is also the logic of the SNP submission to the Smith review. I have it here and will happily read it later.
Mr MacNeil
Let me say something instructive to the hon. Gentleman. He has mentioned subsidies for Scotland a couple of times. If he is going to talk about subsidies, he should understand that referring to expenditure in Scotland in terms of the Barnett formula is cherry-picking. It represents only two thirds of spending, and that is just identified spending: there is another third of non-identified spending. Talking about the Barnett formula is a trick used by Tories and Labour Members to suggest that certain moneys are spent in Scotland. They are not talking about the whole pie; they are talking about two thirds of the pie. That is the trick.
Mr Raab
If the Barnett formula is not subsidising Scotland to the degree that concerns some of us, why is the SNP so averse to any review of it, let alone change? However, as was pointed out by the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Mark Lazarowicz), this is not just about the Barnett formula. The second price of further devolution must be steps to bridge the democratic deficit between Scotland and the rest of the Union. As in the case of the Barnett formula, south of the border it smarts that Scottish MPs in Parliament still vote on matters concerning England—from social care to school reforms—that in Scotland have been devolved to the Scottish Government.
There are various ways in which we could address the so-called West Lothian question. Others will have different views, but I believe that, as a minimum, any new legislation should implement the common-sense plan presented in 2008 by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke) to restrict Scottish MPs from legislating at Westminster in Committee and on Report on issues that do not affect Scotland. I suspect that, far from creating deadlock—which is what has been put about—that would lead to a rather healthy spirit of compromise. A United Kingdom Government who were reliant on Scottish MPs would retain the power of initiative, and England would have a democratic shield to prevent such a Government from imposing their will on it without consent.
Mrs Main
The hon. Lady makes an interesting point, and I am certain that there would be no reason why, if the motion is carried today, everything could not be on the table for discussion. It would be up to her to make her case, but I think that what she describes is very different from what the hon. Member for Birmingham, Hall Green was suggesting, which was that we have to split up the whole of the Union into little tranches of competences. It would be unrealistic, and it would certainly result in a democratic deficit, to suggest that people in Scotland can have grabbed power for themselves, and rightly want to use it, but resist giving away any of their powers in this place. I know it suits the Labour party to try to keep those powers, but we have to make the case that it is not reasonable and not fair.
Lord Barnett has said the following about the Barnett formula:
“It is unfair and should be stopped, it is a mistake. This way is terrible and can never be sustainable, it is a national embarrassment and personally embarrassing to me as well.”
I do not believe we should scrap the Barnett formula, but we should certainly review it, and whatever comes out of that would be done with the will of the House. Far less money is spent on my constituents and I find it hard to justify to them that in my constituency, which contains areas of multiple deprivation, people get some 11% less than the UK average, 23% less than Scotland gets and 28% less than Northern Ireland gets.
Mrs Main
I will not give way. I am sure that many MPs on the Benches around the hon. Gentleman want to make the case for the Scottish National party.
Because of the flaws I am outlining—[Interruption.] My constituency is not in London. St Albans is in a county above London, and we are not part of the London development system up there, but we have to pay a high price for our properties. My constituents do not understand why they are net contributors to the Chancellor’s coffers and do so badly when they are trying to get services—
John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)
I am delighted that the motion is before the House and I would like to address two particular issues: spending disparities across the UK and the vexed issue of how to implement English votes for English laws. Before the recent referendum, party leaders promised a continuation of the Barnett formula and the powers of the Scottish Parliament to raise revenue. It is vital, if the integrity of political leaders is to be respected and believed, to take this promise to the Scottish people seriously and to work within the confines of the Barnett formula arrangement.
To say that the debate about the referendum did not make people across the United Kingdom think very carefully about the fairness of the allocation of resources is to miss the point considerably. The Barnett formula is just one aspect of the wider question of spending disparities across the UK.
John Glen
If the hon. Gentleman can contain his anger and listen to what I have to say, he will notice that I have not mentioned the word subsidies. It is he who keeps mentioning subsidy, and it is not in my speech—[Hon. Members: “The hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab) did!”] But I have not and I will not.
To have an informed debate about funding reform, we need to think carefully about why the disparities exist. Some exist for reasonable historical reasons. However, differences in health spending, for example, due to different demographics and sparsity issues need to be fully examined and we must have a national debate on them. It is right to say that the case needs to be made for each significant disparity. The whole referendum debate has provoked a discussion in this country and we need to address it.
John Glen
No, I am going to continue with my speech.
That cannot be done on the basis of one short-term fix. In the next Parliament, the Government should establish a fair funding commission that would look comprehensively at the distribution of spending across all Government Departments over all regions and all aspects of that distribution. It could clearly take into account economic geography, a consistent definition of sparsity, demographic inequalities and historical differences in funding settlements. I believe that it would then quickly become clear that the distribution of taxpayers’ money is complex and that some proposals to deal with spending disparities are too simplistic. Fiscal devolution at a national level is not sufficient by itself. Some residents in Wales might use NHS services across the border in Herefordshire, for example, and vice versa, and it is important that we take account of such scenarios.
We also need to recognise the tension between the needs of metropolitan and rural communities, which particularly concerns my constituents in Salisbury. A fair funding commission would allow us to make mature, long-term decisions about funding levels based on comprehensive data and an appreciation of all the relevant factors across the whole United Kingdom. A wide range of options for reform would be available, including reviewing the baseline for formulas or introducing a fair funding consolidated grant.
Sir Gerald Howarth
I entirely agree with the right hon. Gentleman. It is important—I was just coming on to make the point—that devolving further substantial powers to Scotland will, in my view, provoke a backlash from England. England has been pretty quiescent. Contrary to what many Scots feel, England is not concerned with what goes on in Scotland. It ploughs its own furrow. If there is not a sensible settlement, I believe that England will rise up. England otherwise gets on with its business, but if it feels that it is being dealt with unfairly, there will be a problem.
Something must be done to address the West Lothian question. I shall set out what I think may be the solution, but first I shall say what I do not want: a long drawn-out boring debate—[Interruption]—on some grand constitutional reconfiguration of the whole United Kingdom. I do not believe that that is what the nation wants or that it would serve us well as a nation.
Sir Gerald Howarth
No. I have given way enough.
I do not want more regional government. My hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (John Glen) made the point about the situation in the north-east when a referendum was held there. I believe that still pertains. I certainly do not want the abolition of the House of Lords, which is currently the repository of much serious experience and wisdom. The creation of a ghastly senate with some sort of regional representation would do nothing to enhance the democratic accountability that we need in this country.
So what do I want? I want a simple solution. I have been persuaded up till now by the proposal of my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash), who suggested a change in Standing Orders so that Scottish Members of Parliament are unable to vote on matters which are determined to be solely of English concern. Again, points have been made, particularly by my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury, about the technicalities that would have to be dealt with in order to arrive at that situation. I quite accept that it could create a crisis, particularly for a Labour Government, for if a Labour Government came to office and their majority were determined by the number of Members of Parliament the party held in Scotland, the Government would be unable to get their legislation through. There is a constitutional issue which my hon. Friends should bear in mind, although it might in the short term be to our advantage.
The best solution is simply to reduce the number of Members of Parliament in Scotland to reflect their reduced responsibilities. That may be the price for maintaining the Union. I believe passionately in the Union and I believe we need to reach out and embrace Scotland. Scotland contributes so much to the United Kingdom. I want to retain Scotland and perhaps that will be the best way of doing it. Although it has been proposed that we should withhold cash from Scotland, I remind the House than when James VI of Scotland became James I of England, his progress from Scotland to London was accompanied by his being showered with gold by the English all the way through England.
Mr Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
This debate has settled on three issues: the Barnett formula, more powers for Westminster, and, of course, the famous vow.
Sir Robert Smith
The hon. Gentleman makes the important point that the commitments made by leaders in the referendum played a part in its result and need to be honoured. To that extent, will he say to his new leader that she should honour the commitment made by her predecessor that this was a once-in-a-lifetime referendum, and that no means no?
Mr MacNeil
I thank the hon. Gentleman for intervening before I made any points, because he has allowed me to say something that I had forgotten to include in my speech. He mentioned the “once in a generation” quote, but I think that must be seen in context—[Interruption.] I encourage the scoffing hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty) to do the same, and to look on YouTube where he will find an interview between Jeremy Paxman and Alex Salmond from seven years ago. Mr Salmond was asked whether a referendum would be a once-in-a-generation event, or whatever, and he said that the referendum would either be once in a generation or when there was another electoral mandate for one. He was very clear on that. He said that in his view it should be once in a generation—[Interruption.] Again, Labour Members do not want to hear the truth; they want to invent their own history, and I encourage the hon. Gentleman to look at YouTube because it is clear. Alex Salmond said that a referendum would be dependent on another electoral mandate. He could not bind the hands of the Scottish National party or—more importantly—the wishes of the Scottish people. The next referendum will be when the Scottish people want one, and I hope the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Sir Robert Smith) will be a decent enough democrat to accept that point. I am sure he will when he reflects on it, as will the scoffing Members on the Labour Front Bench.
Mr Frank Field
Whatever YouTube shows, the Scottish people will make decisions when they want to make decisions. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that after the next election, whatever has been promised, this Parliament may wish to make progress on the Barnett formula?
Mr MacNeil
I agree with that but I point out to the right hon. Gentleman that after the next election, according to current opinion polls—indeed, going by stories in the Daily Record of all places—the complexion and make-up of this Parliament will be very changed.
Mr MacNeil
I will make some progress and then I will give way—[Hon. Members: “Ahh!] My goodness. I have given way to two people. Labour Members, who are asleep during Labour speeches, wake up when the SNP speaks.
Thomas Docherty
Does the hon. Gentleman recall that on 14 September, four days before the referendum, Alex Salmond said, “This is a once-in-a-generation referendum”?
Mr MacNeil
No, I do not recall that—[Interruption.] I don’t! But again, that should be seen in the context of whether there is a new electoral mandate or other trigger points. It is quite simple and I explained it in response to the first intervention. The hon. Gentleman has delayed progress in the Chamber by making a fatuous intervention that I had already addressed. Let me get back on track and away from the hon. Gentleman’s diversions.
On the Barnett formula—I address the hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab) with this point—it must be remembered that London has the greatest per capita payment and highest Barnett spend, with Northern Ireland in second place. That, too, must be understood in context. When people talk about Barnett spending, they mean identifiable spending, which is about two thirds of the spending round pie. There is also non-identifiable spending such as defence, which is concentrated in the south of England. The UK Government seem unable to tell us where defence spending is spent—they used to, but it became a political hot potato. By contrast, the United States of America can list non-identifiable spending not only at state level but at county level, although it seems beyond the wit of the UK Government to identify down to that point.
Mr MacNeil
The review we are looking for, in the context of the Barnett formula, is one with full fiscal autonomy for Scotland where we are rid of these interminable rows and where Scotland spends what Scotland earns. The big point is that Scotland is a wealthy nation that has, each and every year for the past 33 years, provided more tax revenue than the UK average to the Treasury and the Exchequer at Westminster. Members overlook that point.
Mr MacNeil
I am really sorry, but I have been too generous in giving way. Members overlook that point when they talk about the Barnett formula, and the hon. Gentleman may want to come back to it in his summing up.
Like it or not—the hon. Members for Aldershot (Sir Gerald Howarth) and for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) did not like it—the big jumping off point is now the vow. Whether Tory or Labour Back Benchers like it or not, that is the truth of the matter. The vow must be seen in the context of what was happening at the time it was made. On 10 September, the Prime Minister said:
“If Scotland says it does want to stay inside the United Kingdom, then all options of devolution are there, and all are possible.”
The right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown), the former Prime Minister—Gordon Brown, for those at home watching who might not be absolutely certain who I mean—said:
“The purpose of the Scottish Parliament should be to use the maximum devolution possible”.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. We do not usually use a Member’s name, certainly when he is not informed of any discussion that may take place. I am sure the hon. Gentleman would not have done that on purpose.
Mr MacNeil
I am always delighted to follow your guidance, Mr Deputy Speaker. If they want to strike it from the record they can. I was trying to make a wider communication point, but I understand and respect what you are saying.
The vow was surrounded by those remarks and the vow ended the option of the status quo; it moved the argument on. The muddle, of course, is what is meant by the vow. In this Chamber, I asked the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath whether, when he signed up to the vow, he knew what he was signing up to. My suspicion, after the Downing street EVEL declaration on the morning after the referendum, is that he was duped. He will know whether he was or not.
I am not sure what the three amigos meant by the vow when they signed up to it on the front page of the Daily Record. The “three amigos” is the collective name in Scotland for the leaders of the Labour, Liberal and Conservative parties—they are seen as much of a muchness. [Interruption.] There they go—the cackling starts again. I suspect that before the referendum the vow meant anything at all to keep Scotland within the Union. After 18 September, they meant it to mean as little as it possibly could.
On the Smith commission, we know what the Scottish people want: they want Scotland’s Parliament to control many areas of policy. Polls show that they not only support the Scottish National party; they support income tax, corporate tax, welfare and benefits, and pensions being dealt with in the Scottish Parliament. If the Smith commission fails the people’s hopes, the polls show that people well understand who the champions of Scotland are and who will put Scotland first. That is why the SNP has between 45% and 59% support in the polls. The complexion of this Parliament will change next May as a result. There are many trigger points that could cause a new, second independence referendum in Scotland. One is an exit from the EU. Another—the most likely—is the demand of the Scottish people for power to go to their Parliament to change their lives, their communities, their families and their neighbourhoods.
Ian Murray
I knew that would be a waste of an intervention. Many Scottish Members want to speak, but the behaviour of the SNP today has been appalling. I wish it would engage with this issue.
People want politicians elected to represent them to talk about the things they tell us about, and we have listened to the Scottish people. SNP Members might not believe it, but it was a no vote. Their own leader said that would be it for a generation, yet they have even been talking about unilateral declarations of independence. The people have spoken, and politicians must listen. The Smith commission’s recommendations will be out next Thursday and will be implemented as per the plan. That was the vow to the Scottish people, and it will be followed through. It is part of a variety of devolution measures that this party has delivered and which are still to come.
Ian Murray
I will not give way because I want other Members to speak and time is ticking on.
A constitutional convention would deal with all these issues, alongside devolving £30 billion to the English regions, reforming the House of Lords and turning it into a regional senate, and further devolution for Wales.
These are important debates. We should have more Government time in which to explore these issues properly, but it is clear that the devolution vow and promise made to Scotland will be carried through—separately from all these other issues about English votes and devolution elsewhere in the United Kingdom. This is a view for the whole of the UK and we should do it on that—
Ms Gisela Stuart (Birmingham, Edgbaston) (Lab)
Let me pour a bit of oil on this heated debate and remind us of its title, “Devolution and the Union”. All of us bring to these debates some personal experience. For the first 18 years of my life, I lived in a federal state, not in a union. Those who talk about federalism need to be reminded of just what it means. I also spent 18 months on a constitutional convention, so I know what that means, too.
Let us consider three terms. First, what does devolution mean? No one could argue that Labour has not been the architect of genuine devolution within these British Isles. In many ways, the one piece of unfinished business has been devolution in England outside London. We must reflect on that, because we cannot have devolution in the constituent parts of the United Kingdom unless there has been proper devolution in the largest part of that United Kingdom.
The second issue, a puzzling one, arises when we talk about money. I think we have completely forgotten the purpose of transfer payments. The centre collects money in order to redistribute it to the regions according to need. That is the nature of our Union. It is not a vehicle for increasing separatism and it is not a vehicle for increasing special pleading: it is a vehicle of unity, a vehicle of bringing disparate parts together in a fair and proper manner.
The third issue is how our electorates in a United Kingdom and a Union relate to that. What I find really troubling about this whole debate is that those who are strong advocates for devolution sometimes use it as a means of breaking up the Union. If people do not want a Union and they want federalism, they should be clear about what that would mean. As a structure in which one part is disproportionately larger than the others, federalism does not work. People say, “Isn’t it great how Germany works as a federal state?”, but speaking as a German who grew up in Germany, let me remind the House that the only time federalism worked in Germany was after Prussia had been broken up. I would not recommend the Prussian model as one to follow. If people want to follow it, okay, but they should be very cautious.
Federalism in the UK would be deeply divisive. The rest of Europe looks at the model of the Union in the UK as something that this country got to a couple of hundred years before everybody else did, and they admire and envy us for having done so. I find it quite extraordinary that some are trying to go back on that. Let us remind ourselves that the transfer of money is in order to represent the United Kingdom as a Union—
Mr MacNeil
I promise the hon. Lady that if my speech appeared like that, it was because of the barracking and level of discourtesy I had to deal with from Labour Members. I apologise to her, and doubtless she would want to apologise for her colleagues. She talks of money transfers, so let me ask her in which direction she thinks these transfers are going.
Ms Stuart
When my children used to behave badly, they blamed their big brother, but it always takes two to pick a fight. I would have thought that the hon. Gentleman was too big and too grown up to be goaded by anyone, so let us come back to the transfer, which is what we are arguing about at this stage. It does not matter what we call it. I have to say that the impetuous behaviour of the Prime Minister after the referendum brought about much of this trouble, and I wish that he had been a little more grown up and reflective.
Arguments about money involve equal and fair distribution and democratic representation. Scotland had a referendum, for the second time in my lifetime. Some Members may be too young to remember the first referendum, but I do. This is the second occasion on which the Scottish people have spoken decisively on where they wish to be. There must come a point at which we must simply accept what the people have said.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley North (Ian Austin) that devolution in England outside London is unfinished business. I think that we must look much more closely at taxation powers for the city regions. Ultimately, however, when we argue about money, we should bear in mind the fact that it should be used as a mechanism to bring people together and to bring greater fairness. It should not be used as the divisive mechanism for which I think some Members are currently trying to argue, because that would be a very, very bad way of going about things.
Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)
I want to speak on behalf of a group in my party that is little heard of, but involves a long tradition of support for home rule for Wales. It goes back to the time of Keir Hardie, who represented a Welsh constituency. For me, it goes back to the time in 1953 when, as an 18-year-old schoolboy, I marched through Cardiff with a plaid Lafur—Labour party—banner reading “Senedd i Gymru”: “A Parliament for Wales”. That strand has always been there in the party, although it has not always been dominant. It is, to me, a cause for celebration and pride that, after all the generations that have come from Wales for the last 100 years promising devolution and home rule, I had the chance to be here when we delivered on that. It may not be a full Parliament—perhaps it should be described as half a Parliament—but it is a developing Parliament.
I stand here as someone who, for various reasons, has had a lifelong commitment to home rule. I believe that there is a stronger personality in Wales than in almost any other area. We are aware of the distinctive characteristics of other areas, but we have an ancient language—a 2,000-year-old language. In my constituency 2,000 years ago, the children who were intra muros, within the boundaries of Caerleon, spoke Latin, while those who were ultra muros, outside the walls, spoke Welsh. They still do—not all of them, but Welsh is still heard on the lips of the children, although we do not hear a great deal of Latin nowadays. That says something about the resilience of the language.
When István Széchenyi, a litterateur from Hungary, was asked “Where is the nation? Where do you find it? Where do you look?” , he replied:
“A nation lives in her language.”
All the wisdom, all the hurt and all the folklore of our nation echoes down the centuries in our distinctive language, and, to our great pride, it is now being spoken by more people than at any time in history. Every child in Wales has a chance to learn some Welsh, and many learn it and become fluent. The roots of a great renaissance of Welsh personality and character is there.
It is crucial that we have political institutions. Someone suggested that Carwyn Jones had never expressed a commitment to a constitutional convention. I am one of those who slave away on the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee, and anyone who delves into our fascinating, page-turning reports will find that we have to go through the delicate process of building up a constitution. However, I think that we are being a little unambitious in suggesting that there might be four Assemblies. I have been very surprised by the extraordinary change in the Republic of Ireland following a visit by the Queen, who put on a green dress and stood in Croke park, bowing her head in penitence. A century of antagonism has not melted away, but it has certainly softened a great deal. I can see a possibility that within, say, 20 years there will be a federal system in which we can all join.
It was suggested in The Guardian this morning that the next Head of State—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. Members should address the Chair. The last two speakers have felt the need to face in the opposite direction rather than facing the Chair. I think that the hon. Gentleman wishes to give way to the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil). I hope that Members will address each other through the Chair from now on.
Mr MacNeil
The hon. Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn) is making a thoughtful speech. Does he think that the Republic of Ireland would have had the same success without the powers that it now has under independence, or what we might call total devolution? Does he think that those powers have contributed greatly to what Ireland has now?
Paul Flynn
I shall tread carefully here. I do not want to get involved in the Scottish situation, on which we remained silent throughout the referendum. Members of my family were in the Irish Anti-Partition League and in Sinn Fein in the 1920s. All those divisions were there, although of course we hope that they will come to an end. That has certainly been part of the history of these islands, and we should rejoice at what has in many ways been a happy outcome for Ireland, after the misery and suffering of previous centuries.
We are now in a delicate position, because what happened in Scotland is having repercussions. The vow must be respected. There is no question of turning back on that; if we do, there will be a wave of cynicism from Scotland and elsewhere. No referendum solves everything; it is never a final moment. I recall the 1975 referendum on Europe, which hardly settled things in that regard. The entrenched opinions became more deeply entrenched, and that continues to this day, with people still feeling dissatisfied with the result.
In Wales, there was a tiny majority in favour of devolution in 1997, but the next time a vote was held, 65% of the vote was in favour. Huge changes are taking place. When we campaigned for a Welsh Assembly, there were those who said that we were on a slippery slope. Some were against devolution because it represented a slippery slope towards more independence in Wales; others supported it because they were in favour of just such a slippery slope. If there is one certain way of ensuring the break-up of the United Kingdom, it is to arouse the sleeping giant of English nationalism. We have heard about this today, and as the antagonism—
Mr Hague
I will defend my hon. Friend, to save time. To be fair to him, he said that the SNP had called the vow a gimmick and now treat it as being of huge importance, which it is. [Interruption.] That was absolutely his argument.
The hon. Member for Moray said that he was speaking on behalf of 1.6 million people who voted yes. Actually, our duty in this House is to speak on behalf of, and consider the interests of, all 62 million people in the United Kingdom. When asked by Labour Members, he left some doubt as to whether the SNP will accept the outcome of the Smith commission. The rest of us made compromises on the basis that we will support the outcome of Smith.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff North (Jonathan Evans), who has had to leave, made the powerful point that in 1997, when he and I opposed devolution in Wales and it was carried by a very small majority, we accepted the result of the referendum and did everything possible to make the Welsh Assembly work in the interests of the people of Wales and to support the success of devolution in Wales. Nationalists seem to have an asymmetrical view of democracy, whereby if there is a referendum that confirms their view, it is for ever, and if there is a referendum that differs with their view, it is only a temporary thing before going on to the next one. It is time for a symmetrical view of democracy as well as more symmetrical democracy within the United Kingdom.
That brings me to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (John Glen), who said that he was against an English parliament. I agree with that, and I agree with those who have said—
Mr Hague
I will not give way again because I have only a few minutes before I must let my hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton speak.
I agree with those who have opposed a federal system for the United Kingdom, because the United Kingdom does not lend itself to a federal structure. Therefore, we have to find our own answer to what we have always called the West Lothian question. This debate goes wider than votes in this House, as the shadow Leader of the House said, but it does include votes in this House. That is something that we have to address, and in the coming months, we must make specific proposals to do so.
Various commissions have worked on the issue over recent years. There was the Norton commission that I established within the Conservative party. There was the democracy taskforce of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke). There was the McKay commission, which set out the important principle, to which the Prime Minister referred at the Liaison Committee this morning, that
“decisions at the United Kingdom level with a separate and distinct effect for England (or for England-and-Wales) should normally be taken only with the consent of a majority of MPs for constituencies in England (or England-and-Wales).”
Although there are many different ways of implementing that principle, it will be important to do so. Refusing to face up to that would be the true “insider fix”, because the great majority of the people of the United Kingdom expect some such principle to be implemented and adopted.
The hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen) said that it was time for England to come to the devolution party. I agree, although I think he was unkind to the Prime Minister in saying that there was a lack of urgency. There is a great sense of urgency in the Government in taking forward decentralisation to cities and other localities, and in addressing the West Lothian question as well.
My hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot proposed the idea of reducing the number of MPs from Scotland and Wales. I do not agree with that opinion. It is important to address the issue in other ways, and I do not think that they should be reduced below their proportionate representation in the House.
I will not have time to go through all the hon. Members who have spoken. The hon. Member for Dudley North (Ian Austin), who is not in his place, made the case for a Minister for the west midlands, largely on the basis that he would be the Minister for the west midlands. I think we have now moved past that idea to address the issue in new ways. The hon. Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn) made the case for the importance of languages. He can be assured that the Welsh language lives very strongly in the family I have married into, and I am extremely conscious of that.
If I may finish on the question of Wales, it is important for Wales to play its full part in the greater decentralisation and devolution. The Secretary of State for Wales has made it clear that he wants to hear views from across the political spectrum in Wales on the best way forward. He has begun discussions with the leaders of the Welsh parties with a view to building consensus.
These issues now have to be addressed and resolved in a way that is fair to the whole of the United Kingdom. We are absolutely committed to the timetable for Scotland and we are committed to further powers for Wales and on the special needs of Northern Ireland, but we cannot ignore the needs and the rights of England. Being fair to all is now our mission.
Devolution (Scotland Referendum)
Angus Brendan MacNeil Excerpts(10 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Hague
My hon. Friend is right to make that point as Chair of the Procedure Committee. I certainly give him that guarantee.
As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland set out yesterday, it is vital that we unite Scotland within a United Kingdom. The cross-party process being undertaken by Lord Smith of Kelvin is the first step in finding the common ground that will create something that is better and fairer for Scotland and that cements its place in our family of nations.
I want to say at the beginning that we must not only meet the vows that were made to Scotland, but deliver a balanced settlement that is better and fairer for England, Wales and Northern Ireland. That is why, in addition to the cross-party process being undertaken by Lord Smith of Kelvin, the Prime Minister has asked me to chair a Cabinet Committee to look at the devolution—
Mr Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr Hague
That is, indeed, one solution that could be adopted. I will come to the alternative solutions in a moment.
Let me finish what I was saying on Scotland. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland said in his statement, the three main pro-UK parties made a vow that will be delivered whatever the outcome of the election next year and whatever deliberations we have about England. I know that it suits the Scottish National party to pretend that it has already been betrayed somehow, but the proposals for Scotland are not tied to our deliberations on other parts of the United Kingdom in the sense that they are conditional on them. It is right to consider those things together, but there was a vow. The British Government—this Administration and past Administrations—have delivered on devolution commitments in the past and will do so again.
Mr Hague
I will give way in one moment.
This Government delivered the Scotland Act 2012 and introduced the Wales Bill that is being debated in the House of Lords. We believe passionately in the United Kingdom. We recognise the benefits that it brings to all its citizens. We will deliver on the commitments that were made to the people of Scotland. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will confirm that the SNP will stop pretending that we are not seeking to deliver on those commitments.
Mr MacNeil
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way eventually. If the vow swayed 6% of the Scottish people, it served its narrow political purpose at the time. It was an unconditional vow that became conditional as the hangover set in. Why was the Prime Minister not straight with the Scottish people about the vow before the referendum? Where is the Prime Minister this afternoon?
Mr Hague
I assure the hon. Gentleman that the vow is unconditional. I think that I can also speak for the official Opposition on that. It was an unconditional vow from the Leader of the Opposition, the Deputy Prime Minister and the Prime Minister. The Scottish nationalists should stop pretending that people are reneging on the commitment when they are not.
Mr MacNeil
The annunciator reads, “Devolution (Scotland Referendum)”, but at the moment we are debating English votes for English laws. Why are we not having a debate about the subject set out on the annunciator?
Mr Speaker
I can observe the annunciator just as well as the hon. Gentleman. I simply advise him that the title of the debate is, “Devolution following the Scotland referendum”. The debate is about devolution. Nothing disorderly has happened. The Leader of the House is entirely in order—[Interruption.] No amount of hand gesturing, waving and excessive excitability on the part of the hon. Gentleman will change the fact that the debate is perfectly in order.
Sadiq Khan
I will give way to the Select Committee Chair in a moment. I want to make some progress first.
My Front-Bench colleagues have already announced ambitious plans that will be implemented should Labour form the next Government. My right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) has unveiled a new English deal in which the equivalent of £30 billion of spending would be transferred from Whitehall to city and county regions. My noble Friend Lord Adonis has outlined the way in which a future Labour Government will give local areas and city regions more powers over economic growth, transport and skills. There are other examples. In the context of my own brief, justice, I have announced plans to give local authorities more control over youth justice. They are closer to the issues, and the structure of incentives to cut crime and reoffending works much better on that scale.
Sadiq Khan
I have been hearing heckling and chattering behind my left shoulder for the last five minutes. The Scottish nationalists are claiming that every sentence I utter is relevant to the points that they wish to make. Let us now see whether that is really the case. I give way to the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil).
Mr Speaker
Order. Before the hon. Gentleman intervenes, let me remind him that he embarked on an apprenticeship to become a statesman. That apprenticeship still has a considerable distance to travel. I simply appeal to his more public-spirited instincts, and advise him now to assume the posture of a statesman.
Mr MacNeil
Thank you, Mr Speaker. Your words of guidance are for ever precious.
The right hon. Gentleman has referred to the Westminster elites. Well, we did see them in Scotland before the “vow”, but we need to ask where they are today. The Conservatives would not tell us where the Prime Minister was; can the right hon. Gentleman tell us where the Leader of the Opposition is this afternoon?
Sadiq Khan
All that I can say is, “Was that really worth it?” The hon. Gentleman has been a royal pain for the last 10 minutes.
In London we have a Mayor and an assembly, but we are ambitious to do more. The city still has too little control over its own destiny. Only 7% of all taxes raised from Londoners and London businesses are spent by the different levels of London government, whereas the figure is nearly 50% in New York. Labour has committed itself to devolving significant public service funding and responsibility to London’s government, as well as more fiscal autonomy. All that has added importance given the agreement among the leaders of the three main parties on a further package of devolution for Scotland.
Yesterday, the Secretary of State for Scotland published a Command Paper three weeks early. The Leader of the Opposition, the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister have made a commitment to strengthening and empowering the Scottish Parliament. The Labour party will take part in the process under the leadership of Lord Smith of Kelvin, in a spirit of partnership and co-operation with the other parties. Every commitment that we have made must be honoured.
We accept that the devolution settlement has also thrown up anomalies in Westminster, and the question of how to ensure that there is an “English voice” in our legislative process is definitely one of them. That is why it is right for us to examine greater powers for English Members of Parliament to scrutinise legislation. However, on many levels and on many occasions, Parliament faces a situation that is similar to the West Lothian question. We have asymmetric devolution, both within the nations and between them. Let us take the London situation. As a London Member of Parliament, I can vote on transport issues in Yorkshire and in other parts of England, yet English MPs, even Yorkshiremen, cannot vote on transport issues in London as they are the responsibility of the Mayor. In a non-federal system such as ours, that is going to happen.
Michael Moore (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (LD)
We in Scotland have just enjoyed the most amazing democratic moment. It is estimated that 97% of the population registered to take part in the referendum; there was a record turnout of 85%; and for the first time in a major election in the United Kingdom 16 and 17-year-olds participated and—dare I say it—excelled themselves in doing so in the build-up and in the referendum itself. At the conclusion, we have a clear outcome: Scotland has voted to stay in the United Kingdom, which I very much welcome.
However, we would be foolish not to recognise that Scotland and the whole of the United Kingdom have changed in recent times. More than 100 years of debate about ‘home rule’ and independence swirled around the decision we in Scotland took a month ago, but wider issues were in the mix as well. A generation of aggressive globalisation and the whirlwind of the financial crisis have raised questions, too, about how we are governed. In Hawick or Dundee, Alkrington or, indeed, Clacton, people are asking whether the political structures and system of governance are right for them, their family or their community, and for rather a lot of people the answer is a resounding no.
It is clear to me that people in Scotland support devolution and want more of it. There is a lot of talk about the “settled will” of the people of Scotland, but determining what that is depends on one’s perspective.
Michael Moore
Paragraph 30 of the Edinburgh agreement—in which I had the privilege to be involved—was clear about respecting the outcome, and I welcome the fact that the Scottish Government have done that and said the right things about the process going forward.
Michael Moore
I respect the fact that the hon. Gentleman who is trying to intervene and his colleagues will continue to argue for independence—that is their right and I am sure they will do that with their traditional energy, which they brought to the referendum campaign and have already brought to this afternoon’s debate. Some, of course, seem to wish to challenge the result, and occasionally we might think we had lost the referendum in Scotland and we had voted for independence, but we should not denigrate the spirit of what has gone on and the importance of what we have been involved in for these past few years, and we must make sure we now respond to the democratic will of the Scottish people.
Mr MacNeil
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way, and it is good to hear him praise the referendum, in such great contrast to the criticisms of the referendum we often heard at the Dispatch Box two or three years ago. It has turned out to be a very energising event in Scotland. On the vow, the right hon. Gentleman’s party leader signed that vow, but where is his party leader this afternoon? Why are he, the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition not in this Chamber? Why are they not here? They went to Scotland to sign a vow, but they are not here today.
Michael Moore
I know that SNP Members are the source of many conspiracy theories, but this is a pretty lame one. I hope the hon. Gentleman will relax a bit and perhaps wait for the chance to advance his own argument. May I take issue with a point he made in his preamble, too? This Parliament respected the victory of the SNP in the Scottish Parliament in 2011. The constitution is very firmly reserved to the Houses of Parliament, yet, recognising the will of the Scottish people in the Scottish elections, we took measures to devolve the power to hold the referendum to Edinburgh—something that was done peacefully and straightforwardly—and, rather than object, obstruct or get in the way of the referendum, we were active and positive participants in it. I shall come to the question of the vow in a moment.
The aspirations of the people of Scotland have been expressed in many different ways over many years. We have seen a cycle of devolution in which people have argued their case and set out their ideas for new powers, followed by a moment in which people came together and found common ground. Those proposals were then put to the people, to determine and implement more powers.
The vow was important. It underlined what had been happening in Scotland for some time. It was not new; people did not suddenly come up with stuff that had not previously been put forward. The commission that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell) led on behalf of the Liberal Democrats in Scotland had looked at this issue and reported in 2012. The findings were updated in 2013. The Strathclyde commission, on behalf of the Conservatives, reported last year. The Labour commission reported earlier this year. The party leaders in Scotland came together to pledge more powers earlier this summer. There has been a clear programme, and a commitment from all the UK parties throughout the referendum campaign to give more powers to the Scottish Parliament.
Mr Brown
It is whether one talks sense in this House that matters.
I believe—I am happy for the Leader of the House to confirm this—that there is a basic truth that this restriction on one group of MPs from voting on central issues such as Budget tax decisions ignores, and that is that we cannot have one United Kingdom if we have two separate classes of Members of Parliament. We cannot have representatives elected by the people who are half-in and half-out of the law-making process. The gospel according to Mark in the New Testament, which was quoted by Abraham Lincoln, says:
“A house divided against itself cannot stand...and a kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation”.
That is the truth of what the Conservative party is now doing.
This diminished status for Scotland would also have to apply to Wales, which also wants income tax powers. It would possibly apply to Northern Ireland and then—the Leader of the House did not rule this out when asked about it—it would have to apply to London. It would then have to be applied to the House of Lords to create two classes of representation. A Government who one day owed their authority to all Members of the House would the next day owe their authority to just some Members of the House. They cannot be servant to two masters, owing their authority and legitimacy to one set of votes one day by one group of people and another set of votes another day by another group of people.
Mr MacNeil
Is the right hon. Gentleman telling this House that he signed up to a vow without knowing the details of it?
Mr Brown
I signed up to a vow that I will keep. It was the Prime Minister, on the day after the referendum, who qualified the promise. We would be better off in this House if we had some humility from Members of the Scottish National party, who in their own constituencies found that 55% to 60% voted no and not yes.
Sir Oliver Heald
I would not accept that.
The political parties have now promised even more powers to Scotland on a tight timetable. It is very encouraging that the document that was promised by the end of the month has come out three weeks early and that we seem to be making the sort of progress that we all would have hoped for with the so-called vow.
Sir Oliver Heald
No, not at the moment.
Devolution for England is not an arcane topic—it is a demand of the people. The same constituents who wrote to me very strongly in favour of the Union and Better Together are also writing to me saying, for example:
“We are very encouraged by David Cameron’s determination to put right the inequalities of the…UK.”
Another constituent says:
“English votes on English affairs has the advantage that it is the simplest and cheapest solution”.
Another says:
“The unfair treatment of England must be rectified.”
Yet another says:
“I am not a…Conservative voter, so this is not a Party political view, but it is about time the English were given some self respect…The Labour Party will not like this but the present situation regarding Scottish MPs voting for English issues cannot continue. What’s sauce for the goose has got to be sauce for the gander.”
Iain Stewart (Milton Keynes South) (Con)
I welcome the opportunity to participate in this important debate. I speak as someone born and raised in Scotland who has spent the majority of his adult life in England and who now represents an English seat and defines himself as British and a Unionist. I am therefore well placed to understand the passion and sentiment on both sides of the border. I wish to put forward some ideas about how to move forward and cement the Union for a new generation.
My first issue, much debated this afternoon, is English votes for English laws. The view that the best answer to the West Lothian question is to stop asking it will no longer do. I genuinely fear for the long-term health of the Union if the English dimension is not addressed—and quickly. We have had endless commissions’ reports on the possible solution; now is the time to take action. Even before the Scottish referendum debate, there was evidence of considerable demand in England for that to take place. The research for the McKay commission found that just 21% of people in England support the current system, and there was majority support for some form of English votes on English laws.
Mr MacNeil
Does the hon. Gentleman think that English votes for English laws is enough for England? As we heard from the previous speaker from the north of England, it is important to give meaningful decentralisation to what is a very centralised state to enable a better and more productive economy. Sadly, we could not help the north of England given that Scotland did not gain independence, but if Westminster was prepared to transfer the iron grip, we might see some much needed economic changes in the north of England. Would the hon. Gentleman support steps towards that?
Iain Stewart
The hon. Gentleman has tee’d up neatly another section of my speech, so if he bides his time, I will come to that very point.
There are three intellectually coherent answers to the West Lothian question. Two of those—ending the devolution arrangement and voting for Scottish independence—are not on the table. The third option is a federal United Kingdom. Although that is intellectually coherent, I do not believe that it is workable. First, there is no public appetite to elect another tier of politicians, be that a separately elected English Parliament or English regional assemblies. Secondly, England does not divide neatly into regions. Where does my Milton Keynes South constituency lie, for example? Technically, we are part of the south-east, but from our demographic and economic ties, we have more in common with the east of England or the east midlands. Neither would a federation be viable if one of its constituent parts—England, which represents 84% of the population and economy—overwhelmingly dominated the other three parts of the federation.
To address the point raised by the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil)—I hope he notes my good pronunciation—there is a debate about further decentralisation within England and within Scotland, but that is a separate point from what happens here in this House. [Interruption.] It is a separate debate. There is, however, the issue of growing English demand for a say in its own affairs.
Mr MacNeil
The hon. Gentleman is kind to give way a second time, and I appreciate it. Much of today’s debate has been about this place and the four walls here, but it should not be. It is about the lives and aspirations of people in Easterhouse—[Interruption]—and, indeed, in East Anglia, as well as in places all over Scotland, which had great hopes at the front of the referendum, yet those hopes were damned. Managing things around this Chamber is a big mistake. I urge the hon. Gentleman to think about the good of the people in England outwith this Chamber, not the good of the people of England within it.
Iain Stewart
The hon. Gentleman misses my point. I am not saying that that is not an issue, but what happens here is also an issue of fairness for English voters. The two are not mutually exclusive and both have to be addressed. I want to see fairness for English voters—for my constituents, in this place—as well as have a sensible debate about further devolution in England. The local authority in my constituency has already had substantial extra powers. I am all for having a sensible discussion about how that can continue, but that should not distract us from what happens in this place.
We will never have a complete practical answer on English votes on English laws, but we must find the most workable and least disruptive option. I would like to put one proposal on the table. It might be termed the double majority arrangement. Many hon. Members from all parts of the House have asked what happens if we start excluding individual Members from voting on specific matters. Under the double majority arrangement, no Member would be excluded from debating or voting on any issue. However, if the matter applies only to England or only to England and Wales, for the measure to pass it must secure a majority of English Members or English and Welsh Members, as well as a majority of the whole House. That is a practical, sensible arrangement that would not disrupt any of our current arrangements, but that would provide an English shield or protection to ensure that measures in England are not voted for by people for whom England did not vote. I fear that doing nothing would be the most corrosive thing for the Union. That is something that I do not wish to see.
In the short time that I have left, I will turn to the financial element of devolution. I support an extension of the tax powers in Holyrood. I think that Holyrood should be responsible for raising a large share of what it spends. That is good for democracy. I am happy to debate the precise mechanism. However, I make one plea. I support the timetable for agreeing the matters in principle, but devolving tax is a complex and administrative matter. Companies will have to shoulder a lot of the burden. I do not want to see our wealth and job creators saddled with an onerous extra regulatory burden that they are not properly involved in designing. My plea is for them to play an important part in the various commissions that will consider this matter, so that the powers are devolved in a workable way that does not impact on business.
My last point—I cannot do it justice in 40 seconds—is about the Barnett formula. I plead with Members on all sides of the debate to ensure that they understand the Barnett formula properly. It is a much maligned and misunderstood formula. The bigger issue is the totality of the fiscal relationship between Scotland and England, and, indeed, within England and Scotland. We have never had a comprehensive, uncontroversial analysis of public spending and tax receipts in this country. Please can we have that before the debate on Barnett and related matters continues?
Mr Andrew Lansley (South Cambridgeshire) (Con)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I will try to be as brief as I can.
I am very pleased to follow the right hon. Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds). I think many of us on both sides of the House can agree that it was very important to all of us that the people of Scotland voted as they did to support the Union. That did not mean that there should be symmetry across the country and it certainly did not mean that they were voting in any sense to undermine the Union by stages. On the contrary, we can strengthen the Union, be true to the positive vote secured in the Scottish referendum and, at the same time, give people what I know they are looking for in Scotland and elsewhere across the United Kingdom: a sense of greater control and accountability for the decisions made in their name and by their elected representatives.
I want to put on the record that it is absolutely vital that, recognising and welcoming the vote of the people of Scotland, we should deliver on the commitments that were made to them. We will deliver on those commitments, for example, those in the vow. That is not conditional and should be done within the agreed timetable. We should bring those measures forward and ensure that we live up to that.
Part of the vow was the commitment to the ability of the people of Scotland to make their own decisions on the resources and the organisation of the national health service in Scotland. During the course of the referendum debate, I was astonished to hear Nicola Sturgeon, who was my counterpart in Scotland as Scottish Health Minister, talking about how, in the future, there was a risk to the independence of the NHS in Scotland. There never was when she had any conversations with me. Whenever we worked together we did so voluntarily, for example on standardised packaging for tobacco products. I would never hear her countenance the thought that anything that I said should happen in the NHS in England should necessarily happen as a consequence in Scotland. She retreated to the issue of finance. Frankly, with what we are committed to and will bring forward in terms of further devolution of the power to raise and spend one’s own resources, Scotland will have the absolute right to determine the resources and the organisation of the NHS in Scotland.
As a consequence of all that, in this country we have to recognise—I will not go on about it; I do not have time—further fiscal devolution to the local authorities in this country. I do not think for a minute that we are interested, as the hon. Member for Halifax (Mrs Riordan) suggested, in regional government. I agree with her that we are not interested in an English Parliament. I think that the people of England look to the Westminster Parliament to make their laws, but I think they recognise that raising and spending money locally is a good thing. With accountable elected representatives, we can and should make that happen.
Mr MacNeil
Does the right hon. Gentleman support full fiscal autonomy for Scotland? That is the logical solution to his argument, not the partial devolution of taxation which, when we take into the account the Barnett formula arrangements, is merely rearranging the deckchairs.
Mr Lansley
We are committed to retaining the Barnett formula. There will be an extension of the ability to raise and spend one’s own resources, not full fiscal autonomy. That has to be an outcome determined by the Smith commission—to see to what extent this can happen—but it seems to me that it is right. As the right hon. Member for Belfast North made perfectly clear, the outcome in each of the countries of the UK will look different because our devolution settlement is asymmetrical.
If there is not an English Parliament or fiscal devolution, a further question arises. Can we have English votes for English taxes? I might not agree with all my colleagues on this point, but I thought that the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown) raised an Aunt Sally and attacked it. There is not a Conservative proposal for English votes on income taxes. I do not think the analogy holds between devolution on income tax in the other countries of the UK and England. For example, Scotland has a Scottish Government with a Scottish Budget accountable to a Scottish Parliament, and it can determine Scottish income tax in that structure of decision making and accountability. We do not have an English Government, an English Parliament or an English Budget; we have a UK Budget, and to support a UK budget we must have UK taxation. We cannot contemplate the separation of English income tax, although we can devolve some taxes inside England, especially to local authorities and city regions.
Gregg McClymont (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (Lab)
It is several hours since the right hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (Michael Moore) made his contribution, as an appointee to the Smith commission. As the other Member sitting on the Smith commission, I shall try, in much less time, to make some observations about this process.
As we have heard, some are already attempting to rewrite the history of the referendum. The First Minister said the referendum would decide the issue for a generation, but we now see more clearly by the day that in his mind, and the mind of his colleagues, a generation is not a long time.
Gregg McClymont
I want to develop my argument.
On 18 September, the Scottish people said yes; they said yes to the continuation of the economic, social and political sharing that constitutes the UK; yes to the continued, undiluted, equal and fair voice that Scotland currently enjoys inside the UK; and yes to further devolution inside the UK, building on the 1999 settlement and the Scotland Act 2012. The task before us in the House, and before the Smith commission, is to take that sovereign and settled will of the Scottish people forward: to sustain that political, economic and social partnership, at the same time as devolving power where it makes sense to do so. It is a clear task, but not a simple one. Clarity, of course, does not necessarily mean simplicity.
It has been very evident today that there is a strong feeling among Government Members that England’s voice must be heard. I hear the sincerity of their view, and I have no doubt that it represents letters, e-mails and phone calls that Government Members are receiving, but I ask them to consider this. I think that the United Kingdom has been a great success over the past 300 years, making all four of its countries prosperous, stable and secure, and often serving as a beacon to the rest of the world. That success, or at least a central part of it, has been based on England’s tolerance of the desires—I will put it more strongly than that: the needs—of the much smaller Celtic nations of this Union. That tolerance has been acknowledged—
Julie Elliott
I could not agree more, and I am going to talk about some of the practicalities we face.
The hon. Member for Gosport (Caroline Dinenage) said she gets letters every day of every week about the question of English votes for English laws. If I have had five in my entire time as a Member of Parliament, that is all I have had, so I think there is a north-south issue here. This is not an issue for the north of England. It never comes up on the doorstep in my constituency and in those around it that I campaign in.
We must look at what has come out of the Scottish referendum in terms of the impact it will have on England and the regions—and it undoubtedly does have an impact. The current situation is unfair and that needs to be addressed, but we need practical solutions to the problems we face. This is not about tearing up the constitution. Only a tiny number of parliamentary votes would be affected by having English votes for English laws, and working out which ones should be and which ones should not would be very complex, but that simply is not the issue; the issue is getting the right redistribution of money to the regions of our country that really need it. We do not need extra bureaucracy, which in my view would break up the Union, or be a step towards that. If we were to go down that path, it would be disastrous for our communities.
We need a system that works and that has the support of our communities and of the people of the United Kingdom, not a quick fix, which is what the Prime Minister came out with in his announcement at 7 o’clock on the morning after the referendum. I was one of those people who spent the whole night watching the results, having travelled back from Scotland the night before, and I was astonished because what he said came from nowhere. It had not been on any agenda I had seen. It had not been discussed anywhere. To be honest, I do not think he grasped the real issue.
Julie Elliott
No, I will not give way.
This debate is a result of the Scottish referendum. Whereas I totally support the implementation of what was promised to the Scottish people, we need to look for practical political solutions that deal with the real issues for England and the other parts of the United Kingdom and address the real inequalities. They need addressing and they need addressing now.
Mr Syms
Yes, I certainly think that that is the case, but we must consider the situation north of the border. There is no appetite for regional government in the United Kingdom, but there is an appetite for showing local government more respect, giving it more responsibility and passing it more money. From my experience in local government and in Westminster, I can say that local government is much better at controlling money and decisions than we are here. The country would probably be better governed if we had more confidence in some of our local authorities.
Mr MacNeil
I am quite impressed that the hon. Gentleman has allowed logic to overcome his earlier beliefs against independence. He should be genuinely congratulated on that. He has looked at the situation and taken his views further. Is not the next logical step, and the first stepping stone to reducing the tension he has mentioned, full fiscal autonomy for Scotland?
Mr Syms
There are of course issues relating to the fact that we are interdependent within the economy. There are firms operating in both places. My hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes South (Iain Stewart) made a strong point about burdens on business, but I think that substantial fiscal powers and tax-raising powers should be moved to the Scottish Parliament. Ultimately, that would reduce tensions and effectively make MPs more responsive to their electorate as they would see what they were doing well and what they were doing badly. At the moment, the debate is very much between Edinburgh and Westminster, and that would be the case whoever were in Government. However, the tensions would be higher when there was a right of centre Government at Westminster and a left of centre Government in Holyrood.
On the matter of English votes, I have been very surprised over the past 15 years that the English have not been in revolt and have not been too upset over what is manifestly an unsatisfactory settlement. However, as we see further powers going to the Scottish Parliament and the manifest unfairnesses in this Chamber, people will start to ask very serious questions. It is better that we answer those questions now than let things build up and start creating greater tension. I am not sure whether English votes is the right solution or not, as it is messy, but I certainly think that we need to start the process of looking at how we govern ourselves and how we are fair to England.
It is a fact that if England has 84% of the population, it is going to dominate. That is what happened before Scotland joined the Union. Effectively, England was the elephant next door. The benefit of the United Kingdom was that the other countries had a disproportionate say within the United Kingdom Parliament, which worked very well. That changed in the 1990s, and once it changed the dynamics of the Union changed. We have to be fair to the 84% of people who are in England and I hope that we can reach a solution in which we can live as a happy family, and perhaps a more diverse family. The reality is that the logic of devolution is to give people more fiscal power and let them take that responsibility. The logic of the devolution settlement in the 1990s in Wales and later in Northern Ireland and Scotland is that there is an issue to be addressed and if we do not reverse the situation we will all get very raggy and angry because people will manifestly think that they are being unfairly treated.
Mr Reid
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point, but that is why I believe that Scotland should remain part of the United Kingdom. That gives us security not only in defence terms, but in financial terms. Although the Scottish Parliament should have more tax powers, we still need to be part of the United Kingdom for that security. Later in my speech I will outline which taxes I think are suitable for devolving and which I think should remain at the United Kingdom level.
The referendum saw levels of engagement and enthusiasm for politics never seen before. Now that the will of the Scottish people is known, everybody should accept the outcome and harness all that energy and enthusiasm to work together to build a strong, democratic Scotland within the United Kingdom. We want to harness that enthusiasm so that we can see much more participation in our democracy and much more consultation with people, working with them and devolving powers to a local level.
Mr MacNeil
The hon. Gentleman talks of a strong, democratic Scotland. Does he not feel that full fiscal autonomy would deliver that strong Scotland?
Mr Reid
I do not think the hon. Gentleman was listening to my reply to the hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) when I said that devolving all tax-raising powers was not the right solution. I will deal with that later when I talk about the taxes that are suitable for devolving and those that are best left at United Kingdom level.
Following the decisive vote in the referendum to stay within the United Kingdom, the Government moved quickly to set up the Smith commission, to convene cross-party talks and an engagement process across Scotland. It is vital that that process delivers significant new powers to the Scottish Parliament within the promised time scale, and I am confident that it will. I am sure that in the coming years we will see further progress on constitutional change for the other nations and regions of the United Kingdom, but further powers for the Scottish Parliament must not be held up while those debates take place in those other nations and regions.
The Scottish Parliament already has a significant range of powers to spend money on delivering public services, but powers are lacking on the other side of the equation—raising money through taxation. That has created a democratic deficit. The Scottish Government heap praise on themselves for the things they choose to spend money on and then blame the United Kingdom for the things they choose not to spend money on. Significant tax-varying powers are necessary so that in future we can have a proper democratic debate on how much to raise through taxes and how much to spend on public services. The Scottish Parliament must be given tax levers enabling it to raise the greater part of its own spending. Taxes on income, wealth and property can suitably be devolved. As well as raising money to spend on public services, these are powerful tools to address inequality in Scotland.
Representing a coastal and island constituency, I believe that devolving the Crown estate, with its control over the foreshore and seabed, is of vital importance. That is one of many areas where devolution must not stop at Holyrood; it must be devolved to a local level within Scotland. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State agrees with that.
On welfare and pensions, there should be a single Britain-wide system of entitlements, supporting free movement and residency across Britain with a common set of living standards and entitlements. However, on top of that common set of entitlements, there should be a power for the Scottish Parliament to top up such benefits. Earlier this afternoon, I served on a Delegated Legislation Committee that devolved power over discretionary housing payments. That is a step in the right direction. The power to top up minimum entitlements should be devolved to the Scottish Parliament for all benefits.
While devolving these powers, it is important to help business by keeping the United Kingdom’s single market and unified system of business regulation. It would not make sense to devolve taxes on spending such as VAT, alcohol and tobacco duties, and business taxation. Corporation tax, for example, is best dealt with at United Kingdom level. If it were devolved, one part of the United Kingdom would cut it, and that would lead to a race to the bottom, with business not paying its fair share of taxes and public spending having to be cut. Issues such as foreign affairs, the currency and defence are also obviously best managed at UK level.
These are exciting times. I have no doubt that significant new powers will be passed to the Scottish Parliament within the promised timetable. The long-held Liberal belief in home rule for Scotland within the United Kingdom is close to being realised.
Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)
I apologise, Mr Deputy Speaker, for being away from the Chamber for a period this afternoon due to Committee commitments, but I have followed the debate with interest. Like so many who have spoken, I was delighted with the result in Scotland and I support everything that has been said about ensuring that the vow is made good. The promise must be kept.
It is interesting to follow the right hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr Denham). I agree with him in many ways, but his argument for a constitutional convention falls down when we realise that he is a member of a party that now supports—as we all do, in fact—mass devolution of powers to Scotland without any consultation with the rest of the United Kingdom or a constitutional convention. We are told that the powers must be delivered swiftly to ensure that the vow is kept, so I am afraid that that is where the right hon. Gentleman’s argument falls down. If we are going to look at this and to have a constitutional convention, it should cover the whole way in which the United Kingdom is governed.
As an English MP who is proud to be an Englishman and as a Yorkshireman to boot, the only conclusion I can come to is that the Labour party’s attempt to complicate and muddy the waters is in order to maintain a political and electoral advantage over England. I can think of no other reason for it. We have heard how terribly complicated it is to devolve powers to England: “This situation is terribly difficult, but we must get on and deliver mass devolution to Scotland very quickly.” It was not quite so complicated or difficult when we agreed devolution to Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland, but when it comes to England it seems so terribly complicated. My fear and that of many of my constituents is that this is a deliberate attempt to kick into the long grass a decision about the government of England on a question that I and my constituents know will never be answered.
Mr MacNeil
I just want to make it clear that all we are talking about devolving to Scotland are Scotland’s powers, which are those powers pertaining to Scotland that are currently dealt with at Westminster. The current talk about devolution is merely about returning those powers to Scotland. It is nothing more complicated than that.
Andrew Percy
It is a devolution of powers that will massively change the relationship between England and Scotland, and between this House and Scotland, so it is a major devolution. I want to share the views of my constituents.
Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (PC)
Westminster is a broken system. Essentially, we have three parties that have morphed into one as a result of decades of political triangulation. As The Independent reported over the weekend, tracing paper cannot be put between them.
In England, the response has been increasing support for an insurgent political party, which ironically offers more Westminster, more privatisation, more austerity and more neo-liberalism. In Wales and Scotland, people are increasingly aware that the way to secure a different political direction is not to change the colour of the Government down here in London, but to empower their own national democratic political institutions.
Despite my scepticism, I believe that some progress will be made over new powers for Scotland, although it is quite apparent from today’s debate that there is no joint vision by the Unionist parties, despite the manner in which the vow was presented to the people of Scotland on the eve of the referendum.
Mr MacNeil
Does my hon. Friend agree that the difference in the strength of the current Welsh Assembly and Scottish Parliament—and indeed the powers promised to Wales and those promised to Scotland—correlates exactly with the strength of the SNP and, unfortunately, with the strength of Plaid Cymru, although it is increasing in Wales at present?
Jonathan Edwards
I am grateful for that intervention, and it is a point that I am sure we will make quite clear when it comes to the general election.
I think we can be sure that the new powers for Scotland will fall far shorter than the promised devolution max. That will be a huge disappointment to the 1.6 million people who voted yes, and especially to the hundreds of thousands—if the polls are to believed—who changed their minds at the last minute. In Wales, the growth in the political confidence of the Welsh people continues at breakneck speed. An ICM poll within days of the result in Scotland indicated that the people of my country want far greater political control over their lives. In spring, during the proceedings of the Wales Bill, I warned the UK Government that it would be superseded by events in Scotland— and that is indeed the case.
In the immediate aftermath of the Scottish result, the First Minister of Wales called for home rule all round, although I strongly suspect that his version of home rule is far less ambitious than mine. When asked what powers he wanted, he could come up only with a reserved powers model for our National Assembly. That, although important, is hardly the sort of stuff to get excited about and it is a million miles away from what most people would see as genuine home rule.
In contrast, Plaid Cymru published last month a detailed position paper entitled “Bring our Government Home: Proposals for empowering Wales”. The paper called for the current Wales Bill to include all the recommendations of the Silk commission, rather than the cherry-picking we saw from the UK Government, and, crucially, for a second Wales Bill to mirror the powers that will be made available to Scotland. We have labelled this second Bill a balancing bill, to end the practice of Wales playing catch-up with Scotland.
We are also calling for a radical overhaul of the discredited Barnett formula, which has ill-served my country. This needs to be coupled with increased fiscal powers for the National Assembly—beyond the current Wales Bill. If Scotland is to get 100% income tax powers as recommended by the Tory Strathclyde commission, Wales should have the same powers. Plaid Cymru’s ambition is to improve the Welsh economy so that we can stand on our own two feet as a country. This will not be achieved for as long as we are dependent upon fiscal transfers from London, whereby Welsh taxes are collected by the Treasury and a share is sent back to fund Welsh public services.
Mr William Bain (Glasgow North East) (Lab)
For the past two and a half years, the people of Scotland have been engaged in record numbers in the most existential of debates on where power should lie within a state and in whose interests that power is wielded. In the wake of the referendum outcome, it is right that people in the rest of the United Kingdom should join that discussion. Let me add to the thanks to the record numbers of people in Scotland who voted, debated, campaigned and contributed to a life-changing democratic process for all of us.
I said in this House several months ago that once the heat of the referendum campaign had cooled, the hand of friendship would be extended to those who love Scotland equally, but who believe in a different constitutional path for our country. I echo that call today. We go forward as one people, not as two tribes harbouring grievances and ill will against each other. Now that the sovereign will of the Scottish people has been expressed and we have chosen to build a future together with the peoples of the other three nations in the United Kingdom, we are all bound to make good on the consequences of the vote and to deliver quickly on the agreed timetable for the fiscal and social security powers that will deliver real change in Scotland and reform the governance of these islands for good.
Although I welcome the decisive nature of the referendum result across Scotland, there are clearly fences to be mended in Glasgow, West Dunbartonshire, North Lanarkshire and Dundee for those of us who have supported devolution all our lives. We all have to work harder to listen to, understand and act upon the strong cry for change that Glasgow’s voters expressed—a contempt for establishment power, a desire to abolish poverty and the urge for a more responsive politics. That is why I strongly support the establishment of a constitutional convention for peoples across the United Kingdom to examine how we can extend devolution to the cities, towns and villages of England, and how devolution can be extended down from the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly into the local authority areas of Scotland and Wales.
We also need to look at how we establish arrangements for a written constitution for the United Kingdom. During the referendum process, I have become increasingly convinced that 16th or 17th-century constitutional arrangements are no longer satisfactory for our 21st-century country. I hope we have a written constitution that reflects that modern approach.
Mr MacNeil
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the powers of the Crown Estate should be transferred from the UK Parliament to the relevant island authorities?
Mr Bain
If that proposal is in the submission to the Smith commission, other colleagues and I will look at it. I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman is finally endorsing Scottish Affairs Committee recommendations. We truly are making progress in the debate.
I hope that the written constitution will enshrine the principle that sovereignty comes from the people, not one single political institution, that power is shared between institutions, and that the devolved institutions are a permanent, irreversible part of our constitutional landscape. Power coming from the people and power given back to the people, and Government no longer hoarding power but giving it to cities, towns and communities, should be the guiding principles of a new constitutional settlement. From the crisis of trust in politics can come the birth of new hope. Let us seize this moment and, with the great peoples across this island, revitalise our democracy for good.
Business of the House
Angus Brendan MacNeil Excerpts(10 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Lansley
My hon. Friend is right. This matter is a cause of considerable regret, an inconvenience to many parents and completely unnecessary. The National Union of Teachers, proceeding as it is on a mandate from a ballot way back in September 2012, is taking unjustified and intemperate action. I hope it will reconsider taking such action in future, but if it does not it will be important for Government to consider all the circumstances involved in such events and whether the law is right in this area.
Mr Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
The regional air connectivity fund could be used to make airports in the north of Scotland, such as Stornoway, more central by investigating the possibility of links to the further north, namely the Faroe Islands—a similar group of islands to the Hebrides—or even as a stop on the route through to the Faroes or Iceland. Does the Leader of the House think that we could have a full debate on this matter? [Laughter.]
Business of the House
Angus Brendan MacNeil Excerpts(11 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Speaker
It sounds like there is scope for a debate, if in fact we have not already had it.
Mr Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
May we have a debate on the dangers and evils of imperialism and annexation of another country’s territory, whether it be Saddam Hussein in Kuwait or, at the other end of the spectrum, the Westminster Government who, as the front page of The Guardian reports, are bullying Scotland as part of “project fear”? Free peoples across the world will condemn that and stand with Scotland in the name of freedom.
Mr Lansley
Given that the hon. Gentleman’s question is occasioned by the front page of today’s Guardian, I hope he will be pleased to hear that the Government have not commissioned contingency plans for Faslane. Ideas of the kind described have not come to the Defence Secretary or the Prime Minister and they would not support them if they did.
Lobbying
Angus Brendan MacNeil Excerpts(11 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
John Thurso
I am going to disagree with the hon. Gentleman in a moment for a simple reason. In relation to visiting a Minister, the key is not in the Bill or in any legislation that we might pass. The key is the ministerial code; the key is the fact that the visits by that company or any other company will be published. I agree with hon. Members who said that there should be more information; wider detail should be published about meetings. At the moment, the quarterly register often just says “general discussion”, and that is not good enough. I urge those who are responsible for the ministerial code to look at toughening it up in some way and perhaps publishing the code a little more often than quarterly. Such things could be done tomorrow; they do not require legislation.
The second point is the difference between in-house and third-party lobbyists. I think we are all going in the same direction, but it seems to me that one has to start somewhere. To me, the third-party lobbyists are a good place to start. As the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen) said, it is better to make a start than to go for perfection. If Oxfam turns up to see the Secretary of State for International Development, it is pretty obvious what is going to be talked about. It is far more important that when Messrs Grabit and Nickit turn up to lobby on behalf of an unknown firm, we have a registration of who they are and what they do. That is far more important than making every single company that has someone in house working for them register that fact.
In my party’s 2001 conference motion on regulation of professional parliamentary lobbying, which I am sure was on everyone’s lips at the time, we said:
“No parliamentarian … at Westminster should be a director of, an employee of, receive any reward from or hold a stake in any of the duly registered professional parliamentary lobbying companies. … A statutory register of such professional lobbying firms should be set up and supervised by the Commissioner on Parliamentary Standards.”
In 2006, my colleague David Howarth, the then Member for Cambridge, sought to insert an amendment into the Companies Bill to cap the amount spent on lobbying. The then Government declined to accept it. So my party has a long history of seeking to do something about lobbying. The important thing now is to be clear who is doing the lobbying. That is why registering the professional lobbyists is so important.
Mr Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Is not one of the problems of the recent scandal not so much the lobbying but the payment of politicians, who may be part of the operation of that lobbying. It is not the lobbying per se; it is the payment, the money, the feeling of corruption.
John Thurso
I am delighted to welcome the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil) to his place. That is something I touched on at the beginning of my remarks. He makes an important point. In the recent scandals involving a Member of this House and three Members of the other place, nothing in this Bill or any other Bill on lobbying would have changed anything. What they did is already against the rules. My advice to any Member of this House is that the day someone comes to them and says, “Would you like £24,000?”, they are being offered a sting. None of us is worth that amount.
I was once almost the victim of a sting. A gentleman came to see me and asked me if I would chair his company. I said, “Yes, but first I need to do due diligence and see a set of accounts. Secondly, you have to look at my CV and see whether I have the skills you want. Thirdly, if it is ever anything to do with Parliament, I can have nothing whatever to do with it.” Needless to say, I never heard from him again.
Helen Jones (Warrington North) (Lab)
We have heard several interesting speeches, especially from my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen), the Chair of the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee, that have tried to grapple with how we define and register lobbyists. The fundamental point, as everyone in the House knows, is that one of the biggest political problems of our time is the loss of faith in politics and politicians, and we have only to walk the streets of our constituencies to see that. People feel that they are not listened to and that they have no way of influencing events. They might have some regard for their own Member of Parliament—indeed, polls show that people often do—but they feel that the big decisions are taken elsewhere, in a place where their views are not heard—[Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil) wants to make an intervention, I shall allow him to do so.
Mr MacNeil
I just wanted to suggest that the case the hon. Lady makes is exactly why we want independence —thank you very much.
Helen Jones
The hon. Gentleman will find that the polling in Scotland is no different from that elsewhere. There is a loss of faith in politics and politicians in many developed countries, and it ill behoves him to make cheap political points about that serious issue, with which we all must deal. People think that there is a distinct political class of people who move in and out of lobbyists, think-tanks and Parliament. I know that that is not true and that there are many hon. Members from diverse backgrounds—obviously not those in the Cabinet—but we have to bear responsibility for allowing that perception to exist. That is why dealing with lobbying is important, so that is one of the vital things—not the only one—that we must do to open up Parliament. If we continue to allow people to have the impression that some individuals have privileged access and may buy the right to influence legislation, we are digging our own graves. It is not lobbying itself that is wrong, as many hon. Members have said, but lobbying behind the scenes when people do not know about it.
Helen Jones
My hon. Friend makes a valid point about who should be included on the register and the importance of getting the definitions right. Many people have referred to lobbying by constituents, and any constituent has an absolute right of access to their Member of Parliament. My constituents are not slow about making their views heard, as I suspect is true of those of other hon. Members, but that is different from commercial lobbying, so the legislation must make that clear.
We have to deal with those who are directly employed lobbyists, but they would be allowed to carry on as before under the Government’s plans. What would happen to big firms such as Capita, Grant Thornton and PricewaterhouseCoopers that operate across government in many ways, but include lobbying among their functions? Legislation cannot work unless a code of conduct is attached to it. Parts of the industry already have a voluntary code, but without a code of conduct, there is no real point of having a register, because one then cannot deal with breaches of ethics, including by removing people from the register. Without full publication of details and meetings, lobbying will still be shrouded in secrecy because people will not know what is going on.
Helen Jones
I have given way to the hon. Gentleman once, so I hope that he will forgive me if I continue.
The fairly shabby little proposal before us is a reaction to a particular story, rather than an attempt to get things right. It is important that we have proposals that command cross-party support in the House and that, if possible, they are subjected to pre-legislative scrutiny. In my time in the House, a lot of bad legislation has been passed in a hurry, but a lot of legislation has been made better as a result of pre-legislative scrutiny, so I do not understand why the Government are shying away from that process. We need to get the proposals right for not just this Parliament, but future Parliaments, and we need a clear definition of “professional lobbying”, a clear code of conduct and strong sanctions for breaches of that code. Why on earth are the Government so reluctant to go down that road?
Harriett Baldwin
What I accept is that the Government are the ones taking the steps to publish meetings with organisations that represent themselves with their public affairs professionals. The Government are doing much more in the way of transparency than the Opposition were able to do in 13 years of power. I would love to see members of the shadow Cabinet publish details of their meetings, and I strongly hope that as a result of my persuasive remarks this afternoon, those are steps that the Opposition will soon take.
Mr MacNeil
The hon. Lady says that the Government have taken great steps on transparency, so will she encourage them to publish the pre-1997 papers relating to devolution legislation, which should be open and transparent for the people of Scotland? I look forward to her support.
Harriett Baldwin
As the hon. Gentleman knows, I am a fervent supporter of us all being better off together, so I will support whatever is in the interest of our doing that.
The point I am trying to make is that there is an awful lot that Members of Parliament can do as individuals to help advance the cause of transparency. We should not all sit and wait until legislation is passed. We can take some responsibility in being open and transparent. I look forward to the day when that includes the meetings of the shadow Cabinet.
Sittings of the House
Angus Brendan MacNeil Excerpts(12 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Knight
Rather strangely, two sections of the press that had misreported what we were doing have now made changes on their website. It could well be that the truth has finally caught up with them.
It is usual for Select Committees to reach a firm conclusion and to ask the House to follow it, for very good reasons, but this usual practice is against the background of a Committee identifying an issue that needs attention or discovering a defect in our law or perhaps a fault in ministerial practice that warrants a particular remedy. That is not the case today. Although the Procedure Committee has expressed its view in the report, I wish to make it clear that on the issue of sitting hours, the Committee appreciates that each Member of Parliament has a different way of working. That means that in considering the House’s sitting hours, there are no mainstream options that are “right” or “wrong”, “antiquated” or “modern”, “effective” or ineffectual”: the whole issue is a matter of individual preference.
Mr Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
I take issue with the right hon. Gentleman when he says that it is all a matter of individual preference. I travel from the Hebrides, and if we had a 1 o’clock start on Monday the furthest I could get by that time is Glasgow airport.
Mr Knight
The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point, and I shall come on to Mondays shortly.
The Procedure Committee accepts that our sitting hours are a matter of judgment for the House as a whole, which is why I have tabled motions to facilitate the majority view prevailing in respect of days Monday through to Thursday. Any changes made by the House will have consequences, which I hope Members will reflect on before they decide how to vote.
House of Lords Reform Bill
Angus Brendan MacNeil Excerpts(12 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ms Eagle
The difference between filibuster and debate is usually easy to see. The Opposition have said that we want the Bill to go to the Lords.
This is a historic opportunity to reform the House of Lords and I hope we achieve it, but Lords reform alone will not solve the big democratic challenge we face in the UK, which is the disengagement, apathy and cynicism that is such a notable feature of our society. Ours is not the only advanced democracy with that problem, but we must tackle the anti-politics mood. I believe passionately that politics can transform lives and help us to rebuild our society, but the corrosive cynicism of the anti-politics age in which we live is hard to overcome.
I fear that an elected second Chamber will not solve that. Lords reform is long overdue, but we face even greater challenges to our democratic system and values that we can meet only by believing more deeply in democracy and by having more and not less accountability. I do not underplay the profound impact that big constitutional change has on how we do government—it shows that we are putting our democratic values into action where it counts. We should seek to spread the light of accountability and democracy into all corners of our society and challenge the move to plutocracy that has been so evident in the developed democracies in the past 30 years. The Labour Government’s decision to devolve power to Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland has had a beneficial impact on how we do government in the UK. Although Lords reform is unfinished business and business we must get right and get on with, it is only a small part of the answer to the more profound problems we face.
Every argument I have heard for the status quo runs up against the fact that the British people are shut out of the House of Lords. Each large new influx of coalition peers makes the ever more bloated House even more unsustainable—it now has 823 Members and rising. That is especially true as the size of the Commons is being reduced for narrow party political interest to its lowest number since the Great Reform Act of 1832.
Mr Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
The hon. Lady mentions the influx of life peers. Will she support a ballot of life peers, as was held for the hereditary peers, to bring their numbers down to something more manageable?
Ms Eagle
There are all sorts of issues with exits from and entry to the House of Lords, which we should debate in the time we now have available for the Bill.
It is plain that the Lords as constituted is absurd and unsustainable. We should propose to the British people replacing it with a wholly elected second Chamber. Except during the interregnum, the House of Lords has existed for hundreds of years, but never once have the British people had a say on whether it should continue to exist. Let us therefore reshape the Bill and reshape the Lords, and ask the British people for their endorsement.
Simon Hart (Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire) (Con)
Yesterday we were treated to nearly 40 speeches on this topic, of which only 10 were in support of the Bill. However, the speech that stuck in my mind more than any of the others was that of my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing Central and Acton (Angie Bray), who was in danger of giving politics a good name by putting her principles before her career. I think that her speech united members of our party behind her, and behind those who, sadly, take a view that is very different from that taken on our Front Bench.
I use the word “sadly” with great emphasis, for, like my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Gareth Johnson), I am not a rebel. I once abstained on an issue of importance —the imposition of VAT on static caravans, as it happens—but that is about as big a nuisance as I have been in the two and a half years for which I have been here. The decision to vote against the Bill, however, has been the easiest that I have had to make in those two and a half years.
I will leave the constitutional expertise to others, but I will say that my decision was made so easy by three regrets. The first is presentational. I may be in a small minority, but I am one of those people who do not become infected by the view that we must have a democratic House of Lords. I do not want a democratic House of Lords, and that is precisely why I shall vote against the Bill. I want objectivity, expertise, experience and wisdom, all the qualities that we are told so often that we do not have in this House. I do not want Members of the House of Lords to be subject to the electoral and party pressures to which we may be subject here.
We seem to have spent the last goodness knows how many hours—some would say years—worrying desperately about what this place should look like, and not worrying nearly enough about what it should actually do. To those who keep saying, “This is all very tedious, so let us just get on with it”, I would respond, “Yes, this is all very tedious, so let us get on with not doing it, and instead do the work for which we are paid.”
My second regret is constitutional. It reflects the view expressed by the former Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw), that the constitution is not the property of the Government. In fact it is not really the property of Parliament, and it is certainly not the property of the Liberal Democrats. However, it is the property of the nation, and I find very indigestible the experience of standing here and watching it being used—some would say “abused”—for the sake of what will be, at best, two and a half years of coalition management. That is one reason why the decision that I shall make at 10 pm will be such an easy one.
Let us be honest. We talked a great deal about the timetable yesterday, but this is not really about the timetable. Of course the timetable is important, but the reason we are so agitated is that this is actually a rotten Bill. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] It will do nothing for the reputation of Parliament, nothing for the reputation of politicians, and nothing to reconnect us with voters who, after several years of disconnection, are looking for inspiration. They want to see us doing the things that we were elected to do, rather than becoming involved in self-indulgent vanity projects inside this building.
I have to say, with enormous sadness, that if we get anywhere near the Parliament Acts as a means of concluding this particular debate, we will convert a rebellion into a mutiny. The strength of the arguments presented yesterday demonstrated that the legislation needs to go back to the drawing board. It demonstrated that those who genuinely favour constitutional reform, improvement and devolution in the House of Lords are willing to do business, but not with a gun held to their head. That would be an act of extraordinary vandalism.
My third regret is political. Last week, again with great sadness, I supported measures to disband 17 Army units. This week, we are being asked to create 360 new politicians to add to the 122 who have already been created in this House, all of whom will earn a great deal more money than our servicemen could ever hope to earn. That is simply too big a pill for me to swallow.
Karl Turner
That is one example, as my hon. Friend reminds us from a sedentary position.
My second area of concern is the Government’s logic that an unelected House of Lords is also an unaccountable House of Lords. I cannot say that I disagree with that logic, but the Government’s plans to rectify the issue are wholly inappropriate. The Bill proposes a single, non-renewable 15-year term, and if we add that up, we find that it does little to improve accountability. Some would say that rather than improve the democratic element, it makes things less democratic. Once elected and safely in their 15-year term, these people will be able to do and say what they think, and they will not have to follow any particular line. In fact, they will not even have to turn up. This could be said to be just a bung for party loyalty: 15 years’ salary without really having to do much more than that.
The Government also seek greater democratic legitimacy, but state that they will maintain a 20% appointed membership. Those who disagree will say that that is not enough, while those who want an elected element will say that it is too much. The Government have tried to split the difference but have left us with a foot in each door, so we will not quite have an elected House but we will not quite have an appointed House either. The Deputy Prime Minister has argued for the need for electoral legitimacy but undermines his argument by maintaining an appointed element. Furthermore, the Government have failed to use this opportunity to reform the place and role of bishops in the Lords.
Mr MacNeil
The hon. Gentleman is making a good speech. I merely ask him this: if he supports Lords reform, will he not take this opportunity to overcome the inertia over the past 100 years regarding the House of Lords, grab the opportunity with both hands and move the debate on, so that, in a democracy, we can have more elected people in a democratic parliamentary Chamber?
Karl Turner
I absolutely support reform but, as I said from the outset, I am keen on reforming the Lords to the full and having a completely elected second Chamber. I am afraid that this Bill does not offer anything like what I stood for at the last general election. Surely if we are trying to increase democracy and legitimacy, having ex officio religious positions is, in itself, discriminatory.
I accept that the principle of this Bill matches the commitment of all three main political parties in this House, but the Bill is woefully inadequate in terms of achieving its goals. No more time should be spent on this Bill than is necessary, but the Bill fails to achieve many of its declared goals and, in some cases, might make the current situation worse. The Bill must be subject to full and proper scrutiny in the later stages. Constitutional changes are difficult to make, so we must we get this right.
Julian Sturdy
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. Yes, I am aware of that, and I do think it is a problem. That is something that I would like reformed, and it is why, ultimately, as I shall go on to say, I will support the motion tonight.
Members of the other place often do great work, and I do not seek to diminish their efforts. However, our Parliament should reflect the full will of the public, and the make-up of our two great Houses of democracy should be subject to the will of those at the ballot box—it is simple democracy. After careful deliberation, I have reached a firm decision. Ultimately, I believe in a largely elected upper House, and will vote in favour of that principle. However, despite my underlying support for the end outcome, I have a number of concerns about the path that the Government have outlined.
First, I must express my doubts about the timing. As expected and feared by many of us, the Bill is attracting a great deal of attention and debate in the Westminster bubble—far more, I must say, than on the streets of York Outer. On the one hand, that may be reassuring. Any attempt to reform our constitution should be debated properly and in full. However, in the light of the economic uncertainty in the eurozone and the wider economic crisis, I simply do not believe that reforming the House of Lords is an urgent matter of governance. In truth, the timing is woeful, and that undermines the whole debate.
Secondly, some of the proposals cause me concern. As I mentioned, I am a believer in democracy and elections, and I respect what the right hon. Member for South Shields said on this subject, but offering those who aspire to election to the other place a 15-year term seems to be pushing the notion of representative democracy a bit far. We often defend our democracy by saying to the public that they can kick out a poorly performing MP or Government within five years. To triple that rule of thumb somewhat diminishes the principle on which the reform is based. I would be much happier with a term length nearer 10 years. That would strike a slightly more acceptable balance.
Mr MacNeil
What can the public do at the moment to kick out an underperforming life peer?
Julian Sturdy
Well, they cannot do anything, and that is why I will vote in favour of the Bill on Second Reading, but I am expressing my concern.
Thirdly, I am concerned about the apparent rush to sign off this reform when there are many other outstanding constitutional matters. The West Lothian question—the hon. Gentleman might have a view on this—is one such example. Surely, if we are to undertake a democratic and fundamental piece of constitutional reform, we should simultaneously look to resolve wider constitutional dilemmas.
Lastly, I must ask the ministerial team to ensure that clause 2 is reinforced. If we are to maintain an efficient legislative process, we must ensure that the House of Commons retains its supremacy in the parliamentary process. I am sure that many Members present will be aware that Members in the other place are concerned that this supremacy would be threatened, under the proposals.
In conclusion, my message to the House today is that we should tread carefully. If we are to embark on this delicate and historic matter, we must do so properly. Many Members who are concerned about these initial proposals need the opportunity and time to debate them. We should either take our time and get it right, or not do it at all.
Business of the House
Angus Brendan MacNeil Excerpts(13 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir George Young
I did indeed see the article, and of course my hon. Friend will know that when the House is not sitting it does not mean that MPs are not working; there is work to be done in the constituencies. We have made some significant changes to the way in which we organise the parliamentary calendar, and yesterday we actually added four days to the sitting calendar. This year we are going to sit longer than last year and, indeed, the year before, so any implication that we are working less hard is wholly unfounded.
Mr Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Given the opaque answer on coastguards provided to the hon. Member for Truro and Falmouth (Sarah Newton), may we have a debate about the coastguards, either in Government time or Backbench Business Committee time, before the relevant consultation ends? That would allow the Government to show how seriously they take our maritime insurance policy, namely the coastguards, especially as the two debates in Westminster Hall were inadequate in both time and structure.
Sir George Young
I am not sure that those two debates in Westminster Hall were inadequate; they enabled a large number of people to speak. I have no plans to hold another debate in Government time, but as I said earlier the Transport Committee is conducting an inquiry into the matter, and that might be an opportunity for the hon. Gentleman to make any points that he feels have not already been made.