Procedure of the House

Pete Wishart Excerpts

Thursday 26th March 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

We have already anticipated some of this debate during the urgent question, but I rise to speak to the motions standing in my name and that of my right hon. Friend the Deputy Leader of the House.

The motions facilitate making decisions on areas which, to have any meaningful usefulness, need to be decided before the early days of the next Parliament. They include matters raised in the Procedure Committee’s latest report “Matters for the Procedure Committee in the 2015 Parliament”, published last week. The report specifically called for a decision of the House before the end of this Parliament on the issue of extending the trial of new arrangements for programming legislation. Let me deal with that motion first.

The House agreed on 8 May last year to the trial of new arrangements with regard to programming legislation, following the Procedure Committee report on the same subject, published in December 2013. The arrangements included bringing forward the deadline for tabling amendments, new clauses and schedules from two days to three days before the day on which the debate takes place. The Procedure Committee agreed to review the operation of the arrangements at the end of the current Session. That review, aided by a memorandum produced by the Public Bill Office, is summarised in last week’s Procedure Committee report. The report noted that the trial had not produced very much evidence on the impact of the change, and therefore recommended that the trial should be continued in the first Session of the next Parliament. The Procedure Committee also recommended that the deadline be extended to cover amendments in Committee of the whole House for all Bills, and on Report for unprogrammed bills.

[Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)]

If we are having a secret ballot for the position of the Speaker of the House, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that we should have secret ballot for the position of the Leader of the House?

[Mr Hague]

I am talking about the programming of Bills, but I shall come on to the secret ballot issue in a moment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Bryant]

I am not giving way any more, as I ought to draw my remarks to a conclusion.

I say to Conservative Members that when our procedure was crafted in 2001, we took the view that the re-election of a Speaker at the beginning of a new Parliament was, in effect, a vote of confidence in the Speaker. The Leader of the House suggested that anybody elected to a position of power over the people should be elected by secret ballot. The Prime Minister will also depend on a vote of confidence or a vote of no confidence. If the Leader of the House is to continue with this, his argument must be that a vote of no confidence in the Prime Minister should be a secret ballot. Of course it should not. If Conservative Members genuinely believe that hon. Members will be so frightened that they will not be able to own up to the public how they voted on such a motion of confidence or no confidence in the Speaker, frankly, they have no confidence in one another.

The proceedings of this House were secret for centuries. John Wilkes campaigned to be allowed to reveal to the public what went on in this place. What did the majority Government do at the time? They used their majority to chuck him out of Parliament, and what did the voters do? They put him back in. What did the Government then do? They chucked him out. What did the voters do? They chucked him back in. They believed that this House’s proceedings should be in public and should be known to all so that voters could make their decisions.

The Leader of the House has done himself no favours; he has betrayed the confidence of the House today. He tabled his motion at some time about 7.30 last night. He did not notify the Opposition, but let us get over that. He is arguing that we should have a secret ballot for the election of the Chair of the Procedure Committee, yet he has deliberately gone behind the back of the very person who was elected by the whole House in a secret ballot. His argument bears no weight. Moreover, he constructed today’s one-hour debate in such a way as to make it impossible to table an amendment for consideration. It is completely impossible for us to consider a single amendment today. That is not the action of a Leader of the House who respects Parliament. That is why I say to him: in the name of God, go—and I think the people of this country will say the same.

[Pete Wishart]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Given the great unhappiness about this process and the way this House has been bounced into considering it, is there any way that this question could not now be put?

[Mr Speaker]

There is, of course, a device of moving the previous question, but it would affect only the first of the motions, which is not the one that has excited the debate. It could be done, but I rather suspect that it would not be effective.

Members’ Paid Directorships and Consultancies

Pete Wishart Excerpts

Wednesday 25th February 2015 Commons Chamber

[Ms Eagle]

Let me take this opportunity to make it extremely clear that the motion is not aimed at any particular individual. It is concerned with what Parliament should do to modernise the way in which it interacts with the world outside. I night add that I suspect that ex-Prime Ministers have a rather higher earnings potential than many of the rest of us. Furthermore—I should make this point, now that the hon. Member for Redcar (Ian Swales) has brought the issue up—I understand that my right hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath gives every penny of that money to charity, and does not take any of it himself. Given the import of the hon. Gentleman’s question, I think that should be put on the record.

[Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)]

Will the hon. Lady acknowledge right now that some of the highest earners from outside interests are members of the Labour party? It is this Westminster establishment that the people of this country hold in such contempt. Is that not the reason why both the main Westminster establishment parties can barely exceed 60% in the polls at the moment? A curse on both their houses!

[Ms Eagle]

I last heard that the Scottish National party had received some particularly large donations from individuals, but I do not want to have this kind of debate about the issue. I am trying to talk about the future, and about how the House regulates matters that have such an important bearing on the way in which our constituents regard this place and us. If we are to increase trust in our politics, we must pay very close attention to what is happening in this instance.

--- Later in debate ---

[Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)]

I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, which relates to royalties received from works recorded prior to becoming a Member of this House, and on which I work zero hours. There is one recording not in the register: the record by MP4, the cross-party parliamentary group, which has made almost £1 million for charity in the past 10 years. I know you have a certain affection for the recordings of MP4, Mr Speaker, and we greatly appreciate that.

Here we go again. Just when we think that the Westminster establishment could not be held in lower esteem by the public, something comes along to disabuse us of that notion. It is all so familiar: a sting operation by the media using a fake company involving some of our senior Members of Parliament and the lure of access. Underpinning it all is the possibility of cash in the hands of those Members.

[Mr Mike Weir (Angus) (SNP)]

My hon. Friend talks about cash. Does he not find it strange—it seems strange to me—that it is so simple to entrap people in this place with the lure of cash? Members do not even take simple steps to find out if these people are genuine.

[Pete Wishart]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point. The right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) made that very same observation about an almost identical sting prior to the last election, when it was then Labour Cabinet members who were caught up in a rotten affair.

The public observe this House with something approaching bemused bewilderment, concluding that the Westminster Parliament exists as little more than a self-serving institution for its overpaid Members. This Parliament has never been held in such contempt. Never has there been such a profound alienation between those who are governed and those who occupy the corridors of power. There is a massive disconnect between this House and the people of Britain. All that has happened in the past week makes that disconnect even wider. People will observe the comments from Conservative Members with something approaching disbelief. We see that reflected in how the public respond to this House—of course we do. The two major establishment parties can barely get above 60% in the polls. The public are not prepared to accept this anymore.

[Graham Jones]

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman could tell the House how many Scottish National party MSPs who are standing in the general election intend to stand down as MSPs, or will they be dual-hatted?

[Pete Wishart]

I know one, and yes he will.

This House is able to secure only 60% of popular support. That suggests to me that the people of these islands are looking for something different. They are sick and tired of the antics of this particular House. That is reflected in how they are responding to the way the Westminster establishment parties do their business. They are sick and tired of the self-justification: the special pleading; the bleating; the idea that somehow this House is enriched because Conservative Members can make some extra money; that this House is enriched because they bring outside experience to it; and that we cannot live on £67,000 a year. Tell that to our constituents! That is treble the national average wage. Our constituents are currently suffering austerity and a diminution of their annual income. They are experiencing real poverty and real difficulty, yet this House tells them that right hon. and hon. Members cannot get by on £67,000 a year.

I believe that being a Member of Parliament is a full-time job. In fact, we have got two jobs: we have our responsibilities in this House, and then we have our obligations to our constituents. Becoming a constituency Member of Parliament has changed dramatically in the 14 years that I have been here. It has become much more technical and much more complicated, with a greater amount of different tasks and skills needing to be acquired to serve members of the public efficiently and effectively. The suggestion that this can be combined with a second job with outside earnings is something I believe our constituents would find very difficult to accept.

[Sandra Osborne (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Pete Wishart]

I cannot; I have no more time left.

No SNP Member has a second job, a directorship or a place on a company. Our responsibilities here are our sole concern and our only responsibility. SNP Members serve our constituents and ensure that the agenda for the nation is progressed. That is what we do when we come here.

It is only this House among the Parliaments and legislatures of this nation that seems to have this difficulty. It is only at Westminster where there is an issue about paid directorships and second jobs. We certainly do not have such issues in the Scottish Parliament, and I do not believe they have them in the Northern Ireland Assembly or the Welsh Assembly.

I believe that there is something peculiar and particular about this House. It has something to do with the history and the culture, something to do with the sense of entitlement that almost seems to come out of the pores of this place—the idea that people came to this Chamber because it was something for them to do after their main job.

[John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Pete Wishart]

I have no time to give way.

That is what we see with this particular House. It is built into the culture and the history. We need a 21st-century institution that is equipped to deal with the Britain we currently serve. It is no good relying on these old ways of doing things; we need to look carefully and clearly at how we conduct our business. What the public are seeing is cash for access and cash for honours. The public are looking at that absurd, ridiculous place down the corridor, with 850 ermine-clad unelected Lords. That is what they are seeing in this rotten democracy.

We have a task to do if we are to ensure that we clean up this House. I will support the Labour motion, but I observe that a number of Labour Members are among the top earners when it comes to outside interests. I would say to the Labour party, “If you are sincere, do it from next week.” I really hope it goes through with this and can maintain it as a policy. We owe it to our constituents to try to ensure that we do better.

We are not part-time Members of Parliament. Looking after our constituents is a full-time job. A second job means a second master, and that second master expects something back in return. Let us make sure that we do this job exclusively on behalf of our constituents. There should be no second jobs, no paid directorships, no outside interests with a financial return. Let us work for our constituents and make them our only priority.

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Dawn Primarolo)]

Order. Will the hon. Lady sit down for a moment? I will stop the clock. I am getting a bit fed up with Members, including Whips, shouting across the Dispatch Box at Members who are speaking.

[Pete Wishart]

The Labour Whips did not shut up through my speech.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Actually, Mr Wishart, I told them off at that point as well, and made them stop, so you could conclude your speech. I was just about to say that that goes for both sides. There are strongly held views: express them strongly when you have the floor, but please do not shout at one another. Liz McInnes.

Business of the House

Pete Wishart Excerpts

Thursday 15th January 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

That was an important debate on coastal communities. It will have been an important opportunity for hon. Members, such as my hon. Friend, to raise many of the issues that come up in their constituencies. I cannot promise a further debate on these issues, but he can use all the normal means, including the Backbench Business Committee, to ask for such a debate. He is a very strong champion of coastal communities.

[Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)]

For Tuesday’s debate on Trident renewal, would it be an idea to reorganise the furniture of the House, so that we have the Westminster establishment parties of Tory and Labour on one side arguing the case for £100 billion to be spent on Trident while indulging in austerity, and the progressive alliance of Greens, Scottish National party and Plaid Cymru on the other proving the case for why that money should be spent not on weapons of mass destruction but on social programmes?

[Mr Hague]

I am sure hon. Members will be able to take part in the debate from whatever point of view and wherever they are sitting. It will not be necessary to reorganise the furniture. Of course, the basic furniture of the British constitution was supported by the people of Scotland when they voted to remain part of the United Kingdom, including those who live in the area represented by the hon. Gentleman.

House of Lords Reform

Pete Wishart Excerpts

Wednesday 14th January 2015 Westminster Hall

[Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Howarth, for this all too short debate about what we affectionately refer to as “the other place”, although it would be hard to imagine or conceive of another place like it in the world.

The House of Lords must now be about the most bizarre, absurd and ridiculous political institution anywhere in the world. Bloated, ermine coated and never been voted, it is now an affront to every sense and notion of democracy. There are now some 847 souls inhabiting the place, which makes it the largest political legislature anywhere in the world, save the National People’s Congress of China. Like the Chinese politburo, it is a stranger to democracy, but, unlike that, it cannot even claim to have a constituency or represent anyone whatever.

Who are these curious, strange people who inhabit this gold-plated, red-upholstered Narnia? The vast majority are appointed: some by an independent appointments authority, but the vast majority by the Prime Minister from lists drawn up by the three establishment Westminster parties. No other legislature in the world is composed quite like that, other than Lesotho in southern Africa.

Peers are not all appointed: 86 hereditary peers have a role in our democracy because of birth right. They can scrutinise, initiate and consider our legislation because they are the first son of a family that won a decisive battle in the middle ages. This is not an episode of “Game of Thrones”, but the fifth-largest economy in the western world.

[Mark Field (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)]

I agree with much that the hon. Gentleman has said. Does he feel that it is any less desirable for there to be the first-born son of a family who have had an hereditary peerage for six or seven generations than it is for there to be to be a large-scale donor to a political party or a superannuated council leader? That seems to be how most of the people in that House have earned their places over the past 15 years.

[Pete Wishart]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, because I have a few choice words to say about the appointees to the House of Lords. If he bears with me, I will come to those very points.

We have the hereditaries, but to make the place even more bizarre and surreal, 26 places are reserved for bishops—but not just any ordinary bishops: they have to be Church of England bishops. The House of Lords is the only legislature in the world that reserves places for clerics other than the Islamic republic of Iran.

We cannot get rid of these people; they are not allowed to retire and they are not accountable to any constituency or electorate. The only way to get rid of them is through not the public of Great Britain, but the grim reaper. One of the few House of Lords reforms there have been in this Parliament is to allow these people to retire, but only one has come forward—so we made inducements to try to get them to retire. They can now use House of Lords facilities if they choose to retire, but they still will not do it.

This is a ridiculous and absurd institution. The average age of Members of the House of Lords is now 70. How much does this political circus cost? Last year, it was almost £100 million. Our friends in the House of Lords do not come cheap—of course, they should not. They can claim £300 a day just for turning up to work. If that is too much trouble for them, they can claim £150 a day for working from home. The average peer—if there is such a thing—now costs a cool £28,000.

Some of them do work hard. We have lots of examples of hard-working peers who turn up diligently, day after day, to put in the work, but all too many of them do practically nothing for the money they are given by the taxpayer. I do not want to pick on my Scottish peer colleagues, but I had a cursory glance at the activity list of some of them who notionally, I believe, look after Scottish interests in the House of Lords. Again, although some are diligent, hard-working individuals, all too many do practically nothing for this taxpayer largesse.

[Mark Field]

In this debate, it is important that we look beyond House of Lords composition. The hon. Gentleman refers to Scottish interests being looked after by Scottish peers, but that is not their purpose. They do not have a constituency interest; they are there to scrutinise legislation. Will he go into a little detail about some of the worthy work done by a significant number of peers—perhaps not all 800 or so, but certainly several hundred of them—who play that important role even though they have no representative interests?

[Pete Wishart]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I beg for patience once again, because I am trying to paint some background on the activities of the House of Lords and the nature of its Chamber. I do want to come on to that point, but it is important that the taxpayers of the country understand the type of service that they get for the £100 million paid annually to sustain these people. Some of them work hard, as he said, but some do next to nothing.

It is right and proper that we should look at these people, because we cannot get rid of them or do anything about them. They are not accountable to any constituency. Just as the hon. Gentleman and I, as parliamentarians, are scrutinised, it is right that we should look at the activities of our colleagues and friends in the House of Lords to assess whether we get value for money.

That brings me back to the Scottish peers. They do not represent any constituency, but when Scottish colleagues and I turn up to events—I see that the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Mark Lazarowicz) is here—we always see Scottish Lords in attendance, and again and again they tell us that our interests are looked after in the House of Lords on that basis. However, what we find is that Baroness Adams of Craigielea has claimed an eye-watering £50,000 but spoken in only two debates and never asked a written question since entering the Lords in 2005. Lord Kirkham has cost us £49,239, but spoken in no debates and asked no written questions. Further down the list, there is our noble friend Lord Elder who has cost us £50,000, spoken in two debates and asked no questions. He did, though, as a good public servant, serve on the refreshments committee between 2008 and 2013.

That brings me to the impeccable, cultured tastes of their lordships. In the past four years, they have got through some 17,000 bottles of fine champagne, which cost more than £260,000.

[Mr George Howarth (in the Chair)]

Order. I refer the hon. Gentleman to the advice in “Erskine May” on reference to Members of the House of Lords. It says:

“It is considered undesirable that any member of the House of Lords should be mentioned by name, or otherwise identified, for the purpose of criticism of a personal…nature.”

It is, of course, in order for the hon. Gentleman to talk about what those Members do, how they are appointed and so on, but he is probably straying into inadvisable territory.

[Pete Wishart]

I am grateful, Mr Howarth, and I promise not to do it again.

On champagne, it seems that the House of Lords rejected the vulgar variety served in the House of Commons; according to a former Clerk,

“the Lords feared that the quality of champagne would not be as good if they chose a joint service”

with the House of Commons. That was reported to the House of Commons Governance Committee. The astonished Chair, the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw), said:

“Did you make that up?”

The former Clerk assured him that he did not.

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Office of the Leader of the House of Commons (Tom Brake)]

Will the hon. Gentleman clarify that the champagne in the House of Lords is not free? It is paid for.

[Pete Wishart]

I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman clarified that: the champagne is not free—but by God it seems that our friends in the House of Lords certainly like to quaff a good number of bottles of it over the course of a year.

It would be wrong and remiss of me, however, to claim that the House of Lords was totally undemocratic. That is not the case and I would not like to mislead this House in that respect. The Lords do have elections, when the earls, the dukes, the ladies, the lords and the barons—the hereditary peers of the realm—get together and have one of their now regular by-elections to decide which among their number should continue to rule over us. It must be the weirdest constituency in the world—the most privileged and aristocratic electorate to be found anywhere.

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing the debate. He is waxing lyrical in his diatribe against the House of Lords and many of his sentiments will be shared across the nation. Perhaps he is coming on to this in his speech, but does he agree about the need for a more democratised revising Chamber or would he dismiss it entirely?

[Pete Wishart]

I am not a unicameralist, believe it or not; a nation as complex and large as the United Kingdom needs a functioning supervisory Chamber. I will come on to suggest—I hope the hon. Gentleman bears with me—how we might make progress. This debate is about House of Lords reform, which I promise him I will come to.

What is unacceptable, however, and what the British people should put up with no longer, is that circus down in the other place, with the ridiculous spectacle of lords, ladies, deference, forelock-tugging and the rest of it. We need a properly equipped legislature designed for the 21st century—not one designed for the middle ages, something out of the 14th century. I will come to that and to the clear principles that I wish to establish.

[Mark Field]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Pete Wishart]

I will give way to the hon. Gentleman one last time; I have been generous to him. I want to hear his speech.

[Mark Field]

The hon. Gentleman has been extremely generous. He referred to the anachronistic election procedure for hereditary peers, but does he not recognise that that whole mechanism was put in place to ensure that the piecemeal reforms of 1999 were not the end of the matter? The sort of reforms that he and I would both support are perhaps more wholesale, but they require having the anachronistic hereditary element. Let us get rid of the entirety of what we have at the moment—sweep the whole thing away—but without the anachronism, there would probably be a reluctance to do the sort of radical reform that he and I would support.

[Pete Wishart]

As a result of the House of Lords Act 1999, the vast majority of the hereditaries were removed, but we are still left with 86 or so, which has always been considered unfinished business. Action has been a long time coming; they are still there—we still have people who have a role in our democracy due to birthright. That is unacceptable. We are all democrats in this House. We cannot allow people to have a role in our democracy because they are the first son of their family.

We might laugh, and it is easy to poke fun at an institution that is so singularly absurd and bizarre, but there is a sinister role in the activities of the House of Lords. It is sinister and open to abuse because it is an appointed Chamber. We do not bother with the whole exercise of letting the public decide and construct the Chamber down the road; instead, we leave it up to politicians—and the temptation for politicians is to stuff it full of their friends, cronies and placemen.

If we need an elderly Member of Parliament to move on for a dynamic, thrusting, new young Member, give the old one a place in the House of Lords. That dynamic, thrusting young Member might lose his seat—I am looking at the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg), although he did not take a place in the Lords—so let us cushion the blow and let him continue with his political career by giving him a place in the House of Lords. All too commonly we find that that is how the House of Lords is being used and abused. It is a place for cronies, placemen and time-servers. That is not good enough.

Even that is not what bothers me in particular. The thing that concerns me most, and which should concern everyone in this House, are the donors—people who have a place in our democracy, in the second Chamber of Parliament, whose only qualification seems to be that they are able to give substantial and significant sums to one of the three main establishment Westminster parties. Those are the people who trouble me and who should trouble the rest of the United Kingdom, because lots of people appointed by the political parties seem to have no ability other than to manufacture large sums of cash to sustain those political parties. That is not good enough.

My hon. Friend the Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil), who I was hoping could be with us this morning, tested that issue to its legal limit in the previous Parliament. He looked at the situation in the House of Lords, saw connections with the highest levels of the then Labour Government and said, “There is something wrong here.” He then asked the Metropolitan police to investigate, and we had one of the most dramatic political police operations of recent years—the “cash for honours” investigation.

We saw a sitting Prime Minister, Tony Blair, being questioned by police and the arrest of his chief fundraiser and other members of his staff. Charges were dropped—none were brought—not because there was no case to answer or because a clean bill of health was presented, but because no evidence was found. The Crown Prosecution Service felt that it could not proceed with the case. We can all make up our minds about the type of influence that can be exerted on the CPS and the Metropolitan police to drop such a dynamic case. However, the situation was never given a clean bill of health and outstanding issues remain on donations to parties.

All we have to do is to look at the list of appointments to the House of Lords, such as that from last year. Those recently ennobled made a total contribution of £7 million to the three establishment Westminster parties. After cash for honours and something as dramatic as that police investigation, we might have thought that that place would be beyond reproach, that the Lords would have cleaned up their act and that there would be no suggestion, or even a whiff, of any type of abuse or wrongdoing. Not a bit of it! It would seem that they cannot change those ermine spots. Since then, we have had peers banged up in jail for abuse of expenses, cash for influence, cash for amendments and even some cash for honours.

The three biggest donors to the Liberal party—there are no Liberals here, so I am sorry if I am picking on them, Mr Howarth—[Interruption.] Sorry, the Deputy Leader of the House is here. This is something he might to pick up on. The three biggest donors to the Liberals, who just so happen to provide two fifths of the party’s donations, were given peerages by the Deputy Prime Minister. That forced a peer who has now departed, Lord Oakeshott, to concede that cash for honours was still very much alive and that, in his own words,

“my efforts to expose and end cash for peerages in all parties, including our own, and help get the Lords elected have failed.”

The House of Lords, because of its nature, because it is an appointed body and because it does not bother to go through the whole process of elections to be accountable to constituencies is rife with such abuse and activity. The British public deserve better. They deserve a scrutinising Chamber that is beyond reproach, that is democratically decided and that they can get rid of if they are unhappy with its activities.

Our political institutions have never been held in such contempt by the British public. We see that day in, day out. Trust and confidence in the Westminster establishment, the Westminster elite who run this place, has never been lower and that establishment has never been held in such low esteem by the British public. I suggest that when the public observe an undemocratic, ermine-ridden House like the one down the road, it compounds their strong sense of alienation from the whole process of Government.

[Mark Lazarowicz (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab/Co-op)]

I should tell the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members that I am going to a Committee sitting shortly, so I will not be able to hear the end of the debate. I agree with practically everything the hon. Gentleman has said. Does he agree that any revising Chamber that remains should be 100% elected by proportional representation, so that it will also be a powerful check and balance on an over-mighty Government elected, as at present, by the undemocratic first-past-the-post system?

[Pete Wishart]

I know the hon. Gentleman’s record on these issues. He has been a big advocate of House of Lords reform, and I congratulate him on his efforts. I agree with him. I disagree, however, with the Labour party’s position on the issue. I debated it on television last night, in advance of this debate, and the Labour position—I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman buys into it; we might hear about it from the shadow Minister—is like a secondary mandate, whereby the institutions of the United Kingdom somehow decide among themselves who should inhabit the second Chamber. I am interested to hear more—the shadow Minister is shaking his head, and we will hear from him exactly what the Labour party’s plan is—but that was suggested in the House of Lords when I watched a debate on it. I am sure that the shadow Minister has his plan, but the second Chamber should be elected, as the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith suggested. There is no substitute for democracy. We live in a democratic country, culture and society, so of course our Houses have to be elected.

Things have to change; they cannot go on as they are. We have tried to reform and democratise the place, but every effort over the past 20 years has failed. This might be hard for its 850-odd Members—likely to be 1,000 in the next Parliament—but it is now time to concede that the whole place is unreformable. It is time to rip the whole thing up and start again. That is the only way we can get reform.

As I have said, I believe that we need a second Chamber. We are a large and complex democracy, with asymmetrical devolution to all parts of the United Kingdom. I am open to any suggestion or plan for progress, but I do not think that it is for me, an oiky Nat Back Bencher, to suggest to the great and the good of the Westminster establishment parties the sort of model for reform that should be adopted. That is not my job—I will leave it to the great minds we see assembled on the Front Benches today to try to determine a way through. I am going to suggest several principles that I believe have to underpin a brand-new institution as we go forward.

The first principle, as the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith said, is that the revising Chamber must be exclusively democratic. We can no longer go forward with an appointed institution, and we certainly cannot have an institution with Members who are there only because of their family. That cannot go on—it has to be based on democratic principles.

Let me tell hon. Members something embarrassing about this situation. I am a governor of the Westminster Foundation for Democracy, a task that I take very seriously because the foundation does fantastic work. I go around the world to speak in emerging democracies, to encourage good governance and support multi-party democracy as much as I possibly can. How can we give that message when we have the embarrassment of that undemocratic institution down the road? How dare we try to suggest to developing nations—countries that are struggling with democratic principles—that they emulate the United Kingdom? Are we asking them to get Lords or jump around like Santa Claus in their red cloaks? That embarrasses this nation. It is an embarrassment to me and to anybody else who does that work on behalf of this country around the world. The first principle, then, is that the revising Chamber must be absolutely democratic. That should go without saying.

The second principle is that its membership must be in proportion to the main Chamber. It is preposterous that we have a second Chamber of such a size, with 847 Members, soon probably to be 1,000. Its size must be in proportion to the main Chamber. I suggest that it should be a quarter to a third of its current size—anything between 200 and 250 Members should be sufficient for the task required of it.

That brings me to my third principle, which is also important: the role of the new Chamber should be clearly defined. My view is that that role should be exclusively scrutiny and supervision. I am unhappy when I see Bills initiated in an undemocratic House. During this Parliament, we have considered quite a few Bills that were initiated in the House of Lords and I am not happy about that. I do not think it right—elected Members should initiate legislation and design and shape it. Please, yes, let the other Chamber scrutinise and have a look at it, tell us when we have it wrong and improve it if necessary, but the second Chamber should be supervisory.

One reason why House of Lords reform failed a couple of years ago was the spurious fear of Conservative Members who suggested that any elected Chamber would be a challenge to the supremacy of the main elected House—as if that would be a bad thing and that a little bit of a challenge would not actually help the elected Members of the House of Commons. Myself and the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith are Members for Scottish constituencies and share constituents with MSPs—we even share constituencies with list MSPs. That spurs me on to make sure I do better, and I am sure that it is the same for the hard-working hon. Gentleman. The nonsense about having competition for the main House is spurious, but if we clearly define the roles and functions of distinctive and separate Houses, it would lay that issue to bed.

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

I commend the hon. Gentleman on securing this debate. When it comes to Lords reform, as he says, many Members of the House of Commons profess themselves to be very precious about the democratic integrity and authority of the House. However, they do not seem to be as precious about that when it comes not just to allowing Bills to be initiated in the Lords, but to allowing that the key amendments to Bills be passed there; even when there is a will for those amendments in the Commons, it consistently defers to the House of Lords to produce them.

[Pete Wishart]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. There is increasing use of the House of Lords as a Chamber that puts through Government amendments. He and I—and the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mark Field)—sat through five days of proceedings on the Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill. I have always thought that I was elected by the people of Perth and North Perthshire to scrutinise and try to improve legislation, but we were told that that was going to be done in the House of Lords, and the Bill would come back to us amended. The use of the House of Lords for the Government amendment of Bills is inappropriate and has to end. If we properly align our two different Chambers and make sure they are properly distinct, those sorts of issues would end.

My last principle is one I mentioned in response to the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell): get shot of the deference and the 13th century institutions, which are something like “Game of Thrones”. This is the 21st century, for goodness’ sake. We need our democracy and its institutions to reflect the age that we live in. Forelock-tugging, curtseying and having lords, ladies, barons, dukes and earls is all nonsense—get rid of it. It is absolutely absurd and ridiculous. Let us have a modern functioning democratic Chamber that looks and feels like the community and society that we serve. If we can get that, we will be making real progress.

Those are my principles for how we should establish a new and democratic Chamber to look after legislation. As I said, it is not up to an oiky Back-Bench MP to try to suggest the model, although I am attracted to the idea of using the European electoral regions as a basis for an election by proportional representation, as the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith suggested, for the 200 or 250 Members we require.

I have been on my feet for half an hour, so I will finish. We are coming up to an election, and every time we do, manifestos are stuffed full of promises to reform the Lords. We have had it all before. The Labour party is the great reformer this time around. I listened carefully to the Leader of the Opposition setting out his stall in that respect a few short weeks ago. Do it this time. Just do it! Labour had 13 years in power. Although it made some progress when it got rid of the hereditaries, more is required.

I must say to the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby that Labour has not been particularly good in its relationship with the House of Lords: it was the Labour party that oversaw cash for honours. If he has concerns about the House of Lords, particularly its bloated nature, the first thing that the hon. Gentleman might want to do is stop putting people in it. Just stop it! There is no need to make a bloated House even bigger. The Conservatives have different issues with and attitudes towards the House of Lords, so they will probably continue to put people in it, but the Labour party needs to stop stuffing that place full with more cronies and donors. That is the first thing that the Labour party should do demonstrate that this time it is serious about House of Lords reform.

I hope that, in the next Parliament, we can at last to make some real progress in ending this farce. It is a circus. It is not fit for purpose. It is anachronistic. It is ridiculous, absurd and bizarre. We need to ensure that it can do a proper job of scrutinising the activities of this House. Let us get rid of the whole shooting match and start again; let us put in place something that is fit for purpose and that the whole nation can be proud of.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

I recognise, as does the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mark Field), that in the context of the crying need for House of Lords reform, it is easy to caricature the contribution made by all the Members of that Chamber. I recognise from my time in Parliament the worth of the work of some Members of the House of Lords. Nevertheless, that does not detract from the pressing need for significant reform.

Unlike the hon. Gentleman, I do not necessarily believe in a unicameral legislature at the level of a full sovereign state. There was recently a proposal to abolish the Senate of the Irish Republic, and I am among those who believed in retaining the second Chamber. However, the House of Lords needs significant reform, because it works on a strange electoral college system and is far from democratic and responsive. It is not the most satisfactory way to carry out the proper role of a revising Chamber.

In introducing this useful debate, the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) rightly made a number of observations about the fact that everybody says they are committed to House of Lords reform. For more than a century now, the law of the land has been committed to House of Lords reform. Every time there are significant proposals in that direction, everybody ends up putting their own versions of reform, to show that they are on the side of reform; the situation is almost engineered to be a penalty shootout in which nobody actually scores. We just stay with what we already have, the only difference being that even more people are packed on to the Benches.

That is true even in this Parliament, which saw the House of Lords Reform Bill. We should remember that that Bill was passed on Second Reading with a significant majority; it ended up being pulled not because there was no support for it but because of a difficulty over a programme or timetable motion.

If people had been serious about reform, they could simply have come back with a different programme motion. If the Government really believed that the Opposition were being cynical and were conspiring with Tory rebel Back-Benchers on the programme motion, the Deputy Prime Minister could have brought back another programme motion and built into it measures and ample time to allow for specific consideration of the issues that Labour said were its main points of concern.

The Government could have met the obstacle full on. That would have done not only justice to the clear demand that exists for House of Lords reform but a lot of good for the credibility of the Commons Chamber.

[Pete Wishart]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, because he reminds us of the period when we last looked at this issue. In fact, the problem was more than that—there was actually a spat between both partners in the coalition, which ensured that the Bill fell. Why should an issue as important as House of Lords reform depend on the two partners in government not falling out with each other over a timetable motion?

[Mark Durkan]

I fully accept what the hon. Gentleman says; of course, that “spat”, as he calls it, related to the parallel or concurrent legislation that had been produced about the voting system and constituencies. That legislation turned out to be a case of premature miscalculation on the part of the Liberal Democrats. They wanted a Second Reading debate by the time of their first party conference in government and they wanted the Bill passed by the time of their second such conference—but, of course, the linked issues in and around Lords reform ended up meeting difficulty. Then, because of some other issues to do with the constituency changes, it was deemed easier to pull the House of Lords Reform Bill in a sort of fit of pique or a broad political huff than it was properly to pursue Lords reform, which we all say we support.

As you know, Mr Howarth, I come to this debate as a constitutional Irish nationalist. I have already said that I believe in having a second Chamber in the context of the Irish constitution. One factor that I have always believed the Seanad Eireann was able to accommodate, although it was not allowed to accommodate it as well as it should have done, is the position and the outlook of those members of the Irish nation who do not live within the 26 counties of the Irish Republic, not least those in Northern Ireland. Similarly, in the context of considering proposals about how to take forward a debate on a united Ireland after the Good Friday agreement—with its principles and promises, as ratified in a solemn act of articulated self-determination by the Irish people, north and south—my party has made it clear that in the event of a referendum in Northern Ireland ever bringing about a united Ireland, we would equally see the case for a reformed second Chamber here in the British Parliament accommodating and representing people from Northern Ireland who believed that they were part of the body politic of the British nation and who wanted to continue to be identified here as well. So, if the test in politics is, “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you,” we meet that test. That is one of the reasons why, as Irish nationalists, we are interested in this issue.

I am not particularly obsessed with the feng shui of arranging the various bits of furniture of the British constitution, even though I find myself shanghaied as a member of the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee into considering it. However, as an Irish nationalist with my own outlook and hopes, I have a legitimate and valid interest in House of Lords reform in terms of a future role for a reformed second Chamber here in Parliament.

As I said in an intervention on the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire one of the things that frustrates me as a Member of the House of Commons is the fact that whenever voting reform of the House of Commons is proposed, time and again, many hon. Members—from all parties—step up to say that they are opposed to particular types of voting reform and that they are also opposed to electing a House of Lords, because they feel that such an elected second Chamber would somehow undermine the elected authority of the House of Commons.

Yet, at the same time, those Members are consistently prepared to engage in a dereliction of the legislative duty of the House of Commons by constantly deferring to the House of Lords when it comes to reforms. In this Parliament, that might be related to possible whipping challenges and the difficulties of getting some amendments through or allowing them through at the hands of the rebels and to saying, “Well, it’s easier if we come up with a recooked version of those amendments in the House of Lords.”

The situation was the same in the last Parliament. Then, although the Labour Government did not face those difficulties, again and again, it seemed to be the automatic convention that if they accepted that the case for an amendment had been made in the Commons, the due place for it to be made was not the Commons itself but the Lords.

Significantly, among the few amendments that were actually made to Government Bills in the Commons in the last Parliament were amendments to the Parliamentary Standards Act 2009. The right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve) managed to get an amendment made by a majority of just three votes. It was also in the context of the 2009 Act that I got an amendment directly accepted by the Government for the only time. The amendment inserted a reference to Her Majesty’s Customs and Revenue into the Bill. Any reference to HMRC had been completely omitted before that, even though we could all consider the tax dimensions of the expenses scandal. The Government accepted the principle of one amendment but said that they would work up a better version of it in the Lords. However, they fully accepted another amendment.

That situation is a rarity, and it is a scandal that in an elected legislative Chamber, where our main job is meant to be to act as legislators and to provide due elective consideration, we are so derelict in our duty in relation to making amendments. That is why the House of Lords is credited with making an exaggerated number of amendments and why its status as a revising Chamber is inflated by comparison with the dereliction of duty in the Commons.

Changing that situation would lead to a challenge to the Whips system and, indeed, to Members of the Commons themselves. Let us remember that although it is easy to caricature Members of the House of Lords in the way that the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire did in introducing this debate, reform of the House of Lords would lead to a significant change in the role and work load of the Commons Chamber, too, and of individual MPs. Whether or not we end up with any significant mechanism for recall or any other such reform, the fact is that we—as individual Members of that primary elected Chamber—will need to take responsibility. It would not take a conspiracy theorist to suggest that some of the reluctance about House of Lords reform that exists could be because people are not prepared to adjust to the changes and the new requirements that would then extend to them in the elected Chamber.

Devolution (Implications for England)

Pete Wishart Excerpts

Tuesday 16th December 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

I also believe that they should be concurrent. The commitment is to legislation at the beginning of the next Parliament to implement the recommendations of the Smith commission, and it will be a commitment met, I believe, by whoever wins the general election. I hope that then, before then or by then, decisions will be made on the implications of devolution for England, so that the processes will indeed be concurrent.

[Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)]

The Leader of the House will of course know that the Scottish National party does not vote on English-only issues. [Hon. Members: “You did last night.”] We think that that is quite an easy principle to observe, and if the Leader of the House had bothered to pick up the phone, we could have told him how it could be done. Will he assure me that any legislation will not be tied, will not be conditional, will not be in tandem, and will not be concurrent with any consideration of more powers for the Scottish Parliament?

[Mr Hague]

I respect the fact that the Scottish National party does not usually vote on such issues, although I think that it breaks that self-imposed rule now and again. [Laughter.] I was putting it politely. However, there is nothing conditional about any of these proposals. We have made it clear time and again—the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister and, I believe, the Leader of the Opposition have made it clear—that the implementation of the Smith commission proposals is not linked to any other constitutional change in any other part of the United Kingdom. Of course we can express the wish, on our part, that we will deal with the issues concurrently, but they are not conditional and not tied.

Business of the House

Pete Wishart Excerpts

Thursday 4th December 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

I have listened carefully to my right hon. Friend. Of course, the House has just had a debate on these matters, so I cannot promise an immediate debate, but I know that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will be determined to keep the House up to date on the progress of the inquiry, and I will tell her about my right hon. Friend’s remarks. After the difficulties with the previous two chairs, the Home Secretary is determined to ensure that the inquiry has the credibility and confidence of which my right hon. Friend rightly speaks. That has to be ensured in the appointment of the chair and the way the panel works together, and I will certainly encourage the Home Secretary to keep the House fully informed and up to date.

[Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)]

One of the most impressive features of the independence referendum was the participation of 16 and 17-year-olds, who made such a solid contribution to the national debate. The Smith commission proposes devolving electoral administration to the Scottish Government, meaning that 16 and 17-year-olds could be enfranchised for Scottish elections, but there are concerns it might not happen in time for 2016. Will the Leader of the House work with the Scottish Government to ensure that it will take place, including by considering a further section 30 order?

[Mr Hague]

The Secretary of State for Scotland referred to that matter in his statement, so I think the hon. Gentleman has already had a clear answer. Whatever side we argued on in the independence referendum, we are all clear that young people played an active part and took their duty to vote extremely seriously, but I do not want to add anything further to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the other day, because I think he dealt with the matter definitively.

Devolution and the Union

Pete Wishart Excerpts

Thursday 20th November 2014 Commons Chamber

[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—

[Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)]

Will the hon. Lady give way on that point? She cannot get away from it.

[Mrs Main]

I can get away from it—I can ask the hon. Gentleman to sit down. My constituents are as much in need of services as any other constituents. [Interruption.] If he wishes to make his speech when he gets to have his turn, fair enough, but please stop barracking me from the Opposition Benches. My constituents are entitled to expect a decent level of services, and it is hard to provide that when the formula is so skewed in the way that it is. We should look at it and review it.

[Pete Wishart]

On that point—

[Mrs Main]

I think I have made it clear to the hon. Gentleman that I do not intend to give way on the Barnett formula; my constituents are very exercised about it. St Albans city & district council—Conservative-led—has frozen council tax for the seventh year in a row, but people cannot expect to have money come out of nowhere. My constituents find it difficult when they see people north of the border having far more money spent on their services.

People have talked about respecting the views of Scotland when it voted on independence. It is a shame the SNP does not do that, because it seems as though this is a “neverendum” campaign—it is as though the vote never happened. It is as though it has just been a blip on the road to still delivering independence. So may I say to SNP Members that the vote was lost? They may not have noticed that. Its new leader—as of today—has said recently:

“I want this party of ours, this movement of which we’re so proud to belong, to keep making the case for Scotland being an independent country.”

As such a large amount of Scots’ money has been spent on this—about £14 million, I believe—may I suggest that we rest the matter for a while and now try to address the democratic deficit that has come out of it? The campaign for independence was lost and now we have to ask how we get a good deal for Scotland; as was promised.

The deal that was promised by all three leaders was that Scotland would have new powers and a fair deal under a Barnett formula or something like a Barnett formula—I do not know what it will be called. Inevitably, as has been said, times move on. The argument has moved on from all the power being here to the power being shared out by those who best know how to use it—I am sure the Scots would not object to that description—for their own local communities, so that shows that the argument has moved on from independence. It is time we drop the “neverendum” campaign, constantly dangling the prospect of independence, and say, “Let us get the right deal and the right formula.” That right formula must be obtained for constituencies such as mine, which say that it is not fair that people in Scotland who have no interest in the stamp duty in St Albans may have a say on it, whereas my constituency will have no say on stamp duty levels in Scotland. Let us recognise that democratic deficit. Let us ensure that we have a fair deal. I cannot see why anyone on the Opposition Benches would argue against a fair deal for their constituencies in England—they would have to explain to their own electorate why they would like to remain in an unfair scenario created as a result of the referendum vote.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Reid]

The coalition agreement has been adhered to. At my party’s conference in October—it is usually in September, but the SNP chose a date that falls during our conference for the referendum—we passed a motion that the Barnett formula would be continued. The hon. Gentleman is correct that we had a different policy in the past, but we have a democratic policy-making process in our party, and the party, through its democratic policy-making processes at our annual conference, has voted that the Barnett formula should continue.

[Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)]

That is all right then.

[Mr Reid]

Yes, it is all right. That is a point on which we agree, but it is about the only one.

Where I do agree with the movers of the motion is that the West Lothian question must be addressed. There is clearly an unfairness that I, as a Scottish MP, can vote on health, education and other matters as they affect England, but not in my own constituency. Clearly, that must be addressed. The only way to do that is to set up a federal system for the United Kingdom.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Glen]

No, I will make some more progress. All sides of the debate acknowledge that there are disparities in per capita spending across the UK regions.

[Pete Wishart]

For the sake of clarity, as lots of people in Scotland are watching the debate, are Conservative Back Benchers saying that this Parliament subsidises Scotland through the Barnett formula? Are we subsidy junkies according to the Tories?

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Gerald Howarth]

My hon. Friend makes a valid point. I think that one of the factors that influenced the campaign in the end was my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister speaking directly to the Scottish people about his passion for retaining the Union and his belief in the importance of Scotland.

Unlike my namesake, the right hon. Member for Knowsley (Mr Howarth), I do not sense that there is any enormous appetite in England for a change in our constitutional arrangements. In particular, I do not believe there is the appetite mentioned by the Local Government Association for devolution of further powers to the English regions. Aldershot certainly does not have that appetite, but it may exist in Knowsley.

[Pete Wishart]

Is it the view of Tory Back Benchers, therefore, that the vow is not even worth the price of the paper it was written on?

[Sir Gerald Howarth]

That is a very stupid question. The constitutional point is that the leaders of the three parties made a commitment, but they are not in a position to deliver upon that commitment, because it is both Houses of Parliament that make the laws. We do not live in a state where it is the divine right of kings to rule. It is subject to the will of Parliament, and Parliament therefore has to decide on these matters.

[Pete Wishart]

rose—

[Sir Gerald Howarth]

No, the question is so silly that it is not worth responding to again.

I do not believe there is any real appetite for change in England. My principal concern—I am sure it is shared right across the House, apart from by SNP Members—is the maintenance of the Union. I am a Conservative and Unionist. I believe profoundly in the Union. I went to Scotland—my wife went on holiday in the south of France, but I could not be out of the country when the future of my kingdom was at stake. I am a former Defence Minister and I believe that the repercussions for defence, had Scotland gone its own way, would have been catastrophic for England. England would have been diminished. I believe that we are enhanced as a nation by having Scotland as part of this great kingdom.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)]

It is always a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil). I am surprised he has been able to speak in this debate, because he has been telling everyone that the SNP was restricted to one speaker. As I understand it, he actually applied to speak some time ago. Perhaps we can get a bit of reality into these debates, because they are incredibly important. I am very grateful to the hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab) for securing the debate, because it is very important that we discuss these matters in the light of the independence referendum.

I would like to reflect on the comments made by the hon. Member for Moray (Angus Robertson), who is not in his place. He made what I think was a rather disingenuous speech, saying that he was speaking in this House on behalf of 1.6 million people. I thought he would be representing his constituents. I will be speaking for everyone in Scotland, because that is what we are here to do. We are not here to rule out those who voted yes or those who voted no. I hope he will think about that.

Devolution has changed the country for the better, and Labour is the only party that has consistently been the party of devolution. The Conservatives were against it in 1997 when one of the first Bills in Tony Blair’s first Government was for a referendum. Thankfully the Bill was agreed by a large margin and the Scottish Parliament came into being. The previous Labour Government set up the Calman commission to put in place the next stage of devolution, and that journey has continued: the Scotland Act 2012 will be implemented in stages up to 2016, and in recent weeks, the Scottish Finance Minister has announced the devolution of stamp duty and landfill tax and what that tax landscape will look like.

Devolution has always been a journey, and Labour has always been the party of devolution. That is why I am surprised by the motion. My hon. Friend the Member for Dudley North (Ian Austin) gave some superb examples of how devolution could help the English regions. However, this area is so complex that I cannot understand why some Members will not accept the need for a constitutional convention. It is incredibly important. If we learned anything from the referendum it was that when we involve people they tend to get engaged to ensure we do what is right for local communities. If politicians cook up something in this place, it will not be accepted around the country, which is why a constitutional convention is the most important thing.

For that reason, it was disappointing when the Prime Minister stepped out of Downing street before it was even light, after the results of the referendum, and completely trashed what had been said to him as the results were coming through. The vow was clearly in place. It said we would keep the Barnett formula and that more powers would be devolved to the Scottish Parliament. Crucially, however, the cross-party Smith commission, which has Liberal Democrat, Conservative, Labour, Scottish nationalist and Green representation, has been set up and is due to deliver a negotiated settlement on time. I was incredibly disappointed, therefore, that the hon. Member for Moray, when pressed, did not say that he was looking forward to the Smith commission or that he would abide by its conclusions. It sounded as though he was hinting that he might agitate, even though it will be a negotiated settlement.

It is up to us as politicians to listen to what the people of Scotland said, and they said they wanted to stay within the UK and that they wanted more powers for the Scottish Parliament.

[Pete Wishart]

rose—

[Ian Murray]

I am happy to give way to the hon. Gentleman, but only if he makes a relevant point, not a frivolous one, as he has been doing.

[Pete Wishart]

I will try to do my best for the hon. Gentleman. When the former leader of the Labour party in Scotland, Johann Lamont, left her position, she muttered something about a branch office and the dinosaurs in this place. Does he recognise any dinosaurs among his hon. Friends?

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[The First Secretary of State and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr William Hague)]

It has indeed been an interesting, lively and, in the main, good-tempered debate, with one or two reminders from the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart) to other Members to be good tempered and well informed, which seemed to be successful. Many hon. Members, including the shadow Leader of the House, referred to the sense of alienation and powerlessness that many voters and observers of politics feel, and I think that is true. It is very important that we grasp that and respond to it. It will be important in the months ahead to have further detailed and substantial debates in the House about these matters.

I will try in the short time available to respond to as many of the points that have been made as I can, leaving a few moments for my hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab) to respond to the debate, which I congratulate him on launching, with the support of the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field).

I disagreed with much of what the hon. Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr Godsiff) said, but he did call for a smaller House of Commons. I hope that the next time that comes up for debate, all parties will vote in favour of the proposals, as some of them failed to do so in the course of this Parliament. My hon. Friend the Member for St Albans (Mrs Main) said that a logical conclusion of what is happening in Scotland and Wales is that a democratic deficit in England has to be addressed. I think that is absolutely true, and I will move on to what should be done about it in a moment.

The right hon. Member for Knowsley (Mr Howarth) spoke convincingly and constructively about how cities and counties have sometimes underperformed and how they can take on greater responsibilities. Just before this debate I met many of the leaders of the core cities, including representatives from Liverpool, to discuss, building on what has now been agreed with the Manchester authorities, how we can imaginatively pursue greater decentralisation, with greater accountability among the cities, city regions and regions that include rural areas, because this is not just about metropolitan Britain.

I believe that there is an opportunity for an exciting cross-party agenda on that. We might differ from one party to another on the pace or detail, but the time has come for a general recognition in this country, and in all parts of the United Kingdom, including Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, that decentralisation towards local government is the way forward. That has not been pursued by the Scottish Government, and I hope that they will do so, just as we are doing in England.

My hon. Friend the Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr Reid) stressed the importance of honouring the timetable of commitments to Scotland. It is important to stress that the timetable is being honoured. The Government published the Command Paper on further devolution to Scotland ahead of schedule, setting out the proposals from each party. Lord Smith of Kelvin is overseeing a cross-party process to produce an agreed set of proposals by the end of this month—in the next 10 days. Based on those proposals, the Government will publish draft clauses by 25 January so that the legislation is ready to be implemented after the next general election.

The hon. Member for Moray (Angus Robertson), who spoke for the SNP, remarked on the election of the First Minister; indeed, I congratulate her and wish her well. He said that change in Scotland should not be dependent on dealing with the West Lothian question. It is not dependent on that; it is an unconditional commitment by all three of the United Kingdom parties. I know that the SNP is almost longing for it not to be an unconditional commitment, but it is.

[Pete Wishart]

rose—

[Mr Hague]

I will give way briefly but I must make progress.

[Pete Wishart]

Can the right hon. Gentleman clear this up once and for all? The hon. Member for Aldershot (Sir Gerald Howarth) said that the vow is not worth the paper it was written on because it was not agreed by Parliament. What is the right hon. Gentleman’s message to his Back Benchers? Is it that the vow is something that is promised and guaranteed or that, as the hon. Member for Aldershot says, it is not worth the paper it is written on?

[Sir Gerald Howarth]

rose—

Business of the House

Pete Wishart Excerpts

Thursday 20th November 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

Yes, I do agree with that, absolutely. There is no harm in having debates on the subject even at this stage, and I welcome the Back-Bench business debate on devolution and the Union that will take place later today. However, my right hon. Friend is absolutely right: it will be necessary for us to have further debates. The Smith commission is committed to reporting before the end of this month, the work of our Cabinet Committee continues, and the arguments on these issues develop, so I am sure that the House will need a major debate on them within the next couple of months.

[Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)]

The motion for the debate to which the right hon. Gentleman refers was signed by 80 of his Back-Bench colleagues. Among other things, it calls for a review of the Barnett formula. He, I and everyone else know that the Prime Minister is a signatory to a vow—a solemn promise and guarantee to the Scottish people—that includes a reference to the Barnett formula being maintained. Can we expect the Government to join the Scottish National party in voting down the motion today, and if not, why not?

[Mr Hague]

The Government’s position is already very clear and will not change, although it may serve the interests of the Scottish National party to keep pretending that it will change. This is a very clear commitment indeed from all three leaders of the main pro-UK political parties. Our position on this is absolutely clear, and I will restate it in the debate this afternoon. The Prime Minister is before the Liaison Committee at this moment, and if he is asked about this, he will restate the position, too, so there is no doubt about it, and the Scottish nationalists should stop pretending that there is.

Business of the House

Pete Wishart Excerpts

Thursday 6th November 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

That is an important issue for the future of our country and its energy supplies. My hon. Friend will actually have a good opportunity to raise the matter further in a couple of minutes, when we have the annual energy statement.

[Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)]

May we have a debate on the impact of the Tory obsession with leaving Europe on the family of nations throughout the United Kingdom? If big brother England votes to leave the EU but the smaller members of the family vote to stay, we will be treated like upstart children, told what is good for us and dragged out of Europe against our will.

[Mr Hague]

The Conservative party is advocating that the people should make the decision in a referendum. I thought that the hon. Gentleman and his party were in favour of people being able to make decisions in referendums, but, evidently, he does not like the answer that the people give. When we come to have that referendum it will be one of and for the whole of the United Kingdom, of which the people of Scotland have voted to remain a part.

Business of the House

Pete Wishart Excerpts

Thursday 30th October 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

As my hon. Friend knows, and as I know very well as a former Foreign Secretary, a wreath is laid on behalf of the overseas territories. I know that he is asking for them to lay it themselves, but the Foreign Secretary at the Cenotaph on Remembrance day lays, on behalf of all the overseas territories, a wreath that is decorated and composed of the vegetation and the flowers of all the overseas territories. It is a very special wreath laid on their behalf, and a very heavy one, I can tell him. I am not going to commit my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary to giving up his own role in laying that wreath, but I will, of course, convey to my right hon. Friend what my hon. Friend has said.

[Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)]

The Leader of the House will know that the Smith Commission has been meeting and making steady progress on more powers for Scotland. One of the things that Smith made abundantly clear was that more powers for Scotland should be considered without condition and without reference to any other external issue. Will the right hon. Gentleman respect that in any subsequent debate that we have in this House? Will we have it about Scotland, not about English votes for English laws, to ensure that the wishes of the Smith Commission are respected?

[Mr Hague]

The commitments made by all the pro-Union parties on Scotland are unconditional. We have all made that clear in the House before. Indeed, Lord Smith is getting on with that work and constructive discussions are taking place. The Government are contributing, when asked, information and analysis to help that work. There is a legitimate debate about fairness to all in the United Kingdom and that is why we have said that issues regarding all the other parts of the United Kingdom must be considered in tandem, but they are not conditional upon progress in Scotland, nor will they become conditional at any stage. But the hon. Gentleman cannot ask the rest of us to have no discussion about the affairs of the rest of the United Kingdom.