Debate on the Address

Andrew Bowie Excerpts

Monday 14th October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)]

I have a huge amount of respect for the right hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood), who was diligent and well-respected as a Minister and is proving to be the same on the Back Benches. Clearly, we have a bit of a disagreement about Brexit. If we have spoken on these Benches about the risk of a no deal, it is because that risk remains very real. Many people might say it remains an extreme possibility. It is one that the Government seem willing to contemplate, despite the fact that, if there is a majority for anything in this House, it is for avoiding no deal. That will be the situation we end up in come the end of this week, one way or the other.

Several Members have commented that this is a slightly unusual Queen’s Speech, with a slightly unusual atmosphere and slightly unusual timing. For the hon. Member for North East Derbyshire (Lee Rowley), who opened the debate, the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson) and myself, it is taking place during our 40th year. We have all celebrated our 39th birthdays; indeed she and I share a birthday, so we will look forward to celebrating that next year. Who knows what situation we will be in. The hon. Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley) noted that the temperature goes up and down, but we have a role to fulfil, which SNP Members take seriously, as the third party in this House and as the largest party in Scotland. We have never claimed to speak for all of Scotland, although I would draw the House’s attention to the remarks made by our former leader, Angus Robertson, in his first speech after the 2015 election, when he recognised that we won considerably more seats than was proportionate to our vote and that we did have a responsibility to be aware of the broad range of political opinion that exists in Scotland. But there is consensus in Scotland, and every constituency in Scotland voted to remain in the EU. We will not shy away from speaking up for that point of view.

This Queen’s Speech is also slightly unusual because this debate is taking place while the SNP annual conference is going on in Aberdeen. No matter how many representations my predecessor and I make through the usual channels about according our party the same respect as all the other parties get in terms of a conference recess; or about how the parties should work to obliviate the need for a conference recess, here we are nevertheless. But it is political party conferences that are the place to lay out manifestos and make broad political declarations and plays to attract voters, not the ceremonial opening and the state occasion of the Queen’s Speech. However, that is what today’s Queen’s Speech has had: all the hallmarks of a political manifesto targeted at the perceived priorities of a narrow range of voters in particular parts of England and Wales.

As far as I can see, at least a third of the Bills will be subject to the English votes for English laws process, in whole or in part. Those are all in areas where the SNP Government have already shown themselves to be much more progressive and have a considerably more enlightened vision. We are not cracking down just to be seen to be tough on crime; we are working towards the rehabilitation of offenders, recognising the difficulties that can be caused by short sentences and finding different ways to bring people who have fallen foul of the law and fallen into criminality back into the fold of society. We are sent here to speak for Scotland and then the rules of this House continue to exclude us, through that EVEL process.

The Bills that will apply in Scotland already seem to be a source of concern; even since the Queen’s Speech was delivered my inbox has filled up with dozens of emails with concerns about the proposals for voter identification. The SNP wants to expand the franchise and make it easier for more people to vote, starting with 16 and 17-year-olds, and extending the franchise for elections to this place to include our friends and neighbours who are European nationals, but it seems as though this Government’s proposals want to narrow the opportunity for people to take part in our democratic processes. That is equally true of the immigration Bill and the end to freedom of movement, which, as all SNP colleagues who have spoken have said, will be a social, economic and cultural disaster for this country.

This theme of narrowing, isolation and an insular approach comes with Brexit, and the notion of global Britain that the right hon. Member for Bournemouth East spoke of is just increasingly a joke. I was recently in Malawi, where I went to visit the high commission, which had a pop-up banner saying, “Apply, come to Britain. Britain is great. Come and take part in our Chevening scholarship.” The night before, I had met stakeholders who could not get a visa for love nor money for their Chevening scholarships. So the left hand does not know what the right hand is doing, and Brexit is the exact opposite of the vision of a global Britain. Much of the legislation that has been outlined today is going to have to help to try to clean up the mess that Brexit could leave behind.

[Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)]

I am listening to the hon. Gentleman, who is making a very good speech, with lots of pertinent points. Surely, however, he would agree that the most narrow, isolationist and separatist agenda being displayed in this House today is coming from SNP Members, who want to break up our United Kingdom. Surely that is narrow, nationalist and isolationist. Surely breaking up our United Kingdom, the most successful political union the world has ever seen, is the most isolationist policy being put before the House at the recent time.

[Patrick Grady]

As my right hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford) pointed out, the EU has secured peace on the continent of Europe throughout the history of its existence. Of course what we want to do as an independent country is join the family of nations. The way to know that a country is independent in the modern world is if it is part of organisations such as the EU, the UN and the World Trade Organisation, all of which are partnerships of equals, where the different member states, through the mechanisms that exist, can have their voices heard. I have just said that Scottish Members, including the hon. Gentleman, will be actively excluded from at least a third of the Bills outlined today because of the EVEL process. So I do not think the point he is trying to make stands up well.

It is becoming abundantly clear that there is no good outcome to Brexit—there is no good way of leaving the EU. If there was a better deal than membership of the EU, all the other members would want that deal and the EU would not exist. It stands to reason that the best possible deal we can have is the one we already have, which is membership.

The global challenges, which have been outlined in the Queen’s Speech and the speeches we have heard today, of poverty, the climate emergency, people trafficking, animal welfare and online harm all require a global response, with countries working in co-operation with each other. This Government are determined to pull the UK out of one of the most important mechanisms for delivering that. The Queen’s Speech, in effect, recognises that, because it has to put in lots of different frameworks and structures to deliver on those issues, when we already have one that is working exceptionally well. That shows, as I said to the hon. Gentleman, the importance of Scotland’s alternative: our opportunity to genuinely share sovereignty in a partnership of equals. In the EU, legislation comes forward through the Parliament, the Council and the Commission, where the different member states are represented on a fair and proportionate basis, and their voices are heard appropriately. That is the point of independence. The SNP’s vision is internationalist: it is about Scotland rejoining and taking its place on the global stage. That is the vision that is being articulated at our conference this week.

Sadly, this SNP conference is the first I have missed in around 15 years, and I think only the second one I have missed since I left university. That is partly because of my duties in the House and partly because, as the hon. Member for Southend West (Sir David Amess) said, I had the immense privilege of being the only parliamentarian from Scotland to be part of the delegation for the canonisation of John Henry Newman in Rome yesterday. There are undoubtedly lessons from that. I think we were praying for many different things—the hon. Gentleman’s recollection is perhaps not quite the same as mine—but that was an opportunity for ecumenism, in respect of both theological and political experience, which was quite useful given the week that we are going into.

I hope and expect that by the time of the SNP conference next year—perhaps not by the time of the next Queen’s Speech, because that could be sooner than we would have expected—several Members, including myself, will have celebrated our 40th birthdays. I expect we will have had another Queen’s Speech, and I hope that the SNP will have been returned in even greater numbers, solidifying the mandate that we have to give the people of Scotland a fair say and a choice in their future. I hope we will be taking our country closer than ever before to the independence that we so badly need, so that we can continue to work as if we live in the early days of a better nation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to be called on the first day of this debate on the Loyal Address. In fact, never in the modern history of this Parliament has an intake of MPs had to wait so long between their first and second Gracious Speeches as those of us who were elected in 2017. It is fully 846 days since Her Majesty last addressed Parliament in the other place, and 841 days since I spoke in that debate, delivering what was my maiden speech. That in itself is hard to believe, for in the interim, while so much has changed, so much, sadly, has remained the same. On that stupefyingly hot June evening, after I had bored those unfortunate enough to be in the Chamber with my tour around Deeside, Donside, the Geerie, the Mearns and North Kincardine, I raised concerns that businesses and people in West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine, and indeed around Scotland, needed certainty and stability in our country and in our economy. I concluded that evening by making this plea:

“What...this country”

does

“not need is further uncertainty in the shape of another referendum on Europe or another general election, and they certainly do not need another referendum on Scottish independence.”—[Official Report, 26 June 2017; Vol. 626, c. 403.]

As I said, so much has changed, and yet, sadly, so much remains the same. For what have we heard from the Opposition so far today? Sadly, it was almost exactly the same as we heard two and half years ago. The SNP is obsessed as ever with referendums—so obsessed, in fact, that it is currently taking a referendums Bill through the Scottish Parliament to

“provide a legal framework for the holding of referendums on any matters within Scotland’s control.”

That is all well and good, except that the trouble is that the SNP has not yet worked out that the essential element for any referendum to have meaning is that the interested parties accept the result—it is not very hard. So here is a novel idea: how about, before inflicting further division and uncertainty on the people and businesses of Scotland, the SNP accepts the result of the two referendums held within the past five years and works with us to make membership of the United Kingdom, outside the EU, work for Scotland? Until that day, the SNP can never claim to be working in Scotland’s national interest, only for its own narrow political interests, and it can never claim to offer the certainty and stability being cried out for by businesses and people all across this country.

Then there is Labour, which, in the time it has taken the Conservatives to negotiate two deals between this country and the European Union, has not even concluded negotiations within its own party, or even among its own Front Benchers. What is it this week? Is it a referendum and then an election or an election and then a referendum? Is it remain, is it leave, or is it a deal? Labour—a party with more plot twists than an episode of “The Real Housewives of Cheshire”, except that it does not take a Wagatha Christie to work out who is stabbing who in the back in this augmented reality. As for the Liberal Democrats, they have nothing to offer other than ripping up the result of a referendum that they were one of the first parties to call for.

As the late Iain MacLeod so memorably put it, the socialists can scheme their schemes and the liberals can dream their dreams, but we at least have work to do. So while the other parties in this place have spent two years obsessed with plots, schemes and ways of trying to bring this Government down and deny the will of the British people, we did get to work. First under the leadership of my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) and now under the current Prime Minister, this party and this Government have been delivering for all the peoples of our United Kingdom, including—and, I would say, especially—for Scotland. This Conservative Government have delivered over £900 million extra funding for the Scottish Government, meaning that the Scottish Government’s budget will have increased in real terms to £32 billion by 2020. We have delivered city and regional growth deals across the country. We have frozen spirits duty, supporting our vital Scotch whisky industry. We have had VAT lifted from Police Scotland and the Scottish fire and rescue service.

We have continued to support our oil and gas sector, to the tune of £2.3 billion, maintaining our globally competitive position and making the North sea basin the most attractive basin in the world in which to invest, while introducing the transferable tax history mechanism. We have recently righted the wrong—and I admit that it was wrong—of convergence uplift money not getting to Scotland’s farmers by delivering not just £160 million to them but an additional £51 million to ensure a fair funding settlement for the agriculture industry across our United Kingdom. Unemployment is at its lowest level in half a century and youth unemployment is at its lowest level ever. We have taken millions of the lowest paid out of tax altogether, cut tax for millions of others, and ensured that military personnel will not be punished financially solely for being based in Scotland, combating at least in part the regressive and failing policy of taxing middle-income earners more for doing the same job north of the border than they would be in any other part of our United Kingdom. In doing this, we are also the first major economy to commit to net zero carbon emissions by 2050, cementing our place as a global leader in the fight against climate change.

[Jim Shannon]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving all the reasons why it is better for Scotland to be within the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Does he, and does everyone in this House, recognise that when it comes down to the nitty-gritty, it is better to be together within the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and very good to have our Scottish comrades on board as well, because they are part of the great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland?

[Andrew Bowie]

I could not have put it better myself. I agree with every single word that the hon. Gentleman has spoken.

[Patrick Grady]

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman can explain why that argument then does not pertain to membership of the European Union. As I have explained, if Scotland were an independent member of the European Union it would have its own voice at the top table where decisions are being made. What is happening in this House is that those of us who are Scottish MPs are actively excluded from decision-making processes. If the UK partnership is so strong, why is the European Union not such a good thing for the UK to be in?

[Andrew Bowie]

The hon. Gentleman will be fully aware that I campaigned and voted to remain in the European Union. As a democrat, however, I recognise that I lost that referendum and we have to follow through with the will of the British people as expressed in the referendum. I will always contest those who say that Scotland would be better off outside the United Kingdom. That argument falls flat on its face. It would be bad for business, bad for the economy and bad for the people of Scotland if we were to rip apart the most successful union of nations that the world has ever seen.

[Luke Graham]

My hon. Friend is making a fantastic speech. Does he agree that some of the rhetoric from SNP Members is completely hypocritical? Does he also agree that they fail to see the irony of advocating for one union and yet coming into this House and trying to break apart the very Parliament that we sit in? We are one country. We are not a club of international states. We are one country, one state; four nations, one state. It is something very different that they fail to appreciate.

[Andrew Bowie]

My hon. Friend will be amazed to hear that I agree 100% with what he says.

Today, in this bold, ambitious and positive one nation Queen’s Speech, we, this Government, outlined how we will be investing in our NHS, investing in culture, investing in schools and investing in our police—all of which, of course, means extra funding for the Scottish Government to spend on priorities north of the border, benefiting constituents in my part of the world. These are the actions of a bold Conservative Government governing for all and delivering for the peoples of our whole nation—our one nation. The term “one nation” is bandied about quite liberally these days. You will know, Mr Deputy Speaker, that it comes first from Benjamin Disraeli in his novel, “Sybil”, which I remember struggling through at university. Through the young Chartist, Morley, he first spoke about how in this country there existed:

“Two nations; between whom there is no intercourse and no sympathy; who are as ignorant of each other’s habits, thoughts, and feelings, as if they were dwellers in different zones, or inhabitants of different planets”.

He was talking about the gap between the rich and poor of mid-Victorian Britain, but it is a sad fact that Britain today seems at times like a country as divided as anything that Disraeli may have imagined—between remainer and Brexiteer, dealer and no-dealer. Although they are all of our one United Kingdom, it seems at times we have before us two nations between which, again, there is no intercourse or sympathy. I know that the majority of Members across the House are as concerned about this situation as I am—a situation where Members who simply hold differing opinions can be called traitors, and where simply because a person seeks a different outcome, they can be classed as an enemy.

There is only one way to bring this country back together and to end this interminable and angry debate which is doing such damage to the body politic and to public debate in this country, and that is to deliver on the will of the British people, as expressed in the referendum in 2016—not at any cost, but to support a deal and support this Government, to leave the European Union on good terms. That surely must be the resolution of this House. There is simply no other credible option. Only then can we reunite this country, move on and get on with delivering this bold, ambitious and truly one nation agenda, which I for one look forward to arguing for and implementing.

--- Later in debate ---

[Anna Soubry]

I am grateful, Mr Deputy Speaker.

We talk a great deal in this place about Brexit, but the one thing that we have not talked about—or actually addressed—is the causes of Brexit. I want a democratic revolution. What happened to the commitment in the 2010 manifesto that I was proud to stand on as a Conservative under the leadership of David Cameron? It included a promise that we would reduce the number of Members of Parliament and look at the boundaries to make sure that all constituencies were properly represented and we had a fairer system. That has completely gone.

I would go further and have a radical reform of local government. One size does not necessarily fit all, and I pay tribute to the courage of Conservative borough councillors in my constituency who did the right thing by making the case—bizarre though it may sound—for the abolition of the very borough council that they sit on. Like the hon. Member for Mansfield, they recognise that we need a new unitary system in the county of Nottinghamshire. We also need a much stronger role for our parish and town councils, if we take out the district and borough council levels in our county authorities. We need to put power back into the hands of local councillors who will represent people at a parish or town level. Give them more power and the ability to raise money, because they will spend it wisely on their communities whom they directly represent.

While I am on the subject of a democratic revolution, we have to have honesty in politics now. The trust between us and the electorate has been broken. Long before Brexit, people were disillusioned and fed up. One of the reasons was that too many politicians, especially in this place, were not honest with people about the tough choices they faced. They promised everything—often admirable things which could never be delivered in reality. That pragmatic and honest approach is needed.

To be honest—it might get me into trouble with the Nottingham Post—the city of Nottingham should expand. If we were being honest about how to do things better in the city, that is what we would say. But if we do, we run the risk of headlines and criticism. That lack of honesty is one of the reasons why the immigration debate is in the pitiful state it is and—at its heart—is why we have Brexit. Too many politicians could not be trusted to have an open, honest debate based on evidence. On that basis, we look at the Conservative party and see the drift to the right—

[Andrew Bowie]

indicated dissent.

[Anna Soubry]

The hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but the fact is that 21 members of his party were effectively expelled from the party for having the temerity to put their country before their party. They were, in effect, expelled. Joseph Stalin would have been proud. As for the Labour party, that too is in the grip of neo-Marxists who would take us into a command economy, making promises that they could not deliver.

I think there is a great deal that we should be talking about. Whether it is the fact that we should be bringing British citizens back from northern Syria, or the fact that there was no mention of housing in the Queen’s Speech, a huge problem—