Devolution (Scotland Referendum)
Angus Brendan MacNeil Excerpts(10 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Hague
My hon. Friend is right to make that point as Chair of the Procedure Committee. I certainly give him that guarantee.
As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland set out yesterday, it is vital that we unite Scotland within a United Kingdom. The cross-party process being undertaken by Lord Smith of Kelvin is the first step in finding the common ground that will create something that is better and fairer for Scotland and that cements its place in our family of nations.
I want to say at the beginning that we must not only meet the vows that were made to Scotland, but deliver a balanced settlement that is better and fairer for England, Wales and Northern Ireland. That is why, in addition to the cross-party process being undertaken by Lord Smith of Kelvin, the Prime Minister has asked me to chair a Cabinet Committee to look at the devolution—
Mr Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr Hague
That is, indeed, one solution that could be adopted. I will come to the alternative solutions in a moment.
Let me finish what I was saying on Scotland. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland said in his statement, the three main pro-UK parties made a vow that will be delivered whatever the outcome of the election next year and whatever deliberations we have about England. I know that it suits the Scottish National party to pretend that it has already been betrayed somehow, but the proposals for Scotland are not tied to our deliberations on other parts of the United Kingdom in the sense that they are conditional on them. It is right to consider those things together, but there was a vow. The British Government—this Administration and past Administrations—have delivered on devolution commitments in the past and will do so again.
Mr Hague
I will give way in one moment.
This Government delivered the Scotland Act 2012 and introduced the Wales Bill that is being debated in the House of Lords. We believe passionately in the United Kingdom. We recognise the benefits that it brings to all its citizens. We will deliver on the commitments that were made to the people of Scotland. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will confirm that the SNP will stop pretending that we are not seeking to deliver on those commitments.
Mr MacNeil
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way eventually. If the vow swayed 6% of the Scottish people, it served its narrow political purpose at the time. It was an unconditional vow that became conditional as the hangover set in. Why was the Prime Minister not straight with the Scottish people about the vow before the referendum? Where is the Prime Minister this afternoon?
Mr Hague
I assure the hon. Gentleman that the vow is unconditional. I think that I can also speak for the official Opposition on that. It was an unconditional vow from the Leader of the Opposition, the Deputy Prime Minister and the Prime Minister. The Scottish nationalists should stop pretending that people are reneging on the commitment when they are not.
Mr MacNeil
The annunciator reads, “Devolution (Scotland Referendum)”, but at the moment we are debating English votes for English laws. Why are we not having a debate about the subject set out on the annunciator?
Mr Speaker
I can observe the annunciator just as well as the hon. Gentleman. I simply advise him that the title of the debate is, “Devolution following the Scotland referendum”. The debate is about devolution. Nothing disorderly has happened. The Leader of the House is entirely in order—[Interruption.] No amount of hand gesturing, waving and excessive excitability on the part of the hon. Gentleman will change the fact that the debate is perfectly in order.
Sadiq Khan
I will give way to the Select Committee Chair in a moment. I want to make some progress first.
My Front-Bench colleagues have already announced ambitious plans that will be implemented should Labour form the next Government. My right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) has unveiled a new English deal in which the equivalent of £30 billion of spending would be transferred from Whitehall to city and county regions. My noble Friend Lord Adonis has outlined the way in which a future Labour Government will give local areas and city regions more powers over economic growth, transport and skills. There are other examples. In the context of my own brief, justice, I have announced plans to give local authorities more control over youth justice. They are closer to the issues, and the structure of incentives to cut crime and reoffending works much better on that scale.
Sadiq Khan
I have been hearing heckling and chattering behind my left shoulder for the last five minutes. The Scottish nationalists are claiming that every sentence I utter is relevant to the points that they wish to make. Let us now see whether that is really the case. I give way to the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil).
Mr Speaker
Order. Before the hon. Gentleman intervenes, let me remind him that he embarked on an apprenticeship to become a statesman. That apprenticeship still has a considerable distance to travel. I simply appeal to his more public-spirited instincts, and advise him now to assume the posture of a statesman.
Mr MacNeil
Thank you, Mr Speaker. Your words of guidance are for ever precious.
The right hon. Gentleman has referred to the Westminster elites. Well, we did see them in Scotland before the “vow”, but we need to ask where they are today. The Conservatives would not tell us where the Prime Minister was; can the right hon. Gentleman tell us where the Leader of the Opposition is this afternoon?
Sadiq Khan
All that I can say is, “Was that really worth it?” The hon. Gentleman has been a royal pain for the last 10 minutes.
In London we have a Mayor and an assembly, but we are ambitious to do more. The city still has too little control over its own destiny. Only 7% of all taxes raised from Londoners and London businesses are spent by the different levels of London government, whereas the figure is nearly 50% in New York. Labour has committed itself to devolving significant public service funding and responsibility to London’s government, as well as more fiscal autonomy. All that has added importance given the agreement among the leaders of the three main parties on a further package of devolution for Scotland.
Yesterday, the Secretary of State for Scotland published a Command Paper three weeks early. The Leader of the Opposition, the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister have made a commitment to strengthening and empowering the Scottish Parliament. The Labour party will take part in the process under the leadership of Lord Smith of Kelvin, in a spirit of partnership and co-operation with the other parties. Every commitment that we have made must be honoured.
We accept that the devolution settlement has also thrown up anomalies in Westminster, and the question of how to ensure that there is an “English voice” in our legislative process is definitely one of them. That is why it is right for us to examine greater powers for English Members of Parliament to scrutinise legislation. However, on many levels and on many occasions, Parliament faces a situation that is similar to the West Lothian question. We have asymmetric devolution, both within the nations and between them. Let us take the London situation. As a London Member of Parliament, I can vote on transport issues in Yorkshire and in other parts of England, yet English MPs, even Yorkshiremen, cannot vote on transport issues in London as they are the responsibility of the Mayor. In a non-federal system such as ours, that is going to happen.
Michael Moore (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (LD)
We in Scotland have just enjoyed the most amazing democratic moment. It is estimated that 97% of the population registered to take part in the referendum; there was a record turnout of 85%; and for the first time in a major election in the United Kingdom 16 and 17-year-olds participated and—dare I say it—excelled themselves in doing so in the build-up and in the referendum itself. At the conclusion, we have a clear outcome: Scotland has voted to stay in the United Kingdom, which I very much welcome.
However, we would be foolish not to recognise that Scotland and the whole of the United Kingdom have changed in recent times. More than 100 years of debate about ‘home rule’ and independence swirled around the decision we in Scotland took a month ago, but wider issues were in the mix as well. A generation of aggressive globalisation and the whirlwind of the financial crisis have raised questions, too, about how we are governed. In Hawick or Dundee, Alkrington or, indeed, Clacton, people are asking whether the political structures and system of governance are right for them, their family or their community, and for rather a lot of people the answer is a resounding no.
It is clear to me that people in Scotland support devolution and want more of it. There is a lot of talk about the “settled will” of the people of Scotland, but determining what that is depends on one’s perspective.
Michael Moore
Paragraph 30 of the Edinburgh agreement—in which I had the privilege to be involved—was clear about respecting the outcome, and I welcome the fact that the Scottish Government have done that and said the right things about the process going forward.
Michael Moore
I respect the fact that the hon. Gentleman who is trying to intervene and his colleagues will continue to argue for independence—that is their right and I am sure they will do that with their traditional energy, which they brought to the referendum campaign and have already brought to this afternoon’s debate. Some, of course, seem to wish to challenge the result, and occasionally we might think we had lost the referendum in Scotland and we had voted for independence, but we should not denigrate the spirit of what has gone on and the importance of what we have been involved in for these past few years, and we must make sure we now respond to the democratic will of the Scottish people.
Mr MacNeil
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way, and it is good to hear him praise the referendum, in such great contrast to the criticisms of the referendum we often heard at the Dispatch Box two or three years ago. It has turned out to be a very energising event in Scotland. On the vow, the right hon. Gentleman’s party leader signed that vow, but where is his party leader this afternoon? Why are he, the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition not in this Chamber? Why are they not here? They went to Scotland to sign a vow, but they are not here today.
Michael Moore
I know that SNP Members are the source of many conspiracy theories, but this is a pretty lame one. I hope the hon. Gentleman will relax a bit and perhaps wait for the chance to advance his own argument. May I take issue with a point he made in his preamble, too? This Parliament respected the victory of the SNP in the Scottish Parliament in 2011. The constitution is very firmly reserved to the Houses of Parliament, yet, recognising the will of the Scottish people in the Scottish elections, we took measures to devolve the power to hold the referendum to Edinburgh—something that was done peacefully and straightforwardly—and, rather than object, obstruct or get in the way of the referendum, we were active and positive participants in it. I shall come to the question of the vow in a moment.
The aspirations of the people of Scotland have been expressed in many different ways over many years. We have seen a cycle of devolution in which people have argued their case and set out their ideas for new powers, followed by a moment in which people came together and found common ground. Those proposals were then put to the people, to determine and implement more powers.
The vow was important. It underlined what had been happening in Scotland for some time. It was not new; people did not suddenly come up with stuff that had not previously been put forward. The commission that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell) led on behalf of the Liberal Democrats in Scotland had looked at this issue and reported in 2012. The findings were updated in 2013. The Strathclyde commission, on behalf of the Conservatives, reported last year. The Labour commission reported earlier this year. The party leaders in Scotland came together to pledge more powers earlier this summer. There has been a clear programme, and a commitment from all the UK parties throughout the referendum campaign to give more powers to the Scottish Parliament.
Mr Brown
It is whether one talks sense in this House that matters.
I believe—I am happy for the Leader of the House to confirm this—that there is a basic truth that this restriction on one group of MPs from voting on central issues such as Budget tax decisions ignores, and that is that we cannot have one United Kingdom if we have two separate classes of Members of Parliament. We cannot have representatives elected by the people who are half-in and half-out of the law-making process. The gospel according to Mark in the New Testament, which was quoted by Abraham Lincoln, says:
“A house divided against itself cannot stand...and a kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation”.
That is the truth of what the Conservative party is now doing.
This diminished status for Scotland would also have to apply to Wales, which also wants income tax powers. It would possibly apply to Northern Ireland and then—the Leader of the House did not rule this out when asked about it—it would have to apply to London. It would then have to be applied to the House of Lords to create two classes of representation. A Government who one day owed their authority to all Members of the House would the next day owe their authority to just some Members of the House. They cannot be servant to two masters, owing their authority and legitimacy to one set of votes one day by one group of people and another set of votes another day by another group of people.
Mr MacNeil
Is the right hon. Gentleman telling this House that he signed up to a vow without knowing the details of it?
Mr Brown
I signed up to a vow that I will keep. It was the Prime Minister, on the day after the referendum, who qualified the promise. We would be better off in this House if we had some humility from Members of the Scottish National party, who in their own constituencies found that 55% to 60% voted no and not yes.
Sir Oliver Heald
I would not accept that.
The political parties have now promised even more powers to Scotland on a tight timetable. It is very encouraging that the document that was promised by the end of the month has come out three weeks early and that we seem to be making the sort of progress that we all would have hoped for with the so-called vow.
Sir Oliver Heald
No, not at the moment.
Devolution for England is not an arcane topic—it is a demand of the people. The same constituents who wrote to me very strongly in favour of the Union and Better Together are also writing to me saying, for example:
“We are very encouraged by David Cameron’s determination to put right the inequalities of the…UK.”
Another constituent says:
“English votes on English affairs has the advantage that it is the simplest and cheapest solution”.
Another says:
“The unfair treatment of England must be rectified.”
Yet another says:
“I am not a…Conservative voter, so this is not a Party political view, but it is about time the English were given some self respect…The Labour Party will not like this but the present situation regarding Scottish MPs voting for English issues cannot continue. What’s sauce for the goose has got to be sauce for the gander.”
Iain Stewart (Milton Keynes South) (Con)
I welcome the opportunity to participate in this important debate. I speak as someone born and raised in Scotland who has spent the majority of his adult life in England and who now represents an English seat and defines himself as British and a Unionist. I am therefore well placed to understand the passion and sentiment on both sides of the border. I wish to put forward some ideas about how to move forward and cement the Union for a new generation.
My first issue, much debated this afternoon, is English votes for English laws. The view that the best answer to the West Lothian question is to stop asking it will no longer do. I genuinely fear for the long-term health of the Union if the English dimension is not addressed—and quickly. We have had endless commissions’ reports on the possible solution; now is the time to take action. Even before the Scottish referendum debate, there was evidence of considerable demand in England for that to take place. The research for the McKay commission found that just 21% of people in England support the current system, and there was majority support for some form of English votes on English laws.
Mr MacNeil
Does the hon. Gentleman think that English votes for English laws is enough for England? As we heard from the previous speaker from the north of England, it is important to give meaningful decentralisation to what is a very centralised state to enable a better and more productive economy. Sadly, we could not help the north of England given that Scotland did not gain independence, but if Westminster was prepared to transfer the iron grip, we might see some much needed economic changes in the north of England. Would the hon. Gentleman support steps towards that?
Iain Stewart
The hon. Gentleman has tee’d up neatly another section of my speech, so if he bides his time, I will come to that very point.
There are three intellectually coherent answers to the West Lothian question. Two of those—ending the devolution arrangement and voting for Scottish independence—are not on the table. The third option is a federal United Kingdom. Although that is intellectually coherent, I do not believe that it is workable. First, there is no public appetite to elect another tier of politicians, be that a separately elected English Parliament or English regional assemblies. Secondly, England does not divide neatly into regions. Where does my Milton Keynes South constituency lie, for example? Technically, we are part of the south-east, but from our demographic and economic ties, we have more in common with the east of England or the east midlands. Neither would a federation be viable if one of its constituent parts—England, which represents 84% of the population and economy—overwhelmingly dominated the other three parts of the federation.
To address the point raised by the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil)—I hope he notes my good pronunciation—there is a debate about further decentralisation within England and within Scotland, but that is a separate point from what happens here in this House. [Interruption.] It is a separate debate. There is, however, the issue of growing English demand for a say in its own affairs.
Mr MacNeil
The hon. Gentleman is kind to give way a second time, and I appreciate it. Much of today’s debate has been about this place and the four walls here, but it should not be. It is about the lives and aspirations of people in Easterhouse—[Interruption]—and, indeed, in East Anglia, as well as in places all over Scotland, which had great hopes at the front of the referendum, yet those hopes were damned. Managing things around this Chamber is a big mistake. I urge the hon. Gentleman to think about the good of the people in England outwith this Chamber, not the good of the people of England within it.
Iain Stewart
The hon. Gentleman misses my point. I am not saying that that is not an issue, but what happens here is also an issue of fairness for English voters. The two are not mutually exclusive and both have to be addressed. I want to see fairness for English voters—for my constituents, in this place—as well as have a sensible debate about further devolution in England. The local authority in my constituency has already had substantial extra powers. I am all for having a sensible discussion about how that can continue, but that should not distract us from what happens in this place.
We will never have a complete practical answer on English votes on English laws, but we must find the most workable and least disruptive option. I would like to put one proposal on the table. It might be termed the double majority arrangement. Many hon. Members from all parts of the House have asked what happens if we start excluding individual Members from voting on specific matters. Under the double majority arrangement, no Member would be excluded from debating or voting on any issue. However, if the matter applies only to England or only to England and Wales, for the measure to pass it must secure a majority of English Members or English and Welsh Members, as well as a majority of the whole House. That is a practical, sensible arrangement that would not disrupt any of our current arrangements, but that would provide an English shield or protection to ensure that measures in England are not voted for by people for whom England did not vote. I fear that doing nothing would be the most corrosive thing for the Union. That is something that I do not wish to see.
In the short time that I have left, I will turn to the financial element of devolution. I support an extension of the tax powers in Holyrood. I think that Holyrood should be responsible for raising a large share of what it spends. That is good for democracy. I am happy to debate the precise mechanism. However, I make one plea. I support the timetable for agreeing the matters in principle, but devolving tax is a complex and administrative matter. Companies will have to shoulder a lot of the burden. I do not want to see our wealth and job creators saddled with an onerous extra regulatory burden that they are not properly involved in designing. My plea is for them to play an important part in the various commissions that will consider this matter, so that the powers are devolved in a workable way that does not impact on business.
My last point—I cannot do it justice in 40 seconds—is about the Barnett formula. I plead with Members on all sides of the debate to ensure that they understand the Barnett formula properly. It is a much maligned and misunderstood formula. The bigger issue is the totality of the fiscal relationship between Scotland and England, and, indeed, within England and Scotland. We have never had a comprehensive, uncontroversial analysis of public spending and tax receipts in this country. Please can we have that before the debate on Barnett and related matters continues?
Mr Andrew Lansley (South Cambridgeshire) (Con)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I will try to be as brief as I can.
I am very pleased to follow the right hon. Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds). I think many of us on both sides of the House can agree that it was very important to all of us that the people of Scotland voted as they did to support the Union. That did not mean that there should be symmetry across the country and it certainly did not mean that they were voting in any sense to undermine the Union by stages. On the contrary, we can strengthen the Union, be true to the positive vote secured in the Scottish referendum and, at the same time, give people what I know they are looking for in Scotland and elsewhere across the United Kingdom: a sense of greater control and accountability for the decisions made in their name and by their elected representatives.
I want to put on the record that it is absolutely vital that, recognising and welcoming the vote of the people of Scotland, we should deliver on the commitments that were made to them. We will deliver on those commitments, for example, those in the vow. That is not conditional and should be done within the agreed timetable. We should bring those measures forward and ensure that we live up to that.
Part of the vow was the commitment to the ability of the people of Scotland to make their own decisions on the resources and the organisation of the national health service in Scotland. During the course of the referendum debate, I was astonished to hear Nicola Sturgeon, who was my counterpart in Scotland as Scottish Health Minister, talking about how, in the future, there was a risk to the independence of the NHS in Scotland. There never was when she had any conversations with me. Whenever we worked together we did so voluntarily, for example on standardised packaging for tobacco products. I would never hear her countenance the thought that anything that I said should happen in the NHS in England should necessarily happen as a consequence in Scotland. She retreated to the issue of finance. Frankly, with what we are committed to and will bring forward in terms of further devolution of the power to raise and spend one’s own resources, Scotland will have the absolute right to determine the resources and the organisation of the NHS in Scotland.
As a consequence of all that, in this country we have to recognise—I will not go on about it; I do not have time—further fiscal devolution to the local authorities in this country. I do not think for a minute that we are interested, as the hon. Member for Halifax (Mrs Riordan) suggested, in regional government. I agree with her that we are not interested in an English Parliament. I think that the people of England look to the Westminster Parliament to make their laws, but I think they recognise that raising and spending money locally is a good thing. With accountable elected representatives, we can and should make that happen.
Mr MacNeil
Does the right hon. Gentleman support full fiscal autonomy for Scotland? That is the logical solution to his argument, not the partial devolution of taxation which, when we take into the account the Barnett formula arrangements, is merely rearranging the deckchairs.
Mr Lansley
We are committed to retaining the Barnett formula. There will be an extension of the ability to raise and spend one’s own resources, not full fiscal autonomy. That has to be an outcome determined by the Smith commission—to see to what extent this can happen—but it seems to me that it is right. As the right hon. Member for Belfast North made perfectly clear, the outcome in each of the countries of the UK will look different because our devolution settlement is asymmetrical.
If there is not an English Parliament or fiscal devolution, a further question arises. Can we have English votes for English taxes? I might not agree with all my colleagues on this point, but I thought that the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown) raised an Aunt Sally and attacked it. There is not a Conservative proposal for English votes on income taxes. I do not think the analogy holds between devolution on income tax in the other countries of the UK and England. For example, Scotland has a Scottish Government with a Scottish Budget accountable to a Scottish Parliament, and it can determine Scottish income tax in that structure of decision making and accountability. We do not have an English Government, an English Parliament or an English Budget; we have a UK Budget, and to support a UK budget we must have UK taxation. We cannot contemplate the separation of English income tax, although we can devolve some taxes inside England, especially to local authorities and city regions.
Gregg McClymont (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (Lab)
It is several hours since the right hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (Michael Moore) made his contribution, as an appointee to the Smith commission. As the other Member sitting on the Smith commission, I shall try, in much less time, to make some observations about this process.
As we have heard, some are already attempting to rewrite the history of the referendum. The First Minister said the referendum would decide the issue for a generation, but we now see more clearly by the day that in his mind, and the mind of his colleagues, a generation is not a long time.
Gregg McClymont
I want to develop my argument.
On 18 September, the Scottish people said yes; they said yes to the continuation of the economic, social and political sharing that constitutes the UK; yes to the continued, undiluted, equal and fair voice that Scotland currently enjoys inside the UK; and yes to further devolution inside the UK, building on the 1999 settlement and the Scotland Act 2012. The task before us in the House, and before the Smith commission, is to take that sovereign and settled will of the Scottish people forward: to sustain that political, economic and social partnership, at the same time as devolving power where it makes sense to do so. It is a clear task, but not a simple one. Clarity, of course, does not necessarily mean simplicity.
It has been very evident today that there is a strong feeling among Government Members that England’s voice must be heard. I hear the sincerity of their view, and I have no doubt that it represents letters, e-mails and phone calls that Government Members are receiving, but I ask them to consider this. I think that the United Kingdom has been a great success over the past 300 years, making all four of its countries prosperous, stable and secure, and often serving as a beacon to the rest of the world. That success, or at least a central part of it, has been based on England’s tolerance of the desires—I will put it more strongly than that: the needs—of the much smaller Celtic nations of this Union. That tolerance has been acknowledged—
Julie Elliott
I could not agree more, and I am going to talk about some of the practicalities we face.
The hon. Member for Gosport (Caroline Dinenage) said she gets letters every day of every week about the question of English votes for English laws. If I have had five in my entire time as a Member of Parliament, that is all I have had, so I think there is a north-south issue here. This is not an issue for the north of England. It never comes up on the doorstep in my constituency and in those around it that I campaign in.
We must look at what has come out of the Scottish referendum in terms of the impact it will have on England and the regions—and it undoubtedly does have an impact. The current situation is unfair and that needs to be addressed, but we need practical solutions to the problems we face. This is not about tearing up the constitution. Only a tiny number of parliamentary votes would be affected by having English votes for English laws, and working out which ones should be and which ones should not would be very complex, but that simply is not the issue; the issue is getting the right redistribution of money to the regions of our country that really need it. We do not need extra bureaucracy, which in my view would break up the Union, or be a step towards that. If we were to go down that path, it would be disastrous for our communities.
We need a system that works and that has the support of our communities and of the people of the United Kingdom, not a quick fix, which is what the Prime Minister came out with in his announcement at 7 o’clock on the morning after the referendum. I was one of those people who spent the whole night watching the results, having travelled back from Scotland the night before, and I was astonished because what he said came from nowhere. It had not been on any agenda I had seen. It had not been discussed anywhere. To be honest, I do not think he grasped the real issue.
Julie Elliott
No, I will not give way.
This debate is a result of the Scottish referendum. Whereas I totally support the implementation of what was promised to the Scottish people, we need to look for practical political solutions that deal with the real issues for England and the other parts of the United Kingdom and address the real inequalities. They need addressing and they need addressing now.
Mr Syms
Yes, I certainly think that that is the case, but we must consider the situation north of the border. There is no appetite for regional government in the United Kingdom, but there is an appetite for showing local government more respect, giving it more responsibility and passing it more money. From my experience in local government and in Westminster, I can say that local government is much better at controlling money and decisions than we are here. The country would probably be better governed if we had more confidence in some of our local authorities.
Mr MacNeil
I am quite impressed that the hon. Gentleman has allowed logic to overcome his earlier beliefs against independence. He should be genuinely congratulated on that. He has looked at the situation and taken his views further. Is not the next logical step, and the first stepping stone to reducing the tension he has mentioned, full fiscal autonomy for Scotland?
Mr Syms
There are of course issues relating to the fact that we are interdependent within the economy. There are firms operating in both places. My hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes South (Iain Stewart) made a strong point about burdens on business, but I think that substantial fiscal powers and tax-raising powers should be moved to the Scottish Parliament. Ultimately, that would reduce tensions and effectively make MPs more responsive to their electorate as they would see what they were doing well and what they were doing badly. At the moment, the debate is very much between Edinburgh and Westminster, and that would be the case whoever were in Government. However, the tensions would be higher when there was a right of centre Government at Westminster and a left of centre Government in Holyrood.
On the matter of English votes, I have been very surprised over the past 15 years that the English have not been in revolt and have not been too upset over what is manifestly an unsatisfactory settlement. However, as we see further powers going to the Scottish Parliament and the manifest unfairnesses in this Chamber, people will start to ask very serious questions. It is better that we answer those questions now than let things build up and start creating greater tension. I am not sure whether English votes is the right solution or not, as it is messy, but I certainly think that we need to start the process of looking at how we govern ourselves and how we are fair to England.
It is a fact that if England has 84% of the population, it is going to dominate. That is what happened before Scotland joined the Union. Effectively, England was the elephant next door. The benefit of the United Kingdom was that the other countries had a disproportionate say within the United Kingdom Parliament, which worked very well. That changed in the 1990s, and once it changed the dynamics of the Union changed. We have to be fair to the 84% of people who are in England and I hope that we can reach a solution in which we can live as a happy family, and perhaps a more diverse family. The reality is that the logic of devolution is to give people more fiscal power and let them take that responsibility. The logic of the devolution settlement in the 1990s in Wales and later in Northern Ireland and Scotland is that there is an issue to be addressed and if we do not reverse the situation we will all get very raggy and angry because people will manifestly think that they are being unfairly treated.
Mr Reid
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point, but that is why I believe that Scotland should remain part of the United Kingdom. That gives us security not only in defence terms, but in financial terms. Although the Scottish Parliament should have more tax powers, we still need to be part of the United Kingdom for that security. Later in my speech I will outline which taxes I think are suitable for devolving and which I think should remain at the United Kingdom level.
The referendum saw levels of engagement and enthusiasm for politics never seen before. Now that the will of the Scottish people is known, everybody should accept the outcome and harness all that energy and enthusiasm to work together to build a strong, democratic Scotland within the United Kingdom. We want to harness that enthusiasm so that we can see much more participation in our democracy and much more consultation with people, working with them and devolving powers to a local level.
Mr MacNeil
The hon. Gentleman talks of a strong, democratic Scotland. Does he not feel that full fiscal autonomy would deliver that strong Scotland?
Mr Reid
I do not think the hon. Gentleman was listening to my reply to the hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) when I said that devolving all tax-raising powers was not the right solution. I will deal with that later when I talk about the taxes that are suitable for devolving and those that are best left at United Kingdom level.
Following the decisive vote in the referendum to stay within the United Kingdom, the Government moved quickly to set up the Smith commission, to convene cross-party talks and an engagement process across Scotland. It is vital that that process delivers significant new powers to the Scottish Parliament within the promised time scale, and I am confident that it will. I am sure that in the coming years we will see further progress on constitutional change for the other nations and regions of the United Kingdom, but further powers for the Scottish Parliament must not be held up while those debates take place in those other nations and regions.
The Scottish Parliament already has a significant range of powers to spend money on delivering public services, but powers are lacking on the other side of the equation—raising money through taxation. That has created a democratic deficit. The Scottish Government heap praise on themselves for the things they choose to spend money on and then blame the United Kingdom for the things they choose not to spend money on. Significant tax-varying powers are necessary so that in future we can have a proper democratic debate on how much to raise through taxes and how much to spend on public services. The Scottish Parliament must be given tax levers enabling it to raise the greater part of its own spending. Taxes on income, wealth and property can suitably be devolved. As well as raising money to spend on public services, these are powerful tools to address inequality in Scotland.
Representing a coastal and island constituency, I believe that devolving the Crown estate, with its control over the foreshore and seabed, is of vital importance. That is one of many areas where devolution must not stop at Holyrood; it must be devolved to a local level within Scotland. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State agrees with that.
On welfare and pensions, there should be a single Britain-wide system of entitlements, supporting free movement and residency across Britain with a common set of living standards and entitlements. However, on top of that common set of entitlements, there should be a power for the Scottish Parliament to top up such benefits. Earlier this afternoon, I served on a Delegated Legislation Committee that devolved power over discretionary housing payments. That is a step in the right direction. The power to top up minimum entitlements should be devolved to the Scottish Parliament for all benefits.
While devolving these powers, it is important to help business by keeping the United Kingdom’s single market and unified system of business regulation. It would not make sense to devolve taxes on spending such as VAT, alcohol and tobacco duties, and business taxation. Corporation tax, for example, is best dealt with at United Kingdom level. If it were devolved, one part of the United Kingdom would cut it, and that would lead to a race to the bottom, with business not paying its fair share of taxes and public spending having to be cut. Issues such as foreign affairs, the currency and defence are also obviously best managed at UK level.
These are exciting times. I have no doubt that significant new powers will be passed to the Scottish Parliament within the promised timetable. The long-held Liberal belief in home rule for Scotland within the United Kingdom is close to being realised.
Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)
I apologise, Mr Deputy Speaker, for being away from the Chamber for a period this afternoon due to Committee commitments, but I have followed the debate with interest. Like so many who have spoken, I was delighted with the result in Scotland and I support everything that has been said about ensuring that the vow is made good. The promise must be kept.
It is interesting to follow the right hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr Denham). I agree with him in many ways, but his argument for a constitutional convention falls down when we realise that he is a member of a party that now supports—as we all do, in fact—mass devolution of powers to Scotland without any consultation with the rest of the United Kingdom or a constitutional convention. We are told that the powers must be delivered swiftly to ensure that the vow is kept, so I am afraid that that is where the right hon. Gentleman’s argument falls down. If we are going to look at this and to have a constitutional convention, it should cover the whole way in which the United Kingdom is governed.
As an English MP who is proud to be an Englishman and as a Yorkshireman to boot, the only conclusion I can come to is that the Labour party’s attempt to complicate and muddy the waters is in order to maintain a political and electoral advantage over England. I can think of no other reason for it. We have heard how terribly complicated it is to devolve powers to England: “This situation is terribly difficult, but we must get on and deliver mass devolution to Scotland very quickly.” It was not quite so complicated or difficult when we agreed devolution to Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland, but when it comes to England it seems so terribly complicated. My fear and that of many of my constituents is that this is a deliberate attempt to kick into the long grass a decision about the government of England on a question that I and my constituents know will never be answered.
Mr MacNeil
I just want to make it clear that all we are talking about devolving to Scotland are Scotland’s powers, which are those powers pertaining to Scotland that are currently dealt with at Westminster. The current talk about devolution is merely about returning those powers to Scotland. It is nothing more complicated than that.
Andrew Percy
It is a devolution of powers that will massively change the relationship between England and Scotland, and between this House and Scotland, so it is a major devolution. I want to share the views of my constituents.
Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (PC)
Westminster is a broken system. Essentially, we have three parties that have morphed into one as a result of decades of political triangulation. As The Independent reported over the weekend, tracing paper cannot be put between them.
In England, the response has been increasing support for an insurgent political party, which ironically offers more Westminster, more privatisation, more austerity and more neo-liberalism. In Wales and Scotland, people are increasingly aware that the way to secure a different political direction is not to change the colour of the Government down here in London, but to empower their own national democratic political institutions.
Despite my scepticism, I believe that some progress will be made over new powers for Scotland, although it is quite apparent from today’s debate that there is no joint vision by the Unionist parties, despite the manner in which the vow was presented to the people of Scotland on the eve of the referendum.
Mr MacNeil
Does my hon. Friend agree that the difference in the strength of the current Welsh Assembly and Scottish Parliament—and indeed the powers promised to Wales and those promised to Scotland—correlates exactly with the strength of the SNP and, unfortunately, with the strength of Plaid Cymru, although it is increasing in Wales at present?
Jonathan Edwards
I am grateful for that intervention, and it is a point that I am sure we will make quite clear when it comes to the general election.
I think we can be sure that the new powers for Scotland will fall far shorter than the promised devolution max. That will be a huge disappointment to the 1.6 million people who voted yes, and especially to the hundreds of thousands—if the polls are to believed—who changed their minds at the last minute. In Wales, the growth in the political confidence of the Welsh people continues at breakneck speed. An ICM poll within days of the result in Scotland indicated that the people of my country want far greater political control over their lives. In spring, during the proceedings of the Wales Bill, I warned the UK Government that it would be superseded by events in Scotland— and that is indeed the case.
In the immediate aftermath of the Scottish result, the First Minister of Wales called for home rule all round, although I strongly suspect that his version of home rule is far less ambitious than mine. When asked what powers he wanted, he could come up only with a reserved powers model for our National Assembly. That, although important, is hardly the sort of stuff to get excited about and it is a million miles away from what most people would see as genuine home rule.
In contrast, Plaid Cymru published last month a detailed position paper entitled “Bring our Government Home: Proposals for empowering Wales”. The paper called for the current Wales Bill to include all the recommendations of the Silk commission, rather than the cherry-picking we saw from the UK Government, and, crucially, for a second Wales Bill to mirror the powers that will be made available to Scotland. We have labelled this second Bill a balancing bill, to end the practice of Wales playing catch-up with Scotland.
We are also calling for a radical overhaul of the discredited Barnett formula, which has ill-served my country. This needs to be coupled with increased fiscal powers for the National Assembly—beyond the current Wales Bill. If Scotland is to get 100% income tax powers as recommended by the Tory Strathclyde commission, Wales should have the same powers. Plaid Cymru’s ambition is to improve the Welsh economy so that we can stand on our own two feet as a country. This will not be achieved for as long as we are dependent upon fiscal transfers from London, whereby Welsh taxes are collected by the Treasury and a share is sent back to fund Welsh public services.
Mr William Bain (Glasgow North East) (Lab)
For the past two and a half years, the people of Scotland have been engaged in record numbers in the most existential of debates on where power should lie within a state and in whose interests that power is wielded. In the wake of the referendum outcome, it is right that people in the rest of the United Kingdom should join that discussion. Let me add to the thanks to the record numbers of people in Scotland who voted, debated, campaigned and contributed to a life-changing democratic process for all of us.
I said in this House several months ago that once the heat of the referendum campaign had cooled, the hand of friendship would be extended to those who love Scotland equally, but who believe in a different constitutional path for our country. I echo that call today. We go forward as one people, not as two tribes harbouring grievances and ill will against each other. Now that the sovereign will of the Scottish people has been expressed and we have chosen to build a future together with the peoples of the other three nations in the United Kingdom, we are all bound to make good on the consequences of the vote and to deliver quickly on the agreed timetable for the fiscal and social security powers that will deliver real change in Scotland and reform the governance of these islands for good.
Although I welcome the decisive nature of the referendum result across Scotland, there are clearly fences to be mended in Glasgow, West Dunbartonshire, North Lanarkshire and Dundee for those of us who have supported devolution all our lives. We all have to work harder to listen to, understand and act upon the strong cry for change that Glasgow’s voters expressed—a contempt for establishment power, a desire to abolish poverty and the urge for a more responsive politics. That is why I strongly support the establishment of a constitutional convention for peoples across the United Kingdom to examine how we can extend devolution to the cities, towns and villages of England, and how devolution can be extended down from the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly into the local authority areas of Scotland and Wales.
We also need to look at how we establish arrangements for a written constitution for the United Kingdom. During the referendum process, I have become increasingly convinced that 16th or 17th-century constitutional arrangements are no longer satisfactory for our 21st-century country. I hope we have a written constitution that reflects that modern approach.
Mr MacNeil
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the powers of the Crown Estate should be transferred from the UK Parliament to the relevant island authorities?
Mr Bain
If that proposal is in the submission to the Smith commission, other colleagues and I will look at it. I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman is finally endorsing Scottish Affairs Committee recommendations. We truly are making progress in the debate.
I hope that the written constitution will enshrine the principle that sovereignty comes from the people, not one single political institution, that power is shared between institutions, and that the devolved institutions are a permanent, irreversible part of our constitutional landscape. Power coming from the people and power given back to the people, and Government no longer hoarding power but giving it to cities, towns and communities, should be the guiding principles of a new constitutional settlement. From the crisis of trust in politics can come the birth of new hope. Let us seize this moment and, with the great peoples across this island, revitalise our democracy for good.
Business of the House
Angus Brendan MacNeil Excerpts(10 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Lansley
My hon. Friend is right. This matter is a cause of considerable regret, an inconvenience to many parents and completely unnecessary. The National Union of Teachers, proceeding as it is on a mandate from a ballot way back in September 2012, is taking unjustified and intemperate action. I hope it will reconsider taking such action in future, but if it does not it will be important for Government to consider all the circumstances involved in such events and whether the law is right in this area.
Mr Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
The regional air connectivity fund could be used to make airports in the north of Scotland, such as Stornoway, more central by investigating the possibility of links to the further north, namely the Faroe Islands—a similar group of islands to the Hebrides—or even as a stop on the route through to the Faroes or Iceland. Does the Leader of the House think that we could have a full debate on this matter? [Laughter.]
Business of the House
Angus Brendan MacNeil Excerpts(11 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Speaker
It sounds like there is scope for a debate, if in fact we have not already had it.
Mr Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
May we have a debate on the dangers and evils of imperialism and annexation of another country’s territory, whether it be Saddam Hussein in Kuwait or, at the other end of the spectrum, the Westminster Government who, as the front page of The Guardian reports, are bullying Scotland as part of “project fear”? Free peoples across the world will condemn that and stand with Scotland in the name of freedom.
Mr Lansley
Given that the hon. Gentleman’s question is occasioned by the front page of today’s Guardian, I hope he will be pleased to hear that the Government have not commissioned contingency plans for Faslane. Ideas of the kind described have not come to the Defence Secretary or the Prime Minister and they would not support them if they did.
Lobbying
Angus Brendan MacNeil Excerpts(11 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
John Thurso
I am going to disagree with the hon. Gentleman in a moment for a simple reason. In relation to visiting a Minister, the key is not in the Bill or in any legislation that we might pass. The key is the ministerial code; the key is the fact that the visits by that company or any other company will be published. I agree with hon. Members who said that there should be more information; wider detail should be published about meetings. At the moment, the quarterly register often just says “general discussion”, and that is not good enough. I urge those who are responsible for the ministerial code to look at toughening it up in some way and perhaps publishing the code a little more often than quarterly. Such things could be done tomorrow; they do not require legislation.
The second point is the difference between in-house and third-party lobbyists. I think we are all going in the same direction, but it seems to me that one has to start somewhere. To me, the third-party lobbyists are a good place to start. As the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen) said, it is better to make a start than to go for perfection. If Oxfam turns up to see the Secretary of State for International Development, it is pretty obvious what is going to be talked about. It is far more important that when Messrs Grabit and Nickit turn up to lobby on behalf of an unknown firm, we have a registration of who they are and what they do. That is far more important than making every single company that has someone in house working for them register that fact.
In my party’s 2001 conference motion on regulation of professional parliamentary lobbying, which I am sure was on everyone’s lips at the time, we said:
“No parliamentarian … at Westminster should be a director of, an employee of, receive any reward from or hold a stake in any of the duly registered professional parliamentary lobbying companies. … A statutory register of such professional lobbying firms should be set up and supervised by the Commissioner on Parliamentary Standards.”
In 2006, my colleague David Howarth, the then Member for Cambridge, sought to insert an amendment into the Companies Bill to cap the amount spent on lobbying. The then Government declined to accept it. So my party has a long history of seeking to do something about lobbying. The important thing now is to be clear who is doing the lobbying. That is why registering the professional lobbyists is so important.
Mr Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Is not one of the problems of the recent scandal not so much the lobbying but the payment of politicians, who may be part of the operation of that lobbying. It is not the lobbying per se; it is the payment, the money, the feeling of corruption.
John Thurso
I am delighted to welcome the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil) to his place. That is something I touched on at the beginning of my remarks. He makes an important point. In the recent scandals involving a Member of this House and three Members of the other place, nothing in this Bill or any other Bill on lobbying would have changed anything. What they did is already against the rules. My advice to any Member of this House is that the day someone comes to them and says, “Would you like £24,000?”, they are being offered a sting. None of us is worth that amount.
I was once almost the victim of a sting. A gentleman came to see me and asked me if I would chair his company. I said, “Yes, but first I need to do due diligence and see a set of accounts. Secondly, you have to look at my CV and see whether I have the skills you want. Thirdly, if it is ever anything to do with Parliament, I can have nothing whatever to do with it.” Needless to say, I never heard from him again.
Helen Jones (Warrington North) (Lab)
We have heard several interesting speeches, especially from my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen), the Chair of the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee, that have tried to grapple with how we define and register lobbyists. The fundamental point, as everyone in the House knows, is that one of the biggest political problems of our time is the loss of faith in politics and politicians, and we have only to walk the streets of our constituencies to see that. People feel that they are not listened to and that they have no way of influencing events. They might have some regard for their own Member of Parliament—indeed, polls show that people often do—but they feel that the big decisions are taken elsewhere, in a place where their views are not heard—[Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil) wants to make an intervention, I shall allow him to do so.
Mr MacNeil
I just wanted to suggest that the case the hon. Lady makes is exactly why we want independence —thank you very much.
Helen Jones
The hon. Gentleman will find that the polling in Scotland is no different from that elsewhere. There is a loss of faith in politics and politicians in many developed countries, and it ill behoves him to make cheap political points about that serious issue, with which we all must deal. People think that there is a distinct political class of people who move in and out of lobbyists, think-tanks and Parliament. I know that that is not true and that there are many hon. Members from diverse backgrounds—obviously not those in the Cabinet—but we have to bear responsibility for allowing that perception to exist. That is why dealing with lobbying is important, so that is one of the vital things—not the only one—that we must do to open up Parliament. If we continue to allow people to have the impression that some individuals have privileged access and may buy the right to influence legislation, we are digging our own graves. It is not lobbying itself that is wrong, as many hon. Members have said, but lobbying behind the scenes when people do not know about it.
Helen Jones
My hon. Friend makes a valid point about who should be included on the register and the importance of getting the definitions right. Many people have referred to lobbying by constituents, and any constituent has an absolute right of access to their Member of Parliament. My constituents are not slow about making their views heard, as I suspect is true of those of other hon. Members, but that is different from commercial lobbying, so the legislation must make that clear.
We have to deal with those who are directly employed lobbyists, but they would be allowed to carry on as before under the Government’s plans. What would happen to big firms such as Capita, Grant Thornton and PricewaterhouseCoopers that operate across government in many ways, but include lobbying among their functions? Legislation cannot work unless a code of conduct is attached to it. Parts of the industry already have a voluntary code, but without a code of conduct, there is no real point of having a register, because one then cannot deal with breaches of ethics, including by removing people from the register. Without full publication of details and meetings, lobbying will still be shrouded in secrecy because people will not know what is going on.
Helen Jones
I have given way to the hon. Gentleman once, so I hope that he will forgive me if I continue.
The fairly shabby little proposal before us is a reaction to a particular story, rather than an attempt to get things right. It is important that we have proposals that command cross-party support in the House and that, if possible, they are subjected to pre-legislative scrutiny. In my time in the House, a lot of bad legislation has been passed in a hurry, but a lot of legislation has been made better as a result of pre-legislative scrutiny, so I do not understand why the Government are shying away from that process. We need to get the proposals right for not just this Parliament, but future Parliaments, and we need a clear definition of “professional lobbying”, a clear code of conduct and strong sanctions for breaches of that code. Why on earth are the Government so reluctant to go down that road?
Harriett Baldwin
What I accept is that the Government are the ones taking the steps to publish meetings with organisations that represent themselves with their public affairs professionals. The Government are doing much more in the way of transparency than the Opposition were able to do in 13 years of power. I would love to see members of the shadow Cabinet publish details of their meetings, and I strongly hope that as a result of my persuasive remarks this afternoon, those are steps that the Opposition will soon take.
Mr MacNeil
The hon. Lady says that the Government have taken great steps on transparency, so will she encourage them to publish the pre-1997 papers relating to devolution legislation, which should be open and transparent for the people of Scotland? I look forward to her support.
Harriett Baldwin
As the hon. Gentleman knows, I am a fervent supporter of us all being better off together, so I will support whatever is in the interest of our doing that.
The point I am trying to make is that there is an awful lot that Members of Parliament can do as individuals to help advance the cause of transparency. We should not all sit and wait until legislation is passed. We can take some responsibility in being open and transparent. I look forward to the day when that includes the meetings of the shadow Cabinet.
Sittings of the House
Angus Brendan MacNeil Excerpts(12 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Knight
Rather strangely, two sections of the press that had misreported what we were doing have now made changes on their website. It could well be that the truth has finally caught up with them.
It is usual for Select Committees to reach a firm conclusion and to ask the House to follow it, for very good reasons, but this usual practice is against the background of a Committee identifying an issue that needs attention or discovering a defect in our law or perhaps a fault in ministerial practice that warrants a particular remedy. That is not the case today. Although the Procedure Committee has expressed its view in the report, I wish to make it clear that on the issue of sitting hours, the Committee appreciates that each Member of Parliament has a different way of working. That means that in considering the House’s sitting hours, there are no mainstream options that are “right” or “wrong”, “antiquated” or “modern”, “effective” or ineffectual”: the whole issue is a matter of individual preference.
Mr Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
I take issue with the right hon. Gentleman when he says that it is all a matter of individual preference. I travel from the Hebrides, and if we had a 1 o’clock start on Monday the furthest I could get by that time is Glasgow airport.
Mr Knight
The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point, and I shall come on to Mondays shortly.
The Procedure Committee accepts that our sitting hours are a matter of judgment for the House as a whole, which is why I have tabled motions to facilitate the majority view prevailing in respect of days Monday through to Thursday. Any changes made by the House will have consequences, which I hope Members will reflect on before they decide how to vote.
House of Lords Reform Bill
Angus Brendan MacNeil Excerpts(12 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ms Eagle
The difference between filibuster and debate is usually easy to see. The Opposition have said that we want the Bill to go to the Lords.
This is a historic opportunity to reform the House of Lords and I hope we achieve it, but Lords reform alone will not solve the big democratic challenge we face in the UK, which is the disengagement, apathy and cynicism that is such a notable feature of our society. Ours is not the only advanced democracy with that problem, but we must tackle the anti-politics mood. I believe passionately that politics can transform lives and help us to rebuild our society, but the corrosive cynicism of the anti-politics age in which we live is hard to overcome.
I fear that an elected second Chamber will not solve that. Lords reform is long overdue, but we face even greater challenges to our democratic system and values that we can meet only by believing more deeply in democracy and by having more and not less accountability. I do not underplay the profound impact that big constitutional change has on how we do government—it shows that we are putting our democratic values into action where it counts. We should seek to spread the light of accountability and democracy into all corners of our society and challenge the move to plutocracy that has been so evident in the developed democracies in the past 30 years. The Labour Government’s decision to devolve power to Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland has had a beneficial impact on how we do government in the UK. Although Lords reform is unfinished business and business we must get right and get on with, it is only a small part of the answer to the more profound problems we face.
Every argument I have heard for the status quo runs up against the fact that the British people are shut out of the House of Lords. Each large new influx of coalition peers makes the ever more bloated House even more unsustainable—it now has 823 Members and rising. That is especially true as the size of the Commons is being reduced for narrow party political interest to its lowest number since the Great Reform Act of 1832.
Mr Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
The hon. Lady mentions the influx of life peers. Will she support a ballot of life peers, as was held for the hereditary peers, to bring their numbers down to something more manageable?
Ms Eagle
There are all sorts of issues with exits from and entry to the House of Lords, which we should debate in the time we now have available for the Bill.
It is plain that the Lords as constituted is absurd and unsustainable. We should propose to the British people replacing it with a wholly elected second Chamber. Except during the interregnum, the House of Lords has existed for hundreds of years, but never once have the British people had a say on whether it should continue to exist. Let us therefore reshape the Bill and reshape the Lords, and ask the British people for their endorsement.
Simon Hart (Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire) (Con)
Yesterday we were treated to nearly 40 speeches on this topic, of which only 10 were in support of the Bill. However, the speech that stuck in my mind more than any of the others was that of my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing Central and Acton (Angie Bray), who was in danger of giving politics a good name by putting her principles before her career. I think that her speech united members of our party behind her, and behind those who, sadly, take a view that is very different from that taken on our Front Bench.
I use the word “sadly” with great emphasis, for, like my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Gareth Johnson), I am not a rebel. I once abstained on an issue of importance —the imposition of VAT on static caravans, as it happens—but that is about as big a nuisance as I have been in the two and a half years for which I have been here. The decision to vote against the Bill, however, has been the easiest that I have had to make in those two and a half years.
I will leave the constitutional expertise to others, but I will say that my decision was made so easy by three regrets. The first is presentational. I may be in a small minority, but I am one of those people who do not become infected by the view that we must have a democratic House of Lords. I do not want a democratic House of Lords, and that is precisely why I shall vote against the Bill. I want objectivity, expertise, experience and wisdom, all the qualities that we are told so often that we do not have in this House. I do not want Members of the House of Lords to be subject to the electoral and party pressures to which we may be subject here.
We seem to have spent the last goodness knows how many hours—some would say years—worrying desperately about what this place should look like, and not worrying nearly enough about what it should actually do. To those who keep saying, “This is all very tedious, so let us just get on with it”, I would respond, “Yes, this is all very tedious, so let us get on with not doing it, and instead do the work for which we are paid.”
My second regret is constitutional. It reflects the view expressed by the former Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw), that the constitution is not the property of the Government. In fact it is not really the property of Parliament, and it is certainly not the property of the Liberal Democrats. However, it is the property of the nation, and I find very indigestible the experience of standing here and watching it being used—some would say “abused”—for the sake of what will be, at best, two and a half years of coalition management. That is one reason why the decision that I shall make at 10 pm will be such an easy one.
Let us be honest. We talked a great deal about the timetable yesterday, but this is not really about the timetable. Of course the timetable is important, but the reason we are so agitated is that this is actually a rotten Bill. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] It will do nothing for the reputation of Parliament, nothing for the reputation of politicians, and nothing to reconnect us with voters who, after several years of disconnection, are looking for inspiration. They want to see us doing the things that we were elected to do, rather than becoming involved in self-indulgent vanity projects inside this building.
I have to say, with enormous sadness, that if we get anywhere near the Parliament Acts as a means of concluding this particular debate, we will convert a rebellion into a mutiny. The strength of the arguments presented yesterday demonstrated that the legislation needs to go back to the drawing board. It demonstrated that those who genuinely favour constitutional reform, improvement and devolution in the House of Lords are willing to do business, but not with a gun held to their head. That would be an act of extraordinary vandalism.
My third regret is political. Last week, again with great sadness, I supported measures to disband 17 Army units. This week, we are being asked to create 360 new politicians to add to the 122 who have already been created in this House, all of whom will earn a great deal more money than our servicemen could ever hope to earn. That is simply too big a pill for me to swallow.
Karl Turner
That is one example, as my hon. Friend reminds us from a sedentary position.
My second area of concern is the Government’s logic that an unelected House of Lords is also an unaccountable House of Lords. I cannot say that I disagree with that logic, but the Government’s plans to rectify the issue are wholly inappropriate. The Bill proposes a single, non-renewable 15-year term, and if we add that up, we find that it does little to improve accountability. Some would say that rather than improve the democratic element, it makes things less democratic. Once elected and safely in their 15-year term, these people will be able to do and say what they think, and they will not have to follow any particular line. In fact, they will not even have to turn up. This could be said to be just a bung for party loyalty: 15 years’ salary without really having to do much more than that.
The Government also seek greater democratic legitimacy, but state that they will maintain a 20% appointed membership. Those who disagree will say that that is not enough, while those who want an elected element will say that it is too much. The Government have tried to split the difference but have left us with a foot in each door, so we will not quite have an elected House but we will not quite have an appointed House either. The Deputy Prime Minister has argued for the need for electoral legitimacy but undermines his argument by maintaining an appointed element. Furthermore, the Government have failed to use this opportunity to reform the place and role of bishops in the Lords.
Mr MacNeil
The hon. Gentleman is making a good speech. I merely ask him this: if he supports Lords reform, will he not take this opportunity to overcome the inertia over the past 100 years regarding the House of Lords, grab the opportunity with both hands and move the debate on, so that, in a democracy, we can have more elected people in a democratic parliamentary Chamber?
Karl Turner
I absolutely support reform but, as I said from the outset, I am keen on reforming the Lords to the full and having a completely elected second Chamber. I am afraid that this Bill does not offer anything like what I stood for at the last general election. Surely if we are trying to increase democracy and legitimacy, having ex officio religious positions is, in itself, discriminatory.
I accept that the principle of this Bill matches the commitment of all three main political parties in this House, but the Bill is woefully inadequate in terms of achieving its goals. No more time should be spent on this Bill than is necessary, but the Bill fails to achieve many of its declared goals and, in some cases, might make the current situation worse. The Bill must be subject to full and proper scrutiny in the later stages. Constitutional changes are difficult to make, so we must we get this right.
Julian Sturdy
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. Yes, I am aware of that, and I do think it is a problem. That is something that I would like reformed, and it is why, ultimately, as I shall go on to say, I will support the motion tonight.
Members of the other place often do great work, and I do not seek to diminish their efforts. However, our Parliament should reflect the full will of the public, and the make-up of our two great Houses of democracy should be subject to the will of those at the ballot box—it is simple democracy. After careful deliberation, I have reached a firm decision. Ultimately, I believe in a largely elected upper House, and will vote in favour of that principle. However, despite my underlying support for the end outcome, I have a number of concerns about the path that the Government have outlined.
First, I must express my doubts about the timing. As expected and feared by many of us, the Bill is attracting a great deal of attention and debate in the Westminster bubble—far more, I must say, than on the streets of York Outer. On the one hand, that may be reassuring. Any attempt to reform our constitution should be debated properly and in full. However, in the light of the economic uncertainty in the eurozone and the wider economic crisis, I simply do not believe that reforming the House of Lords is an urgent matter of governance. In truth, the timing is woeful, and that undermines the whole debate.
Secondly, some of the proposals cause me concern. As I mentioned, I am a believer in democracy and elections, and I respect what the right hon. Member for South Shields said on this subject, but offering those who aspire to election to the other place a 15-year term seems to be pushing the notion of representative democracy a bit far. We often defend our democracy by saying to the public that they can kick out a poorly performing MP or Government within five years. To triple that rule of thumb somewhat diminishes the principle on which the reform is based. I would be much happier with a term length nearer 10 years. That would strike a slightly more acceptable balance.
Mr MacNeil
What can the public do at the moment to kick out an underperforming life peer?
Julian Sturdy
Well, they cannot do anything, and that is why I will vote in favour of the Bill on Second Reading, but I am expressing my concern.
Thirdly, I am concerned about the apparent rush to sign off this reform when there are many other outstanding constitutional matters. The West Lothian question—the hon. Gentleman might have a view on this—is one such example. Surely, if we are to undertake a democratic and fundamental piece of constitutional reform, we should simultaneously look to resolve wider constitutional dilemmas.
Lastly, I must ask the ministerial team to ensure that clause 2 is reinforced. If we are to maintain an efficient legislative process, we must ensure that the House of Commons retains its supremacy in the parliamentary process. I am sure that many Members present will be aware that Members in the other place are concerned that this supremacy would be threatened, under the proposals.
In conclusion, my message to the House today is that we should tread carefully. If we are to embark on this delicate and historic matter, we must do so properly. Many Members who are concerned about these initial proposals need the opportunity and time to debate them. We should either take our time and get it right, or not do it at all.
Business of the House
Angus Brendan MacNeil Excerpts(13 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir George Young
I did indeed see the article, and of course my hon. Friend will know that when the House is not sitting it does not mean that MPs are not working; there is work to be done in the constituencies. We have made some significant changes to the way in which we organise the parliamentary calendar, and yesterday we actually added four days to the sitting calendar. This year we are going to sit longer than last year and, indeed, the year before, so any implication that we are working less hard is wholly unfounded.
Mr Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Given the opaque answer on coastguards provided to the hon. Member for Truro and Falmouth (Sarah Newton), may we have a debate about the coastguards, either in Government time or Backbench Business Committee time, before the relevant consultation ends? That would allow the Government to show how seriously they take our maritime insurance policy, namely the coastguards, especially as the two debates in Westminster Hall were inadequate in both time and structure.
Sir George Young
I am not sure that those two debates in Westminster Hall were inadequate; they enabled a large number of people to speak. I have no plans to hold another debate in Government time, but as I said earlier the Transport Committee is conducting an inquiry into the matter, and that might be an opportunity for the hon. Gentleman to make any points that he feels have not already been made.
Business of the House
Angus Brendan MacNeil Excerpts(13 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir George Young
I applaud any lateral thinking by local authorities throughout the country to deal with demographic pressures. One of the reasons we decided to increase in real terms the budget of the NHS was precisely to deal with the issue that my hon. Friend has touched on—the ageing of the population. Related to that is the extra £2 billion announced in October for adult services and social services. I hope that those, too, will have some impact in dealing with the demands for services as a result of the ageing of the population. When we get the localism Bill, my hon. Friend may have an opportunity to develop his argument at greater length.
Mr Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
I wonder whether Members could get greater notice of statements in the House. I have had the experience of being informed by journalists about statements the night before. If journalists can be informed, surely Members can be given greater notice.
Sir George Young
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Whenever possible, we try to give notice of a statement on the Order Paper, so that when Members come in, they can see that the Government are planning to make a statement. That is not always possible, but I wholly agree that the House should be informed at least at the same time as the press of any statements that the Government plan to make.
Business of the House
Angus Brendan MacNeil Excerpts(14 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir George Young
I am sorry to hear of Bethanie’s illness and I understand how important it is for her to have the MRI scan. As my hon. Friend will know, we are increasing in real terms the budget available to the NHS and we are introducing reforms so that more resources go to the front line. I shall raise this specific issue with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health to see whether there is any action he might take.
Mr Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Yesterday, the tug boat Anglian Prince was again involved in serious work as it towed a ship with engine trouble into Stornoway. Luckily, this time the ship was not full of oil and was not a nuclear submarine. May we have a debate on the possible environmental damage of the cuts and the removal of the maritime insurance policy in north-west Scotland, thereby highlighting the fact that the UK cannot or is unwilling to afford it, whereas an independent Scotland would and could?
Sir George Young
If the independent Scotland had the resources that it currently gets from elsewhere in the United Kingdom. The hon. Gentleman raises an important issue which I suggest is an appropriate subject for an Adjournment debate.
Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill
Angus Brendan MacNeil Excerpts(14 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Kennedy
Yes, I agree completely with the hon. Gentleman. In a moment of political frustration when he was Prime Minister of Canada, Mackenzie King said that the problem with Canada was that it had too much geography and not enough history. If anything, we have more than our fair share of both in Scotland, and that certainly comes through in considerations of the type that the Bill gives rise to. That is why the hon. Gentleman’s point about his part of the country is very valid.
Time is tight, and I do not wish to detain the House much longer. I want to stick to principles rather than becoming formulaic. Indeed, I have far better versed colleagues on hand, who can provide chapter and verse and who would leave the rest of us goggle-eyed with their statistics and equations—all of which I endorse, I hasten to add. I am always at my best in politics in such situations. The less one understands the issue, the more confident one can sound—witness the shadow Minister tonight.
Looking at the proposals, it makes eminent sense that the Western Isles are, and should be, a distinct, unique constituency. I remember growing up when the Western Isles constituency was bisected and was answerable partly to Dingwall and partly to Inverness. That was an absolutely atrocious affront to democracy for the communities there. It is a good thing that we have a unique, distinct constituency now, and I am pleased that it will stay that way.
Mr Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
May I remind the right hon. Gentleman that the council in north Lewis was Ross and Cromarty, while from Harris southwards was involved with Invernessshire? He is absolutely correct that it was a nightmare, and people still talk about it because there was a lack of accountability—as he said, people on the mainland and officialdom could not be reached.
Mr Kennedy
I very much agree. A similar argument applies to the northern isles, and it is absolutely correct that these respective entities have been recognised in the Bill. That is why what is proposed for the Isle of Wight is such an affront. Although the numbers there are huge compared with the island communities that some of us represent, the sense of a natural, distinct identity in the Isle of Wight should surely be reflected in the attitude that officialdom takes. I do not claim to speak with insight for the people of the Isle of Wight, but if that is what people want—representing island communities such as Skye, I can well understand where they are coming from—who are we to pass legislation that thwarts them before they have even got off the starting block in making their argument?
Mr MacNeil
Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the 88-year-old state of the United Kingdom is a very unbalanced Union? Some 8% to 10% of Members are from Scotland, and there is a percentage of MPs from Wales. However, if the UK were a proper union between nations, the percentage would be more equal between the constituent parts rather than grossly imbalanced. For the record, I would prefer it if Scotland needed to send no one down here, but this 88-year-old state is unbalanced.
Paul Murphy
I am sure the hon. Gentleman will agree that whatever his ideal, he is against a reduction in the number of Scotland and Wales MPs to represent Scottish and Welsh interests in the House.
Mr MacNeil
The hon. Gentleman makes a good and interesting point in that it underlines the general population instability in the UK. Recent scholars of the Union have pointed out that the Scottish percentage of the UK population has decreased. In the years to come, given the pattern of movement in the UK and the way in which the economy is run from south-east England, we might see more MPs from England and fewer from Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. The hon. Gentleman thus makes a very sensible point.
Mark Durkan
The hon. Gentleman spells out exactly the vista that is ahead of us with this Bill. Not only are the different boundary commissions not allowed to take account of the totality of circumstances within the territories for which they are responsible, but they are bound not just by the arithmetic of the UK quota but by the fixed limit of 600 seats. Part of our problem with all this is that we have a fixed limit of seats. There is not one seat more and not one seat fewer; there is just an absolute given number. I can see in that some of the conundrums that will beset this House every single time a boundary review is undertaken.
Mark Durkan
I totally agree with the right hon. Gentleman, who served with great distinction in Northern Ireland, not only as Secretary of State but as Minister of State. He was also the person who chaired the Strand 1 negotiations. Everyone rightly praises George Mitchell for his role, but not enough praise is conferred on the right hon. Gentleman for his role, and for the patience and perspicacity that he showed at that time. I must remind him, however, that in those negotiations, some of us were advocating that Northern Ireland should be granted the alternative vote system for Westminster elections as well. He and his right hon. Friend the then Prime Minister resisted that proposal, however.
Mr MacNeil
The crux of my hon. Friend’s argument is the instability that will be caused by the five-yearly boundary reviews. Does he feel that an opportunity was missed in Committee when the House rejected an amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Leeds North West (Greg Mulholland) that would have established reviews every 10 years? That would have brought greater stability for mainland Members who, rather than looking over their shoulder every five years, would have had some breathing space and a continuous constituency for at least one Parliament. Does my hon. Friend agree that, unfortunately, the other place might have to ride to the rescue of the Commons yet again?
Mark Durkan
Again, my hon. and Celtic colleague has spoken with great sense. Hon. Members will regret what they are doing with this Bill. They will find themselves living with the consequences, and comparing the boundary process with the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority process.
Andrew George
I shall support every amendment that achieves the objects set out clearly in my two amendments.
Mr MacNeil
The hon. Gentleman has mentioned history and culture, and there is of course the Gaelic proverb:
“S fhearr caraid sa chuirt na crun san sporran”—
it is better to have a friend in court—and, indeed, Parliament —than money in the purse. With that in mind, I say to my Celtic cousins from Cornwall that Karl Marx in one of his madder moments said that the fate of the Celtic races was to be ruled by the Nordic races. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the treatment of Cornwall could thus be construed as Marxist? Did he ever imagine that when this coalition Government set out their aims, they would end up with Marxism in Cornwall?
Andrew George
Let me quote someone else. It was Matthew Arnold who said that it was the desire of a centralised state
“to render its dominions… homogenous”.
Mr MacNeil
Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting—and all of us in the islands must bear this in mind—that there will be a particularly destabilising effect on Northern Irish society? We know what a destabilising effect on Northern Irish society might mean. Is that the main cause of his concern?
Mark Durkan
I do not want to dwell on this, because I spoke about it in the context of an earlier amendment, but we should bear in mind that the boundaries will be revised in every single Parliament and Assembly as a result of the Bill. Given the way in which the seats will be distributed in the various parts of the United Kingdom, the chances are that the number of seats in Northern Ireland will fall following one boundary review, rise following the next, and then fall again.
The unsettling nature of the reviews will affect Assembly and parliamentary constituencies. A computer will say, “This is what we have to do,” and it is possible that constituencies will receive the word that the computer says that there must be a reduction from 15 to 14 following the next boundary review. That will be hugely destabilising, and people will feel frustrated when they are told, “Sorry, this pays no regard to the Northern Ireland Assembly.” Another of my amendments, in a subsequent group, would enable the Speaker of the Assembly to be notified formally of all the workings of the boundary commissions. That would make at least some acknowledgement of the impact on the Assembly, which is completely absent from the Bill.
I believe that if the Government are refusing to allow local inquiries elsewhere—and they should not do that—they should at least allow, as a fall-back, a general inquiry in Northern Ireland that will take account of its particular circumstances. I will support any and all amendments that defend local inquiries.
I ask Members to bear my amendment in mind; I ask the Government to continue to acknowledge that there is a deficit in the consideration that they have given to Northern Ireland in the Bill, and to be ready to make up for that deficit.
Mr MacNeil
It strikes me that there is cross-community agreement on local public inquiries as the Northern Ireland fall-back position. Does the right hon. Gentleman hope that if the Government do not listen here, they might listen in the other place?
Mr Dodds
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. Given the experience of recent days, and the Minister’s references to the time that has been allowed for debate—a couple of hours this afternoon and this evening to debate these very important matters concerning the number of seats and the abolition of the age-old right to have local public inquiries—I am confident that the other place will examine these matters in great detail and will, I hope, bring common sense to bear.