English Votes on English Laws

Debate between Angus Brendan MacNeil and Iain Stewart

Tuesday 7th July 2015 Commons Chamber

[Iain Stewart (Milton Keynes South) (Con)]

May I start by congratulating the hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire (Martin John Docherty) on a fine maiden speech?

I speak as a Scot who represents a seat in England, who regards his nationality as British and who is a staunch Unionist. It is because I am a staunch Unionist that I support the measures under discussion. This issue is not new. As my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg) has said, it has been around for more than a century. It is four decades since Tam Dalyell brought it up and two decades since devolution legislation went through this House. It is time we had an answer to the West Lothian question. This issue goes with the grain of public opinion on both sides of the border. All the opinion poll evidence north and south of the border shows support for English votes on English laws, and I congratulate the Government on introducing the measures.

I only have time to make one substantive point. I grew up in Scotland in the 1980s, when the devolution argument was coming to its fore. At the core of the argument was the question: what legitimacy did the United Kingdom Government have to legislate for Scotland on matters on which Scottish Members disagreed? Devolution addresses that. Why cannot that question also apply to England?

I would have a lot of sympathy for the argument rehearsed in today’s debate if we were discussing excluding Members from debating and voting on bits of legislation, but that is not what is being discussed. All we are doing is inserting into legislation that applies only to England the same principle of consent that applies elsewhere in the country. That is fair. It is a modest proposal.

[Mr MacNeil]

rose—

[Iain Stewart]

I do not have time to give way.

I would not support measures that excluded Members, for the very good reasons that have been expressed, but my constituents also want that consent so that measures that apply only to them will not be unduly influenced by Members from elsewhere in the United Kingdom. This country has a flexible constitution and it should evolve to take account of the new realities. That is fair for my constituents. It will strengthen the Union. Doing nothing will endanger it.

Barnett Formula

Debate between Angus Brendan MacNeil and Iain Stewart

Tuesday 16th December 2014 Westminster Hall

[Iain Stewart (Milton Keynes South) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alan. I am grateful to have this opportunity to discuss the future of the Barnett formula in a little more depth than recent debates have allowed.

My reason for calling for the debate was neither to call for the abolition of Barnett, nor to say that it must stay unchanged for ever more. My motivation was born out of frustration at some of the ill-informed comments made about it. In advance of the draft legislation on further devolution to Scotland, which is due before Burns night next year, I want to put on the record an explanation of what the Barnett formula is and, perhaps more importantly, what it is not. I also put on the record that I absolutely support extra fiscal powers for the Scottish Parliament. That is good for the democratic accountability of Holyrood.

[Mr Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)]

The hon. Gentleman mentioned the Barnett formula and, before he goes too far, I want to highlight its operation. About a fortnight ago, the Treasury gave out money because roads and health in England had a shout for that. Therefore, from that followed Barnett consequentials to Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland.

However, I notice that, if there is a need in Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland for money for health or transport, the Treasury does not dip its hands in its pockets in the same way with Barnett consequentials running in the other direction. Barnett consequentials follow on from need in England. It is surely a governance problem when the Treasury responds only to health and transport needs in England and then we get consequentials. Should not the Treasury give money and have consequentials running in the other direction when need arises?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr MacNeil]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Iain Stewart]

Once more and then I must make some progress.

[Mr MacNeil]

While the hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Eric Ollerenshaw) may be correct that England pays more, it pays more only because it is larger; it does not pay more per capita. Unfortunately, that has been Scotland’s preserve: it has paid more tax per capita into the UK each and every year for the past 33 years.

[Iain Stewart]

Again, I shall address those very points in a few moments. I want to shed some light on the issue. Critics of Barnett usually start by quoting Treasury figures that say that public spending per capita in Scotland is £1,600 greater than in England as a consequence of the Barnett formula. For once I may be in agreement with the hon. Gentleman, because that is not correct. The Barnett formula is only one part of the complex fiscal relationship between the different parts of the United Kingdom.

The Barnett formula applies only to certain parts of public spending. Currently, about 40% of public spending in Scotland is not covered by it because that spending is not determined by the Scottish Parliament. That proportion will reduce in time as further taxes are devolved, but that point is important. Nor does Barnett determine the size of the Scottish block grant as a whole. That has built up incrementally over the years and the Barnett formula determines only the annual changes.

In simple terms, Scotland gets a population share of a departmental budget change in England where the equivalent is determined by Holyrood. Each year, the changes for each spending programme are totalled up and an overall adjustment to the previous year’s block grant is made. It is then up to the Scottish Parliament to decide how it spends that grant; it is not hypothecated. If Scotland gets £100 million more for health services because of the change in England, it is not obliged to spend that on health. That partly explains why some public services and other matters in Scotland are different from south of the border.

It is important to note that when the formula was introduced in the late 1970s it was designed as a convergence formula to narrow public spending per capita between Scotland and England. In advance of the devolution legislation proposed by the Wilson and Callaghan Governments, the Treasury carried out a needs-based review to determine the extent to which public spending per capita in Scotland would need to be higher to provide a comparable level of public services to those in England. It was found that because of factors such as Scotland’s proportionally greater landmass, rural population, council housing stock and poor health indicators, spending needed to be 16% per capita higher than in England. It was actually 22% higher, so Barnett was introduced gradually to narrow the gap and avoid the annual round of what was described as table-thumping over agreements between the different spending Departments.

It would seem that convergence has not happened, and it is important to understand why. First, in the initial years of operation, the population share was never adjusted, and that was at a time when Scotland’s population relative to England was falling. For a decade or so, a bias was therefore built in to the formula in Scotland’s favour. In the 1990s, the population share was adjusted, but it helped to sustain the higher levels. Secondly, and more significantly, were the number of deals done outside the Barnett formula. Whatever calculation Barnett produced, there was always pressure, under Governments of all parties, for extra funding arrangements. In his autobiography, the noble Lord Lang notes that when he was Scottish Secretary, between 1990 and 1992, Barnett should have reduced the Scottish Office block grant by £17 million, but, as a result of separate deals agreed with the Treasury, it was increased by £340 million.

[Mr MacNeil]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Iain Stewart]

I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, but I must make some progress.

The simple point is that if Barnett were to be ended tomorrow, the issue of comparative spending would not go away. There has not been a needs-based review since the 1970s, in which time many economic, social and demographic changes have taken place, so we do not actually know what the current position is. There are also difficulties in defining exactly what territorial spending is. One example is the building of High Speed 2, a project of which both phases will be entirely within England. One could therefore argue that spending on it should accrue only to England, but there is a benefit to Scotland and Wales—

[Mr MacNeil]

And France.

[Iain Stewart]

I am not quite sure whether the hon. Gentleman’s geography is correct. High Speed 2 will go from London to Birmingham and the north of England.

[Mr MacNeil]

The hon. Gentleman has conceded, as he is right to do, that High Speed 2 will be built in England, and says that it will also bring benefits to Scotland. If there are benefits to Scotland in the north, surely there will also be benefits at the other end, in the south—namely, to France. The benefits will be not only within but outwith the United Kingdom. High Speed 2 is not running in Scotland, but the hon. Gentleman argues that it will benefit Scotland; if it is going to benefit Scotland, it will benefit France in the same way.

[Iain Stewart]

Given the fact that there is currently no straight link between High Speed 2 and High Speed 1, that is a slightly tangential point. I have simply given High Speed 2 as an example of how difficult it is to assign exactly public spending on a territorial basis; I could cite many other examples.

It is worth while to look not only at public spending relationships between Scotland and England and Wales and England, but within each nation and the regions of each nation. There is currently a process of further devolution in England, which is producing more demands for tax and spending powers in the cities and regions. The north of England says quite regularly, “We’re being hard done to because of the Barnett formula.” London says that it pays far more than it receives in public spending—[Interruption.] I am not saying whether that is right or wrong, merely that such comments are made. I have funding issues in Milton Keynes in my constituency: with a rapidly growing population, sometimes the funding formulae do not keep up with the population need. There are also tensions between urban and rural spending—the issue is not only between the component countries of the United Kingdom.

We must start to open up a wider debate about the allocation of public spending right across the UK, bearing in mind the fact that we have a finite pot of money. We must also look at the tax receipts side of the ledger, which is also controversial. We have never definitively established the comparative amount of taxes raised north and south of the border, or, indeed, within England, because we have never had to assign taxes territorially. Many studies have been conducted, but they have been based on controversial assumptions.

It is difficult to assign tax revenues on a territorial basis because we have long had a unitary system. For example, my father was employed by the Civil Aviation Authority. He was based at Prestwick but spent one week in every two working at head office in London. He commuted between the two, so his time was spent equally between Scotland and England, and, to throw another spanner into the works, his tax office was in Cardiff. It would not be impossible to unpick all that, but it would be difficult, for corporation taxes as well as personal taxes. Nevertheless, it is something that we will have to do if more tax powers are devolved to Holyrood. We must also look at the disaggregation of national insurance and pension receipts and liabilities.

Simple calls for the retention or abolition of Barnett are very wide of the mark. If we are going to dismantle what has been a unitary fiscal system, there are many aspects to consider. Without updated figures on the current costs of providing public spending in each nation of the UK and within each region of each nation, we are working in the dark. I gently suggest to my hon. Friend the Minister that the Treasury looks at providing those figures.

My final point echoes the excellent one made by my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Eric Ollerenshaw). We must look at this matter in the context of the cohesion of the United Kingdom. The hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil) has left the Chamber, but his party, the SNP, lost the referendum. We must make the Union work better and we need a sense of fairness; as my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch (Karen Lumley) said, every part of the Union must be treated fairly.

A few years ago, I began to do research for a book, and I looked at what is done in places such as Canada, Germany, Spain and the United States with regard to different tax-raising and spending powers in the component parts. Whatever the system, everyone still argued about spending levels and transfers from more to less affluent areas. That will never end—it is part and parcel of political debate—but the important thing is that we have a sense of fairness. I hope that today’s debate has helped to shed some light on matters that are often simplified and on a debate that is often inflamed, and that I have made a useful contribution to a much longer debate that we must have about public spending in the UK.

Devolution (Scotland Referendum)

Debate between Angus Brendan MacNeil and Iain Stewart

Tuesday 14th October 2014 Commons Chamber

[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?

--- Later in debate ---

[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?

Scotland’s Place in the UK

Debate between Angus Brendan MacNeil and Iain Stewart

Thursday 6th February 2014 Commons Chamber

[Iain Stewart (Milton Keynes South) (Con)]

I am honoured to have the opportunity to contribute to this important debate. I start by congratulating the hon. Member for Glasgow North East (Mr Bain) on securing the discussion today. Like the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart), I want to make principally an emotional argument. My birthday is on 18 September, and I want to celebrate it—hopefully for many years to come—with a glass or two of a good single malt and a celebration of my country. I do not want it to be a permanent reminder of the day that my country was lost. My nationality is British and my country is the United Kingdom. I want to speak up for my constituents and everyone on both sides of the border who feel the same.

[Mr Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)]

rose—

[Iain Stewart]

I have a great affection for the hon. Gentleman so I will give way.

[Mr MacNeil]

What sort of birthday present does the hon. Gentleman think the people of Scotland would like to give a Tory MP on 18 September?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)]

Se urram mhor a tha ann dhomh an diugh cothrom bruidhinn air Alba a bhi neo-eisimeileachd.

I start in Gaelic, the oldest language of these islands of Britain and Ireland, to say that it is a great pleasure to speak in this debate about the day Scotland will be independent. It is tremendous that this House has taken this opportunity to debate the vital topic of how Scotland can join the world as an independent nation—how it can be a full part of the United Nations and a full and proper member of the Commonwealth, not kept apart and separate as a region of another state, and certainly not knowing its place in the Union. If ever a debate had a title with the hangover of imperialism, it is this one. Scotland’s place, like that of New Zealand, Canada, Norway, Denmark and Ireland, is in the world. No country in the developed world has voted against their independence, and I am sure that Scotland will not be the first. It is an odd insult to Scotland that here in Westminster every other nation is seen as independent but Scotland is insulted by the word “separate” or “separatism”. We will be independent like the others, too.

The right hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Mr Darling)—the darling leader of the no campaign—often says that independence is a one-way street. [Interruption.] Yes, he darkly warns. In fairness, not much he says has any brightness and joy. But he is describing a situation and not a fact. The fact is that independence is probably irreversible. The empirical reality, from observation, is that none who gains independence chooses to give it up. As it works personally when we stop being children and start making decisions for ourselves, so it works for countries. The best people to make decisions for a country are the people who live and work there, and this is true for Scotland.

[Iain Stewart]

The hon. Gentleman has made a very interesting point. If, heaven forfend, there is a yes vote on 18 September, will he commit his party, at some subsequent date, to give a further referendum to allow Scotland back into the United Kingdom?

Constitutional Law

Debate between Angus Brendan MacNeil and Iain Stewart

Tuesday 15th January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Iain Stewart]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that helpful point of information. I return to the fundamental point. If the age of franchise is changed, it should apply to every election or none, and not to one poll. I do not have sufficient knowledge of the referendum on crofting, but I suspect that is not quite as significant an issue as the future of the United Kingdom. There should be consistency and the debate should be in general terms, not unilaterally for one poll.

My next concern is about the electorate. As my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Mrs Laing) eloquently and powerfully explained, it is utterly wrong that an EU citizen temporarily living in Scotland should have a say on the future of the United Kingdom, but a Scot living in England does not. If I, for example, chose to live and work in Barcelona, I would not feel any right to take part in Catalonia’s future constitutional relationship with the rest of Spain. It would not cross my mind to exercise an opinion on that, so why should a Spaniard living in Edinburgh or wherever decide on the future of the United Kingdom?

[Mr MacNeil]

I appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s view but if I was so fortunate as to live in Barcelona and a Catalonian vote was called, I think I might express my opinion on the issue, given that it would affect me day to day. Perhaps that is a personal difference between the two of us, but I would care about the country and the environment in which I was living and therefore I would take part.

[Iain Stewart]

It is perfectly reasonable for someone living in a city or an area of a country to take part in very local polls concerning the local infrastructure and services. That is quite a different matter from someone being able to take part in a fundamental decision about the constitutional status of their home country.

[Mr MacNeil]

I hope that the hon. Gentleman understands that the upstream issue is that all the matters that he is talking about are affected by the framework in which they operate. One of the reasons for wanting an independent Scotland was highlighted last week in the debate on the Welfare Benefits Up-rating Bill. The majority of Scottish MPs were against it, yet it is being foisted on Scotland against the wishes of Scottish society. If we want to produce a welfare situation that is perfect and better for Scotland, we have to first sort out the constitutional framework around it before we can get to that point.

[Iain Stewart]

The hon. Gentleman is confusing a number of issues. He wants independence and separation so that Scotland can decide these things for itself. The point that I am making is that a EU citizen who is neither Scottish nor English would be able to influence that vote in Scotland, but a Scot living in England would not.

[Mr MacNeil]

rose—

[Iain Stewart]

Forgive me, but I want to make progress.

We all have opinions on the constitutional status of all sorts of countries. I have views on what should happen in the United States, Australia and Germany, but I do not seek to vote on them. It is fundamentally wrong that such a situation could exist. I echo the call made by my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest for a very simple change so that the franchise for Westminster elections also applied to Scotland. That would go a long way to removing many of the anomalies that have been mentioned with regard to members of the armed forces and their families not being able to take part in this poll. We call on these people to fight and to, potentially, give up their lives for their country, yet they will not be given the right to take part in its future direction.

[Iain Stewart]

My hon. Friend makes another excellent point and I echo it. The other key point is—I mentioned this in my intervention on her speech—that it is up to the Scottish Parliament to decide this. There is nothing in the order that prohibits that. I urge it to look reasonably and rationally at the issue. The referendum must be fair if it is to have legitimacy. If it does not have legitimacy, I fear that we will just perpetuate uncertainty.

That leads me to my next point, which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State also made in his opening speech. The referendum must be the end of the matter. Whatever the result, it must be clear and binding. As my right hon. Friend also said, if the decision is a yes vote—I fervently hope that it will be a massive no vote—negotiations will have to begin. I want clarity from those on the Government Front Bench on what will happen if there is a very narrow yes vote and negotiations begin on the terms of the divorce. What if the reality does not match the separatists’ rhetoric on issues such as Scotland’s membership of the EU, adoption of the single currency or any one of the number of issues that are coming to light? What if the deal for Scotland is not nearly as favourable as first envisaged? Is there scope for a second referendum within the time scale, the end date of which is 31 December 2014? Either way, I do not want a second referendum to be called in the event of a narrow yes or no vote. The decision has to be clear and final, to avoid the kind of ongoing uncertainty that existed in Quebec following a narrow no vote. That vote did not end the matter, and the separatists have come back again and again to try to get their way. Thankfully, they have not achieved it. There could be a similar danger here, and I would like clarification on what such a situation would mean for Scotland and the United Kingdom.

On the timing of the referendum, I wish that we could just get on with it. I slightly disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest on this matter, although she was right to say that the longer the debate goes on, the more the unsavoury consequences of separation and the confusion of the SNP’s position come to light.

[Mr MacNeil]

This talk of uncertainty seems to be unfounded, as many investors have come to Scotland in the past year. Certainly, the only time I have heard the subject raised has been in the context of the US Government recently getting worried about the noises coming from the Conservative party about leaving the European Union. Does the hon. Gentleman think that such talk in the Conservative party should end?

Scotland and the Union

Debate between Angus Brendan MacNeil and Iain Stewart

Thursday 29th November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Iain Stewart (Milton Keynes South) (Con)]

It is a great pleasure to have the opportunity to contribute to this timely and important debate, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Mrs Laing) on securing it. I am proud to be a co-signatory to the motion.

The hon. Member for Livingston (Graeme Morrice) set out very well many of the practical benefits that Scotland and, indeed, the rest of the United Kingdom gain from the Union, be it in defence, finance and economic matters, or our influence on the world stage. We could, and should, have a full debate on each of those points, and I am sure that in the course of the next year or two, leading up to the referendum, they will all be fully explored. To summarise the benefits—I think that the hon. Gentleman used this phrase—the strength of the whole is greater than the sum of the parts. We are stronger together.

Scotland could go it alone as a separate country. I am not one of those who believes that it would be an impoverished basket case of a country that could not survive on its own. Of course it could, but at what cost? Together, we are stronger, more influential, safer and more prosperous. It would be much riskier for everyone if Scotland went it alone.

[Mr MacNeil]

Does the hon. Gentleman have a list of nations of about 4 million to 5 million people that might be better off joining the UK because they would be safer, more prosperous and more influential? Is he considering Denmark, Sweden or Finland? What is at the forefront of his mind?

[Iain Stewart]

I am puzzled. Is the hon. Gentleman asking for other countries to come and join us in the United Kingdom? That is a very interesting notion.

A few years ago, the global banking crisis sent economic shockwaves around the world. The SNP used to make a claim for the arc of prosperity that would link a separate Scotland with Ireland and Iceland, but that arc has rusted somewhat in the light of events. A separate Scotland could have weathered that storm, but the resilience that we had as a country was much stronger because we were the United Kingdom and not split up into atomised parts.

[Mr MacNeil]

I am sure the hon. Gentleman does not want to cast aspersions on Iceland and will therefore know its unemployment rate and GDP per capita as against those of the United Kingdom.

[Iain Stewart]

I cannot give those figures off the top of my head. If the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that Iceland was any better placed to weather the storm than the United Kingdom, that is a slightly revisionist view of history.

Another issue is Scotland’s role in the European Union if it becomes a separate country. There was an interesting debate on that in Westminster Hall last week. In the interests of brevity, I will not rehearse all the arguments. I believe strongly that if Scotland went its own way and wanted to be part of the EU, it would happen on the EU’s terms. Scotland would be sucked into full currency, fiscal and political union, which would not be to its benefit.

[Iain Stewart]

I will not give way again.

The EU issue makes a mockery of the SNP’s independence policy. It is perfectly logical to argue that if Scotland does not like one economic union and wants to be the master of its own destiny, it should go its own way, but to argue that it should then join an ever-deepening union is utterly illogical.

The fact that we are having a referendum at all is risky as it may be a distraction from what we should be concentrating on. I do not doubt for a minute that it is perfectly within Scotland’s right to have the debate and to have the matter resolved. As a democrat, I fully accept that the Scottish National party won a majority in the last Scottish Parliament elections and that a referendum was part of its manifesto. It is therefore perfectly legitimate to have the debate. But at what cost? The constitutional uncertainty in Canada in the 1980s and 1990s had a severe impact on the economic prosperity of Quebec. The EU admitted that in a report.

[Mr MacNeil]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Iain Stewart]

If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I have a number of points that I want to make and I have already been generous in giving way to him.

A report by economists at the appropriately named Scotiabank in Canada said of the 1995 referendum:

“The palpable fear in the markets was keyed off deep intertwined concerns about the country’s fiscal, economic and political circumstances.”

The very fact that we are having this debate is therefore risky as it may distract us. However, I accept that it is legitimate that we are having it.

My main point relates not to the economic or defence arguments or to Scotland’s influence on the global stage, but is a personal and emotional appeal. My nationality is British. I do not want to be rendered stateless or to be forced to choose between the place of my birth and the place I now call home. The country that would be left would be the rest of the United Kingdom and its flag would be, as the noble Lord Forsyth described it, “an anaemic red asterisk” once the blue of the saltire was taken out.

As far as I can tell, my blood is 100% Scottish. My father has traced the generations of the family back to the 1700s. Unless there is something we do not know about, my family came from a small area in Lanarkshire and Ayrshire. I spent my childhood in Scotland. My primary and secondary education was in Scotland, but my higher education was in England. Three quarters of my working life has been spent in England. Through marriage and my family, I have many relatives who are part Scottish and part English. I have stood for public office five times: twice in Scotland and three times in England. My Scottish ventures were somewhat less successful than my English ones. I stood for South Lanarkshire council and for Glasgow Rutherglen. Let us just say that I saved my deposit on both occasions.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest said forcefully, of course Scotland and England have distinct cultures that are expressed through the arts and on the sporting field, but both can be vibrant within the Union. Patriotism does not require nationalism to flourish. Beyond a patriotic pride, the United Kingdom has something that is much stronger. Team GB at the Olympic games exemplified it, the monarchy exemplifies it, and even James Bond exemplifies it. We have an identity that has been forged through more than 300 years of the world’s most successful and enduring Union. We do not need to change. The hon. Member for Angus (Mr Weir) said that that is history. It is history, but it is also the present and I believe that it is the future. For goodness’ sake, let us not throw away what we have achieved and what makes us strong, prosperous and successful in an ever-changing world that is becoming more dangerous and uncertain. We have something that is strong and that works; let us keep it.

Daylight Saving Bill

Debate between Angus Brendan MacNeil and Iain Stewart

Friday 20th January 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr MacNeil]

That is a very interesting question. Debate, discussion and arguments can of course be invigorating, and can cause serotonin and other useful hormones to flow through the body. The hon. Gentleman may be on to something. I am sure that a considerable constituency in the country would be greatly cheered by a fight with Europe—myself included, certainly when it comes to fishing issues.

Let me return to the amendment, Mr Deputy Speaker. One of my main complaints is that most of the data used by the campaigns are based on simulations and estimates. Dr Elizabeth Garnsey, author of the report on daylight saving that has been used by Lighter Later, has said:

“the data that are being used in the BRE report are simulated data. They are illustrative data—that is, invented data. When you do a simulation of that kind your outputs are going to represent the input assumptions that you made.”

In many senses, those data might not be real. However, I shall try to use only empirical data to prove my point.

The hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) was very concerned with the issue of happiness, as, indeed, was the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg). I hope that I have pronounced his constituency correctly, as he pronounces mine so well: I hope that I have used the correct Somerset intonations.

On the issue of depression and sunlight, those leading the change campaign have said that more light in the evening can help to abate seasonal affective disorder and depression, using a 1993 study to prove their case. However, Professor Michael Terman, a PhD who works in the Department of Psychiatry at Columbia University in America, conducted a study this year that proved the exact opposite, and his findings were supported by Dr Malcolm von Schantz of the University of Surrey. Dr Terman found that darker mornings lead to increased depression, because the body’s natural clock needs morning sunlight in order to operate properly.

[Iain Stewart]

The hon. Gentleman has raised an important point. Many people in my constituency, which is in the south-east of England, commute to London daily. Indeed, I was a daily commuter myself before I was elected. In the winter, doing both journeys in the dark is a pretty miserable experience, and I fear that the time change would subject more commuters to more misery in the winter.

Scotland Bill

Debate between Angus Brendan MacNeil and Iain Stewart

Tuesday 21st June 2011 Commons Chamber

[Iain Stewart (Milton Keynes South) (Con)]

I shall speak first to my amendment 24 before making some broader comments about some of the other amendments and new clauses.

I tabled the amendment as a probing amendment, as I felt there was still some ambiguity about one aspect of the definition of a Scottish taxpayer when it was considered in Committee. My point of concern is to define whether under clause 26 a taxpayer is resident in Scotland at the end of the day if that person is embarking on a cross-border overnight journey—one that departs Scotland before midnight and arrives in England after midnight. I think primarily of my old friend on the Caledonian sleeper, whom I cited in Committee. If the train leaves Glasgow and has crossed the border before midnight, is he deemed to be in Scotland or England at the end of the tax day? The point may seem trivial, but for someone who makes that journey regularly it could be material in defining whether they were a Scottish or an English taxpayer. Obviously, it would also apply to other modes of transport, such as private or heavy goods vehicles and overnight coaches.

It is a probing amendment and it may not offer the most specific or elegant definition, but I tabled it to find clarity. I shall be happy not to press it if alternative wording can be found, or the Minister can give clarity in case the definition is ever challenged in court. I shall return to that point briefly at the end of my comments.

I shall speak briefly to new clause 8 and the related amendments tabled by the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field) and others. I suspect that one of our show-stopping debates tonight may be on the Barnett formula and related matters. When I looked at the amendment paper, I thought I would be following the right hon. Gentleman and responding to his points, but I shall have to anticipate his arguments from the interventions and from the new clause itself.

They are a beguiling set of amendments. I agree that at some point we shall have to tackle the whole issue of the Barnett formula and the fiscal relationship between all parts of the United Kingdom. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil) invites me to give a solution. If he bides his time—

[Mr MacNeil]

I said we have a solution.

[Iain Stewart]

I know, but I believe I have a better one and I shall turn to it in a moment.

The arguments are beguiling. The hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) said that she has correspondence from constituents asking why on the face of it Scottish residents have a much better deal from the UK public purse than people in England. I receive similar letters asking why prescriptions are free north of the border, but there is a charge in England. That issue has to be tackled.

[Mr MacNeil]

Among that raft of questions, has anyone ever asked the hon. Gentleman why the social security spend is higher per head in England than in Scotland?

[Iain Stewart]

I challenge the hon. Gentleman’s facts, because in preparing for the debate I read that often-thumbed document GERS—Government Expenditure and Revenue Scotland—and the Treasury’s public expenditure statistical analysis, which show, if my interpretation is correct, that social security payments are higher per head in Scotland than in England.

--- Later in debate ---

[Iain Stewart]

Indeed. If the hon. Lady will let me develop my argument, I shall address those points. There is a lot of misinformation swilling around and we need to arrive at hard evidence-based data so that we can make objective decisions about the future fiscal relationship between the different parts of the United Kingdom.

One of the misleading things is that we often talk about changing the Barnett formula as if that was the whole fiscal relationship between the different parts of the kingdom. In fact, it is a convergence formula; it was designed by Lord Barnett to diminish the difference between Scottish and English public spending over time. The reason why people complain about the formula is that so many elements of public spending are negotiated separately from the formula. Last week, there was an instructive debate about the formula in the other place and I remind Members of the comments of Lord Lang, a former Scotland Secretary. He said that between 2000 and 2002 the Barnett elements of the public expenditure rounds diminished the Scottish block by £17 million, but the total increased by £340 million because of separately negotiated arrangements.

[Mr MacNeil]

Was any mention made in that debate of the massive defence underspend in Scotland, which is a huge section of public spending where Scotland receives dramatically less than its per capita share compared with the rest of the UK? [Interruption.] I would say more if I was not being heckled by the hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Mr Davidson).

[Iain Stewart]

If the hon. Gentleman has a little patience, I shall come to what I believe is the solution.

I fear that new clause 8 and the related amendments are a little hasty in dealing with this matter.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr MacNeil]

rose—

[Iain Stewart]

I will give way to the hon. Gentleman in a moment. His party, in calculating Scotland’s share of the United Kingdom’s tax receipts, has used very different formulae and assumptions over the years. I do not have the exact figures to hand, but in the space of a few months it came up with a figure for Scotland’s surplus, if that is what it was, which varied by several billion pounds because it used different assumptions in calculating Scottish tax receipts. That is the problem that we have in calculating the true relationship.

[Mr MacNeil]

Over and above tax receipts, disaggregated spending might be a lot easier. Does the hon. Gentleman believe that Departments such as the Ministry of Defence should provide full figures on how much they are spending in which parts of the United Kingdom? The Government have the power and authority to do that. We have many concerns about the shipyards in Glasgow and about defence spending. As a member of the governing party, does the hon. Gentleman feel that he should be encouraging his side to provide openness and clarity on these vital issues?

[Iain Stewart]

I am happy to come to some agreement with the hon. Gentleman. My solution is to provide a detailed breakdown on a territorial basis of actual spending and receipts—what is spent and received by each part of the United Kingdom.

--- Later in debate ---

[Iain Stewart]

I challenge the hon. Gentleman’s assumption about the lack, as he sees it, of economic benefits. I also contend that he is making a good case for Scotland's remaining part of the Union, so that the lion’s share of UK defence assets can be based north of the border.

[Mr MacNeil]

As part of the Union, Scotland currently has a manifest defence underspend. There is no defence advantage for Scotland of being in the Union at all; we are actually losing money by being part of the Union. Far more would be spent on defence in Scotland as an independent country than the Union is spending there, and the shipyards in Glasgow would be in a far better state with an independent Scotland than with a dependent Scotland represented by Labour.

--- Later in debate ---

[Iain Stewart]

My amendment is very simple and would remove any ambiguity. If a passenger were on a cross-border overnight journey, irrespective of when the border was crossed, they would be deemed to be in Scotland at the end of the day when that service departed. It may not be the most elegant or precise of solutions, but I felt that in the debate in Committee there was some ambiguity about the position, so the amendment is my attempt to clarify it.

[Mr MacNeil]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Iain Stewart]

Forgive me, but I am going to finish now. Many other Members wish to speak, and I look forward to the Minister’s comments.

Scotland Bill

Debate between Angus Brendan MacNeil and Iain Stewart

Tuesday 15th March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr MacNeil]

No, you’re fine.

If the Government and the Unionist parties truly believe that this is an economic arrangement that is in the best interests of the people who live in the islands, they have nothing to fear by giving Scotland control over clocks, coastguards, elections and fiscal autonomy—the whole gamut. There is usually nothing but dogma blocking good sense.

[Iain Stewart]

It is with a heavy heart that I rise to oppose the new clause tabled by the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil)—I hope my pronunciation is acceptable. As he mentioned, we had an interesting debate on the private Member’s Bill on daylight savings before Christmas. He and I, along with an eclectic mix of Members, went into the No Lobby to oppose it. I agree with him about the effects that central European time or double summer time, whatever we call it, would have on Scotland, on other parts of the UK and on various categories of workers in different industries. I am at one with him on that and have great sympathy with his motives, but I cannot agree with the methodology he uses to arrive at his conclusions. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith), who noted that the new clause, if successful, would make it easier for the House to approve a move to central European time or double summer time and that we would end up with two time zones in the UK.

Before moving on to some of the practical difficulties that such a move would entail, I caution the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar against opening up head L5 of schedule 5 to the Scotland Act 1998, because along with

“Timescales, time zones and the subject-matter of the Summer Time Act 1972”,

a host of other matters are reserved, including

“The calendar; units of time; the date of Easter”.

We are already in enough trouble with Cardinal Keith O’Brien about other matters before we start tinkering with the date of Easter, so I urge some caution in going down that route.

As Members have explained, it would be hugely impractical to have different time zones within the UK. Other countries, of course, do have different time zones: Australia has four, Canada has six and Russia has eight. However, Australia is 2.9 million square miles in size, Canada 3.8 million square miles and Russia 6.6 million square miles. The UK is 94,000 square miles in size. To have different time zones in a relatively small geographic area is ludicrous. I can think of all sorts of practical difficulties that that would entail, particularly for people living in areas on either side of the border. People in Carlisle and Dumfries, for example, would have all sorts of problems adjusting their clocks as they went back and forward over the border. Would “News at Ten” be subject to the Trades Description Act if it did not broadcast as “News at Ten (but Nine o’clock in Scotland)”?

Daylight Saving Bill

Debate between Angus Brendan MacNeil and Iain Stewart

Friday 3rd December 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr MacNeil]

If the hon. Gentleman’s argument is for one hour, why does he not extend that logic to two, three, four or eight hours? Perhaps we could have our daylight at 4 o’clock in the afternoon when we have all finished work so that we had more leisure time at the end of day. That would be the logical conclusion of his argument.

The crux of the matter is that people getting up an hour earlier face the darkness of the morning for another hour. As I make this argument for the third time, I sometimes feel that we are doing battle with the forces of darkness—I am looking directly across the Chamber at the hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood). Some Members will imagine that I am participating in this debate merely to indulge in what is claimed to be the perennial Scottish ritual of opposing any changes to the clocks, but that is not true.

A similar idea was defeated in this House in 1970—this may help the hon. Member for North Thanet (Mr Gale) —when the then Member for the Western Isles, the late Donald Stewart, started his Commons speaking career by opposing this very argument 40 years and a day ago, on 2 December 1970, when I was a mere babe in arms of five months. I was reminded of it by one of the Doorkeepers, Mr Robin Fell from the Serjeant at Arms office. He was working in the Commons at the time, and such is his impressive institutional memory that he remembered the debate. Donald Stewart said:

“Public opinion polls would indicate that there is a case for abolishing British Standard Time.”

He went on to say:

“Central European Time is really what we are discussing. It has little relevance to England and none at all to Scotland. It is pleasant to know that several hon. Members from English constituencies, some of them in the south, have indicated to me that they intend to vote for the abolition of British Standard Time.”—[Official Report, 2 December 1970; Vol. 807, c. 1346.]

[Iain Stewart (Milton Keynes South) (Con)]

I hope that, as a Conservative and Unionist, I will not do the hon. Gentleman’s credibility any damage if I agree with that point. Some Members from southern constituencies, although they may be not completely against changing the clocks, do at least have significant concerns about it.

[Mr MacNeil]

I thank the hon. Gentleman. That is borne out in my next point. The result of the Division on 2 December 1970 was 366 to 81. The hon. Members for Bolsover (Mr Skinner) and for Louth and Horncastle (Sir Peter Tapsell) were here, and they voted to abolish British standard time, so I imagine that today they would be on my side of the argument. I would have had 366 Members on my side and there would have been 81 on the other side. I cannot see 81 in front of me today, but I think that those who are most vexed by this proposal are here.

Dawn happens when dawn happens. Supporters of the Bill have painted a picture—

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Debate between Angus Brendan MacNeil and Iain Stewart

Tuesday 12th October 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr MacNeil]

Maybe not happy hours, just hours.

Tom Aitchison, the convenor of the interim electoral management board for Scotland, has expressed sensible concerns about holding the UK’s alternative vote referendum on the same day as the Scottish Parliament poll. The proposal is an example of bad practice, and perhaps a slippery slope. In the United States, referendums are often used as wedge issues—some would allege that the Republican strategist Karl Rove uses them for exactly that purpose. We do not want our democracies hijacked by side issues on the day of a main vote that has been expected for years.

[Iain Stewart (Milton Keynes South) (Con)]

If I recall the provisions of the Scotland Act 1998 correctly, the Scottish Parliament has the ability to vary the date of its election. If there is concern about having the polls on the same day, surely it could move the election a few weeks either side.

[Mr MacNeil]

I hear the hon. Gentleman’s accent. I have heard about the respect agenda, but I smell cultural imperialism in its worst form.

The UK’s media are pretty poor at dealing with complexities across the UK, and we are concerned that the important issues that will rightly come before the Scottish people will be sidelined by an “X Factor” media dealing with the simpler issue of the referendum. It happens in the US—it is the big ticket election, which affects all viewers, listeners, readers and dare I say media consumers, that counts, regardless of the importance of the issues being debated. However, is daily health and education policy not more important than the type of electoral system that is employed every four to five years? That is not to say that the electoral system is unimportant, but surely it is further down the hierarchy of needs and importance.