Oil and Gas Industry

Debate between Colin Clark and Alan Brown

Tuesday 9th October 2018 Westminster Hall

[Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk (John Mc Nally) on introducing what is clearly a timely debate, given that the Budget is forthcoming. As he rightly said, that Tory Budget cannot undermine the future of the oil and gas industry by once again using the North sea as a cash cow—terminology that was effectively recognised even by the hon. Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock (Bill Grant), who acknowledged the £350 billion that the UK Treasury has accrued over the lifetime of the oil industry. That money has simply been frittered away.

[Colin Clark (Gordon) (Con)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Alan Brown]

No, because I have limited time.

Where is the legacy from the UK Government? Where is the onshore infrastructure investment to support Aberdeen? It has been left to the Scottish National party Government to pick up the pieces, including the Aberdeen bypass and rail improvements. Where is the oil fund we have called for? Norway’s oil fund, started in 1990, has now topped $1 trillion in assets, and last year returned a profit of $131 billion. That alone gives lie to the myth that Scotland relies on the broad shoulders of the UK to deal with any price volatility. Careful stewardship would have taken care of that.

Let us look at the measures the UK Government have taken recently. In the spring 2016 Budget, they reduced the supplementary charge back to 10%. That was very welcome, but the predicted cost to the Treasury of £l billion was only a third of the inheritance tax giveaway to millionaires—such were their priorities. In the November 2017 Budget, the transferable tax history was a welcome measure, but given that it was predicted to bring an additional £70 million in revenue to the Treasury, that was not a difficult decision. The UK Government need to close out the process going forward. Over the same period, we have had the £1 billion carbon capture and storage betrayal. That project would have facilitated diversification from the wider oil and gas industry.

As others have recognised, the offshore oil industry has clearly been a great success story and has turned Aberdeen into a global city. Despite the predictions of when oil will run out, there is still a bright future. Just last month, Total announced a major gas discovery off Shetland, with an estimated 1 trillion cubic feet of gas that can be extracted. Rosebank, off the west of Shetland, is estimated to contain around 300 million barrels of oil. Equinor has called it

“one of the biggest undeveloped finds on the UK Continental Shelf.”

Overall, the North sea holds significant potential, with the equivalent of up to 20 billion barrels of oil remaining. That could sustain production for the next 20 years. I repeat that the UK Government cannot do another cash grab on the industry. Production statistics show that the sales value of oil and gas has gone up, and we know that production of oil and gas remains 23% higher than the level recorded in 2014-15. Even so, the UK Government must introduce measures to improve the exploration and attract fresh investment. They need to support the industry in its ambitions to increase the total economic value of the North sea.

With the publication of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report, we have to recognise the wider climate change issues and that the world is not on track to meet the temperature goals of the Paris agreement. The UK Government will have to take action in that regard, but that does not mean that we need to pull out of the North sea any time soon. Even if we did, we would then be reliant on imports.

Scotland’s energy strategy recognises that a strong domestic oil and gas industry can play a positive role in supporting the low carbon transition. What would help that transition, while we are still extracting oil and gas, is carbon capture and storage, greater investment in renewables, and allowing onshore wind developments in Scotland. The UK Government must also back away from the nuclear folly, and invest that money in offshore renewables, grid upgrades and directly in energy efficiency measures in homes.

We must recognise that the North sea industry is highly regulated, with some of the most advanced and comparatively least polluting production methods in the world. The industry is focused on reducing its carbon footprint and average emissions have fallen year on year since 2013. An oil and gas sector deal could help that process. Where is it? We really need one, and we need to hear about that from the Minister. The future of the oil and gas industry is bright, but it needs better leadership from the UK Government.

National Policy Statement: Airports

Debate between Colin Clark and Alan Brown

Monday 25th June 2018 Commons Chamber

[Alan Brown]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. Frankly, as a Scottish MP and an SNP spokesperson on transport, it matters greatly to me where the flights are going. I want these flights, the connectivity for Scotland and the protection that we have not yet heard about from the UK Government.

[Colin Clark (Gordon) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman is making a very powerful speech. I have a simple question. Does he want the extra 100 flights that an expanded Heathrow will provide for Scotland? Can he give me a simple yes or no?

[Alan Brown]

I want that, but I also want guarantees of protection. I will come on to that point, so, again, I ask the hon. Gentleman to show a bit of patience and wait.

UK Oil and Gas Industry

Debate between Colin Clark and Alan Brown

Thursday 19th April 2018 Westminster Hall

[Colin Clark]

Also, the trade unions and their representatives have to be very careful that they base what they are saying on science, not anecdotal evidence. I have heard one or two things said that made me very worried; I will not say that it was scaremongering, but they undermined people’s confidence in what is absolutely essential. The people who work in the oil and gas industry do not want to see helicopters grounded; they want to be safe and they want to be confident about how they get back and forward from the rigs.

I would like to mention two projects by the Oil and Gas Technology Centre. It has a great ambition for an underwater innovation centre, which is very important to the sub-sea sector. That is a very big part of the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie), who is no longer in his place. It is also about to create the newly announced decommissioning centre in Newborough, in my constituency, which is trying to be the centre of decommissioning technology and ability, so that the UK plays a key part in it and we do not move it elsewhere.

In monetary terms, Vision 2035 aims to create £1 trillion of revenue over the period to 2035 only. The Oil and Gas Authority has a potential upper level of 20 billion barrels of oil, and that expectation is based on barely a quarter of what there could be. We want to see the supply chain double to £500 billion over that period. That is an absolutely enormous part of the UK economy paying tax, contributing and investing in people. Through collaboration, the maximum economic recovery that has been developed by the industry could provide £400 billion. Again, that is just up to 2035. The collaborative effort between Her Majesty’s Government and the Scottish Government shows that when we work together, businesses and jobs benefit. That is pretty well what all our constituents would expect us to do.

The private sector is beginning to have tremendous confidence again in the oil and gas industry. In 2017, there was a staggering $8 billion of merger and acquisition activity in the sector; Chrysaor invested $3.8 billion to purchase Shell assets, and that was before transferable tax history. There was also activity in the supply chain that included Wood Group and Amec, which together are to become a FTSE 100 company, and GE and Baker Hughes, which plan to float on the New York Stock Exchange. They are mammoth businesses investing in a lot of people. The variety, size and type of M and A deals last year signal confidence in the UK continental shelf.

We live in a free market economy where Government must create the right conditions for growth, which is why we are here today to address the Minister. Anti-business rhetoric of demonising job creators, overregulation or punitive taxes all damage growth, as does demonising hydrocarbons by suggesting that they are somehow a thing of the past that we should not be getting involved in. Achieving inward investment requires a dynamic economy with flexible labour laws, hence our historically low unemployment. High taxes destroy investment and job opportunities.

Government must be very conscious of what they are doing. We need to grow the whole economy, not just take more slices out of bits of it. Past Conservative Governments have made mistakes on that very point, particularly in the oil and gas industry. Deirdre Michie said:

“We need more exploration if we are to get close to recovering the three to up to nine billion barrels”

of oil.

Whenever we speak of oil, the figures are absolutely enormous, as is its economic impact: as I said earlier, 1 billion barrels of oil is £50 billion of contribution to the economy.

The UK has signed up to significant carbon reduction. Hydrocarbon production is presented by parts of the media and politicians in this place—I have heard them on many occasions—as part of the problem. Renewables have become a large part of electricity production, but there is twice as much energy transferred by the gas ring than there is by electricity because, apart from on a hot day like this, this is a country that needs heating in our homes. Natural gas produces half the greenhouse gases that coal does. The UK continental shelf industry is part of the solution, not the problem. Each and every one of us gets up in the Chamber as often as we can to remind people that the industry is a very valuable part of the economy.

As the Minister mentioned, the Oil and Gas Technology Centre sees the future being hydrogen and carbon focused, with unmanned facilities and reusable structures. Already, BP in the Quad 204 is putting into practice sub-sea automated structures and vessels, as opposed to rigs. This is a rapidly changing industry—we are changing skills.

I would like to mention a Government elsewhere with a lot of Scots people who moved there many years ago: New Zealand has announced that it will not allow any new offshore development. They are simply offsetting their responsibilities to overseas. They are somehow going to oversee their responsibility for energy, so they are just moving it to a different jurisdiction, where they will have no idea what the ethical and safe practices will be. That is simply pushing away their responsibilities.

Oil and gas are part of the transition, but they are part of our economy, potentially for centuries. They are an incredibly important raw material. As somebody said to me, “You don’t make electric vehicles with wood”—not yet at least. Hydrocarbons, oil and gas and plastics are a major part of those industries. I want people to remember that it is our throwaway culture that polluted our seas, not the existence of hydrocarbons. Already, the UK has slashed emissions by transferring to gas.

I heard recently in a Committee that some would suggest that oil and gas should not be part of the so-called ethical pension funds, should not be considered for green finance, and that somehow we should just turn off the taps and stop using hydrocarbons. Not only is that unrealistic, it is a fairy tale and completely luddite. Hydrocarbons have driven the industrial and green revolution. We would not be where we are if it were not for our use of hydrocarbons. That does not mean that we did not mistakes.

Life would be a lot harsher and the population would be a fraction of what it is. I worry when environmentalists say that, because I wonder whether they are basically saying that there are too many people on this planet and we cannot sustain them. I do not quite know how they will work out which economies should carry on developing and using hydrocarbons, and which developing and third-world economies will somehow be deprived of the development that the western world has enjoyed. Oil and gas has been pivotal in transforming the carbon intensity of the power sector, with cost-effective emission reductions achieved through a significant switch from coal to gas.

I would like to briefly mention fracking, without being overtly political. Everybody should remember that hydraulic fractioning of rock formations has been used in the North sea for 30 years. It has been done very safely and under the jurisdiction of Governments of various parties, who have been very careful how it is delivered. I do not really want it to get into the general narrative that somehow that is not safe, because that would suggest that what we are doing offshore, perhaps thousands of feet below the rigs, is not safe.

Well construction and the UK continental shelf has been absolutely at the top of the industry. Directional drilling and hydraulic fractioning has been developed in the North sea, so we should not just discount it. I ask the Scottish National party and the Scottish Government to remember that there is a science and a very good background to what we have done in the North sea. However, I respect the right of communities to say that they do not want onshore fracking. I also respect the right of communities to say they do not want onshore wind. But let us be frank: it is about nimbyism. They do not want it in their backyards. That is what it is about, rather than a denigration of the science and technology of those sectors.

Deirdre Michie said recently:

“As we move to a lower-carbon economy, the UK needs to meet as much of its domestic demand for oil and gas from indigenous resources”.

I would like to thank UK Oil and Gas, Deirdre Michie, the Oil and Gas Authority, the Oil and Gas Technology Centre, and also local organisations and companies that have fed into what we are speaking about. We can see the importance and scope of the industry, which has the potential to produce more than £1 trillion of revenue for the Scottish economy and to all economies of the north-east and the rest of the UK continental shelf. That is absolutely enormous.

The industry has longevity and huge strategic importance. Particularly at these times in the world, when we consider where our energy is coming from, our own gas supplies are of incredible importance and we should be investing in them, if for no other reason than to give us energy security. We must remember that the basin still employs 300,000 people in highly paid and highly technical jobs that drive other areas of research in the economy.

Will the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy ensure that we have an energy policy that recognises that, on the Department’s own figures, oil and gas will still provide two thirds of total primary energy by 2035? Oil and gas must be a vital component of that policy, which should consider affordability, security of supply and environmental sustainability.

[Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)]

I assume that the hon. Gentleman also supports the call for an oil and gas sector deal as part of the industrial strategy.

[Colin Clark]

The hon. Gentleman must have read my speech—ah, there is a camera behind me! Yes, there should also be a sector deal focused on transformational technology, underwater engineering and decommissioning that drives technology with spin-outs to the wider economy. That is so important with regard to STEM subjects alone. It worries me that young people—students and kids who are still at school—say, “Has the oil and gas industry got any future?” One young man said to me that he was going to work in the car industry, building cars with steering wheels. I said, “Nobody will be driving them in 10 years’ time, but we’ll still need oil and gas, so I would stick to the oil and gas sector.”

My third ask of the Department is to support the high-tech and highly productive supply chain, which has the potential to double its share of the global services market. I ask Departments more broadly to ensure that the UK continental shelf remains fiscally competitive and that we have UK frameworks that strengthen the UK internal market, which is essential to oil and gas.

BEIS has long supported the industry, and we appreciate that one of the Minister’s first visits in her current post was to Aberdeen.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Sharma. I congratulate the hon. Member for Gordon (Colin Clark) on securing this debate and thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting it. There have been only three speeches by Back Benchers and several interventions by the hon. Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham). Perhaps it would have been better if more people could have been here to participate; I suspect that the fact that it is Thursday afternoon has something to do with it. However, the good thing is that that has allowed much more informed speeches to be delivered, without time constraints. That is to the benefit of what we have heard today. I never seem to get the luxury of speaking from the Back Bench without a time limit and not having to use my red pen.

First, we heard from the hon. Member for Gordon. There was not much that my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) and I would disagree with. Typically for a Westminster Hall debate, everybody spoke in unison about the importance of this sector and its bright future. However, I do not think the hon. Member for Gordon had to defend himself for using the phrase “the north-east”. He should not have to stand up and clarify that he meant the north-east of Scotland. If he wants to call it the north-east, he should stick with that and not defend himself.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned that there are 233 companies in his constituency alone working in the oil and gas industry. That is a fantastic statistic, which shows the importance of the sector to his constituency and the wider Aberdeenshire area. He correctly said that the oil and gas industry should not be seen as a stopgap measure while we decarbonise the economy and that it still has a bright future. I echo that sentiment. He highlighted the resilience of the industry, which is why it still has that bright future.

The hon. Gentleman also mentioned the skills gap and the need for training, so I am sure he will welcome the fact that the Scottish National party provided an apprenticeship guarantee while the industry was going through a hard time, as well as a £12.5 billion innovation fund. He and my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen North both mentioned the issue that people leaving school and looking into future careers might be concerned about moving into the industry. I echo what they said: there needs to be a drive for the educational understanding that there is still a bright future—an engineering future, with actual opportunities. That is true not just in the UK, but in other countries, as we heard from the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (David Duguid), who undertook employment abroad and saw the different cultures and experiences that that brings.

My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen North and I disagree with the hon. Member for Gordon on fracking. I also clearly support the SNP Government’s taking the decision to ban fracking. It must be remembered that it was done on a cross-party basis. The Labour party and the Lib Dem party support it, and on a wider basis the Green party supports it as well. The hon. Gentleman said that our position is nimbyism, but I would suggest that it is not. The fracking ban has widespread public support in Scotland, and lobby groups elsewhere in the UK would like to see fracking banned. That is before it comes to their doorsteps, if it even does, so that is not nimbyism—it is about people who have concerns about fracking.

I understand that there are some similarities between fracking and the technologies used in the offshore oil industry, as the Minister highlighted, but they are not completely the same; I got a briefing paper from the Library when a constituent raised concerns about why we were banning fracking while still allowing offshore extraction. There are differences. The modern fracking technology was developed from 1999 onwards in Texas—that shows it is different from the offshore technology; they were developed at different times. Interestingly, it was developed in Texas, but Texas has now banned fracking. That tells us that there are widespread concerns across the world. The Minister said this is ideological, but it is not. The Scottish Government took an evidence-based decision, and they stand by it.

My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen North agreed with most things that the hon. Member for Gordon said. She highlighted that one aspect we have seen with the dip in the oil price is that the fat in the system has been trimmed out, and that that needs to be captured. The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan touched on that as well, while also speaking about the work of the Oil and Gas Technology Centre.

My hon. Friend, like other hon. Members, highlighted the importance of Vision 2035 and of allowing developing companies to grow further and to retain their expertise and investment in the UK, rather than being sold off. That is a very important point. The hon. Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) spoke about resilience in the supply chain. Helping these companies to grow would clearly help the supply chain and the industry’s sustainability.

My hon. Friend finished with what she said were a couple of asks of the Minister. I am a wee bit concerned that, as our economy spokesman, she miscounted the number of asks. It was more than couple! I counted that she asked for: support for a sector deal for the oil and gas industry, which every other hon. Member mentioned; the challenge fund decision; post-study work visas; and consideration of the right to stay regarding the residence of some people who are working abroad. She also highlighted the issue with customs. I think that was more than two asks, but I support her in them.

The hon. Member for Waveney said that there are still half a billion barrels to recover. He highlighted the importance of Vision 2035, and that there has been a drop in development drilling. We need to ensure that picks up for the future. He supported the sector deal and understandably focused on the East Anglian coast and what he called the “southern North sea”. It was a thoughtful contribution regarding the possible collaboration between the different sectors—oil and gas, offshore wind and transmission—and the co-location for generation. That should certainly be looked at. I like the concept of seeing that area as an energy basin and a resource. I would support that.

It was good to hear that the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan has experience of working in the industry. There is nothing better than parliamentarians who can share expertise and insider knowledge of an industry to help to do policy development in a more informed manner. He touched on Peterhead power station in his constituency and said that one of the issues with the carbon capture scheme was not having the surrounding infrastructure. To me, that suggests a policy deficiency. Allowing the development of a potential carbon capture and storage scheme in that location and then pulling the plug without getting to the end, capturing the knowledge and developing the technology that could be applied elsewhere, is a weakness of the Government. They should reflect on that. He highlighted the benefits of not returning to inefficient working practices. I am sure the industry wants to ensure it does not do that.

As other hon. Members have said, there is no doubt that oil and gas has been a success story for both Scotland and the wider UK. There has been a long history with onshore oil. It was first discovered and extracted in Scotland in 1851. Then in 1896, England discovered natural gas. I would just like to point out that, yet again, Scotland was ahead of the curve when it came to hydrocarbons. In fact, fracking was invented in Scotland. Towards the end of the 19th century, fracking was undertaken in the firth of Forth; but we have seen the light and changed our ways, and I support the Scottish Government’s ban.

I will concentrate my remarks on the offshore oil industry in the North sea and Aberdeen area. It has been developed since the 1960s and has been a great success story, which has turned Aberdeen into a global city. It has provided well-paid careers for people and has allowed many, such as the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan, to seek adventures and opportunities abroad. It has also allowed Scottish and UK companies to develop their expertise here and then move abroad. They then develop that expertise abroad, which channels money and resources back to the UK.

The oil and gas industry has been so successful that it has generated approximately £330 billion in production tax alone for the UK Treasury. However, at this point I will bring a bit more negativity to the debate. Some of that money has been frittered away. We do not have the legacy from it that we should. Aberdeen’s infrastructure is a case in point.

My hon. Friend mentioned the construction of the western bypass. That could have been done years ago. We could have channelled some of this money into that years ago. If I was to start with a blank sheet of paper and plan how to exploit the natural resources of the North sea using Aberdeen as a hub, a motorway network extending to Aberdeen would be built. That is money going to the Treasury that could be spent better. I am sure that Members from the north-east of England would say the same. The motorway network up the north-east of England took too long to develop. Meanwhile, while oil was generating significant money, we built the channel tunnel to France and a high-speed rail link from London to the channel tunnel. Yet the infrastructure in the north of England and in Scotland was sadly lacking. There was a deficiency, with the money going to the Treasury but not being distributed across the UK.

We should also have had an oil fund. The answer to that request has been a consistent no from the UK Government. Yet Norway’s oil fund, which was started in only 1990, sits at £780 billion. That is a fantastic legacy. Norway is also using and investing it wisely. It has the highest proportion of electric vehicles in Europe. It has invested massively in the renewables sector. It is decarbonising the economy while still wisely managing its oil and gas resources. That is forward planning that the UK Government could still do. We need to look at that.

[Colin Clark]

The hon. Gentleman has to recognise that the population of Norway is 3 million, 4 million or 5 million people. He also has to recognise that the economy is significantly smaller. The whole of the United Kingdom—the different parts of it—has benefited from the moneys that we have made from the North sea. Those have been invested, predominantly economically, and have paid for the downturns while the British economy was not doing so well. I think that it is a bit unfair to make that contrast. Blessed Norway has almost twice the reserves that we have, so there is a contrast in terms of population and investment.

Finance (No. 2) Bill

Debate between Colin Clark and Alan Brown

3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Wednesday 21st February 2018 Commons Chamber

[Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)]

Whatever argument the hon. Gentleman may present about what happened in the past, is he saying that he does not believe that more money should be given to the Scottish police and fire services?

[Colin Clark]

That is exactly what we are doing, and, as the hon. Gentleman well knows, that is exactly what the Scottish Conservative MPs pressed for from the Treasury.

[Alan Brown]

If this was all the work of the Scottish Tory MPs, why is it that, when I have asked parliamentary questions to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Treasury has been unable to confirm that any meetings have taken place with any of the hon. Gentleman’s colleagues to formally discuss the VAT measure?

[Colin Clark]

I am afraid that there is photographic evidence, which my good friends Twittered at the time—not that I do Twitter—[Hon. Members: “Tweet!”] I mean tweet. There is photographic evidence that we most certainly did meet the Chancellor to discuss the measure.

[Alan Brown]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Colin Clark]

No. The hon. Gentleman has had his go.

The nationalists made a conscious decision. They were not short-changed, they were not unaware, and the money was not “stolen”. They must accept that culpability for the lost millions lies squarely with them. If they want to raise the money, they should take the responsibility and raise it themselves. I only hope that they do not do so by inflicting further punishment on Scottish taxpayers.

The poorly judged centralisation of Police Scotland is never far from the headlines, but the resignation of the chief constable and the delay in the pointless merger with the British Transport Police have brought it under a fresh spotlight in recent weeks. Surely now is the time for SNP Members, both here and in Holyrood, to stop manufacturing grievances from their own mistakes and join us in working constructively to make Scotland a better place. And they should start that process with a review of the structure of Police Scotland.

Referendum on Scottish Independence

Debate between Colin Clark and Alan Brown

Monday 13th November 2017 Westminster Hall

[Colin Clark (Gordon) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. This debate is about a second independence referendum, but rather than go over the same territory as other hon. Members, I will consider the legitimacy of referendums.

Referendums have risen to prominence in the United Kingdom only recently. Constitutionally speaking, they are a relative innovation. The first nationwide referendum took place in 1975, and to date there have only been three. It is well established that the UK is without a fully codified constitution; our constitution has been described as the most flexible policy in existence. The fluid nature of our system means that the place for a referendum can be difficult to nail down.

From analysing past referendums, it can be said that they are inherently political by nature. The purpose of a referendum is to settle a political stalemate that needs to be taken to the general public for a final decision. Referendums are a creature of statute and flow from legislation passed by Parliament. As there is no generic referendum legislation, each is the subject of a separate Act. They are normally the result of a manifesto commitment of a majority Government; their legitimacy arises from the fact that the public have voted in a party on the basis that it will implement its manifesto.

[Alan Brown]

Is the hon. Gentleman arguing that manifesto commitments have legitimacy only if a Government have a majority? I point out to him that his Government do not have one.

[Colin Clark]

If the hon. Gentleman lets me carry on, I will get to the explanation.

As the hon. Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray) said, if the Scottish Government had won a majority, they would have called a referendum. That is how the first Scottish independence referendum was called in 2011. Referendums have huge political authority because they are direct expressions of public opinion. If we disagree with the outcome of a referendum, our immediate response should not be to call for another. We must respect a referendum’s democratic legitimacy, or we risk undermining the legitimacy of our tested system of careful consideration by elected Members with periodic elections by an emancipated electorate. To hold another referendum on Scottish independence so soon after the original would risk undermining the constitutional position of referendums in our society. It would also undermine the Scottish public, who clearly voted against independence.

In an uncodified system such as ours with no set precedent for a referendum, we must take care of the frequency with which we hold them. Holding multiple referendums on the same issue in a short space of time would bring into question their ability to settle issues decisively. It would also pose the question whether they are simply a precursor to further referendums, which we should avidly avoid.

The hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown) suggests that we are afraid of referendums. He should realise that his party devalues referendums, and democracy, by calling for another referendum so soon after the 2014 result. We should leave the process not to polls, which are likely to fluctuate, but to the democratic will of the people. That will ensure the ultimate legitimacy of referendums.

Recently, in my constituency of Gordon, a council by-election had to be called because somebody got elected to this House. A Conservative councillor was returned with 48% of the votes, and 65% of voters voted for Unionist parties. The Scottish Government clearly do not have the same mandate as in 2011. Since then, they have seen a no vote in the first independence referendum and a drop in their share of MSPs elected to Holyrood. In fact, the most recent election saw the emergence of a strong opposition: my 11 colleagues— 12, including the Secretary of State—and me. The issue has been settled decisively, so I ask both Parliaments and the SNP to respect the will of both Houses and respect the referendum.