Scotland Bill

Debate between David Amess and John Pugh

Monday 6th July 2015 Commons Chamber

[The Temporary Chair (Sir David Amess)]

Order. I was about to say that five hon. Members were seeking to catch my eye, but now it seems that there are about six or seven. We must also hear from the Secretary of State, and the knife will fall at 8.37 pm. May I ask colleagues to bear that in mind, so that I can call everyone?

[John Pugh]

I shall be brief, Sir David.

I wish to speak to new clause 56, which Members who survey it will acknowledge is a modest and rational proposal. The Smith commission was minded to make abortion a devolved matter, and the new clause would align the Bill with that intention. It would allow a similar level of devolution to that in Northern Ireland and give the Scottish Parliament the same rights as it has with regard to euthanasia and nearly every other health matter.

There are two reasons for the new clause, one negative and one positive. The positive reason is that the Scottish Parliament and Scottish politicians have proved themselves eminently capable of debating thorny, complex and controversial moral topics without acrimony, maturely, lucidly and in an evidence-based way. That was shown in the recent Scottish Parliament debate on euthanasia. We acknowledge that a Scottish life is worth no more and no less than any other life, but regulating how and when life is terminated in Scotland can justifiably be done in the Scottish Parliament by Scottish authority. It is regulated differently by all nations in Europe.

I rebut entirely the allegation that the hon. Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray) made that a decision might not be taken in the light of robust medical evidence. The Scottish Parliament would certainly take such evidence into account, but that allegation illustrated the negative reason for the new clause. Debates in this place on any change in abortion regulation, however minor, become polarised horribly and quickly. If abortion is mentioned, up go the barricades to defend the right to life or the right to choose. On no other issue is there such a dialogue of the deaf in this Chamber, with the slightest concession to one side being seen as enabling the wholesale destruction of the other. We witnessed the recent debate on gender discrimination in abortion, during which there was total agreement throughout the Chamber but total stalemate at the end of the day.

The situation is certainly complicated by the fact that Members have wider agendas. That does not particularly help, because people suspect ulterior motives, but to be fair, it is normal in any debate and should not hamper or inhibit the discussion of issues such as gender discrimination in abortion, the advice given to people seeking an abortion or time limits on abortion. It should not, but it evidently and repeatedly does. The House is normally left defending the Abortion Act 1967—with all its weakness, which are acknowledged even by some of its major proponents—as though it were holy writ.

I am charitable enough to think that Scotland, despite its Calvinist past, is not quite so fundamentalist in that respect. Whatever its current values, in the light of the best available evidence it could cope with something a little more sophisticated than our tribal deliberations here, which are laden with history and suspicion. It could frame regulation that, although it would not satisfy every conscience, would at least suit the times and fit the facts. I would sincerely welcome the views of the Government and the Scottish nationalists on the new clause, and I would welcome the Scottish dimension.

City Regions and Metro Mayors

Debate between David Amess and John Pugh

Tuesday 9th June 2015 Westminster Hall

[John Pugh]

I will come to that point later, but the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right.

The interesting thing is that this is the sort of devolution that people have requested and want. There is clamour up and down the northern cities and conurbations—people are saying, “Let’s have a Metro Mayor.” But it is a Government-knows-best, Procrustean model. The Chancellor has been explicit that proper, full devolution—devolution that is worth anything—will be on that model. If I were being unkind, I could accuse the Government of dogmatism, ideological stupidity, blind prejudice or even a predilection for civic Mussolinis, but I am genuinely struggling to follow their argument. There is no evidence from anywhere in the world that conurbations with all-powerful mayors thrive any better or any worse than those that do not. Some clearly do, but a lot do not; governance is not always a decisive factor. There is no evidence that one man alone always makes a better decision than a leader surrounded by his peers or a group of adequately informed, able people.

There is an appreciable body of evidence that shows that systems that invest power in a single decision-maker are vulnerable to a number of things. They are vulnerable to cronyism—that kind of accusation has been made against the Mayor of London. They are vulnerable, in the long term, to an element of corruption, as decisions become less transparent, and to political obtuseness and people flying a kite—I am thinking of things such as Boris’s island airport. Collective decisions, rather than individual decisions, are always more transparent and more open to challenge, because they have to be argued for. They are not always quicker, which may be why the Government are infatuated with the Metro Mayor idea, but if corporate bodies are required to make quick decisions, most can think of an intelligent scheme of delegation that enables them to deal with the particular problem. Few people would argue that a President of the United States, surrounded by advisers, perforce and naturally makes better decisions than a Prime Minister of England, who has a Cabinet and has to get things through Parliament.

In Merseyside, we have a particular problem. From our point of view, it is essential that decisions that affect the whole region have proper input from all parts of the region. All voices—those of Southport, Sefton, the Wirral and St Helens—should be heard. It is not simply all about Liverpool. One person, however good, qualified and sensitive they are, is unlikely to be equally alert and caring or equally bothered about all areas.

In my area—right on the margins of the Liverpool city region—we worry about marginalisation. We are already in a borough that is controlled by no one elected by Southport or who belongs to a party that has been elected in Southport. There is genuine unhappiness about being in the council we are in, and we will make representations later in the Parliament about boundary changes. But how much worse will it be for my constituency when not even a Sefton voice is involved in the decisions that directly affect us? We will become a marginalised community.

Our tourism, for example, could be overlooked in Liverpool’s drive to boost its own tourist economy. There does not seem to be an adequate restraint on that. Following on from the intervention of the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman), what we want is a better engagement with the areas immediately outside the city region. It is important to us to find out what is going to happen in our neighbouring authority, west Lancashire—a district highly dependent on the city region economy, but exiled from it, no part of it and not able to join it. We need to talk about transport links with west Lancashire, and it is not obvious that having a Metro Mayor would be of any assistance to us.

The situation genuinely would not be so bad if, as in the ResPublica pamphlet, which backed the proposal of “Devo Manc”, the prospect of a Metro Mayor was presented as an option—as something in the toolkit. But it is not; it is a precondition, regardless of local opinion. It is not devolution by demand, but almost devolution as the Chancellor demands. To that extent, it has to be questioned.

I do not think these problems are unique to the area of Merseyside, or even just to Merseyside, Manchester and the north-west. The same issues can be found in Tyneside, the Sheffield area and Birmingham. The fact that Manchester has been such a success recently in terms of its devolution—it was picked as an early candidate for devolution without a Metro Mayor—proves how tangential the presence of a Metro Mayor is to genuine devolution.

Let me conclude by summarising the problem. We want devolution, just like the Scots—it would be nice, of course, to have the same level of per capita funding—but the Government’s offer, as it is at the moment, is simply piecemeal. We are leaving many areas completely orphaned. We are patronising other areas by suggesting that they can only have one particular form of governance, regardless of what the electorate actually wants, otherwise they will not get the funding that devolved areas will have. We are marginalising communities, such as mine of Southport, within the city region, and we are confronted with a wholly unproven, unevidenced strategy.

The worst thing is that there is absolutely no opportunity for the people who are supposed to be the beneficiaries of this devolution to have or express a view on the template that the Government offer them. That is not devolution; it is imposition.

[Sir David Amess (in the Chair)]

To help the Chamber, I should say that the new arrangements for sittings in Westminster Hall are as follows: this debate finishes at 5.30 pm, and the Scottish National party, Labour and Government Front Benchers each get seven minutes at the end of the debate. As colleagues can see, there is very little time to be shared between 13 people. I am very happy to call everyone, but they will have only three or four minutes to speak, so I ask colleagues to bear that in mind. Whether they want only to make interventions is entirely a matter for the Chamber.