Televised Election Debates
John Lamont Excerpts(5 years, 11 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Sharma. I commend the organisers of the petition, the Petitions Committee for allowing time for the debate and my hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay (Steve Double), who introduced the motion so effectively.
I agree with the former Deputy Prime Minister Lord Whitelaw, who said in the House of Lords in 1990 that Sky News had “a very high reputation”, adding:
“I admire it as do many other people.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 9 October 1990; Vol. 522, c. 195.]
Those comments are relevant today. Sky News is an award-winning broadcaster, picking up awards from the British Academy of Film and Television Arts and the Royal Television Society; it has won the RTS news channel of the year award. It therefore has a strong reputation for news coverage. That strength comes from the quality of its journalists, including Beth Rigby, Ed Conway, Mark Stone and Mark White. It undoubtedly has a team of top-notch journalists and is one of the main sources of news in my household. I cannot understand why the channel has threatened an enviable reputation by devoting so much coverage and air time to its own campaign and petition for the leaders’ debates commission.
I am now going to shatter what has so far been the consensus in the debate. In this day and age, when we are all concerned about fake news and the reliability of what we read, watch and interact with, I question the editorial decision by Sky News to report constantly on its own campaign, as if it were actual news rather than simply an attempt to gather more signatures.
The campaign and petition on the Parliament website started in early September 2018, ahead of the party conference season. Since then, Sky News has been reporting on its progress almost every half hour and certainly every hour. Latterly, there has been a running total of the number of signatures in the top left-hand corner of the Sky News screen together with its campaign hashtag. During critical moments of the Brexit debate in this place, and at moments of crisis, either for the Government here or elsewhere in the world when wildfires were sweeping California or conflict was raging in Yemen, Sky News still found time to insert and promote its campaign for election debates.
If the petition was gathering huge support it might be argued that that should be reported by Sky News. However, if one looks at the other petitions on the Parliament petitions website that argument falls flat. A petition calling for a ban on the sale of fireworks has 297,000 signatures, which is twice the support that the Sky News petition has. A petition asking for the UK to leave the EU without a deal has the support of almost 300,000 people. Another petition, set up by a young cancer sufferer and calling for the lowering of the age for smear tests from 25 to 18, so as to prevent cancer, has 93,000 signatures.
My point is that but for the fact that Sky News was the promoter of the debate campaign, it would not have been gathering the air time and signatures it has. I have struggled to find any coverage of any of the other petitions, which have either attracted more support or are arguably more worthy, on any Sky News outlet. One hundred and sixty-five of my 74,000 constituents signed the petition and, despite the best efforts of Sky News, only one asked me to attend today’s debate. I felt so strongly about the misuse of Sky News’s position in the broadcast media to promote its own campaign and petition that I had to come and speak.
As to my views on leaders’ debates and the idea of setting up a commission, general elections in the United Kingdom are not about electing a president. Voters elect 650 individual MPs, and from them a Government is formed. My experience of previous elections—to this place and to the Scottish Parliament—is that leaders’ debates suck the oxygen away from local campaigns. The focus on the doorsteps, instead of being on the merits of each candidate and on local issues, is on what will happen or has just happened in the debates. The media reporting is all about how well each leader performed. Who looked good? Who answered the questions best? How did the broadcasters or newsreaders appear? It is not about the substantive issues of the election campaign.
For a period, journalists are not reporting on the critical issues of the election. They become more like commentators at a boxing match. In 2010, as several hon. Members have mentioned, it was perceived that Nick Clegg had performed well in the debate. That resulted in hours of coverage of the so-called Liberal Democrat bounce. However, the actual result showed little or no change in Liberal Democrat support, so how much influence do the debates have? In my view, the drive for leaders’ debates is simply about the media machine and journalists trying to insert themselves into an election campaign rather than doing their job of reporting on the key election issues of the day. They provide little new information to voters.
In the United Kingdom, we have the added complication of four nations with differing political perspectives. If a leaders’ debate is about assessing how potential Prime Ministers perform, how does that model accommodate smaller parties, such as the Scottish National party, the Democratic Unionist party and Plaid Cymru? Other Members have already commented on that issue.
Those parties might have significant support in their own parts of the country, but there is no prospect of their leaders occupying Downing Street. The Sky News proposal does not accommodate what is essentially a way to scrutinise presidential candidates. I note that my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) proposed an alternative, but I do not think that accurately reflects the huge regional variations in how we vote as between the different parts of the United Kingdom. Why, for example, should voters in Cornwall have to listen to the leader of the Scottish National party, when none of the voters in Cornwall has any prospect of voting for the leader of the Scottish National party, whether or not they have any desire to do so?
In the letter that we all received from John Ryley, the head of Sky News, before this debate, we were told that an
“independent commission would remove the ability of political leaders to block debates because of narrow political interest.”
My question is this: if it is the politicians who are blocking this, where are the BBC and ITV in all this? They have been pretty quiet ahead of this debate, which I think is telling. I have had private discussions with the BBC and ITV, and I think a number of hon. Members will have done likewise.
Steve Double
As a matter of accuracy and balance, my hon. Friend might be interested to know that I was interviewed this morning by BBC Scotland about this debate, and there was a great deal of interest in this from the BBC in Scotland.
John Lamont
I am grateful for that comment, but from my constituents’ perspective there has not been much interest. My point was more about the management within ITV, the BBC and BBC Scotland, who are not as supportive as the editorial team behind Sky News appears to have been in pushing this campaign; certainly they do not have equivalent petitions running and have not added their support to the petition being run by Sky News.
I look forward to hearing the rest of the debate and the Minister’s response. I could have said more, only I thought that more colleagues would have wanted to contribute to this debate, given that it is headline news—but it would seem that it is headline news for Sky News and very few other people.
Tommy Sheppard
Let us see whether the hon. Gentlemen make the same point. I will take the intervention from the hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk first.
John Lamont
Just to clarify the point that I was making, it was not that the people of Cornwall would not care about what the leader of the SNP would want to say, but that neither she nor the party are on the ballot paper in Cornwall, so the people of Cornwall would not have the opportunity to vote SNP even if they wanted to. If we extend the argument, or the argument that the hon. Gentleman is making, which other parties do we include in the debate if they are also not on the ballot paper?
Tommy Sheppard
Let me just take the intervention from the hon. Member for Ochil and South Perthshire (Luke Graham), which I presume is relevant to the same point.
Kevin Brennan
I will not give way to the hon. Lady, because she was not here for the debate and I am old school in that regard, I am afraid. I am happy to give way otherwise. It is not personal, but that is how I prefer to operate.
The hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr made a valid point, but I think it raises interesting issues about which parties should be involved in these debates. They certainly must have a role and somehow be incorporated into this process, whether through the means suggested by the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) or others.
The hon. Member for St Austell and Newquay also said that leaders are much more visible and accessible these days than they used to be. I am not sure that is entirely true. When Clement Attlee was campaigning to be Prime Minister in 1945 and 1950, he drove around the country with his wife, Violet, in a Hillman Minx, to engage with the electorate. It is certainly true that times have changed. Attlee also said that being Prime Minister was the job that took up the least amount of his time of any job he had ever had.
The hon. Gentleman gave an interesting response to the questions from Parliament’s social media. Some of the points being made about the potential Americanisation of politics are important. However, I think the real challenges are not about the Americanisation of politics through TV debates, but about the involvement of large and shadowy amounts of money in British politics—the activities of organisations such as Cambridge Analytica and so on. Those are more worrying issues with the Americanisation of politics, rather than our having television debates.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Dr Drew) quite rightly said that the decision about whether we should have debates should not just rest in the hands of the Prime Minister. He also quite rightly pointed out the lack of television coverage of regional politics these days. He wanted to take the issue of debates out of party politics. He referred to the Nixon-Kennedy debates, saying that the thing he knows is that Nixon lost. Interestingly, of course, a lot of the polls showed that Nixon had won, particularly for people who had followed the debates on the radio rather than on television. That makes a valid point about the role of image in people’s political perspectives. Whether or not the TV debate was responsible for John Kennedy’s narrow victory is highly debatable, not least because when his father, Joseph Kennedy, was asked why the victory had been so narrow, he said that he could not afford a landslide. Again, money was perhaps more compelling and important in American politics than the debates.
In response to the hon. Member for Wellingborough, who also mentioned the 2010 debates, I am tempted to say—unusually—“I agree with Peter,” because I did agree with much of what he said. We look forward to seeing the details of his private Member’s Bill. He is the sort of Member who would never commit to supporting a Bill without having read every clause and word, and without having carefully performed an exegesis of every part, so I will not make any commitments about his Bill until we have seen what it says, but it certainly sounds like it contains some interesting ideas. We look forward to it surfacing on the Ides of March, as he suggested, and hopefully it will have a less portentous fate than that date might otherwise suggest.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the inclusion of the minor parties in one of the debates proposed by his Bill. It is an interesting area, because it is true that some parties that have a lower share of the vote and that do not stand in all parts of the United Kingdom were represented in previous debates—for example, in 2015, when David Cameron insisted on having a diluted debate because he did not want to have a head-to-head debate with my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband) and preferred to have a large number of voices, possibly to defuse the impact of the event overall. Nevertheless, despite the fact that it is the “Conservative and Unionist” party, at no point was it suggested that the Democratic Unionist party should participate in the debate. Unlike Plaid Cymru and the Scottish National party, it was not invited, even though it also stands in only one of the constituent countries of the United Kingdom. Nor was the Social Democratic and Labour party, which had hon. Members elected to this House at that time; the Ulster Unionist party, which has had hon. Members elected to this House in recent times; or indeed—whether it would have turned up or not—Sinn Féin, which stands in the general election and has elected MPs, although they do not take the oath or take their seats in this place.
There is an asymmetry to the way that such debates have been organised. Northern Ireland has largely been excluded from that process, even though it is an integral part of the United Kingdom. It is interesting that we now frequently debate the issue of the British border in Ireland, as I call it, because of the backstop and Brexit, but that in those general election debates, Northern Ireland was treated as a sideshow and almost as a separate election from the United Kingdom general election in terms of inviting people to participate. We look forward to the Bill tabled by the hon. Member for Wellingborough.
My hon. Friend the Member for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer) reluctantly accepted that there would have to be a quango to administer election debates, but quite rightly pointed out that any such body should have a greater diversity than bodies such as the Electoral Commission. I agree that different political views should be represented, and it would also be important for any such body to have representation from the nations and regions of the United Kingdom, and from different social classes. Many of our bodies tend to be made up of the same kind of people with similar views. His suggestions on that were refreshing and interesting.
My hon. Friend also discussed the 2010 leadership debates and the so-called Cleggmania that allegedly resulted. Interestingly, of course, despite that spike in the polls, the Liberal Democrats won fewer seats in the 2010 election than they had held before, but because it was a hung Parliament, they ended up in government for the next five years.
The hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont) was extremely critical of Sky News for having campaigned on the issue. I have thought carefully about what he said and whether it is appropriate for a broadcaster to campaign in that way. It would be wholly inappropriate for a broadcaster to campaign on a political policy issue, but I do not think it is inappropriate—it is not outwith Ofcom’s rules—for a broadcaster to campaign in such a way for such debates. It is possibly more difficult for the BBC and ITV, which are also party to Ofcom’s rules, because special considerations are involved for public service broadcasters. I do not agree, however, that it was inappropriate for Sky News to campaign on the issue and in fact, in doing so, I think it has provided a valuable public service and has helped to bring about this interesting debate.
John Lamont
Given that other petitions on Parliament’s petition website are arguably more worthy and, in some cases, have more support, why has Sky News not given them any coverage or reported on them, but has given almost hourly coverage to its own campaign?
Kevin Brennan
I suggest, probably, because it is its own campaign. It is a valid point that a lot of the issues that the hon. Gentleman mentioned are worthy of more news coverage. Hopefully his remarks will have brought those campaigns to broadcasters’ attention and they will receive more coverage in future.
The hon. Gentleman said that he thought debates provide little additional information for voters, and again I disagree. As I said in an intervention on the hon. Member for St Austell and Newquay, the Hansard Society report indicates that the general public say that they find debates a valuable way—indeed, among the most important ways—of gaining information to help them to decide how to vote. He went on to talk about the SNP leader’s role in the debates and whether a voter in Cornwall would be interested in what the leader of the SNP had to say. He said that such a voter could not vote for the leader of the SNP, but, of course, nobody in Scotland could vote for the leader of the SNP, because the leader of the SNP was not a candidate in the general election. That raises interesting points as to who should participate in debates and whether those who do should be the leaders of political parties or the leaders of groups that are hoping to gain election to the House of Commons. It is a moot point, but a valid one. Even though the leader of the SNP is extremely important to Scottish voters, it is true that Scottish voters would not have an opportunity to vote for her in a general election.
The hon. Member for North Devon (Peter Heaton-Jones), who always speaks with a great deal of expertise on broadcasting matters because of his previous career with the BBC, asked how leaders could be compelled to attend if we were to pass a Bill, such as the one envisaged by the hon. Member for Wellingborough, that said that political party leaders had to participate in such debates.
As other hon. Members have pointed out, it is not unreasonable for us to expect the leaders of political parties, who have ambitions to become the Prime Minister, to comply with the law. I am not suggesting that we should have draconian penalties for anyone refusing to comply, but it would be extraordinary if the leader of a political party, a potential candidate to be the Prime Minister of this country, sought not to comply with a perfectly reasonable law to get them to participate in an essential element of the democratic process as judged by this Parliament. That is a bit of a red herring; they would turn up by virtue of the fact that it would be the law that they should participate. Nor is it unreasonable that such a law should be considered and potentially reach the statute book.
The hon. Member for North Devon made an interesting and valid point about how relevant TV debates are in this age of social media, whether they are old fashioned and whether, in a sense, we are asking a question that is no longer particularly pertinent and might have been more relevant 30 or 40 years ago. However, although I bow to his expertise about television, I think that where linear television still hits home is in the big live event type of television, whether that is “The X-Factor”, a sporting event, or the participation of political leaders at the time of a general election, when the nation’s attention turns to the question of who will govern the country for the next five years. At such times, a live television linear-type event is still highly relevant and of interest to the public, and would be supplemented massively by activity on social media; I think that is true. Obviously, social media has a huge role to play in modern elections and we need to look at the whole issue of social media, including Facebook and other types of platforms, in more detail, as it now has a major influence on our politics.
We support, in broad terms, the campaign that there should be some sort of independent means to ensure that TV debates take place between party leaders at general elections. The reason we are doing so is that the Minister, as a Minister, has the opportunity to try to make some sense of the complicated electoral law that we have. It is voluminous, it is fragmented, and it poses problems for electoral administrators, campaigners, voters and policy makers. There are 40 Acts of Parliament and more than 170 statutory instruments relating to our electoral legal framework and some of those provisions go back into the 19th century.
It is widely accepted by those involved in administering or competing in elections, such as the Electoral Commission and the Association of Electoral Administrators, that fundamental reform of electoral law is needed, but the Government have not really listened to that argument. In February 2016—nearly three years ago—the Law Commission published its interim report, calling for the laws governing elections to be rationalised into a single consistent legislative framework governing all elections, but the Government are yet to respond to that, even though, as I say, it has been nearly three years. I encourage the Government to look again at that report and respond to it.
I have mentioned this previously, but I also urge the Government to look at the 2018 audit of political engagement by the Hansard Society, which found that among the different sources of news and information that respondents used to inform their decision making at the 2017 general election, party leaders’ debates and political interviews were deemed to be the most important ways in which they were able to make up their minds. Furthermore, 74% of those who used those things in that way said the party leaders’ debates and political interviews were at least “fairly important” in their decision making. There is a need for a wider reform of electoral law and the issue of TV debates should be included within that.
My own party leader has said in response to this campaign:
“I welcome any move that will guarantee general election debates so that voters can hear directly from those putting themselves forward to lead the country.”
That was a welcome statement, but unfortunately the Prime Minister has not matched it, which is a shame. Speaking to Sky, she said:
“The next general election isn’t until 2022. There’s plenty of time to think about those issues at that time.”
In fact, that is exactly the time when there will not be plenty of time to think about these issues. Now is the time to think about them. We may not be immediately able to solve them, but now is the time to think across parties about the best way to handle the issue, because if we get to 2022 and start thinking about it, we will have the same old to-ing and fro-ing, and shenanigans, and jiggery-pokery that we have seen recently in relation to the discussions about the possibility of leaders’ debates on Brexit.
Whatever we think about the merits of such debates, and the question is different from that of whether party leaders should debate at a general election, the truth is that the way in which such arguments come about, and this has happened over the course of a number of Governments, going back some considerable time, is something like this—in fact, I know exactly how the suggestion of a Brexit debate came about. No. 10 went to Tom Newton Dunn at The Sun and said, “We need a page lead for the Prime Minister on Brexit. The Prime Minister is in trouble on Brexit. We need a page lead.” If someone needs a page lead in The Sun, they don’t get it for nothing. So The Sun said in return, “Well, what can you give us as an exclusive, or a scoop in old-fashioned terms, for giving you a front-page lead in The Sun?” Of course, the answer was, “Well, we’ll say that the Prime Minister is in favour of challenging the Leader of the Opposition to a debate on Brexit”, in the full knowledge that that would never happen unless some groundwork had been done, unless there had been some discussion between parties, and unless the other parties that have an interest in this matter—as the hon. Member for Edinburgh East, the spokesman for the Scottish National party, rightly pointed out—had an opportunity to have an input as well. A debate on Brexit was not going to happen on those terms, but that is how these things come about, which is a pretty shabby process. If we had a properly independent process, then we could get rid of all the jiggery-pokery around election debates and actually get down to concentrating on trying to present our policies effectively to the electorate.
Finally, I challenge the Minister to go a little further than the Government have so far and at least entertain the possibility of supporting the kind of measure that is being proposed by Sky News and her hon. Friend, the hon. Member for Wellingborough, which the Opposition and other parties support, whereby a consensus on a way forward can be found to ensure that such debates can happen, rather than waiting until 2022, when it will be far too late.
Oral Answers to Questions
John Lamont Excerpts(6 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Nigel Adams
I thank the hon. Lady for her question. The deal for Edinburgh was signed on 7 August. There is a £300 million investment from this Government, and I know how important this is for her constituency. I will ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to follow up on her question so that she has more details.
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Scotland (David Mundell)
Fishing is of totemic importance in Scotland, and I regularly meet representatives of the fishing industry in Scotland to discuss the opportunities for the sector when we leave the EU.
John Lamont
As we have already heard, the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation has launched a campaign calling on all parties to back its pledge for the UK to take back control of our waters after we leave the European Union. I am pleased that the Secretary of State has signed that pledge. I have signed it and Scottish Conservatives are signing it. Does my right hon. Friend agree that all parties in this House should sign that pledge?
David Mundell
I absolutely do agree. When people stand up and say that they are speaking up for the fishing industry, they need to back that up. This pledge does exactly that, and I look forward to all 59 of Scotland’s MPs signing it. [Interruption.]
The Prime Minister
I will take no lectures from the right hon. Gentleman, who has seen 100 resignations from his Front Bench. Today, we saw what really lies behind Labour’s approach. Last night, the shadow Chancellor told an audience in London that he wanted to seize upon a second referendum and vote remain. So now we have it: they want to cause chaos, frustrate Brexit and overturn the will of the British people. That would be a betrayal of the many by the few.
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
The Prime Minister
I congratulate my hon. Friend on raising what I think we should all, across the House, accept is an excellent campaign. I look forward to perhaps being able to visit some of the excellent shops that he just mentioned when I am in his neck of the woods. It is important that we help small businesses, which is why we are taking more than 655,000 small businesses out of paying any business rates at all. We want to change the system so that rates follow the lower level of inflation, which would mean a saving every year and would be worth more than £5 billion to businesses over the next five years, and we are providing £900 million to cut the bills of eligible small retailers by one third for two years. I congratulate Lindsay Grieve, Stems the florist and Archie Hume, and I look forward possibly to visiting them. I am sure that many Members of this House will be recognising the importance of small businesses on Small Business Saturday and championing the excellent contribution that they make to our economy.
Oral Answers to Questions
John Lamont Excerpts(6 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister
The figures show that the proportion of the workforce on low pay is actually at its lowest level. That is a result of the changes we have made in relation to the economy and the balanced approach we have taken. If the hon. Lady if worried about people living in Grimsby, the answer is not a Labour Government, with £500 billion of extra borrowing, fewer jobs, higher taxes and people suffering the cost.
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
The Prime Minister
I am sure we all have doubts about the objectivity of the reporting on Russia Today, which remains a tool of propaganda for the Russian state. Decisions about appearing on Russia Today are a matter of judgment for each individual, but they should be clear that they risk being used as propaganda tools by the Russian state. I know that that view is shared by other Members of this House, including the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford), who has made clear that he does not think people should appear on that station. The same also applies to Press TV, which has had its licence to broadcast revoked in the UK by Ofcom.
Oral Answers to Questions
John Lamont Excerpts(6 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister
We have published a plan, which we are discussing with the European Union, that ensures that we deliver on the vote of the British people; that we bring an end to free movement; that we come out of the common agricultural policy and the common fisheries policy; that we no longer send vast amounts of money to the EU every year; that we no longer have the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice here in this country; and that we do not have a hard border between Northern Ireland and Ireland, and do not have a border between Northern Ireland and Great Britain. What I am doing is negotiating a Brexit deal for Britain. I am making sure that the economy works for everyone. I am building a stronger, fairer country. What is the right hon. Gentleman doing? He is trying to change his party so that antisemites can call the creation of Israel racist, and he should be ashamed of himself.
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
The Prime Minister
I understand the importance to partners across the region of the campaign and proposal to which my hon. Friend refers. I am sure he understands that this is a devolved transport issue, but I encourage all parties involved to come to a workable solution and to ensure the best outcome for the entire region, because this can bring great benefits. On his point about the Borderlands growth deal, may I assure him that the UK and Scottish Governments will continue to work in partnership to deliver that deal?
Strengthening the Union
John Lamont Excerpts(6 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray). I was, however, a little surprised by his extreme and unfounded criticism of Scottish Conservative Members, particularly when he so often love-bombs Conservative voters in Edinburgh South, on whom he relies to ensure the majority that gets him elected to this place.
It will come as no surprise to the House that I am a passionate advocate of this United Kingdom, which is partly because nowhere is the strength of our Union more obvious than in my constituency in the Scottish borders, where going to work or to the nearest supermarket or visiting friends and family can mean travelling across the border perhaps once or twice in a single journey.
The preservation of the United Kingdom is not only one of this House’s biggest challenges, but one of its biggest opportunities. However, we have unfortunately failed to address that properly over many years. The Union has never been in doubt over most of its history, so there has never been the need overtly to defend it. The Union has evolved organically, with no written constitution at its heart, so it lacks the texts and the formalities that define other nations, but I stress that that is a good thing. Witness the way in which our Union accepted and allowed a referendum on independence in 2014, when there was a democratic case for it, and compare that with the reaction in other nations that we consider to be free and fair.
However, this more flexible, uncodified, relaxed Unionism always runs the risk of lapsing into complacency and indifference, especially when faced by an organised and highly political opponent such as the SNP, whose sole raison d’être is to find grievance at every opportunity. The people have seen through that, sending a message to the First Minister in last year’s general election, when the dramatic loss of support lead to more than 20 fewer nationalist MPs.
The current situation should be seen as a starting point, not the end, so I welcome the UK Government’s recent announcements, including over £1 billion investment in five regional growth deals in Scotland and the basing of a spaceport in the north of Scotland, highlighting their commitment to our United Kingdom. But more must be done. There is no reason the next big investment in infrastructure should be in London when it could be just as effective in Lisburn, Livingston or Llandudno. During the 2012 Olympics, the football venues were spread throughout our islands, and there is no reason that could not be done again in a UK-wide World cup. A nation that spreads its power networks across the country will ensure that all of us, no matter where we live, feel that we have a real stake in it. While I may have opposed Brexit, there is no doubt that leaving the European Union and returning substantial powers to the UK can be used as a catalyst for that reform.
Stephen Kerr
Will my hon. Friend take this opportunity to remind the House that all Conservative Members of Parliament, whether in Scotland, England or Wales, were elected on a manifesto commitment to leave the European Union, the customs union, the single market and the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice?
John Lamont
My hon. Friend makes a fair and reasonable point. While I voted remain, I am also a democrat. Just as the SNP should accept the referendum result of 2014, I accept the referendum result of 2016, and we were all elected to ensure that we deliver Brexit and get the best deal for Scotland and the entire United Kingdom.
Whitehall needs to consider the maintenance and promotion of the Union as one of its central tasks, not as a bolt-on extra. When the Union was in peril during the independence referendum, that worked well. Civil servants wrote a series of analysis papers pointing out the strengths of the UK internal market and the UK’s integrated system, but it should not require the threat of separation to ensure that that becomes a matter of course. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister got there first in a speech last year where she acknowledged that Whitehall often devolves and forgets. Her proposal was to ensure that in reserved areas, the UK Government explicitly look after the interests of the Union in their policy making, while in devolved areas they must look for ways to collaborate and work together to improve outcomes for everyone. Scotland has two Governments, and it is time they were seen to be working in partnership—not against each other—to improve the lives of all the Scots whom we represent as Scottish constituency MPs.
Danielle Rowley (Midlothian) (Lab)
The hon. Gentleman is the vice-Chair of the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs. We have the Chair in the Chamber, too, and I am a member. Does he agree that the Committee is a fantastic example of all parties coming together, working together, discussing the UK Government and the Scottish Government and scrutinising what is going wrong? We need to see more of that working together, and less of the appalling and embarrassing shouting we have seen in the Chamber today.
John Lamont
I agree with the hon. Lady. We work very well across that Committee. It is a good example of parties and parliamentarians coming together to highlight the issues that many of our constituents have to deal with day to day.
The dualling of the A1—the issue affects my constituency —all the way from Northumberland to Edinburgh would be a great example of partnership between the UK Government and the Scottish Government. This should be built in as a strategic aim for Whitehall and one for St Andrew’s House to pursue.
As with most things, there is no silver bullet for strengthening our Union for everyone. I know from being out on the doorsteps in my constituency that people in Scotland want their two Governments working in synergy. We should strengthen our Union because it is the will of the people of our land. Recent polling by Policy Exchange clearly demonstrates that the majority of people across the United Kingdom are in favour of the Union in its current form. Some 68% of people in England, 52% of people in Scotland, 66% of people in Wales and 59% of people in Northern Ireland want a continuation of the Union.
However, that polling also confirms that there are concerns across all parts of the United Kingdom about the impact of Brexit on our Union. Majorities in all nations of the UK said that they believed Brexit would make the break-up of the UK more likely. That is the challenge, and it is why this debate is so important. With the nationalists constantly looking for grievance and new opportunities to stoke the separatist fire, we must do more to invest in our Union to ensure that it lasts for many more hundreds of years to come.
The recently published Policy Exchange paper, which was released on the back of the polling, sets out a number of suggestions as to how we might address the challenges. Bearing in mind the consequences of the new powers landing in different parts of the UK as we leave the European Union, we need better to understand the idea of shared rule across the UK as a whole. At the same time, we need to respect the value of devolution with the rights of the devolved institutions.
Intergovernmental relations within the UK have not been as good as they should have been, and that could be exaggerated as Brexit happens because many of the powers repatriated from Brussels will fall within the competency of the devolved Administrations. We therefore need to revisit how the Joint Ministerial Committee works to build better trust between the Westminster Government and the devolved Administrations.
The Scottish Conservatives will bow to no one in promoting and defending Scotland’s interests and making its voice heard across the United Kingdom. Where we differ from the SNP is that we will not do so with the express purpose of trying to split the country in two. Far too often, the SNP picks fights purely for their own sake. This is the SNP’s reason for existence. The difference, though, between us and the SNP is that we will pick fights not because we want to rip up the Union, but because we insist it works better. We have already seen that is a more effective way of standing up for Scotland as the approach of the Scottish Conservative MPs has secured wins such as the VAT refund for Police Scotland and fair pay for our brave men and women in our armed forces.
Stewart Malcolm McDonald
The hon. Gentleman talks about fair pay for those in the armed forces. What about the 220 not getting paid the living wage in Scotland?
John Lamont
It is very clear that those in the armed forces who were going to be paying extra because of the nat tax imposed by the Scottish Government will not have to pay it. It is fair that everyone across the United Kingdom who works for the armed forces gets paid the same, regardless of where they are based.
I will ensure that I spend my time here, however long or short that may be, as effectively as I can. That means standing up for Scotland in a constructive and beneficial way, not storming out and throwing tantrums, as we have seen from SNP Members. Voters are tired of the politics of division. Let us give them what they want: a strengthened Scotland and a strengthened United Kingdom.
Jo Platt (Leigh) (Lab/Co-op)
It is an honour to wind up the debate on behalf of the Opposition. It has been an interesting debate, but, as a Lancashire lass, I have felt a bit left out. At times, the debate seemed to be about Scottish tit for tat rather than focusing on uniting the Union as a whole. However, I thank all Members for their contributions.
My hon. Friends the Members for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray), for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Hugh Gaffney) and for Midlothian (Danielle Rowley) rightly highlighted the Government’s political choice of austerity and the impact that it has had on our Union. They were right to do so, because, instead of bringing communities together, the Government have overseen some of the most divisive and unequal times that anyone in the UK can remember. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (Martin Whitfield) for his thoughtful insight on devolution, and my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North East (Mr Sweeney) for his detailed and forensic analysis. I also thank all the Members who used the debate as a history lesson to settle old scores from the past 20 years of devolution. However, I want to focus my remarks on the motion of today and the Union of tomorrow.
What has become clear from all those speeches is a developing narrative—a narrative about passing responsibility away without passing the money or the powers. Quite simply, the Government have been passing the buck without passing the bucks. Devolution that is devoid of real power is meaningless, and is an insult to the communities that it was supposed to serve.
How did we arrive at this state of affairs? It can be traced back to the brutality of the austerity cuts that were introduced eight years ago. The Government knew that they could not weather the storm of the spending cuts that they wanted to implement across the UK, so in England they chose to heap responsibility and obligations on our local authorities, city regions and regional Mayors, while at the same time cutting their budgets and limiting their powers. They let everyone else take the blame for their cuts, and took no responsibility for their own brutal actions.
The Government have failed to entrust our devolved Assemblies and Parliaments with responsibility. Under cover of their self-made Brexit chaos, they are snatching powers back to Whitehall rather than strengthening our devolved nations. They are preferring to kick the political football and yet again to put self-interest before the strength of the Union, thus wasting a historic opportunity to secure further devolution. The promise of meaningful devolution for our communities has been exposed as merely a masquerade for their regime of austerity and Westminster-centric power.
As an MP representing a northern town, I found that betrayal particularly stinging, because I know exactly how desperately devolution is needed. For too long our town economies, our northern regions and our nations of the UK have been neglected. Power, resources and funding are tightly held by Whitehall, and communities across the country have little say in, influence over or even knowledge of the decisions affecting their daily lives. Some say that those towns and other areas have been “left behind”, too slow to respond to a rapidly changing country. I say that they have been held back—held back by a system that gives them no voice and no choice.
In my constituency, we have seen the gradual decline of our manufacturing base. The Beeching cuts of the 1960s disconnected our town from the rail network, and our economy experienced a total drying up of the infrastructure investment that is needed to attract business growth and create well-paid, secure jobs.
The answer from this Government to my own area, Greater Manchester, is to point to our two regional transport bodies, our combined authority and our new city Mayor. On the face of it, this is exactly what was needed, and we can imagine the hope communities such as Leigh were given: would this be the moment when power, resources and funding were handed back down to the local level? Unfortunately, however, the reality is far from the promise. Responsibility was gladly handed down, but the powers did not follow. The regional transport bodies that were created know exactly what is needed to meet transport demands and to attract investment and stimulate growth, but are without the powers to enact transformative plans. Our Mayor, Andy Burnham, is trying his hardest to tackle the local skills shortage, keep our communities safe and meet our housing needs, but is left without the ability to take a whole-system approach to these burning issues. Right across the country we have seen councils, mayors, local authorities and transport bodies left as the punching bag for local anger, but restrained by Westminster from taking any meaningful action.
On the Government’s pet project of the northern powerhouse, I have to tell them that the reality for those of us trying to make a difference on the ground is that it has felt more like the “northern powerless”, unable to take these important decisions on infrastructure, which are the foundations of inclusive growth. Subservient to Whitehall, the Government’s flagship policy is nothing but devolution in name only. As a result, communities across the UK have been left feeling completely disconnected from Whitehall and the people who make decisions on their behalf. The many no longer feel that their country is working for them.
Last year, the Government’s policies were exposed by a damning report from the Equality and Human Rights Commission, which stated that as a result of the 2010-17 austerity measures
“households with one or more disabled member will be significantly more adversely impacted than those with no disabled members.”
It also stated that
“ethnic minority households will be more adversely impacted than White households”,
and:
“Lone parents lose around 15% of their net income on average—almost £1 in every £6. By contrast, the losses for all other family groups are much smaller, from nothing to 8%...Women lose more than men from reforms at every income level.”
Does that sound like we are all in this together? Whether it is town versus city, rich versus poor or remain versus leave, the divide-and-rule tactics the Government have used have left our country in a far less cohesive place than they found it.
So what should a strong Union look like? A strong United Kingdom is where opportunity is open to all and success is dependent not on background or wealth but on talent and resolve. A strong United Kingdom is where our different cultures and traditions are respected but come together as one, and where we appreciate and celebrate the differences and the unique qualities of our nations and our regions instead of using them as a source of division. A strong United Kingdom is where power lies with the many, and where communities are resourced and empowered to make meaningful decisions on their day-to-day lives, and where everyone—young and old, north and south, rich and poor—feels they have a stake in society.
We on this side of the House have that plan for meaningful devolution—a plan that builds on the successes of the previous Labour Government, and looks to meet the needs and aspirations of the nations and our regions; a plan that unites our communities and our country at a time when unity is needed more than ever.
That is why Labour has committed to a constitutional convention if elected. If we are truly to transform and strengthen our Union, we need to have that wider conversation about our Union settlement for the decades to come, and that cannot be done from Westminster. These decisions need to rise above the day-to-day politics of this place and be made by the people political reform will most affect.
Our aim in government will be to transform our politics so that we can finally transform our economy and society. The next Labour Government will extend democracy, bringing it closer to the many; break up the political influence of corporate power when it serves its own interests over those of society; acknowledge that local needs can be met only by local people with meaningful decision-making powers; and recognise that meaningful devolution needs the proper funding to follow, which is why we have also proposed a national investment bank that sits in the community, making local decisions on local infrastructure by local people.
Oral Answers to Questions
John Lamont Excerpts(6 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
David Mundell
I am afraid that I cannot meet the right hon. Gentleman’s timescale but, like him and others, I wish England well in their game this evening. On the substantive issue that he raises, I would be very happy to speak to him directly ahead of my meeting with the Home Secretary.
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
Paul Masterton (East Renfrewshire) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Stuart Andrew)
Scotland’s trade with the rest of the UK is, as we heard a moment ago, four times that with the EU, so good connectivity is vital to our shared prosperity. The recent vote on Heathrow was critical. Maintaining and enhancing routes to Scotland will bring key benefits, and more frequent and new routes will be served to help to improve connectivity.
John Lamont
Many businesses in my constituency depend on customers and staff from south of the border, so what discussions has the Minister had with the Scottish Government about improving cross-border links on the A1, A68 and A7, and, crucially, the extension of the Borders Railway to Carlisle?
Stuart Andrew
My hon. Friend is absolutely right that cross-border connectivity is crucial right across the United Kingdom. He and his constituents will quite rightly expect the UK Government to commit to working closely and constructively with the Scottish Government so that we have a joined-up approach. We are working on a day-to-day level, and at an official level between the Department for Transport and Transport Scotland. As for long-term projects, the potential of the borderlands growth deal could stand to be transformative for his constituents.
Leaving the EU: Negotiations
John Lamont Excerpts(6 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
Like each and every one of the Liberal Democrats, I did not get the referendum result that I wanted in 2016. I campaigned and voted for the United Kingdom to remain part of the European Union. In the early hours of 24 June, I looked on in a state of disbelief as the results came in, and it took weeks, if not months, for the implications of the vote properly to sink in. In Scotland, the uncertainty and disbelief were compounded by the new calls from the SNP and the nationalists for a second referendum to break up the United Kingdom.
Neither my personal view ahead of the referendum nor my personal reaction to the vote really matters. What matters is that the voters made their decision, and our job as parliamentarians is to ensure that we respect that decision and implement it in the best way possible. I find it impossible to ignore the blatant hypocrisy and incoherence of the Liberal Democrats’ position on this matter—hypocrisy, because they want to re-run a once-in-a-generation vote across the United Kingdom, but claim to oppose a rerun of another once-in-a-generation vote north of the border in Scotland. Their party leader, Willie Rennie MSP, says,
“With the Scottish economy teetering on the edge of a recession…the last thing our country needs is another divisive and distracting independence debate.”
I agree with Willie Rennie.
Layla Moran
Will the hon. Gentleman explain how the first referendum held after all the facts have been presented to us would count as a rerun, given that there would be new facts? In my constituency, for example, BMW has now come out and said that businesses would be harmed, and that would mean that my constituents would lose their jobs. Why should they not have the right to change their minds?
John Lamont
The voters made their decision for a variety of reasons, as voters always do in every election. The fact that some people do not like the conclusion that they reached does not mean that we can simply reject that decision and say that we need to rerun the vote. My experience in my own constituency is that people who voted to leave in 2016 are just as committed to voting to leave again if the question were put again. Indeed, many voters in Scotland, such is their fear of a second referendum to break up the United Kingdom and their feeling that their remain vote has been used by the nationalists as a mandate for a second referendum on independence, may well vote to leave the European Union to try to shut down Nicola Sturgeon and those nationalist pursuits.
Referendums are divisive and distracting, and a rerun of the vote would simply pile on the economic uncertainty. Businesses in Scotland, already faced with the possibility of another vote to drag Scotland out of our biggest market, that of the United Kingdom, would then also be unsure about whether we would actually be leaving the European Union.
Why is the threat to Scottish business of a second independence referendum so great? Growth in Scotland is not expected to rise by more than 1% before 2023. In 2017, Scotland’s GDP grew at half the rate of GDP in the United Kingdom. Why is that? Why is Scotland lagging behind the rest of the United Kingdom? Brexit creates uncertainty, but another independence referendum would simply add to that. If the Liberal Democrats and the Scottish National party get their way, Scottish business will see untold levels of uncertainty: uncertainty about another referendum on whether we remain part of the European Union, and uncertainty about another referendum on whether Scotland remains a key part of the United Kingdom. Why can the Scottish Liberal Democrats—led by Willie Rennie MSP—see how damaging and divisive a rerun of a referendum is, while their colleagues in this place cannot?
Christine Jardine
At the time of the independence referendum, the Scottish National party produced a full White Paper which laid out in great detail what the final deal would be. There was some debate about whether, if it had not done that, there might have had to be a second referendum in the event of a yes vote in Scotland. There is no inconsistency. The Scottish National party put forward a final deal, which was rejected. The Conservatives have yet to discover what the final deal might be, and agree among themselves. The people have no idea what it is they are facing.
John Lamont
I have greater faith in the people of this country to make an informed decision—and, as I said earlier, they are entitled to vote in any way and for whatever reason they choose. Our job as parliamentarians is to accept their ultimate decision.
John Lamont
I want to make just a little bit more progress.
I think that trying to unpick the result and the decision-making process of our electorate is a very dangerous thing to do.
Mr Alister Jack (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that, whether we are talking about the European Union referendum or the independence referendum, we are not in the business of playing “best of three”?
John Lamont
My hon. Friend has made an important point. Best of three, best of five, best of seven—how often do we need to keep rerunning votes until Opposition Members get the result that they want, and are happy to accept the democratic wishes of the people of this great country?
The Liberal Democrats’ position is also hypocritical, because they claim to be democrats and claim to be standing up for a people’s choice in one breath, and in the next breath they want to ignore the people’s vote the first time around. The reality is that the electorate made their choice knowing there would be no second referendum. The Prime Minister at the time, David Cameron, repeatedly made that clear. Every voter received a leaflet from the Government stating that the vote was
“a once in a generation decision”,
and told voters that the UK Government
“will implement what you decide.”
The Liberal Democrats’ position is also incoherent, because they think that the electorate made the wrong decision the first time around, but believe that a second referendum would produce a different result. What would a second Liberal Democrat referendum actually achieve? A greater leave vote and the possibility of a harder Brexit; a remain vote followed by justified calls from Brexiteers for another referendum to decide the matter once and for all; or roughly the same result, and an even more frustrated electorate.
Tom Brake
May I return the hon. Gentleman briefly to the issue of business uncertainty, about which he is concerned and which he says that a second referendum, or a final say on the deal, would cause? Does he not accept that one thing that is certain from a business perspective is that, according to the Government’s own impact assessments, whichever model we end up with when we leave the European Union, all the businesses about which he professes to worry will be worse off?
John Lamont
I accept that any change will create uncertainty, but I see the positive future beyond that initial period of uncertainty, and I see the opportunities that our country will face once we leave the European Union. When Opposition Members try to add to that uncertainty by proposing yet another referendum, another campaign, another period of not knowing what the outcome will be, that does nothing to help business and our economic prosperity.
Colin Clark (Gordon) (Con)
Is my hon. Friend not amazed that the stock market is doing so well, and that we have the lowest unemployment we have had for many years? Is that not a reflection of how well the economy is doing—costing in the fact that we are leaving the EU?
John Lamont
That is a good point. One of the great strengths of our businesses is their ability to adapt and respond to challenges. During our recent half-term break, I spent a week visiting businesses in my constituency. When I asked them what was the biggest challenge they faced—whether they were small businesses employing a handful of people, or big businesses employing 800 or so—not one of them said “Brexit”. I asked them, “Why on earth did you not say ‘Brexit’, given that all we read in the press is about Brexit and the difficulties you will face?” They said, “We are resilient. We adapt to whatever the challenge may be. The reason for our present strength and success is our ability to adapt to those challenges.”
John Lamont
I want to make a bit more progress, if I may. I will take more interventions later.
One thing is certain: another referendum—a Liberal Democrat referendum—on our membership of the EU would simply play into the hands of Nicola Sturgeon and the separatists who wish to destroy the United Kingdom by ripping Scotland out of the heart of it. I am no fan of referendums, and neither are many of the voters whom I speak to. Referendums cause huge uncertainty, put off businesses, and divide nations. Now that we have a sensible, pragmatic approach to Brexit agreed by the Government and a parliamentary vote, there is little to gain from another referendum and much to lose.
The motion refers to the lack of progress on Brexit. I want to say a little about one issue on which the UK Government have made significant progress, both in terms of their thinking and in terms of their negotiation with Brussels: the issue of fishing. I must admit that when the Government announced that we would remain part of the common fisheries policy during the transition period—a policy hated by fishermen and fishing communities throughout Scotland—I was disappointed, to say the least. But, since then, and since the publication of the fisheries White Paper last week, we have seen concrete action that will work for Scottish fishermen. Despite the delay, we will be leaving the CFP in December 2020, which means that by 1 January 2021, British waters will once again be just that: British. It will be up to us to decide who has access to them and we will be presented with a once-in-a-generation opportunity to change the way in which we operate in them. We will be able to ensure that stocks are fished sustainably, we will be able to negotiate with other countries, and we will have full control over our natural resources.
I was delighted that the White Paper also made it clear that the issue of access to British waters for European boats would not be conflated with access to European markets for British fish. That is crucial, and as the Government continue their negotiations with the EU, they must ensure that they do not allow Brussels to abuse the right of access to British waters.
Jamie Stone
A constituent of mine, Mr William Calder, has a fish processing business in Scrabster. If what happens in the future leads to the addition of half a day to his two-day delivery journey to France, he will be in serious trouble. We need to avoid anything like that happening at a border, whether it is at Dover or Calais.
John Lamont
I agree that we need to ensure that our fishermen have the best possible deal, but what our fishermen want is to be out of the common fisheries policy and to have control of our waters. What the Liberal Democrats are proposing is to go back into the CFP, which is absolutely not what the Scottish fishermen want.
I am conscious of time so I am going to conclude. The most obvious reason why the Liberal Democrats’ call for a second EU referendum should be rejected is that the voters simply do not want it. Only one of the last 10 opinion polls on this has shown public support for a second referendum. The Liberal Democrat Members need to be asking themselves why, if a second EU referendum was so popular, only 12 of them are sitting on the Opposition Benches. When the Liberal Democrats stood on a manifesto promising another vote only a dozen Lib Dem MPs were returned. In my constituency, which had been represented by Liberal Democrats including David Steel, Archy Kirkwood and Michael Moore for over 50 years, the party came fourth in last year’s general election and lost its deposit.
Liberal Democrats would do well to stop patronising voters. They should abandon their insistence that the electorate, just because they disagree with Lib Dem party policy, cannot possibly be right, and drop their call for a second referendum.
Mr Walker
I agree with the hon. Gentleman. I did not agree with some of his speech, but he just made a strong point. We must ensure that both sides understand the need to engage constructively in the negotiations over the months ahead to seek a new relationship between the UK and the EU.
I have great respect for the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse), who made a passionate speech singing the praises of the EU and its model of bringing countries together. I understand the case that she makes, but it was also made during the EU referendum, when the British people decided not to consent to continued participation in that political project. We must respect that crucial decision. The Government have been clear in all such debates that our position respecting the referendum has remained the same. We said ahead of and at the time of the 2016 referendum that we would respect the result, and that remains the case. It is interesting that those on the Opposition Benches who support the idea of a second referendum only discovered their desire after being on the losing side.
On the night of the referendum, as we have already heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole, Lord Ashdown, perhaps in anticipation of a different outcome, said:
“I will forgive no one who does not respect the sovereign voice of the British people once it has spoken. Whether it is a majority of 1% or 20%, when the British people have spoken you do what they command. Either you believe in democracy or you do not.”
What does it say about the faith in the judgment of the British people of those who support such sentiments if they simply wish to ask the same question again in the hope of getting a different answer? As the hon. Member for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer) said, it is a case of “Keep voting until you agree with us.”
The British people voted to leave the European Union, and it is the duty of this Government and this Parliament to deliver on their instruction. We have done so by voting overwhelmingly to trigger article 50 and by passing essential legislation, such as the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. Petitions brought to this House for debate have repeatedly failed to garner the support of the House. Our position on this issue is therefore clear, and we have repeatedly said that there will be no second referendum or, as the right hon. Member for Twickenham suggested earlier, a third one.
John Lamont
Does the Minister agree that opinion polls show that there is no support for a second referendum? The Liberal Democrats claim that there is support for a final say, but people push back strongly when they are told that that will involve a referendum.
Mr Walker
My hon. Friend makes a valid point. From meetings with businesses in Scotland, I know the deep concern among the business community at the prospect, as held out by the SNP, of a second independence referendum. From speaking to my constituents, whether they voted leave or remain, the main sentiment that I pick up is the same as I have picked up from many Government Members, which is that they want us to get on with the process.
We are determined to make a success of Brexit and we are working hard and at pace to get the best deal possible: an agreement that is in the mutual interests of both the United Kingdom and the European Union that delivers on the British people’s decision on Brexit in a pragmatic way without re-running and re-fighting the referendum. Whether in Scotland, England or Northern Ireland, our constituents want us to get on with the process and get on with it we will. However, some things are worth re-running, including the wise words of the right hon. Member for Twickenham, who is no longer in his place—[Interruption.] My apologies; he has moved. He said that the
“public have voted, and I do think it’s seriously disrespectful and politically utterly counterproductive to say, ‘Sorry guys, you got it wrong, try again’.”
I therefore urge the House to reject this motion.
Question put.
Oral Answers to Questions
John Lamont Excerpts(6 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Alistair Burt
I will be answering an urgent question on this matter shortly. We have taken a great deal of interest over many years in the affairs of those Bedouins at Khan al-Ahmar. I visited them just a few weeks ago, and this remains a matter of great concern to the UK.
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
UK Intergovernmental Co-operation
John Lamont Excerpts(6 years, 6 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Stephen Kerr
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. The fractious relationship between the Governments of Scotland serves nobody’s purposes, and it serves no good purpose to have the situation continue.
To be clear, when nationalists walk into a negotiation they are not looking for a way to build a consensus that works for everyone; they would far rather walk out in a huff, having achieved nothing, because that fits with their agenda of conflict and grievance. For them, it is always about the politics and never the outcomes. They would rather have the argument than the solution.
There is no doubt that the nationalists create jurisdictional confusion for their political advantage. If we consider how the public sector in Scotland is run through the civil service and, perhaps more importantly, local health boards and local government, we see that differences between English and Scottish regulatory systems allow a wall to be built around the Scottish public sector. However, when we scratch the surface, we see that the differences between the system in Scotland and the systems in the rest of the United Kingdom are actually not so great. This separation creates separatism; it is moving us apart; and it builds a wall around Scotland.
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
My hon. Friend is making a very good speech; he is speaking very passionately and articulating clearly the challenges that we face in Scotland now, given the new and evolving democratic position that we find ourselves in. However, in my own area in the borders, we have the borderlands growth deal, which is a very good example of having communities on either side of the border facing the same challenges. The Governments are coming together; the councils are coming together; and we will hopefully find solutions and investment. It is very disappointing, therefore, that the Scottish Government have indicated that they might withdraw from the JMC and stop the delivery of these growth deals, which would mean that those communities would lose out on that investment.
Stephen Kerr
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention and for the information he brings to the debate. What he describes would be a tragic outcome for everyone, but he underlines the point I am trying to make, which is that the emphasis on differences is not always true. The wall I am describing cements a nationalist agenda of Scottish exceptionalism and difference. It discourages working across borders. The border is used as a barrier to seek to limit the building of partnerships throughout the United Kingdom.
Glasgow City Council has more in common with Manchester and Birmingham City Councils than it does with Argyll and Bute, but they are lumped together incongruously to satisfy a geographic and nationalist imperative. Similarly, the problems of rural health boards are not dissimilar, regardless of whether they are on one side of the border or the other. It is a real shame that the arrangements for the devolved settlements do not contain references to partnership working, other than at ministerial level. Instead, we have created a system that allows for the creation of division and separation, rather than one that encourages partnership and innovation.
Parliamentary Constituencies (Amendment) Bill: Committee Stage
John Lamont Excerpts(6 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Pete Wishart
She is not nodding her head; she thinks that it is working satisfactorily. Okay, I may be on my own. In my view, and probably in that of most Members on the Opposition Benches, something is wrong. Something is not working with the system of dealing with private Members’ Bills. There is real disappointment and anger in this House about how all this is working out. This is the third time we have debated it, as the Leader of the House said, and it is not getting any better—if anything, it is getting worse. After her lecture to the House today, it feels a lot worse to Opposition Members.
If money resolutions are a sticking point, how about we try to design some sort of solution? I have tried to suggest this notion to Conservative Members: if they do not like something, they should come here on a Friday to oppose it and get their way; and if they do not get their way, they should accept the role of the House. We are going to have to try to find a way round this. We cannot continually come back to the point where Members secure support for their Bill from this House, believe that they are making progress with it, and then are ultimately blocked by a Government who do not like it and so are not prepared to give it a money resolution.
I do not know how we might do this, but may I suggest to the Leader of the House that we try to get a cross-party solution? I know that it has been suggested that the matter should be put to the Procedure Committee. That has happened twice in my time in this House. We have had the Procedure Committee consider private Members’ Bills, and maybe it should do so again. How about if all the parties got together and tried to see what we could do to ensure that we get round some of these very tricky issues? The current situation is not good enough.
I was out in my constituency campaigning over the weekend. Our constituents look at these sorts of issues and get more and more concerned. We have a particular issue in Scotland. People in Scotland are furious about the disrespect that this Government have shown to our nation in taking about 15 minutes to turn the devolution settlement on its head. However, they are also seeing some of these issues about private Members’ Bill going through. [Interruption.] I know that Conservative Members do not like it, but this perception is building up. I saw over the weekend that there is bewilderment more than hostility. What is the House of Commons doing? Why cannot we properly debate issues that are really important? Why cannot we consider private Members’ Bills?
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
What my constituents and most people in Scotland, I think, got frustrated with and annoyed by was the pantomime performance we saw last week of SNP Members storming out of the House, not representing the interests of their constituents or of Scotland. The Leader of the House spoke very well about the importance of the Government keeping control of financial resolutions. I would be interested to know if the right hon. Gentleman would advocate the same proposal for the Scottish Parliament with regard to how the Scottish Government manage similar matters.
Pete Wishart
First of all, I am not a right hon. Member. For some reason, Scottish National party Members are not made Privy Counsellors, regardless of how long we have served in this House. I thank the hon. Gentleman for the promotion, but I have never actually secured that position.
I wish that the hon. Gentleman had been on the streets in Perth, as I was, on Saturday. He would have seen the deep frustration and anger that there was with this House after the massive disrespect demonstrated to our Parliament—the Scottish Parliament—which secured 15 minutes of debate before its devolution settlement was turned on its head. There is a growing frustration with this House as more and more people, particularly in Scotland, are seeing—because they like watching us speak—how this House is treated. There is real bewilderment about what is going on.