Devolution and the Union

Margaret Curran Excerpts

Thursday 20th November 2014 Commons Chamber

[Angus Robertson]

No, I will not take an intervention.

The Scottish Government have set out their approach to delivering progress. They propose maximum self-government within the Union. Others would describe this as devo-max, as we have heard already, home rule or perhaps even federalism. The SNP and the Scottish Government argue that further devolution should be underpinned by clear principles. It must respect the sovereignty of the people of Scotland and enhance the financial and democratic accountability of governance in Scotland. As part of this, the Scottish Parliament should have the ability to devolve power further to local communities and authorities. It should transform the ability of the Scottish Parliament and Government to meet the challenges they face and, in particular, enable Scotland to be a more prosperous country, to be a fairer and more equal society, and to have a stronger voice in the EU and internationally on matters within devolved competence. It should be equitable and transparent in its approach to resources, risks and rewards, including arrangements for Scotland to have access to taxes raised in Scotland with transitional or residual transfers of resources based on the current Barnett formula.

The Scottish Government have set out their proposals for extending self-government in Scotland consistent with those principles to deliver full fiscal responsibility for the Scottish Parliament with all tax revenues being retained in Scotland. The Scottish Parliament should have policy responsibility for all taxes unless there is a specific reason for a continued reservation. In particular, the Scottish Parliament should have full autonomy for income tax, national insurance, corporation tax, capital gains tax, fuel duty, air passenger duty and inheritance tax. The Scottish Parliament should be responsible for all domestic expenditure, including welfare, and should make payments to the UK Government for reserved or shared services. The Scottish Parliament should have a sustainable framework for public finances, including the necessary borrowing powers and an agreement with the UK Government on the overall approach to public finances. Our view is that as a part of any agreement the Barnett formula should continue to be used to determine Scotland’s resources.

[Margaret Curran (Glasgow East) (Lab)]

Following on from the logic of the hon. Gentleman’s argument, may I ask that his party respect the Smith commission when it reaches its conclusions next week?

[Angus Robertson]

We are respectful of the Smith process and I await the outcome of the commission. I look forward with great optimism to its proposals being those for which we would all wish.

Scotland should get the financial benefits as well as having the tools to manage the risks of its new responsibilities, and the Scottish Government’s responsibility for all welfare policy and administration should be devolved. As a priority, that should involve all working-age benefits. In the meantime, the roll-out of universal credit and the personal independence payment in Scotland should be halted to ensure that the practical ability to devolve individual benefits is not compromised.

Employment and employability policy, including responsibility for setting the minimum wage and all employability programmes, should also be devolved. Equal opportunities and the equality policy should be devolved. I could go on, because there are many further powers that should be devolved, and that is not just the view of the Scottish National party. The public have been asked about them in a range of academic studies and a series of polls, and it is important that Members are aware of the strength of feeling on these matters.

Devolution (Scotland Referendum)

Margaret Curran Excerpts

Tuesday 14th October 2014 Commons Chamber

[Sir George Young (North West Hampshire) (Con)]

It is always a pleasure to follow the former Prime Minister and, in a moment, I will deal head on with the argument he has just made about two classes of MPs. I am delighted that this issue has been taken off the back burner and put on the legislative hot plate by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, who as party leader some 15 years ago set out a very clear statement of our party’s policies on this.

Let me deal with the argument we have just heard about two classes of MPs. First, it asks the wrong question. We are here to represent our constituents, so the question is not whether there should be two classes of MPs, but whether there should be two classes of constituents, one of which would be for those who have a significantly more powerful democratic leverage than the other. Post-devolution, the Scottish voter has more democratic leverage than the English voter. Through his or her MSP, he or she has total control over the matters that have been devolved to Holyrood. That is fair enough. They have leverage over those matters that have not been devolved, such as defence. That is fair enough. But they also have leverage over matters that exclusively apply to England, and in some cases that influence is decisive. My voters have none of that. They have no leverage over devolved matters in Scotland, and they can be outvoted on matters that are exclusively English. That is indefensible and unsustainable, as some of us have been saying since 1999.

Let me deal with the question about all MPs being equal. MPs are not equal. Post-devolution, we have different case loads. Four Members of Parliament never vote. MPs who are Ministers cannot initiate debates on behalf of their constituents or ask parliamentary questions. Some MPs can speak for more than six minutes, and others cannot. Some are paid more because of their responsibilities in the House. It is not the case that all MPs are equal.

The McKay commission summed up the situation very well in paragraph 59 of its report:

“These survey findings suggest a potent combination of dissatisfactions in England. There is a clear and enduring sense that England is materially disadvantaged relative to the other parts of the UK, especially Scotland.”

What a disappointing response we heard from Opposition Front Benchers to that clear statement. They refused to answer the question from my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House on what the principle that the Labour party seeks to defend might be.

[Margaret Curran (Glasgow East) (Lab)]

rose—

[Sir George Young]

Perhaps the hon. Lady will now tell us.

--- Later in debate ---

[Margaret Curran]

I am quite taken by the fact that the right hon. Gentleman is so focused on the role of Scottish Members of Parliament. In his principles and plans, does he intend to apply that focus to Members of the House of Lords as well, or is he only worried about the House of Commons?

[Sir George Young]

The proposition in my party’s manifesto was absolutely clear: it applies to Members of this House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Margaret Curran (Glasgow East) (Lab)]

This has been a wide-ranging and—dare I say—exciting debate. It has been inspired by recent events in Scotland, but it has understandably covered many other questions relating to the constitutional future of the United Kingdom. I shall begin where the hon. Member for Warrington South (David Mowat) left off, because I want to pay tribute to some of the most outstanding contributions to the debate. The most notable was that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown), who electrified not only the referendum campaign but our debate this afternoon. Lest anyone accuse me of being partisan, however, let me also pay tribute to another outstanding contribution—that of the right hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (Michael Moore). He made a measured and thoughtful speech.

The striking contributions from my right hon. Friends the Members for Tooting (Sadiq Khan) and for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Mr Clarke)—this is so good for my geography—reminded us at the outset that we must remember why we are having this debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow Central (Anas Sarwar) said that our experience of the referendum was now being felt beyond it because people were “sick and tired” of the way in which our politics work. They are fed up with Westminster, as the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin) said, and the sense of isolation that the Scots feel is also being felt in England and more broadly across the United Kingdom. More often than not, we have to be humble because we know that people are fed up with politicians. They see us as being out of touch and they think that we just do not get it. Dealing with the underlying causes of that problem, showing people that politics can once again respond to the problems in their lives and helping them to face the challenges and change their lives are the key challenges in politics today. We absolutely cannot ignore that call, and we on these Benches will not do so.

In Scotland, we have just emerged from more than two years of exciting discussion. It is not often that people get the opportunity to make such a profound choice about the future of their country, and let us be clear: the question has been decided. The sovereign will of the Scottish people was clear: they voted to remain part of the United Kingdom, and everybody must respect that result. There is a whiff of some Members searching for a reason to undermine it. Let me abandon politeness: “Alex Salmond, get real! The people of Scotland have decided; now just get on with it and make this devolution settlement work.”

The discussions that we have had in our schools, our homes, our workplaces, our streets and in some cases our pubs have reached every part of Scottish society, and that is what we want to keep. The discussion should not be confined to our Parliaments; it should take place in every part of our lives. In Scotland, our challenge is to maintain that engagement with politics. The rest of us have to grasp that point and to see what we can learn from the experience and whether we can inspire similar changes again.

That is why the attitude of right hon. and hon. Members on the Government Benches at this moment in our history is so disappointing. We have heard a call for change from across the United Kingdom, and from unprecedented numbers of people in Scotland, but the Government’s response has been to say, “I know what we’ll do. We’ll set up a Cabinet sub-committee. That’s the answer!” That approach has been led by the Prime Minister. Yes, he played his role in the referendum and there was cross-party engagement, but he disappointed us all by what he said on that Friday morning. He had a chance to bind our country back together and he failed. Everybody knows that he resorted to narrow party interest.

Let us consider the following:

“Constitutional reform is far too important today to be regarded as the exclusive preserve of the so-called chattering classes. It goes right to the heart of what is wrong with the Government of Britain today—a Government that is arrogant, centralised, and unresponsive to people.”

Those are not my words; they are the words, in 1993, of John Smith, Labour’s lost leader and a great champion of constitutional reform. Those words are as true today as they were then.

Let me address the issue that so many people have talked about, the devolution of power, as many hon. Members have asked about the principles guiding our response. The binding principle that has guided all my work in Scotland and that guides the approach of the Labour party is the devolution of power and making sure that we put power into the hands of our people wherever we can. We have done that in Scotland and we are now seeing how we can do it in England. That is why we have made a raft of proposals about how we want to change England, how we want to change Scotland and how we want to change the rest of Britain. That is why a constitutional convention is the right way. We have learned from our experience in Scotland; we have been involved for so many years, and the binding conclusion from the people of Scotland is, “Don’t leave it just to the politicians. Always engage with the people.”

Let me turn directly to the issue of English votes, as it has been called. It has been raised by so many Members in this debate. Our system of government may be a bit messy at times, but it is a product of centuries of agreement and compromise. Although it is not perfect, it has served us well. Perhaps, as has been said, it is better in practice than in theory. However, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Tooting said at the outset, we need to consider the consequences of devolution across the board. None of the quick fixes the Government have suggested is appropriate. Some have suggested that identifying an English law on which only English MPs can vote is a straightforward exercise, but perhaps they should have a word with the House of Commons Library, because it has determined that only five of the 434 Bills passed by this House between 2000 and 2013 can be determined to be English-only. This is perhaps not as straightforward as people think.

Even the Government's own commission accepts that English votes for English issues is fraught with difficulty, so we need to think carefully about how devolution has an impact on the governance of the rest of the UK. I was struck by the fact that so many Tory MPs here today and so many nationalist MPs talked only about the impact on Scotland. It seems to be only devolution in Scotland that bothers them, which is deeply concerning—perhaps it explains why there are so few Tory MPs in Scotland. We now have not only a West Lothian question, but a West Belfast question, because devolution applies in Northern Ireland; a West Cardiff question, because it applies in Wales; and even a West Hampstead question, because it applies in London, too. So let me make it absolutely clear: we will guard against any proposals that create two tiers of MPs in the House of Commons, because we are deeply concerned about the voting rights of Scottish people and of English people, too. It is not acceptable to English people for us to say that a quick fix addresses their isolation from politics. Interestingly, the Tories and the SNP have entered into an alliance in the House of Commons to get across this—

[Andrew Percy]

I can clearly define an English vote on an English law, but we cannot clearly define the vow that was signed for the people of Scotland. Why should the vow be delivered on in a short period of time but English votes for English law be kicked into the future, possibly for years?

[Margaret Curran]

These are important points. The hon. Gentleman suggests that the constitutional convention we are proposing represents kicking things into the long grass, but that never happened in Scotland; we have great experience of this. It is not easy to determine English laws for English votes, which is why only five such laws can be identified from the past period.

The United Kingdom has gone through the most momentous and historic period in recent years, most particularly in recent months. We should stand proud and tell people that we understand the challenges that they are demanding. In recent by-elections, people have been expressing a deep frustration with the way in which politics is conducted. The answer is not a quick fix from a Cabinet sub-committee. It is profound social and economic change and a Government who listen to people and respond to them. That is by far the better way.

Parliamentary Reform

Margaret Curran Excerpts

Thursday 3rd February 2011 Westminster Hall

[Mr Mike Weir (Angus) (SNP)]

I am pleased to speak under your chairmanship this afternoon, Mr Benton. I congratulate the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) on securing this important debate.

There are two aspects to the debate: how Parliament is perceived, and the procedures of Parliament. Parliament is, frankly, often its own worst enemy in terms of how it is perceived. I draw hon. Members’ attention to the fiasco over the resignation of Gerry Adams from the House. Leaving aside the undoubted entertainment value of the UK Government and an Irish republican arguing over an ancient Crown title so that he can resign from a Parliament in which he has never taken his seat, does it not illustrate the fact that it is absolute nonsense that the only way a Member can resign is to be appointed to a non-existent title? Incidentally, it was reported that the Chancellor conferred the title on Mr Adams without him applying for it or agreeing to accept it. Is it really the constitutional case that the Chancellor can appoint someone to an office that disqualifies them from sitting in the House without them specifically applying for it? If that is the case, perhaps some potential Tory rebels should consider their position.

However, there are much more important issues to consider in terms of how we carry out our day-to-day procedures. The hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion has produced a paper, which I read with great interest, and I agree with a great deal of it. However, there are one or two things I do not agree with. The whole business of family-friendly hours is a red herring. I come from north-east Scotland, and either I am here or I am there. I cannot be here and go home at night. I would like to see how the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority dealt with the travel expenses that would arise if I tried to do so. That simply cannot happen. As the hon. Member for Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire (Simon Hart) rightly put it, when we were elected to the House, we accepted that we would spend much of our lives here. It does not matter to people from the north of Scotland whether we finish at 6 or 10; we are not going home. From my point of view, if we could squeeze the parliamentary week into two or three days and spend more time in the constituency, it would be perfect.

That brings me to the point that there are two visions of Parliament. I suspect that some Members see Parliament as being about dealing with the big issues and holding Government to account, as has been noted. However, another, competing, issue is that many of our constituents want us to deal with problems on their behalf. We all talk about how we must be more accessible and make Parliament more accessible. That is not done by being unavailable to our constituents because we are here discussing the big issues of the day. We have to deal with the issues that affect everyday life. It is true that many of the people who come to our constituency offices come to us with problems that are not strictly to do with Parliament. However, many of us are then faced with the question of what to do. We can try to say, “You need to go and see somebody else,” but that often only results in the person going away dissatisfied and saying, “Well, they wouldn’t do anything for me.” We all make such decisions daily.

I have put my pen through great screeds of this speech to try not to take up too much time. A lot has been said about electronic voting. There is a huge case for electronic voting for the reasons given by the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion, the greatest of which is being able to abstain. As a member of a smaller party, I often look at motions tabled by the Government and the official Opposition and say, “A plague on both your houses.” I would love to be able to abstain and be recorded as abstaining, but often we simply do not vote. That is an issue and a lot of hon. Members will feel that way.

I would go further than the hon. Lady. She made the case—possibly to try to engender support—that we should have electronic voting in the Chamber or the Lobby. I disagree. There is no reason why, in the 21st century, when we are wirelessly connected—or not connected, in many cases—to smart phones, iPads and everything else we cannot design a system that is secure enough to allow, although perhaps not on every occasion, people to vote remotely if it is appropriate. I say that because towards the end of last year when we had the dreadful snow, I could not get to London for two whole weeks. I was a member of the Postal Services Bill Committee at the time and missed several sittings—to my great frustration because I had several amendments tabled for debate. I also missed votes in the House. In those circumstances, I do not understand why remote voting cannot be allowed.

We may all kid ourselves that every hon. Member sits and listens to the debate and makes a decision on how to vote, but we all know it is not true. We choose which way to vote for various reasons. Remote voting should be allowed on some occasions, although not in every instance. We have moved a long way from the days when seriously ill people were carried through the Lobby in the middle of the night, but we still queue up for 15 minutes to vote. There is much to be gained from electronic voting. I agree with the point that the design of our Chamber makes it difficult to have voting within the Chamber. It is much easier in, for example, the Scottish Parliament, which is a much smaller Parliament of 129. For a Parliament of 650, the same lay-out is impossible. As I said, in the age of wireless connection, I see no reason why we cannot find a way in which electronic voting can be done. Let us move towards the 20th century, if not the 21st.

The second point I want to consider relates to petitions and making Parliament more relevant to our constituents and giving them a bigger say in what we are doing. Again, the issue has been considered by the House in previous modernisations. Originally, the system was that a Member had his or her 30 seconds in the sun presenting a petition in the Chamber, and they then placed the petition in the bag behind the Speaker’s Chair. Sometime later, they would get a brief response from the Department and that was that. As part of the previous modernisation, petitions are now reported to a Select Committee. However, the process never seems to go any further than that and the petition is simply noted by the Select Committee.

If we want to make Parliament more accessible to constituents, we need to consider a much greater forum to allow genuine concerns to be more fully canvassed by Parliament. For example, in my constituency, there is a threat to close driving test centres. I have raised that matter and debated it in this Chamber with the relevant Minister. However, in my constituency, the campaign has gathered a huge number of signatures on a paper petition and there has been a Facebook petition. It will reach the point when people ask, “What can we do with the petition?” The answer is that they can send it to the Driving Standards Agency to be filed there, they can send it to the Minister, probably to be filed in the Department, or they can give it to me to present to Parliament and it will presumably be reported to the Select Committee on Transport. However, again, no action is likely. We desperately need to look at ways that such petitions can be considered in more detail.

In closing down the No. 10 petition website, the Government announced that they will be introducing a new system whereby, if I understand it correctly, the most popular petitions will be converted into private Members’ Bills—although that opens up the difficulty of how those Bills are dealt with. That is an interesting idea but, if it has been reported correctly, the numbers needed mean that only the most controversial matters or the most organised national campaigns will ever get to that stage. I suggest that we consider a petition system that is more akin to the one that operates in the Scottish Parliament. In Scotland, anyone can present a petition to the Scottish Parliament. It only requires one signature and it can be submitted in any language. The petition must, of course, relate to a devolved issue and be relevant on a national level. It is important to note that it does not preclude a local issue where there may be a national angle. To take the example of the driving test centres in my constituency, the issue could relate to how the DSA is dealing with driving tests in rural areas.

In Scotland, a local health issue has been raised on the basis it has been alleged that health boards are not following national guidelines. The Scottish Parliament has set up a Public Petitions Committee that consists of nine MSPs to consider every admissible petition lodged—obviously not all petitions are admissible. That Committee writes to the bodies affected, whether it be the Scottish Government, health boards, police forces, local authorities or whatever, with questions to seek information on the matters raised. It asks the petitioner to comment on them.

[Margaret Curran (Glasgow East) (Lab)]

If I am called to speak, I will make reference to my experience in the Scottish Parliament. May I draw to the attention of the House the effectiveness of the Public Petitions Committee in the Scottish Parliament, and not just in the processing and engagement that it represents? It has led to significant changes in law, most recently on the health service and access to blood. People had been prohibited from getting blood through the NHS and significant laws were changed. That was initiated by the experience of a constituent, through the Public Petitions Committee, so it is effective in changing the law.

--- Later in debate ---

[Margaret Curran (Glasgow East) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) on securing the debate. I was not sure about her constituency name, and I will refer to my lack of recall in such matters.

I hesitated before taking part in the debate, because we, as politicians, must always be wary of talking about ourselves, our experience and our institutions, when we do not perhaps connect them properly with our representative role. The hon. Lady has put the matter in a proper context, because this is about effective governance. As has been said by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough (Mr Blunkett), there have been many shifts in the governance of Britain over the past 10 to 15 years, such as devolution. It is therefore appropriate that we consider how effectively we operate.

Many hon. Members have mentioned how pertinent the expenses scandal is, and how parliamentarians must rise to the challenge. If we look at what is happening in the middle east, and at how far people are prepared to go to fight for democracy, how we operate our democracy becomes significant.

I hope that my contribution this afternoon will reflect my experience in the Scottish Parliament, where I continue—just about—to be a sitting Member. I have been in that Parliament since its inception 12 years ago. When I go back, I will return the fraternal greetings of the hon. Member for Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire (Simon Hart), who I am sure will be welcomed back for more vibrant and lively debate. The Scottish Parliament has not been without its controversies, and I do not give it an unequivocally positive response. In my experience, there have been strengths and weaknesses along the way, and it is important to draw that to the attention of the House.

In a sense, the Scottish Parliament was created to address the democratic deficit that was felt strongly in Scotland, because of the United Kingdom’s governance structures. When it was established, we did not want the Scottish Parliament to be a repeat of the Westminster model—we wanted it to be different. Three fundamental strands were embedded in that Parliament. One was accountability, which I shall return to, because the point about Executive power and how it is held to account is important. The other two strands were transparency and accessibility.

Since I came to the House of Commons, I have had some interesting experiences and drawn some comparisons. I cannot imagine what would happen in Scotland if an institution was created where Members were given priority in the queues or had special lifts assigned to them. There would be violent uprisings if that were the case and we considered ourselves so grand that we had to go ahead of others in the queue.

[Thomas Docherty]

(Dunfermline and West Fife) (Lab): Perhaps my hon. Friend will wait for the outcome of the Administration Committee’s forthcoming report on catering. She might be interested in some of its conclusions.

[Margaret Curran]

I look forward to that, and I hope that things improve. I wish to make some more substantial points about issues that have been raised in the debate. Obviously, as a Scottish Member, the hours are of great significance to me. I am torn on the issue of family-friendly hours, but I am not sure it is a sound enough argument to say that since hours cannot be family-friendly for all, they should be family-friendly for no one. We should perhaps look at ways in which we can make the hours more family-friendly. I am also disturbed by the argument that states, “I came into this Parliament with my eyes wide open. I knew the hours and I knew I would have difficulties getting back to my family.” That inhibits some people from standing for Parliament in the first place, and the way we work excludes a lot of people, particularly women, which seems counter-intuitive to rational planning.

In my first week or fortnight in the House, there was a debate on rape anonymity, a subject in which I have a great interest and which have worked on in Scotland. The debate was held at about half-past midnight or 1 o’clock in the morning. That was utterly absurd, and anyone with any degree of common sense would agree. That is not a proper and rational way to hold that kind of debate.

Having said that, I think it is important not to throw out the baby with the bathwater. There is a lot that my colleagues in the Scottish Parliament can look to Westminster for and learn from, and some traditional ways of doing things are important. This Parliament has an authority and reach that other Parliaments could learn from. There is no doubt that the British people look to this Parliament as a platform for a national debate and a vehicle for certain views. It does not necessarily always have to reflect their views, but it should be a place where views can be tested and rehearsed, hopefully with great vibrancy or some degree of controversy. I do not say that everything in Westminster is wrong, or that because something happens in a devolved context it is, by definition, more modern or advanced.

My final point is about the accountability of Government. That is a critical matter, and it is an area in which the Scottish Parliament has been disappointing, and there are things that need to be thought through. For example, the current Scottish Government regularly lose votes in the Parliament and are reprimanded by Parliament for their actions. However, that is consistently ignored. There are all sorts of explanations and debates about that, but it is significant in and of itself when the Executive—the Government—do not pay attention to the voice of Parliament. We should think about that in Westminster. Urgent questions and topical questions are more advanced in this Parliament, and I respectfully say to the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion, who has made an enormous contribution, that the next stage of this debate should be about how we use Parliament to hold the power of Government to account. We have heard some interesting remarks on that.

I strongly support what has been said about changing the language of Parliament. I am more likely to remember someone’s name than their constituency. Terms such as “honourable”, “Friends” and “Members” are a barrier to common sense and communication, and I hope that the hon. Lady and the Procedure Committee will look at that matter.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Oldham West and Royton (Mr Meacher) made some significant and substantial points about how we hold Government—and the power of Government—to account, which is a vital debate. We must link the debate to the experience of our constituents and make it about their lives. Somehow along the way, we are beginning to get there.