Members’ Paid Directorships and Consultancies

Martin Horwood Excerpts

Wednesday 25th February 2015 Commons Chamber

[Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)]

I have no relevant interest to declare, which makes me feel like a bit of a poor relation in this debate. I find being a Member of Parliament a full-time job, and with a salary that is some three times the national average, I hardly think we are poverty-stricken in this place.

It is a shame that at the beginning of the debate things instantly degenerated into party political point scoring, points of order, procedural manoeuvring and personal accusations. Our constituents really expect better. Later contributions, including those of my hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Tessa Munt) and the hon. Members for Sherwood (Mr Spencer), for Bracknell (Dr Lee) and for Easington (Grahame M. Morris), were much more measured, and that is to be welcomed.

The Government amendment is good as far as it goes, but for me it implies too much acceptance of the status quo, and I do not think the status quo is acceptable. I cannot, though, support the Labour motion, which is far too simplistic. Reference has already been made to the fact that it excludes partnerships, farmers, broadcasters, journalists, and writers like the Leader of the House. I am very impressed that he managed to find time to write an acclaimed biography of Pitt. I have not had time to read it, so how on earth he found time to write it, I do not know.

My background was in business and in the charity sector. My new Conservative opponent is a barrister in London chambers. If the people of Cheltenham were so rash as to elect him in May, he would be completely unaffected by what is proposed in this motion. He would be able to continue earning very large fees as a barrister, whereas I would be ruled out of becoming a director in a business. I do not understand what is so special about paid directorships. The motion would prevent, for instance, the retention of a directorship in a small local family business, even if it took hardly any time from the Member’s parliamentary business, but allow unpaid directorships that might carry with them significant equity shareholdings that could result in a significant increase in wealth, if not technically in income. I am afraid that this looks like a well-intentioned motion that was written in a hurry and, I venture to say, by a party with a beginner’s knowledge of business.

The key issues that need to be addressed are conflicts of interest and the time that we devote to parliamentary business. They must be addressed in a way that is not the subject of silly party political point scoring—so it will have to take place after the election—and without our being seen once again to mark our own homework. The hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mark Field) suggested the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority for the role. An alternative would be the Standards Committee, but with increased representation from lay members who could look at this with a strong external voice. That would command the confidence of the public and the electorate, and we certainly need that confidence.

Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill

Martin Horwood Excerpts

Wednesday 9th October 2013 Commons Chamber

[Tom Brake]

I can reassure my right hon. Friend that the doors of the Leader of the House’s office and mine are permanently open to that sort of approach. In fact, the dialogue with the NCVO has been very active and constant, and I am keen to pursue that. The NCVO is, as I stated earlier, at least partially happy and has in the past said that the amendments significantly meet its concerns. There is common ground and we want to ensure that it is developed further.

[Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)]

Although the Deputy Leader of the House has said that this issue is clearly to do with candidates or parties, there is a slight problem with the wording of lines 1 to 4 on page 13, which note that “for election purposes” means

“for the purpose of or in connection with…candidates who hold (or do not hold) particular opinions or who advocate (or do not advocate) particular policies”.

Although this is a valuable Bill which has been widely misrepresented by 38 Degrees and others, I think that wording presents a potential risk to charities such as the one for which I used to work and campaign, in that it might restrict what they perceive to be their political activity.

[Tom Brake]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. My issue with his concern is that that terminology is used in PPERA, which has been around for 13 years. One would therefore have expected such concerns to have emerged in the past 13 years, and seeing as they have not, I am reasonably confident that they will not emerge by 2015 either.

Business of the House

Martin Horwood Excerpts

Thursday 29th November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Gilbert (St Austell and Newquay) (LD)]

rose—

[Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

I am sorry to disappoint the Liberal Democrat Members. I note their enthusiasm and eagerness but unfortunately neither hon. Gentleman was in the Chamber at the start of the session so neither of them can speak.

[Martin Horwood]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The hon. Gentleman should resume his seat. He was not here and that is the end of the matter.

We come now to the statement on energy. [Interruption.] [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] We are grateful to the Secretary of State for Energy who has arrived in the nick of time. I am sure he would have been very happy for the statement to be delivered by the Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change, the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr Hayes), but it will be delivered by the Secretary of State.

House of Lords Reform Bill

Martin Horwood Excerpts

Tuesday 10th July 2012 Commons Chamber

[Conor Burns]

I think they are impressed that we accept more than 80% of the amendments that peers send back to us, and that in the other place there are people with great expertise—world-renowned people who would never dream of putting their names on a party list, going to central office, seeing Gareth Fox and getting on to the candidates’ list. It just would not happen, in any way.

I received a text last night from my old history teacher, who spent his entire career inspiring young people with a love and reverence of our country and its institutions, and he said to me:

“An elected Chamber would be a disaster and lead to the dilution of the Commons.”

I could not put it better myself.

I faced tonight a dilemma that I have finally resolved in my own mind. I cannot support this Bill on Second Reading. I could not look myself in the eye if I voted for it on Second Reading, and clearly that is incompatible with membership of Her Majesty’s Government, so I informed the Chief Whip this morning that I have resigned as Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

I am doing that in order to vote for something that I believe in strongly and on principle. I want to see a fully appointed second House, and I will go into the Lobby with the aim of trying to preserve that, in the same way that other, current members of the Government—17 Ministers and, indeed, the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Mr Swire), to whom I was PPS back in August 2010—went into the Lobby in 2007 in support of a fully appointed second Chamber. I will go into the Lobby in the same way also that six members of the Conservative Whips Office went into the Lobby in 2007 in support of a fully appointed second Chamber.

What an Alice in Wonderland world we now live in, that voting for something which has been a mainstream view in our party for decades—indeed, generations—now leads to incompatibility with serving in the Government.

[Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)]

If it was such a mainstream Conservative philosophy, as the hon. Gentleman says, how did Lords reform sneak into the party manifesto, the coalition agreement and the Queen’s Speech?

[Conor Burns]

It is a very mainstream view within the Conservative party, and I totally agreed with my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, who still has my full support and loyalty, when he told the Association of Conservative Peers that this was a very urgent issue for a third term. As we have yet to win a first term on our own, a third term is quite a way off.

I support this Government in every way, and I bitterly regret the fact that I will vote against the Government tonight. I support the Prime Minister and I support what the Government are trying to do; I even have some coalition-coloured ties to demonstrate that support. I see my friends from Northern Ireland on the Opposition Benches, and I genuinely regret the fact that I will not be able to continue to make such a contribution in the Northern Ireland Office. As someone who was born in north Belfast, who spent the early part of their life there, who is a Catholic and a Unionist and who recognises, understands and, indeed, feels both traditions in Northern Ireland, I think that taking such action is a matter of great regret, but I do it with passion and belief, and confident that it is the right thing to do.

I tell the House—and this should worry every single Member, in every corner and on both sides—that the number of comments I have had from people expressing amazement that a Member of this House in 2012 is prepared to resign on a point of principle, shows us how diminished and deluded our politics has become in this country. We need more days such as today, when this House is prepared to assert its will and to tell the Government what they can and cannot do.

I end with this, because I think that she was a great parliamentarian—my hon. Friends think that I am going to quote someone else, but I am not. The right hon. and noble Baroness Boothroyd, who served with distinction in the Chair over many years, said in one of the papers this morning, to those of us who will do what I will do later this evening,

“you are doing the right thing by your constituents, by your country and by Parliament”.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Robinson]

I take my hon. Friend’s point and accept it, but this is not really a priority. If we accept that the language of politics or the art of government are about achieving our priorities and managing the problems that are in the way of achieving them, I cannot see the House of Lords as a big problem at the moment. It really is not. It may well be an anachronism with its robes, its frumpery and all that; yes, I would love to get rid of it. For those who want reform, as I do, however, the proposals put forward by Lord Steel seem to deal with the matter. They seem to deal adequately with all my principal objections to how the House of Lords works, how it is constituted and how it deals with various aspects of ritual that people either like or do not like. The proposals deal with it all. If we had a set of provisions broadly based on what Lord Steel had proposed, I believe that we could have gained cross-party agreement, but we have not got that. We have a dog’s breakfast of a Bill.

[Martin Horwood]

Tom Paine first suggested reforms of the House of Lords more radical than those suggested by Lord Steel, and that was in the 1790s. If the hon. Gentleman supports reform, when exactly are we going to make it a priority?

[Mr Robinson]

I do not see that it is a priority, and I have no intention personally of speaking to it as a priority. It is not a priority; what is it stopping us doing? The priority at the moment is to get agreement between the two parties that form this so-called Government or this so-called coalition. That is what is preventing the Tory majority from carrying through their programme. Every day we read about it, and every Government have the same problems to a greater or lesser extent, and these are the in-built checks and balances of our very system. No Government find it easy to get their business through. The whole problem in government is getting business through, and in most areas we do not apply the guillotine or a timetable motion. I do not see the problem in the same light or from the same perspective as many other Members who see it as a priority.

Let me explain the points I find most objectionable about this Bill. The 15-year term is an affront to the concept of accountability. What legitimacy is conferred by that if no accountability comes with it? Clearly there is none. I intensely dislike PR—it is a personal view, and the issue can be debated across the Chamber, but such matters are in-built. The objective is the same as that which has been sought since Lloyd George first converted to PR way back in 1920 when he realised he would not win by any other means. He was always a man of great principle. That was when PR became Liberal dogma, and it is has remained as such ever since.

Above all, if we are to have a massive constitutional change of this kind, we should have a referendum. That is why I supported Tony Benn—yes, I did—when we had the first referendum on the European Community, which amounted to a massive change to the country’s constitutional arrangements. That is why, with a clear conscience and a glad heart, I shall vote against Second Reading tonight—quite simply because a basic element in the Labour party proposals as I remember them was the idea that this matter should be subject to a referendum of the British people. If that were part of the arrangements now, they would probably be kicked out, but above all else one would feel much happier in voting for them. As things stand, I shall vote against Second Reading.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Griffiths]

My hon. Friend has made a very good point, and I commend the work that he has done in opposing the Bill. He has done a fantastic job, and I pay tribute to him and to others in the House.

I also struggle with the idea of having to confront my constituents, who are being expected to deal with austerity. We are expecting people to accept the cuts that the coalition claims are necessary if we are to put the country back on its feet and deal with the mess that we inherited, but at the same time we are telling them that politicians may decide to spend £153 million on more politicians. How can I look my constituents in the eye—the workers in my local council who have been made redundant, and the public sector workers who are having to accept pay freezes and make more contributions to their pensions—and say to them, “Yes, but what is important is for us is to have elected representatives costing £153 million”?

I find it worrying that the Government have tried to persuade us that savings made in the House of Commons can be offset against the extra costs in another place. We all recognise that reducing the number of Members here represents a massive saving, but that money should not be spent on more politicians in another place. I am also worried about the 15-year term. The possibility that Members of an upper Chamber elected in 1997 with Tony Blair’s mandate and Tony Blair’s election result would have only just finished sitting strikes me as undemocratic in the extreme.

[Martin Horwood]

How, then, can the hon. Gentleman justify defending an institution in which Members appointed by Tony Blair are still sitting?

[Andrew Griffiths]

Because we all recognise that those people in the other place have expertise and knowledge, and they are not at the whim of the vagaries of the political process. They are not politicians and they are not standing for election; they do not choose to kiss babies and knock on doors. They are there because they are independently minded—

Rupert Murdoch and News Corporation Bid for BSkyB

Martin Horwood Excerpts

Wednesday 13th July 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Brown]

Let me say, Mr Speaker, that I am about to set out some facts for this House, and I hope that once I have done so I will be able to give way to Members.

In the month that I started at No. 10, there were already issues of state involving News International—a decision that the Government had to make on a Competition Commission inquiry into the recently acquired stake that brought its ownership of ITV up to 16.8%. It was for the Government to decide on any referral to the competition authority, and the Government approached this with no bias against BSkyB. However, after examining in some detail BSkyB’s activities, the Government, on the advice of the relevant authorities, found a case to answer and announced the strongest remedy possible—a referral to the competition authority, which went on to rule that BSkyB’s share purchase in ITV was not in the public interest. So far from siding with the News International interest, the Government stood up for the public interest by making the referral. While we correctly gave it time to sell its shares, its shares had to be sold.

Next was the proposed Ofcom review into the onward sale of BSkyB sporting and other programmes, and the claims of its competitors that it had priced BT, Virgin and other cable companies out of the market. The public interest was in my view served by due investigation. We did not support the News International interest, but stood up for what in our view was the public interest. The Ofcom recommendation, which News International still opposes today, demanded that there be fair competition.

It is no secret that the 2009 McTaggart lecture given by Mr James Murdoch, which included his cold assertion that profit not standards was what mattered in the media, underpinned an ever more aggressive News International and BSkyB agenda under his and Mrs Brooks’s leadership that was brutal in its simplicity. Their aim was to cut the BBC licence fee, to force BBC online to charge for its content, for the BBC to sell off its commercial activities, to open up more national sporting events to bids from BSkyB and move them away from the BBC, to open up the cable and satellite infrastructure market, and to reduce the power of their regulator, Ofcom. I rejected those policies.

[Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)]

rose—

[Nadhim Zahawi (Stratford-on-Avon) (Con)]

rose—

Business of the House

Martin Horwood Excerpts

Thursday 24th March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Sir George Young]

I am sure that other Members will have heard a feature on the “Today” programme which highlighted the freedom of information responses to which the hon. Gentleman is referring. In fact we have some of the toughest gun controls in the world, and we are having another look at them. The age limits in the firearms law reflect the different levels of risk posed by different guns in different circumstances. If young people do have access to firearms and shotguns, it must be safe and controlled. We are considering the recommendations of the Home Affairs Committee, and we expect to respond in May or June.

[Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)]

The very long parliamentary Session offered the tantalising prospect of successful private Members’ legislation, which I hoped would include my Tied Public Houses (Code of Practice) Bill, but my aim has been frustrated by the fact that all the newly available sitting Fridays are dominated by dozens of Bills promoted by one or two Members. Would you, Mr Speaker, or the Leader of the House care to comment on the situation, and on whether it is frustrating the whole point of private Members’ legislation?

[Sir George Young]

I understand my hon. Friend’s frustration. However, the Bills that were successful in the ballot will take priority over those that may follow. I tried to extend the number of days available for private Members’ Bills by tabling a motion yesterday. We cannot make progress with that motion because an amendment to it has been tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone), but the Government intend to make more time available for private Members’ Bills, to reflect the length of the session.

Speaker’s Committee for the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority

Martin Horwood Excerpts

Wednesday 26th January 2011 Commons Chamber

[Sir George Young]

The members of SCIPSA’s board do not undertake the function to which the hon. Lady has referred. They do not decide the remuneration of Members of Parliament or, indeed, their allowances. However, the hon. Lady has raised a serious issue about how a diversity of applications was secured. During the tender exercise, applicant companies were asked to prove a commitment to diversity as one of the criteria that would be considered in the assessment of their suitability for appointment. It may also reassure the hon. Lady to know that lay members will make a determined effort to gain an insight into the work of Members of Parliament and the challenges that confront us by observing the way in which Members work in their constituencies and, indeed, in the House.

[Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his statement, but there is a little bit of concern about the nature of the people who have been recruited. Do any of them, as far as he is aware, have any knowledge or experience of the workings of Parliament?

[Sir George Young]

SCIPSA contains a large number of Members of Parliament, including myself and, if the House approves the motion, the shadow Leader of the House and four or five other colleagues. Input from Members of Parliament already exists on the board, and we would not expect it to come from the lay members.

Although the Act provides for a maximum appointment length of five years, the motion provides for each lay member to be appointed for a different duration, reflecting the placing of the candidates in the final report of the board to the Speaker. Thus Dame Janet Gaymer will be appointed for five years, Elizabeth McMeikan for four years, and Sir Anthony Holland for three years. All three of those excellent candidates could quite reasonably be appointed for the maximum period, but if we did that, the Committee would probably lose the expertise and experience of all three simultaneously.

Business of the House

Martin Horwood Excerpts

Thursday 25th November 2010 Commons Chamber

[Sir George Young]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for the inquiry that his Select Committee is conducting into firearms. We have made a commitment to having a debate when his report is published. That would be a good context in which to explore further the impact on young people of videos and games that involve firearms. We could then establish whether any further legislation was necessary.

[Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)]

Given the recent revelation by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government that the last Labour Government wasted nearly £81 million developing regional spatial strategies, and given the recent attempts by developers to raise these, zombie-like, from the dead, would it be appropriate to have a debate on regional spatial strategies and their current status?

[Sir George Young]

This takes us back to the localism Bill. We will shortly, imminently and very soon introduce the localism Bill to Parliament. That will sweep away the last of the outgoing Government’s controversial regional strategies. It is clear that top-down targets have not worked; we propose to move to a different regime, giving local planning authorities some real incentives to get on with house building in their area.

Use of the Chamber (United Kingdom Youth Parliament)

Martin Horwood Excerpts

Tuesday 20th July 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Heath]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady. I certainly celebrate the fact that young people are interested, as she clearly does, and as I think most sensible people do. There are a small minority who perhaps do not, but I think that Parliament has a clear view on such issues.

[Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)]

May I briefly congratulate Oliver Warne, MYP, on his re-election to the Youth Parliament? Does my hon. Friend agree that he and the other youth MPs conducted the debates in this place last year with enormous dignity, good sense and restraint, which is something from which some Members of this House could perhaps learn?

[Mr Heath]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. One of the other objections raised is that if we allowed members of the UK Youth Parliament in here they would be swinging the Mace round their heads, swinging from the chandeliers and causing mayhem—after all, they are youth; some of them probably wear hoodies. I have to say that, in all honesty, that was not the experience last time—not by a long way.

--- Later in debate ---

[Philip Davies]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. However, I would point out that those people who were here in the previous Parliament and who said that the debate was a one-off—that it would only take place once and it would not be repeated—should bear that in mind when they come to decide how to vote on the issue tonight, unless, of course, they want to go against absolutely everything they said.

[Martin Horwood]

I was in the last Parliament and in fact I hope that it does set a precedent. I am slightly confused, however. In a spirit of honesty and transparency, will the hon. Gentleman clarify whether or not he opposes the use of these Benches by the UK Youth Parliament?

[Philip Davies]

Of course I do. The hon. Gentleman must have been living on Mars for the past year. He said he attended last year’s debate; I spoke for about an hour and a quarter on the subject then, although I cannot remember the exact length of time. He claims he was present, but I made it blindingly obvious that I am against this. For the benefit of the hon. Gentleman, who obviously cannot remember the debates he takes part in, I will try to rehearse tonight some of the same arguments I made then so that he can get a better understanding that I am actually opposed to this.

--- Later in debate ---

[Martin Horwood]

I must first apologise to the hon. Gentleman for having forgotten his speech from last year; I cannot think what erased it from my memory.

Is not what makes the UK Youth Parliament so special that it is so closely modelled on this place? As the hon. Member for Bolton West (Julie Hilling) pointed out, it has contested elections for constituencies closely modelled on our own and the procedure is based on ours. UK Youth Parliament members have therefore expressed great respect and gratitude for this place. Does the hon. Gentleman not think it a bit mean-spirited and churlish for us not to return the compliment?

[Philip Davies]

I do not accept the premise of that argument; the basis on which Youth Parliament members are elected is not exactly the same.

Dissolution of Parliament

Martin Horwood Excerpts

Tuesday 25th May 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Chope]

It was because I did not know the answer to that question that I initiated the debate. I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to speak in it as well, given that, as I have said, it will be much longer than we expected it to be.

It must also be unusual for the first Adjournment debate in a new Parliament to concern a subject that was not raised at all during the general election campaign. I can recall only one reference to it by a member of my party. At some stage during the campaign, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced that, if elected, he would legislate to require that in the event of a change of Prime Minister—let alone a change of Government—a general election should be triggered within six months. I think that he was emphasising the importance of accountability to the public and the people, and felt that that accountability had been lacking when the last Prime Minister became Prime Minister without the people having a say. Now that we have an arrangement that is becoming increasingly presidential in style, with rival candidates for the position of Prime Minister almost standing on soapboxes in front of millions of television viewers, it is probably all the more significant that a change of Prime Minister should generate a general election rather than being simply dealt with through the usual channels.

I know that many of my constituents were rather enthusiastic about the point made by my right hon. Friend during the general election campaign. I wonder whether the Deputy Leader of the House, when he responds to the debate on behalf of the Prime Minister, will be able to explain what has happened between the occasion, a few weeks ago, when the Prime Minister said that such a development was desirable and the position today, which seems slightly inconsistent with that stance. I understand that the talk is now about having a five-year Parliament, irrespective of how many Prime Ministers there are, and not giving the people a chance to have their say when there is a change of Prime Minister in the intervening period. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be able to provide a response to that extra question.

I also in my preliminary remarks refer to the fact that I was elected, and was proud to be elected, on the Conservative party manifesto. I was pleased, as I am sure the Deputy Leader of the House is pleased, that page 63 of the Conservative party manifesto included the Conservative commitment to change Britain

“with a sweeping re-distribution of power…from Government to Parliament.”

We all signed up to that in the Conservative party and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be consistent with that part of the manifesto. For the sake of completeness, I refer to page 67 of the manifesto where there was a pledge

“to make the use of the Royal Prerogative subject to greater democratic control so that Parliament is properly involved in all big national decisions.”

[Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that one example of the royal prerogative being diluted might be to take the power to call general elections out of the hands of the Prime Minister at his personal whim and into the hands of, say, 55% of Members of this place?

[Mr Chope]

I do not think that the hon. Gentleman is correct constitutionally to say that the Prime Minister has the power to call the general election. He has the power to recommend to the sovereign that an election be called. The sovereign has the constitutional right to say, “No, I do not think the time is right for a general election. I think that another group of people are willing and able to form a Government and therefore I will not call a general election.” I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on putting forward the argument in support of the Government.

[Mr Chope]

The hon. Lady makes a fair point and has thought through the possible implications of this. She may be aware of the German precedent, as referred to in some of the excellent briefing provided by our fantastic Library. The most recent German precedent—there have been others—was where the partners in a German coalition Government decided that it would suit their joint interests effectively to engineer a general election. A vote of no confidence was called in which a number of the coalition partners’ Members of Parliament abstained, thereby ensuring that the vote of no confidence was carried against the Government. That triggered an election in circumstances that wholly suited the purposes of the coalition. That was despite the fact that in German law there is provision for fixed-term Parliaments. The hon. Lady raises an important point, which along with similar points will I am sure be looked at in detail if and when we get any legislation on this subject.

[Martin Horwood]

Surely the logic of that argument is that the bar should be set even higher, perhaps to the 66% that the Labour Government introduced in the Scottish Parliament.

[Mr Chope]

Before the Scottish Parliament was set up, legislation set out what the rules would be in that Parliament when it was set up. If the hon. Gentleman is referring to what he thinks might be the appropriate rules to be introduced for fixed-term Parliaments starting after this one, we might be able to have a coherent debate. However, I am sure he is not suggesting that we should be retrospectively legislating now to create a bar to a Dissolution of a fixed-term Parliament when no proposal has been put to the people in a general election that we should have a fixed-term Parliament at all. Therefore, although the Scottish example has been frequently cited, I am not sure that it is a good one, because there was a proper debate in Scotland before the legislation was put forward, and when people went on to vote they knew the terms on which they were voting.