Budget Resolutions
Michael Gove Excerpts(9 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Bim Afolami
I will make some progress, and then I will give way.
From upgrading computer systems to using artificial intelligence to automate tasks, we will upgrade the NHS’s technology for the 21st century. That is only part of our programme of reform to bring the whole of Government into the digital era and generate productivity improvements, including through structural investment—and what a win it would be. The National Audit Office and the Office for Budget Responsibility, bodies that Opposition Members are always terribly keen to quote—[Interruption.] They should listen to what they have said about productivity and outcomes. The OBR says:
“Raising public sector productivity by 5 per cent”,
which will bring us back to where we were before the pandemic,
“would be the equivalent of around £20 billion extra in funding”.
That is why we are doing it. That is why the work that my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary is doing is so important.
Before I conclude, I think we can all agree, including Opposition Back Benchers, that it is impossible to know where the Labour party stands on anything these days. We used to know where it stood. The sad thing about the one concrete plan that it did have is that there was a document listing all the projects under the £28 billion and going through every constituency. That was the only plan they had, but they have dropped it. They should talk to the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband) as to whether he is happy about that.
Labour Members are confused and I feel sorry for them. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq) is chuntering from a sedentary position, but I am coming to her next, don’t worry. Labour is so confused that, by the way she was going on, one would think that she was a disciple of Peter Thorneycroft and Nigel Lawson. She was so keen on low taxes and sound money that I almost wanted to invite her to join us on the Government Benches. But then I remembered something: in one of her first acts as a Labour MP, she decided to mount the barricades and nominate the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) for leadership of the Labour party. I wonder whether she has told the Leader of the Opposition that that is where her heart lies.
Look, I do not want to be mean spirited—it does not suit me very well. It might surprise you, Mr Deputy Speaker, to learn that I actually rather admire the right hon. Member for Islington North. He believes in things and has ideas, unlike the shadow Treasury team, who do not even have the semblance of a coherent plan or any beliefs at all, as it turns out.
We know that this will not bother the shadow Chancellor. Where is she, by the way? She is probably too busy on her smoked salmon offensive in the City of London, pretending to love bankers, to have time to think of any new ideas.
The Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Michael Gove)
She is on Wikipedia, cutting and pasting.
Bim Afolami
She is cutting and pasting. I cannot see her, but if she needs ideas and is happy to come in, there is always the option—and she has done it before—to cut and paste from someone else. I do not want to mislead the House, Mr Deputy Speaker, but the shadow Chancellor does have one aspect to her economic plan—forgive me for forgetting about it—and, as the deputy leader of the Labour party knows, it is called the workers’ plan. True to form, the shadow Chancellor has cut and pasted this plan from the trade unions to such a degree that it might as well be called the unions’ plan. It gives sweeping licence to unions over our whole economy, which will kill jobs, hurt our productivity and undo the good work of this Budget and this Chancellor.
This Budget is a plan for the future, a plan for jobs, a plan for growth, a plan for productivity, a plan on the side of working people, and I commend it to the House.
Question put.
European Union (Withdrawal) Act
Michael Gove Excerpts(6 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)
I was and remain a very firm remainer, but nevertheless I voted to activate article 50 because I wanted to respect the result of the referendum. After that, my responsibility is to secure what I believe to be the best outcome for the United Kingdom and my constituents. However, I must say that the more I hear about not just the lying in the referendum, but the manipulation of data and the cheating—and now allegations of foreign involvement—the less I respect it.
We hear that the Prime Minister is deserving of our respect for negotiating the deal and the continual promoting of it in the face of certain defeat. Again, for me, there is nothing to be respected about knowingly and deliberately driving the country off the edge of a cliff. On the Government’s own assessments, this deal will make the UK worse off and our people less prosperous and less secure. I cannot praise the Prime Minister for what amounts to a kamikaze approach in the face of clear evidence of impending economic damage—particularly to our manufacturing sector, with the lack of certainty over the hopes of frictionless trade.
From the outset, the Prime Minister has muddled and misrepresented. When she called the snap general election in 2017, she stated that the country was united, but Parliament was divided. She was entirely wrong: the country is more divided than ever under her leadership. After the general election, she might have reached out across the House to find support for the least damaging form of Brexit, although every form of Brexit is damaging. Instead, she chose to tack to the hard right and seek the sole approval of her own Brexit fundamentalists in the ERG. Yet these extremists will never be and have never been satisfied. They can never be thrown enough red meat, as John Major himself discovered.
This left the Prime Minister high and dry, clothed solely in the meaningless soundbites and slogans that have been the hallmark of this process. Indeed, I remain unclear about the point at which her slogan “No deal is better than a bad deal” morphed into “A bad deal is better than no deal”. A bad deal is what we have now. It makes us follow rules without having a say on those rules. Again, I am tempted to say that that would always have been the case if we were going to leave the EU, but still wanted to trade into that market while meeting the standards that that market demands.
There is no solution in the agreement to the question of the Irish border, largely because there is no solution possible that respects the Good Friday agreement aside from the UK remaining in the EU. We are told that technology will provide a solution, but as usual this is an empty soundbite. There is no technology available now, and no clue about what it will look like in the future. Technology may one day find us a cure for cancer, but that is no reason for me to start smoking now. Hon. Members will need to decide which is more important to them—the continuing peace in Northern Ireland and maintaining the integrity of the united Union, or leaving the European Union—because, certainly under this deal, we cannot have both. Business sectors have publicly stated their support for the Prime Minister’s deal, although leaked CBI emails demonstrate their true feelings, but all this deal will offer is two years of stability, during which they could up sticks and move to another part of the European Union.
Therefore, we must reject the false choice of the Prime Minister’s deal or no deal and start to chart our own route away from the ideological choice of Brexit. This is a simple one: do we want to be aligned with Europe, with its basic decent standards on food safety, consumer protection and rights at work, or do we try instead to align ourselves with deregulated, privatised Trumpist America? That is a simple choice and those are the only two options on the table.
Christian Matheson
It is absolutely the case and I will not take any heckling from the right hon. Gentleman.
We need to address concerns about free movement and the exploitation of migrant labour by bad employers, but there should still be an option to remain within the European Union and negotiate a much better deal than David Cameron would ever have come back with.
House of Lords Reform and Size of the House of Commons
Michael Gove Excerpts(8 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Pete Wishart
The hon. Gentleman is spot on, although actually it is worse than that, as the last figures we have are for 2014-15, when the cost of the House of Lords was approaching £100 million—that is what we are actually spending on it. Instead of reducing that, this Government’s sole intention and ambition on the House of Lords is to continue to increase the size of that place.
Let us take a cursory look at our latest batch of new parliamentarians—the 16 new appointees from the former Prime Minister’s resignation list. This list was oozing and dripping with patronage and cronyism. We now have 16 shiny new parliamentarians to welcome to these Houses of Parliament, but let us look at who they are. Thirteen of them are Conservative—[Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] Let me tell people exactly what they are like before they say that. Five of them were senior members of staff in the former Prime Minister’s office, with one a former special adviser to that Prime Minister. One was a special adviser to the former Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. One is a Conservative treasurer who just so happened to have given the Conservative party millions and millions of pounds over the years. Curiously—this is the one that gets me—one is the former leader of the Conservative remain campaign, who, I suggest, is not getting a peerage for any great success that he has delivered to the Conservative party.
Michael Gove (Surrey Heath) (Con)
I rise to correct the hon. Gentleman. The Conservative leader of the remain campaign is a she, not a he. If the hon. Gentleman professes to be an expert on appointments to that Chamber, it would at least be appropriate for him to recognise that it achieves gender balance as well as having many other virtues.
Pete Wishart
There are many things that can be defined as redeeming features, and that is one that I accept, so I thank the right hon. Gentleman for pointing it out.
The new parliamentarians of Great Britain are strangers to the ballot box, but very good friends of the former Prime Minister.
Pete Wishart
Only land-locked Lesotho has elders as a feature of its democracy. This is the mother of all parliaments for goodness’ sake, and we still have people here because of birthright! It is absurd.
Pete Wishart
I have given way to the right hon. Gentleman before. [Interruption.] Oh, well, I will give way.
Michael Gove
Once again, I will have to correct the hon. Gentleman on a point of fact. This is not the mother of all parliaments. The original phrase the “mother of parliaments” refers to this country, not to this institution, and the “mother of all” is a prefix associated with the Iraq war. If he is going to pack so many factual errors into his speech, how can we possibly take him seriously as a constitutional or any other sort of authority? He was a marvellous player and lyricist for Runrig, but as a constitutional theoretician, I am afraid that, sadly, he falls short.
Pete Wishart
On a positive note, I am very grateful that we have the right hon. Gentleman in this Chamber to correct me. I always thought that he had an issue with experts, but, clearly, he is a self-appointed one himself. We will let him get away with it just now.
Michael Gove (Surrey Heath) (Con)
It is a pleasure to take part in this debate after three outstanding Front-Bench speeches from three individuals—the hon. Members for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) and for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery) and my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton North (Michael Ellis)—who had distinguished careers outside this place before they came here.
Many of us, I suspect, will be familiar with the political gambit that is the dead cat. Popularised by my friend and colleague Sir Lynton Crosby, the idea is that when one is in a position of deep political embarrassment one throws the equivalent of a dead cat on to the table. The purpose of so doing is to divert attention from what was just being discussed because, whatever the controversy that has been raging beforehand, people suddenly say, “Oh my God, there’s a dead cat on the table.” The conversation having changed as a result, embarrassment—such as my own at my execrable Australian accent just then—is avoided.
In this debate, the House of Lords, perhaps appropriately for an ermine-clad Chamber, is the dead cat. The SNP has chosen a discussion of the future of the House of Lords for this Opposition day debate because of a wish to divert attention from a number of other issues. The question I have to ask SNP Members is this: when they think about the issues that their voters bring to them in their surgeries or by email or correspondence, what are they? Overwhelmingly, they will be education, health, law and order and the economy. Why is the SNP not talking about those issues today? I will tell the House—[Interruption.] Order! The SNP is not talking about law and order because its centralisation of power in the hands of Police Scotland has been widely viewed as illiberal and is thought by local authorities in Scotland to have been a disaster.
Richard Arkless (Dumfries and Galloway) (SNP)
Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Michael Gove
No.
We are not hearing about the NHS because there is an NHS crisis in Scotland. The SNP lost a vote in the Scottish Parliament not long ago as a result of its mishandling of the NHS in Scotland. Recently, efforts to ensure adequate recruitment of general practitioners in Scotland failed. Why are we not hearing about education from the SNP? [Interruption.] Just a minute. We are not hearing about education from the SNP because recently, and humiliatingly—
Mr Deputy Speaker
I will make a better suggestion. I will decide who is in order and when. I would not waste any more time on interventions, however, as we are struggling for time and I want to ensure that everyone gets equal time.
Michael Gove
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.
We are not hearing about education because the Scottish National party has had to execute a humiliating U-turn and its Education Minister, Mr Swinney, has had to adopt our policies on education by giving funding to schools—
Mr Deputy Speaker
Order. We allow a little bit of movement, but the right hon. Gentleman is concentrating purely on education when we are discussing the size of the House of Lords, and even I struggle to see the connection. I would have expected a connection by now, and as there is not one coming I am sure, Mr Gove, that you will want to get back to the subject of the size of the House of Lords and what we are debating.
Michael Gove
Indeed. One of the challenges, as has been pointed out by those on both Front Benches, is that when SNP Members put forward proposals for the House of Lords, they offer no alternative method of scrutiny. They simply propose unicameralism. Not only that, but they do not observe the basic pragmatic principle of the British constitution that we should preserve what works. Like the monarchy, the House of Lords is an institution that works, despite the fact that it might not succumb to every rational imprint. I speak as a Minister who has been held accountable and who has been cross-questioned—[Interruption.] An ex-Minister, I should say. I have been cross-questioned by Select Committees in the House of Lords with a greater degree of pertinacity and effectiveness than I have found in any other cross-examination I have ever faced.
The logic behind the SNP’s position is that if it objects to any constitutional model that does not fit its own preconceptions, it should object to the monarchy. The real thrust behind the SNP’s position is that it opposes the institutions that bind the United Kingdom together and are a focus for loyalty in this country, such as the monarchy, because of its single-minded pursuit of separation and independence come what may. If SNP Members really object to unelected figures meeting in a fashion that results in democratically elected Members of Parliament finding the will of the people frustrated, why are they so keen to stay in the European Union? If they object to unelected, unaccountable and out-of-touch figures wielding power, why do they not object to the existence of the European Council in its current form? Again, the answer is that they are only interested in separation.
One final point. We scarcely heard anything from the SNP on the vital importance of ensuring that all parliamentary constituencies should be of equal size. Having parliamentary constituencies of equal size was a demand of the Chartists in 1838, yet we still do not have them. I may be a young man in a hurry, and I may be an impetuous radical determined to bring about change at a pace faster than many would account, but surely, after nearly 200 years, the Chartists’ demands should at last be honoured. All votes should be equal, all constituencies should be equal and democracy should be honoured.
Tommy Sheppard
I cannot give way because of the time. To say that the House of Lords is justified because it compensates for the inadequacy of the House of Commons is completely wrong. In fact, it exacerbates many of those inadequacies.
Turning to the imperfections of the House of Lords, that it is unelected is taken as given, but it is also profoundly unrepresentative for an appointed chamber. It is old, male and almost half of its Members are domiciled in the south-east of England. In no way does that even attempt to recognise our country. It is also very big—my hon. Friend the Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) noted that it is second only to the legislature of the People’s Republic of China—and very costly, with each peer costing an average of £120,000 a year and its operation costing almost £100 million. If the Government are serious about reducing the cost of government, I suggest that they look first at what is happening along the corridor.
It is time to begin the process of change. We should be looking at having an elected second Chamber. Indeed, that pledge was in the Conservative manifesto, so it has ceased to be an argument of principle; it is one of priorities and the timing being right. The time is absolutely right to begin the process of considering change and I recommend that this House do so.
Tommy Sheppard
I think I will get into trouble if I give way.
I want to consider the boundary changes, because the two things must be looked at together—they are two sides of the same coin. No case can be made for reducing the number of elected Members of Parliament at a time when this Parliament’s responsibility will increase as a result of leaving the European Union and the repatriation, in whatever form, of a vast amount of powers. At the very least, the pause button should be pressed until the Brexit plan is established and we see how this country manages to survive outside the European Union.
I commend the motion to the House. I am actually pleased with some of the comments from the Government Benches about being prepared to consider it. I point out that the motion does not call for the abolition of the House of Lords or any of the structures of the House of Commons or for electoral reform. It is a motion that says, “When you’re in a hole, stop digging.” It is one that says, “Press the pause button.” Let us look at the plans for the future. Let us pause the reduction in the number of seats in the Commons. Let us pause the escalation in the size of the House of Lords. Let us see whether we can come back with proposals for reform that will command support from across the House and endear us much more to the people who put us here.
Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)
On 14 January, I rose to introduce an Adjournment debate on this very issue, and I could easily reiterate the points that I articulated to the House then. Well, for the avoidance of doubt, I will and I will take great pleasure in it. All that has changed since we last discussed reform of the unelected, unaccountable House of Lords is that there are more of them—more party donors, more party hacks, less openness, less transparency, and more ermine.
At the same time, the reviews of the boundary commissions—yes, there is more than one—have sought to reduce further the number of elected Members to this House of Commons. While this House is reduced in number and relevance, the House of Lords, at its present velocity of expansion, will soon exceed the National People’s Congress of China. It has already exceeded the size of the European Parliament, which is directly elected by more than 400 million European citizens. It seems that we are taking back control and handing it on a plate to the barons and baronesses of the unelected upper Chamber. At least on the SNP Benches, we have spoken and will continue to speak with one voice. In our manifesto at the general election, we placed our proposal before the entire community of Scotland. “Abolish it”, we said and we won.
If we as Members are to work effectively and with electoral legitimacy—
Martin Docherty-Hughes
Forget it. The right hon. Gentleman can sit right down.
If we are to work with electoral legitimacy, Britain’s upper Chamber should resemble less the National People’s Congress of China and more the revising and advisory chamber of the people’s Parliament of a 21st century liberal democracy.
Let us turn now to the hope of many Members of this House—a hope that is shared by my hon. Friend the Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart), who should wear with pride his title of leading abolitionist—that any future reform of the upper Chamber should not only consider its size, but limit it and remove with haste its ability as an unelected and unaccountable Chamber to generate legislation [Interruption.] Members should listen; they might learn something. Once again, let me state that this is an affront to my constituents and an aberration at the heart of the British state.
I have previously likened the antics of the previous Government to a “Carry On” movie. Their antics had the right hon. Member for Tatton (Mr Osborne) cast as the arch-villain, Citizen Camembert, and the former Prime Minister as the good cop and leading man, the Black Fingernail. I do hope that the new cast of actors are less like the Duke de Pommefrites. That said, however, we may end up with Citizen Bidet, and we all know where that ends—down the cludgie.
I continue to believe, in this parliamentary term at least, that this aspiration will probably be a lost cause given that the hierarchy of the Conservative party—and even those punted to the Back Benches—has a long-term love affair with the upper Chamber. Over the previous Parliament, 200 unelected and unaccountable peers were added to the Lords. Even the new First Lord of the Treasury has appointed 16 new Members, 15 of whom are Tories.
Of the peerage, let me turn again, as I did on 14 January, to a certain cadre. I will be louder this time, because they did not seem to hear me the first time. I am talking about the archbishops and bishops of the established Church of England. Many have likened their position to that of the theocrats of the Islamic Republic of Iran. My direct challenge is this—
Martin Docherty-Hughes
No, sit down, son. I have told you once and I will not tell you again.
Those bishops and archbishops have no place in the governance of the nation of Scotland. They have no right to vote, if such a thing should occur, on the civic or legislative life of our nation. Let me make myself clear. It would be easy for me to vent frustration, but I shall make one call tonight, which is to abolish it. Listen to what the nation of Scotland said at the last general election: get rid of them.
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (SNP)
My disgust at the undemocratic, unaccountable, unrepresentative House of Lords has been aired in this place on a number of occasions. Let us be clear that there is absolutely no case in any kind of modern democracy for the number of unelected peers to so greatly exceed the number of democratically elected Members in this place. It is quite simply astounding that plans to slash the number of democratically elected MPs are proceeding, further widening the gross disparity—
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
This has been a really interesting and wide-ranging debate. We have heard a number of people propose changes to the House of Lords and ways in which we can go forward. What we have not heard is anybody saying that they think the House of Lords is wonderful and that we should keep it as it is. I think there is a general feeling across the House and across the country that, in the absence of abolishing the House of Lords, we need to reform the House of Lords.
I particularly enjoyed the contributions of my hon. Friends the Members for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) and for Edinburgh East (Tommy Sheppard). The hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (John Penrose) was typically thoughtful in his contribution on this matter—I have previously enjoyed his contributions—and the speech from the right hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove) was, erm, interesting.
Michael Gove
I am very grateful that a fellow Gordonian has given way. Can the hon. Lady clear up for me an area of doubt and uncertainty? The hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire (Martin Docherty-Hughes) said that the SNP spoke with one voice on the issue of House of Lords reform. He said that the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) was an abolitionist and that that was SNP policy. However, the hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Tommy Sheppard) said he did not want to abolish the House of Lords, but merely wanted to reform it. What is SNP policy? If it is abolition, is the hon. Member for Edinburgh East out of line?
Kirsty Blackman
The manifesto we stood on said that the SNP would abolish the House of Lords and replace it with a fully elected second chamber. The motion we are putting forward today gives the Government a slightly more gentle way forward. It does not suggest full abolition at this stage. It suggests making positive changes.
I want to talk about a few things that were mentioned during the debate today.
Claim of Right for Scotland
Michael Gove Excerpts(8 years, 3 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
Michael Gove (Surrey Heath) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today, Mr Bone.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady) on the lucid, passionate and effective way in which he laid out the case for independence, and on using the constitutional history behind the Claim of Right as a legitimising factor for independence. However, as he was gracious enough to acknowledge, when the Claim of Right was re-established in 1989 by cross-party consensus, the Scottish National party stood aside from that consensus. That was because the SNP position towards our constitution has always been what Henry Ford’s was towards the Model T. Henry Ford said, “You can have your car in any colour you like, as long as it’s black,” and the SNP says, “The Scottish people can decide on any constitutional future they like, provided they choose independence.” So when at that time there was a consensus—I will admit that the Conservatives were outside it—in favour of devolution, the SNP said, “This assertion of popular sovereignty is wrong because it doesn’t agree with me.” In that sense, the SNP was a bit like the proud mother who notices her son marching out of step with everyone else in the regiment and says, “Everybody is out of step, apart from my Willie.”
What the SNP has in consistency, which is admirable, it lacks in honesty about where the true centre of Scottish public opinion lies, and that is in favour of devolution. From 1989 to the present day, there has been support for a Scottish Parliament within the United Kingdom, and when the arithmetic in the constitutional convention did not suit the SNP in 1989, it stood aside, proud in its solitary conventicle. And now, even though it has a majority of representation for Scotland in this House, it regards the fact that a majority of people in Scotland voted against independence in the referendum as a mere temporary interruption and inconvenience.
Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)
Will the right hon. Gentleman clarify exactly what is being suggested? Is it being said that, because a political party—in this case, the SNP—has a desired and preferential constitutional outcome, somehow its adherence to that negates any genuine commitment to allowing people to choose between a number of options? If that is the case, would it not also apply to the Conservative party or any other political party that has a preferential outcome? Surely the whole point of having a choice is that different parties can put different perspectives before the people and allow them to choose.
Michael Gove
I absolutely agree. It is to the credit of the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues that, as I said earlier, they put the case for independence with fluency, with authority, with passion, with commitment. I take nothing away from the power of the case that they make. But the Scottish people have rejected that case: in a referendum, the Scottish people clearly—by 55% to 45%—said no to independence.
But now the SNP is claiming in this debate that the long-held constitutional principle that the Scottish people are sovereign means that the Scottish people should be independent. But either the Scottish people decide their own constitutional fate, in which case we should respect the decision taken in that referendum, or they are perpetually wrong because they do not agree with the SNP. I also point out that since that referendum we have seen the SNP move from being a majority Government in Holyrood to a minority Government, and we have seen that support for Scotland’s position within the Union has remained resolutely at the same level as in the referendum. We have also seen Ruth Davidson, the leader of the Scottish Conservatives, become the single most impressive and popular politician in Scotland. The latest statistics and opinion polling reinforce what everyone knows, which is that she is the single most formidable politician in Scotland. Those are the facts and, as Robert Burns once pointed out, we all know that,
“facts are chiels that winna ding”.
Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)
Does the right hon. Gentleman believe that that most formidable and respected politician in Scotland should categorically denounce the xenophobic comments made by one of her party spokespersons against Christian Allard, who has given massive service to the Scottish Parliament and to the Scottish people?
Michael Gove
I am unaware of that eventuality. All I would say is that xenophobia has no place in political discourse and that, throughout her leadership of the Scottish Conservatives, Ruth has been consistent in making it clear that Scotland should be a warm and welcoming home for people from every background and every community.
Ian Murray
The right hon. Gentleman is one of the architects of Brexit, which has brought about this debate and is the reason behind some of the other debates in this House about Scottish independence. Will he reflect on the fact that the very person he just spoke about promised the Scottish people that if they voted Scottish Conservative they would protect the Union? How is that going?
Michael Gove
The Union is in robust good health, as is shown by the support for the continuity of the United Kingdom, which is maintained at the same level as it was during the heat of the referendum campaign.
It is important to acknowledge something more. The hon. Member for Glasgow North pointed out that, in the run-up to the referendum campaign, my party, the Labour party and the Liberal Democrats issued a commitment to increase the level of devolution given to the Scottish Parliament—the vow, published on the front page of the Daily Record. The keeper of the vow—the independent figure who was responsible for ensuring that that promise was kept—was Lord Smith of Kelvin, and he stated unambiguously that the vow had been maintained.
More than that, powers that existed before the vow and the passage of the Scotland Act 2016, and powers that are now conferred on Holyrood, have not been used by the Scottish Government. Why is it that there has been such timorousness about the exercise of the powers that the Scottish Government already have? Why is it that the tax-varying powers that have been conferred on Nicola Sturgeon and the Executive have not been exercised? Why is it that a party that claims that the answer to all Scotland’s problems is more power in Edinburgh has not even exercised the powers that it has? I can only conclude that the SNP wants a perpetual state of irritation and grievance with our current constitutional arrangements, rather than a determination to make them work. That is one reason why the SNP, having achieved unprecedented electoral popularity under Alex Salmond, is on a slow, gentle but irreversible slide in public opinion.
There is more. It is not just that the powers that we, as a United Kingdom Parliament, conferred on Holyrood, and that the Scottish people voted for, have not been exercised; it is also the case that in those policy areas that have been devolved to Scotland since the establishment of the Scottish Parliament, the SNP-led Administration have signally failed to deliver for the Scottish people.
Let us look particularly at education. When I was growing up and a student in Scotland’s schools, Scotland boasted, to good effect, that its education system was superior to that of England and any other part of the United Kingdom. The principle of the democratic intellect; the character of the lad o’ pairts; the principle, established at the time of John Knox, that there should be a school for every child in every parish—all stand testament to the fact that the Scottish people have valued education, historically, more highly than anyone else within these islands.
However, if we look at the reality of Scottish education now, we can see that children from poor backgrounds in Scotland are less likely to go on to higher education than children from poor backgrounds in England. The gap between educational outcomes for rich and poor has grown under the SNP Government. As was pointed out by Brian Wilson, formerly a Member of this House and still a distinguished journalist, one has to look very hard to find a single effective redistributive measure that has been introduced by the SNP whereby power or resources have been taken from the rich to the poor in Scotland, or whereby the opportunities available to poor children in Scotland have increased. Once again, the question has to be asked: why is it that the SNP, having had a majority Government and now having a minority Government with the support of the Greens, has been able to do so little to improve educational outcomes for Scottish children? The answer to which I am again inevitably drawn is: because the SNP is more interested in manufacturing grievance than it is in governing Scotland well.
Another example is the aftermath of the vote for Britain to leave the European Union. I remind the House that yes, of course a majority in Scotland did not vote to leave the European Union, but a significant minority did, and they did so in the teeth of a political establishment united in opposition to that proposition. Many of the people who did vote to leave come from backgrounds that I know well, in farming and fisheries. They recognised that an independent United Kingdom, with Scotland exercising power through its own Parliament, would have new powers over fisheries and farming when Britain left the European Union. But so far we have seen no effort to deploy any imagination, energy or passion in pointing out the ways in which Scotland’s agriculture and fisheries economic backbone can be strengthened by our departure from the European Union. As we saw with the start of the national conversation, there has been an attempt to use the vote to manufacture grievance rather than to ask the question, what is in the best interests of all the Scottish people?
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
Just to clarify, after the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union yesterday outlined what Brexit would mean by not outlining anything, is the right hon. Gentleman saying that Scotland is going to get full control of its fisheries policy?
Michael Gove
My point is that when we were making the case for Britain to leave the European Union, it was perfectly clear that fisheries and agricultural policy would come back. Had a Scottish Parliament existed prior to our entry into the European Union, those policies would have been administered by the Scottish Parliament. There is the potential for the Scottish Parliament, already supercharged by the vow, to become even stronger. But, instead of exploring those opportunities—rather than regarding the glass as half full or even looking optimistically at the situation and thinking, “Well, I may not have voted for it, but I am determined to make it work for the people of Scotland”—the vote is being used to fuel a narrative of grievance and separation.
My principal charge against the SNP is this: there is no shortage of talent on the SNP Benches in Westminster and there is no shortage of passion or brainpower in the Scottish Government. Some of the most impressive men and women in Scottish public life staff the Scottish Government. This is a golden opportunity for them to show what devolution can deliver, but that opportunity is not being taken because, as this debate shows, a focus on the constitution, the generation of grievance and the creation of division trumps the cause of good government.
There are so many ways in which the devolution settlement could help the Scottish people to flourish within the United Kingdom. It is only within the United Kingdom that Scotland can, in the short to medium and, I would argue, long term, be absolutely certain that its people will have all the opportunities they deserve. Over the past month, it was remarkable when we discovered the impact of a diminution in global oil prices on Scotland’s economic position. It was remarkable the extent to which the commodity that had been relied on throughout the ’70s, ’80s and ’90s to underwrite independence had moved from being a well-stuffed piggy bank into an arid emptiness. I speak as someone whose family live in Aberdeen and for whom that fall in the oil price is, of course, a source of sadness, because individuals have lost their jobs.
More important than that being a source of sadness for the people of Aberdeen, though, is the stark fact for the people of all of Scotland that, as the author of the Scottish Government’s own White Paper on independence has admitted, the economic case for independence has been blown out of the water. I ask the SNP: now that oil is no longer the well-stuffed piggy bank that it used to be, what is being done to ensure that Scotland thrives economically? Yes, the First Minister has set up a growth commission, but what about the devastation that has been wrought on the further education sector? What about the lack of investment in skills in Scotland? What about the long-term decisions that could have put Scotland on a stronger economic course, but have not been taken? They have not been taken in order to manufacture grievance, create irritation and reinforce division.
Peter Grant
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way once again and I am fascinated by this assumption that a set of figures that demonstrate how poorly the Scottish economy is performing under Conservative UK Government control is somehow an indication that Scotland cannot survive independently.
However, I go back to a comment the right hon. Gentleman made a minute ago about the impact of the fall in the price of oil, because any economic indicator that I have seen suggests that the economy of Norway is far more dependent on oil than the economy of Scotland ever has been or ever will be. Can he explain why the Norwegian economy has managed to ride out the storm? Are the Norwegians selling their oil to somebody paying a higher price? Have they got special gold-plated oil that is worth more than other oil? Or is it perhaps that they had the chance to put their oil aside when there was plenty of it because they had control of their own resources? How does he explain the continuing success of the Norwegian economy, which is more dependent on the falling oil price than we are?
Michael Gove
I am tempted to remind the hon. Gentleman that of course Norway is outside the European Union and has been since it voted to stay outside the European Union, and as a result it has been able to invest not just its oil wealth but its fishing wealth, and indeed to capitalise on its other advantages, to create a sovereign wealth fund and to take the decisions to enable it to be a country that many of us envy.
Of course, there are some nationalists who follow through on the logic of that. The former Member for Govan, Jim Sillars, has been consistent throughout in saying that sovereignty, if properly interpreted, would mean that Scotland would not only be outside the United Kingdom but outside the European Union. Although I do not agree with Mr Sillars on everything, one thing I have to say is that it is remarkable that Scots would want to give up the pound—they would have to do so if they left the United Kingdom—in order to embrace the euro, which they would have to do if they entered the European Union.
Of course, there is another alternative to that, which was outlined by the First Minister’s economic adviser, Mr Joseph Stiglitz, the other day. It is that we should have a new independent Scottish currency—a Scottish pound. It will be interesting to see if that is SNP policy and if it is, all I can say is, “If you want to go into the next independence referendum saying, ‘We’re ditching sterling and it’s a choice between the euro and our new Scottish pound’, good luck with that!”
That is because Scots voters, who were given the chance to vote in the last referendum campaign, absolutely wanted to ensure that there were more powers for the Scottish Parliament but they also wanted—even more—to ensure that Scotland remained within the United Kingdom. It was a decisive vote, providing an unprecedented mandate for the United Kingdom. The timing of the vote, the nature of the vote and the extent of the franchise were all dictated or chosen by the Scottish Government. So the Scottish Government chose the pitch, chose the rules and chose the referee, but it was still victory for the United Kingdom.
Therefore, the question that arises and that was dodged in the admittedly eloquent and fluent opening speech by the hon. Member for Glasgow North is, “Given the powers that the Scottish Government currently have that they have not exercised, why haven’t they been exercised?” The question for all SNP MPs here in Westminster is, “Why haven’t you chosen to make a success of the current arrangements in order to argue that that is the case for more devolution, more power and perhaps ultimately independence? Why instead have you allowed those powers to remain unused, in order to be able to point the finger at current arrangements and say that they are unsatisfactory?” That is the paradox at the heart of the SNP position. The SNP is afraid to exercise the powers that it has, because it is determined that the current situation should never be seen to work.
My argument is that that position is a betrayal of what the Scottish people voted for; it undermines the principle of the Claim of Right; it is an attempt to weaken the United Kingdom; if there ever was another referendum on Scotland’s place in the United Kingdom, people would see through the SNP’s manipulation of the politics of now for the politics of never-never; and on that basis the Scottish people would vote, as they always have done when they have been given the chance to do so, to remain in a strong, robust Union that works, which is the United Kingdom.
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bone.
I wanted to start with a sentence about respect, but I am sad to say that I have heard precious little respect today, from the Members who have spoken, towards Scotland or its elected representatives. I am very sorry about that. There has been a lot of mention of the independence referendum, and I have wondered about the promises made by the people who galloped up over the border in the closing weeks before the referendum. There has been a lot of talk about grievance and gripe, but I wonder what Members make of the many people in Scotland—not simply the SNP, although that makes up a considerable part of the population—who are annoyed and upset about the promises made to them in the run-up to the independence referendum. They included the protection of jobs at Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs; staying in the EU, as I mentioned earlier; the protection of shipbuilding jobs; and a vow that falls far short of what is commonly meant by home rule. Those promises were sold to the people of Scotland, and I urge Members to bear that in mind when they are addressing SNP Members.
Michael Gove
Will the hon. Lady enlighten us as to the view of Lord Smith of Kelvin, the keeper of the vow, about the decision of the Westminster Parliament to honour it? Did he agree that it had been honoured?
Deidre Brock
There were certainly members of the commission who were unhappy. None of the SNP amendments to the Scotland Bill were accepted for consideration until it went through to the unelected House of Lords, which is laughable.
To get back to the issue of respect, politicians, monarchs and bureaucrats need to understand and accept that powers lie with the people we serve, not with us. It is about knowing that the colossus that bestrides the world stage is people power and that those who lead are servants of the people, not masters. That is what the Claim of Right is. It is a declaration that the people are sovereign, as has been mentioned, and that it is in their gift to decide how that sovereignty should be used. Governments and Parliaments rule only with the consent of the people, and they exist only because the people allow them to. That is a reality that politicians forget at their peril.
It is important to note a clear difference between the attitudes struck towards Parliament in Scotland and in England. I understand that that point of difference is also noted in the legal concept of sovereignty in each nation. In England there is a belief in, tradition of, and historical precedent for the absolute sovereignty of Parliament, but there is no such belief in Scotland. The Scots’ attitude, and our constitutional law—which perhaps my learned friends will confirm—is that sovereignty rests with the people. That principle is embedded in the 1320 declaration of Arbroath, in which the King and future kings were warned that if they displeased the people, the people would elect another king—more like a president than a king, I suppose. That principle is embedded in the Claim of Right.
It is not quite right to say that no Conservative has ever acknowledged that principle, because it was acknowledged by the current Chair of the Select Committee on Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs, the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin), when he said in a debate in the House on 22 May 1997:
“The ultimate sovereignty of the Scottish and Welsh peoples is a fact. Whatever the niceties of international law, Scotland and Wales can claim the right of self-determination if that is what they want”.—[Official Report, 22 May 1997; Vol. 294, c. 872.]
It took a bit of time from the publication of the Claim of Right to the interim solution—the creation of a devolved Administration—but 10 years is nothing in the great scheme of things, and in the march of nations it is but a blink of an eye. I have to say, though, that the Conservatives have a lot to thank the Claim of Right and Scottish devolution for—they saved their party. In fact, the current Scottish Secretary owes his political career to the Scottish Parliament. There had been few opportunities for Tory politicians in Scotland, even those who had previously been Social Democratic party councillors. The proportional representational element of the Scottish electoral system revived a party that was frankly dying, and which had ironically opposed its creation in the first place. Democracy, properly energised, gives some strange, interesting and unexpected results.
The Claim of Right was democracy in action. It emerged from civic Scotland, the Churches, the trade unions, small business and organisations the length and breadth of the country as a demand to address the democratic deficit that arose from being governed by a Government who could not command support in Scotland. It is interesting to note that John Major’s Government had 14% of the Members representing Scottish seats while the current Government have a bit less than 2%, so there is work still to be done in removing that democratic deficit from Scotland and rendering those of us who are Scots MPs redundant.
Elections for Positions in the House
Michael Gove Excerpts(9 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Speaker
I am very taken aback by the idea that any question should be unanswered for so long. Members will have heard me many times say, on behalf of the House, that Ministers should answer questions speedily and as comprehensively as they can. The Leader of the House has noted that. Probably a nod of assent from the Government Chief Whip will suffice to acknowledge the point on his part.
Mr Speaker
I thank him for that. We will hope to secure an improvement in the next Parliament.
Fuel Costs
Michael Gove Excerpts(13 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Education (Michael Gove)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am grateful to you for your ruling earlier this afternoon that the phrase “rank hypocrisy” is unparliamentary language. I should therefore like to withdraw the phrase, which I used earlier today, and apologise to the right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham), who may have felt that it was directed at him. Under no circumstances would I wish to accuse him of any activity that was in any way covered by the use of unparliamentary language.
Mr Speaker
I am extremely grateful to the Secretary of State and thank him, on behalf of the House, for the apology he has given. As far as I am concerned, that is the end of the matter.