Devolution and the Union

Michael McCann Excerpts

Thursday 20th November 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Raab]

The hon. Gentleman—I was on the cusp of saying “My hon. Friend”—has made his point so powerfully that we are almost there.

[Mr Michael McCann (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Raab]

I am going to make some progress before I give way again. I have been very generous so far.

We must also consider points south of the border, where many people bristle over the fact that Scottish public services already receive over £2,000 more investment per person each year than some parts of England. That investment does not just subsidise free prescriptions and university tuition; in proportion to its population, Scotland has twice as many nurses and ambulance staff as England, and 43% more police officers. However, this is not just a southern gripe. Scotland’s public spending per person on housing and community, for example, is twice as high as that of the midlands, Yorkshire or Humber and the north west, and by comparison with Scotland, Wales gets a poor deal too. I am sure that Members representing Welsh seats will want to make that point for themselves.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Reid]

I certainly agree that a constitutional convention is a good idea, but it must not hold up the present process of devolving further powers to the Scottish Parliament. The present Smith commission process must go forward, but a constitutional convention to look at the whole UK is certainly a good idea.

[Mr Michael McCann (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (Lab)]

The hon. Gentleman made the point that we must consider Scottish MPs voting on issues such as the English health service, but does he not see the contradiction in relation to Barnett? Any increases to the English health service and any increases in finances mean that there is a consequential effect through Barnett to Scotland, so those issues have to be analysed as well.

[Mr Reid]

The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point. Legislation does not of itself lead to more spending. We allocate spending when we pass the estimates every year. Although legislation may mean that carrying out certain functions costs more money, the decisions on spending are made only when we pass the estimates. Certainly when we pass the estimates for the English health service, there is a knock-on effect for Scotland. It is perfectly in order for Members of Parliament representing constituencies outside England to vote on those issues, but legislation purely for the English health service could be left to the English representatives. But the only way that that can happen in practice is if we set up a federal United Kingdom with an English Parliament. If Members cannot vote on some issues in this Parliament, it will lead to a situation in which a Government cannot get their policies through.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr William Bain (Glasgow North East) (Lab)]

I thank the hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab) and the Backbench Business Committee for sponsoring this important debate—the second on devolution in this Chamber since the Scottish referendum in September—although I regret to tell him that I will not be supporting his motion, for the reasons that I will set out.

In that first debate, the House paid tribute to the campaigners and the energising effect that the referendum had had on Scottish democracy, with record turnouts, the public re-engaged in politics, and a decision made about our country’s constitutional future. I hope that we can focus in this debate on why the enduring strength of devolution in the UK won the argument, and on how we can make radical changes to our democracy across the UK which can satisfy people who voted on either side of the referendum in September, as well as the millions more across these islands who want a more decentralised, more democratic and modernised polity in the UK.

Let us be clear about what the current and future parties of Government at UK level put to the people of Scotland in September: increased financial powers to the Scottish Parliament; the retention of the funding model that involves fiscal pooling and adjusting changes in the allocation of resources through the Barnett formula; and the effective entrenchment of the devolution settlement. That promise was not lightly made, and it should be unbreakable and unconditional in its nature, with draft legislation by the end of January and an Act in place early in the next Parliament. That promise was endorsed by the people of Scotland in the referendum, and it requires commitments from all parties in this House. To those who support Scotland staying within the United Kingdom, it means having arrangements for the allocation of shared resources that are not to Scotland’s detriment. To those who still support Scotland leaving the UK, it means abandoning the call to end fiscal sharing expressed by some Members in the name of full fiscal autonomy. That is not compatible with the governance of a modern multinational state, would leave Scotland exposed to wildly fluctuating global oil prices and would mean a £5 billion deficit shortfall for Scotland, according to work done by Fiscal Affairs Scotland on the basis of Office for Budget Responsibility forecasts.

Federal states such as Germany, Canada and the USA all have fiscal sharing; Quebec is a net beneficiary from fiscal transfers from the federal Government in Ottawa, and even in Spain there is not complete fiscal autonomy. So, there is not a major nation state on Earth that is governed in the way the Scottish nationalists have proposed to the Smith commission. If other parties must make compromises, the SNP must accept that it must, too, so I was somewhat perplexed by the position taken by the hon. Member for Moray (Angus Robertson) in his speech: he said he accepted the Smith commission process but would not commit to accepting any of its conclusions or outcomes. We should aspire to offer more to people in this debate and across this country than the politics of grievance offered by nationalists of any variety or by the United Kingdom Independence party.

The reason our current resource allocation arrangements have prevailed from the 1890s onwards is a good one: Scotland has one thirteenth of the UK population but one third of the land mass and more than 80% of the UK’s coastline, it contains some of the most remote rural communities in the UK, and it is more expensive to provide access to health and education there on the same basis as in more densely populated parts of the UK. So if we accept that we should have a common statehood—

[Mr McCann]

Would my hon. Friend not wish to put into that equation systems such as Highlands & Islands Airports Ltd, which provides lifeline services to communities in the highlands? Any attempt to run a privatised or commercial service to those islands simply would not work, which is why we need those additional funds in Scotland, in order to be able to fund lifeline services to those island communities, such as those represented by the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil).

[Mr Bain]

Absolutely; what my hon. Friend is saying, as I am arguing, is that if we want a common statehood, we must have the right allocation of resources. That means that we can have devolved management of the health, policing, universities and schools services, but we have the same rights, as citizens, to the most important elements of education, free health care, benefits, tax credits and a state pension. Any constitutional settlement for the future of the United Kingdom should not weaken the rights of citizens to those common standards, because to do so would weaken the case for the United Kingdom for future generations.

Similarly, differentiating the voting rights of Members of this House is an issue that could not be definitively resolved by minds as great as Gladstone, Disraeli and Lloyd George in respect of the Irish question in the past two centuries. It may even escape the Leader of the House, the right hon. Member for Richmond (Yorks) (Mr Hague), notwithstanding his grasp of history, and I suspect a neat solution may elude those Members seeking one this afternoon. In truth, few Bills and few motions before this House do not have effects on expenditure in Scotland or other interests. The recent Modern Slavery Bill started life as an England and Wales-only measure but now contains amendments applying to companies based in Scotland, too. Decisions on taxation, even potentially partially devolved taxes, affect the deficit, public borrowing and, ultimately, interest rates. It would be irresponsible for Members from Scottish constituencies not to have a say on such issues in this House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Michael McCann (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (Lab)]

Like the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan), I enjoy injecting a bit of humour into debates in this place. We have much to celebrate about the constitutional decision made by the Scottish people, but I also remember the acrimony of the debate. I remember being abused every single day of the campaign by people who did not support my view. I know that families are divided and friendships have been broken and we must remember that that happens in constitutional debates. Frankly, the levels of intimidation were unprecedented and that is a high bar for me, given that I was involved in the challenges with the Militant and Trotskyite tendencies in the 1980s—as a child, of course.

Despite the SNP’s yes campaign having every conceivable advantage, including the serendipity of two SNP supporters winning the Euromillions—you are so lucky, guys, I have to say—it was still defeated by the Scottish people who rejected the idea of separation because they believed in their vast numbers that a stable system of governance, including Barnett, enables us to absorb difficult economic times more easily than we would if we were component parts within a divided United Kingdom. I accept that Barnett was a formula set up for the short term, but we must also recognise that it has led to long-term stability in the distribution of resources across the United Kingdom. That is where I would differ from the hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab), who moved the motion. The suggestion that we tamper with individual items within the constitutional settlement is a bad one and it misunderstands the debate we have just come through in Scotland. The SNP should never be underestimated as opponents and we should never underestimate their ability to be deceitful and mendacious in any campaign that they run.

We can take that from the contribution made by the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil) just a few moments ago, when he spoke about the Republic of Ireland. During the referendum debate, he did not tell people in Scotland that it costs €150 to go to accident and emergency in the Republic of Ireland or that it costs €50 to go to see a GP. Wages were slashed by 20% in the Republic of Ireland during the economic crash and so were pensions. Colleagues of mine, such as the Transport Minister for the Labour party in the Republic of Ireland, Alan Kelly, have explained to me the pain that their country had to go through in those difficult economic times. Of course, there was no mention of that in any of the contributions made by the SNP during the constitutional campaign in Scotland.

I was also upset when the hon. Member for Esher and Walton suggested that Scotland is somehow subsidised. I agree with Scottish National party Members on that point—this is possibly the only time I will agree with them—because Scotland makes its contribution to the Union. The difference as regards the Barnett formula is that the income distribution across Scotland is even. Therefore, we do not have to suffer the peaks and troughs when, for example, the price of oil plummets, as it has done since the referendum debate. It was over $100 a barrel then and now it is $80 a barrel—something that the SNP did not want to put into any of the arithmetical calculations that they offered to the Scottish people.

I believe in the devolution of power. I believe in the vow that was made by the leaders of the three main parties. I believe in the United Kingdom and I believe in the arguments in favour of a United Kingdom that we set out to the Scottish people just two months ago. We need a full assessment of the constitutional settlement within the United Kingdom. We need a constitutional convention, and that is why I disagree with the authors and movers of the motion and why I will vote against it later this afternoon.

House of Lords Reform Bill

Michael McCann Excerpts

Tuesday 10th July 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Michael McCann (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (Lab)]

The rebellion on the programme motion has ended and the rebels have won. I congratulate those rebels, because it was the right thing to do.

I do not argue for the House of Lords to be reformed. I want it to be abolished. I do not say that to offend or with disrespect to anyone who has served there. I say it because these Houses of Parliament have evolved over 800 years and I believe that our democracy now has the strength, character and history to take that next step and operate as a single legislature. The description “mother of Parliaments” was neither offered nor given as a testament to a monolithic institution incapable of change. It was offered as a compliment to a political system which gave birth to so many others. It was and is able to change.

I accept the proposition that in the 21st century there should be no place for an unelected Chamber, but when I wake up from my utopia I realise that I have to come back to reality—the Government Bill before us. I do not find a plan to modernise; I do not find a plan to improve our democracy. I see a plan cobbled together to keep a coalition partner sweet. I understand that, but the Liberals always pick the wrong issue to sweeten. The Government decided to put their head down and bully-shove this ill-thought reform through—a plan, to use the words of Rudyard Kipling,

“Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools”.

I recognise that my desire for a unicameral system may be a step too far for many in the House, but at least it has the virtue of integrity, a commodity that the Government plan sadly lacks. There are numerous issues that need to be addressed. I shall deal with just one, as time is short. The primacy of the House of Commons has been mentioned several times in the debate. Many Members have commented on this but nobody from the Government Benches who is supporting the proposals has yet offered a legitimate argument that would explain how an elected upper Chamber with a legitimate electoral mandate could be curtailed in its use of that mandate by this place.

Is not the very reason that we seek to introduce democracy in the second Chamber to make it accountable to the people though a ballot box? Is it not that very argument for democratisation, its purportedly strongest point, which also becomes its weakest link? Therein lies the rub for all hon. Members. At best the Bill before us is a stab in the dark. At best it is guesswork about how the relationship between the House of Commons and the second Chamber would develop.

As the right hon. and learned Member for Kensington (Sir Malcolm Rifkind) explained yesterday, the Parliament Act 1911 was passed because until then, apart from on matters of taxation, there was an equal right of veto on the business of Parliament. The Parliament Act 1949 merely reduced the amount of time the House of Lords could delay Commons legislation. That argument now goes full circle. With the proposal to have two elected Houses, how is the primacy of this place to be maintained? Clause 2 says absolutely nothing about that. All that would be needed is for one newly elected Member of the House of Lords to stand up and say, “No. I, too, have been elected and the Commons shall not override my views.” What then?

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr McCann]

No, I will not give way, because many other Members want to get into the debate and time is short.

Will the mother of Parliaments becomes the resting place for a constitutional stand-off? There could be nothing worse than everyone in this House, despite knowing the Bill’s flaws, carrying on regardless and saying nothing about it. Even a nude emperor would blush at the stupidity.

In conclusion, I recognise Walter Bagehot’s view:

“With a perfect Lower House it is certain that an Upper House would be scarcely of any value. If we had an ideal House of Commons… it is certain that we should not need a higher chamber.”

What can be more perfect than a Chamber with democratically elected Members representing every part of this United Kingdom? If the second Chamber cannot be improved through consensus, and if those improvements cannot be endorsed by the people in a referendum, then one thing is for sure: having a second Chamber in its current form, with limited power and unable to challenge the decisions of elected politicians, is preferable any day of the week to an ill-thought-out plan that seeks to introduce constitutional change for cynical political advantage.

Business of the House

Michael McCann Excerpts

Thursday 26th April 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Michael McCann (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (Lab)]

As chair of the all-party group on the prevention of genocide and crimes against humanity, may I ask the Leader of the House to find time for a debate on procedural deficiencies at the UK Border Agency, with particular reference to its interface with SO15—Counter Terrorism Command—which may be preventing the pursuit of people living in our country who have participated in genocide and crimes against humanity?

[Sir George Young]

This is an important matter which, of course, I will raise with my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. As I understand it, the hon. Gentleman wants to make sure that those who are charged with genocide are intercepted when they arrive in this country by the UK Border Agency and then, if necessary, arrested. I will certainly pass that on to the Home Secretary, and I applaud the work that the hon. Gentleman does on the all-party group.

Business of the House

Michael McCann Excerpts

Thursday 15th September 2011 Commons Chamber

[Sir George Young]

If it is contrary to the wishes of this Government, I very much hope it will not happen. There will be an opportunity at the next Defence questions to raise the matter, but in the meantime I will share my hon. Friend’s concern with the Secretary of State for Defence.

[Mr Michael McCann (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (Lab)]

I have evidence that Scottish Enterprise, Scotland’s economic development agency, is behaving in a manner and using practices that may damage sustainable economic growth in my constituency—that evidence has been brought to me by constituents. In addition, it would appear to suggest that connected, highly questionable planning practices are also taking place within the Scottish Government, which could also damage economic development in my constituency. I brought those matters to the attention of Sir Peter Housden, the permanent secretary to the Scottish Government, and reminded him of his responsibilities under the civil service code. I have also called for an independent inquiry into these matters, but all I have had in response is obfuscation, diversionary tactics and a point-blank refusal by a senior civil servant to look into my evidence and complaints—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

Order. When the Speaker said one question, he did not mean one that lasted five minutes.

[Mr McCann]

rose—

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

That was the question.

Members’ Salaries

Michael McCann Excerpts

Monday 21st March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Field]

I suspect that it might not necessarily come to a Division, because we all feel this way. There are difficulties and concerns. I take on board the concern that we are telling many public servants that they should not have an increase. However, we have an independent review mechanism in place, and we should stick to it. I believe that the public need a guarantee from the Government that those strictures that apply to salaries will also apply to all other allowances. If the freeze over the next two years is to apply also to the level and nature of the allowances, we can at least look our electorate firmly in the eye and say, “We are all in this together”.

[Mr Michael McCann (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (Lab)]

Has not the hon. Gentleman contradicted himself? He made the appropriate point earlier that in the past MPs supplemented their salaries with allowances, but now he is suggesting that we freeze allowances and salaries. That means that people working for MPs and being paid less than £21,000 per year will be punished as a result of a decision in a matter unrelated to the motion.

[Mr Field]

I was referring to the allowances that are directly relevant to Members of Parliament, as opposed to the salary allowances.

Let me conclude, because others wish to speak and the hour is late on what has been a busy and momentous day in the House. The collective damage that has been done to the reputation of politics in this country is such that it is our duty to ensure that Parliament is never again silenced on these matters. I fear that the motion before us tonight is the very opposite of the leadership that we require if public trust is to be fully restored.

Business of the House

Michael McCann Excerpts

Thursday 10th February 2011 Commons Chamber

[Sir George Young]

If my hon. Friend looks at the Queen’s Speech, she will realise that we are not planning any reform of trade union law in this Session of Parliament, which is already fairly congested. However, I would welcome a debate, perhaps in Back-Bench time, on the relationship between the trade unions and this House and the trade unions and society generally, and I hope that in that debate the moderate elements within the trade unions will put their case forward and see off some of the hotheads.

[Mr Michael McCann (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (Lab)]

Last August, I received information that DFID Ministers had plans to cut 165 jobs at DFID in East Kilbride. At that time I was accused by Ministers of scaremongering and putting information into the public domain that was wholly inaccurate. At 10.30 this morning, the staff at DFID were told that more than 140 jobs will be lost in that office. Will the Leader of the House confirm to me, therefore, that DFID Ministers will make an oral statement to the House, explaining why these job losses are taking place, explaining the impact on both the multilateral and the bilateral aid reviews, and finally, apologising to the staff of DFID at East Kilbride and me for misleading them last year?

[Sir George Young]

Of course I understand the hon. Gentleman’s concern about the loss of jobs in his constituency. Next Wednesday, there is half an hour of questions to DFID Ministers, where there will be an opportunity for him to raise the subject. I will let my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State know that he is likely to be in his place to raise that important issue.

Business of the House (Thursday)

Michael McCann Excerpts

Wednesday 8th December 2010 Commons Chamber

[Hilary Benn]

I had hoped that in moving the motion this evening the Leader of the House would have enlightened us on that very point, but I am afraid no elucidation at all was offered as to the amount of time given to us.

I want to come on to one of the problems that we may face tomorrow. Although what is on offer now—

[Mr Michael McCann (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (Lab)]

Will my right hon. Friend give way? I have an important point to make.

[Hilary Benn]

I will.

[Mr McCann]

I have a specific point I want to make about time. In three minutes’ time, constituents in the frozen Lanarkshire district, which includes my constituency, will be donning several layers of clothing and getting their ice picks and shovels out to dig their way out of their homes, so that they can meet up at their selected departure points and travel down for tomorrow’s debate. They will be leaving Lanarkshire on the M74 at about 9 pm—if they get there in time, given the horrendous weather conditions. They will be travelling overnight to get here, and they will arrive to find that, having spent over 21 hours getting here and knowing that they are going to face the same journey back, this subject will be debated for only five hours. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that is an outrage to our democracy?

--- Later in debate ---

[Hilary Benn]

It is very important that Members of whatever party have full and ready access to the House, particularly tomorrow, given the importance of the subject of the debate and the significance of the vote that we will cast—if the business motion is passed—at about 5.30 pm tomorrow.

[Mr McCann]

My constituents will be making their way down for tomorrow’s debate from the frozen north, but may I draw my right hon. Friend’s attention to an article in The Daily Telegraph last Thursday on the constitutional implications of having such vastly different tuition fee arrangements in the different parts of the UK, and the difficulties that that will create? Does he think that five hours is enough to discuss those issues?

[Hilary Benn]

Undoubtedly, that is not enough time. If the number of Members who have already indicated that they want to speak is anything to go by, they could have, depending on the length of speeches by Front Benchers, about four minutes each or even less. How can any Member advance a reasonable argument in that inadequate amount of time?

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Michael McCann Excerpts

Monday 1st November 2010 Commons Chamber

[John Thurso]

My hon. Friend makes a very full point, although I would not wish to engage with her directly because I want to be brief and allow other Members to take part.

[Mr Michael McCann]

(East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (Lab): Some eminent historians have already participated in this debate, so I will go for some other quotations. Groucho Marx said, “Here are my principles, but if you don’t like them, I have another set here.” In the light of the contribution made by my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), may I ask the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (John Thurso) how he can reconcile the exceptions for the Western Isles, northern isles and other areas when the Government are sticking rigidly to an arithmetical formula in this legislation?

[John Thurso]

The hon. Gentleman begins to make the precise point that I wish to develop, which is that this Bill already accepts the principle that there are geographical areas or communities that are either too disparate or too distinct simply to be left. There is nothing against that principle in the Bill. One could have argued—historically, it would have been easy to do so—for the old Norse principality of Orkney, which included Caithness. We could have gone back to Caithness, Orkney and Shetland. The Government have recognised that certain geographical difficulties make it important to have regard to them when building constituencies.

Oral Answers to Questions

Michael McCann Excerpts

Monday 25th October 2010 Commons Chamber

[Hugh Robertson]

The answer is in two halves. We have been able to do many things that have secured the sports legacy for the London 2012 games: a generation of new facilities is appearing in and around the Olympic park and our other venues; there will be a considerably increased profile as a result of the games; my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport has already announced our plans for a schools Olympics; we are bringing forward plans for community sport; and we were able, as part of last Wednesday’s settlement, to produce a new major events sports strategy, which will produce a tapestry of events post-2012.

The right hon. Lady’s point about the Youth Sport Trust is an interesting one. It is fair to say that it has performed extremely well in some places, but if she was honest about it, she would say that its performance has been less good in others. The fact remains that after 10 years and probably comfortably more than £1 billion of investment only one in five schoolchildren in this country is playing competitive sport—that is not a terribly good result.

[Mr Michael McCann (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (Lab)]

14. What discussions he has had with the Minister for the Cabinet Office on proposals to merge UK Sport and Sport England.

[The Minister for Sport and the Olympics (Hugh Robertson)]

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State met Francis Maude on 8 July to discuss the public bodies Bill—

[Hugh Robertson]

My apologies, Mr Speaker. They discussed bringing together UK Sport and Sport England, and that was also discussed at an inter-ministerial meeting on 13 September. I also met my devolved counterparts to discuss the issue when I was in Delhi and I have, of course, discussed it with many others in sport and inside the two bodies.

[Mr McCann]

Recent correspondence from the Scottish Executive somewhat complacently suggests that they are merely aware of the proposed merger. Given UK Sport’s responsibilities for the world-class performance programme across the United Kingdom, how will the Minister ensure that there is a fair distribution of financial support for our elite athletes?

[Hugh Robertson]

That was one of the issues that we discussed in Delhi. I am sure that it will not have escaped the hon. Gentleman’s notice that part of the comprehensive spending review announced on Wednesday was framed by a decision to increase the amount of money going in to sport. We were able to announce not only that we would stick to the original spending limits envisaged for London 2012 and would honour those commitments in full, but that UK Sport would have the same level of funding, or slightly better, for the start of the Rio cycle than it is enjoying this year.