Brexit Readiness: Operation Yellowhammer

Ronnie Cowan Excerpts

Wednesday 25th September 2019 Commons Chamber

[Michael Gove]

I am tempted to say don’t tempt me, but actually I have no plans to use those powers.

[Ronnie Cowan (Inverclyde) (SNP)]

Operation Yellowhammer highlights a range of issues. Can the right hon. Gentleman remind me: at what point during the referendum campaign were the public told that there was a possibility of delays at borders, shortages of medical supplies, fuel shortages, food shortages, food price increases, clean water shortages, civil disruption, losing access to the single market for all goods and services or, indeed, reigniting unrest in Northern Ireland? For the life of me, I cannot remember any one of those outcomes being painted on the side of a bus.

[Michael Gove]

I certainly recall many of them featuring in the speeches of those who were campaigning for remain.

20 Years of Devolution

Ronnie Cowan Excerpts

Thursday 11th July 2019 Commons Chamber

[Ronnie Cowan (Inverclyde) (SNP)]

George Robertson, Labour’s shadow Scottish Secretary in 1997, told Brian Taylor of the BBC that devolution would

“kill the SNP stone dead”,

and it was imagined that the consequences would surely be that Labour would continue to return a substantial number of MPs from Scotland to Westminster. Labour accepted that the new Parliament should be elected by proportional representation, and with that Labour might not be able to win an overall majority, and that would involve sharing power with the Liberal Democrats. However, the attraction was that Labour thought it would be impossible for the SNP to win an overall majority. Devolution was meant to kill the SNP. But as we know —as every Scottish schoolchild knows—

“The best-laid schemes o’ mice an’ men

Gang aft agley”.

Instead, we have now had 12 years of SNP-led government, and we have shown that even with limited powers, we do not just talk the talk, we can and we do walk the walk.

What has happened during 20 years of devolution? As the trust and understanding has grown, the Scottish electorate have come to the decision that the Scottish Government have more influence over them than Westminster does. As a result, turnouts at Holyrood elections are higher than Westminster elections. When asked how Scotland should be governed, the response over a 20-year period has shown that independence is now favoured over devolution. This does not happen by accident: it is the result of considerate and compassionate governance.

Most recently, Holyrood has not been paralysed by the Brexit process. It has continued to legislate, passing nine Bills in the past two months. These include Bills to tackle fuel poverty; to create a new social security system with dignity and respect at its heart; to reform our justice system, raising the age of criminal responsibility and extending the presumption against short sentences; to extend social care to under-65s who need it, through Frank’s law; and to enshrine safe NHS staffing in law. All this has happened while Westminster has ground to a halt and the SNP Government at Holyrood have been getting on with the day job.

Now that the United Kingdom is, against Scotland’s wishes, leaving the European Union, the UK will have to change its constitutional arrangements. As the UK Government have made clear,

“the current devolution settlements were created in the context of the UK’s membership of the EU”.

This is what has prompted the power grab. While the UK Government continue to distrust the devolved Parliaments, a constructive relationship is extremely difficult to maintain. The Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee’s report, “Devolution and Exiting the EU: reconciling differences and building strong relationships”, states that

“the shifting of Wales from a conferred to a reserved powers model indicates that the reserved powers model is now the constitutionally preferred model for devolution within the UK. Powers are not conferred by the UK Parliament onto the devolved legislatures, rather particular matters are reserved to the UK Parliament and all other areas devolved.”

It is time for the UK Government to recognise that.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) mentioned, Winnie Ewing celebrated her 90th birthday yesterday. She said at the opening of the Scottish Parliament:

“The Scottish Parliament, adjourned on 25 March 1707 which is hereby reconvened.”—[Scottish Parliament Official Report, 12 May 1999; c.5.]

If you are Scottish and a democrat, that should make the hairs on the back of your neck stand up, because those are far more than just words. They are words dripping with purposeful intentions, because devolution is not just about a building or the Government within it: it is a spirit, a belief, a self-belief. It is about power. It is about who has the power to define the present and the future of a nation. What we are really asking is, who gets to decide what is best for Scotland, and why should the people of Scotland settle for a supporting role in that when we are big enough, rich enough and smart enough to play the lead? The intention of devolution may have been to satisfy the hunger, but instead it has fed the beast—and across Scotland, that glorious beast is roaring once again.

[Stephen Kerr]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek your guidance on how I might correct something that may have been said during the speech by the hon. Member for Inverclyde (Ronnie Cowan) that factually does not hold up. He said—

European Council

Ronnie Cowan Excerpts

Monday 24th June 2019 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I apologise to the hon. Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston). I said that there would be a debate this evening, but when I sat down the Leader of the House corrected me and made it clear that there will be no debate on tonight’s motion. Of course, it will be for Members of this House to consider how they approach that motion. I think that members of the public know that had this House voted for the deal on any one of the opportunities, we could now have left the European Union and be dealing with a wide range of other issues.

[Ronnie Cowan (Inverclyde) (SNP)]

In her statement, the Prime Minister spoke of co-operation, mutual interest, working constructively and consensus, and said:

“That was the spirit in which I approached this Council.”

May I ask that that new-found spirit be extended to the UK Government’s discussions with the devolved Parliaments?

Oral Answers to Questions

Ronnie Cowan Excerpts

Wednesday 19th June 2019 Commons Chamber

[Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)]

3. What progress the Government have made on their review of intergovernmental relations.

[Ronnie Cowan (Inverclyde) (SNP)]

6. What progress the Government have made on their review of inter- governmental relations.

[Mhairi Black (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (SNP)]

7. What progress the Government have made on their review of intergovernmental relations.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Mundell]

At every Scottish Question Time we hear the assertion that this or that will be a boost for Scottish independence—it has got to the stage where if the chicken crosses the road, it will be a boost for Scottish independence. It is for individual candidates in the Conservative leadership elections to answer questions about their own position and background.

[Ronnie Cowan]

During an open session of the Political and Constitutional Affairs Committee on Monday 20 May, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster was asked whether he could give an update on the progress of the review of intergovernmental relations. He replied:

“I cannot put a firm timescale on this. Perhaps, if we were looking towards the end of this year”.

Given the time that has elapsed, and the uncertain political times we are living through, is that good enough for Scotland?

[David Mundell]

I believe that progress is being made, and I am hopeful that next week’s meeting of the JMC(EN) will provide an opportunity to discuss the principles that would underpin the new IGR agreement. That was discussed with Welsh Government Ministers and Mr Mike Russell at the last meeting of the JMC(EN).

Oral Answers to Questions

Ronnie Cowan Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd May 2019 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I know that all Members across the House—it will have been obvious in response to his question—will want to join me in sending deepest sympathies to my hon. Friend’s constituent. As my hon. Friend will know, the courts can already, and do, consider harm caused to a mother or unborn child in sentencing for an offence. I know my hon. Friend has discussed changing the law on this particular issue with the Ministry of Justice, which is concerned that there could be far-reaching unintended consequences of doing so, but I have asked it to keep the law under review. I know that my hon. Friend, along with others in this House, will continue to work on this issue. I am sure everybody recognises the compassion that my hon. Friend is showing in raising this issue. What we want to ensure is that what he is proposing is not something that could lead to other, unintended consequences, of the sort that he would not wish to see.

[Ronnie Cowan (Inverclyde) (SNP)]

Q3. Prime Minister, it has been brought to my attention that some children suffering from severe epilepsy have been able to greatly reduce, and in some cases end, their seizures if they have access to Bedrolite. Owing to the cumbersome and discriminatory system that this Government implemented on 1 November 2018, parents are required to travel abroad, pay thousands of pounds and break the law to bring medicine back, or to pay extraordinary prices to access Bedrolite privately in the UK. Rather than people having to fight for access on a case-by-case basis, will the Prime Minister apply some common sense, show a soupçon of compassion and do everything she can to make medical cannabis available to the many people who are suffering and to ensure that those who can benefit do?

[The Prime Minister]

I fully understand that these cases are desperately difficult, and my sympathies are with the families and friends. The Government did change the law, as the hon. Gentleman said, and specialist doctors on the General Medical Council specialist register can now prescribe cannabis-based products for medicinal use where there is clinical evidence of benefit. NHS England and the chief medical officer have made it clear that cannabis-based products can be prescribed for medicinal use in appropriate cases, but we must trust doctors to make clinical decisions in the best interests of patients.

Advisory Committee on Business Appointments

Ronnie Cowan Excerpts

Thursday 28th June 2018 Commons Chamber

[Ronnie Cowan (Inverclyde) (SNP)]

I shall not be too long on my feet. A lot of the points I wanted to raise have already been covered and I have torn a cartilage in my right knee, so I am feeling the pain as I speak.

In the report there is a quote from the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee report of 2017, which mirrors closely a comment by its predecessor, the Public Administration Committee from 2012 when it says:

“The regulatory system for scrutinising the post-public employment of former Ministers and civil servants is ineffectual and does not inspire public confidence or respect. Our inquiry has revealed numerous gaps in ACoBA’s monitoring process with insufficient attention paid to the principles that should govern business appointments. The failures of governments in this regard have damaged public trust in politics and public institutions and led to repeated scandals. Consequently, we are recommending major reform.”

Since 2012, nothing seems to have improved. The failure of ACoBA to keep a lid on the revolving doors between Government and industry, including seeing the most senior Ministers take on jobs without waiting for approval, means that a system relying solely on the honour of former Ministers, without sanctions or consequences, is seen as optional and has now failed.

As the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin) mentioned, the situation with George Osborne has been particularly worrying. That the former Chancellor of the Exchequer has been taken on as an adviser to the BlackRock Investment Institute on a salary considerably in excess of his previous salary as Chancellor, in a sector that he was responsible for regulating, seems to show little care for even the appearance of propriety among Ministers. That the body that was supposed to be regulating the revolving doors between Government and industry had to hear that he had accepted a high-profile position as editor of the Evening Standard in the news, without him having consulted them or waited for clearance, shows that the system is broken. That the president of BlackRock could tell investors that there is no way of knowing whether Mr Osborne will

“draw on (or disclose or use for the benefit of yourself or the organisation to which this advice refers) any privileged information”

that he gained from his time in Government shows that this is an absolute mockery.

As the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex said, the ACoBA chair, Baroness Browning, said to the Committee

“every bus driver and hairdresser you know”

should

“apply for any of those jobs. I can tell you factually, not one applied.”

Well, that is not surprising when the essential criteria for such a role include senior-level experience of at least one of the following sectors: the diplomatic service, the military or business. The criteria go on to mention

“Understanding of the machinery of government, preferably gained through practical experience at a senior level…Good communications skills…Personal integrity and strength of character”.

The report states:

“While the majority of these characteristics are not beyond your average hairdresser or bus driver, the first criteria, namely senior level experience in the Diplomatic Service, Military or business, may restrict applications from outside these sectors.”

Further, it was found that the problems identified in the system are “escalating” with increased numbers of public servants moving between the public and private sectors, with a number of high-profile cases resulting in a decline in public confidence in the system. Research by the High Pay Centre states that between 2000 and 2014, 600 former Ministers and top-level civil servants were appointed to over 1,000 different business roles. Its report raised concerns about the “corporate colonisation” of UK politics. Private Eye’s Richard Brooks told PACAC that

“former senior officials and their new employers see the”

ACoBA

“process as a mere rubber stamp”.

On what scale is this happening? In 2010-11, immediately following the general election, ACoBA advised 42 former Ministers regarding 95 applications and 38 civil servants regarding 63 applications. In 2015-16, immediately after that general election, the equivalent figure was 33 Ministers regarding 123 applications and 36 Crown servants in relation to 110 appointments.

Since 2010, no former Ministers or civil servants have had an application refused by ACoBA—not one, nada, zilch, zero. Private Eye reported that by 2015, outsourcing public services cost the UK Government £120 billion and that despite poor records of delivery, G4S and Serco continue to win favour and contracts because of the revolving door and blurred distinction between employees in private companies and ministerial Departments.

Finally, the hon. Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn), who unfortunately cannot be in his seat today, described ACoBA as

“nothing but a poodle without teeth or claws, bark or bite…totally and utterly useless”.—[Official Report, 28 April 2016; Vol. 608, c. 1567.]

I could not have put it better myself. If he is watching today, we miss him and haste him back. The report recommends only a cost-benefit analysis. I would go further and say that a statutory basis for ACoBA is necessary for its continued existence, otherwise it will rightly be seen entirely as decorative.

Oral Answers to Questions

Ronnie Cowan Excerpts

Wednesday 20th December 2017 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I am very happy to join my hon. Friend in commending the work of our dairy farmers. He talks about the importance of dairy. He is, rightly, a great advocate for rural issues. It is one of the most efficient, innovative and high-quality dairy industries in the EU. I am sure my right hon. Friend the Environment Secretary will be very happy to discuss the particular points he raises, but I join him in recognising the importance of our dairy industry.

[Ronnie Cowan (Inverclyde) (SNP)]

Q3. Eight European countries, plus Australia and Canada, have introduced drug consumption rooms. The result has been a reduction in the spread of HIV and hepatitis C, and a reduction in crime. It is also worth noting that while drug-related deaths have in the past four years continued to increase in the UK, there has never been a drug overdose in a supervised drug consumption room. In the interests of public health, will the Prime Minister introduce DCRs in the United Kingdom, or, if not, will she devolve the relevant powers to the Scottish Parliament, so that the Scottish Government can do so?

[The Prime Minister]

First, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman is aware, the Home Office recently published the Government’s updated drugs strategy. I have a different opinion to some Members of this House. Some are very liberal in their approach to the way that drugs should be treated. I am very clear that we should recognise the damage that drugs do to people’s lives. Our aim should be to ensure that people come off drugs, do not go on drugs in the first place and keep clear of drugs. That is what we should focus on.

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Ronnie Cowan Excerpts

Committee: 4th sitting: House of Commons
Monday 4th December 2017 Commons Chamber

I know that a future Scottish Conservative Government would decentralise power, because that is our Conservative instinct. We will continue to call for decentralisation of power against an agenda from the SNP Government in Edinburgh that seeks only to centralise power in the hands of the few, not the many. I fully expect the Bill to be amended in such a way that it will gain consent from not only the Scottish Parliament, but the other place. In due time and with enough positivity from all sides, we can have the calm consideration of a legislative consent motion in the Scottish Parliament. I hope that we can have confirmation that that will be the case. On that basis, I support the Bill as it stands in Committee, and expect Government amendments to come forward before the Bill goes to the other place.

[Ronnie Cowan (Inverclyde) (SNP)]

Thank you, Dame Rosie. I shall attempt to keep my remarks within the time limit handed down by the Chair, at least 20 minutes ago.

As a member of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, I have been in the privileged position of being able to talk, both formally and informally, with constitutional and political experts about many things, including clause 11. As part of the process of formulating our latest report, the Committee’s Chair, the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin), and I travelled to Edinburgh and took evidence from panels of experts over two days. It was an enlightening and informative experience.

Under clause 11, a potential 111 powers that could be devolved to Scotland will be held at Westminster until such time as the UK Parliament sees fit to devolve them. The UK Government’s stance is, “Trust us; we’ll do the right thing.” And trust them we have over the years: we trusted them to deliver the Calman report but they did not; we trusted them to deliver on the Smith commission but they did not; we looked to the Sewel convention and we saw right through it; and we listened to, and were influenced by, a vow that was not a vow.

In September 2014, the then Prime Minster David Cameron told us that we were a “family of nations”. We were told that Scotland could lead, not that the Government would attempt to put a lead on Scotland, but every amendment requested by SNP MPs, who were democratically elected to represent the citizens of Scotland, was voted down. When we voted to stay in the EU, our views were ignored. When we asked to sit at the table during the negotiations, we were snubbed. I can assure the Minister that the words “the cheque is in the post” and the promise that you will respect me in the morning will not work any more.

I am well aware of the cold, hard fact that the UK Government do not have to do anything, but Scotland is not a faithful hunting dog standing at its master’s heel, waiting on its orders. Scotland in the Union is a concept rooted in the past. The ties that bind us come from, in part, a shared history—a history of conflict and conquest—but the sun set on the empire a long time ago. It might come as a surprise to some, but 59 colonies have walked away from the empire and, as a new dawn rises, so does Scotland. We want a different future from the one set out for us, but Scotland cannot choose its own future when we have to seek permission to do so.

Clause 11 does not set out a timetable for transition. Professors Richard Rawlings and Alan Page have both raised concerns that clause 11 is described as a transition agreement, but that there is no provision for that in the Bill. Despite that, we are currently designing our Scotland. Civic Scotland, combined with academia and business, is already coming together to design the country we want to live in. Discussions in think-tanks and at public meetings about the Scotland we want to be are common occurrences. There is a growing awareness that Scotland, with the right powers, can reform our energy business, banking sector, and agriculture and fishing industries.

We could even negotiate our own trade deals, like Norway, Iceland and the Faroe Islands do. The Faroe Islands negotiate their own trade deals because the Danish Government respect and trust them. We could each define our own future and still be trading partners and valued neighbours, while continuing to help and support each other, but only if that is achieved through mutual respect for each other’s sovereignty. And there is the rub: clause 11 shows no respect or trust for Scotland or any of the devolved authorities.

Dr Tobias Lock, a senior lecturer at Edinburgh Law School, has said:

“The European Union (Withdrawal) Bill will result in a shift in balance between the powers Westminster has in practice and the powers Holyrood has in practice with Westminster’s powers being augmented and Holyrood's staying the same.”

That concern is shared by Professor Nicola McEwen, professor of territorial politics at the University of Edinburgh. She identifies that clause 11 is fundamentally a problem of trust. The UK Government do not trust the devolved Governments to refrain from using repatriated powers to create policy and regulatory divergence that might harm the UK’s internal market and create problems in trade negotiations. This, she argues, overlooks the considerable constitutional authority that the UK Parliament already retains over market regulation, trade, and the making and implementation of international treaties. For their part, the Scottish and Welsh Governments do not trust the commitment of the UK Government to devolve repatriated powers after Brexit and/or to agree and govern UK common frameworks on a genuinely co-operative basis. Once the existing imbalance has been augmented, when will it be realigned?

Scotland, if given the right powers, could negotiate with the European economic area and European Free Trade Association to seek what is best for Scotland but not detrimental to the rest of the UK. However, we are hamstrung by a UK Government who are scared of their own shadow, constantly looking over their shoulder and wondering from where the next challenge or crisis will emerge. We have a UK Government propped up by bluster and buffoonery.

Individuals may be protected by personal wealth that generates self-confidence and self-assurance, and supports a “devil may care” attitude—one that nudges us forward, assuring us that it will be all right on the night—but the vast majority of people in the UK are less well protected from the economic turmoil that lies ahead. They have concerns about jobs, pensions and visas. They have rightly turned to the UK Government time and again for reassurance, but their concerns are not being addressed. All that has been offered is a sickly mix of jingoistic imperialism. The Scottish Government wish to bring clarity and seek the powers to govern responsibly, but clause 11 does not provide that authority or opportunity. It must be amended forthwith, and the powers due to the Scottish Parliament—powers that will be best used by the Scottish Government, in the best interests of the citizens of Scotland—must be repatriated to the Scottish Parliament immediately after the UK leaves the European Union.

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Chris Skidmore)]

I rise to support clause 11 and schedule 3. Let me say at the outset how grateful I am to all Members for their contributions to the six-hour debate that we have had so far today, and for the thoughtful consideration that has been given to this part of the Bill. I assure the Committee that I shall listen carefully to, and take very seriously, all the views that are expressed on these issues.

The Government have been clear about the fact that the Bill is about continuity, certainty and control. That applies equally, and without exception, to people in businesses in all parts of the United Kingdom. Clause 11 is about delivering certainty while guaranteeing all the existing powers of the devolved institutions. The current devolution settlements reflect the UK’s membership of the EU, and on that basis, they provide that devolved institutions cannot act or legislate in a way that is incompatible with EU law.

House of Lords Reform: Lord Speaker’s Committee

Ronnie Cowan Excerpts

Wednesday 15th November 2017 Westminster Hall

[Ronnie Cowan (Inverclyde) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Howarth, and to add my voice to over 100 years of debate on the subject of reforming the House of Lords. The unresolved discussion on Lords reform has been going on for so long that an annual debate on the subject must surely now be considered a parliamentary tradition. In 1908, the Queen’s great-grandfather was the reigning monarch, while New Zealand had just become an independent country. It was also the year in which the Rosebery report made recommendations on how peers should be selected for the Lords. Such is the pace of change at Westminster that here we are, 110 years later, still tinkering around the edges of our bloated and unelected upper Chamber. After all that time, the proposed reforms before us today hardly seem worth the wait.

That is especially the case when we consider that it could take up to 15 years to reduce the size of the Lords to 600 Members. Why 600? I have read the report and nowhere does it explain why the Committee decided on 600. Did they consider how many Lords contribute to debates, Committees or groups? Some do. As was eloquently explained in the opening remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East (Tommy Sheppard), some make very valuable contributions, but do 600? When the Lords debated the issue, 61 Members took part—that is 61 out of the 799 currently eligible peers. When the Lord Speaker’s Committee launched a consultation, 62 Members contributed.

The reduction from 826 peers is undoubtedly progress, but we are merely reducing the size of the problem, not solving it. To underscore the timid nature of these proposals, new Members of the Lords would still have a guaranteed position for 15 years. We would retain 92 hereditary peers. We would retain the Lords Spiritual, 26 archbishops and bishops. We would retain the royal office-holders, Earl Marshal and the Lord Great Chamberlain. Of course, reducing the peers to 600 but protecting the hereditary and spiritual peers would also mean they made up a greater proportion of the unelected House.

I ask hon. Members whether they are happy to go out into their constituencies and argue in favour of an upper House of unelected appointees with 15-year terms—a House that has no mechanism for the public to hold its Members to account, in which the ability or suitability of its Members is completely outwith the control of the electorate. Would they be happy to speak with constituents face to face and tell them that our modern Parliament should include unelected bishops and hereditary peers, the heirs of long-forgotten generals, admirals and landowning aristocracy? Where is the progress towards a balanced House, by gender, geography or religion? How do we know that minorities are represented? We do not, and we will not, because the Committee’s remit was to address only the size of the House. I acknowledge the good work done by the Committee, but its hands were tied before it even started to write.

Here we are, skirting around the issue and ignoring the core question of whether we should even have an unelected Chamber. What does that say about the nature of Westminster? The “mother of Parliaments” has spawned many legislatures around the world, many of which have long overtaken us in their ability to reform and adapt to the changed needs of their political systems. Westminster, on the other hand, limply staggers on without any of the energy or imagination that characterises other Parliaments.

[Luke Graham]

We have heard comments from my side of the House in favour of reform, but the hon. Gentleman is characterising Westminster as something that limply goes on with no energy. This is the Parliament that brought in the NHS. It has introduced hundreds of technological innovations, spawned justice systems around the world and led the world in many innovations. To say that our Parliament is without energy and “limply staggers on” is unfair.

[Ronnie Cowan]

The hon. Gentleman makes my point perfectly. When did we introduce the NHS? It was in the 1950s. The last time I checked, this was 2017.

The buildings that make up this Parliament are themselves reflective of what is happening here. They are rotten and crumbling. According to a headline in The Guardian:

“Parliament’s buildings risk ‘catastrophic failure’ without urgent repairs”.

It is estimated that the final repair bill may be more than £3.5 billion. We know, however, that the problems facing this place are deeper than crumbling masonry and decaying stonework. The institutions themselves are in need of urgent repair but, with another opportunity to genuinely reform the House of Lords, we have decided instead to paper over the cracks. We have had a century of debates like this one on deciding what colour and pattern that paper will be, yet the cracks remain underneath.

Limiting the length of terms, reducing the size of the Chamber and minimising the number of appointments the Prime Minister can make represents progress, but they are the smallest possible first steps towards reforming the Lords into a Chamber fit for 21st-century democracy. Lord Burns said that these proposals are a

“radical yet achievable solution to the excessive size of the House of Lords”.

With respect to Lord Burns and the Lord Speaker’s Committee, these proposals are not radical and will only reinforce public anger at and scepticism of Westminster politics. Most people will simply look at this situation and see a Committee of Lords concluding that the privileged position of other peers should be more or less protected.

I know that Members from all parts of the House want genuine reform, but let us be realistic: the UK Government have no authority and are barely surviving. As the country moves steadily closer to a Brexit cliff edge, Parliament has neither the time nor the political energy to tackle Lords reform when so much else is happening. Meanwhile, people in my constituency of Inverclyde and across Scotland will look at Lords reform as just another example of this Parliament’s inability to change. They may soon decide that powers resting here may be better placed in a unicameral Parliament—and that Parliament is in Edinburgh.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Skidmore]

I had hoped to touch on hereditary peers later, but I will come to that point now. We had a debate in Westminster Hall in July. I recognise that Lord Grocott’s Bill had its Second Reading in September. The Government still hold their position that it must be for the other place to reach a consensus around reform. If the other place reaches consensus, we will work with the House of Lords to look at what incremental changes are taking place. Lord Grocott’s Bill and the issue of hereditary peers will be further debated. We will be looking at that Bill going forwards. Obviously we will be debating the right hon. Gentleman’s private Member’s Bill, which he mentioned, on 27 April, and I hope to be in my place discussing those issues with him.

In order to take reform forwards—I will touch on the historical precedents at a later point—we need to ensure that we have consensus. With Government support, the House of Lords Reform Act 2014 enabled peers to retire permanently for the first time and provided for peers to be disqualified when they do not attend or are convicted of serious offences. We supported the House of Lords (Expulsion and Suspension) Act 2015, which provided this House with the power to expel Members in cases of serious misconduct. The House of Lords Reform Act 2014, which enabled peers to retire for the first time, has resulted in over 70 peers now taking advantage of the retirement provisions. That goes to show that incremental change can have a significant and dramatic effect on the House of Lords—its reform and it size. As a result of the 2014 Act, retirement is becoming part of the culture of the Lords. We have had other Bills, such as the Lords Spiritual (Women) Act 2015, which has allowed female bishops to sit in the Lords for the first time.

The Government are clear that we want to work constructively with Members and peers to look at pragmatic ideas for reducing the size of the Lords. It is by making those incremental reforms, which command consensus, rather than comprehensive reforms, that real progress can be made.

[Ronnie Cowan]

On that point, paragraph 10, on page 9 of the report, says:

“Since 1997, appointments have averaged 35 per year”.

I will skip through some of it, but basically it says that if we continue at this rate, we will

“settle at about 875 which, together with 92 hereditary peers and 26 Bishops…a total membership of nearly 1,000.”

That is the path we are on.

[Chris Skidmore]

The Government are committed to seeing a reduction—they welcome a reduction—in the size of the House of Lords. The Government welcome the publication of the report and are looking forward to the peers debating it. It is not that the Government deny the growing size of the House of Lords is an issue; of course we recognise it as an issue, and one that needs to be solved. Where we might differ is in our view on how to reach the destination by which to provide a solution. We believe that the Lords themselves coming together, forming the cross-party Lord Speaker’s Committee on the back of the motion that was debated, provides a potential way forward, but it is not for the Government to lead on this particular issue. Rather, it is for the Lords to be able to come forward with proposals that we know will then be able to be passed by both Houses.

I personally have been involved in this myself. I have the scars on my back from 2012, when the coalition Government introduced proposals to introduce a partially elected House of Lords—measures that I personally supported at the time. Those measures failed to be enacted, because of a cross-party coalition of Labour and Conservative Members at the time who decided to vote against the programme motion. The lesson I learnt from that about reform of our constitution is that it is much better to take incremental steps to be able to deliver a dramatic change, such as through the retirement of peers legislation. We can then deliver a change to the statute book without having to march Back Benchers through the Lobbies and without marching parties to a stage where U-turns have to be made. I do not want the Government to make U-turns on their constitutional positions; I want the Government to be confident and not mislead Back Benchers and Members. We want to make change through consensus.

Article 50

Ronnie Cowan Excerpts

Wednesday 29th March 2017 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

There is a very simple point, which is that across the United Kingdom people voted in the referendum in different ways. But the majority of the UK electorate voted to leave the European Union, and the Government are respecting that vote. We will continue to work with the devolved Administrations and have taken them into account. There are many areas in which we have common ground with the Scottish Government, such as in wanting comprehensive access to the European single market, wanting to protect workers’ rights and wanting to recognise the importance of science and innovation. We have common ground with the Scottish Government on all those points; it is just unfortunate that they do not seem to recognise where we have common ground with them and that they are not willing to acknowledge that.

[Ronnie Cowan (Inverclyde) (SNP)]

Today’s statement was full of clichés, platitudes and jingoism, but no answers. When will the Government of Scotland, democratically elected to represent the nation of Scotland—a nation that voted to remain in the EU—be given the opportunity to contribute by supplying the facts and the figures that are so lacking? We have had one vacuous vow; we do not need another one.

[The Prime Minister]

The hon. Gentleman talks about representation from Scotland. Of course, he and his colleagues represent Scottish constituencies in the United Kingdom Parliament; he is a constituent part of that Parliament and will be part of the discussions as we go forward.