Scotland Bill

Stewart Hosie Excerpts

Tuesday 15th March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP)]

I am sorry that I was not in my place for the start of the hon. Gentleman’s contribution, but I have been following most of it. I am unhappy about Members of the Scottish Parliament being named when they are not here to defend themselves. As for the three people mentioned by the hon. Member for East Lothian (Fiona O'Donnell), will the hon. Gentleman tell us whether one, two or all three of them as list members also intend to stand in the first-past-the-post election? If so, that would pose a very interesting question.

[Mr Donohoe]

The hon. Gentleman raises a pertinent point—one that my individual constituency voted on and came to a unanimous decision. I stress that this is on the basis of a vote only in my own constituency, but not a single person in the constituency party was in support of any added list members also standing for a particular constituency. I mentioned that earlier when I spoke about a person who came fourth in the first-past-the post election in my constituency finding herself in Parliament. That does not make sense, and I doubt whether the hon. Gentleman would say that it made sense.

Let me conclude. This is an important subject for the chattering classes, but it is not very important to the great bulk of people in Scotland—or, for that matter, anywhere in the United Kingdom. One thing is certain: electoral systems do not put food in bairns’ stomachs or jobs into the homes of people who most need them in order to put that food in bairns’ stomachs. I suggest that it is therefore more important for us to argue against and probe Ministers daily on the state of the economy. However, we are where we are; and we are debating what we are. That is why I thought it right to table these two new clauses for debate.

I want fairness: it is something I came into politics for. I have always believed in fairness and I believe there is no doubt, as conceded in this debate, that there is no accountability for these list members. My two new clauses thus have considerable merit, but I shall listen carefully to how the debate continues.

--- Later in debate ---

[Michael Connarty]

I am not giving way yet.

If this is about the electorate—I hope it is, rather than about the manipulation of party machinery—it is important that the electorate know who is representing them. The system at the moment is not clear—indeed, it is deliberately confusing for the electorate. It has nothing to do with the intelligence of the electorate; it is a matter of how all the political parties use the list system. We should genuinely consider moving to a system that can be recommended for its clarity. Having two constituency Members for the Scottish Parliament and one Member for this Parliament would be correct and clear, and people would like it.

What has happened is that people in this place do not care whether the electorate like it or not. This is the key point: they do not treat the electorate properly. I have to say that the SNP argument is completely flawed. It has nothing to do with whether SNP Members respect the electorate; it is about whether their party can get an advantage out of it. It is the same with all minority parties. If my party acts in the same way, it is equally wrong. I therefore believe that new clause 1 deserves serious consideration and support. If parties want to top up to a certain number because they cannot run the place without 129 Members, that is where the additional Members should come from. We should call these people what they are—party-nominated Members. That is what happens in Germany: people are nominated by their parties to appear on the list to stand for Parliament or for the European Parliament. People are clear about what they are getting, but what they are not getting is representation.

On new clause 2, the use of resources must be controlled in some way. In Scotland, people are running party machinery in constituencies using the list system resources. To have an office in Whitburn, someone should be representing all the Lothians. For that office to be used only for one Member who is trying to become the first-past-the-post Member for the Linlithgow constituency is the wrong use of resources—and we must find some way of controlling that.

[Stewart Hosie]

The hon. Gentleman makes that allegation, so can he confirm that this is a parliamentary office for list Members and not a party office?

[Michael Connarty]

My understanding is that it is an office used by the Member of the Scottish Parliament, who happens to be the person who keeps standing for election to the constituency under first past the post. That may be coincidental; it may be that it is so difficult for the other Lothian Members to get public transport from the centre of the city to the office that they use it solely as a telephone base.

It is important for us to bear in mind the aspiration of the House of Commons that list Members should represent a party that will use them in a way that bolsters the process in the Parliament, rather than shattering and scattering them throughout Scotland and sending them scurrying after votes in the hope that they might at some point secure a first-past-the-post seat, or perhaps secure some proportional extra seats for their party by being seen to be more active. That is not the vision that I was sold in the Scottish Constitutional Convention, it is not the vision that was presented here, and it is not the vision conveyed to me by Scottish National party members at that time. Why are SNP members now willing to accept a second-class option rather than delivering what we promised to the people of Scotland?

[Stewart Hosie]

I asked a simple question. I will repeat it. Is that office a list parliamentary office paid for with parliamentary resources to enable list Members to do their parliamentary work, and is it within the region to which they are elected?

--- Later in debate ---

I was interested in many of the comments about Members standing on both regional lists and in constituencies, and the hon. Member for Angus (Mr Weir) highlighted a number of examples from within the Labour party. In 2006, I witnessed the passage of the Government of Wales Bill, when the then Labour Government argued that legislation must be put in place in Wales to prohibit candidates standing both on the list and in constituencies. Interestingly, such proposals were never brought forward in relation to Scotland, and shortly thereafter Labour changed its internal party rules to allow the same candidate to stand both on the list and for a constituency. We now see that a number of sitting MSPs are moving to stand on the list, so if they fail to be re-elected by one route, they have every chance of being re-elected on the regional list.

[Stewart Hosie]

Is that not the argument that was being used earlier: that losers can become winners? Why would a Labour Member make that case, when the Minister is explaining that that is precisely what the Labour party is now doing?

[David Mundell]

Well, I find it—

--- Later in debate ---

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for an extremely helpful intervention. It missed a key point. Indeed, the hon. Gentleman may wish his hon. Friend the Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar to withdraw his new clause.

The Crown Estate’s income was not given away in perpetuity in exchange for the civil list; it is given reign by reign. That started in the time of George III, who was a bit hard up at the time. He needed the money. Parliament had, and of course still has, tax-raising powers. In exchange for the Crown Estate’s income, George III accepted the civil list. That continued during the reigns of George IV, William IV, Queen Victoria, Edward VII and George V, the brief reign of Edward VIII and the reign of George VI, and it continues during the reign of our present most glorious sovereign. However, it is not a permanent settlement.

Any step that undermines or changes the Crown Estate should be taken with the greatest caution. I hope that the day never comes, but if we were to have another sovereign, that sovereign would be entitled to claim the Crown Estate for himself. If we had introduced measures that took it away, we would have broken the bargain that was made in the reign of George III and has been renewed in subsequent reigns. We should be extremely wary of interfering with a system that has worked so well.

I also want to deal with the attack on property rights, which are the fundamental basis of a free society and the rule of law. I know that some hon. Members like me to dwell on history occasionally. We know that rights of property have been established in this country since 1189—

[Stewart Hosie]

Which country?

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

This country, England, which is where we are now. Those rights of property, established in this country, England, were passed to Scotland by virtue of the Act of Union. It is well established that the combination of Parliaments that resulted in the inheritor Parliament—this Parliament—merged the benefits of the two earlier Parliaments. The rights of property that we enjoy are the foundation of our free society.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stewart Hosie]

The hon. Gentleman is making an extraordinary speech. I have received an e-mail from a colleague who has been watching it and who describes it as “epic”. It certainly is, in an 1842 kind of way.

However, I have a question for the hon. Gentleman. He talks of “rapacious socialism” and of the seizing of land. The Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003, which came into being after the establishment of the Scottish Parliament, allows those on estates to buy the land on which they live. Would he wish it to be repealed to protect what he views as the property rights that he is defending?

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

Had I been a Member of Parliament at the time, I would have opposed leasehold reform. I thought that it was an outrageous attack on property rights, and I would have taken the same view had I been a Member of the Scottish Parliament. I think that property rights are of overwhelming importance, and that the new clause is genuinely dangerous in seeking to undermine them.

As I was saying, my three reasons for opposing the new clause are the attack on property rights, the attack on the Crown—that mystical union of Crowns that we have had since 1603—and the loss of revenue for the English. I feel that I must stand up for the people of North East Somerset. They do not benefit from as much spending per capita on the health service, the police or education as those north of the border. I accept that, because I believe in the Union and I think it a price worth paying, but the price must be fair. The revenues that are ultimately the revenues of the state must come centrally, and must be shared out proportionately. When the Scots start asking “Why do we not have Crown Estate revenue for the territory and the sea around Scotland?”, I may respond by asking why people living in London do not say “We will have the revenues from the Crown Estate in London, and we will not allow any subsidy to be given to Scotland.” That, I think, would make the Scots rather upset. A good deal more money comes from places such as Pall Mall, which is owned by the Crown, than from the seashore.