Angus Brendan MacNeil
Main Page: Angus Brendan MacNeil (Independent - Na h-Eileanan an Iar)Department Debates - View all Angus Brendan MacNeil's debates with the Scotland Office
Scotland Bill
Angus Brendan MacNeil Excerpts(13 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Brian H. Donohoe (Central Ayrshire) (Lab)
Let me continue where we left off yesterday in discussing new clauses 1 and 2, particularly the question of first past the post being the fairer system—
Mr Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr Donohoe
I will give way when I have developed my argument one stage further than when I left off. An important aspect of this is that first past the post is the system that is best understood by the electorate—indeed, I would argue, it is almost the only system that is understood by the electorate.
Mr MacNeil
I think that if the hon. Gentleman looks at yesterday’s Hansard, he will find that we finished where I left off. At 10 pm last night, I was about to ask him what he had against the good people of the Western Isles in wanting to give them only one Member, with every other constituency getting two.
Mr Donohoe
I have always thought that the Member who looks after sheep should be able to count. If he could count, he would know that there are not that many people in the electorate of the Western Isles. In those circumstances, I thought it only fair that there should be just the one Member. As I said previously, there would be one Member for Orkney and one Member for Shetland. That would mean that there would be 118 Members of the Scottish Parliament, all elected on the basis of first past the post. If the hon. Gentleman tells me that I have got the figures wrong, perhaps I need to go back to school to do a bit of arithmetic, but I can tell him that I was one of the brightest children in the school at arithmetic; indeed, I got 100% on many occasions.
However, perhaps one area where I was not very strong was dates, because earlier in the debate I said to the hon. Gentleman that the Scottish elections were on 3 May whereas—he should have corrected me—they are on 5 May.
Mr Donohoe
That is common sense, if I may say so. When I made the calculation to put together my submission to Calman, we did not have this nonsense of reducing the number of MPs in this place. That idea is patently stupid in Scotland. The hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (John Thurso), who is present, will know that the area he represents will become even more enormous under these calculations than it is. Perhaps the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority should visit him to check out what his expenses should be in those circumstances. However, I digress somewhat.
I shall return to the issue of savings and first past the post. It is clear from this debate that there is a case to be made for this idea. It is clear from the number of public representatives on the London assembly that there can be adequate government for a population double the size of Scotland’s with some 30 members. Given the responsibilities in London, one would presume that it was possible to run the Scottish Government with the numbers that I propose.
Mr MacNeil
The hon. Gentleman wants to reduce the number of parliamentary representatives from Scotland. Will he lead by example and suggest that Scotland no longer needs to send any MPs to Westminster, because Scotland should be independent and all powers pertaining to Scotland should be moved from Westminster back to Scotland?
Mr Donohoe
The first people who could go in these circumstances are, of course, the nats. That would be very useful. I am surprised that only four of their six Members are here today. However, looking at the Labour Benches, perhaps I should not argue that point too forcefully.
To return to my serious argument, first past the post is the most sensible system on the basis of turnout. If we look at the turnout at elections—today I had the good fortune of having the Library do so—we see that there is no doubt that we, as a group, need to reconnect with the public. It is highly probable that we will go below 50% turnout at this year’s Scottish elections. In the 2007 election, the turnout was just above 52%. In the election to the Westminster Parliament last year, the figure was just under 64%. On that basis, we should consider the matter seriously.
Mr Donohoe
I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman, who is my MP, as he knows. I came into Parliament thinking that I was a Labour MP, but over the years I have come to understand that I represent not just Labour voters but 100% of my constituents, including those who vote and those who do not vote. I have always taken that view. The hon. Gentleman makes a good intervention, and I am grateful for it, but I do not know what it has to do with the subject in hand.
If one accepts that list Members are not to make representations on behalf of individual constituents, the question is why do they advertise constituency surgeries? On one occasion, such a Member, who will remain nameless, advertised a surgery in my constituency. I was not very pleased, so I decided to look through all the files in my office—some 2,500 files—for some awkward cases. I decided I would phone those awkward cases and tell them that this individual was having a surgery in Irvine, and that they should attend because he made such a good MSP. Seventeen people trooped to his surgery, and he never did a surgery in Irvine again. That is the practical way to overcome the problem of added list Members in the Scottish Parliament. If anyone wants a wee bit of encouragement to do likewise, I am more than happy to oblige.
Mr MacNeil
I was wondering whether the awkward cases had already been sent to the hon. Gentleman.
Mr Reid
If the SNP wants to call itself Alex Salmond for First Minister, it is perfectly entitled to do so. What it cannot do is confuse the electorate by having two names. One minute it is called the Scottish National party; the next minute it is called Alex Salmond for First Minister. If only SNP members would make up their minds on what they want their party to be called.
Mr Reid
I think that the law was changed.
I understand that the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire chairs the all-party parliamentary group for the promotion of first past the post. He has continually extolled the virtues of the first-past-the-post system, but that is not my understanding of what his new clause actually means. I think that it would be more accurately described as promoting “first two past the post”.
Mr MacNeil
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that at least the alternative vote gives true believers in first past the post an opportunity to practise it? They can use their votes only once if they want. They can write “1”, or “X”, and not use any subsequent numbers. It is possible to use first past the post under an AV system, but the reverse is not the case.
Mr Reid
Yes, that is possible, but there would still be two people elected, and the hon. Gentleman objected to having more than one person representing a constituency. He expressed objections about regional list Members holding surgeries in his constituency, but under the system he proposes there will be two people representing every constituency, so there are the same possibilities for disagreements and people duplicating casework. I find it illogical that the hon. Gentleman extols the virtues of first past the post, but proposes a different system.
The first-past-the-post or the first-two-past-the-post system could be very unfair. In the last Scottish Parliament election, the SNP got the most votes, and it rightly got the most seats. Let us consider what would have happened if we had adopted first past the post, however. In the constituency section, the SNP got 33% of the vote and Labour got 32%, but Labour won more than half the first-past-the-post seats—37 out of the 73 seats. Therefore, if we had purely been using a first-past-the-post system, even though the SNP was the clear winner of the election, the next morning we would have found we had a Labour Government with an overall majority, having more than half the seats.
Mr MacNeil
I am listening closely to the hon. Gentleman’s arguments, and it is clearly game set and match against first past the post. In response to the point of the hon. Member for East Lothian (Fiona O'Donnell), does it not make the SNP victory all the better given that we won by a set of rules we did not even design?
Mr Davidson
Indeed it did. I can think of several other Members of Parliament here today who were prevented from standing for the Scottish Parliament candidates list. That was in the days when new Labour was at its most sectarian. Fortunately, we have moved on, and that is to be welcomed. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely correct—that was a difficulty. The Labour party’s initial lists were drawn up in a sectarian fashion, and therefore a lot of people who would otherwise have been considered suitable for consideration by the party membership were unable to come forward.
Another difficulty about the existing system is the way in which vacancies are filled. It is absurd that when somebody on the list stands down, disappears, passes away or decides that they want to do something else, the person who gets that place is simply the next one on the list. There is no vote and the public are not involved in any way, unlike the situation for individual constituency Members. That is inappropriate and a fault in the system.
Mr MacNeil
Is not the point of that process to retain the proportionality in the Parliament that was established by the voters at the election?
Mr Davidson
That is a natural result of the system—I understand that—but that is what I am unhappy about. It does not seem fair or reasonable that at some point after the election, during the term of the Scottish Parliament, somebody who is not an MSP should, as if by magic, become an MSP without the involvement of the electorate in any way.
Mr MacNeil
Does the hon. Gentleman think it in any way important, then, that the proportionality expressed by the electorate is maintained in the Parliament?
Mr Davidson
These are difficult issues. I accept that that is a valid point, but I am unhappy about the idea that by-elections do not take place. By-elections are an important way of telling us what the public think at any particular moment. I do not know whether people present are aware of what happened recently in Barnsley, which was enormously significant.
Mr Davidson
Okay. The party that had been second at the general election was not second, and it did not win the seat.
Mr Davidson
Those facts help my case, so I am quite happy to take interventions on that point.
Mr MacNeil
I fear that the hon. Gentleman might be confusing cause and effect. Surely turnout is more about the media attention given to whatever election happens to be occurring. The European elections get the least media attention, if any at all.
Mr Davidson
Yes, I think it should, in exactly the same way that the Scottish Parliament decided the voting system for local authorities without any discussion or agreement. If the Scottish Parliament is to be allowed to decide its voting system, so should local authorities. It is good enough for the SNP and its allies to impose a system on others, and what goes around comes around.
Mr MacNeil
May I tempt the hon. Gentleman, who I know is a committed Europhile, to extend that logic? If the Scottish Parliament foists a system on local government, and if the UK Government foist a system on the Scottish Parliament, would he want the European Parliament to foist an electoral system on the House of Commons?
The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. That is a temptation, but this is about the abolition of regional Members. We are in danger of being dragged around Europe, Scotland and the UK, so I think we should get back to new clause 1.
Mr MacNeil
I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman underestimates voters and the public when he says that they have difficulty distinguishing between list Members, who might have stood and lost, and those who have won on a constituency basis. I have not come across anyone who has had any difficulty understanding the process.
Michael Connarty
I would not want to accuse the hon. Gentleman of trying to distort my words; I just think he might not be swift enough to understand them. I said that people resent it. They know that they did not choose the Member who lost under first past the post, and they are not happy that that person then turns up as a list Member. They believe it is important that when they make a choice under first past the post, they choose between candidate A and candidate B. I take the point made earlier that every party does it, but it is wrong because it distorts the will of the electorate.
Michael Connarty
That is an easy question to answer. It is quite clear that most people in this Chamber, if asked to list them, would not know all the regional list MSPs in their area. That is not the way I like to see the issue, however. It is not so much about confusion among the electorate; it is more that the electorate are not well represented. It is not because they are confused, but because the system invites certain behaviours that run counter to good representation. People do not know who is accountable to them and it is quite clear that list members are not accountable to the electorate. They are accountable to their party, because it is the party that puts them on the list and into the system.
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.
Mr Donohoe
On the basis of what has just been said, I am almost of a mind to press the new clause to a vote.
Let me make some points to sum up. I would argue that this has been one of the better debates on the Bill that we have had across the piece. It has at times been humorous and it has been good-humoured, which is unusual in some respects. It has also at times been useful and interesting to be able to draw out some of my long-held points of view. I am conscious that in these circumstances—given that this debate is just the beginning—we should withdraw our proposal, and so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 3
Maritime policy
‘(1) The Scotland Act 1998 is amended as follows.
(2) In Schedule 5, section E3, leave out—
(a) the Coastguard Act 1925”.
(3) After section 90 insert section 90A as follows—
“Maritime and Coastguard Agency (Scotland)
90A (1) The Maritime and Coastguard Agency is to be treated as a Cross-Border Public Authority for the purposes of sections 88 to 90.
(2) The funding, operation and planning authority of Maritime and Coastguard Agency facilities in Scotland shall reside with the Scottish Government and the appropriate Scottish Minister.
(3) These parts of the Maritime and Coastguard Agency which are the responsibility of Scottish Government shall be known as the Maritime and Coastguard Agency (Scotland).
(4) The Maritime and Coastguard Agency (Scotland) will be responsible for maintaining and upholding domestic and international laws and obligations in the Scottish Waters.
(5) For the purposes of this section, the Scottish Waters are as defined by the Scottish Adjacent Waters Boundary Order 1999.”.’.—(Mr MacNeil.)
Brought up, and read the First time.
The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Dawn Primarolo)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 4—Economic incentives for the Scottish maritime industry—
‘(1) The Scotland Act 1998 is amended as follows.
(2) In Schedule 5, section E3, the words “Financial assistance for shipping services which start or finish or both outside Scotland” are replaced with “Financial assistance for shipping services which both start and finish outside Scotland.”.’.
New clause 12—Scottish maritime boundaries—
‘(1) In section 126(2) of the 1998 Act, after “Council”, insert “and with the Consent of the Scottish Parliament”.
(2) At the end of section 126(2) insert “A boundary order shall be issued in 2012.”.’.
Mr MacNeil
Throughout our proceedings, we have heard claims from the Tories and the Liberal Democrats that this Bill is the greatest transfer of powers from Westminster to Scotland in more than 300 years. To ensure that it is truly a transfer of powers, I propose several additions that will see the Scottish Government gain more control over Scotland’s maritime future.
We seek to devolve the operation and funding of the Maritime and Coastguard Agency to Scotland, to remove restrictions in the Scotland Act 1998 that prevent the Scottish Government from providing incentives to the shipping industry in Scotland and to ensure that the Scottish Parliament agrees to any movement of the border instigated from London. I am aware that those proposals were not recommended in the Calman commission’s report, but we cannot expect Calman to have thought of everything. Anything might have come from Calman, I suppose, but, of course, it does not matter because the Government have picked and mixed the recommendations as they were made.
New clause 3 was sparked by the Government’s proposals to cut the coastguard service throughout the UK. Those proposals seek to leave three to four co-ordination centres south of the border and only one 24-hour co-ordination centre and one part-time centre in Scotland—there are currently five. The proposals were not meant to be debated in this House and were certainly not presented to the Scottish Parliament. That shows a blatant disrespect not only for the Scottish Parliament and Government but for MPs in this House who, to take my case as an example, will be affected by these decisions.
Through my proposals, we seek to alleviate the financial and administrative burden on the Department for Transport by taking the Scottish portion of the coastguard service out of its realm of responsibility. The decision on the future of the coastguard in Scotland should, rightly, take place in Scotland.
Mark Lazarowicz
Has the hon. Gentleman assessed the views of the trade unions representing those who work in the coastguard service or the seagoing community about whether they want to see the coastguard service split up in that way?
Mr MacNeil
Yes, I have asked people who work in the coastguard and, yes, they do want to see this happen.
Mark Lazarowicz
Just to be clear, I did not mean somebody in the coastguard service whom the hon. Gentleman knows. I asked whether trade unions collectively —at least at a Scottish level—support the change.
Mr MacNeil
I hope that the trade unions would act in the best interests of their members’ employment and the coastguard service throughout Scotland and try to maintain coastguard stations in Scotland. I am quite sure that if the Scottish Government—regardless of their party—were in charge of this matter, the savage cuts would not be happening.
Scotland has an estimated 60% of all the coastline in the UK, so the Scottish Parliament and Government should surely be the primary body that decides the future of the force that protects mariners and the community. We have already seen the beginning of the process with the passing of the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009, and we must continue that through these proposals, which would ensure that the Maritime and Coastguard Agency in Scotland enforced Scots law on environmental matters. We seek to have the MCA fall in line with the local operation of the police, health service and other devolved agencies.
According to the Maritime and Coastguard Agency, the seas and coastlines are getting more congested, ships are getting larger and the weather is getting worse. With that information in mind, it surely makes sense to implement a division of labour and allow the MCA in England to focus on Southampton and London and leave Scottish waters to Scotland.
Our new clause removes the restrictions in the Scotland Act that prevent the Scots Government from running the coastguard. Once we place it in the category of a cross-border public authority, we will remove nearly £5 million of coastguard co-ordination centre operating costs from the Department for Transport’s budgets alone. That would give us the opportunity in Scotland to secure a proper coastguard service for Scotland. In the past year, we have heard that contracts to provide life-saving helicopters have been bungled completely. Our tugboat services have been cut to save money, in line, we are told, with these austere times, but that unfortunately exposes Scotland to severe gaps in coastline coverage. On a side note, we want to know what will happen to our tugs when these front-line services come up for contract renewal in September.
If Members look closely at the proposals, they will see that we are not attempting to change international agreements or safety legislation. We are simply seeking to ensure that decisions regarding the Scottish coastline are taken in the best interests of Scotland. In short, they move power from Westminster to the most democratic institution representing Scotland—the Scots Parliament.
Mr Russell Brown (Dumfries and Galloway) (Lab)
If the hon. Gentleman’s new clause were successful, would he envisage more than one full-time station in Aberdeen, or would one suffice in his view?
Mr MacNeil
I would envisage far more than one full-time station in Aberdeen.
This will not be the first time that the House of Commons has heard of the concept of change and of control moving away from the MCA. In 1989, the Isle of Man formed its own coastguard after the UK unilaterally decided to shut down the coastguard co-ordination centre in Ramsey. The Manx Government—perhaps this shows what happens when there is more local control—rightly decided that they should no longer depend on the United Kingdom to protect their coastline and therefore created their own coastguard. That coastguard has five stations open around the Isle of Man and has retained close ties with the Liverpool maritime rescue co-ordination centre, which I would like to remain open.
The Government of the Isle of Man took the right decisions at the right time to ensure that their coast was secure. Surely, it cannot be the will of the Committee to deny Scotland that same inalienable right. This is not the first time that a potential coastguard authority move has been presented. In its illustrious 189-year history, the coastguard has been under the Board of Trade between 1923 and 1939, the Ministry of Shipping from 1939 to 1940, the Admiralty from 1940 to 1945, the Ministry of War and then the Ministry of Transport from 1945 to 1964, the Department of Trade from 1964 to 1983, the Department of Transport from 1983 to 1997 and finally, the Department for Transport from 2002 to this date. All we seek to do is move that one step further and ensure that the Scots coastguard reports directly to Scotland.
Mr Tom Harris
I agree with the substance of what the hon. Gentleman is saying about the effects of the cuts to the coastguard system, but would he be proposing this change if the cuts to the maritime coastguard service were not being made at the Department for Transport? He is in danger, I think, of opening himself up to accusations of opportunism if this move is a response to budget cuts rather than a point of principle. I am not aware that this point of principle has been raised by the SNP in the past.
Mr MacNeil
I am glad that the hon. Gentleman agrees with me on the substantial thrust of my argument and I hope to see him with me in the Lobby as a result. Would I have done this if such a proposal had not been made at the moment? Perhaps not, but given the safety concerns, this matter is pressing. Given that the process started without any risk assessment from the MCA, despite the relevant Minister telling me at the Dispatch Box that there had been such an assessment, I think that politics has to meet the pressing concerns among Royal National Lifeboat Institution crews, people who used to be involved in shipping, working coastguards and a variety of people across the community—certainly in the highlands and islands and, I imagine, further down to the Clyde and over to the Forth and, indeed, Shetland.
New clause 4 would redress a bizarre part of the Scotland Act that prevents the Scottish Government from creating incentives for the maritime industry in Scotland. Currently, the Government of Scotland have the ability to incentivise travel for maritime journeys that both start and end in Scotland, which has meant that a successful pilot project on the west coast for the road equivalent tariff has been brought to the Outer Hebrides and to Coll and Tiree. We hope that policy will continue, as it has done quite a lot to help the economies of those areas in a time of severe economic downturn.
Maritime policy is vital to Scotland as we are responsible for 70% of all the fish landed in the UK. Aberdeen is home to the North sea oil industry and lands nearly 4.5 million tonnes of cargo annually from approximately 8,000 ships. Clyde port lands 7.5 million tonnes of cargo and Stornoway port in my constituency has 200,000 people travelling through it each year. The ability to control the maritime economy is surely vital to what is a maritime nation. It is vital to secure future growth in the Scottish economy.
The figures that I have presented for the Aberdeen and Clyde ports are small in comparison with Southampton, which lands 75 million tonnes of cargo annually. Currently, the shipping industry coalesces around the south of England leaving little else for the rest of the UK. It is peculiar that most of Scotland’s goods are transported to the south of England and then driven into Scotland. With ever-increasing fuel costs and more congested motorways, surely that is not a good idea. The cost of moving goods to Scotland will invariably increase as the costs of transportation increase, and we propose that costs could be saved if there were an incentive for ships to land their goods in Scotland. The professor of maritime research at Edinburgh Napier university, Alf Baird, put it succinctly when he said that
“the present reality is that firms located in Scotland are considerably worse off in international transport cost terms compared with firms located close to hub ports in the south east of England…firms in the central belt of Scotland are between 15-23% worse off, while firms in the highlands are 22-33% worse off, and firms located on remote islands between 37-63% worse off…From a purely Scottish perspective this therefore raises the question—is the current method of serving Scottish industry’s global import and export needs through remote UK ports sustainable in the long run? Or, in other words, will rising domestic UK transport costs (rail as well as road) make Scottish industry even less competitive in global markets than it is today, leading to further job losses”—
that is the important point, as we want to keep people in employment—
“in manufacturing and reduced competitiveness?”
Fiona O'Donnell
I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is glad to pause for breath. He has said that he is proposing these new clauses because Calman missed them out, but did he put forward any submissions to the Holyrood Bill Committee or the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs about these matters?
Mr MacNeil
The most appropriate place for the measures is in the Bill, which is why I have chosen to bring them forward now.
Professor Baird has asked rather straightforward questions that should be addressed by a specific maritime policy with regard to seaport provision in Scotland and the impacts of such a policy for trade and economic development. Surely, Scotland should be able to entice shippers to send goods to our ports. As the home of the large northern ports of the UK, we are well placed to provide efficient ports for shipping goods throughout Scotland and, perhaps, the rest of the UK. We should at least be given the opportunity to try. However, there are restrictions in place and all we can do is hope that companies land their goods there. This issue is at the crux of our main argument. Scotland needs to have the economic levers to promote growth, which would also help with the aggregate growth of the British Isles. Without the ability to entice business to Scotland, we will lose a real chance to grow sectors of our economy that could provide a counterweight to other portions of the Scottish economy. Our new clauses would ensure that the Scottish Government have the ability to promote the Scottish shipping industry and Scottish ports.
Michael Connarty
Before the hon. Gentleman disappears off the map of the maritime borders of the UK, may we return to the subject in hand? As someone who represents the busiest port in Scotland, Grangemouth, it concerns me that the ships that come in and out of it travel more in non-Scottish waters than in Scottish waters to reach that port. Dividing the forces that need to be gathered to fight the terrible cuts in the entire UK coastguard service that are coming from the Government and hiving off Scotland would not greatly advantage the people who come in and out of the port that I represent. Is it not better that we stand together and fight the cuts than try to divide into two different land masses and two different Governments?
Mr MacNeil
I am sure that the hon. Gentleman knows that there is more than one way to skin a cat. I am also sure that he would like to see a busier port in Grangemouth and a Government able to incentivise greater activity in Grangemouth. I therefore expect him to support my new clauses.
These measures will mean that the Scottish Parliament and Government can get on with the job of making Scotland better and allow the rest of the UK to focus on what it considers to be important. This is a litmus test that will show Scotland which of its MPs stand for Scotland and which of them focus on party advantage. I intend to press new clauses 3 and 12 to Divisions.
Mr Frank Doran (Aberdeen North) (Lab)
I shall speak mainly on new clause 3. I am rather bemused by the contribution that we have just heard on new clause 12. The hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil) has presented a dangerous argument, and I am not sure whether I totally understand it.
I have always understood that the current boundary was agreed by international negotiation in 1707. The Scottish border used to go down as far as Newcastle and in some respects almost as far as Bolton, I think, but things have changed. I know that the SNP has a hang-up about the oil industry and the fact that what it sees as its rightful share has been stolen from it. However, there are much more serious issues to be discussed today.
The hon. Gentleman appropriately raised the issue of the coastguard. I know that his coastguard station in Stornoway is one of the stations under threat. It is right for him to fight for it, but it is not right to extend the argument to where nationalists tend to end up—that the only way to solve a problem is to move it to Scotland. There is a serious issue around the reorganisation of the coastguard. He knows as well as I do that in Scotland there will be just two stations—the maritime operating centre, which it is proposed will be in Aberdeen in my constituency, and either Shetland or Stornoway.
My understanding is that Shetland did not figure in the original Government proposal, but a certain amount of influence within Government has seen Shetland on the list. I hope the hon. Gentleman wins his battle to save the Stornoway station. That battle is entirely appropriate. Apart from anything else, the fact that in the Western Isles there is a preponderance of Gaelic speaking and Gaelic place names means that, if there is any risk in that area, it is essential that the geography is properly understood. It is important to make that point.
Mr MacNeil
Given what the hon. Gentleman has said, surely he understands my argument that it would be better for control to lie in the Scottish Parliament and with the Scottish Government. Since 1999, the Scottish Government have been either SNP or Labour-led. My new clause would remove the Maritime and Coastguard Agency from the clutches of the Conservatives, whose tendency seems to be to cut. Would the hon. Gentleman prefer to leave the agency with the Conservatives?
Mr Doran
My argument is that a problem is not solved just by moving it to Scotland. There are fundamental problems with the coastguard—for example, most of the equipment that it uses is 40 years out of date. There is new technology available which is necessary for proper safety on our seas. The money needs to be invested. Given the present financial situation, one of the few ways that money can be invested, sadly, involves the closure of a number of coastguards. I have been told by workers at my own coastguard that with the new technology, Aberdeen could cover the whole of Scotland, but the point that I made earlier about the Western Isles is recognised. The issue will not be resolved simply by asking for it to be devolved to the Scottish Parliament.
I am by no means in favour of everything proposed in the consultation paper published by the Government, but what is needed is a properly co-ordinated national system, which we do not have at present. We have groups or pairs of coastguard stations which can communicate with one another, but in the event of a major disaster or a major incident, it is difficult to see how we could get the full benefit of a national system and the investment that we need to make by separating the Scottish service from the rest of the UK and allowing that to operate on its own.
I was heavily involved in the aftermath of the Piper Alpha disaster, when the coastguard played a pivotal role—I do not know which other stations were involved. The service then was very similar to what it is now, and there was not the capacity to involve the whole of the coastguard operation throughout the UK. Given what we have seen in other countries in recent years, it is possible that that facility may be necessary in the future. As I have said, the way to resolve a major infrastructure problem is not to cut it off and devolve it to Scotland, which is a blinded and fundamentalist view of how we should function.
We need a co-ordinated system throughout the UK. One of the key weaknesses of breaking up the system is what the Scottish Government would or could do with it. Like many people, I am suspicious about the fact that the SNP Government in Edinburgh have made no attempt to give us a proper Budget for the next three years, as we have seen the current Government and the previous Labour Government produce for the UK. Of course, there is an election on the way, so that will be the main consideration.
If the coastguard system is to be upgraded to modern standards, where will the necessary money come from? If the hon. Gentleman was successful with his new clause, there would clearly have to be some transfer of money from the UK to pay for the existing system, but not for upgrading it. The system that I hope will be based in my constituency at Aberdeen, once the consultation exercise is over and the investment has been made, will serve not just Scottish waters, but almost half the UK—it will be capable of serving the whole UK. Would that be on offer in a system run under the narrow nationalist view that the hon. Gentleman is taking? I do not know.
I need to know, and the Committee needs to know, where the money will come from to upgrade and modernise the system. It is not clear that that money exists in the Scottish Budget. If the SNP Government cannot afford to build any new schools and are not able to fund local services properly, how will they modernise the coastguard system, which is essential for the safety of our maritime fleet, our sailors and our fishing industry? The hon. Gentleman is well aware of the dangers inherent in that industry. There are more industrial accidents and deaths in the fishing industry than in virtually all the rest of industry in Britain put together. The most dangerous industry in Britain depends on the coastguard, and many operators in the fishing industry are based in his constituency.
If the new clause is part of a campaign to save the hon. Gentleman’s own coastguard station, fine. I can accept it on those terms, but if it is a serious attempt to change the system, it must be rejected.
David Mundell
As the hon. Gentleman is aware, the issue of Antarctica was fully considered by the Scottish Parliament’s Bill Committee and the Scottish Affairs Committee. It was not simply plucked out of the air and dealt with in an amendment in this place.
I understand the SNP’s dogmatic opposition to the Scottish Adjacent Waters Boundaries Order 1999 and its view that if Scotland had more ocean under its control, that ocean would benefit from SNP policies, but I am afraid that it is not a view I subscribe to. As the SNP knows, the Scottish Adjacent Waters Boundaries Order has two effects. First, it determines the boundary of waters that are to be treated as internal waters or the territorial sea of the UK adjacent to Scotland. That is relevant to the definition of “Scotland” in section 126(1) of the 1998 Act, which is used for the purpose of exercising devolved functions and the extent of the Scottish Parliament’s legislative competence. Similar provision is made in legislation relating to Northern Ireland and Wales for the purposes of their devolution settlements.
Secondly, the order determines the boundary of those waters to be treated as sea within British fishery limits adjacent to Scotland. That is relevant to the definition of “the Scottish zone”—in section 126(1) of the 1998 Act—in which the Scottish Parliament has legislative competence to regulate sea fisheries in accordance with the EU’s common fisheries policy and where fishermen are subject to Scots law. Scottish Ministers also have various Executive functions that are exercisable in the Scottish zone in relation to matters such as licensing and planning.
Crucially, the order defines boundaries off both the west and east coasts using the median line mythology recommended by the UN convention on the law of the sea. It is always interesting when we find the SNP in disagreement with the UN because it does not suit its purposes. This is the standard international mythology—methodology for defining water boundaries. It is illogical to use it off the west coast but deploy a boundary based on historical practice off the east coast. The Government have no plans to redefine the nautical boundaries between Scotland, England and Northern Ireland. We cannot accept that a boundary order should be issued in 2012 when no reason has been given for the need to do so other than SNP dogma. Although we recognise the strength of feeling on the coastguard, which is an important topic of debate, I urge the hon. Gentleman not to press his new clause.
Mr MacNeil
I will be brief in the hope that we will get to the vote. I am perplexed as to why the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Mr Doran) wants to leave the Tories in charge of Scotland’s coastguard.
Mr MacNeil
The hon. Gentleman says temporarily, but in my lifetime I have seen an awfully lot of time that he might call temporary—the 18 years from 1979 to 1997. We then had Labour saying that it could do this, that and the rest of it and that we should vote Labour to stop the Tories, and that did not work once.
The hon. Member for Aberdeen North said that the new clause would not resolve the issue, but surely it would at the very least lessen the problem by moving responsibility for the coastguard to Scotland. He said that he wants a properly co-ordinated national system. That is what I want, but I fear that we will not get it because of the cuts. I recognise and respect his input and involvement in Piper Alpha. He probably misses the point that the Isle of Man has its own coastguard and seems to co-ordinate well with Liverpool, and presumably with the Republic of Ireland as well. I am disappointed that he descended into making slurs; he could have done better. The new clause is about saving coastguard stations in Scotland and keeping a coastguard in Scotland.
I of course welcome the Minister’s encouragement on ports, but he should be aware that I am trying to keep a level of coastguard service in Scotland. Regardless of the party in power in Scotland, I am quite sure that such savage cuts should not be made to our marine insurance policy, the coastguard stations. In short, the Minister sees London as the only way, and that there can be no other way such as on the Isle of Man.
Mr MacNeil
No, I will make progress.
I see that the Minister was happy that the sea area was taken from Scotland in 1999, and he revealingly made a Freudian slip by saying “mythology”. Why was that change made in 1999? I fear that he has given up his birthright for a mess of pottage.
I shall seek to divide the Committee on new clause 3 and—I hope—on new clause 12.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Mr MacNeil
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
In discussing new clause 10, which stands in my name and the names of my hon. Friends, I wish to present just a few simple questions to the Committee.
What accountability do Crown Estate commissioners have to Scotland? The head office of the commissioners is here in London, the revenues for the Crown Estate are paid here in London, and the commissioners are not obligated to report to the Scots Parliament, which is the most democratic forum representing Scotland—instead, they sparingly report to this Parliament. The Crown Estate commissioners in Scotland operate under Scots law, because areas over which they take so much control, such as the foreshore and sea bed, are governed by Scots law. My argument is that the administration of the Crown Estate in Scotland should be constituted and controlled within Scots law and the Scottish Parliament.
Scotland accounts for 6% of the Crown Estate’s moneys. Two years ago, that was £17 million, and last year it was £13 million. People to whom I have spoken consider the way in which the Crown Estate commissioners operate in Scotland to be parasitic. Other than demanding money, the commissioners are felt not to conduct themselves with much positive impact. In fact, they are found to be quite menacing. Year after year around the nation’s coast, they leech their danegeld from harbours, ports, moorings industries and some of the most fragile parts of the Scottish economy. In Stornoway alone, they take £17,000 from the port authority, whose tie I am wearing tonight. It is a galling circumstance in an island community to lose a greater part of a person’s wage to the commissioners, when they plough no profits into the harbour or investment, unlike the port authority. The port authority is dealing with a landlord—or a landlord agent—with no obligations at all. In addition, last year, for no visible return, £2.3 million vanished from the salmon farm industry in Scotland, which must compete with the sharp and capable Norwegians, among others.
The commissioners sold portions of their urban portfolio from Edinburgh’s lucrative Princes street for an £8 million loss to fund shopping centres and warehouses in England. We have been told time and again by successive UK Governments that Scotland is not getting short-changed from the Crown Estate. The commissioners say that they are the best managers of the land, but from what I have seen and from what people have told me, with respect, I must disagree.
The Crown Estate commission is a large management organisation, the sole purpose of which, according to the Crown Estate Act 1961, is to “maintain and enhance” the value of the Crown Estate
“and the return obtained from it, but with due regard to the requirements of good management.”
How can that organisation manage its land effectively for the people of Scotland when it need not report to the Scottish Government or Parliament, or indeed to Scottish local authorities?
Comhairle nan Eilean Siar, the local council in the Outer Hebrides, recently produced a paper on renewable energy that in fact turned out in large part to be about the limitations to development and the problems that the Crown Estate commissioners pose. It states:
“The current Crown Estate lease model is outdated, unfair and discriminatory and this inequality will be compounded as the industry grows…It is critical to the sustainability of the”
Outer Hebrides
“that significant lease income from the growing marine energy industry is retained in the”
Outer Hebrides. The people of the Outer Hebrides
“view their seas as they do their land…as a resource for the local community. Where possible, lease income from marine projects should follow the onshore wind model and remain in the”
Outer Hebrides.
“The islands of Scotland should”
be permitted to
“play a more active part in management of their coastal waters and should take a corresponding benefit from the resources present in these waters.”
The opinion of the Comhairle is that the advent of devolution has had a detrimental impact on the Crown Estate, which has unfortunately moved
“further away from Scottish sea-based communities and lessened”
its
“accountability in Scotland. Crown Estate administration and revenues of Scottish territorial waters should operate as part of the Scottish Government”
in partnership with the appropriate local authority. The Comhairle states:
“Management of the local foreshore should transfer to the”
appropriate
“Local Authority…The Crown Estate lease process is rigid and inflexible, incapable of responding to fast moving developments in the marine energy sector…a more responsive process”
is required to
“accommodate speculative marine deployments outwith the terms of current or proposed lease bidding rounds.”
That is fairly damning.
I understand that the Crown Estate commissioners offer annual reports to the Houses of Parliament under a compulsory legislative duty and do so to the Scots Parliament out of courtesy. Although this Parliament can hold the Crown Estate to account via the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary of State for Scotland—in my opinion, it is not much of an account—the Scots Parliament holds no such right.
Let us look back at the genesis of all this. Robin Callander’s book, “How Scotland is Owned”, outlines the situation along these lines: although Scotland lost its independence in 1707—temporarily, I hope—it continues to be a sovereign nation and a stateless nation. In Scotland, sovereignty rests with the people, not in the persona of the monarch, as is the case in England. That is why we have had the King or Queen of Scots as opposed to the King or Queen of England. The Crown identity in Scotland is as a representative of the sovereignty of the people, hence the traditional phrase “the community of the realm”. That difference was again seen in the 1680s with the 1688 Bill of Rights in England, but the 1689 Claim of Right in Scotland.
As illustrated by the Comhairle’s statement, many Scotsmen and women of either an historical bent or, as in my case, Hebridean conditioning view the seas as a continuation of the land. It is perverse that the most democratic forum representing the sovereign Scottish people—the Scottish Parliament—does not have control over the estates of the people’s representative. In many cases, the Crown’s rights date back to the 13th and 14th centuries, and some of these are distinctively Scottish Crown rights with no legal equivalent in the rest of the UK. The Forestry Commission in Scotland used to act on similar lines to the Crown Estate, but its powers have now been devolved to allow it to function as an instrument of Scottish Government policy, which is what we need the Crown Estate to do at the level of local authorities.
The Crown Estate commission is a property management company that aims not at the public good but unfortunately at the maximum extraction of revenue, as I have seen and previously mentioned. The commission merely administers property rights and interests that comprise the Crown Estate; it does not own the estate. In many cases, it deals with Scottish public land with Crown property rights, which is certainly feudal behaviour. A report by the Crown Estate working group in 2006 stated that there is a stark contrast between
“the ways in which the public interest in the Crown’s ownership of the seabed and public foreshore could be managed to complement Scottish Executive’s policies designed to support rural, coastal and island communities and the public interest more generally.”
That group was composed of The Highland council, Highlands and Islands Enterprise, Orkney Islands council, Shetland Islands council, Comhairle nan Eilean Siar, Argyll and Bute council, Moray council and the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities.
The group concluded—this is a lengthy but worthwhile quote—that the
“administration and revenues of some of the property rights of the Crown in Scotland are already devolved to the Scottish Executive. Others which are still managed by the CEC as part of the Crown Estate in Scotland could follow, for example, through the planned UK Marine Bill. In considering the case for a review, some of the lesser property rights of the Crown in Scotland might be seen as historical anachronisms where reform will bring only modest benefits. However, reforming the management of Scotland’s seabed and public foreshore offers an opportunity to secure benefits on what might be considered an historic scale to Scotland’s coastal and island communities and the nation as a whole. The reform of these property rights of the Crown in Scotland could be as symbolic for Scotland as the Scottish Parliament’s abolition of other property rights of the Crown in Scotland with feudal reform. The potential benefits for Scotland in this case, however, would be much more tangible and substantial.”
We have a serious problem when one of the largest land managers in Scotland is not accountable to the people of Scotland. The Crown Estate commissioners have a major impact on salmon farming, shellfish farming and aquaculture, they derive income from harbours and moorings and they own the entire foreshore around Scotland, yet they have absolutely no legislative duty to speak to the Scottish Parliament. A group with that much power should be accountable to the local communities of Scotland, not the Chancellor of the Exchequer at No. 11 Downing street, which is many miles away.
Our new clause calls on the Crown Estate commissioners to do what they should be doing anyway. We are seeking that the Crown Estate revenues be devolved to Scotland and that the management of the estate come under the power of the Scots Government. We want the Crown estate to become another Scottish success story, like the NHS and the police, and we want to amend the 1961 Act with new clause 10. We hope to remove the restrictions in the Scotland Act 1998 that prevent the Scottish Government—and by extension the nation, the businesses and the communities, including the islands and coastal communities, of Scotland—from running and directly benefiting from the organisation. It is at best odd that this particular function of the Crown was not devolved immediately, given that Scotland has more than 60% of the UK’s coastline. The Government’s plan for a Crown Estate commissioner do not go far enough, because this person will be accountable to the Treasury, not Scotland—more like a colonial administrator perhaps. The Crown Estate commissioners should operate as a body under Scots law, which is best accomplished by devolving their powers to the Scots Parliament and further to local authorities.
Before the Committee commences its usual assault on the ability of Scots to govern more than Westminster wants, I want to draw attention to five Liberal Democrat MPs who supported a private Member’s Bill on the subject in 2006, including the hon. Members for Argyll and Bute (Mr Reid) and for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (John Thurso), the Chief Secretary to the Treasury and the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Mr Kennedy)—I am sure that they will not have changed their views in the meantime and that government has not softened their strongly held beliefs. In support of the private Member’s Bill, the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) said:
“The notion that somebody other than the local community should own the seabed, particularly around our islands, and make money out of it for the Treasury, is quite offensive… The Crown Estate derives significant income from owning something the communities have an absolute need for in terms of piers and harbours, cables, fish farms and now the prospect of offshore windfarms. These are things we can’t do without.”
In November 2010, the Liberal Democrat MSP for Orkney said:
“The Scotland Bill provides an opportunity to help coast communities and our aquaculture and marine renewable energy industries. The UK Government should review the Crown Estate’s role in Scotland and look at using the Bill to devolve powers and controls over the seabed.”
Even a senior Liberal Democrat Whip spoke up when he called on the Secretary of State for Scotland to direct the Crown Estate commissioners to relinquish their control of the Scottish seabed to local communities in Scotland. I hope that those words will be followed up with action tonight.
As the land reformer Andy Wightman has said:
“We thus now have a position where the Scottish Government supports the return of the administration and revenues of the Crown Estate to Scotland. It is joined by many others including the former Labour Minister of State at the Scotland Office, Brian Wilson, Highland Council, Professor James Hunter CBE, Orkney Islands Council, Lesley Riddoch”—
the broadcaster—
“the Scottish Islands Federation, Local People Leading…and Reform Scotland”.
In 2010, The Highland Council said of this clause:
“The Highland Council is firmly of the view that Clause 18 of the Scotland Bill does not go far enough. The Council believes that the only way to ensure improved accountability and that direct benefits are delivered to Scottish communities is through fully devolving the management, administration and revenues of the Crown Estate in Scotland to Scottish Ministers in the first instance. Given the new management, regulation and planning roles of Marine Scotland, the case for full devolution is even stronger.”
Crown Estate lands in Scotland are best managed by the Scots Government. Holyrood’s sole purpose is to look out for the best interests of Scotland. By definition, the UK Parliament must have a different perspective. So far, that has meant cutting coastguards and the armed forces in Scotland and increasing fuel taxes. A Crown Estate that is only accountable to this place is bound to act by that same logic. If the Government truly intend to make the Bill the greatest act of devolution for 300 years, the Scots Government, of whichever party, should entirely run the Crown Estate lands in Scotland. Anything else is utterly unacceptable.
Mr Reid
A lot of what the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil) has said about the Crown Estate is correct. It should be working much more closely with local communities, and coastal communities should be benefitting from the money that the Crown Estate gets from leasing the sea bed and foreshore. My problem with new clause 10 is that it does not tackle section 1(3) of the Crown Estate Act 1961, which reads:
“It shall be the general duty of the Commissioners, while maintaining the Crown Estate as an estate in land (with such proportion of cash or investments as seems to them to be required for the discharge of their functions), to maintain and enhance its value and the return obtained from it, but with due regard to the requirements of good management.”
Mr Reid
I wanted what I still want—the devolution of power to local communities, so that the benefits go to those communities. As I have said, however, new clause 10 does not deliver that, because it does not amend the section from the Crown Estate Act 1961. The Secretary of State has powers of direction, which the new clause would transfer to a Scottish Minister rather than to local communities.
Another problem is the legal advice received by the Government about the operation of section 1(3). When the Secretary of State gave evidence to the Scottish Affairs Committee on 16 February, he was asked about the Crown Estate. He told us about the legal advice he had received. He said that
“the power of direction remains a kind of power of last resort if there are some very serious problems with the Crown Estate. The power of direction is not an invitation to the Secretary of State to micro-manage how the Crown Estate operates.”
By simply transferring that power of last resort to Scottish Ministers, the new clause is not going to achieve anything for local communities in Scotland. We need much more radical reform of how the Crown Estate operates than that.
A lot of evidence was given to the Calman commission to the effect that the Crown Estate was giving too great a priority to maximising income. That is certainly correct, because the Crown Estate Act 1961 puts that duty on the Crown Estate commissioners. We need a review of the 1961 Act and an amendment to section 1(3). The Scottish Affairs Committee has decided to investigate the operation of the Crown Estate in Scotland, and I hope that out of that will come proposals for reform to allow powers genuinely to be transferred to local communities, so that they also benefit from the lease of the sea bed and the foreshore. As the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar has pointed out, marine renewable projects are likely to go ahead in Scottish waters in the next few years, and I want the income from that to go to the local communities.
On the income from the Crown Estate, as the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar has said, only 6% of its UK-wide income is generated in Scotland, which would mean Scotland being given only 6% of the Crown Estate’s income. That does not seem to be a particularly good deal in comparison with Scotland’s current share of UK public spending. The important point is that the income, instead of just disappearing into the coffers of the Scottish Government and instead of going into the coffers of the Treasury, should actually go to local communities.
Mr MacNeil
I am listening carefully to what the hon. Gentleman is saying, and I am sure that many other people will be listening to—and especially looking at—it. For the purpose of clarity, will he outline how he has changed his viewpoint over the past few years on this issue? I hope getting into government is not the reason.
Mr Reid
My viewpoint has not changed. I still want to see the benefits from any developments going to local communities, and I want local communities to be much more involved in the planning stages, so that they can affect any decisions about developments on the sea bed close to their island or coastal community. The point that I am making is that the new clause does not remove the duty on the Crown Estate commissioners to generate revenue for the Treasury. The provision is defective in that regard.
Mr MacNeil
To sum up the hon. Gentleman’s views, then, London is best and control from London is best.
Mr Reid
I have already said umpteen times that I want power devolved to local communities, which the hon. Gentleman’s new clause simply would not achieve. I would have thought that in Argyll and Bute, as much as in the Western Isles, Edinburgh is not seen as part of the local community. The money would simply be transferred from the Treasury to Edinburgh. It is not going to help those local communities, and it will not even help the Scottish budget, which would benefit from only 6% of the income, which is less than Scotland’s current share of UK public expenditure, as I have pointed out.
The ownership of the sea bed and the Crown Estate’s management of it impacts on many remote communities, which often have fragile economies and their own local culture. One fundamental policy of the Government is the principle of localism, and I would like to see the Government implement that principle with regard to the Crown Estate. The Crown Estate must become much more democratically accountable to the communities where it operates, and it must work much more closely with local communities in the planning stages of any developments, which must benefit those local communities —for example, by making improvements to harbours and other local infrastructure or using the profits from the rent of the sea bed to set up funds for the benefit of the local community.
I am sorry that I cannot support the new clause. As I have said, it is defective, because it does not touch section 1(3) of the Crown Estate Act 1961. Given the importance accorded by the Government to the localism agenda, I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us later that the Government have plans for the Crown Estate in that regard.
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.
Mr MacNeil
I had not taken the hon. Gentleman to be a fan of Scottish independence. I will clearly have to review that, given his latest utterances.
Jacob Rees-Mogg
I said earlier that I was against Scottish independence, because if we had it we would not benefit from such helpful and informative interventions as the one that we have just heard from the hon. Gentleman.
David Mundell
I welcome the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg), because I am afraid that our debates on matters Scottish tend to become somewhat homogenous, and it is good to have a different perspective on our deliberations. It was also good to hear again about the threat of the hot breath of rapacious socialism and the harm that it can do in Scotland, because we need to hear that. As we near the forthcoming Scottish Parliament elections, I will urge my colleagues to do their best to repel that threat.
My hon. Friend’s contribution was in marked contrast to that of the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil), who again sped through his speech, which was simply a recounting of the usual dogma. Instead of making a coherent case, he simply said that the Crown Estate should be devolved to Scotland because everything should be devolved to Scotland.
Those of us who have been present in the Chamber throughout the deliberations on this Bill noted yet again the strong divergence between what we have come to know as London SNP and Edinburgh SNP. Although the hon. Gentleman launched an attack on the Crown Estate, none other than Jim Mather, SNP Energy Minister in Scotland, has said that the Scottish Government
“greatly value the strong working relationship with the Crown estate commissioners as it helps us all to ensure that Scotland leads the UK in giving wave and tidal energy developers opportunities to harness the power of our seas.”
The characterisation of the Crown Estate by the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar was therefore misleading. Although I take on board the points that the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr Reid) made about the operation of the Crown Estate, and acknowledge that he is a doughty campaigner for change to the estate, I am afraid that I do not recognise the characterisation of the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar. As he knows, the Secretary of State has sought to engage with the Crown Estate, and the estate has moved forward in a number of positive ways, such as through the production of its annual report, and the meetings it has with Scottish Ministers, MSPs, Scottish local authorities and many interest groups.
However, although there are positive aspects to the development of the Crown Estate, the Government recognise that a number of issues have been raised during the progress of the Scotland Bill and following the Calman deliberations, which is why we look in particular to the Scottish Parliament LCM Committee report, which stated that it had identified a number of radical options for the future development of the Crown Estate but that time was needed to consider them. We agree with the Committee when it says that it noted with some interest that the Scottish Affairs Committee in the House of Commons will review the work of the Crown Estate commissioners in Scotland, and that that was an important development. The Secretary of State for Scotland’s positive attitude to this initiative was also noted. That sums up the Government’s position. We greatly welcome the inquiry that the Scottish Affairs Committee has said that it will carry out into the operation of the Crown Estate in Scotland. That will present an opportunity for the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute and others who have strong views about the Crown Estate to set them out, and the Government will look closely at the outcome of that inquiry.
What we will not do is respond favourably to dogma and to a view that the Crown Estate should simply be devolved for the sake of doing so. Although I have no hope that the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar will do so, I ask him to withdraw the motion for his new clause.
Mr MacNeil
I noted that the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr Reid) said that coastal communities should benefit, but I was told earlier by a Liberal Democrat that they would look to mess about with a pretended technicality. Unfortunately, that is the usual stance of the Liberal Democrats: on the one hand it is not enough, yet on the other hand it is too much, and the upshot is that they want to leave it all with London. They will be judged in Scotland, so at least we will probably all be saved from having to listen to their pious words for years to come. In short, their position is that London is best, helping local communities is not on their agenda, and they will be voting for the status quo. Highlanders will know what to do at the May elections: sweep the Liberal Democrats away at the ballot box. Both the hon. Gentleman and Labour talk about local communities, but do nothing about that.
The hon. Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg), whom I have great respect for and like personally, pronounces Na h-Eileanan an Iar very well. He did so not once, not twice, not three times, not four times, but five times. All I can say is he must have had a very good teacher. I should tell him, however, that Crown rights in Scotland long predate George III.
Jacob Rees-Mogg
For the benefit of the Committee, I should say that the hon. Gentleman himself was my teacher.
Mr MacNeil
I accept any accolades coming my way.
I should also point out to the hon. Gentleman that this new clause contains no republican agenda whatever. In fact, ideas of republicanism were not anywhere near the front, let alone the back, of my mind when I was framing it and making my speech. The new clause addresses the difficulties facing local communities; it is not an attack on property rights in Scotland, and the issue addressed here extends further than the Union of the Crowns, as I have said. Those property rights could be abolished by the Scottish Parliament. It has the powers to do that, although it would be what has been described as the nuclear option. These property rights are controlled by the Scottish Parliament, and they could be gone.
Mr Reid
The hon. Gentleman is right to say that the Scottish Parliament already has those powers. He has not responded to what I said earlier about section 1(3) of the Crown Estate Act 1961, however. The hon. Gentleman says his new clause will do great things for highland communities, but how is transferring the 6% of the profits of the Crown Estate from London to Edinburgh going to benefit local communities?
Mr MacNeil
The hon. Gentleman has been living in Scotland long enough to know that Ministers in Scotland and the Scottish Parliament are far more susceptible to pressure from communities in Scotland than the Chancellor of the Exchequer is at No. 11 Downing street.
The hon. Member for North East Somerset will not be surprised to learn that I am no great fan of the 1707 Union, but I am quite relaxed about the 1603 Union and the maintenance of Her Majesty as the Queen. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Steve Rotheram) put it to me that Scotland does indeed have a king and his name is Kenny, but that is a little beside the point. I am happy to maintain the Crown, as Canada, Australia and New Zealand do. My point is about the movement of powers from Westminster to the most democratic forum representing Scotland, which is the Scottish Parliament—that is the right way to proceed.
Jim McGovern (Dundee West) (Lab)
The hon. Gentleman says that he has no wish for his contribution to be viewed as republicanism. What are his views on republicanism?
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
It does not work well in Ireland.
Mr MacNeil
I should have known that someone from the economic powerhouse that is Northern Ireland was sitting behind me—I say that with irony.
Unfortunately, the Minister indulges in the usual slurs and dogma, and he is wrong in some of his assertions. He said nothing about helping communities; he tried to pin all this on some sort of political agenda in the Scottish National party. The new clause is not about that; it is about the powers people need to affect the day-to-day occurrences in their communities and around their islands. Tonight, people will see past the words of certain politicians.
Mr MacNeil
No. I do not know when we last had a vote on this, but tonight’s vote will enable people to make many judgments for years to come. We will judge this for years to come.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Mr MacNeil
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
This is my third speech of the evening and I plan not to take too much time about it. The hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Tom Greatrex) asked whether we could have the past five hours back. For most of that I blame the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr Donohoe), who took up more than half that time.
My ongoing dispute with the assignation of time in the UK is firmly on record, with three speeches in Hansard over the past few years. It is my intention with the new clause to put an end to my shouting at the sun that happens periodically in this place. The new clause has more to do with how we deal with the amount of sunlight that we have in Scotland and how that relates to time. It deals with any changes to the clocks in the UK.
As anyone north of Manchester knows, the northern part of the island known as Great Britain and the islands to the west and the north of Great Britain are subject to very odd sunlight patterns at times, owing to our longitude and latitude and the alignment of our islands. We have very different periods of daylight in the UK, both summer and winter. Our winter days are short, with sunrise not happening till 9 am, so we must be able to adjust our clocks for the best use of time. Over the past few centuries, politicians have been bringing forward proposals to address the issue, with the most recent proposal occurring in this Parliament as a private Member’s Bill, when the hon. Member for Castle Point (Rebecca Harris) demonstrated that there is still a drive to change the clocks unilaterally.
At present, 65% of Scots are against changing the clocks, according to a YouGov survey in February 2010. However, if fewer than 300 MPs at Westminster voted to change the clocks in the UK, those MPs would change the lives of millions. The Government can make these changes and the Scots Parliament has no redress. It has been and will continue to be argued that it will be impossible for someone in Scotland to call someone in England because of the time difference, which is bunkum, or that it will not be possible to take a train, because it is beyond the capability of the human mind for someone to adjust their watch by an hour—again, bunkum. I have faith that everyone can adapt to the slightest change.
Mark Lazarowicz
I am not sure why the hon. Gentleman has changed his position from the one that he took in the debate on 26 January 2007 on the Energy Saving (Daylight) Bill, when he said:
“Unfortunately, we cannot go down the two time zones route. . . We cannot have two different time zones in the UK.”
When pressed by some amazed MPs, the hon. Gentleman repeated that
“we cannot operate two time zones”.—[Official Report, 26 January 2007; Vol. 455, c. 1733.]
He said a third time in that debate that he could not support two time zones in the UK, but his new clause would allow precisely that. I wonder why he has changed his position.
Mr MacNeil
My position has not changed. The point of the new clause is to make sure that nothing is foisted on Scotland. It will also put the brakes on any attempt to introduce two time zones.
Sheila Gilmore
No one is more against the proposal to change the time zones than I am, because I lived through the previous experiment and it was awful. However, the hon. Gentleman said that he did not want two time zones, but if his new clause was accepted and the UK Parliament voted to change the hours, the effect would be just that—two time zones.
Mr MacNeil
My new clause would make it unlikely—or even impossible—that a time change could be foisted on the people of Scotland, because of people’s fear of having a change in time zones.
More astute Members will know that my new clause does not call for a separate Scottish time zone. What I am saying is that if the UK Government make a decision regarding time systems, the Scots Parliament should have the right to make the best choice for Scotland. That is not a revolutionary or novel suggestion: the Northern Ireland Assembly at Stormont has that power, as does the Parliament of the Isle of Man. I note that they have not yet changed their time systems, even though they have the right to do so to address the needs of the people of Northern Ireland or the Isle of Man. The Scottish Government should have the same powers.
Sir Alan Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (LD)
My constituency would be significantly affected if there was a different time zone just down the road from Berwick-upon-Tweed. Does the hon. Gentleman not recognise that in many ways he would make it easier for the UK Government, looking at the matter from an English point of view, to create a time system that was unwelcome in Scotland, because English MPs could say, “Well, Scotland can do what it likes. We’re doing what’s best for England”? With the large of number of English MPs, he might finish up with precisely the results that he most fears.
Mr MacNeil
I take the right hon. Gentleman’s point, but the realpolitik of the situation would make that highly unlikely. It is far more likely that something that the Scottish people did not want would be foisted on them.
Mr Frank Roy
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that if his new clause won the day, there would be a far greater possibility of two time zones?
Mr MacNeil
I would ask the hon. Gentleman whether he prefers the possibility of a time zone that the Scots do not want being foisted on them to having two different time zones in the UK. I would prefer the Scots to be able to control their own time zone to the possibility of something being foisted on them, so that they had the same power as the Northern Ireland Assembly in Stormont and the people of the Isle of Man.
Mark Lazarowicz
I genuinely do not understand how the hon. Gentleman has changed his position from the one that he took in 2007. His new clause would not give Scotland a veto power; it would give it the power to decide on time zones and the subject matter of the Summer Time Act 1972. He is bringing the possibility of having two different time zones closer, as the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith) pointed out. The hon. Gentleman’s new clause would not give Scotland a veto power, and if that is what he wants, why has he not tabled a new clause that would?
Mr MacNeil
The question of a veto goes both ways. I would not seek to veto what the good people of England might want to do, but they would be far less likely to do it, given the realpolitik of the situation, if the people entering the argument on both sides had that power. I am seeking to give the Scots Parliament the same authority as Stormont—an Assembly that seems to have a number of dispensations, including on corporation tax and, in this case, time—and the Isle of Man.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
Does the hon. Gentleman recognise, first, that this was not a power that was specifically sought by the Assembly at Stormont? Secondly, the freedom that he seeks through the new clause implies the ability to exercise it. However, I cannot think of anyone in Northern Ireland who would wish to exercise it, for all the reasons that have been given so far, the main one being the disruption to movement between the two parts of the United Kingdom.
Mr MacNeil
It may or may not be a power that people in Northern Ireland wish to exercise, but it is a power that they have. It would probably not be a power that anyone would choose to exercise in Scotland either, but it would certainly make the Scottish hand an awful lot stronger in any negotiations with Westminster, as the complexion of the Government changed over time. What I would ask the hon. Gentleman is whether he would wish to surrender that power to Westminster or whether he would keep it.
Sammy Wilson
I do not think that anyone in Northern Ireland would give two hoots whether the power was surrendered or not, because if we are never going to exercise it, why would we worry about losing or gaining it?
Mr MacNeil
I say to the hon. Gentleman, tongue in cheek, that it is “Maybe surrender” from the DUP.
The point is not about using that power, but about the authority that comes from having it. It is about having that club in the golf bag or in the locker. That speaks to a wider problem with devolution: the UK Parliament can potentially take damaging action against a nation of the Union, but that nation’s Parliament or Assembly has, in the main, no redress and must accept the action. This might sound a bit drastic, but the way the Scotland Act is designed ensures that the UK Government, for better or worse, have unilateral power to make substantial decisions for the entire UK, regardless of what another part of the UK thinks.
Of course, Members should be reminded that “UK Government” does not mean this Parliament, as we saw with the Scottish Adjacent Waters Boundaries Order 1999, which affected 6,000 square miles of Scottish waters, as was mentioned earlier. I understand that the current Government are not committed to changing the clocks, but I would sleep much better at night if we could ensure that a clock change would have to be agreed by the Scots Parliament and that we had that power in Scotland before it took effect. It speaks volumes that the opposition to independence, and even to full fiscal autonomy or control over time, is full of the politics of fear.
Mr MacNeil
No, you’re fine.
If the Government and the Unionist parties truly believe that this is an economic arrangement that is in the best interests of the people who live in the islands, they have nothing to fear by giving Scotland control over clocks, coastguards, elections and fiscal autonomy—the whole gamut. There is usually nothing but dogma blocking good sense.
Iain Stewart
It is with a heavy heart that I rise to oppose the new clause tabled by the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil)—I hope my pronunciation is acceptable. As he mentioned, we had an interesting debate on the private Member’s Bill on daylight savings before Christmas. He and I, along with an eclectic mix of Members, went into the No Lobby to oppose it. I agree with him about the effects that central European time or double summer time, whatever we call it, would have on Scotland, on other parts of the UK and on various categories of workers in different industries. I am at one with him on that and have great sympathy with his motives, but I cannot agree with the methodology he uses to arrive at his conclusions. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith), who noted that the new clause, if successful, would make it easier for the House to approve a move to central European time or double summer time and that we would end up with two time zones in the UK.
Before moving on to some of the practical difficulties that such a move would entail, I caution the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar against opening up head L5 of schedule 5 to the Scotland Act 1998, because along with
“Timescales, time zones and the subject-matter of the Summer Time Act 1972”,
a host of other matters are reserved, including
“The calendar; units of time; the date of Easter”.
We are already in enough trouble with Cardinal Keith O’Brien about other matters before we start tinkering with the date of Easter, so I urge some caution in going down that route.
As Members have explained, it would be hugely impractical to have different time zones within the UK. Other countries, of course, do have different time zones: Australia has four, Canada has six and Russia has eight. However, Australia is 2.9 million square miles in size, Canada 3.8 million square miles and Russia 6.6 million square miles. The UK is 94,000 square miles in size. To have different time zones in a relatively small geographic area is ludicrous. I can think of all sorts of practical difficulties that that would entail, particularly for people living in areas on either side of the border. People in Carlisle and Dumfries, for example, would have all sorts of problems adjusting their clocks as they went back and forward over the border. Would “News at Ten” be subject to the Trades Description Act if it did not broadcast as “News at Ten (but Nine o’clock in Scotland)”?
Mr Russell Brown
I will be brief. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South West (Mr Davidson) mentioned something that is not a pastime of every Scot, despite what some people might think. It relates to drinking hours and what would happen if we operated in two different time zones.
I think back to many years ago when the pubs in Scotland used to close at 10 pm, whereas in Carlisle and in Cumbria, on the border, they closed at 11. We saw people walking down the road at 10 o’clock closing in Scotland and heading for the first hotel to partake of their pastime in Cumbria, so the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil) needs to be very careful.
Mr MacNeil
My new clause does not call for two time zones. Having lived in Gretna, I should like to know how long it would take me to walk from there to Carlisle for a pint. I suggest that it would be more than an hour, and that the bars would be closed by the time I got there.
Mr Brown
I must tell the hon. Gentleman that we have moved on: we now have trains, buses and taxis, so people would not necessarily walk.
I want to get back to the debate on the hon. Gentleman’s new clause, because I want the House to have time to debate new clause 19 as well. The hon. Member for Milton Keynes South (Iain Stewart) said that the hon. Gentleman’s proposal was ludicrous; I would go further and say that it is sheer lunacy. In January 2007, the Energy Saving (Daylight) Bill was introduced by the hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr Yeo). Many Members might have considered supporting it, but for the fact that it contained a nasty clause that gave the devolved Administrations the opportunity to opt out. I ask the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar and others who support his proposal to consider how the drivers in a small haulage business based in two locations—let us say Carlisle and Dumfries—would manage the tachograph when moving from one side of the border to the other.
The new clause makes no sense whatever. I hope that, rather than dividing the Committee on the proposal, the hon. Gentleman will see sense. His proposal would make it more likely that we would end up with two different time zones. I urge him to withdraw the new clause.
Thomas Docherty
I want to make two observations based on an example taken from either side of the Committee. Under this proposal, the Minister from the Scotland Office could be taken in his Government car from his very nice house in Moffat down to Carlisle and then go back in time an hour to catch a train that had left Carlisle an hour earlier.
Mr MacNeil
I think that the hon. Gentleman, along with other Members, is confusing the instruments we use to measure time—clocks—with time itself.
Thomas Docherty
I think that the hon. Gentleman’s time is up.
Alternatively, my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries and Galloway (Mr Brown) could leave his house, travel the 12 miles to Carlisle train station, and find that he is catching a train an hour earlier than he left his house. That is ludicrous.
David Mundell
I am starting to be very concerned about the extent to which I agree with the hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Mr Davidson). Indeed, the hon. Member for the Western Isles has done something remarkable this evening—he has led me to agree 100% with the hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway (Mr Brown), which is a very rare occurrence. I could not have put it better—the new clause is sheer lunacy, and Members on both sides of the Chamber have set out why.
It is important to reflect on the findings of the Calman commission, which highlighted the importance of cross-border institutions and functions of the UK Government that bind the people of Scotland and the rest of the UK in a “social union”. It stated its view that a consistent British isles time zone was an important aspect of that. Of course, the SNP wants to destroy that social union. As has been said in the debate, having two separate time zones in the UK is one way in which it would seek to do so.
I think it was the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Mark Lazarowicz) who pointed out the contradiction in the position of the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil), who has spoken passionately against any proposal to change the time, but who has now tabled a new clause that makes the change that he says he opposes much more likely.
From the outset, this Government have said that they would not consider adopting single/double summertime, central European time or any variation on them without the agreement of all nations of the UK. The Prime Minister has been unequivocal in stating that having different times operating concurrently in the UK is not an option. On Second Reading of the Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Rebecca Harris), the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr Davey), made clear the Government’s opposition to the Bill. Additionally, as the hon. Member for the Western Isles will be aware, at the time of the publication of the UK Government’s tourism strategy on 4 March, the Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport, my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (John Penrose), reiterated the Government’s commitment that no change to current policy would happen without the approval of the whole UK.
Were the new clause to be accepted, Scotland would have the power to determine its own time zone. As the hon. Member for Glasgow South West pointed out, that would give the Scottish Parliament the capacity to make a change just for the sake of being different. The contribution to the debate that I thought was most illustrative was the one from Northern Ireland, from the hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson). He indicated that although the power in question was available there, nobody would wish to use it. That brings us back to the dogma of the SNP in making proposals, as I have said before, either because it sees them as a way of breaking up the UK or simply for the sake of having power.
If Scotland were to have a different time zone from the rest of the home nations, daily transactions between Scotland and the rest of the British Isles would take on an unwanted added complexity. Importantly, it could put Scotland at an economic disadvantage. It could certainly disadvantage my constituents, and those of the hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway and the Secretary of State for Scotland, which should not be countenanced.
The new clause would be detrimental to the Union between the people of Scotland and those of the rest of the UK, which is clearly why it was tabled. It runs contrary to the spirit and effect of the Bill and the views of the Calman commission, which put at the heart of its work the retention of the United Kingdom. Anyone who has a commitment to retaining the UK should oppose the new clause.
Mr MacNeil
The hon. Member for Milton Keynes South (Iain Stewart) pronounced my constituency name well, putting the Minister to shame—I note again that he referred to my constituency by its old name.
The hon. Member for Milton Keynes South and I agree on many things, and have together worked to fight off the forces of darkness who are trying to force central European time on us—they call it Churchill time, but we call it Chamberlain time, because it is definitely appeasement. He can rest assured that the date of Easter will remain the first Sunday after the first full moon after the equinox, which perhaps brings me neatly to the hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Mr Davidson). He is not keen on Bannockburn time, but I wondered whether he was working on moon time given some of his interventions and suggestions.
I am calling not for the time zone to change, but for the power to ameliorate if London makes a change. We in Scotland want to keep the time as it is. The danger is that London will foist something on Scotland that we do not want. The new clause is about giving the power to Scotland.
Mr MacNeil
That is very useful, but we do not know how long the Government will stand. How long will the Liberals and Tories remain in this embrace? We know that one Government do not bind another, and certainly that one Parliament does not bind another. This Government will probably not even bind themselves for much longer, but who knows? We want to give Scotland the power that Northern Ireland and the Isle of Man have.
The hon. Member for East Lothian (Fiona O'Donnell) has moved from what might once have been called rapacious socialism to a great concern for Microsoft—with not so much concern for the darkness of her constituents. Could Microsoft cope with the new clause? Yes, I think it could.
The hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway (Mr Brown) seemed to be happy for the time difference to be foisted upon us and for us not to have a say. Many countries throughout the European continent—there are about 50—including small countries, have such a power. They choose to work together, but they feel that it is better to have the club in their bag. They find stability in that. There is instability here because Members from the south of England are ganging up and, because of amnesia of the last 30 or 40 years, changing the time zone on us.
I have a note here on the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty)—it says simply that I am disappointed in him. It is more likely that we would have different time zones in Europe if different countries did not have such a power. People tend to work together, but we should ensure that everybody has the same thing to take to the table. If we do not give Scotland this power, and if the time zone changes and we want to keep it as it is, the guilty will be all around us.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.