Scottish Representation in the Union
Gordon Brown Excerpts(9 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Gordon Brown (Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath) (Lab)
I asked for this debate on the constitution this evening because in the run-up to the election, when other issues—the national health service, the economy, national security and defence—will clearly be pre-eminent considerations, it is doubtful whether there is any other way over the next two months that this House can give detailed consideration to a set of constitutional challenges that, if not thought through or if mishandled, will in time threaten the very existence of the United Kingdom.
I am not here as an advocate of the status quo. I start by recognising that this House of Commons is England’s Parliament as well as the United Kingdom’s and that we should agree a Commons Committee reform that allows for detailed debate on English-only measures by only English Members. With reform of the Lords, reform of regional and local government, reform of the voting system and reform of the Commons itself also part of the queue of complex, interrelated and interconnected constitutional issues that are in need of democratic resolution, I believe that some kind of convention of the people or, if that is rejected, a Speaker’s Conference, which you might chair, Mr Speaker, is now the best way of ascertaining whether the United Kingdom can finally move from what is a 19th-century constitution to a modern, 21st-century one.
If the Union is to survive, it will have to be built on the interdependence of our four nations, and it will have to guarantee equality of status within the United Kingdom. My argument tonight is that with the announcement of English votes for English laws, which means nothing other than restricting the right of Scottish Members to vote in this House, the Government are deliberately driving a wedge between Scotland and England and, in so doing, they have asked the wrong question, and they are now getting the wrong answer.
However, at the very time that we should be attempting to unify and reconcile the four nations of the United Kingdom, building on the fact that the Scottish National party wants to be part of the UK currency, and on the fact that the nationalists’ economic case for independence has fallen as a result of the halving of oil prices, the Government have summarily rejected one of the central recommendations of the Smith commission, which they set up, which was:
“MPs representing constituencies across the whole of the UK will continue to decide the UK’s Budget, including Income Tax.”
The Conservative party has got this wrong, because it presumes, as Members now on the Government Benches have always said, that the fundamental anomaly in the British constitution is that Scottish MPs can vote on English-only laws, whereas English MPs cannot vote on Scottish-only laws. In retaliation for what they see as Scots pursuing a Scottish interest, they wish to pursue and enshrine an English interest above a common UK interest that could bind us together.
But what is called the West Lothian question is, in truth, only a symptom of the problems we have to deal with. The central anomaly, and the real asymmetry from which all else follows, is the basic, and indeed unchangeable, imbalance in the size of the four nations. England represents 84% of the UK population, Scotland represents 8%, Wales represents 5% and Northern Ireland represents 3%. England sends 533 Members to this House, compared with 59 from Scotland, 40 from Wales and 18 from Northern Ireland—117 in total against 533. It is obvious that when we start from such a profound imbalance and asymmetry—such a huge inequality in population and voting shares—fairness of outcome cannot easily be secured by a blanket uniformity that treats the minorities exactly the same as the majority. It follows that the rules needed to respect and reassure the minorities, who might always be outvoted, have to be different from those needed to uphold the majority.
The challenge is not unique to Britain. The United States, Australia, Spain, Switzerland, South Africa, Mexico, Brazil, Nigeria and many other countries have had to find ways of managing the gross inequalities in the size of their constituent parts without undermining their unity. As the price of keeping the United States together, California accepts that it has just two Members of the US Senate to represent its 38 million citizens, while Wyoming has the same number to represent just 500,000 citizens—one Senator for 250,000 people in one part of the country, and one Senator for 19 million in another.
Similarly, the price New South Wales pays for Australian unity is having one Senator for every 580,000 people, in contrast to Tasmania’s one Senator for every 40,000. Fair treatment for minorities and national unity are achieved in the Spanish Senate, the Swiss Council of States, the South African National Council of Provinces and the Brazilian, Nigerian and Mexican Senates not by the crude and blanket uniformity that is characterised by English votes for English laws, but by special arrangements that recognise that minority rights have to be respected and upheld so that the provinces, states or nations can be held together in one Union.
With the Leader of the House’s announcement that he would exclude Scottish representatives from voting on what he now calls consent motions, including annual consent motions on tax issues arising from the Budget, he is breaking with the old-established practice of other countries, breaking with our own constitutional history, and breaking with all sensible advice in creating what the Government now boast is the English veto, making ours the first and only Parliament in the world where two classes of representatives will exist and where some representatives are clearly more equal than others.
By the Government’s own insistence on devolving all income tax to the Scottish Parliament and then using that as a pretext for banning Scottish MPs from voting on income tax here, there will be a constant national refrain that there are now first-class and second-class MPs: the English who rule and the Scots there on sufferance. I have to ask—
Mr Brown
I will give way after this. I have to ask Government Members this: can you imagine Scotland, or possibly Wales and Northern Ireland, being enthusiastic about sending MPs to this place indefinitely if they have to withdraw when the real vote on the Budget—the consent vote, or the veto motion—is being taken on this central economic legislation once a year: income tax rates in the Budget voted on by a consent motion that excludes Scottish and, in time, Welsh and Northern Ireland MPs who also want devolution of taxation? Can we sustain truly positive support for one United Kingdom Parliament for long when it becomes clear that the Government of the day owe their existence to an English majority and ride roughshod over other representation? If anybody is in any doubt about the threat to the unity of the UK posed by English votes for English laws, they should take note of how Scottish National party Members, who want to break the Union, have become its biggest supporters.
It was said of the Hapsburg monarchs that they would never learn from their mistakes. Surely the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats should heed the lessons of history. For decades William Gladstone, when Prime Minister, tried to find a way of balancing what he called the rights of “outsiders”—in this case, the Irish after home rule—and “insiders” without breaking the Union, but then concluded in his final term that it
“passed the wit of man to frame any distinct, thorough-going, universal severance between the one class of subjects and the other”.
He was not alone, for in 1965, when Harold Wilson’s proposal for steel nationalisation was defeated by Ulster Unionist votes, he asked his Attorney-General to devise a formula for two tiers of MPs, and he could not do so. At that time, the Conservative party insisted: “Every Member of this House is equal with every other Member of this House and all of us will speak on all subjects.”
Mr Brown
I will finish the history and then I will let the hon. Gentleman intervene.
When, in 1972, the Kilbrandon royal commission again considered English votes for English laws, it concluded:
“in our view, therefore, all Members of Parliament, whether or not they come from regions with their own legislative assemblies, must have the same rights of participation in the business of the House of Commons”.
Then again, in 1977, when James Callaghan had to revisit the issue during the first Scotland Bill, the advice he received agreed with Gladstone that
“no form of ‘in and out’ voting has been identified that would be sufficiently consistent with the basic features of our constitution to be workable”.
It seems that a problem that could not be solved in two centuries the Prime Minister now claims he has mastered and resolved in just a few weeks. I have to say this: if after 50 years in politics and four periods as Prime Minister, Gladstone could not find an answer to this question, and if every subsequent Prime Minister since has found it unworkable and unanswerable within the Union, might it not be somewhat immodest for the Prime Minister, who set up his review in October and published the results in December, to say that he has found the answer in just eight weeks? Might not he have been modest enough at least to listen to and get some perspective from his old constitutional history tutor at university, Professor Bogdanor, who has argued—
Mr Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr Brown
Professor Bogdanor has argued that while
“English votes for English laws seems at first sight a logical response to the English Question…it is in fact incoherent…a bifurcated government is a logical absurdity. A government must be collectively responsible to parliament for all the policies that come before it, not just a selection of them.”
The reality is that EVEL, English votes for English laws, and this hunt for perfect symmetry in an asymmetrical world risk jeopardising the Union in the long term. Let me quote Mr Michael Portillo—this is probably what the hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) wants to say. Mr Portillo said only a few days ago:
“I think it is creating daily a greater division between the two nations, which will lead to a sort of logic that the two nations should separate...The English mentality I think is now increasingly that the two nations are going in different directions: that if you’re a Scottish Member of Parliament you are a second-class citizen to an English Member of Parliament and you will be allowed to vote on certain matters.”
If the Union fell now, it would not be because of what happened during the referendum, the result of which was conclusively against leaving the United Kingdom, but because of what happened since—[Interruption.] The Union will not fall because most Scots demanded independence from the United Kingdom—they did not—but because leaders failed to convince them that they were fully committed to its unity—[Interruption.] It will not fall because a majority of people today want to leave the United Kingdom but because people feel that there is a Scottish interest and an English interest and that the Government have not defended the UK interest.
Sensible Conservatives recognise that. Commenting the morning after the referendum speech by the Prime Minister, Lord Strathclyde, author of the Conservatives’ own proposals on devolution, which rejected this approach, said:
“If we are serious Unionist politicians we need to use the language of healing and strengthening...We started off perhaps with…a step in the wrong direction”.
The Prime Minister’s Cabinet colleague, the Liberal party Member who is Chief Secretary to the Treasury, was blunter. He said of the Prime Minister’s speech that morning:
“He went from being a Prime Minister who had absolutely done the right thing in the national interest to making a very partisan judgement on behalf of the Conservative party”.
The implication was that the Prime Minister was putting the integrity of the United Kingdom second not to the express demands of the people of England but to the very vocal demands of the UK Independence party.
Mr Speaker
Let me make two points. It is very simple. First, the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown) is perfectly in order. Secondly, the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil) is bearing more than a striking resemblance to an over-ebullient puppy dog. That is not something we want to see in this Chamber. He should take an example in statemanship from the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) and calm himself.
Mr MacNeil
Is the right hon. Gentleman giving way? He has to sit down to give way.
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. He mentioned the Kilbrandon commission, and Labour said to that commission that it preferred a Tory Government to independence. Is that still his view?
Mr Brown
The hon. Gentleman has got it wrong again. His colleague the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) was wrong to shout earlier that the majority of Scottish people wanted independence. The majority of Scottish people were clear that they did not want independence, and the sooner the SNP realises that it does not have a majority for that position the better.
Sir William Cash
The right hon. Gentleman is overlooking several points. The first is the question of unfairness to the English voters. That is the key issue. Secondly, he asserts that there will be two classes of Members under our proposals. It is not about two classes of Members but two different functions. It was his Government and his party leader in 1996-97 who created the devolution arrangements without making proper recompense for the unfairness to the British voter. That is where the problem lies.
Mr Brown
I have already proposed an English committee system that the hon. Gentleman should accept. He is forgetting the lessons of every other country in the world that is trying to hold together minorities in different parts of the country. They have to find a way of respecting the rights of minorities while upholding the majority. Nothing in yesterday’s EVEL proposals answered those problems. It is difficult to define what an English-only Bill is. If we take one possible definition of “separate and distinct effect”, constitutional lawyers say that that would encompass just half a dozen Bills in 10 years. That makes us ask why it has been proposed.
English MPs vote normally as a bloc in the same way as UK MPs, which suggests that this move has been proposed for other reasons. Whatever the practical considerations, the real damage of English votes for English laws is not its mechanical application. The real damage, before a veto is imposed, is the creation of a perception that the United Kingdom is now only about separate interests and not a common interest.
Mr Brown
I am going to finish.
There is a myth that the Union can survive this new polarisation of Scotland and England. The myth is that it is held together by bonds that are of such long standing that they can overcome what may be seen as a local difficulty. I say to the House, however, that what may have been true in the aftermath of the second world war and its shared sacrifice has given way to a new world where none of our ancient institutions is strong enough or popular enough on its own to hold us together.
The Union cannot survive on mutual respect alone—it is in short supply at the moment—or just on the basis of mutual toleration, a minimalist policy of holding each other at a distance for fear that we will fight. The Union will hold together only if there are things that the people of our four nations believe they have in common; if we emphasise that there are common needs, mutual interests and similar values that make us want to co-operate; and, in short, if there is a belief that we do best by sharing. In the modern world, where countries survive or falter on the basis of a daily referendum of opinion, such sharing has to preserve our historical willingness to share risks and transfer resources between each other to tackle issues such as poverty, unemployment and inequality.
The 18th-century Prime Minister Lord North is today remembered for only one thing, which is that he lost America. Will this current Prime Minister—this is the statesman’s question—now act to ensure that he will not be remembered in history as the Lord North of the 21st century? On 19 September 2014, for purely short-term gain—putting party before country, without considering the long-term interests of our united country, and ignoring the need to reconcile people and bring them together—he may have lit a fuse that eventually blows the Union apart.
I have made proposals for reform. I do not want us to pre-empt a constitutional review. I know that the Secretary of State for Scotland supports the position I am representing. The issue tonight is whether he can persuade his colleagues in the coalition Government and Government Members before it is too late.
UK Government: Scotland
Gordon Brown Excerpts(9 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Gordon Brown (Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath) (Lab)
I have a petition to present to the House—signed by 120,000 people in Scotland, yes voters and no voters in the referendum alike—which shows that people are determined that the vow made by all the three main party leaders on the Tuesday before the referendum is kept. It was organised by 38 Degrees, whom I congratulate on its initiative. Its preamble regrets, and indeed opposes, the Prime Minister’s attempt on the day after the referendum to amend the vow on Scotland’s future, and asks him to keep to his original vow free of any new conditions.
Today’s debate becomes even more relevant after what the Leader of the House—I am pleased that he is with us in the Chamber—said on Tuesday when he made it clear that he intends to move ahead with what he called English votes for English laws. In my brief speech, I want to show that that would in effect reduce the rights of Scottish representatives at Westminster. I am grateful to the Secretary of State, who is also with us, for replying to the debate.
Today, I want to look at where we can agree, rather than where we disagree, to see whether it is possible to move beyond an agreement simply on the timetable to one on the powers of the Scottish Parliament, and whether there is a will on all sides of the House to resolve issues of English as well as Scottish, Welsh and Northern Ireland representation and rights. In an attempt to be constructive, I will put forward five suggestions that might help to avoid what must never be allowed to become a constitutional impasse in this House and this country.
First, I believe that we can all agree on 16 new powers for the Scottish Parliament, which range from devolution of attendance allowance and housing benefit, which have been agreed by all parties, to the conduct of elections. There are areas where we would have to ask the Conservatives to accept Labour and Liberal Democrat proposals, covering the entrenchment of the Scottish Parliament in the constitution and new powers over the Work programme, the Crown Estate, the rail franchise, borrowing for infrastructure, and Executive authority for UK health and safety, equalities and employment law. There are also areas where I would ask Labour and the Liberal Democrats to accept Conservative proposals—those for a fiscal commission and for an annual statement for taxpayers on how and where the Scottish Parliament’s money is spent. Given what each party has said in its submissions and afterwards, I believe that there is scope for agreement on every one of these new powers. I hope that the Secretary of State will say that he also believes that that can happen.
Secondly, on tax, the three remaining powers out of the 16 relate to income tax, fairness in taxation and VAT. There is general agreement that we should devolve, first, a wider power to set an income tax rate in Scotland, and secondly, a power to set top rates of tax too. I suggest, however—I will explain why in a minute—that we should reject the 100% devolution of income tax. We should instead agree to retain income tax as a shared tax across the United Kingdom, with 75% of it devolved to the Scottish Parliament, alongside the devolution of 50% of VAT revenues. That will ensure that the test of accountability is met, with the Scottish Parliament being responsible for raising the majority—54%—of its spending in 2016, the year in which the proposals would be implemented.
Thirdly, and I would like to think that we can all agree on this, the status of Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland in this House should not be downgraded. As was recognised by the Strathclyde commission—I want the Leader of the House to read that report from his party—in contradiction to statements subsequently made by the Prime Minister and the Leader of the House, Scottish MPs, like Welsh and Northern Ireland MPs, should continue to vote on all issues that come to the Floor of the House of Commons. This is what the Conservative party said in evidence before the referendum:
“In our view, it is important that any sense be resisted that MPs for Scottish, Welsh or Northern Irish constituencies somehow perform any lesser a function than MPs representing seats in England. The establishment of stable constitutional arrangements for the future of the UK must address this. It would be unfortunate if the feeling were to gain ground that there were two classes of MP. Even under a scheme of enhanced devolution, such as we have proposed in this report, MPs for Scottish constituencies will continue to have significant responsibility for safeguarding the interests of those whom they represent.”
It was therefore not the intention of the Conservative party before the referendum to withdraw Scottish Members of Parliament from voting on tax laws or other laws within the UK. That, and not the current position that the Prime Minister expresses, should be our guide in resolving these issues.
I have always said that we should be prepared to consider a change in Committee procedures on England-only Bills, under which English MPs would form the Committee that debates them. However, we should insist —I will explain why later—that when any Bill comes to the Floor of the House on Report or on Second or Third Reading, the whole House and nothing but the whole House is able to vote.
My fourth proposal is that we should agree that the case exists for far-reaching changes in our constitution. That requires a public debate, which could take the form of a convention that engages all the regions and nations, and civic society. The Secretary of State will be able to answer for this, but I believe that the Liberal Democrats agree with the Labour party on that course.
Finally, we should all agree that we must focus not simply on the constitution, but on the issues that were raised in the referendum by the citizens of Scotland, not just in respect of the powers of the Scottish and UK Parliaments, but in respect of what we do with those powers. How we can create better jobs and a better national health service, and how we can wage a war against poverty as part of our commitment to social justice—those are the policy issues that were raised in the referendum and we should give our attention to them immediately.
The constitutional crisis that is in the making—for that is what it is—has to be addressed. I am pleased that the Leader of the House is listening. The crisis arises from the statement that was made by the Prime Minister the morning after the referendum, when he promised English votes for English laws. In practice, the proposal turns out not to be any new English rights of representation, but a reduction in Scottish rights of representation in this House of Commons. That issue was clearly material to the referendum. It is the failure to tell people of the proposed change in Scottish representation before the vote that has fuelled the demonstrations, petitions and allegations of bad faith, betrayal and breach of promise that have dominated too much of the Scottish political debate since the referendum.
Conservative Members should understand that the Conservative plans for the constitution do not end there. Under the proposal to devolve all income tax to the Scottish Parliament, Scottish MPs would be removed not just from ordinary law-making on English matters, but from the most decisive votes that a Parliament can have—votes on income tax rates and, thus, on passing the Budget. With Wales on the point of demanding income tax powers and Northern Ireland seeking corporation tax powers, we could find, at a stroke, that Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish MPs are excluded from the right to vote in Westminster on Budget and key tax decisions. In the end, that might extend to London, which is also seeking its own powers of taxation.
The proposal to devolve 100% of income tax and then to exclude Scottish MPs from voting on income tax is, in my view, both anti-Scottish and anti-British. It is anti-Scottish because it would exclude Scots from voting on key matters and make them second-class citizens in the House. It is anti-British because it would abandon income tax as a shared tax and because it threatens to end the whole system of pooling and sharing resources across the United Kingdom that underpins the unity of the United Kingdom. It looks like a Trojan horse for fiscal autonomy, which would split the Union and enable the SNP to get through the back door what it cannot get through the front door in a vote of the Scottish people.
Mr Brown
England makes up 84% of the Union. Scotland makes up 8%, Wales 5% and Northern Ireland 3%. When that is translated into Members of Parliament, the 533 English Members can outvote the 117 parliamentarians from the rest of the UK at any time and routinely if they choose. The English predominance is so great that every generation has had to balance the power of the majority to impose its will with some protection for the interests of the minority nations.
America, Australia, Spain, Switzerland, Mexico, Brazil, Germany and many other countries, through their constitutions, have found ways to manage the gross inequalities in the sizes of their regions, provinces or nations. The provisions that those countries make for minority states or regions show that a blanket uniformity of provision, such as English votes for English laws simply mimicking Scottish votes for Scottish laws, does not ensure fairness of treatment.
The House knows from our debate on Tuesday that in America, the smallest state of just half a million people has the same number of Senators as the largest state of 38 million people. Tasmania, the smallest state in Australia with 700,000 people, has the same Senate representation—12—as New South Wales, which has 7 million people. This is true of the Spanish Senate, the Swiss Council of States, the South African National Council of Provinces, and the Brazilian, Nigerian and Mexican Senates. In Germany, the state of North Rhine-Westphalia—in a constitution written by the UK—has about 30 times the population of the state of Bremen, but only double the number of Bundesrat seats. We are not unique. Countries have to make special arrangements that recognise the position of minority nations or regions, and ensure that uniformity of provision is not the means to ensure equality and fairness of treatment.
Mr Dominic Raab (Esher and Walton) (Con)
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way and recognise his tenacious defence of the Union. May I ask him about money and the issue of equality he has raised? As a result of the Barnett formula, Scotland has double the ambulance staff and nurses per person that England has, and Wales gets a third less spending on social services for the elderly. By ruling out any change or review of Barnett—I appreciate that that is what the vow involves—the right hon. Gentleman is sending a message to the elderly, the patients and the vulnerable in my constituency that somehow they matter less. What would he say to them?
Mr Brown
I should not have given way to the hon. Gentleman as he has not read what the Prime Minister and the leader of the Liberal Democrats said, as well as the leader of the Labour party. It was not me who committed us to the Barnett formula; it was them. The Barnett formula exists to allocate resources according to need across the whole United Kingdom. Let us be clear—this is the issue at stake—that there is no country in the world whose Parliament has a first and second class of representatives. There is no democratic state in the world, federal or otherwise, where one part of the country pays its income tax to the national Government, and another part does not, yet those are the two proposals of the Conservative party. It would be strange if this House, which is known as and calls itself the mother of Parliaments and is a worldwide beacon for fairness and equality before the law, became the first law-making body in the world to decree two classes—a first and second class—of representation.
If this were only about the rights of Members of Parliament, it might remain an insiders’ issue among the political elite. But the designation of elected representatives as first and second-class citizens is not simply about the sensitivities of a few politicians, but about the status of each nation in what has hitherto been one United Kingdom. According a first-class status to England, but a second-class status to Scotland—and possibly then to Wales and Northern Ireland—is bad enough, but the effect of that is that the Government of the day would also be a servant of two masters, and not sure whether their continuation depended from one day to the next on English votes or the votes of the whole United Kingdom. Government Members might find it appealing that no MP from a Scottish seat could, under such a system, ever again be Chancellor or Prime Minister of this country, but if I may say so, that is closing the door 20 years too late.
This change would also contradict the Conservatives’ devolution commission report that I mentioned earlier:
“Scottish MPs are and must remain as qualified as any other to hold high Government office, including the offices of Prime Minister and Chancellor of the Exchequer.”
That is not my view but the view of the Conservative party report from the Strathclyde Commission.
In conclusion, there is a way forward that listens to more sensible voices; a way forward that starts with a balanced programme of devolution that maintains income tax as a shared tax, is built around a sensible accommodation on exclusively English Bills, and is open not only to devolution within England—including to the powerful cities and regions of the country—but also to a wider debate about what kind of constitution our country needs. What Scotland has shown is that it is possible to engage the public in a debate about the distribution of power in our own country. Therefore, as the debate about English cities and regions and the future of the British constitution gathers pace, the constitutional convention that the Leader of the Opposition has proposed makes a great deal of sense.
Under the last Labour Government, we brought citizens together to debate how their rights could be respected. By extending that process to a constitutional convention that embraces every region, nation and civic group, the voice of England would be heard. It would be heard not in angry opposition to the voices of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, but alongside them as part of securing what I want to see with the proposals we are putting forward today: a better future for all nations and regions as part of one United Kingdom.