[Mr. Christopher Chope in the Chair] — Parliamentary Representation (England)

Part of the debate – in Westminster Hall at 10:06 am on 18 June 2008.

Alert me about debates like this

Photo of Eleanor Laing Eleanor Laing Shadow Minister (Justice) 10:06, 18 June 2008

Yes. My hon. Friend is correct, and I was about to make precisely that point. The constitution of the United Kingdom is imperfect, and there is an imbalance on this issue, as there is on many others. We do not pretend that our constitution is perfect; what matters, however, is not that it should be a perfect work of academic excellence—we are not looking for a first in constitutional law from Cambridge—but that it should work for the United Kingdom and make the Union work. My top priority is the Union of all the parts of our United Kingdom, and that is what Conservative Members want to see preserved and improved in anything that is done on this issue.

As my hon. Friend rightly said, however, the situation has got worse over the past 11 years, and that is because of the perceived unfairness. Now, I would argue that the unfairness in the constitution and the Barnett formula is not as bad as some people make it out to be; indeed, with all respect to the hon. Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey, who argued his case very well, it is not as bad as he calculates it to be. However, we do not know how bad it is, because the Government have not properly considered the matter. As my hon. Friend Mr. Turner rightly said, therefore, the perception of unfairness has grown. The perception that some parts of the United Kingdom are not getting as good a deal as others has grown, and resentment has grown, too. I would argue that there is no need for that resentment, but it is essential that it is addressed. As the hon. Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey correctly said, it cannot be fair that people who are elected to represent Scottish constituencies are making rules for the English that they themselves do not have to follow. That is the worst of the perceived unfairnesses, but the Government have refused to address it.

The hon. Gentleman rightly, and most interestingly, analysed the weight of the vote in different parts of the United Kingdom. However, when we elect a Government—to take up the point made by David Howarth—we are not trying exactly to represent different people in different parts of the United Kingdom, or indeed in different constituencies; we are generally electing a Government. That takes me back to the idea of the perfection of the constitution. We would have an unworkable Government if we tried to have perfect representation and to ensure that Parliament exactly reflected the proportional make-up of the people of the United Kingdom in economic, ethnic or any other terms that we might care to mention. That simply would not work.

What matters is that we construct a system that works, that is perceived as fair and that gives people in all parts of the United Kingdom the feeling that they are being fairly governed. Indeed, one of the principle rules of constitutional development is that arrangements should not only be fair, but be seen to be fair. That, of course, is why there is now a problem with the Barnett formula, and I am pleased that the hon. Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey has given us the opportunity to raise the issue.

Again, the Barnett formula is not as unfair as it is sometimes made out to be. After all, Scotland is not all the same; there are enormous disparities between the industrial belt in central Scotland, the borders and the agricultural areas in the north, just as there are enormous differences in the region called the south-east of England. The hon. Gentleman rightly said that his constituency contains areas that are calculated as deprived, but which, because they are in the south-east, do not necessarily get the financial subsidy that he might hope for. The same is true in my constituency, where some areas are very much in need of greater social, economic and other input, but do not get it because the wider area is not perceived to be in need. Likewise, Scotland is not one homogenous area. The Barnett formula must therefore be calculated in a way that takes all parts of Scotland into consideration. It might be said that Glasgow, for example, equates to the centre of Birmingham, Manchester or Newcastle, but that does not mean that the whole of Scotland equates to the whole of England.

My point is that this is not a simple matter and that it cannot be distilled into simplistic terms. Indeed, I heard Lord Barnett eloquently give evidence to the Select Committee on Justice a few weeks ago. He said—I am not quoting him, but trying to reflect his comments exactly, and I am sure that hon. Members will check what he said in due course—that he had intended to put together a fair funding formula that operated on a needs basis for the different parts of the United Kingdom, and particularly Scotland. He said that it had never worked on a needs basis, however, and that he would like to see it do so. There are ways in which the Barnett formula could be improved without rocking the boat of constitutional reform. Its perceived unfairness is greater than its actual unfairness, although that does not mean that the issue does not have to be addressed—of course it does. My hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight was absolutely correct in all that he said in that regard.

I take issue with the main premise of the hon. Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey. We do not need another Parliament—we have too much government already. As the hon. Member for Cambridge rightly said, and as was decisively evidenced in the referendum in the north-east of England a few years ago, the people do not want more government, more Parliaments or more politicians; they want taxpayers' money to be spent on supporting the people, not Parliaments and politicians—we have quite enough politicians at various levels already. I therefore take issue with the hon. Gentleman's assertion that the answer is a federal system. Why would we want a federal system? Would it be so that it would fit in with the idea of a European superstate or so that the United Kingdom could be divided into bite-sized chunks, ready to be gobbled up by a federal Europe?

Annotations

lee christian
Posted on 20 Jun 2008 8:50 am (Report this annotation)

when you say we dont want another Parliament..as a Englishman seething with resentment, unhappy with the lack of understanding of fundermental issues, re the English Nation,a nation with no direct voice, or representation.Let me tell you.
There is no way England , will except this discrimination & inequality ,with all the money that is being wasted,the funding is there! all the fudging , there is no excuse why the English parliament is not in place now! we have the Politicians! we have the set up !
When i look at my neighbours, in the ajoining COUNTRIES with there own voice & PARLIAMENT.I say
ENGLAND is the Powerhouse of the UK ,The English want a voice to ,we want self Determination...WE ARE BEING DENIED !
The ENGLISH want there PARLIAMENT! and be in no doubt, this day will come.....

Della Petch
Posted on 18 Jul 2008 3:17 pm (Report this annotation)

"The Barnett Formula is not unfair" she says!!!

I've read through her responses and to be quite honest, the woman doesn't know her subject very well at all and does nothing for advancement of democracy.

Ye gads, will someone in Westminster put this woman right - please!?

I do wish these people were paid by results - they'd owe us money!