For Scotland's sake, the Daylight Savings Bill cannot win

Another hurdle jumped and there is light at the end of the tunnel for Rebecca Harris' Daylight Savings Bill, which today passed its Second Reading in the House of Commons by 92 votes to 10.  Unusually for Private Member's Bills, it shall advance to committee stage.  Also unusually, it has garnered wide and vocal support.  For reasons of constitutional harmony, however, I caution its advance.

There are two notable observations to be made about the vote itself, then I will come to my concerns.

First, barely one hundred were present because Parliament does not usually sit on a Friday. Most MPs spend Fridays (and Saturdays) working in their respective constituencies. So it is impossible to gauge true levels of support for this Bill, with the vast majority of MPs away. One backbench Tory MP told me: "on balance I am inclined to vote for it but I have to put my constituents first." How many had similar commitments but thought otherwise? We don't know.

Secondly, and linked to the first point, most Members present at the debate represent English constituencies, and a great amount of those not northern constituencies. Barely any Scottish MPs attended, which if it weren't for the inclement weather we have and the desire to get back home in good time, would strike me as odd because it is the position of Scotland (geographically and politically) on which this policy shall succeed or fail. Northern Ireland is similarly affected but it is not as politically prominent at Westminster.

Rebecca Harris (C, Castle Point) said in support of her Private Member's Bill that it "does not enforce an immediate change" but asks "that the government should take an objective, informed decision based on the best available evidence." The usual arguments in favour, such as a reduction in evening road accidents, more tourism and lower energy use were trotted out by supportive Members.

Edward Davey (LD, Kingston & Surbiton), the Minister for Employment Relations, Consumer and Postal Affairs, opposed the Bill on behalf of the Government, making the crucial point about the change's impact in Scotland:

"Under the proposals, sunset in Edinburgh in mid-October would move from 6.15 pm to 7.15 pm, but sunrise would not be until 8.45 am, and on new year’s eve, it would not get light in Lerwick until after 10 am, as I said earlier. It is therefore unsurprising that the Scottish Government are nervous of such a change, and that they have said that they would not want it imposed on their population."

My greatest fear is that imposing this change on the UK as a whole, as the failed experiment between 1968 and 1971 did, will ultimately lead to Holyrood declaring unilateral horological independence. Mr Davey also alluded to this possibility.

We should remember that Scotland is not only further north than the rest of the United Kingdom, but quite far west too—surprisingly, Edinburgh is west of Bristol—which means that, come winter, it has relatively little daylight, in fact about eight hours, and that that light comes later. It is possible in principle to have two UK time zones—one for Scotland, which could perhaps include Northern Ireland, and one for England and Wales—but we should rule out that option on such a relatively small island as ours. We should remain a United Kingdom.

We must remain a United Kingdom. I wrote earlier this week about how in 2004, the votes of Scottish MPs imposed top-up tuition fees on the graduates of English universities, against the wishes of English MPs. The complaint works both ways. The time change might sound like a good weeze to the MPs in the south of England who turned up today to vote for the Bill, such as Andrew Tyrie (C, Chichester), Simon Hughes (LD, Bermondsey & Old Southwark), Karen Buck (Lab, Westminster North) and Caroline Lucas (Green, Brighton Pavilion), but their colleagues in the north have very real concerns.

Angus Brendan MacNeil (SNP, Na h-Eileanan an Iar) pointed out that "more electricity would be used on darker mornings" in Scotland. Furthermore, Dr Eilidh Whiteford (SNP, Banff & Buchan) made the smart case that Scottish farmers are "less opposed to the measure than they were 40 years ago [because] they now have heating and lighting in their steadings [which] rather undermines the carbon saving argument." Two Liberal Democrat MPs, Malcolm Bruce (Gordon) and Alan Reid (Argyll & Bute) also spoke out against the Bill.

A pair of Scottish MPs did surprise me by voting in favour of the measure - David Hamilton (Lab, Midlothian) and Gordon Banks (Lab, Ochill & South Perthshire) - as well as Naomi Long, the Alliance MP from Belfast East. Mr Hamilton said he was approaching it "with an open mind." Both Mrs Long and Mr Banks spoke fairly of wanting to make better informed decisions based on proper evidence.

Until recently, I couldn't care much either way. Even now, I am willing to see what sort of arguments for and against are thrown up by a report, and to make a decision on that. Yet as things stand, this seems to me a dangerously unnecessary move. It has been tried before and this is the eighth occasion since the 1970s that someone has tried to revive it - all previous attempts ended in failure. If this attempt is successful, I worry that it would be another step down the road to the breakup of the United Kingdom. It would be another message of disunity sent north of the border - a selfish and antagonistic act inflicted on the Scots, on behalf of English and Welsh MPs.

The SNP are prone to nonsensical shortbread hyperbole (see the comments of Peter Wishart in my article on Wednesday) but Angus MacNeil hit the right tone today when he said:

"The progress of this bill is literally a wake-up call to the prospect of dark mornings for everyone north of Manchester, and has been pushed through by MPs from the south with no regard to the impact these changes would have on the quality of life for people in the north. This change would be acutely felt in Scotland, raising real safety and quality of life concerns, and this is now a real test for the Tory government and its claims of a respect agenda for Scotland."

I am still willing to be convinced, if the evidence is such to disprove my concerns. Yet I doubt it. The impact on Scotland is too great. The costs must surely outweigh the benefits and, judging by Ed Davey's comments today, I expect the Government believes this too.

UPDATE (4th December, 17.09): Paul Goodman, the former Conservative MP for Wycombe now writing at ConservativeHome, a right-wing website, pointed out in an article the day after the debate that Mark Lazarowicz, Labour and Co-op MP for Edinburgh North & Leith is another supportive Scot.  Do have a glance at Goodman's piece: you get a better flavour of the debate itself as he quotes at greater length.  He also picks up on the point about a north-south divide in terms of support for the Bill.

Dear Scottish MPs, mind your own parliamentary business

Yesterday was the feast day of St Andrew, the patron saint of Scotland.  I sincerely hope that all people in Scotland had an enjoyable Latha Naomh Anndra and that the whisky burn at the back of the throat has disappeared by this evening.  I find that ibuprofen, rather than paracetamol, tends to be better at easing the consequences of that particular tipple.

Something else than the Scottish fire-water gave me a headache last night - something that no over-the-counter painkiller can subdue.  What was it?  Scottish MPs.  Why?  Their insistent bleating about Government reforms to higher education that have nothing to do with them.

A devolved matter, the Scottish Parliament voted in 2000 to abolish tuition fees for all Scottish, Welsh, Northern Irish and European Union students - just about everyone apart from English students.  That was their choice to do so and residents of Scotland have to make do with budget restraints in other areas.

The upcoming reforms to higher education in England and Wales do not, therefore, concern the constituents of the honourable Members from North Britain.  Why, then, did a series of them bob up and down in the House of Commons last night in search of a say in the Opposition debate on higher education?  And to the loss of other honourable Members whose constituents will actually be affected by the reforms?

Pamela Nash MP, 'Baby of the House'

Ian Murray (Lab, Edinburgh South) failed in his efforts to get the Secretary of State, Vince Cable, to give way, but it was not long afterwards that Fiona O'Donnell (Lab, East Lothian) was up on her feet to whinge about Lib-Dem members putting out leaflets in the snow.  Then Pamela Nash (Lab, Airdrie & Shotts) interrupted Iain Stewart (C, Milton Keynes South) with the claim that the Government is introducing its reforms based on ideology.  I don't think that the Baby of the House (Ms Nash is 26) is so young that she cannot recall that the Government is acting on the advice of an independent report commissioned by the preivous Labour Government.  Moreover, as a recent politics graduate of the University of Glasgow, she has (unlike me and my peers from English universities) never had to pay tuition fees, but was happy to work as Lord (John) Reid's researcher when he was a long-serving member of the Labour Government that increased fees twice against manifesto promises.

Some moments later, Peter Wishart (SNP, Perth & North Perthshire) spat out a party political broadcast on behalf of his virtuous, caring and competent party colleagues prior to making the bewildering claim that, "these pernicious fees will have a significant impact on Scottish higher education...[and] disastrous consequences for our universities."  What are these consequences?

"English universities will be awash with tuition fees [so] we will be at a competitive disadvantage.  The fact that we will not have the same development and resources to provide research facilities to attract international students could have disastrous consequences."

My retort is too obvious to mention (guesses as to my solution to Mr Wishart's dilemma on the back of a postcard).

Anas Sarwar (Lab, Glasgow Central) followed less than ten minutes later.  To his credit, he scathingly referred to the above "rather delusional performance from the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire" and decided to focus on the more debatable necessity of the 80 per cent cuts to teaching grants.  Yet Mr Sarwar referred to the "thousands of students, school pupils, teaching staff and parents" that the reforms will affect and "our young people".  Not your young people, sir, for they remain un-affected.  Like your father's former Glasgow constituent, the aforementioned Pamela Nash MP, they don't have to pay tuition fees at all.

The West Lothian Question is not a constitutional quirk that has ever excited me.  'English votes for English laws', an 'English Parliament', or other apparent solutions, pose far too great a threat to the future solidarity and existence of the Union.  Like the inherent electoral bias of constituency size enjoyed by the Labour Party, I've always seen the West Lothian issue as a Question not worth an Answer.

Yet on this issue of tuition fees, for historical reasons, I make an exception.  For it was the voting support of Scottish MPs in January 2004 that enabled the Tony Blair to pass the Higher Education Bill by the slender margin of 316-311, and thus introduce university top-up fees of £3,000.  Labour's Scottish MPs were described at the time as "reprehensible", "constitutionally cavalier" and "Tony's Tartan lobby fodder".  In stark contrast, the lone 'Tartan Tory', Peter Duncan (former MP for Galloway & Upper Nithsdale), had the dignity to ignore his party whip and abstain.

I have since come to accept the necessity of tuition fees but I, like Conservative MPs and the wording of Labour's 1997 and 2001 manifestos, opposed their introduction at the time.  In 2004, English MPs (of all parties) and the English public were overwhelmingly against them but they got through because of Scottish Labour MPs whose constituents were unaffected.  And now, Scottish MPs have the gall to stand up in Parliament and oppose their further increase, at a time of tentative economic recovery and the nation's finances in a mess (their mess, no less), having voted to increase fees when the economy was booming.

This time, unlike in 2004, the votes and speeches of Scottish MPs should not derail the democratic prerogative of the English MPs whose constituents these reforms affect, and affect alone.  Even if most Liberal Democrat MPs abstain on the vote, it shall pass.

In 2004, the involvement of Scottish Labour MPs was a constitutional scandal.  Thankfully, today it is merely a bloody cheek.