Scotland (Oil and Gas Resources)

I beg to move,"That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide for the transfer to the Scottish Parliament of competence for Scottish oil and gas resources; to provide for revenues from the Scottish sector of the United Kingdom continental shelf to be paid into the Scottish Consolidated Fund; and for connected purposes." This a Bill to repatriate control of the oil and gas industry to Scotland and to the Scottish Parliament. It is timely and relevant to what is happening now, but it is also informed by the past and very relevant to the future. At present, oil is once again king, at more than $70 a barrel. This year, we are approaching a record for oil revenues to the Exchequer in nominal terms. The Budget estimate was £10 billion, but that was based on $57 a barrel. Since then, oil has been more than $70 a barrel and it is likely that, this year, oil revenues to the Exchequer will reach £12.5 billion—even greater than the previous record of the mid-1980s. I am aware that the shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer is constantly expecting the Chancellor of the Exchequer to fall into a black hole. The reason why that has not happened as yet is that, this year, Brown’s black hole has been filled by black, black oil. In the House, we frequently hear Tory and Labour Members whining about public expenditure in Scotland. It is therefore relevant to note that, this year, while the United Kingdom has a budget deficit of £40 billion, there will be a £4 billion relative budget surplus in Scotland. To put it in the language that English Conservative Members often use, that means a subsidy of £800 for every man, woman and child in Scotland flowing from Scotland to the London Exchequer. I have always held that there are three great lies in life. The first is, ““The cheque’s in the post””; the second is, ““Darling, I’ll respect you in the morning””; and the third is, ““I’m from the London Treasury and I want to help Scotland.”” I hear from Conservative Members the explanation that the Chancellor is Scottish. Indeed, some people think that he is too Scottish. Let me reassure hon. Members that he is morphing into an Englishman. Even now, the Chancellor spends long hours at the Treasury trying to memorise the names of the England football team. He has planted a Union jack in his garden in North Queensferry. He says that Paul Gascoigne’s goal against Scotland in 1996 was his favourite football moment. He has the songs of the barmy army almost off by heart. The Chancellor may have been born Scottish but he is desperate to become an Englishman. Greater charity hath no man than this, to lay down his nationality for a job application form. The Chancellor, however, whether Scottish or new-born English, like his predecessors, wants to keep his mitts on Scotland’s resources. The Bill is informed by the past. Recently, through precise and detailed questioning under freedom of information legislation and what has tumbled out under the 30-year rule, we can examine the real story of the 1970s, which one or two hon. Members present can remember. Guess what skeletons have tumbled out of the cupboard? Professor Gavin McCrone, who was then economic adviser to successive Scottish Secretaries, both Tory and Labour, wrote in a secret memo:"““An independent Scotland could now expect to have massive surpluses both on its budget and on its balance of payments and with the proper husbanding of resources this situation could last for a very long time into the future… The country would tend to be in chronic surplus to a quite embarrassing degree and its currency would become the hardest in Europe, with the exception perhaps of the Norwegian Kroner.””" The explanations tumble not only out of the Scottish Office but from down here under the 30-year rule. Sir Kenneth Berrill, then head of the central policy review staff for Harold Wilson, said that it would be hard to fight Scotland’s economic case for independence because"““on fairly reasonable assumptions about the profits to be made from North Sea oil, Scotland could go it alone quite comfortably””." An unnamed civil servant stated:"““Progress towards devolution should be delayed for as long as possible””" in case the Parliament got its hands on oil revenues. Another civil servant stated:"““Information Division has sought for some time in briefing to undermine SNP claims to North Sea Oil… indeed it is part of my standard sales patter.””" That civil servant was Mr. Bernard Ingham, who went from spinning oil to spinning Thatcher. Revelations are tumbling out from the past and Tory and Labour Members of Parliament must therefore forgive people in Scotland if we show some scepticism about their bona fides when they explicitly express concern for the Scottish economy. In the past 30 years, we have witnessed perhaps the greatest act of international larceny since the Spanish stole the Inca gold. When the economic adviser to the Scottish Office said that Scotland would be richer than Switzerland, Labour politicians were telling the Scottish people that they would be poorer than Bangladesh. The difference between advice and reality was the same then as it is now. If people were prepared to lie then, why should they tell the truth now? The Bill is about the future—““the undiscover’d country””, the thing yet to be determined. [Interruption.] I thought that I would quote an English poet. We are halfway through the North sea oil story. Thirty years have gone and there are more than 30 years to go; 30 billion barrels of oil have been produced and perhaps there are more than 30 billion barrels to come; £200 billion has gone in revenue to the Exchequer and perhaps there is that and more to come. Indeed, at current oil prices, the value of the resource is equivalent to £170,000 for every man, woman and child in Scotland, which is even more than the annual expenses of the average Labour Member of Parliament—[Interruption.] I was not looking at the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire, North (Jim Sheridan) in particular. He should not get so nervous when I make remarks like that. Oil has been the milch cow of successive Chancellors and that has damaged investment in the industry. This year alone, there is a supplementary tax of £2 billion that threatens future exploration. Yet experts in the industry estimate that, with modest exploration incentives, an oilfield could be developed every three weeks for the next 10 years. We are told that there is a gas shortage in this country, which is somewhat surprising, given that Scotland produces seven times the amount of gas that it requires, and that there are 20 undeveloped gas fields off the west of Scotland awaiting development. English Members of Parliament frequently whinge about Scots interfering in English business. Let me assure the House that I have no territorial designs on ruling England. I believe that, despite all evidence to the contrary, it is perfectly capable of self-government. England is a great nation and could go it alone, despite what the doubters say. The Bill is not just about the repatriation of oil but about two different visions of the future. Instead of the moaning and groaning of English MPs, or indeed of Scottish Members of Parliament, why do not we have a vision of two nations, equal before each other, each standing on its own two feet, reaping its own harvest and ringing its own tills—two nations, each taking charge of their own economic destiny? Would that not be a much healthier relationship than the one that we have now? When I was a lad in Linlithgow, my next-door neighbour—a Mrs. Borthwick—was a very wise woman. She had two favourite sayings. One was from Abraham Lincoln, but the other is the one that concerns us here. She said that someone once told her that, if Scotland became independent, England would lose a surly lodger and gain a good neighbour. I believed that then, I believe it now and I know that the House will want to give resounding support to this Bill to make that prospect a reality. Question put and agreed to.