Unemployment in Scotland

David Mundell Excerpts

Wednesday 5th December 2012 Westminster Hall

[Gemma Doyle]

As the hon. Gentleman has just come into the Chamber, I will make a wee bit of progress.

The UK Government did have a plan to help people back into jobs, but the Work programme is not working. In the great fanfare around its launch, we were promised a revolution in getting people back to work that would transform the way people were supported, reducing the benefits bill and getting people into jobs, while ensuring value for money for the taxpayer. What a joke—instead it has been a comprehensive failure. The 3.8% success rate in Scotland—I am looking at the success rate over 14 months—falls some way behind the Government’s minimum target. The success rate in West Dunbartonshire is 1.7%, which means that less than two of every 100 people on the programme get a job. That is a shocking statistic.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (David Mundell)]

I welcome the opportunity to debate the Work programme, but it is important that we do so on a factual basis. The hon. Lady is referring to outcomes in relation to the report on the Work programme, but that is not the same as people moving into work or off benefits. Therefore, if we are to have a debate about unemployment, that is what we should be discussing and not outcomes in terms of the Work programme report.

[Gemma Doyle]

We could have a debate about what outcomes mean, but for my constituents and people in Scotland, they mean getting a job and getting into work.

What is just as shocking is the Government’s estimate that if the Work programme did not even exist, five in every 100 people would be getting a job. In an astonishing act of irony, it is the first back-to-work programme where people are more likely to get a job if they are not on it.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Mundell]

On that point, the hon. Lady may be aware that the Secretary of State has announced that there will be a Scottish Employability Forum, which will bring together the Scottish Secretary, the Scottish Government represented by John Swinney, the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities represented by Councillor Harry McGuigan from North Lanarkshire council and a range of other stakeholders. That forum will address exactly the issues highlighted by her and the hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire (Gemma Doyle). It will ensure that the two Governments and local government, which was mentioned by the hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire, actually work together; local government has an extremely important role. I therefore believe that there is significant progress.

[Cathy Jamieson]

I welcome what the Minister says. However, to pick up the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for West Dunbartonshire, for many people currently out of work, the issue is not employability, because they are employable and are desperate to be employed; the simple problem is that the jobs are not there.

To return to the figures, with some 366 people chasing every vacancy in East Ayrshire, one person gets the job, while the other 365 are employable, want to work and are desperate to get that start. They are desperate either to get their foot in the door by having a first job or to return to work to support their family. That has to be considered, and the question is how firms can be encouraged to take people on and to expand. There is still more that both the Scottish Government and the UK Government could do, and they should look to build on the successful companies that exist and, wherever possible, to maintain and save jobs. In that context, I hope that the Minister will offer his support for ways of helping to retain the jobs currently under threat in my constituency.

I have probably taken up my fair share of time. I welcome the opportunity to speak in this debate. I again make the plea that both Governments should recognise that this issue is about people’s real-life situations; it is not a political football to be battered back and forth.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (David Mundell)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Dorries. You are certainly the Member of Parliament my constituents most often ask me about, and I am sure they will be delighted to learn that you have chaired the debate today.

I congratulate the hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire (Gemma Doyle) on securing this important debate. Based on what has been said I feel that there might be little that we agree on, but I do agree on the importance of having a debate such as this here at Westminster, to focus on issues that are the responsibility of the UK Government, and also on the importance of Members from Scotland holding the Government to account for their policies and actions in Scotland.

I find it disappointing that the Scottish National party has not sought to contribute to this debate, other than through a few random interventions. I do not want to be in the position that the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Cathy Jamieson) spoke about, of blaming the other Government—the Government in Scotland—for everything that is going wrong, which would be to adopt the reality of Alex Salmond’s “plan McB”: to claim credit for everything that is good and to blame the Westminster Government for everything that is bad.

Opposition Members, other than the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun, to be fair, chose to use their contributions to blame both Governments for everything that is happening. As usual—I had no expectation otherwise—they took no responsibility whatever for the catastrophic state in which they left the UK economy when they left office in 2010. Indeed, we may hear once and for all an apology from the shadow Chancellor today for the state of the economy at that time, which would be good.

[Mr Russell Brown]

I recognise that the Minister and his colleagues are very good at talking about the mess that they were left, but will he share with the Chamber what the black hole was? What was that debt? If we remove from that debt what was provided to support the banks and the UK economy, how big really was that black hole?

[David Mundell]

There was a black hole because, for a significant period of time, the previous Government were spending more than they brought in. That is the reality, and the hon. Gentleman cannot pretend otherwise. Today we have heard various versions of the plan Labour now has to turn the economy around, but the core of that plan remains more spending, more borrowing and more debt—exactly the same prescription that brought the country to its current state.

[Graeme Morrice]

Is it not the case that the current Government are borrowing far in excess of what they are spending? Indeed, based on their original projections, they are borrowing substantially more than they anticipated.

[Nadine Dorries (in the Chair)]

Order. We are getting into a debate on the economy, rather than on unemployment in Scotland. Can we keep to the subject of the debate?

[David Mundell]

Indeed. I will leave the economy to my colleague the Chancellor, who will no doubt respond to the exact issue raised by the hon. Member for Livingston (Graeme Morrice).

Some important points have been raised, and hon. Members have taken the opportunity to highlight what is being done in their local authority areas. We have to recognise what an important role local government plays in taking forward the jobs agenda.

I am pleased to confirm the work of the Scottish Employability Forum. Although the title includes the word “employability,” the forum actually focuses on all employment issues, because as the hon. Member for Glasgow North (Ann McKechin) made clear in an intervention, things are not working as well as they could be for the Scottish Government in their partnerships with both local government and the UK Government. In fact, people in the Work programme in Scotland are being refused training, which is a great concern to us all.

[Cathy Jamieson]

I thank the Minister for confirming that the Scottish Employability Forum will consider all aspects of employment. Will he give us further information on any specific actions that that forum will take? When will the forum report, and when will it make recommendations on its outcomes?

[David Mundell]

The forum will meet for the first time early in the new year, and its prime focus will be to co-ordinate the different interests and to ensure that there is a seamless programme of support for people looking for work, thereby ensuring that they are neither passed around nor a victim of conflicting agendas. The forum has an important role to play, because it is quite clear that we have to bring together more close working.

I am concerned about a couple of issues that were raised.

[Mark Lazarowicz]

Will the Minister give way?

--- Later in debate ---

[David Mundell]

No, I want to deal with the issue of Jillian McGovern and address the concerns raised by the hon. Member for Dundee West (Jim McGovern) about the Department for Work and Pensions. I would be pleased to hear more about what did not happen in that regard, because I have a high regard for the DWP’s work in Scotland. Every single day in Scotland, the DWP deals with an average of 1,500 new job vacancies; conducts some 7,000 jobcentre adviser interviews; receives more than 82,000 searches for Jobcentre Plus job vacancies; and helps an average of more than 1,000 people move into work. The DWP is playing an important role, and if any Member has examples of that not working for their constituents, we want to know about them.

I have asked for a report on why Dundee city council appears at the very bottom of the report on the Work programme, and it is important to understand that, but I want to try to dispel two myths. The shadow Minister sought to perpetuate the myth that, somehow, the youth unemployment issues are a direct result of this Government’s policies. Youth unemployment is a serious issue about which we should all be concerned. As the right hon. Member for South Shields (David Miliband) has said, youth unemployment started to become a problem in this country in 2004; it is not a product of the current Government. We all have to do more to work with employers to encourage them to take on young people.

[Jim McGovern]

Will the Minister give way?

[David Mundell]

No, I want to conclude this point, because it is very important. Youth unemployment is a scourge, and we all have a part to play in dealing with it. There is a serious attitudinal problem among employers about taking on young people. They think that if they take on a young person—this is particularly the case with small and medium-sized businesses—that will create hassle and difficulty for them. We have to feed back to them that taking on a young person is a positive thing. We have to encourage employers to take a more positive attitude to bringing young people into work.

[Gemma Doyle]

I am conscious that the Minister does not have much time, but I am desperately worried that we are not getting to grips with the issues that have been raised this morning. He has been challenged directly about no Scotland Office Minister being involved in any of the key Cabinet Committees on the economy and welfare reform. Will he respond to that point? Will he give a commitment that he will make representations that a Scotland Office Minister should be involved in those Cabinet Committees?

[David Mundell]

The hon. Lady’s colleague, the shadow Secretary of State, has already written to the Secretary of State on those issues, and the shadow Secretary of State was given a full reply, which I am sure she will share with the hon. Lady.

I want to use my remaining time to respond to the issues raised about the Work programme. There has been a misrepresentation of it, which I hope is not deliberate—I am sure it is not just for the purposes of the template press releases that have been put out by the Labour party across Scotland. It is simply too early to judge whether the Work programme is succeeding against its objectives, because it is a two-year programme that has been running for just about a year.

“Outcomes” is a defined term in the report on the Work programme, and it means that a work provider has been paid for someone being in work for six months. It does not mean that those are the only people who have gone into work through the Work programme. In fact, the bulk of the people who are in the process are still on the programme, because they have not been able to complete the six-month period. There has been an attempt to distort the figures to decry the Work programme, and I would be disappointed if any Member present took any pleasure in the idea that the Work programme could somehow be described as a failure. It cannot, because it is not a failure. The figures are not available to make the sort of judgment that Opposition Members leapt to today.

Scotland and the Union

David Mundell Excerpts

Thursday 29th November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)]

I beg to move an amendment, leave out from ‘engineering’ to end and add

‘and recognises that special relationships also endure with Australia, Canada, India, New Zealand, Pakistan, South Africa and other members of the Commonwealth as well as the Republic of Ireland and the United States; and believes that this will also be the case with Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom after the 2014 independence referendum.’.

I reassure the hon. Member for Milton Keynes South (Iain Stewart) that he can call himself Scottish, British or even Milton Keynesian—it is really up to him. This debate is all about identity and what we want to call ourselves.

I thank the many hon. Members who have passed on their regards and concerns for my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee East (Stewart Hosie). I reassure the House that he is back home and making a full recovery. I fully expect him to be back in his place very soon, talking about the Laffer curve and endogenous growth theory as only he can.

Another person who is missing is the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown). We were all expecting his presence today and to hear his words of wisdom on Scotland and the Union, but he is not here. He is a bit like Brigadoon: one gets a glimpse of him only once a year.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs Laing) on the motion. It is a good motion. I take exception only with the last two lines of it, as she knows. There is so much more that she could have added, such as the contribution that Scots have made to the Union and the United Kingdom. She missed out the enlightenment, for goodness’ sake, which is an important way in which the Scots contributed to the United Kingdom. The United Kingdom and the Union have also given much to Scotland. The Scots have helped to build and have shared the great institutions of the UK and the Union. We have fantastic cultural relationships and we have had great times. All of that is part of a social union and that will go nowhere. We will continue to be British after the independence referendum and when we secure our independence.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (David Mundell)]

I am surprised to hear what the hon. Gentleman is saying, because he previously told this House that

“as Scotland moves forward to become a normal independent nation, all vestiges of Britishness will go.”

He went on to say:

“I have never felt British in my life. I do not even know what Britishness is.”—[Official Report, 12 November 2008; Vol. 482, c. 306-307WH.]

[Pete Wishart]

I expected that response. In fact, it said on Twitter that that intervention would be made.

I say to the Minister that, as we examine our relationship with the rest of the United Kingdom, we discover some of these fantastic ties. I accept that there will be vestiges of Britishness. That is a personal interest of mine. We are British. I live in Perth in the north of the island called Great Britain. It is called that because it is the largest of the British isles. I am British as much as somebody from Stockholm or Copenhagen is Scandinavian. That is the reality of geography and it cannot be denied. Hon. Members may want to take forward their obsession with separation by building a channel between Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom. That is the only way they could stop us being British.

I accept that being British is about more than just geography. Of course there is something cultural about Britishness. However, Britishness is an invention. It was a necessary social construct to unite all the nations of the United Kingdom. That is why it is so hard to define and describe. We have heard some great and excruciating attempts to define Britishness. Who could forget the attempt of the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath, when he talked about

“British jobs for British workers”?

I remember the attempt by Michael Portillo, when he described Britishness as anti-fanaticism. However, Britishness is more than that. It is the combination of the 300 years that we have shared and endured across these islands. It is about everything from the industrial revolution to how we stood together in the wars; the Queen has been mentioned, and, of course, there are great pop and rock bands.

I was particularly disappointed with the views of the right hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Mr Darling) who tried to scaremonger on the issue of culture. He said that British music would be no longer “our” music but “their” music—whoever “they” are. I played in a band for 15 years. I replaced an English keyboard player and the lead singer of my band is Canadian. To suggest that something as free-spirited as music can be confined to borders or frontiers is absurd and ridiculous. The right hon. Member for Edinburgh South West should be ashamed of trying to scaremonger about culture.

One good definition of Britishness—as has been mentioned fleetingly—was the opening ceremony of the Olympic games, which got close to describing and defining Britishness. Danny Boyle did a fantastic job with his cultural tour de force. The big irony, however, is that part of that fantastic presentation placed a strong emphasis on the country’s social ethos, and particularly on the NHS, which the Westminster Tories are currently disestablishing through privatisation. Already, part of that glimpse of Britishness disappears with that very statement.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (David Mundell)]

May I begin by passing my best wishes and those of the Secretary of State to the hon. Member for Dundee East (Stewart Hosie)? We wish him a speedy recovery. That is the only matter on which there is likely to be agreement with the SNP this afternoon.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Mrs Laing) on securing the debate. She is a proud Scot, as is my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes South (Iain Stewart). I entirely repudiate the sentiment implicit in the comments of the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart), that somehow only supporters of the nationalist cause can care about Scotland, be proud of Scotland, or make the case for Scotland. That is absolutely not the case.

[Pete Wishart]

I never made any such claim; everybody here is a proud Scot, and I said no such thing. The SNP has managed to get just one 10-minute speech in a three-hour debate. We have heard one side of the case—[Interruption.] We should have more time. [Interruption.] Even now I am being shouted down. Surely in this debate the SNP should have got more time than we have been allowed today.

[David Mundell]

I am not an expert on procedure, but I understand this debate is being curtailed because the SNP is going to force two Divisions. That is simply a stunt, and those of us who are involved in Scottish politics are very familiar with the SNP preferring to pull stunts than talk about the issues of the day.

I particularly want to thank the right hon. Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds) for his excellent speech. It is heartening to hear Members from other parts of the United Kingdom state how much importance they place on Scotland remaining in the UK. As he said, the whole of the United Kingdom would be the poorer if Scotland left.

In 2014, people in Scotland will face their most important political decision in 300 years. A vote for independence in the referendum of that year is not just for Christmas 2014; it is for life. As the motion states:

“Scotland has always made, and continues to make, a significant contribution to the UK over the 305 years of the Union”.

The Government believe that Scotland is stronger within the United Kingdom, which Scotland helped to shape, as the hon. Member for Glasgow North West (John Robertson) said, but we also recognise that the biggest constitutional question of all needs to be settled once and for all. That is why Scotland’s two Governments worked together constructively to reach an agreement on the referendum process. Regardless of the result, that constructive relationship will of course continue as we move forward. That does not mean that in the unlikely event of a yes vote, the remaining UK would facilitate Scotland’s every wish, any more than an independent Scotland would unquestioningly facilitate the wishes of the remaining UK. Inevitably—although some have sought to deny it today—there would be two separate countries and therefore two sets of interests, sometimes mutual, sometimes at odds, as is currently the case with our closest international allies and as will always be the case between separate, sovereign states.

The SNP likes to talk about partnership and about neighbours working together. These days, it even likes to talk about us all being British, even though the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire told us previously he did not know what Britishness was and had never felt British in his life. You couldn’t make it up, but the SNP does. As the hon. Member for Glasgow North West highlighted, the SNP amendment even pretends that it can wrench Scotland out of the UK and nothing will have changed. Do not be fooled: working together is what the United Kingdom is all about, but the SNP wants to break it up. Partnership is what the United Kingdom is all about, but the SNP wants to rip it up. If Scotland votes for independence in 2014, it will leave the United Kingdom—leave all that we have achieved together over the past 300 years and all that we will continue to achieve by remaining together.

[Gregg McClymont]

The credibility of the First Minister has been a central issue in this debate. What does the Minister make of Justice Leveson’s finding on the First Minister’s attempt to lobby on behalf of Sky and the possibility that that might have rendered the Government’s decision on the Sky issue unlawful?

[David Mundell]

I do not find that surprising. On several recent occasions the First Minister has been brought before the Scottish Parliament to explain things he has said that have been found to be untrue.

By putting together the various aspects of the debate—the economics, the international influence question, the fact that we Scots helped to make this United Kingdom —we get a compelling case for Scotland remaining in the UK, and many Members have made that case today. The UK Government are looking forward to making the positive case for Scotland within the United Kingdom. Today we have shown why twice as many Scots want to remain in the UK than support independence. They are people who know the difference between patriotism and nationalism; people who know, as the hon. Member for Glasgow East (Margaret Curran) said, that the saltire is a symbol of our nation, not of nationalism; people who know that being Scottish and British is not a contradiction but is the best of both worlds, whereas the SNP wants to take our Britishness away from us; people who know that Scotland helps put the “Great” into Great Britain and make our Kingdom united—

[Mark Lazarowicz]

rose—

[David Mundell]

People such as the hon. Gentleman, who I am sure will contribute positively to the debate.

[Mark Lazarowicz]

Yesterday I had the privilege to attend the launch of the green investment bank in Edinburgh. It is supported by all parties, including the SNP, and it is a wonderful example of the UK working together. It is the UK green investment bank, and it is hard to see how it could have been headquartered in Edinburgh if Edinburgh had been in a separate state.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Mundell]

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point about the positive benefits that flow to Scotland from remaining part of the UK, and about the positive benefits the UK gets from Scotland’s expertise in financial services, which was one of the key reasons that led to the green investment bank being headquartered in Edinburgh.

This has been a heated debate, as such debates always are, for the topic is very important to the people of Scotland and the people of the rest of the United Kingdom. I believe that people, including me, who know in their bones that we are better together will deliver the result Scotland and the United Kingdom want in the referendum in 2014. We do not fear the debate to come; we welcome it—and we would have liked this afternoon’s debate to have been a little longer, rather than its being curtailed by having two meaningless votes.

Oral Answers to Questions

David Mundell Excerpts

Wednesday 21st November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Lindsay Roy (Glenrothes) (Lab)]

1. What assessment he has made of the potential effects on jobs in Scotland of Scottish independence.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (David Mundell)]

The UK Government firmly believe that Scotland is, and always will be, better off in the UK. The UK Government are undertaking a programme of analysis to evaluate how Scotland contributes to, and benefits from, being part of the UK.

[Lindsay Roy]

I thank the Minister for that answer. Will he explain why there is so much concern among those working in the defence and supply chain industries in Scotland over the future of their jobs?

[David Mundell]

I can advise the hon. Gentleman that, as of April, there were 15,880 regular armed forces and Ministry of Defence civilian personnel based in Scotland, and an additional 40,000 people employed in defence-related industries in around 800 companies. Not one of those people could guarantee their job under an independent Scotland.

[Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)]

The SNP’s commitment to a nuclear-free Scotland will presumably mean the end of Trident, the end of the Vanguard submarines that carry it and the end of Rosyth. Am I right in thinking that that affects something like 6,500 jobs in Scotland? Does the Minister think that these jobs would be replicated elsewhere, or would those people simply lose their jobs, thanks to an SNP Government?

[David Mundell]

I can advise my hon. Friend that by 2020, there will be 8,000 jobs based at Faslane, following the recent announcement by the Secretary of State for Defence of an additional 1,500 jobs. There is absolutely no certainty about what would happen to anybody employed in the Ministry of Defence or the defence industries in Scotland under an independent Scotland.

[Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP)]

The list of recent investment and job announcements in Scotland has been quite remarkable, particularly in the renewables sector. The Minister will know there were £2.3 billion-worth of completed projects to July this year, and that there is a future pipeline of £9.4 billion with many thousands of jobs attached. Each of those investment decisions has been taken in the sure and certain knowledge that the referendum is coming and independence is likely. Why does the Minister think that these investment decisions continue to be made, and why is nobody listening to his scare stories?

[David Mundell]

I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman’s analysis. These investments are taking place despite the uncertainty, not because of it. I tend to agree with the chief executive of Aggreko, who said yesterday in giving evidence to a parliamentary Committee that the supposed benefits of independence were “small and tenuous” and unlikely to arise, while the dangers were “large and serious”.

[Stewart Hosie]

The Minister mentions uncertainty, but the only uncertainty we have seen is the massive increase made in the North sea supplementary charge with no discussion with the sector, and the uncertainty for employees now that this Government are making it easier to sack people. Is it not the case, as Douglas Sawers of Ceridian said when he made a significant investment earlier this year, that in the event of independence, the Scottish Government’s approach will be to make Scotland more, not less, competitive? Is that not the truth? Instead of scare stories, we are going to move to independence with a Government who will make Scotland more, not less, competitive?

[David Mundell]

When the people of Scotland make a decision on independence in the referendum, they must be sure that that decision is a long-term one. Independence is not for Christmas 2014. If the hon. Gentleman looked at the Institute for Fiscal Studies report, he would see that it says that an independent Scotland would face much harder decisions than the rest of the UK in the longer term.

[Anas Sarwar (Glasgow Central) (Lab)]

13. The Minister will be aware that 30,000 Scots are employed by UK Government agencies to work as civil servants in Scotland, including in the Department for International Development, which has 450 staff members in East Kilbride. What would happen to those jobs if Scotland voted for independence, and has there been any clarity on that from the SNP?

[David Mundell]

There has been no discussion between the SNP, or indeed the Scottish Government, and the UK Government about the future of defence-based jobs, civil service jobs or any other jobs in Scotland. The people in those jobs would face, as would everybody else, great uncertainty if Scotland were to become independent.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

2. What role the Electoral Commission will play in the referendum on Scottish independence.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

6. What recent assessment he has made of the benefits to Scotland of the UK’s membership of NATO; and if he will make a statement.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (David Mundell)]

Scotland is stronger in defence terms as part of the United Kingdom within NATO. NATO is the bedrock of our national security, and the UK is one of its largest contributors. There is no guarantee that an independent Scotland would gain automatic membership.

[Mark Pritchard]

What discussions has my right hon. Friend held with the Scottish Government on their dialogue with NATO, given that so many within that Government are anti-nuclear and NATO is a pro-nuclear alliance?

[David Mundell]

It is not clear whether the Scottish Government have had any dialogue with NATO about prospective membership and it is quite clear that membership could not be guaranteed. As the NATO Secretary-General said, the

“door does not open…just because you stand in front of it.”

[Thomas Docherty (Dunfermline and West Fife) (Lab)]

Rosyth dockyard in my constituency works for the Ministry of Defence and the Royal Navy. Will the Minister clarify whether, if Scotland were a separate country, regardless of its NATO membership, Rosyth dockyard would get work from the Royal Navy?

[David Mundell]

Many UK defence contractors benefit from contracts that are exempt from EU procurement rules for national security reasons, meaning that they have to be placed or competed for within the United Kingdom. Many such contracts have been awarded in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency and there is no guarantee that they would be awarded in an independent Scotland.

[Sir Menzies Campbell (North East Fife) (LD)]

Does my right hon. Friend accept that there is an inherent contradiction in saying that one thinks that nuclear weapons are an obscenity while at the same time wishing to join an alliance based on both conventional and nuclear deterrence? Are not those two positions wholly irreconcilable?

[David Mundell]

I absolutely agree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman. Some honourable former members of the Scottish National party, such as MSPs Jean Urquhart and Mr Finnie, agree with him and they could not reconcile their positions. Many SNP MSPs continue to sit in government in Scotland, however, despite being unable to reconcile those two positions.

[Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)]

7. What recent assessment he has made of the economy in Scotland.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Alan Reid (Argyll and Bute) (LD)]

8. What steps the Government are taking to widen access to superfast broadband in Scotland.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (David Mundell)]

The UK Government are committed to delivering the best superfast broadband network in Europe by 2015. As part of that, the Scottish Government were allocated more than £100 million to support broadband improvements. It is now the responsibility of the Scottish Government to deliver on this investment by the UK Government.

[Mr Reid]

I am pleased that the Government have allocated more than £100 million to Scotland for rural high-speed broadband. Will the Minister do all he can to encourage the Scottish Government and Highlands and Islands Enterprise to get a move on and use that money to bring high-speed broadband to the rural parts of Argyll and Bute as soon as possible?

[David Mundell]

I most certainly will encourage the Scottish Government and all other agencies to get on with deploying rural broadband. My constituents are as concerned about it as the hon. Gentleman’s.

[Michael Connarty (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (Lab)]

I am very concerned, as everyone is, about all of Scotland getting superfast broadband. Is the Minister aware that BT is going to use fibre optics in West Lothian, and has just announced that it is going to roll out copper wire into Bo’ness and parts of my constituency? Copper wire is last century’s technology. Will he intervene and talk to BT about rolling out fibre optics to all parts of Scotland, so that superfast broadband is a reality for everyone?

[David Mundell]

I am happy to arrange a meeting involving myself, the hon. Gentleman and BT to discuss that issue.

[Mr Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)]

In what appears to be a break with the constant scaremongering in this session, may I ask the Minister whether he agrees that broadband coverage percentages should be based on local authority area rather than national area?

[David Mundell]

What I think is that the Scottish Government, having been given £100 million by the UK Government to roll out broadband, should get on with it in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency and elsewhere.

The Prime Minister was asked—

Referendum (Scotland)

David Mundell Excerpts

Monday 15th October 2012 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (David Mundell)]

I want to make a statement about the referendum on independence for Scotland. The House will appreciate that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland is unable to deliver the statement because he attended the meeting between the Prime Minister and the First Minister in Edinburgh to secure agreement on an independence referendum for Scotland.

In January this year, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland delivered to the House a statement about the referendum. At that time, we acknowledged the Scottish National Party’s victory in the May 2012 Scottish parliamentary election and its manifesto pledge to hold an independence referendum. The Government also made clear their view that the Scottish Parliament did not have the legal power to legislate for an independence referendum. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made an offer that the UK Government would bring forward an order to give the Scottish Parliament that legal power.

Since January, the UK and Scottish Governments have held consultations, there has been considerable public debate, and numerous discussions between Ministers have taken place. Many of those discussions took place between me and Bruce Crawford MSP, the Minister for Parliamentary Business and Government Strategy in the Scottish Government, and I acknowledge his contribution to today’s agreement. Following 10 months of deliberation and four weeks of direct negotiations between the Scottish Government’s Deputy First Minister and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, I am pleased to report to the House that today in Edinburgh the Prime Minister and the First Minister have made an agreement that will allow a legal, fair and decisive referendum to take place.

This is a significant agreement. The two Governments have agreed that there should be a referendum. We have agreed that the referendum will consist of a single question. It will offer a choice between remaining within the United Kingdom and independence. We have agreed that it must be held before the end of 2014. The referendum will be based on the normal legal framework for UK referendums, with oversight from the Electoral Commission. That includes the key issues of how the referendum question will be determined, and how the rules governing spending and campaigning will be established.

Following today’s agreement, the Government will bring forward an Order in Council under section 30 of the Scotland Act 1998. I have today placed a copy of the agreement and the draft order in the Library of the House. The agreement and draft order are also available to Members from the Vote Office. The order will be laid before Parliament on 22 October and will be debated by both Houses of this Parliament and by the Scottish Parliament. All Members of this House will have the opportunity to consider and vote on the order. If both Parliaments approve the order, and after it is approved by Her Majesty in Council, the Scottish Parliament will have the legal competence to legislate for the referendum. We hope that the order will be passed by February 2013. Once that has happened, the Scottish Government will introduce a referendum Bill, setting out the wording of the question, the date of the referendum and the rules for the campaign for the Scottish Parliament to consider.

As part of today’s agreement, the two Governments have agreed that the rules for the referendum will be based on the rules set out in the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000. Those rules were used successfully in the two referendums that took place last year. The two Governments have also confirmed that the Electoral Commission will review the proposed referendum question and that its report will be laid before the Scottish Parliament. That is the same process as applies to other UK referendums. Interested parties will be able to submit their views on the question to the Electoral Commission in the usual way. The Scottish Government will then respond to the Electoral Commission’s report.

Both Governments agree on the need for maximum transparency in this process and for a level playing field. Therefore, as part of today’s agreement, the Scottish Government will consult the two campaign organisations that have been established for their views before proposing spending limits for the referendum campaign to the Scottish Parliament. The Electoral Commission will also provide the Scottish Government with advice on the appropriate spending limits for the two campaigns in the referendum, as has happened in previous referendums, such as the 2011 referendum in Wales on further powers for the Welsh Assembly. In that referendum, the Electoral Commission recommended that the spending limit for designated campaign organisations should be set by reference to the expenditure limits that apply to elections to the relevant legislature. In its response to both Governments’ consultation documents, the Electoral Commission provided its view that that model remains appropriate for the Scottish independence referendum.

Both Governments agree that all those who were entitled to vote in the Scottish Parliament elections in May 2011 should be able to vote in the referendum. As with all referendums held in any part of the UK, it will be the legislation that establishes the referendum that sets the franchise. It will therefore be for the Scottish Parliament to define the franchise in the referendum Bill, as would be the case for any other referendum—or indeed election—on matters within its devolved competence.

Although both Governments agree that the basis of the franchise will be that for the Scottish Parliament elections, the Scottish Government have proposed to extend the franchise to allow 16 and 17-year-olds to vote. It will be for them to make the case for that change and to deal with the technical issues that may arise. There is, of course, a range of opinions in this House about changes to the voting age. However, having agreed the principle that the Scottish Parliament should have the legal power to legislate for the referendum—that it should be a referendum “made in Scotland”—the Government accept that it should be for the Scottish Parliament to determine the franchise. I fully expect that the Scottish Government’s proposals will be debated robustly in the Scottish Parliament. Any decision taken by the Scottish Parliament for the referendum will not affect the voting age for parliamentary and local government elections anywhere in the United Kingdom.

Today’s agreement is important, as will be the consideration of the agreement and the order by this House. However, I would also like us to reflect on what will come after. Now that the Governments have agreed the process for the referendum, it is vital that we get on with the debate about the most important political decision that people in Scotland will ever take. The UK Government have started to prepare the analysis and evidence for which people in Scotland are calling. Over the next year, the Government will publish thorough, evidence-based information that will set out the key issues in the independence debate. That analysis will be comprehensive, robust and open to external scrutiny. I fully expect it to show that Scotland is better off within the United Kingdom and that the rest of the United Kingdom is better with Scotland in it.

The Government believe passionately in the United Kingdom. We will work tirelessly over the next two years to show the Scottish people and everyone else in this country that together we are stronger, that together we can overcome the challenges confronting us, and that together we can build a better future for Scotland as an integral part of the United Kingdom. The debates ahead will no doubt be long, challenging and, at times, heated. However, I fervently believe that, with the support of colleagues across the House, across Scotland and across the whole of the United Kingdom, in the autumn of 2014, fellow Scots will join me in choosing to stay as part of the United Kingdom. We are indeed better together. I commend this statement to the House.

[Margaret Curran (Glasgow East) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for providing me in advance with a copy of the statement.

This is, without doubt, an historic day for Scotland and the Scottish people. Now is the time for the debate on Scotland’s future to move out of the corridors of power and on to the streets of Scotland. I join the Minister in welcoming the fact that an agreement has been reached. It brings all Scots, me included, one step closer to deciding the future of our country.

The Opposition welcome the fact that the deal has been reached, but will seek guarantees that both parties will adhere to the agreement in spirit and in practice. We also have a number of questions to raise. Our position has always been that the referendum must be fair, legal and decisive. We welcome the fact that there will be a legal referendum with a single question and a regulatory role for the Electoral Commission.

Labour has always been, and will continue to be, the party of devolution. Labour brought devolution to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, and we will continue to make the case for our devolution settlement to develop and evolve. We are, and have always been, a party of constitutional renewal, and we know that the best interests of our people are served by binding together, not breaking apart. In the debate about our future over the next two years, we will therefore promote devolution within the Union against those who seek to bring it to an end.

The agreement sets out a framework for how we will move forward to the referendum, but I would welcome clarity on a number of a points, which I hope the Minister will address. First, the Electoral Commission should clearly play a significant role in the process, particularly with regard to the referendum question and the funding of campaigns. Can he assure the House that the memorandum of agreement ensures that the Scottish Government must comply with, not turn their back on, the Electoral Commission’s advice? If they do turn their back on that advice, or seek to do so, what action will be taken? Given that no other Government have ever done that, it would be exceptionally damaging to the conduct and process of the referendum.

Secondly, the terms of the agreement leave significant ambiguity regarding the funding of each campaign and the opportunity for financing or related activity by interested third parties. Does the agreement ensure that the limits set by the Electoral Commission will be binding? Will organisations such as trade unions and businesses be able to participate in the referendum in a way comparable to that in which they participated in the Welsh and alternative vote referendums? Does the Minister agree that it is troubling that even before the agreement was signed stating that the Electoral Commission would have a regulatory role, the First Minister’s aides were briefing the press that they would be willing to ignore the Electoral Commission?

Finally, we must ensure that there is adequate scrutiny of the agreement and the subsequent process in this House. Will the Minister therefore explain what opportunity there will be to debate the detail of the section 30 order on the Floor of the House? Will he assure me that either he or the Secretary of State will provide regular updates to the House as the process continues over the next two years?

[David Mundell]

I welcome the hon. Lady’s welcome for the agreement and her contribution to the debate that has led to it. It is important that the agreement sets out a clear role for the Electoral Commission in relation to both the question and the funding of the campaigns. It is difficult to envisage circumstances in which the Scottish Government would want to ignore the Electoral Commission’s recommendations. As she said, no Government have ever done so, and there would be not just a procedural problem but a significant political price to pay for any party that sought to do so.

We should never underestimate the Scottish people. It is wrong to suggest that they could somehow be duped into supporting independence by any form of chicanery or trickery that might come from either side of the debate. They are much too sensible for that, and I have every confidence that when the referendum comes, whatever the form of the question and however the campaign has been funded, they will make the right decision.

[Sir Gerald Howarth (Aldershot) (Con)]

As an Anglo-Scot, like my right hon. Friend the Minister and the Prime Minister, I believe passionately in the Union and believe that the campaign to remove Scotland must fail.

The Electoral Commission’s involvement is much to be commended, and I commend my right hon. Friend for what he said about it. However, the proposal to extend the franchise to 16-year-olds, who cannot lawfully buy alcohol, drive a motor car or be called to fight on the front line, but who will now be invited to opine on one of the greatest constitutional issues of our time, is surely a nonsense that will create a dangerous precedent.

[David Mundell]

I can assure my hon. Friend that it will not create a precedent. The franchise for parliamentary and local government elections throughout the United Kingdom will be determined by opinions in this House. At the moment, the Government have no proposals to change the voting age, and I do not believe there is a majority in the House to do so.

I say to my hon. Friend and others who share his views that they must now take their arguments to Scotland and the Scottish Parliament, so that the Scottish Government can be held to account when they bring forward their proposals. This is a moment for the Scottish Parliament to demonstrate its own robust ability to scrutinise legislation. When it identifies complexities with enfranchising 16 and 17-year-olds, of which there are many, it can hold the Scottish Government to account and argue against the proposal.

[Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP)]

I thank the Minister for his statement, although he will forgive me if I do not welcome the final two or three paragraphs. However, I thank him for very early sight of it.

This decision is historic, and I agree with the Minister that it is the most important that we will ever take. It also has the potential to be exciting and transformative for Scotland when the Scottish people vote yes. I very much welcome the 2014 timeline, which was of course the Scottish Government’s favoured position, and the extension of the franchise to 16 and 17-year-olds—also a Scottish Government position.

Does the Minister agree that the most exciting part of this is that, as he said, the Scottish Parliament will be the final determiner of the question? It has the only mandate of any Parliament in the UK to set a question on independence for Scotland.

[David Mundell]

I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman did not tell us that the Scottish National party wanted only one question, as well.

I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman, because his question reveals his party’s obsession with process. What is important, ultimately, is not who legislates on the referendum but the decision that the people of Scotland take. They will have the opportunity to end the uncertainty and vote to remain part of the United Kingdom.

[Sir Menzies Campbell (North East Fife) (LD)]

May I offer my unqualified endorsement of the statement made so eloquently, if I may say so, by my right hon. Friend?

Does my right hon. Friend hope, like me, that the shadow boxing will now come to an end, along with the Scottish National party’s uncharacteristic reticence, demonstrated again this afternoon, to tell the people of Scotland precisely what its proposals for independence are? May I offer him a crumb or two of comfort? If he will forgive a second sporting metaphor, the Scottish Liberal Democrats will be first off their marks on Wednesday, when we publish our proposals for home rule for Scotland within the United Kingdom.

[Hon. Members]

When?

[David Mundell]

I had understood that the Liberals brought forward proposals for home rule for Scotland 100 years ago, but I am sure that we look forward to the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s contribution to the debate. He has made a distinguished contribution to the discussion of Scotland’s constitutional future over the years. I think the people of Scotland will indeed be pleased that we can move on from a debate and discussion that have been purely about process to ones on the real issues. The Prime Minister and those campaigning in the Better Together organisation have committed to setting out a positive vision for the United Kingdom, with Scotland playing a part in it. It is incumbent on those arguing for independence for Scotland finally to answer the questions and set out what independence would really mean.

[Mr Jack Straw (Blackburn) (Lab)]

The last time the Electoral Commission considered whether 16 and 17-year-olds should vote, it found that 78% of the British public, including the Scots, were against the change. Whatever opinion Members and the public may hold on the issue, why does not the Minister acknowledge that the question of the franchise, for referendums as well as for elections, is plainly a matter reserved by law to the United Kingdom Parliament, not to any devolved Administration? Given the questions that my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow East (Margaret Curran) asked about the need for further scrutiny in the House, how will the House be able to have a prior vote on whether there can be votes at 16 or 17 in any type of poll across the whole Union?

[David Mundell]

I assure the right hon. Gentleman that previous legislation setting out referendums has set the franchise, and that the procedure will be no different in the Scottish Parliament setting out the terms of this referendum and the franchise. All Members of the House will have an opportunity to vote on the section 30 order that will pass powers for holding the referendum to the Scottish Parliament, and the opportunity for a robust debate. All those who are concerned about 16 and 17-year-olds being give the vote in Scotland should make that argument now, and demonstrate the complexities and difficulties of the proposals brought forward by the SNP.

[Mr John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

Who in the Government speaks for England on these matters, and when will English MPs be able to settle English issues without outside help in this Parliament?

[David Mundell]

As I am sure my right hon. Friend is aware, the Government have established a commission that is looking at the so-called West Lothian question and will deal with the issue he raises about the governance of England within a range of devolved settlements for the other nations of the United Kingdom.

[Mr Tom Clarke (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (Lab)]

Has anyone the responsibility—if so, who?—of ensuring that when this debate is reported over two years, people in Scotland can expect impartiality, particularly in broadcasting? That has not always been the case.

[David Mundell]

I am aware from contributions to debates about television in Scotland that people feel strongly about bias in some elements of the media. I assure the right hon. Gentleman that the normal rules he would expect to apply within an election period will apply during the referendum process.

[Mrs Eleanor Laing (Epping Forest) (Con)]

Does the Minister appreciate that although most Members of this House have grave reservations about the peculiarities of the proposed franchise, there is also wide agreement that the most important thing about the compromise reached by the Prime Minister is for there to be one decisive question on the ballot paper? The future of Scotland as part of the United Kingdom—to the benefit of everyone in every part of the United Kingdom—should be decided once and for all.

[David Mundell]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. Throughout these discussions, the Government’s position has been that there should be a single question—in or out of the United Kingdom—and that in the course of that debate, independence and devolution should not be conflated.

[Anas Sarwar (Glasgow Central) (Lab)]

I welcome the Minister’s statement. On the coming debate, and particularly the scope of the Electoral Commission, we have seen in the First Minister’s press conference and televised statements from his Ministers, that they are already rowing back from the role of the Electoral Commission. Let us not be naive about the role of the Scottish Parliament. We are talking about a man who thinks he is Scotland and speaks for everyone in Scotland. What processes will ensure that the recommendations of the Electoral Commission are put into force?

[David Mundell]

I certainly agree with the hon. Gentleman that Mr Salmond does not speak for Scotland, no matter how much he seeks to hold himself out as doing so. I do not, however, agree that Mr Salmond or the Scottish Parliament can blithely ignore the recommendations of the Electoral Commission. The commission’s recommendations have never previously been ignored by a Government, and it would be a serious political matter were that to happen. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman, and others on his side of the House, would waste no time in drawing that to the attention of the Scottish people.

[Sir Malcolm Bruce (Gordon) (LD)]

I welcome the Minister’s statement. The exchanges we have already heard demonstrate that Members of this House and the Scottish Parliament have a responsibility to ensure that the outcome of the referendum commands the full confidence of the people of Scotland, and that involves responsibility on both sides. Does the Minister agree that all parts of the United Kingdom have a distinctive contribution to make, that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts, and that we would all be diminished were we to break up this 300-year Union?

[David Mundell]

I absolutely agree with my right hon. Friend that we are better together and that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts, and that will be a significant part of the debate as we proceed. I expect people from all parts of the United Kingdom—not just within Scotland although the campaign will be led by Scots within Scotland—to make the case for the continuance of the United Kingdom.

[Ann McKechin (Glasgow North) (Lab)]

Although there are obviously differing views about extending the franchise to 16 and 17-year-olds, I hope the Minister will agree that, as this matter proceeds, it is important that young people in Scotland are treated with respect and not cynically. What assurances does he have that those 16 and 17-year-olds will be equally as able to register as any other adult, and to vote in this important poll that will determine their future?

[David Mundell]

As the hon. Lady knows, that is one of the significant complexities that the Scottish Government will face if they bring forward their proposals to allow 16 and 17-year-olds to vote. If they use the current electoral register, they will essentially allow only those who are16 years and 10 months old to vote. If they wish all 16 and 17-year-olds to vote, they will have to create their own register, and that carries with it significant complexities.

[Mary Macleod (Brentford and Isleworth) (Con)]

May I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Minister, as well as the Prime Minister, on reaching this agreement with the First Minister in Scotland? Does the Minister agree that we are far better together as the United Kingdom, and that it is now time to determine the real debate in full and look at the dubious suggestions from the SNP about defence, EU membership and currency?

[David Mundell]

My hon. Friend does the SNP extra credit by suggesting that its members have views on the issues she has set out. In recent weeks and months it has become apparent that despite campaigning for independence over many years—indeed decades—the SNP has no clear idea what an independent Scotland would look like. Now that the process issues are out of the way, it will be incumbent on the SNP to come forward with specific proposals for what an independent Scotland would look like.

[Mr Frank Roy (Motherwell and Wishaw) (Lab)]

Will the Minister ensure that Scottish members of the armed forces and their families who find themselves based outwith Scotland during the referendum will be entitled to vote?

[David Mundell]

Scottish members of the armed forces and their families will be entitled to vote under the normal rules that apply to members of the armed forces.

[Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con)]

I wholeheartedly concur with comments made by the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw). By yoking together two issues, we are causing ourselves a huge difficulty. Some of us may feel that voting for a section 30 order means that we are endorsing the vote for 16 to 17-year-olds. Should we ever vote on a referendum about the EU, for example, it would be impossible to imagine that we could deny the vote to 16 and 17-year-olds in the UK. We must insist that 16 and 17-year-olds either have the vote wholeheartedly, or—as I believe—that they should not have the vote on this major constitutional issue.

[David Mundell]

I am afraid I cannot agree with how my hon. Friend has brought those two issues together. The UK Parliament will determine the franchise for any referendum determined by it; the Scottish Parliament will determine the franchise for a referendum devolved to it. The Scottish Parliament already has the power to set the age for any election for which it has devolved responsibility, and has used it for health board and crofting commission elections. The precedent for 16 and 17-year-olds voting has been set.

[Natascha Engel (North East Derbyshire) (Lab)]

As a supporter of votes at 16, I welcome the Scottish Parliament extending the franchise to 16-year-olds. Far from seeing that as a dangerous precedent, why will the Government not seize the opportunity to consult, debate and vote on widening the franchise to 16-year-olds in all UK elections, including referendums and local and national elections?

[David Mundell]

In simple terms, the Government will not do that because we do not support 16 and 17-year-olds voting in such elections.

[Sir Robert Smith (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD)]

I welcome the agreement, which gives us a single, legally based question that can settle the future for Scotland once and for all. However, will the Minister reinforce the message that any Parliament or Government that chooses to ignore the advice of the Electoral Commission will be judged by the public for what it has done?

[David Mundell]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. I have absolute faith that the people of Scotland will not be duped by chicanery or trickery by the Scottish Government or anybody else in making this most important decision on the future of Scotland. If any Member of Parliament believes that any party in the referendum is guilty of such a charge, it is their job to hold it to account in debate, whether in the UK Parliament or the Scottish Parliament. We can be confident, because I can see no reason why the Scottish Government, whatever their spin doctors say, would ignore the Electoral Commission’s recommendations, given that no other Government have done so before.

[Mr Jamie Reed (Copeland) (Lab)]

I welcome the Minister’s statement. In fetching forward a detailed analysis of what the proposal means for the people of Scotland and England, will the Government commit themselves to an analysis of the volumes of radioactive materials from Scotland that are stored in England? How much it will cost to remove them to Scotland, where in Scotland will they be buried, and who will be responsible for them in the long term? He will be aware that foreign waste cannot be disposed of in Britain.

[David Mundell]

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point, but it is for those proposing change to say how they would deal with it. The Government do not wish to break up Britain or want a change to the existing arrangements for the storage of nuclear waste. Those who want to break up Britain must set out clearly how that would be done and what it would cost.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

Sadly, I am not 16 or 17—I am a little bit older—but as an Anglo-Scot, I feel slightly disfranchised, because the decision on my father’s homeland will be made without me having one bit of say in the matter. I request, please, that we, the Scots of the dispersion, have a say in what happens to our ancient homeland.

[David Mundell]

I am sure my hon. Friend will have the opportunity to have a say—he can go to Scotland and set forth his passionate views on Scotland remaining in the UK. The issue he raises has been raised legitimately by many Scots in other parts of the UK, who ask why they should not have a vote. The Government’s position has always been that those in the part of the UK that wishes to leave the UK should have a say in determining whether it leaves or not. That is in accordance with international protocol on the separation of nations and was also the franchise that determined devolution to Scotland in 1997.

[Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)]

Today has been an utterly fantastic day. The Edinburgh agreement is the next stage in our nation’s story. I cannot wait to get out and put a compelling and positive case for my nation’s independence. The Minister says he wants a real choice and different visions. In November next year, the Scottish Government will release a full and comprehensive prospectus on what an independent Scotland will look like. The no parties agree on so much now—on anti-universality, means-testing and an austerity programme—but when will they get together and let us know what the no proposition for the referendum will be?

[David Mundell]

For one moment, I thought the hon. Gentleman said the Scottish Government would announce their proposals this November, but in fact he said that they will do so in November next year. For a party that has campaigned for decades for independence, the fact that you have no proposals on the table on what an independent Scotland would look like reflects the lack of thought you have given to the issue. That is unbecoming of you and unworthy of the people of Scotland.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. As far as I am aware, I have done nothing unbecoming or unworthy, but it is true that I have given no particular thought to this matter, and that I have no proposals to make on it.

[Sarah Newton (Truro and Falmouth) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that home rule for Scotland is available now within the Union, as it is for any part of this country, as a result of a range of Government measures, most notably the Localism Act 2011?

[David Mundell]

First, may I say that I have always found you most becoming, Mr Speaker? I apologise for suggesting otherwise.

My hon. Friend makes an important point. Very significant additional powers are about to come to Scotland and the Scottish Parliament through the Scotland Act 2012, which will involve the most significant transfer of financial powers since the Acts of Union 300 years ago. The Scottish Government and Parliament focus should be on the implementation of those powers to the benefit of the people of Scotland.

[Gemma Doyle (West Dunbartonshire) (Lab/Co-op)]

No sooner was the ink on the agreement than Scottish Government Ministers were out dismissing the role of the Electoral Commission in the process. May I urge the Minister against complacency? Anyone involved in Scottish politics knows it is perfectly plausible that President Alex will ignore the Electoral Commission and set his own biased question. Will the Minister therefore look very carefully at the issue of the question?

[David Mundell]

The Scottish Government will propose the wording of a question in its referendum Bill. It will then be open to anyone, including the leaders of other political parties in Scotland, who have engaged in an extensive exercise, to allow the Electoral Commission to conduct the sort of scrutiny it has conducted in the past in relation to, for example, the alternative vote UK referendum. I remain confident that the people of Scotland will not simply be duped into breaking Britain up because of trickery or other such behaviour by any party in the debate. It is for anybody who suspects such behaviour or who is dissatisfied with a Scottish Parliament rejection of the Electoral Commission report, which I still consider unlikely, to make that case within the political arena.

[David Rutley (Macclesfield) (Con)]

I welcome a fair referendum and share my right hon. Friend’s view that the continuation of the Union is an important priority. Does he agree that the Union should continue on a basis that is fair to all the parties involved in it?

[David Mundell]

I absolutely agree, but I think that the first and overriding consideration is to resolve whether Scotland wishes to remain part of the United Kingdom and put that issue to bed. No doubt in future years there will continue to be a debate about the governance of the whole of the United Kingdom, in which we in this Parliament and those in the Scottish Parliament will be able to play a part.

[Mrs Anne McGuire (Stirling) (Lab)]

Harking back to the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North (Ann McKechin) and the Minister’s answer, surely the UK Government would bear some responsibility if the Scottish Parliament and Government want all 16 and 17-year-olds to have the vote? It frankly is not good enough for the Minister just to say that it is a complex issue. He should be looking at ways of encouraging the registration of all of those 16-year-olds so that we have registration not by voluntary activity but in the same way as every other voter is registered.

[David Mundell]

I would encourage everyone to register for this most important vote. The point that I made to the hon. Member for Glasgow North (Ann McKechin) is that the Scottish Government will have two options: to use the existing register on which those people who are to be 18 within the electoral cycle covered by that register may vote, or to create a new register. Whichever option the Scottish Parliament chooses, we will urge all those eligible to vote to register to do so.

[Mr Alan Reid (Argyll and Bute) (LD)]

I congratulate the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State and the Minister on reaching this important agreement. Before people come to vote in the referendum, it is important that they know what they are voting for. When the SNP eventually, in another 13 months, gets round to working out its proposals for an independent Scotland, will the Government put the proposals to independent scrutiny so that people can vote knowing what the proposals would mean?

[David Mundell]

As I indicated in my statement, the Government are already objectively carrying out extensive analysis that will clearly set out the benefits of the United Kingdom, and of Scotland playing a part in it. The people of Scotland will be able to contrast that with the lack of clarity and of any substantive proposals, and the uncertainty, coming from the SNP.

[Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)]

I welcome the statement, but may I press the Minister yet again on what mechanism is in place for this House to have a view if the Scottish Government do not take the advice of the Electoral Commission—as they have already indicated will be the case?

[David Mundell]

The opportunity for Members in relation to the issue as a whole will be in the debate on the Order, and all hon. Members will have a vote on it. If the Electoral Commission’s proposals were to be rejected—and there has been no formal statement from the Scottish Government to that effect—the Scottish Government would have to be held to account for that by the people of Scotland, by politicians in this House and by the hon. Gentleman’s counterparts in the Scottish Parliament. I have faith in the people of Scotland. If they see the Scottish Government flagrantly rejecting proposals from the Electoral Commission, or any suggestion of trickery in the question, they will not look well on the perpetrators.

[David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con)]

We seem to have used the piecemeal extension of the franchise as part of a negotiating process. What concerns me is that 16-year-olds will vote on the sovereignty of their country, but six months later they will be unable to vote in council elections. How can that be right or coherent?

[David Mundell]

The Government do not support the extension of the franchise to 16 and 17-year-olds, and indeed our Conservative colleagues will argue against that proposal when it comes before the Scottish Parliament. It will be for the Scottish Government to make the case for 16 and 17-year-olds voting in the referendum. That debate needs now to go to Scotland, to the people of Scotland and parliamentarians in the Scottish Parliament, so that there can be a full and proper debate. I remain hopeful that the Scottish Parliament will fully scrutinise any such proposals and, if they are defective, reject them.

[Sandra Osborne (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (Lab)]

The suffragettes did not campaign for the vote on a one-off basis or for a particular part of the United Kingdom. This proposal does a disservice to young people throughout the United Kingdom. Is it not irresponsible of the Government to pass responsibility for the franchise on, when they are clearly aware of major technical difficulties? Should not these be sorted out at a UK level? What would the costs be to the Scottish taxpayer if a separate register were set up?

--- Later in debate ---

[David Mundell]

The hon. Lady’s final question is one for the Scottish Government and to be asked within the Scottish Parliament. Her colleagues there must hold the Scottish Government to account in relation to any proposals that they make on this referendum. I happen to agree with her that it is not right that there should be different franchises for different elections, but that is a point to be made in the debate in Scotland.

[John Stevenson (Carlisle) (Con)]

Will the Minister confirm that the Electoral Commission will be involved in the setting of the date of the referendum? For example, I would not like to see it held during the autumn school holidays in Scotland.

[David Mundell]

The decision on the date for the referendum will be one for the Scottish Parliament.

[Pamela Nash (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)]

The Minister has made it clear today that it would be unacceptable for the Scottish Government to ignore the advice of the Electoral Commission on the wording of the question. Why then are there no clear consequences for this eventuality in the agreement?

[David Mundell]

We are following exactly the same process and procedures that were followed in relation to the alternative vote referendum that took place across the United Kingdom, in which the Electoral Commission reported to this Parliament, which then decided whether it would follow that advice.

[Mr Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)]

The hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) said that he could not wait to get out there and debate this issue. Of course, SNP Members have waited and waited. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister and the Prime Minister on the patience and quiet diplomacy that has flushed these people out. Now they can wriggle on the franchise, they can wriggle on the question, and they can even wriggle on the date they hold it, but the Scottish people will finally have a chance to examine their arguments and put them where they belong—in the bin—when they reject this outrageous attempt to split up this country.

[David Mundell]

I thank my hon. Friend for that robust contribution. He is right. The people of Scotland will see through the lack of detailed policy from the Scottish National party on what an independent Scotland would be like. As I have said in response to other questions, they will also see through any trickery or chicanery attempted in the setting of the question, the franchise or the spending limits.

[Mr Brian H. Donohoe (Central Ayrshire) (Lab)]

On the question of 16 and 17-year-olds, if—as is possible—not every single person of that age gets the opportunity to vote, there could be a legal challenge against that decision. What would happen to the referendum in those circumstances?

[David Mundell]

I am sure that the Scottish Government will want to ensure that whatever proposals they make to allow 16 and 17-year-olds to vote in the referendum are legally watertight.

[Mike Crockart (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

This is indeed a welcome settling of process issues, and it is very welcome that we can now move back to the real debate. As has already been said, next year marks 100 years since the passing of the Second Reading of the Home Rule Bill in this very place. We on these Benches have been honing our alternative for 100 years: will the Minister join me in urging the other Unionist and independence parties to do the same?

[David Mundell]

I respect the long record of the Liberal Democrats and their predecessors in pursuing these issues, and no doubt, as we approach the 2015 general election, they will set out a range of proposals for the people of Scotland. It is important now, however, that we settle the question of whether Scotland remains part of the United Kingdom or becomes a separate nation state, and we can achieve that with a single-question referendum.

[Tom Greatrex (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Lab/Co-op)]

The Minister referred to a legal, fair and decisive referendum. From what we have heard today, it might well be legal, but does he not accept that the question of fairness and, therefore, of decisiveness rests on the question? His inability this evening to explain what the consequences would be if the Scottish Government decided, as they indicated today they might, to ignore the advice of the Electoral Commission leaves the whole process in question.

[David Mundell]

I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. The consequences for the Scottish Government of ignoring the Electoral Commission with the people of Scotland would be significant, and would diminish their argument in the process. I have confidence in the ability of the people of Scotland to see through it.

[Mr Michael McCann (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (Lab)]

My daughter, Erin, turned 18 last week, so she will definitely have the vote—and she has already assured me that she will vote to remain in the United Kingdom, because she knows that we are better together. I remind the Minister that the SNP had the opportunity to extend the franchise in the 2012 local government elections, but chose not to do so. Is the Government’s confidence in ceding this territory in the negotiations based on the fact that it will be impossible to implement in the time scale envisaged?

[David Mundell]

I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s daughter’s support for Scotland remaining part of the United Kingdom. She reflects the views of many 16, 17 and, indeed, 18-year-olds, as demonstrated by the polls in Scotland. As the process continues, it will be important that we take forward the issues and debates in the Scottish Parliament and that the people of Scotland are engaged.

[Mr Ian Davidson (Glasgow South West) (Lab/Co-op)]

I welcome the fact that an agreement has been reached and that I will have the opportunity finally to vote against separation, but why do we have to wait so long? Why the delay, why the dither? Is it not because the coalition Ministers on the one hand and the SNP on the other have been meeting in secret and not taking account of the views of the vast majority of the Scottish people? Our consultation here at Westminster said that we wanted the referendum to be soon, and the Scottish Government’s consultation said—well, we do not know what it said, because they have not published it. The deal has been reached before the consultation has been published. What scrutiny will there be of the detail of the arrangement? For example, will tax exiles have the right to vote? Are we going to have foreign money coming in? Will there be an opportunity to amend not the broad sweep but the detail of these proposals? And what sanctions will there be if somebody breaks an agreement that was reached in good faith?

[Mr Speaker]

The Chairman of the Scottish Affairs Committee has posed at least four questions, but I know that the ingenuity of the Minister will enable him to reply with a single response.

[David Mundell]

I expect that both I and the Secretary of State will appear before the hon. Gentleman’s Committee to answer those questions in detail.

[John Robertson (Glasgow North West) (Lab)]

I have great faith in the Scottish people and in 16 and 17-year-olds—we underestimate them at our peril—but I have absolutely no faith in this coalition or the Executive north of the border. These 16 and 17-year-olds will be allowed to vote on Scottish separation, yet, six or seven months later, they will not be allowed to vote in a general election. How would the Minister vote if he was one of these 16 or 17-year-olds? Answer that!

[David Mundell]

First, I refer the hon. Gentleman to polling in Scotland, which indicates that 16 and 17-year-olds do not support independence, and secondly I urge him to take his argument to Scotland—to the Scottish Parliament and his MSP colleagues there—to make that robust case.

[Mr Russell Brown (Dumfries and Galloway) (Lab)]

The Minister has heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North (Ann McKechin), my right hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Mrs McGuire) and my hon. Friends the Members for Central Ayrshire (Mr Donohoe) and for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock (Sandra Osborne) about the issue of some 16 and 17-year-olds being disfranchised as a result of not being on the register. I am positive that, during the discussions that he and his colleagues have had, someone somewhere might have raised the issue of a legal challenge. Does he have any idea how much of a delay there might be, if there is a legal challenge?

[David Mundell]

First, my experience of the Labour party in Dumfries and Galloway is that it is very good at getting people on to the electoral register—and I am sure it will be so again in getting 16 and 17-year-olds registered. The Scottish Government will have to come forward with legally watertight proposals; otherwise, they will be subject to challenge. As we have heard, they could conduct the referendum on the basis of so-called attainers, by which is meant people who will turn 18 within the cycle of the electoral register. It is clear that that could be done legally, but the downside, from the Scottish Government’s point of view, is that not all 16 and 17-year-olds would be able to vote as not all of them would be on the register, because of that age limitation. The other option for them is to create their own register. But were they to do that they would have to be sure that it was legally watertight.

[Ms Gisela Stuart (Birmingham, Edgbaston) (Lab)]

Trust is good, but verification is always much better, so will the Minister not accept that the only way to ensure that the Electoral Commission’s recommendations will be complied with is to bring the referendum question back to the House for a vote?

[David Mundell]

I do not agree with the hon. Lady’s proposition. The Government’s position approaching the discussions on the agreement was that the referendum should be made in Scotland and that the necessary powers should be devolved to the Scottish Parliament. The Scottish Government would encounter significant political difficulties, were they to become the first Government in the history of the UK to ignore the views of the Electoral Commission.

[Mark Lazarowicz (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab/Co-op)]

Why would it not be possible for the voter registration form in 2013 to ask for the details of anyone who would be over 16 on the date of the referendum? Is that too obvious, or is it a simple solution?

[David Mundell]

That power has not been devolved to the Scottish Parliament in terms of the order agreed today.

[Katy Clark (North Ayrshire and Arran) (Lab)]

One of the complexities regarding 16 and 17-year-olds concerns young people not put on the register owing to child protection issues. If the Government think that the question or any other aspect of the referendum is unfair, will they take action?

[David Mundell]

The hon. Lady’s colleagues in the Scottish Parliament will have the opportunity to highlight that point, and of course if any proposals are not in accordance with the legislative framework for other issues, they cannot stand.

[Jim McGovern (Dundee West) (Lab)]

Given the responses to at least three of my hon. Friends’ questions about the question, it would appear that the measures outlined in the memorandum of understanding lead the UK Government to believe that a fair and clear question will be presented to the people of Scotland, but obviously some of us on the Opposition Benches have our doubts. If a dubious question is put, will it be open to legal challenge?

--- Later in debate ---

[David Mundell]

Clearly, all Acts of the Scottish Parliament can be subjected to legal challenge. It is quite clear, however, that were the Scottish Government to reject the views of the Electoral Commission concerning the question—the latter having carried out the thorough scrutiny it has done for previous referendum questions—they would pay a high political price, and the hon. Gentleman and others, in this House and the Scottish Parliament, would waste no time in pointing that out to the Scottish people.

[Cathy Jamieson (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab/Co-op)]

I wish briefly to return to the issue of the franchise. In the detailed discussions that have taken place, was any account taken of the experience in Scotland of the health board elections in relation to under-18s? Does the Minister agree that it is incumbent on the Scottish Government to say exactly what the franchise would be—whether it would include all 16 and 17-year-olds or be done on the basis of the current electoral register?

[David Mundell]

I absolutely agree with the hon. Lady: it is now incumbent on the Scottish Government to come forward with their proposals. It is also incumbent on those who have a view on the matter to take the debate to Scotland and the Scottish Parliament. I hope that this issue will show the Scottish Parliament at its best, scrutinising in great detail the proposals that are brought forward and giving a fair and objective assessment of them.

[Gregg McClymont (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (Lab)]

The Electoral Commission is a respected United Kingdom institution. The difficulty is that the Scottish National party does not have a great track record of respecting UK institutions—we think most recently of the attempt to brand our Olympic athletes as “Scolympians”, which I am delighted to say failed dismally. Can the Minister give an example of where the Scottish Government have respected a fully UK institution?

[David Mundell]

The Scottish Government respect UK institutions in their day-to-day working with the UK Government. They do not always want to acknowledge that publicly, but on a day-to-day basis the Scottish and UK Governments work closely on many aspects of devolved and reserved issues. However, the hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point. When the First Minister of Scotland tried to designate part of Team GB as “Scolympians”, he was laughed at by the people of Scotland. If he tries in any way to gerrymander the referendum, the people of Scotland will see through it. I trust them to do that.

Oral Answers to Questions

David Mundell Excerpts

Wednesday 12th September 2012 Commons Chamber

[Miss Anne McIntosh (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

14. When he last met the Scottish Government’s Agriculture Minister to discuss the common agricultural policy; and if he will make a statement.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (David Mundell)]

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I have frequent discussions with ministerial colleagues on common agricultural policy reform. I last met UK and Scottish agriculture Ministers during the royal highland show.

[Neil Carmichael]

With the difficulties in the harvest this year, rising commodity prices and an interest in increasing productivity and production in the world of agriculture, will those talks focus on the need to recalibrate the common agricultural policy towards our production and food costs and prices?

[David Mundell]

We are in agreement with the Scottish Government that the common agricultural policy and, indeed, policies pursued by both Governments, should seek to maximise food production in Scotland.

[Miss McIntosh]

Will the Minister assure us that he will be heavily involved in reforms to the common agricultural policy and that, once agreed, they will apply equally to Scotland, England and all parts of the UK, particularly with regard to cross-compliance measures?

[David Mundell]

The Government have shown by their actions that they are committed to involving not just the Scottish Government, but all the devolved Administrations in developing the UK position on the CAP reform negotiations, and that will continue to be our position.

[Margaret Curran (Glasgow East) (Lab)]

I am sure that everyone in the House will agree that the current negotiations in Europe may have a significant impact on food prices, especially at a time when Scottish families are under such pressure from rising food prices. Precisely what correspondence or meetings have the Minister and Secretary of State had with other ministerial colleagues to discuss this issue facing Scottish families?

[David Mundell]

The Secretary of State and I have had a range of meetings with colleagues across Government and in the Scottish Government to address not just the CAP reforms, but issues such as the cost of living and the economic policies being pursued in Scotland. As the hon. Lady well knows, our view is that the Scottish and UK Governments should be working together on economic matters in Scotland. We would much rather that that was also the view of the Scottish Government, rather than their incessant focus on constitutional matters.

[Margaret Curran]

I thank the Minister for that interesting answer. Yesterday, in response to a question of mine, the Secretary of State seemed to have no grasp of the impact of rising food prices in Scotland. Last week, Save the Children launched its first appeal to fund its work in Scotland, revealing that a quarter of parents have less than £30 a week to spend on food, and Citizens Advice Scotland tells us that applications for support for food and other basics has doubled. We all know, just as the Minister has indicated, that that is a result of the choices that he and his Cabinet colleagues have made. Are he and the Secretary of State proud that food banks are fast becoming the hallmark of his Government in Scotland?

[David Mundell]

The hon. Lady was not present at this week’s reception at Dover house, where many of the leading stakeholders on child poverty, including Save the Children, were in attendance and there was a significant discussion about the issue. She can be assured that both the Secretary of State and I take these issues very seriously.

[Dr Eilidh Whiteford (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)]

The so-called greening measures proposed for the new CAP have caused consternation throughout the farming community. In a recent National Farmers Union survey, almost three quarters of those surveyed thought that they would have an adverse environmental impact; half thought that they would harm biodiversity; and all of them thought that it would cause financial problems for their business. What is the Minister doing to make sure that those measures do not form part of the new CAP?

[David Mundell]

The Government are aware of those concerns, not just in Scotland, but throughout the rest of the United Kingdom, and the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Miss McIntosh), has reported to that effect. The Government will seek to do all they can to minimise the impact of such greening measures, if they are adopted.

[Mr Michael McCann (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (Lab)]

4. What assessment he has made of the effect on the Scottish economy of the London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic games.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Stevenson (Carlisle) (Con)]

7. What assessment his Department has made of the introduction of a 50p per unit fixed minimum alcohol price in Scotland.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (David Mundell)]

Alcohol abuse harms individuals, families and communities throughout the United Kingdom. Clearly, a range of responses is required to address the problem, and the Government continue to engage with the Scottish Government on the issue of minimum unit pricing.

[John Stevenson]

Given that this policy has the potential to affect my constituency of Carlisle, what measures are the Government taking to introduce proposals for minimum alcohol pricing in England and Wales?

[David Mundell]

The Government continue to consider the position in the rest of the United Kingdom, and before any proposals are introduced in England and Wales, there will be an extensive consultation.

[Gemma Doyle (West Dunbartonshire) (Lab/Co-op)]

12. Sadly, one of the problems that can arise from alcohol misuse concerns people getting into trouble in Scotland’s coastal waters. Is the Minister aware that there will be a delay of 15 months between the closure of the Clyde coastguard and the maritime operations centre being up and running? Is he as concerned as I am about the safety implications of that?

[David Mundell]

As the hon. Lady will know, although there are changes to the management arrangements of coastguard operation centres, the same local volunteers, lifeboats and helicopters will remain in the coastal waters of Scotland. There will be no change, and it is wrong to suggest otherwise.

[Jim Sheridan (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (Lab)]

8. How many publicly funded projects in Scotland have been undertaken by firms which engage in blacklisting against trade union members.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (David Mundell)]

Information on this is not held centrally. Regulations were introduced in 2010 to outlaw trade union blacklisting in the UK. We welcome the Scottish Affairs Committee’s inquiry into blacklisting in employment, and encourage all hon. Members and interested parties to feed their views into the inquiry.

[Jim Sheridan]

I thank the Minister for his response. I, too, commend the Scottish Affairs Committee’s inquiry. If there is tangible evidence that Government contracts are being awarded to companies that are engaging in blacklisting trade unionists, will those contracts be reviewed?

[David Mundell]

The hon. Gentleman is a strong campaigner on this issue. As I said in my original answer, I suggest he put that view to the Scottish Affairs Committee so it can form part of its report. We will certainly take its report very seriously.

[John Robertson (Glasgow North West) (Lab)]

Talk is cheap, but what would the Minister actually do? He must know that blacklistings are happening today. What will his Government do if we identify people who are doing it? What will he do?

[David Mundell]

In the first instance, the 2010 regulations provide a route for individuals who believe they have been blacklisted. As I said in my previous answer, the evidence sessions being held by the Scottish Affairs Committee are a good way of reviewing how those regulations and other laws are working in that regard. We will take its report very seriously.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

9. What recent estimate he has made of public expenditure per head of population in Scotland.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Menzies (Fylde) (Con)]

11. What involvement his Department had with the London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic games; and if he will make a statement.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (David Mundell)]

I refer my hon. Friend to the answer the Secretary of State gave to a previous question.

[Mark Menzies]

Does my right hon. Friend not agree that after a summer of sporting success, the last thing that the people of this country want is to see Team GB torn apart?

[David Mundell]

I could not agree more. The success of Team GB at both the Olympics and the Paralympics has been celebrated as much in Scotland as in any other part of the United Kingdom.

[Mr Ian Davidson (Glasgow South West) (Lab/Co-op)]

Does the Minister agree that one of the great successes of the Olympic games was the role played by London’s Mayor? I wonder what will happen to him in the future. Does the Minister also agree that when we come to the games in Glasgow, it is essential that they are run by the city of Glasgow and that we do not have nationalist politicians trying to muscle in?

[David Mundell]

The hon. Gentleman will know that the Mayor of London is a great supporter of Scotland and the Commonwealth games, and of ensuring that the legacy from the Olympics is carried into the Commonwealth games in Glasgow.

The Prime Minister was asked—

Scottish Separation

David Mundell Excerpts

Tuesday 10th July 2012 Westminster Hall

[Graeme Morrice]

I note the hon. Gentleman’s intervention. I am surprised that, although for its entire existence the raison d’être of the Scottish National party has been independence, it wants to get sidelined on the issue of devo-max or devo-plus, without the questions being defined.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (David Mundell)]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, if the SNP truly wanted to get to the meat of the debate on separation, it would press ahead, agree the process—the referendum, the single question—and get on with it? Alex Salmond and the SNP are prevaricating over process.

[Graeme Morrice]

I could not agree more. I will certainly develop that theme as I progress in my contribution.

Sadly, the other predictable aspect of the campaign so far is the level of vitriol already displayed by the so-called cyber-nats—small-minded people who seem to glory in spewing forth hatred about their opponents on every available website and online forum. The contributions of these people, who often hide behind online anonymity, only serves to harm the debate on Scotland’s future, not to mention our nation’s reputation as a welcoming and tolerant place. Although I am willing to accept that some of these extreme nationalists have nothing officially to do with the SNP or the yes campaign, it would be refreshing if more senior SNP figures condemned and disowned their extremist bile. Any interventions?

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Eilidh Whiteford (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)]

I am happy to have the opportunity to speak in today’s debate, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Livingston (Graeme Morrice) on bringing such an important issue before the House of Commons.

Before we embark on what the future of Scotland might look like, it is important to reflect on the past. If we do not understand our history, including economic history, we are in danger of becoming victims of it, and there is no way round the fact that over the past 30 years, successive Westminster Governments have let the Scottish economy languish. Our economic growth has lagged well behind that of our neighbours and competitors in the UK, Europe and further afield.

In the three decades before the current financial crisis, growth in Scotland averaged only 2.1%, against 2.7% in other comparable small EU countries, and across the G7 countries. That chronic underperformance has had adverse consequences for generations of people in Scotland, and we must ask ourselves why it has happened. Unless we think that there is something inherently inferior about Scotland or Scottish people, or some inherent weakness in the Scottish economy, we must conclude that such underperformance is a direct consequence of poor political and economic policy decision making, and a systematic failure to address the weaknesses and maximise the strengths of the Scottish economy.

[David Mundell]

I am interested to hear what the hon. Lady has to say about policy making and political judgments. Does she still support the Scottish Government’s previous position of joining the arc of prosperity with Iceland and Ireland?

[Dr Whiteford]

The Minister makes an interesting point, and it is important to look at the performance of small nations in the vicinity of Scotland. My constituency in the north-east of Scotland is close to Norway, which I think has outperformed every country in Europe over the past three decades. We should also look at the impact of the recession and at how smaller countries such as Austria, Denmark and Sweden have been more resilient and managed to experience a less deep economic crisis. Even countries such as Iceland that went so far down during the economic crisis have bounced back with much greater dexterity than the UK economy—[Interruption.] The Minister is smiling, but he should be hanging his head in shame at the economic recession that this country is slowly trying to scramble out of. That is a shameful record for a country that has the potential to be prosperous.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Whiteford]

The geographical reality with which we are dealing is that much of our renewable energy potential is located on and off the coast of Scotland. We have 10% of wave energy potential, 25% of tidal energy potential and 25% of offshore wind resources. That is a huge legacy across Europe, and we have to make the most of it. At a time when climate change puts pressures on all our energy supplies and when we absolutely have to reduce carbon emissions, that kind of investment has to happen. We must not discriminate against people in the more outlying parts of these islands because that is where such energy can and must be produced.

We absolutely need to capitalise on that opportunity to create jobs and build on our existing research strengths in our world-class universities, which are consistently being assessed as among the top in the world. In the area of science, engineering and technology, relative to our GDP, Scotland is currently No. 1 in the world for research. We also have a worldwide reputation for excellence in medicine and life sciences. We are doing very well at attracting multinational businesses to Scotland, as well as in relation to a growing number of indigenous companies.

[David Mundell]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Dr Whiteford]

I would like to give way to the Minister, but I am not going to because I am conscious that other people want to contribute.

We also have real international competitive advantages and excellence in key sectors such as food and drink—another area that is very important to my constituency—and, despite difficult times for the banking sector, we have a strong and broadly-based financial services industry, where there has recently been some welcome diversification and investment. I see that as a solid foundation for Scotland economically and there is no reason why, with those opportunities, we cannot succeed. Scotland has the assets and the fiscal balances and, with the ability to make independent policy decisions, we would have the tools to grow our economy.

Another myth that has been touched on today is that we would want to abandon sterling. I want to make it absolutely clear that no one is proposing dispensing with sterling. Retaining the pound is in the interests of Scotland, the rest of the UK and the currency itself. A free flow of goods, services, labour and capital is in everyone’s interest, and a sterling zone will provide businesses both in Scotland and in the rest of the UK with the certainty and stability for trade, investment and growth.

There is no doubt that monetary policy underpins price and macro-economic stability, but it is a blunt tool for tackling Scotland’s other economic challenges. It will not address youth unemployment; it will not directly lead to investment in infrastructure or promote innovation; it will not boost skills, target overseas investment or promote investment in key sectors; and, to come back to the point I made at the start, it will not integrate our tax, health, education and benefit systems to maximise economic opportunity and tackle inequality. That is why I believe we need to be independent and to have real policy-making powers in Scotland.

[David Mundell]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Dr Whiteford]

I will not, thank you.

Frankly, the Scottish Parliament would do a better job of welfare reform than the UK Government, who seem intent on vilifying people who do not have a lot of money. Instead, we could develop a more workable system. The Scottish Parliament is already doing a better job on health, and we are not going down the road towards privatisation. In addition, we are doing a better job on education, and we are not charging students £9,000 a year to complete their studies in higher education. The current levers open to the Scottish Parliament do not go nearly far enough to realise our economic potential.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (David Mundell)]

As always, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Robertson. I congratulate the hon. Member for Livingston (Graeme Morrice) on securing this debate on the economic consequences of Scottish separation, and on his detailed and positive case for why Scotland would be better off remaining part of the United Kingdom. I also want to thank all hon. Members who took part in the debate, including the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) who set out the positive Unionist case and talked about the support for Scotland staying within the United Kingdom that comes from other parts of the United Kingdom.

The hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Mark Lazarowicz) identified the increasingly perplexing issue of the separatists arguing on the one hand that everything would be different in a new Scotland, and, on the other, that everything would be the same—if we are in any way worried about any particular aspect of separation.

The hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Anas Sarwar) gave his usual erudite exposition of the issues, and was commendably brief. The nub of the matter is that we must get on with the debate about whether or not Scotland should remain a part of the United Kingdom, and about what would be better for Scotland.

The hon. Member for Glasgow North East (Mr Bain) made a persuasive case for Scotland remaining part of the United Kingdom. I will not repeat his points; suffice it to say that—other than his criticism of the Government—I agreed with everything he said.

The contribution of the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Dr Whiteford) was brave because she mentioned independence—something that, as I understand it, is not encouraged nowadays in the Scottish National party. Then both she and the hon. Member for Angus (Mr Weir) went on to say that they supported a single-question referendum. I am glad that they said that here in this debate.

[Mr Weir]

I cannot understand both Unionist parties’ obsession with that issue. The SNP has made it clear that it is in favour of a single question. It is for others to put forward an argument for a second question.

[David Mundell]

The hon. Gentleman must convey that message to Mr Salmond. If Mr Salmond is in agreement with members of the Scottish National party, he has the opportunity to proceed now with a single-question referendum. It is he who is prevaricating on the issue of the referendum, and not this Government, who have offered to facilitate the SNP manifesto commitment to a single-question independence referendum.

[Mr Weir]

The Minister is missing the point completely. The referendum is for the Scottish people. There has been a consultation, of which we are awaiting the results, as to whether or not there is demand for a second question. It is about not the First Minister driving that demand but whether there is demand from the Scottish people.

[David Mundell]

I tend to agree with the editorial of the Daily Record, which often, in my experience, reflects the views of the Scottish people. It has described Mr Salmond’s current tactics as a

“desperate-looking ploy that has left Salmond isolated and open to public ridicule.”

That is the case. Although separation is the Scottish Government’s policy and not ours, we have made it clear that, as a Government, we are prepared to facilitate a legal, fair and decisive referendum to settle this issue.

[Michael Connarty]

Is not Mr Salmond feart of having a single-question referendum?

[David Mundell]

I am sure that many people will make that analysis. The UK Government referendum consultation showed a strong majority in favour of a single question and robust reasons why that should be the case. Seventy-five per cent of respondents agreed with the UK Government that a single question would ensure a decisive outcome. The support for a single question is clear and growing, and today’s Scottish papers—if the SNP takes any notice of them—confirm that.

All three pro-UK parties have made it clear that they support a single-question referendum. Even the SNP officially support a single question. Both campaigns in Scotland are in favour of a single question. Margo MacDonald and the Greens have now joined the call for a single question on independence. The coalition Government are offering the Scottish Government the opportunity to deliver a legal referendum by giving them the legal power that they do not currently hold. We are offering to deliver the SNP’s manifesto commitment.

The SNP won a majority at the 2011 Scottish Parliament election on the basis of a manifesto commitment to an independence referendum, not to further devolution, and it is on that single question that it can claim to have a mandate. Independence is of course the founding principle of the SNP; this is its big chance to hold the referendum that it has pledged to hold in successive manifestos. If the SNP now does a U-turn and demands a second question on the ballot paper, it will be an up-front admission of defeat and an acknowledgement that the First Minister believes that he cannot win a single-question referendum on separation.

[Tom Greatrex]

The hon. Member for Angus probably let the cat out of the bag when he talked about the Scottish Government’s and SNP’s consultation. When the results of that are analysed, does the Minister think it would be interesting and useful to see how many contributions asking for a second question came after the May local government elections, and how many came from SNP councillors and SNP members on a standard format?

[David Mundell]

That will indeed be an interesting analysis. It is quite clear that the SNP and the First Minister are prevaricating on the question of the referendum. We have been calling for talks with the First Minister to be resumed so that Scotland’s two Governments can work together to deliver a legal, fair and decisive referendum. We need to get the referendum process agreed as soon as possible, so that we can get on to the real debate about Scotland’s future and whether Scotland should remain part of the UK.

[Anas Sarwar]

Did any SNP parliamentarians, or the SNP itself, put in a submission to the UK Government’s consultation, and if so, did they ask for one question or two?

[David Mundell]

The SNP did make a submission to the UK Government consultation and we welcomed it. As SNP members have stated, the SNP’s position is to have a single-question referendum. The Daily Record editorial today said:

“Salmond should stop playing games and start campaigning on the issues if he still believes he has a chance of realising his lifelong dream of independence. We need a proper decision as soon as possible. Then Scotland’s leaders can get back to more pressing matters”,

such as the economy, employment and education. That is the UK Government’s position.

In stark contrast with the Scottish Government, we are committed to getting the referendum process agreed and to getting on with the real debate. We have announced a programme of work that will set out in the period leading up to the referendum the benefits of remaining part of the United Kingdom. I am convinced, as are many Members here, that we will convince the people of Scotland that we are better together as part of the United Kingdom.

Oral Answers to Questions

David Mundell Excerpts

Wednesday 20th June 2012 Commons Chamber

[Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)]

2. What discussions he has had on the effect of the Scottish Government’s modern apprenticeship scheme on employment in Scotland.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (David Mundell)]

I am in regular contact with the Scottish Government on a range of issues. Later this week, the British-Irish Council is due to discuss the effectiveness of programmes and policies to support youth employment in Members’ respective Administrations.

[Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)]

In the Scottish Parliament last week, the Labour spokesperson on youth unemployment, Kezia Dugdale MSP, uncovered figures showing that of the 25,000 modern apprenticeships that the Scottish Government claim to have set up, more than 10,000 involved people who were already in work. Does the Minister agree that the Scottish Government should spend public money on creating additional jobs, and not just on rebadging jobs?

[David Mundell]

I share the hon. Lady’s concerns about how the Scottish Government seek to present facts. The facts of their responsibilities on employment matters are clear, and they have had £22 million of additional money in relation to youth contract consequentials. I should like them to focus on how they spend that money rather than on their obsession with the constitution.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mrs Eleanor Laing (Epping Forest) (Con)]

Is the Minister aware that almost every economic analysis shows beyond doubt that employment prospects in Scotland would be significantly reduced if Scotland were separate from the UK?

[David Mundell]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend, who I am sure will welcome with me the fact that employment in Scotland increased by 18,000 in the last period.

[Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)]

I am sure that, like me, the Minister has witnessed the Labour party’s ridiculous and scurrilous campaign against what is undoubtedly one of the most successful modern apprenticeship schemes in Scotland. Seemingly, Labour Members’ complaint is against rules that they introduced themselves. Should the Minister not instead congratulate the Scottish Government on almost doubling the number of modern apprenticeships in the past year and on the extra £72 million of investment?

[David Mundell]

I noticed that the hon. Gentleman did not mention the word “independence”, so he is obviously on message. On unemployment in Scotland, including youth unemployment, the UK and Scottish Governments should work together.

[Mr Iain McKenzie (Inverclyde) (Lab)]

3. What steps he is taking to expand employment opportunities in Scotland.

--- Later in debate ---

[Amber Rudd (Hastings and Rye) (Con)]

4. What recent discussions representatives of his Department have had with representatives of the Scottish agricultural industry.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (David Mundell)]

I meet regularly with representatives of the Scottish agricultural industry, including the National Farmers Union of Scotland and individual producers. I look forward to further direct engagement tomorrow, when I attend the royal highland show.

[Amber Rudd]

Does the Minister agree that those in the Scottish agricultural sector are better off with Scotland remaining part of the UK?

[David Mundell]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. An independent Scotland would shrink our home market of 60 million consumers to a mere 5 million overnight. Farmers would be reliant on exporting their produce. Some 64% of Scottish beef was sold to the rest of the UK, as the first point of delivery, in 2011.

[Mr Mike Weir (Angus) (SNP)]

Perhaps the Minister could try answering a question about something that is actually the responsibility of the UK Government. Is he aware of the huge concern in the Scottish agricultural and horticultural sectors about the future of the seasonal agricultural workers scheme, which is due to expire next year? Has he made representations to the Home Office for the continuation of the scheme?

[David Mundell]

I note the hon. Gentleman’s concerns and I would be happy to meet him to discuss them further.

[Michael Connarty (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (Lab)]

6. What recent discussions he has had with the Scottish Government on youth unemployment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Tom Clarke (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (Lab)]

7. What steps he is taking to reduce energy prices in Scotland.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (David Mundell)]

The Government are committed to ensuring that consumers get the best deal for their energy usage, and have put in place measures to help to reduce household energy bills. In May, I held a summit in Rutherglen, bringing together the big six energy suppliers, Scottish consumer groups and the regulator, Ofgem, to examine ways of addressing this issue.

[Mr Clarke]

Over the past eight years, average energy prices have increased by 140% per household, while the increase in average income for households has been a mere 20%. What are the Government doing to respond to people’s worries—especially those of low-income families, elderly people and people with disabilities—and to deal with this onslaught on vulnerable people?

[David Mundell]

The Government are continuing the cold weather and winter fuel payments, and bringing forward the green deal. We are also working with voluntary organisations across Scotland to help them to support the most vulnerable people, so that they can access all the fuel-related benefits that are available to them.

[Mr Alan Reid (Argyll and Bute) (LD)]

Many islanders are telling me that the 5p fuel duty discount is not being passed on to the motorist. Will the Minister ask Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs and the Office of Fair Trading to investigate this matter? They must ensure that this discount is passed on to the motorist in its entirety.

[David Mundell]

I am concerned to hear what the hon. Gentleman is saying, and I would be happy to meet him and other concerned island MPs to discuss the matter.

[Mr Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

8. What steps he is taking to reform central Government funding for the devolved Government in Scotland.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (David Mundell)]

The UK Government have worked hard to influence the content of the “General Approach” at the Fisheries Council. It would deliver positive benefits for Scotland’s fisheries and those who depend on them, and I welcome its commitment to manage fish stocks sustainably, to move towards more regionalised fisheries management and to ensure that discards are eliminated.

[Dr Whiteford]

I also welcome the progress that was made in Luxembourg last week, but does the Minister think that this would be an appropriate juncture in the process at which to introduce more transparency into fisheries management in the form of the UK Government making public the individuals and companies that hold fish quota here?

[David Mundell]

I agree with the hon. Lady that it is important for the UK Government and the Scottish Government to work well together, and the recent Fisheries Council is a good example of them doing that for the benefit of Scotland’s fishermen.

[Miss Anne McIntosh (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Dr Whiteford) is absolutely right: we need a register of active fishermen—[Interruption.]

[Miss McIntosh]

—and fisheries. [Laughter.] The hon. Lady is absolutely right that, without a register, we do not know who are active fishermen in Scotland and who are slipper skippers.

[David Mundell]

Ministers both here in the UK Government and in the Scottish Government will have heard the comments of my hon. Friend, who is a respected contributor on such matters.

[Tom Greatrex (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Lab/Co-op)]

11. What plans he has to mark the bicentenary of Dr David Livingstone’s birth in March 2013.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (David Mundell)]

I have met representatives of the Scotland-Malawi partnership to discuss the best way for the UK Government to mark this bicentenary. The Scotland Office will hold a commemorative event at Dover house. My officials will work with other interested parties to ensure that this anniversary is celebrated across the UK.

[Tom Greatrex]

I thank the Minister for his reply. Will he join me in supporting my invitation to the President of Malawi, Joyce Banda, to visit the UK during the bicentenary and as part of that visit to come to Blantyre, Lanarkshire, in my constituency?

[David Mundell]

I commend the hon. Gentleman for the role he has played in promoting the David Livingstone bicentenary, which has great resonance in his constituency. Yes, the Scotland Office will work with him and others to encourage the President of Malawi to come to Scotland.

Scotland Bill

David Mundell Excerpts

Thursday 26th April 2012 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (David Mundell)]

I beg to move, That this House agrees with Lords amendment 1.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

With this we may take Lords amendments 7, 8, 10 and 11.

[David Mundell]

Along with the redoubtable Wendy Alexander, Annabel Goldie, Lord Browne of Ladyton, Lord Stephen and my right hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael), I took part in the very first meeting that led to the establishment of the Calman commission. I am pleased and proud today to be part of what I hope will be the successful conclusion of the commission’s work. The return of the Scotland Bill to this House comes after the other place has given the Bill a great deal of detailed scrutiny and consideration for many months. Indeed, in handling the Bill in the Lords, Lord Wallace of Tankerness was compared to Kate Adie. That comparison is not correct: he was more like General Montgomery, because he was at the forefront of the action rather than a mere commentator.

Since the Bill was last in this House, there have been two very significant developments. The Scottish Government have changed their position from one of opposition to one of support for the Bill, including many of the amendments we will consider today. On 21 March, the Secretary of State confirmed in a written ministerial statement the terms on which agreement had been reached with the Scottish Government on the Bill, and on 18 April the Scottish Parliament passed the legislative consent motion for the Bill unanimously.

When the Bill was last in this House, it appeared that the Scottish National party would never join the consensus that has been shared throughout both the Calman commission process and the parliamentary process on the Bill.

[Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP)]

I know that the Minister wants to pretend that this Bill is incredibly important, but in fact it is a rather modest Bill. If I may correct him—I know that he sometimes struggles with detail—he will remember that on Second Reading, I made it clear that we would not stand in the way of the Bill. I welcome the changes that the UK Government have made, in particular to remove some of the re-reservations, and I hope that we can now get on and pass this modest little measure.

[David Mundell]

I also remember the occasion on which the Scottish National party voted against the Bill, as we will detail in respect of the specific amendments that come forward. Several changes have been made to the Bill, but all of them have been on the basis of assurances provided by the Scottish Government as to how the matters will be conducted.

[Mrs Anne McGuire (Stirling) (Lab)]

Except sometimes the right hand of the Scottish National party does not know what the left hand is doing. While down here it was being conciliatory, it was initially prepared to stand in the way of this extensive devolution of powers.

[David Mundell]

The right hon. Lady may recall that during previous consideration of the Bill, I identified London SNP as a quite different body from the Scotland-based SNP. At the same time as the SNP in London opposed the Bill, more sensible forces in the Scottish Parliament were looking to bring forward what will be a significant package of measures that will strengthen devolution by increasing the financial accountability and responsibility of the Scottish Parliament.

[Stewart Hosie]

Instead of misrepresenting me, why does not the junior Minister understand that the only reason the Scottish Parliament was able to agree the legislative consent motion was because the UK Government agreed to remove the idiotic re-reservations that they had planned; agreed to take out some of the significant and damaging things that they had intended with the Supreme Court; and, fundamentally and very sensibly, agreed proper commencement procedures, about which I will say more later?

[David Mundell]

I am sure that the SNP at Westminster group leader’s substitute will recognise that when this Bill was previously debated in this Parliament, the Scottish National party indicated that it had six demands that it required to be reflected on the face of the Bill before it would support it. None of those six demands is in the Bill as we debate it today or as it was debated in the Scottish Parliament, where it received unanimous support—including that of all members of the Scottish National party present.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

I do not really like the Bill being called modest by the Scottish National party when the Office for Budget Responsibility says that the Scottish Parliament will be able to have over £500 million of income tax in 2015-16. That is hardly modest.

[David Mundell]

I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. This is a significant measure which will lead to the largest transfer of fiscal powers between Westminster and Scotland in 300 years, and it should be welcomed by all parties. My hon. Friend may be aware that yesterday that the First Minister apparently told the Institute of Directors that he planned to align taxes in Scotland with the rest of the UK, so the Scottish National party may now regard the actual requirement for tax-varying powers as insignificant.

Lords amendment 1 seeks to improve the drafting of clause 3. Section 113 of the Scotland Act 1998 makes provision about the scope of subordinate legislation powers in that Act. Clause 3(1) amends section 113 of the Scotland Act so that the supplementary powers contained in section 113 also apply to Scottish Ministers’ new power to make subordinate legislation about the administration of Scottish Parliament elections under section 12 of the 1998 Act.

Lords amendment 1 would replace clause 3(1) with new provision having the same effect. The amendment would have the effect of restructuring section 113 and this would make it easier for provisions in this Bill or future legislation to provide that the supplementary powers contained in section 113 apply in relation to other powers that may be conferred on the Scottish Ministers.

Clause 15 changes the name of the Scottish Executive to the Scottish Government. Lords amendments 7 and 8 are minor technical amendments that would ensure that all the references to “Scottish Executive” in section 44 of the Scotland Act are amended to “Scottish Government”.

Clause 22 makes provision for there to be a Crown Estate Commissioner who knows about conditions in Scotland. Lords amendments 10 and 11 would change the name of this Commissioner from the “Scottish Crown Estate Commissioner”, to the “Crown Estate Commissioner with special responsibility for Scotland”. I can confirm that the original title for the commissioner included in the Bill was taken from the Calman commission’s own proposals and discussed with the Crown Estate. However, it is accepted that the amendments to the commissioner’s title will properly reflect the role that the commissioner will play.

[Stewart Hosie]

The Minister will concede, I hope, that notwithstanding this change there is no material difference between the Bill as it was and the amendment to the title of the Crown Estate Commissioner?

[David Mundell]

The amendment changes the title. If the hon. Gentleman is alluding to whether the Scottish Government, in their discussions on the Bill, put forward a requirement for further devolution of the Crown Estate, I can tell him that they did not. It was not a red line for the Scottish Government.

[Mr Frank Roy (Motherwell and Wishaw) (Lab)]

Are any costs associated with the name change?

[David Mundell]

As far as I am aware, no costs are associated with changing the name from that proposed in the original Bill to the revised one.

[Anas Sarwar (Glasgow Central) (Lab)]

Will the title of First Minister be changed to “Secretary of State for Rupert Murdoch”?

[David Mundell]

I am sure that that is a matter on which the hon. Gentleman and many others hold a view but on which the Government do not.

The Select Committee on Scottish Affairs has produced an interesting report on the future of the Crown Estate in Scotland. Obviously, the Government welcome the assiduous work carried out in preparing the report. I am surprised that its Chairman, the hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Mr Davidson), who usually plays a robust part in these deliberations, is not present. I had anticipated his having something to say about his report. However, the Government will consider it in due course. I understand that it has been debated in the Scottish Parliament, where the devolution of Crown Estate activities directly to local communities found support, at least among opposition parties there.

On that basis, I hope that the House will agree with the Lords amendments.

[Mr William Bain (Glasgow North East) (Lab)]

As we begin debating the Lords amendments, I hope the House will consider it appropriate for the Opposition to mark the significance of what is likely to be our final consideration of the Scotland Bill. If it receives Royal Assent in the coming days, the Bill will represent the largest devolution of financial powers to Scotland in 300 years; will make decisions on spending and taxation more transparently accountable to the Scottish Parliament than at any time since 1999; and create new borrowing powers with the potential to boost economic growth significantly.

This enhancement of devolution is the culmination of a four-year process of cross-party and cross-societal constitutional reform through the Calman commission, which was established by Wendy Alexander and other pro-devolution party leaders in Scotland. Its outcome was accepted in a White Paper by my right hon. Friend the Member for East Renfrewshire (Mr Murphy); was assisted by my hon. Friends the Members for Glasgow North (Ann McKechin) and for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Tom Greatrex) in various capacities; and has been implemented with cross-party support by the coalition Government.

It is also welcome that the Scottish Government have finally indicated their assent, if not warm-hearted approval, for the Bill, after a significantly longer and more circuitous journey to reach that position than that undergone by Scotland’s other political parties.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Mundell]

rose—

[Margaret Curran (Glasgow East) (Lab)]

rose—

[Pete Wishart]

I have a choice between the two Front Benches. I will give way to the Minister first.

[David Mundell]

We would not want the hon. Gentleman to mislead the House. The UK Government have not agreed with the Scottish Government on dual commencement. What we have said is that it is desirable and that we will work with the Scottish Government to achieve it, but it has not been agreed on at this stage. I say this just so that right hon. and hon. Members are not misled.

[Pete Wishart]

I am grateful to the Minister for clarifying that. It is good that he agrees with the Scottish Government that joint commencement is a good idea and I welcome the fact that there will be a veto for the Scottish Parliament in regard to the commencement of potentially damaging tax powers.

The Bill does not meet the aspirations of the Scottish people. It does not meet the aspirations of the anti-independence parties either. They have all moved on as well, and decided that these provisions are not enough. The Conservative-led Unionist alliance and what accounts for their think-tanks are all now considering the next stages of devolution as they move forward. They, as well as the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish people, have passed the Bill by. The Bill is finished, it is dead, it is something that belongs to another day and another era.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

I am sure that everything is possible.

[David Mundell]

I shall make a few points on the issues pertaining to this group of amendments. I can assure the right hon. Member for Stirling (Mrs McGuire) that we on the Government Benches always listen to her wise counsel. I will deal with the specific points she raised, which are important—regardless of when or where they are raised.

As the matter was raised by the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart), let me be clear about the position on joint commencement. The Scottish Government sought a specific provision for joint commencement in this Bill. The request was refused, as it was unworkable—like so many proposals advanced either by the SNP in London or the Scottish Government. Instead, we focused on delivering this Bill. At last, that objective is shared by the Scottish Government.

Of course we want to achieve circumstances in which joint commencement can take place. I shall quote from a letter sent by the Secretary of State on 20 March to Bruce Crawford and John Swinney:

“Consistent with the principle of consent, our two governments should reach agreement on implementation issues, including adjustments to the block grant, to take account of the Scottish Parliament’s new fiscal powers.”

That is the Government’s position.

Let me respond to a point made by hon. Member for Dundee East (Stewart Hosie). He seemed to suggest that evidence had been produced to support the Scottish Government’s and indeed the Scottish National party’s suggestion that corporation tax should be devolved. Again, I am sure that he would not wish to mislead the House into thinking that actual evidence had been produced to support that proposition. Indeed, it was not.

[Stewart Hosie]

The Minister’s memory is appalling. I intervened on the Labour Front-Bench spokesman to ask the Labour party’s position on corporation tax. I said no such thing about evidence being provided to the UK Government. I am sure Hansard will bear that out. If, however, the Minister wants to carry on and embarrass himself further, I will be delighted to listen.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I would obviously not allow the Opposition Front-Bench team to respond. I am sure that, as we go through the further provisions, everyone will be able to discuss the issues about taxation that they wish to raise.

[David Mundell]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I shall not use the same tone as the hon. Gentleman, although I think his remarks confirmed that no evidence had been produced at all or in any form to support the proposition of devolving corporation tax. That is why it is not being devolved in this Bill and is not the subject of these or any other amendments brought forward in the House of Lords. I support the amendment on that basis.

Lords amendment 1 agreed to.

Clause 7

Partial suspension of Acts subject to scrutiny by Supreme Court

[David Mundell]

I beg to move, That this House agrees with Lords amendment 2.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

With this we may take Lords amendments 5, 6, 17, 18 and 26.

[David Mundell]

As I have already explained, on 21 March the Government announced a package of measures in the Bill, and supporting non-legislative arrangements, to ensure that the Bill would operate in a fair and sustainable way to benefit Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom. That announcement followed productive discussions with the Scottish Government.

I hope that it does not prove career-limiting for him if I pay tribute to Bruce Crawford MSP, the Cabinet Secretary for Parliamentary Business and Government Strategy in the Scottish Government, who has worked closely with me and with the Secretary of State on the dialogue that has been taking place about the Bill. Mr Crawford and his officials have always engaged constructively in discussions on the Bill, and, even on occasions when we have not agreed, we have always conducted those discussions in an orderly and proper fashion. I am most grateful to Mr Crawford for the way in which he dealt with the legislative consent motion in the Scottish Parliament, securing a unanimous outcome. There was no dissent from any member of the Scottish National party.

Following the agreement announced on 21 March, changes were made to both the finance and non-finance provisions in the Bill. Since its introduction in November 2010, it has been subjected to detailed scrutiny in the United Kingdom and Scottish Parliaments. In Westminster, it has passed successfully through its Commons and Lords stages, and has returned to the Commons today for further consideration. In Holyrood, not one but two Scotland Bill Committees have taken evidence and reported to the Scottish Parliament. I pay tribute to my colleague David McLetchie MSP, who experienced the pleasure of serving on both those Committees. I think that his expertise could rightly be said to be beyond that of Members of this House and the other place, in that he has a true understanding of the Bill and all its ramifications. I also pay tribute to the other MSPs who served on both Committees for their work in dealing with the reports, and subsequently passing the legislative consent motion tabled by the Scottish Government in favour of the Bill.

We have gone further than ever before in working with parties in Scotland and across the United Kingdom to deliver a Bill built on cross-party consensus. We have carefully considered and, when appropriate—that is, when a case based on evidence has been properly made—taken on board the views of the Scottish Government and the Scottish Parliament. We are pleased that we have reached agreement and can make progress with the Bill.

The package of measures announced on 21 March meets the tests that the Government set for changes in the Bill package. They are based on evidence, maintain the cross-party consensus that supports the Bill, and will benefit Scotland without detriment to the rest of the United Kingdom. The amendments in this group are part of those changes. Lords amendments 2, 5, 6, 17 and 26 would remove clause 7, clause 12, schedule 2, clause 13 and clause 26.

Lords amendment 2 would remove clause 7. As it stands, section 33 of the Scotland Act 1998 allows for only a Bill, rather than a single provision of a Bill, in the Scottish Parliament to be referred to the Supreme Court in its entirety on questions of legislative competence. That means that implementation of the whole Bill would be delayed if the matter were referred to the Supreme Court pending a decision of that court. The Government’s intention in pursuing the limited reference procedure contained in clause 7 was to prevent unnecessary delays on Bills the majority of whose provisions were considered to be within the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament.

The Scottish Government expressed the fear that the clause could have the potential to introduce unintended consequences and delay to the enactment of legislation in the Scottish Parliament. As a result of our discussions with the Scottish Government, we agreed that the clause could be removed. The Scottish Government accept that that will mean that in future, as at present, only a full Act of the Scottish Parliament can be referred to the Supreme Court, even if only a single provision raises competence issues. I should make clear that the provision in the original Bill was intended to be helpful to the Scottish Government. However, they decided that they did not want that helpful measure to be included, and as a result we agreed to remove it.

Lords amendments 5 and 26 would remove the clause on insolvency and the related provision in schedule 2. Clause 12 would return exclusive legislative competence to the UK Parliament in relation to all aspects of the winding up of business associations. It is intended to ensure that the rules on corporate insolvency are consistent on both sides of the border. The UK Government continue to believe that it is important to take into account the view of stakeholders that, when appropriate, Scottish insolvency procedures should be in step with those in the rest of the UK. Our discussions with the Scottish Government have provided us with assurances that we can address those concerns without amending the devolution settlement in this respect.

Let me make clear to Scottish National party Members that the UK Government have removed the clause on the understanding that the Scottish Government will consider the modernisation measures for the devolved areas of winding up in Scotland that were introduced into the reserved insolvency procedures in 2009 and 2010, and have provided assurances that future changes made by the UK Parliament or Ministers in that area will be considered in a timely fashion by the Scottish Government in their area of competence.

Lords amendment 6 seeks to remove clause 13. The clause deals with the regulation of health professionals, to which the right hon. Member for Stirling (Mrs McGuire) has already alluded. Since Royal Assent to the Scotland Act 1998, the regulation of any health professionals not regulated by the legislation listed in schedule 5 has fallen within the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament, but although the Scottish Parliament has had the power to introduce separate legislation in respect of the regulation of health professionals, it has chosen not to do so.

During our discussions with the Scottish Government, they raised some concerns about the clause. They pointed out that the delivery of health care is, on the whole, devolved to Scotland. However, they gave us clear assurances that they would work closely with us to ensure that consistent regulatory regimes apply to all health professionals. I assure the right hon. Member for Stirling that it is on the basis of those assurances that the UK Government are content to continue to develop policy in relation to the regulation of health professionals with the Scottish Government.

[Mr Frank Roy]

Does this not prove that some things should be done on a UK-wide basis rather than on the basis of a separate Scotland?

[David Mundell]

During consideration of the Bill in the House of Commons and by the Committees of the Scottish Parliament, I was not aware of a single piece of evidence suggesting that the regulation of health professionals would benefit from not being carried out on a UK-wide basis. In fact, it has been pointed out that health professionals are a relatively mobile group who may want to move to and from jobs in Scotland and England, and who would therefore not benefit from separate regulation.

[Mr Roy]

Presumably the SNP agrees with that.

[David Mundell]

As I said earlier, the Scottish Government have given assurances that although there will not be a relevant clause in the Bill, they will work with the UK Government to ensure that there is a uniform approach to the regulation of health professionals. I think that those remarks are consistent with the First Minister’s statement yesterday that he intended to align taxes in Scotland with those in the rest of the United Kingdom if Scotland became independent. In fact, if Scotland became independent, there would be no difference on virtually any matter.

Lords amendment 17 would remove clause 27. The Government included that clause to provide UK Ministers, concurrently with Scottish Ministers, with a power to implement international obligations in devolved areas. That would have allowed UK Ministers to implement international obligations on a UK basis, where it would be more convenient to do so. Both Governments acknowledge the importance of ensuring that all of the UK’s international obligations are fully implemented across the UK in a timely fashion. The UK Government are willing to remove this clause on the understanding that Scottish Ministers will ensure that any international obligations that fall within their responsibility are implemented on time. We have made clear to Scottish Ministers that the Government would be prepared to use their existing powers of direction under section 58(2) of the Scotland Act 1998 if we were to have concerns about the implementation of international obligations within the remit of Scottish Ministers.

Let me make it absolutely clear that the Government have not conceded on the principle of re-reservation, as the Scottish National party suggested during our earlier debates on this Bill. The Bill does not make devolution a one-way street. Clause 14 re-reserves the regulation of activities in Antarctica.

[Pete Wishart]

If it is not a one-way street, which powers are now coming back to this House apart from those on Antarctica?

[David Mundell]

The hon. Gentleman forgets that he and his colleagues moved an amendment to remove the clause re-reserving activities in Antarctica. They were defeated in this House, and the Scottish Government have accepted that the regulation of activities in Antarctica should be re-reserved. I fail to understand the SNP negotiating position, because it appears that the regulation of dental hygienists—important though that is, as the right hon. Member for Stirling said—cannot be re-reserved, yet matters such as the administration of the Crown Estate, corporation tax, excise duties and further broadcasting powers were not red lines for the SNP in its discussions on this Bill.

[Pete Wishart]

To ensure that the Minister does not mischaracterise the approach of the Scottish Government, let me state that we are not for any re-reservations of powers now. That is why the Bill is now more acceptable to the SNP and the Scottish Government.

[David Mundell]

Again, I would not want the hon. Gentleman to mislead the House. The regulation of activities in Antarctica are re-reserved to this House.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

And I know that no Member would mislead this House.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Mundell]

This re-reservation—which some Members on the Opposition Benches sought to remove at an earlier stage—is a sensible measure.

We have removed provisions from the Bill where we have been given necessary assurances that their effect will be achieved by other means, or where we now take the view that we can sufficiently rely on existing powers.

Finally, let me turn to the proposed new clause under Lords amendment 18. Its purpose is to provide information to both Houses in the UK Parliament on the implementation and operation of the financial powers in this Bill. It requires the Secretary of State for Scotland to publish an annual report to both Houses of Parliament within one year of the Scotland Bill becoming an Act and until a year after the tax and borrowing powers are fully transferred to the Scottish Parliament. The last report is therefore expected to be published in 2020. The Secretary of State will send a copy of his report to Scottish Ministers, who will lay a copy of it before the Scottish Parliament. The proposed new clause also requires Scottish Ministers to lay a report of the same title to the Scottish Parliament on an annual basis and to provide a copy to lay before both Houses of the UK Parliament.

This amendment was proposed by the Government during discussions with the Scottish Government. The new provision will ensure that there is a transparent mechanism of reporting to both Parliaments on implementation. Passing the Bill is just one part of the process to ensure that these new powers are delivered and the accountability and responsibility of the Scottish Parliament are increased. The important implementation work that both Governments need to undertake to ensure that the financial measures operate successfully will now begin in earnest. This amendment will ensure that both Parliaments are kept properly informed of progress on implementation by both the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Scottish Government.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stewart Hosie]

I want to say only a few words about this group of amendments. They are very welcome, particularly the scratching out of some of the re-reservations. We tabled amendments, of course, to remove the re-reservation of insolvency and health professional regulation matters in a previous stage, but the Government rejected them at that point, as did the British Labour party. I am delighted that there is now unanimity that those re-reservations should be removed.

[David Mundell]

Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that he also tabled an amendment at an earlier stage to remove the re-reservation of Antarctica and that the re-reservation of Antarctica remains in the Bill?

[Stewart Hosie]

Indeed it does. We can safely say that we have no territorial claims on Antarctica. This is a Scotland Bill, and the re-reservation removal is sensible.

Lords amendment 18 deals with reports on the implementation and operation of financial measures in the Bill. That is a sensible provision, and it is linked closely to the commencement of those financial provisions. We made that point repeatedly throughout debates on the Bill. In the Committee of the whole House, on the second day of debate, we discussed commencement powers to ensure that things were done at the correct time. We had a good debate on six separate commencement provisions for various financial measures. We said:

“If the commencement arrangements are left unchanged, many of the most important questions about the Bill will be left unanswered.”—[Official Report, 14 March 2011; Vol. 525, c. 89.]

On Third Reading, we said that the amendments that we had tabled on commencement would ensure that the tax provisions could not

“be brought into effect unless the Scottish Parliament...specifically consented.”—[Official Report, 21 June 2011; Vol. 530, c. 248.]

That was not just a point of principle—matters that affect the Scottish Parliament should be decided by the Scottish Parliament—but concerned some practical, technical issues. If a number of fiscal measures were introduced at the wrong time in the economic cycle that could be detrimental economically. Several Labour Members understood that point, and did so very clearly indeed, and it was interesting that Labour abstained from decisions on commencement—the party did not object to it, and I am glad that it welcomes what we have at the moment.

I want to take the opportunity, unusually, to be generous to the Secretary of State. The discussions and negotiations between his team and Bruce Crawford, the Cabinet Secretary for Parliamentary Business and Cabinet Strategy, and the letter that the Secretary of State sent to Bruce and to the Cabinet Secretary for Finance, Employment and Sustainable Growth, John Swinney, were extremely helpful, particularly the part of the letter that said:

“Consistent with the principle of consent”—

which was what we were determined to deliver—

“our two governments should reach agreement on implementation issues, including adjustments to the block grant…Each government should also provide assurance to its Parliament before the relevant provisions of the Bill are brought into force and before implementation arrangements are brought into effect.”

That agreement on the requirement properly to engage the Parliaments, and the principle of consent, were what we were trying to achieve. For the avoidance of doubt—and I have said this to the Secretary of State for Scotland, so it is not a surprise to him—of course there will be a bun fight about the contents of the Bill. Of course the matters that are being devolved do not go far enough for the Scottish National party—that is not a huge surprise—but making sure that we avoid the dangers of the financial provisions commencing at the wrong time was always the key thing that we needed to change. The Secretary of State knows that, so I very much welcome that exchange of letters to ensure that commencement is done properly on the basis of consent.

--- Later in debate ---

[Pete Wishart]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce). The Scottish people are always pleased at the interest and indulgence of English Members of Parliament in our affairs and business. We are all grateful for that.

It is a pity that the hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart) has left the Chamber. I did not know whether to reach first for my horned helmet or my longboat during his comments about Vikings. I do not know how many people in Denmark are rushing to join a greater union with Germany—certainly I have never come across a Dane who has been keen to be part of that particular union.

The most notable thing about these Lords amendments is how little they were discussed in the Lords. I do not know whether other Members spent any time looking at the debates in the House of Lords, but I did, and “interminable” would not be the word to describe some of them. At times it seemed like the Michael Forsyth show—he was on his feet all the time. Such is his pre-eminent place in the Tory-led cross-Unionist alliance that people like him are leading the debate just now.

[David Mundell]

Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that, unlike the Scottish National party, Lord Forsyth achieved extra devolution to Scotland in the Bill? Lord Forsyth introduced amendments that extended the Scottish Parliament’s powers, which were accepted in the House of Lords and will be proposed in this Chamber. The Scottish National party has failed—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

Order. I would like both the Minister and the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) to return to the subject of the amendments. We should talk about the subject, not what debates went on elsewhere. I am sure, Mr Wishart, you will do so immediately.

--- Later in debate ---

[Pete Wishart]

I am grateful, Madam Deputy Speaker.

We have effectively ensured that there will no longer be re-reservations of health professionals because the clause was dropped, but the point I was trying to make was on how we managed to get to that point. I remember the debate and the passionate case that was put for the re-reservation of health professionals. The right hon. Member for Stirling (Mrs McGuire) does not agree with that, but I do not know whether Labour Front Benchers take that position or whether they believe that re-reservation is no longer required. I would be interested to find out how we got to this position.

[David Mundell]

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman did not hear what I said earlier. The Government reached this position because the Scottish Government gave assurances that they would work with the UK Government to ensure that the regulation of health professionals was the same across the UK. On the basis of those assurances, which I understand still hold good, the UK Government agreed that we would not put that clause in the Bill, hence the amendment. We have acted on the basis of assurances given by the SNP Government. I do not expect that they will renege on those assurances, and I hope the hon. Gentleman is not suggesting they will.

[Pete Wishart]

That sort of clarifies things, but I do not understand why the Minister did not accept the amendments when they were debated in the House in March last year. We know the right hon. Member for Stirling does not like the amendments and that the Minister has grudgingly given the re-reservation away, but we do not know the position of Labour Front Benchers.

--- Later in debate ---

I repeat that, notwithstanding the fairly technical points that I have raised, I support the Bill and the Lords amendments, particularly Lords amendment 18. Whatever else it may do, it will increase transparency.

[David Mundell]

With the leave of the House, I shall respond specifically to the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington South (David Mowat), because I understood all the other Members who have spoken to be expressing support for the amendments, some more grudgingly than others.

I do not wish to question the accuracy of my hon. Friend’s analysis of the debates that have taken place in the House of Lords and the Scottish Parliament, but according to my reading of Bruce Crawford’s contribution to the Scottish debate, he made no reference to the no-detriment principle. He did, however, refer to the Holtham approach. There are two separate issues in play. The Holtham approach is about the adjustment of the block grant.

[Lindsay Roy (Glenrothes) (Lab)]

Can the Minister confirm that the same Bruce Crawford did not describe the Bill as a poison pill, a dog’s breakfast, and dangerous?

[David Mundell]

I accept the hon. Gentleman’s recollection of what Mr Crawford may have said about the Bill on previous occasions, but as I said earlier, I welcomed his constructive approach in his dealings with me, with the Secretary of State and with the UK Government in taking the Bill through the Scottish Parliament by way of a unanimously expressed legislative consent motion.

During the debate in that Parliament, Mr Crawford referred to the Holtham approach, which, as I said a moment ago, relates to the adjustment of the block grant and is separate from the no-detriment principle. The Government have accepted that, as in relation to Wales, the Holtham methodology should apply for calculating block grant adjustments. That is the basis on which we will move forward. I do not accept that over the past 12 years or so the Scottish Parliament and Government have been deprived of funds. As others have said, no matter how much money is allocated to the current Scottish Government under whatever mechanism, it would never be enough.

The no-detriment principle refers to how the financial system will operate after the Scottish rate of income tax comes into force. Under that principle, the UK Government would either compensate the Scottish budget for the costs of their policy change on the devolved tax base through the block grant, or receive funds back if the Scottish budget benefits from the policy change in raised receipts. The cost or benefit to the UK from decisions taken on the income tax structure is therefore exactly the same as it would have been before this Bill devolved 10p on income tax to Scotland, and the Scottish budget would be no better or worse off.

The Office for Budget Responsibility will forecast the impact of UK decisions on the Scottish rate of income tax, and we will take steps to ensure that the Scottish budget is compensated. There is therefore a principle of reciprocity. Where one Administration either gains or loses as a result of decisions taken by the other Administration, across the shared income tax there are measures in place to compensate for that loss or gain. This is simply a matter of common sense. It is based on the principle of accountability, which lies at the heart of the statement of funding policy.

I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington South that where decisions taken by any of the devolved Administrations have financial implications for UK Departments, or where UK decisions lead to additional costs for any of the devolved Administrations, the body whose decision leads to the additional cost will meet that cost.

Lords amendment 2 agreed to.

Clause 10

Continued effect of provisions where legislative competence conferred for limited period

[David Mundell]

I beg to move, That this House agrees with Lords amendment 3.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

With this we may take Lords amendment 4.

[David Mundell]

Lords amendment 3 would remove clause 10, and Lords amendment 4 would replace it with a new clause making similar, but expanded, provision.

Clause 10 makes provision regarding the status of the Acts of the Scottish Parliament after temporary changes to legislative competence following an order under section 30 of the Scotland Act 1998. There is widespread recognition that clarity is required on the status of Acts of the Scottish Parliament in the event that its legislative competence is reduced. The Government introduced these amendments in the other place to provide clarity following comments from the previous Scottish Parliament Scotland Bill Committee and the Law Society of Scotland.

Lords amendment 4 would ensure that Acts of the Scottish Parliament that have been validly made within the legislative competence that existed at the time do not cease to have effect purely because of changes to the boundaries of competence. Therefore, provisions contained in Acts of the Scottish Parliament will not automatically fall following an alteration of legislative competence, and no gaps in the law will inadvertently be created as a result. Such provisions would cease to have effect only if explicitly provided for in an enactment.

I hope the House will agree that Lords amendment 4 is sensible and will strengthen the provision originally contained in clause 10, and that Lords amendments 3 and 4 will be agreed to.

[Mr Bain]

Lords amendment 3 removes clause 10, and Lords amendment 4 inserts a new clause before clause 11 on the matter of provisions ceasing to be within the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament.

Clause 10 would have permitted laws passed by the Scottish Parliament under a temporary transfer of powers—such as under a section 30 order—to remain in force after that transfer had come to an end. We note that the new clause widens the scope of the transfer, with the effect that any such laws, whether in the form of an Act of the Scottish Parliament or subordinate legislation, would have effect even where the competence of the Scottish Parliament to legislate had been removed, irrespective of whether this had been granted on a short or longer-term basis. We consider the new clause to remove any potential future ambiguities, and on that basis we are content to support Lords amendment 3.

Lords amendment 3 agreed to.

Lords amendments 4 to 8 agreed to.

Clause 17

The Lord Advocate: Convention rights and Community law

[David Mundell]

I beg to move, That this House agrees with Lords amendment 9.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendments 19 to 25.

[David Mundell]

There has been much debate about the role of the Lord Advocate and the Supreme Court in Scottish criminal proceedings. That debate has come a long way, and there is now agreement that the Supreme Court should have a role in relation to the European convention on human rights and EU law issues arising in Scottish criminal appeals.

The amendments tabled by the Government in the Lords took account of the many views expressed on these issues, including those of the expert group set up by the Advocate-General for Scotland. It would be appropriate at this point to remark on the passing of Paul McBride QC, who served on the expert group. Paul McBride was a well respected lawyer in Scotland and a highly regarded member of civic Scotland, and he is greatly missed by all who knew him and by the wider legal community. The amendments also took account of the views of the review group led by the noble and learned Lord McCluskey. On Report in the other place, he commented on the Government’s amendments. The end result of that process is something that even I could agree to about 98% of—which for anyone, never mind a lawyer, is a pretty good outcome, given where the debate started. In addition, the amendments tabled by the Government reflected the agreement that was reached with the Scottish Government to ensure that the legislative consent motion in support of the Bill was passed in the Scottish Parliament.

Lords amendments 9 and 19 to 22 replace clause 17 and make further provision about Scottish criminal proceedings. Subsection (2) of the new clause inserted by Lords amendment 21 would make the same provision as provided for by clause 17(2). That would mean that acts or failures to act by the Lord Advocate in prosecuting any offence, or as head of the system of criminal prosecutions and investigations into death in Scotland, would not be ultra vires should those acts be incompatible with the European convention on human rights or EU law. However, it will still be possible for acts of the Lord Advocate to be unlawful under section 6(1) of the Human Rights Act 1998 if the Lord Advocate acts in a way that is incompatible with the convention.

Lords amendments 19 to 21 provide for a new route of appeal to the Supreme Court for compatibility issues—questions raised in criminal proceedings about convention and EU law issues. Those issues would no longer be able to be raised as devolution issues. Lords amendment 21 would provide a right to appeal a compatibility issue from the High Court, acting as an appeal court, to the Supreme Court. The permission of the High Court or the Supreme Court would be needed for most appeals. An application for permission to appeal would have to be made within specified time limits, which could be extended if the Court considered that equitable.

Lords amendment 21 provides that the Supreme Court would only be able to determine a compatibility issue and would then have to remit the case back to the High Court. The High Court would then decide what steps needed to be taken in the light of the Supreme Court’s decision. For example, the Supreme Court would not be able to decide to overturn an accused’s conviction; that would be for the High Court to decide.

[Stewart Hosie]

I welcome that part of the group, but will the Minister make it absolutely clear—I believe he is just about to do so—that what we are seeing with these changes is an ending of the Supreme Court’s ability to substitute its decision for that of the High Court?

[David Mundell]

On this occasion, I am able to welcome the hon. Gentleman’s welcome. The provisions in the Bill, if these amendments are approved, will mean exactly that: the Supreme Court will not be able to substitute its own judgment for that of the High Court.

[Sir Menzies Campbell (North East Fife) (LD)]

Many of us in the House would wish to associate ourselves with the very generous and entirely appropriate remarks that the Minister made about Paul McBride. May I put it to the Minister that these amendments are an entirely effective antidote to the ill judged and ill informed comments made about the Supreme Court and its members by Scottish Ministers last summer?

[David Mundell]

I absolutely agree with my right hon. and learned Friend. The remarks made by the First Minister about members of the Supreme Court were beneath him; they demeaned his office and were wholly inappropriate.

[Mr Davidson]

Just for clarification, were the First Minister’s comments successful, in that his criticisms resulted in these amendments? If so, we would obviously take note of that. If not, that deserves to be spelt out.

[David Mundell]

I am happy to make it clear to the hon. Gentleman that views expressed by the First Minister about the Supreme Court played no part in these amendments or the completion of the Scotland Bill. Indeed, in dialogue involving the Scottish Government and Lord Advocate a much more moderate and sensible tone was adopted in relation to these matters, hence the ability to agree on what I would regard as a sensible and fair set of provisions that deal with the matters at hand.

[Mr Davidson]

Leaving aside the vehemence of the language used by the First Minister, was the substance of his comments the cause of the changes being introduced?

[David Mundell]

No. The changes being introduced today are a result of a process that was instigated by the Advocate-General for Scotland.

[Sir Menzies Campbell]

The Minister will recall that the attitude taken, to which both of us have referred, was to suggest that there should be no role of any kind for the Supreme Court in relation to any criminal issue arising out of Scotland. The proposals that he is now arguing for so eloquently represent an effective and entirely acceptable compromise.

[David Mundell]

I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for his comments. The proposals that form part of these amendments were part of the legislative consent motion that went before the Scottish Parliament and received unanimous support of that Parliament. Indeed, they were not opposed or spoken against by any Member of the Scottish National party, including the First Minister.

Lords amendment 20 would provide powers for compatibility issues to be referred to the High Court and the Supreme Court. That will enable such issues to be dealt with more quickly, where appropriate, which will be useful when a compatibility issue has implications for other cases. There are currently no time limits for appealing devolution issues in criminal proceedings to the Supreme Court. It is important that there is finality and certainty, especially for victims, in relation to criminal proceedings. Lords amendment 22 would impose time limits for seeking permission to appeal devolution issues from the High Court to the Supreme Court for devolution issues raised in Scottish criminal proceedings. The time limits are the same as those that will apply to compatibility issues.

Lords amendment 23 makes provision for a review to be arranged by the Secretary of State of the new compatibility issue procedure and of the introduction of time limits for certain devolution issue appeals. The review is to be carried out as soon as practicable after the provisions have been in force for three years. The review may be carried out earlier if that is considered appropriate. It will be wide ranging and will look at all aspects of the provisions and consider whether changes should be made. The UK Government and the Scottish Government have agreed that the review will be chaired by the Lord Justice General.

Lords amendments 24 and 25 make consequential amendments to clause 41.

[Mr Bain]

First, let me associate the official Opposition with the Minister’s remarks about Paul McBride. I also thank the right hon. and learned Member for North East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell) for reminding the House of the importance of the Supreme Court in ensuring that institutions of government are exercised in accordance with the rule of law. That is a vital element of our constitution and one that must not go unheard in the House today.

Lords amendments 9 and 19 to 25 collectively omit clause 17 from the Bill and add new clauses before clauses 38 and 41 in respect of the relationship between the Supreme Court and the functions of the Lord Advocate in criminal prosecutions in Scotland, Acts of the Scottish Parliament thereby affected, and the role of the Advocate-General for Scotland.

Lords amendment 19 amends the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 to provide that the Advocate-General may take part as a party in criminal proceedings in Scotland in so far as they relate to a compatibility issue over the actions or omissions of a public authority relating to convention rights or EU law or over whether an Act of the Scottish Parliament or any provision thereof raises issues of compatibility with EU law or convention rights in Scottish criminal proceedings.

Lords amendment 20 makes further amendment to the 1995 Act to provide that when a compatibility issue arises in criminal proceedings in a court, other than any High Court of Justiciary proceeding heard before two or more judges, compatibility issues may be referred to the High Court of Justiciary. That may be required by the Lord Advocate or by the Advocate-General, if he is a party to the proceedings. In turn, the High Court of Justiciary may refer a compatibility issue to the Supreme Court, and may be required to do so by the Lord Advocate or by the Advocate-General, if he or she is a party to the proceedings.

Lords amendment 20 makes it clear that the role of the Supreme Court is restricted to determining the compatibility issue, whereby the case is then remitted back to the High Court of Justiciary for determination in the light of the Supreme Court ruling on the compatibility issues. That amends the relationship between the two courts, and while it preserves the ability of the Supreme Court to make entirely authoritative and decisive rulings on questions of the compatibility of the decisions of the Lord Advocate in relation to Scottish criminal proceedings and the prosecution system, it also ensures that the High Court of Justiciary is the judicial forum in which any convictions required to be reduced in the light of such a compatibility ruling are reduced.

Lords amendment 22 introduces a new clause that creates a time limit for application to the High Court of Justiciary in some cases, and to the Supreme Court in more serious criminal cases, of 28 days following the initial decision or, in the latter case, against the refusal to give permission for a compatibility reference. However, as the Minister suggested, that time limit can be extended by either court on the ground of equity.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Bain]

I entirely agree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman. One of the strengths of the devolution settlement is that it allows a court of the seniority of the Supreme Court to make these determinations. It would have been wholly irresponsible to remove these basic protections from people in criminal cases in the way that other politicians in the Scottish Parliament sought to achieve.

We are content with the amendments that have been made by the Lords and we will support them in the Chamber today.

Lords amendment 9 agreed to.

Lords amendments 10 and 11 agreed to.

Clause 25

Speed limits

[David Mundell]

I beg to move, That this House agrees with Lords amendment 12.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

With this it will be convenient to consider Lords amendments 13 to 16.

[David Mundell]

Clause 25 allowed the Scottish Ministers to determine the national speed limit on roads in Scotland and to make regulations to specify traffic signs to indicate that limit. Clause 25 limited these powers to cars, motorcycles and vans under 3.5 tonnes.

We listened carefully to the arguments presented by noble Lords, together with the case made by the Scottish Parliament and Scottish Government for the Bill to provide for the devolution of powers to set different speed limits for different classes of vehicles—for example, cars towing caravans or goods vehicles. Lords amendments 12 to 16 would give the Scottish Ministers the power to make regulations regulating the speed of all classes of vehicle on roads in Scotland.

[Mr Davidson]

Will there be any restrictions under the Bill on the speed with which Scottish Government Ministers can change policy on issues such as income tax for a separate Scotland?

[David Mundell]

As the hon. Gentleman knows, in the devolution of powers such as speed limits, which are devolved in the clauses to which the amendments relate, it is entirely a matter for the Scottish Parliament and Scottish Government to determine how they use those powers and whether they apply them to themselves as they would to others.

[John Stevenson]

Although I fully support the Bill and what we are trying to achieve by devolving power to the Scottish Parliament, with regard to the road traffic regulations I have one concern, being the Member of Parliament for Carlisle, which is on the border—that is, that we ensure that there are sufficiently sensible signs on the border to indicate whether we should be speeding up or reducing our speed as we cross the border. I hope my right hon. Friend will ensure that the Scottish Parliament makes sure that that happens.

[David Mundell]

I am responsible for many things, but I am not responsible for the Scottish Government acting in a sensible manner. We are seeking to devolve these powers, which apply not just to the setting of limits, but to the signage. I am a Member of Parliament for a border constituency, as is the Secretary of State. We want to ensure that appropriate measures are in place so that people know what the law is on both sides of the border. As my hon. Friend pointed out on Second Reading, there are numerous legal differences between Scotland and England, which our respective constituents have managed to cope with over many years, not least the licensing laws.

[Mr Davidson]

Is it not the case that the Scottish Government want these powers in order to keep the speed limits the same? Just as with the monarchy, tax, the currency and NATO membership, they want the power to decide themselves that there will be no change.

[David Mundell]

I do not disagree with the hon. Gentleman. I took part in a radio programme with a member of the Scottish National party to debate the currency, and her principal argument was not over which currency Scotland should have, but about the fact that she should have the right to choose which currency; she suggested the Chinese renminbi, but I did not think that that would go down too well with the Politburo.

Lords amendments 12 to 16 would give Scottish Ministers the power to make regulations regulating the speed of all classes of vehicle on roads in Scotland and some consequential amendments. Together with the existing provisions in clause 25, that would enable them to set a national speed limit that is different for different classes of vehicle and the power to make regulations to specify traffic signs that indicate that limit. We think that that is a sensible addition to the Bill and, as right hon. and hon. Members might know, it was promoted in the House of Lords by my noble Friend Lord Forsyth, no less.

[Mark Lazarowicz]

These are sensible measures and I am sure that Scottish Governments of whatever political colour will use the powers sensibly. If a significant divergence was to develop between practice in England and practice in Scotland in relation to road signage and speed limits, what steps could be taken to make the necessary changes to the Highway Code, the driving test and more generally to inform drivers on both sides of the border?

[David Mundell]

It will obviously be for the Scottish Government to advise on changes to signage, among other things, that they make. Changes that are specific to Scotland can be included in the Highway Code, and we currently have differential traffic regulations in different parts of the United Kingdom. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman, like me, will have constituents who have fallen foul of the congestion charge that applies in London but nowhere else in the United Kingdom. There are differential traffic regulations in place at the moment, and these are well advertised.

[Mr Russell Brown (Dumfries and Galloway) (Lab)]

What discussions were held when it was decided that it would be the right thing to devolve the power that would allow the Scottish Government to determine what traffic should be flowing and at what speed? Was there any sense behind the decision that, for example, heavy goods vehicles should be allowed to travel at 60 mph on single track roads?

[David Mundell]

I share the hon. Gentlemen’s concerns about traffic speeds in our part of Scotland, Dumfries and Galloway, particularly on the A75. I hope that these powers will allow the Scottish Government for once to focus on Dumfries and Galloway and address such issues. They will have the powers and it will be for them to make the decisions. I commend my noble Friend Lord Forsyth for achieving this significant amendment to the Bill. It is the only amendment made during the passage of the Bill that will ensure that the powers of the Scottish Parliament are increased, and I do not think that the irony of that was lost on him.

[Mr Davidson]

Given that speed is a product of both distance and time, has there been any further submission from the nationalists on their ambition to have Scotland in a separate time zone, because it is obvious that if it was in a separate time zone—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

Order. Three strikes and you’re out.

[David Mundell]

Before the debate becomes any more raucous, I should recognise that this is possibly my final opportunity to speak to the Bill, so I should like to use it principally to thank the officials in the Scotland Office who have worked so hard to deliver it. We are often the subject of scrutiny, but we are a very small Department and we, along with the Treasury and, indeed, Scottish officials, have worked to deliver this major piece of constitutional legislation. I thank all those who have participated in that process. As I said at the very start of our proceedings, I participated at the beginning of the process that led to the Bill, and I am very proud to be here at the end.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

Not quite at the end yet.

Oral Answers to Questions

David Mundell Excerpts

Wednesday 18th April 2012 Commons Chamber

[David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con)]

3. What discussions he has had with the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the funding formula for Scotland.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (David Mundell)]

The Government are aware of the concerns that have been expressed about the current system of devolution funding, whereby changes to the block grant are calculated according to the Barnett formula. Owing to the unprecedented deficit that we inherited, our immediate priority is to reduce the deficit, and we have no plans to change the present arrangements before the public finances have been stabilised.

[David Mowat]

Given that the Government have no plans to replace the current formula with a formula based on need, and given the requirement for clarity so that the people of Scotland know what proportion of the national debt they will inherit before they vote, does my hon. Friend agree that the Barnett multiplier would provide a good solution?

[David Mundell]

I believe that we need to move on from the discussion of issues of process relating to the referendum, and engage in a substantive debate on the issues that would affect Scotland if it became independent. Having, it would appear, campaigned relentlessly for independence, the SNP now seems to want to delay the question and the issues for as long as possible.

[Mr Brian H. Donohoe (Central Ayrshire) (Lab)]

Does the Minister agree that the high price of fuel is creating major problems in Scotland, and that, at a stroke, cutting VAT, which is perhaps the unfairest tax in the country, would help Scottish families, who are suffering greatly as a result of the Budget.

[David Mundell]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I hope that the answer will refer to the funding formula for Scotland, as the question should have done.

[David Mundell]

The funding formula for Scotland is calculated on the basis of a basket of taxes raised by the United Kingdom Government. Scots would be much worse off if fuel duty were 10p higher, as it would have been if Labour were in power.

[Mr David Evennett (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is vital to maintain the Union in the interests of both England and Scotland, but that the funding formula should be fair to both countries?

[David Mundell]

I agree absolutely with my hon. Friend’s sentiments, but as he and many other Members are aware, this Government inherited the worst deficit in peacetime history from the Labour Government, and stabilising our nation’s finances must be the focus of their efforts.

[Gordon Banks (Ochil and South Perthshire) (Lab)]

My question relates directly to the question from the hon. Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Mr Evennett) and the Minister’s answer to it. Does the Minister agree that the Scotland Bill will increase the amount of revenue gathered in Scotland to about a third of its spend, and will thus decrease dependency on a block grant?

[David Mundell]

I agree that the Scotland Bill represents a radical, historic and significant change to Scotland’s financing. More than a third of spending by the Scottish Parliament will result from funding from taxes that it determines and raises. That is a major step forward in terms of devolution and accountability, and should be welcomed by all Members.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gregg McClymont (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (Lab)]

13. How many pensioners in Scotland will be affected by the Chancellor of the Exchequer’s decision on age-related personal allowances.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (David Mundell)]

Three hundred and sixty-seven thousand.

[Michael Connarty]

Will the Government not admit that the figures do not reveal the fact that this is an attack on people who have put away money for their retirement? The amount involved is up to £30,000 a year. This is an attack on middle-class people. There is also an attack on single people, who will lose income through being hit by the bedroom tax. People cannot be elderly and they cannot be single—and it would appear they cannot be hungry either, as there is a tax on fish and chips.

[David Mundell]

It will not surprise the hon. Gentleman that I do not accept his analysis. He and others who scaremonger on this issue fail to point out that more than half of those in Scotland aged over 65 will not pay any tax at all.

[Lindsay Roy]

Is the Minister not ashamed of his Government’s decision to reduce tax for the wealthiest Scots while at the same time penalising pensioners with a tax grab, whereby they will lose up to £322 per annum?

[David Mundell]

I know that the hon. Gentleman was not a Member of this Parliament for most of the 13 years of the last Labour Government, but most of his colleagues from Scotland were, and I did not hear them calling at that time for an increase in the higher rate of income tax. He is wrong to say that there will be losers in relation to the age-related allowances; there will be no cash losers.

[Sandra Osborne]

If, as the Government say, this measure is about fairness and simplification, why did they not wait until the full £10,000 personal allowance was in place before imposing this stealth tax on pensioners?

[David Mundell]

I acknowledge that the hon. Lady is well known for speaking up both for the low-paid and for those on the minimum wage. That is why I would have thought that she would have welcomed the fact that the Government are raising the personal allowance to £10,000 during this course of this Parliament. [Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. There are a lot of noisy private conversations taking place in the Chamber. I would like to hear the questions and the answers.

[Gregg McClymont]

What does it say about the priorities of this Government that they impose a granny tax on 367,000 Scots while giving a tax cut to the wealthiest 14,000 Scots?

[David Mundell]

What the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues fail to acknowledge is that this Government have delivered the largest pension rise in the last 30 years, whereas the last Government, which his party led, introduced a pension rise of 75p, so we are not going to take any lectures from Labour on the treatment of pensioners in Scotland.

[Mr William Bain (Glasgow North East) (Lab)]

Just how out of touch are this Government if they think that it is right or fair that almost 400,000 Scottish pensioners should pay on average £83 a year more in tax from next April just so that 16,000 top-rate taxpayers receive a tax cut of £10,000 a year on average? People retiring next April will face an annual tax hike of £322 a year because of the granny tax and the ending of the savings credit in 2017, on top of higher VAT and cuts in winter fuel allowance introduced by this Chancellor. With a record in government like that, surely it is no surprise to the Minister that Tory election strategists are gloomy about winning any seats at all in Scotland at the next general election.

[David Mundell]

What I think is fair is that half of pensioners over 65 in Scotland will not pay any tax at all; that those earning less than £10,000 will, by the end of this Parliament, be subject to a personal allowance of £10,000; and that this Government have delivered the largest increase in the pension—£270 compared with the 75p offered by the previous Government.

[Dr Eilidh Whiteford (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)]

Those pension increases will, of course, be wiped out by this tax grab. People living on modest pension incomes have already paid a very high price for the financial crisis. They have lost the value of their savings and investments, and they are having to face inflation and extremely low interest rates. How can the Minister justify this tax grab on pensioners while taxes are being cut for millionaires?

[David Mundell]

I am afraid that I am not going to accept any lectures on economics from the hon. Lady. She is offering pensioners in Scotland the prospect of breaking up the United Kingdom, with no certainty as to where pension funding would come from.

[Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)]

6. What assessment his Department has made of the implications for the currency used in Scotland of a vote in favour of independence for Scotland.

--- Later in debate ---

[Guy Opperman (Hexham) (Con)]

7. What steps are being taken by the Government and the Office of Fair Trading to tackle fuel poverty in Scotland.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (David Mundell)]

The Secretary of State chaired the first ever annual summit in Scotland on fuel poverty, bringing together the heads of the big six energy companies and Scottish consumer groups. That led to suppliers providing information to improve the application of key policies in Scotland, such as the warm home discount scheme. I am convening a follow-up meeting soon to review progress.

[Guy Opperman]

Does the Minister agree that the problem of a lack of competition in the availability and provision of heating oil in the Scottish border region needs addressing urgently?

[David Mundell]

I represent a large rural constituency in the Scottish borders, so I certainly share my hon. Friend’s concerns, although I understand that in his constituency there are some innovative initiatives whereby communities are coming together to purchase heating oil and are therefore able to negotiate better prices with suppliers.

[Mr Mike Weir (Angus) (SNP)]

As well as pressing the Office of Fair Trading, will the Minister press his own Cabinet colleagues to look at providing practical help, for example by bringing forward the pensioners’ winter fuel allowance for off-grid consumers to allow them to fill up their tanks before winter hits, when prices tend to be lower?

[David Mundell]

The off-grid issue is of concern in rural Scotland, as elsewhere, and I would be happy to meet the hon. Gentleman to discuss his concerns.

[Mr Graham Allen (Nottingham North) (Lab)]

11. What powers would be devolved to Scotland under devo-max.

Livingston New Town

David Mundell Excerpts

Monday 5th March 2012 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (David Mundell)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Livingston (Graeme Morrice) on securing the debate, which marks a significant year in the history of the community of Livingston. He mentioned my constituency, which is one of the largest in Scotland and borders his, as it does many others. He also mentioned Bristow Muldoon, under whose convenorship of the Local Government and Transport Committee I was happy to serve when I had the privilege of being a Member of the Scottish Parliament.

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that it was a Conservative Secretary of State for Scotland, John Maclay, who backed the plans for the development of Livingston back in the early 1960s. Livingston was designated under the New Towns Act 1946 and the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1947 as one of the new towns to be built, as the hon. Gentleman said, to relieve overcrowding in Glasgow and other areas.

Scotland’s five new towns—East Kilbride, Glenrothes, Cumbernauld, Livingston and Irvine—have added much to the fabric of our country. Their development corporations may have come and gone, with their functions transferred to local authorities, but the towns themselves have put down enduring roots. They have proved to be pacesetters in Scotland’s economic transformation in recent decades, and that has most certainly been the story of Livingston.

The hon. Gentleman has enabled us to celebrate Livingston at 50. Like many of us, Scotland’s fourth new town has moved into middle age. However, it has a lot to celebrate and even more to look forward to. It has been an eventful half century, packed full of highs and a few lows, but freshly forged spirit and community have combined to drive the town onwards and upwards. The result is that, in 2012, Livingston is firmly fixed on the national and international map as a centre for business, innovation, education, health care and sport.

Livingston was also purposely planned, which brings me to a subject that the hon. Gentleman did not mention: roundabouts. Only after the winding up of the Livingston Development Corporation in 1997 did Livingston get its first traffic lights. Roundabouts have become synonymous with new towns both north and south of the border. Residents of Livingston have referred to their town as “Roundabout City”, but roundabouts in Livingston are a bit special. Landmark sculptures designed by David Wilson in the 1990s adorn the four major roundabouts. Built from reclaimed dyking stone, NORgate, Compass, Dyke Swarm and Chrysalis have been local landmarks in their own right for more than a decade.

Over five decades, Livingston has moved and progressed on many fronts. It has grown into a community of more than 50,000 residents and enhanced its connectivity to Scotland’s road and motorway network. Its proximity to Edinburgh airport is an added attraction for businesses seeking to locate or invest in the town. It is better connected with the two railway stations—Livingston South and Livingston North were established in the 1980s, offering direct links into Edinburgh and Glasgow.

Sport has also brought success and attention to the town. As the hon. Gentleman said, the 1990s witnessed the arrival of Livingston FC and the building of Almondvale stadium, home to a team that played in European competition and won the league cup in 2004. Of course, darker days followed with the club going into liquidation, but happily for the hon. Gentleman, Livingston FC is on the up again in the first division.

Livingston has always been a leader in business. For half a century, Livingston has been at the cutting edge of innovation and technology. High-tech and pharmaceutical firms were in the vanguard of the wave of light industry attracted to Livingston from the 1960s. Some of us remember the slogans—“Make it in Livingston” and “Build it in Livingston”—of the now-departed Livingston Development Corporation, to which the hon. Gentleman referred. Those slogans have become a reality down the years.

In the 1990s, Livingston was an important hub in Scotland’s silicon glen. While some companies such as Motorola and NEC have come and gone, an abundance of new businesses have arrived in their place. As well as multinational companies maintaining factories in the town, BSkyB’s main call centre is the largest private sector employer in West Lothian.

Livingston is equipped with a modern and diverse economy. Retail and business services co-exist alongside modern manufacturing. Livingston attracts people from across central Scotland to shop, with an array of established names operating out of state-of-the-art shopping centres, which the hon. Gentleman described in detail. Livingston is also a centre for significant public sector employment. The civic centre, West Lothian college of further education and St John’s hospital illustrate the town’s importance for public administration, education and health care.

We must today wrestle with the challenge of giving a new life to a mature new town. Livingston faces the same employment challenges that confront similar communities throughout Scotland, the UK and the western world, although as the hon. Gentleman will know, the jobseeker’s allowance claimant rate is below the national average. In a fiercely competitive global marketplace, Livingston is blessed with real advantages as it seeks to secure new investment and jobs.

The town’s location, transport links and highly skilled work force are beacons for business. Livingston is still at the cutting edge of Scotland’s future. It is equipped with a modern and diverse economy, including some of the most innovative businesses in Scotland. I would like to highlight the superb example of Cyberhawk Innovations, a Livingston company that has developed unmanned helicopters that allow engineers to inspect the inner workings of tall and inaccessible structures such as oil installations. Founded less than four years ago, it is now expanding and exporting overseas. It is a marvellous illustration of commercialisation from Scottish engineering excellence and inventiveness. Similarly, there is Touch Bionics, a spin-out from the NHS and a world-class leader in the design and manufacture of prosthetic limbs. That is why it is showcased in the UK Government GREAT campaign to promote investment in the UK during this diamond jubilee and Olympic year.

I know that Livingston is planning to mark its golden anniversary with style. The hon. Gentleman’s debate will be a significant part of that celebration. As well as a new logo designed by schoolchildren and new trees, plenty of events, exhibitions and activities are planned around the anniversary on 17 April. It is great to see that this anniversary will be marked with specials events, with arts, music and dance the centrepieces of the celebrations next month. As Livingston reaches its golden jubilee, it can reflect on a successful past. Officially, it has not been a new town for 15 years. It has matured into an established feature of the Scottish landscape. I hope that it can look forward to a great future as a significant centre at the forefront of the Scottish and UK economies. On behalf of the UK Government, I wish Livingston all the best for its second half century.

Question put and agreed to.