Economic Policy

Pete Wishart Excerpts

Monday 25th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Osborne]

We have further difficult decisions on spending to take this year to set the spending round for 2015-16. I know that my hon. Friend has always been consistent in supporting all the difficult spending decisions, so I look forward to that consistent support in the years ahead.

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

Over the weekend, the Labour and Tory Better Together no campaign was giving out leaflets to the effect that an independent Scotland would never, ever secure the triple A rating of the UK, just as the UK was losing that triple A rating. Does the Chancellor agree that his nonsensical economic scaremongering about an independent Scotland has totally failed, and that his credibility and that of the no campaign is nothing other than a treble Z?

[Mr Osborne]

If the SNP is to persuade the Scottish people to vote for independence, it must address fundamental economic questions that it has been unable to answer about the currency it would use and the fiscal agreement it would seek should it want to use the pound with the rest of the United Kingdom. There are also fundamental questions about the financial services industry based in Scotland. I remind the hon. Gentleman that the Royal Bank of Scotland is headquartered in Scotland. The SNP is simply unable to answer those questions at the moment, and as a result I think people doubt the case it is making for independence.

Fuel Duty

Pete Wishart Excerpts

Monday 12th November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Albert Owen]

I will in a moment, but given the time limit I do want to make some progress.

I want to raise three issues, the first of which is the impact of fuel duty on businesses, especially those in peripheral areas of the United Kingdom. The Government also chose to impose a VAT increase, despite the Prime Minister having told the country before the election that they had no intention of doing so. Every time constituents throughout the country put petrol or diesel in their cars they pay an extra 3p per litre because of the tax introduced by this Chancellor of the Exchequer.

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

I am genuinely confused. What is the difference between a Labour fuel tax hike and a Conservative one?

[Albert Owen]

Scottish National party Members always use that line on fuel duty, and I am not going to waste my time on it—[Interruption.] If the hon. Gentleman had checked the record, he would know that I have been consistent on fuel duty. I have followed SNP Members through the Lobby on that. Previous Labour Chancellors froze the duty following pressure from people. That is on the record. We can play games about previous Governments, but the serious issue is the cost—

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Bain]

If the hon. Gentleman has the courage of the convictions he has just expressed, he should join us in the Lobby tonight. That will be the evidence his constituents will be looking for tomorrow morning.

On incomes, millions of ordinary people are under huge pressure because of the collapse in real wages, which has hit particularly hard since the onset of the current recession.

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

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Bain]

I am running out of time, and I am sure the hon. Gentleman will have a chance to make his own speech.

Since 2007, real wages have declined by about 4% for the vast majority of ordinary people, damaging their spending power and weakening prospects for a consumer-led economic recovery. In my constituency, almost three in 10 workers, including half of all the 10,000 part-time workers, earn less than the living wage of £7.45 an hour. The increases in fuel duty have hit them especially hard. As the Resolution Foundation’s recent Commission on Living Standards report established, just 12p in every £1 of growth generated in Britain finds its way into the pay packets of workers in the lower half of the income scale. They need help on fuel costs tonight.

Britain stands at a crossroads. Without a change in policy, people will be no better off in 2020 than they were in 2001, but with the right kind of reforms on pay, tax and benefits, that can be reversed and we can see the gap between rich and poor falling once again. Tonight we can make our contribution to supporting growth and improving the living standards of our constituents over the next few months, by rejecting the Government amendment and boosting much needed job creation by cutting fuel duty.

--- Later in debate ---

[Pete Wishart]

Does the hon. Lady think that Scottish Labour’s cuts commission’s plans to do away with free personal care and free bus passes for the elderly, and to introduce tuition fees, would lower the cost of living for Scottish people, who are suffering in the very conditions that she describes?

[Sheila Gilmore]

I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has made those comments in an intervention, because I heard him say that earlier from a sedentary position.

Cuts have been made in Scotland—the hon. Gentleman should be absolutely clear about that. They have been made to social care in Scotland, partly because of the council tax freeze. I heard the Economic Secretary boast about that freeze, but it is an extremely regressive policy. For people who do not pay council tax because they receive council tax benefit, that policy has not benefited them by one penny. In Scotland, those people have not benefited for five years. Indeed, it gives a far greater benefit to people who pay the highest level of tax.

As a result of the council tax freeze, councils in Scotland have suffered a great deal, as councils in England are now suffering. A service that has suffered is social care. I will not take lessons from the hon. Gentleman, because cuts have already been made in Scotland as a result of his Government’s policies. Those things will happen in England too. I would not be as proud as the Economic Secretary of the council tax freeze, because it has a severe downside for many people who depend heavily on the services that councils provide, which are important for their living standards. We must not forget that.

As my hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (Fiona O'Donnell) mentioned, people who work in social care are not only on low wages but they are told by their employers, who often have outsourced contracts from councils that are trying desperately to make savings, to use their own car to travel to do the job. They are not usually paid for travel time, and they are not refunded if they have to park somewhere and pay parking charges. They are on the lowest income levels, they are working hard in a hugely important service, and they deserve much more attention from us. They are suffering from the increases in fuel tax.

The Minister said yet again all this stuff about all the jobs that the Government claim have been created. As I have said before, if we say that there have been 1 million new jobs since the election and that that is a huge improvement, we should remember that, at the beginning of 2011, only eight months after the Government came to power, they said that they had created 500,000 jobs. I contend that those jobs were created as a result of the economic stimulus from the previous Government. In the following 22 months, another 500,000 jobs were created at a slower rate of growth. Many of those jobs are part time, which has increased spending on welfare benefits, thus increasing the problems that the Government face in trying to balance their financial books. People with part-time jobs claim housing benefit—98% of new housing benefit claimants are people in employment—and they claim more tax credits, because their hours of work have decreased. That is not a stable basis on which to proceed. If the Government want to scrap the proposed fuel increase in January, perhaps they should simply tell the nation that today.

Scottish Football (Tax Liabilities)

Pete Wishart Excerpts

Wednesday 29th February 2012 Westminster Hall

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

I congratulate the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty) on securing this important debate. He will know that I have spent many a fine afternoon on the terraces of East End Park as a native of Dunfermline, supporting the mighty Pars. My affections have now transferred to the mighty Saintees of McDiarmid Park in Perth. I know that it is very much to the hon. Gentleman’s disappointment that almost the entire length of the Scottish premier league separates Dunfermline from St Johnstone just now.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned two other clubs in his contribution. It was a bit remiss of him, when talking about Cowdenbeath, not to give their nickname, which I am sure that you, Mr Betts, are bursting to know. They are known as the Blue Brazil, a nickname that could never be more deserved. I remember when my grandfather used to take me to watch the cup games against Cowdenbeath, being a native and resident of West Fife, where the league support was for Dunfermline. I went to Central Park to watch the cup games when Cowdenbeath were competing. That was a forlorn activity back in the 1970s, because on only a couple of occasions did Cowdenbeath manage to get past the second round. He also mentioned Brechin City, which used to be in my constituency, in north Tayside. What is notable and significant about Brechin City is that it is the only professional football ground with a beech hedge as its border. A lot of Scottish football fans liked to go along. There were the bridies at Forfar Athletic and the beech hedge at Brechin City.

Enough of my tour around the football grounds of Scotland; let us get on to business. I think that everybody here is a football fan, but where on earth are the rest of my Scottish colleagues? There is only the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife. We get so few opportunities to discuss Scottish issues, particularly important Scottish issues about football. We are all proud that we represent football clubs in our constituencies. I have St Johnstone, a fantastic team doing well in the premier league, but where are my Scottish colleagues this afternoon? It is not as if they get loads and loads of Scottish business in this House. Not one of them could be bothered to turn up today to discuss the biggest crisis that is facing our national game. That is a disgrace, which says a lot about my Scottish colleagues when it comes to debating these important issues.

We have never had a crisis like this one. It is totally unprecedented and how it will end is anyone’s guess, but the nature and the face of Scottish football will probably change dynamically because of what is going on.

[Thomas Docherty]

First, some colleagues have been detained at Select Committees this afternoon. Secondly, does he agree that many colleagues are nervous about discussing what has happened with Rangers, because it is difficult to have a rational, sensible debate about the Scottish game without many of our constituents taking umbrage at us?

[Pete Wishart]

I do not know that that is true. I know that there is a bit of interest in this debate: one only has to look across the corridor from here. That does not excuse anything, however. This is important and it is unfortunate that there are not more Scottish colleagues here to debate what is probably the biggest crisis that we have seen in our game. This deserves and requires proper debate and it is unfortunate that we will not have that today, because this crisis deserves to be dealt with as sensitively as possible.

I listened carefully and closely to the remarks of the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife. Where I can go along some way with him is that there is a real desire for a solution to this problem. There has to be a solution, because it is almost inconceivable to imagine Scottish football without Glasgow Rangers. They have 130 years of history and tradition. They have huge support—some 50,000 home fans go to watch Glasgow Rangers at a home game every second week in the city of Glasgow. To have that taken out of our game would have a significant and deep impact on the ability of the SPL to continue to produce a platform that will engage and encourage people and ensure their support.

It is not just about ticket receipts. When Rangers come to St Johnstone, it is the biggest weekend that we have in Perth. It is not just the inflated gate that we get by playing one of the old firm; it is also some of the activity spin-offs for Perth. It is not just about the pubs on match day. Glasgow Rangers supporters may choose to take a day either side of the game—the Friday night or the Saturday evening—so our hotels and restaurants are busy. There are also the other activities that go on within the city. To lose that would be to lose a significant amount of income and economic activity, which would be very much missed.

There is also the issue of television rights. As the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife said, they involve a fraction of the sums for television rights in England, but they represent a massive income for the Scottish game. If there were no Rangers, what impact would that have on the television rights sold to ESPN, Sky and the BBC, which play a massive part in the incomes of so many other Scottish football clubs? We would also miss the drama and spectacle of old firm games, which are enjoyed and appreciated not only in Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom, but throughout the world.

[Thomas Docherty]

Just for the sake of clarity, it might help to reiterate that if either half of the old firm is not in the SPL, the contract with the TV companies falls. It is therefore in the SPL’s interests to treat Rangers as a special case because of those knock-on effects.

[Pete Wishart]

I am glad the hon. Gentleman mentioned that. He is absolutely right that that is one possible consequence of losing Rangers. That is why we should do all we can to ensure the ongoing survival of Glasgow Rangers football club.

[Damian Collins]

Glasgow Rangers is too big to fail, and they will find a way of restructuring their debts and coming back, but does the hon. Gentleman share my concern that the real long-term losers will be small businesses and other football clubs?

[Pete Wishart]

The hon. Gentleman is spot on. There is, of course, talk and speculation about what happens if Rangers are unable to come out of administration. Indeed, the Scottish press, particularly the sporting press, have a fascination with the old firm, and we read about it almost every day. However, the hon. Gentleman is right that some of the small businesses that are expecting payment from the administrators will suffer a massive loss. That is a real issue, and I am grateful to him for bringing it up.

Football is our national game. All our football clubs play an enormous part in our economic activity and make a real contribution to our communities and constituencies. The Fraser of Allander Institute estimates that the old firm’s economic importance to Glasgow and the rest of the Scottish economy amounts to £190 million. More than 3,000 full-time jobs depend on SPL football, and £200 million is spent on related commercial activities in Glasgow alone. According to the Rangers annual report, the direct economic activity generated by the club is in the region of £56 million.

Most importantly, there is also the issue of what happens to the 331 people directly employed by Rangers. They must be absolutely paramount in our considerations, and I hope some solution is found so that they can continue to serve in their jobs.

This is not, however, just about clubs’ contribution to our economy, important and significant though it is. There is also the value professional clubs have for our communities, and the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife mentioned that. We can all see the infrastructure that exists and the clubs our young people are encouraged to participate in. We know that our football clubs make an immense contribution to our communities. According to the SPL’s 2011 community report, 20,000 people participate in community projects weekly, and SPL clubs spent £8 million on community activity, which is no small sum.

There are also the fans in Scotland. I know the audience for SPL football has diminished, but 3.2 million people still attend SPL games each season, and a further 76 million watch them on ESPN, the BBC or Sky. Football is therefore a big business, which contributes much to our economy and our communities, and we must ensure that we respond to the current crisis with the sensitivity it deserves and requires. Scottish football is in a precarious state, and it remains a fragile product, so it can ill afford to lose one of its major protagonists.

Of course, this is not just about Rangers. Several of our clubs are teetering on the brink of financial collapse and ruin. I just wish they could all be like St Johnstone, which is run so perfectly and effectively by Geoff Brown, its chair. It never gets into debt, it always ensures it looks after its liabilities and it never has a problem with HMRC, but that is not the case with many of the clubs in the SPL. I am thinking not just about Rangers, but I will not mention the other clubs, because we all know which ones are experiencing real difficulties and pressures.

We have seen what happens when clubs cannot meet their responsibilities and liabilities. Dundee and Livingston went into administration. We have also seen one SPL club—Gretna—go to the wall in the past 10 years. It was not a particularly great example, and I doubt whether other clubs would like to replicate its business model.

These are tough times, and gates are falling. We have heard from the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Damian Collins) about the pressure of football wage inflation and how it must be brought under control. The hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife was of course right to mention that SPL football is totally different from the English premier league or first division, and only the wages in the old firm are similar. However, some clubs have tried to replicate what we have seen elsewhere and to buy success by buying expensive players. They have tried to compete with the old firm and they have got into all sorts of difficulties. That is probably one of the reasons why Dundee football club, in particular, experienced the difficulties that led to its going into administration. There is a demand all the time to buy more expensive players, because that is what the market dictates, and clubs are encouraged to fork out money. However, gates are falling, and there is any amount of competition from other activities for the time of constituents, who might otherwise go to watch football games.

We all accept that our football clubs must meet their financial obligations. Everybody in every business must pay their tax—it is as simple as that. They must pay it on time and they must ensure that any business plan is totally predicated on meeting their tax liabilities. However, I am sure I am not the only Member in the Chamber who will have put the case for businesses and individuals in his constituency who have got into trouble over their tax liabilities. I do not know how many letters I have sent to HMRC on behalf of small businesses and people who have got themselves into difficulties. It is absolutely right that people also make representations on behalf of Glasgow Rangers because of its significance to Scottish football and the number of jobs that depend on it, as well as its history and tradition, its success and its value to the SPL.

The club is in a mess. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the current regime, which has been a total disaster—we cannot call it anything other than that. Once Craig Whyte took over its debts, something was always going to happen. He did not have the money to ensure the club could get out of its difficulties. What he did with Ticketus was appalling, and there will now be an SFA investigation into the Ticketus deal. There will also be an investigation to see whether Craig Whyte is a fit and proper person to run a football club, and we will have to see the details. Again, it is the fans who suffer, and the people who work in the club have been the major recipients of all the bad news and all the doom and the gloom.

Right now, the administrator is responsible for running the club. In the next few days, Duff and Phelps expect to announce the first round of job losses, which will first impact on the playing staff. There are outstanding issues of payments to other clubs, and I have heard the representations from Dunfermline football club that it should be paid. The hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife is right that money should be paid to clubs that are owed it, and Rangers have no right whatever to retain it. However, the job losses show the real impact that going into administration has on people’s careers and jobs.

The hon. Gentleman talked about the Scottish Government’s role, and they stand ready to offer assistance to anyone affected by job losses. They have said they will do all they can to keep in contact with the administrator and to be available to provide support and assistance if there are job losses. In addition, there is the PACE—partnership action for continuing employment—programme in Glasgow, which has offered to provide any assistance it can if there are job losses. PACE has offered Duff and Phelps assistance almost daily to take things forward, and there have been several conversations to that effect. This is a developing and emerging situation, and Scottish Ministers and PACE are keeping their eye on it.

[Thomas Docherty]

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman can provide some clarity, because he speaks on sport for the Scottish National party. He will be aware of reports in this morning’s newspapers that the Scottish Government are apparently offering all the assistance they can to the Scottish open, and the assumption is that financial assistance may be forthcoming. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that if the Scottish Government are going to put money into the Scottish open, they should also see what financial assistance they can provide to the SPL?

[Pete Wishart]

The hon. Gentleman is right, and I am grateful for that assistance for the Scottish open. I am sure that he will be the first to recognise that the input that the Scottish Government have made to Scottish football is significant—the £25 million that was announced towards the national performance centre, for example, the £8 million through CashBack for Communities and the £4 million going into the refreshed youth action plan for the next four years. That shows the Scottish Government’s support for Scottish football and their commitment to ensuring that it will continue to develop in the next few years. That will be welcomed in football throughout Scotland.

I want to mention a couple of initiatives. Unfortunately there was some appalling behaviour two weeks ago at Glasgow Rangers, in the home game against Kilmarnock, which shows that there is still a massive problem with sectarian chanting. I am delighted that for the first time the Scottish Government have put in place legislation to tackle that effectively. It was not supported by the rest of the parties in the Scottish Parliament, but at last something will be done to try to get rid of that curse from the national game.

[Thomas Docherty]

I regret the fact that at the end of a good speech the hon. Gentleman is trying to bring in party politics. I went to the Dunfermline and Rangers game as a guest of the police, early in the season; the procurator fiscal was there. The PF, the clubs and the police were clear about the fact that that legislation, which no one else in the Scottish Parliament supported, was unnecessary, and unworkable.

[Pete Wishart]

It is the police who have been telling the Scottish Government that the legislation is required. We have had that debate in the Scottish Parliament, and thank goodness that behaviour will at last be challenged effectively. I welcome the fact that the SNP Scottish Government are deciding to take on the issue head on, and trying to get that appalling scourge out of the Scottish game.

There are other issues in Scottish football, but the one that we are debating is the big one—the thing that we need to get tackled and sorted out. I hope that HMRC will work sensitively with the administrator, and that we will get a solution that will ensure that it will be paid what it is owed. The main thing is that HMRC should secure the outstanding liabilities that Glasgow Rangers has towards it. Let us hope that we get a solution that will allow Glasgow Rangers to come out of administration—a solution that will mean that as much as possible will be done to retain the staff who work on its behalf; that we will have a Scottish premier league worthy of that title and enjoyed by its supporters; and that we can go on ensuring that that product can be developed, and made entertaining and exciting for people not just in Scotland but worldwide.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Gauke]

I will deal with the hon. Gentleman’s second point first, which he is absolutely right to raise. From April 2012, HMRC will be able to seek securities where PAYE is at risk. That mirrors existing powers for VAT, which are already in place. If a taxpayer does not pay the security, they will commit a criminal offence. There are, of course, safeguards to ensure that the power is not abused by HMRC—it is not to be used widely—but where there is concern about repeated failure, that is an additional tool available to HMRC. That, in itself, will have a deterrent effect, which I hope will be helpful in such circumstances.

[Pete Wishart]

The Minister has mentioned some of the sticks available to HMRC to secure its liabilities, but what about the carrots? What about incentivising the clubs that meet HMRC requirements on time? I mentioned the example of my football club, St Johnstone, which has never gone into the red. Does HMRC want clubs to behave and be able to balance their books on that basis?

Scotland Bill

Pete Wishart Excerpts

Tuesday 21st June 2011 Commons Chamber

[Ann McKechin]

If the First Minister had anything sensible to say, I would, but as yet, I have not heard it. It is a bit like the corporation tax issue—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil) needs to calm himself and not get over-excited. The Scottish Government have had many weeks to produce detailed analysis. They have complained that things have been rushed and that we have not had figures from the UK Government on a variety of issues throughout the passage of this Bill, yet they cannot produce the detailed evidence and analysis that would allow people in Scotland to judge whether their calls have validity.

The hon. Member for Dundee East was given five opportunities this evening to explain what the impact would be on Scottish public expenditure if there was a cut in corporation tax. He said in Committee:

“I would like it cut over a number of years”.—[Official Report, 14 March 2011; Vol. 525, c. 70.]

Members may be interested to hear that that has not always been the Scottish National party’s policy on corporation tax. In 1988, a certain Alex Salmond was suspended as an MP from the House of Commons for attacking the Tory Government’s reduction in corporation tax.

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

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for the history lesson. Is this what we are going to get from the Labour party for the next few years? I want to encourage her, because the negativity and can’t-do attitude that has permeated the Labour party is partly responsible for the overwhelming defeat that it suffered at the Scottish elections. Please carry on.

[Ann McKechin]

If that is the level of intellectual debate that we can anticipate from the Scottish Government and their colleagues at Westminster over the next five years, I think Scotland will be in a pretty poor state. Of course, we now have a hierarchy in the Scottish Government depending on whether one is a good Scot or a bad Scot. That is a level of debate that extends even up to judges in the Supreme Court.

If corporation tax was cut in Scotland, public spending would have to be cut in line with it, as we have heard today. The hon. Member for Dundee East suggested that the Scottish Government would take the power, but apply the same rate. That suggests that the power would not provide any benefit or disbenefit, except that they would have to administer the tax at a cost. At some point in the future, they would then apply the tax.

There are questions to which people in Scotland want answers. By how much would the Scottish Government cut corporation tax? The hon. Gentleman spent 42 minutes talking this evening and did not confirm that figure once. What would be the time scale for the cut in corporation tax? Would it be done over two years, three years or four years? We do not know. That is despite the fact that the Treasury, in its evidence to the Scotland Bill Committee in Holyrood in March, stated:

“A 10% cut in corporation tax in Scotland might cost about £600 million per year for an indeterminate period.”

That is understandable given the maturity of the Scottish economy and, as the Exchequer Secretary mentioned tonight, the many large plcs that already have their registered offices in Scotland. Even Northern Ireland’s First Minister, Peter Robinson, believes that Northern Ireland is a special case and has warned Alex Salmond that Scotland could lose up to £1.5 billion if it follows through the bid to set its own corporation tax. Anyone would need answers to the questions I have asked if they are to decide that that is a good idea.

The SNP is reluctant to say whether it thinks Scotland should be a high-tax nation or a low-tax nation. Does it believe in high-quality, good value public services, or does it want a lower public expenditure base, which would mean fewer nurses, doctors and police? There are consequences to that. Does it want an increase in income tax? [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar chunters about scaremongering, but he has failed to answer any of those questions. He should feel free to educate us about the detail of the SNP proposals.

--- Later in debate ---

In particular, I fear for the electoral standing of my party if it continues to feel, as many do now, that the Scottish Labour party tail wags the English Labour party dog. We stand in danger of being marked indelibly as a party in England that is not prepared to protect or to promote the English question. My new clause 8, which I know others wish to support, makes a plea: that we should move as quickly as we can to a position from which those on the Treasury Bench can spell out what the basis of the allocation of the main grants between the constituent parts of the United Kingdom should be, and, if there are differences, how we can defend them to our constituents on the basis of fairness—something that they feel in their guts—which is not possible at present. If we cannot do that, we should not envisage shortly—because these Parliaments move amazingly quickly towards their close—going into a referendum debate in Scotland about independence, or not until we have spelt out those differences and the logical basis for them, and can defend them to our English constituents.

[Pete Wishart]

The right hon. Gentleman is making a thoughtful speech and a fine contribution, but I am sure that when he talks to his constituents he will want to ensure that they have the correct facts about this argument. Will he at least acknowledge that there is a debate about relative spending between the rest of the United Kingdom and Scotland? Oxford Economics, for example, found that when unidentified spending is factored in, London and Northern Ireland receive more money than Scotland. Will he at least accept that there is an argument?

[Mr Field]

I might accept that there is an argument; my plea is that the information should be set out clearly for us, so that we can understand if there are differences and, if there are, establish a basis on which they can be defended. If I manage to conclude fairly quickly, I know that there are Members on the Government Benches who have written and spoken about the need for us to move expeditiously to a needs-based formula, although we all understand that if we did that the period in which we phased in the new formula would be crucial. I am not in favour of doing things that rough people up unnecessarily; timing is important.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ann McKechin]

As we made clear on Second Reading and in Committee, Labour welcomes the Scotland Bill because we believe that it will enhance the devolution settlement. As the Secretary of State mentioned, the Bill was the consequence of a lengthy, evidence-based, serious consultative process that sought cross-party consensus from the very beginning. It reflects many of the recommendations made by the Calman commission, which was established by the then Labour Government following the direct call from the Scottish Parliament for such a group to be set up. Important issues of constitutional change should not be marked by megaphone diplomacy and a never-ending series of demands. Constitutional change must always be based on hard evidence, consensus and consultation, and it should be clearly shown how it will improve the devolution settlement. It is not, for us, a marker on the route to separation.

Labour’s position is that it is not in Scotland’s best interests for the Scottish Government to play constitutional games and demand powers. It is time to start using those they already have, and to knuckle down to the hard task of getting the Scottish economy back on track, lowering record unemployment and generally making Scotland better. Although it is all too easy in the political game to focus on process rather than on policy, the important parts of the Bill are, first, to improve legitimacy and accountability to the Scottish electorate, and, secondly, to use these powers, along with the extensive range of powers granted in the Scotland Act 1998, for Scotland’s benefit.

I would like to spend a little time discussing the Supreme Court new clauses, which unfortunately we did not have time to discuss this evening, and which were not available in Committee. We welcome the fact that the Government did, as we requested, table the new clauses before the Commons stages were completed, and obviously we will want to discuss them in more detail when they reach the House of Lords, but I would like to put on the record what principles should be followed in referring cases to the Supreme Court. Labour fully agrees that the UK Supreme Court should retain a role in determining human rights and European law issues. The UK Supreme Court enables Scots to access justice without the expense and delay of having to go to Strasbourg, and without having to wait for years to have their cases heard. We believe that no one living in Scotland should have less access to the enforcement of their human rights than any other citizen living elsewhere in the UK.

Why would the Scottish Government want to make it more difficult for individuals in Scotland to access justice? Let us recall that it was a famous Scottish case to the Strasbourg Court in the 1980s that brought about the abolition of the belt in schools across the UK when the Court found in favour of two Scottish mothers, Grace Campbell and Jane Cosans. In those days, before the Human Rights Act 1998, cases took years to be heard, and in the meantime tens of thousands of children in Scotland and across the UK were belted right around the place in schools. The Human Rights Act is not about protecting bad people or about an easy escape route from jail; it is about protecting everyone from prejudice and harm.

[Pete Wishart]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her history lesson, but she will know, as the Secretary of State does, that the amendments concerning the Supreme Court are totally unacceptable to the Scottish Government, and will be unacceptable to the Scottish Parliament too. May I suggest to her and the Secretary of State that the expert group under Lord McCluskey should be allowed to do its work before anything further is done regarding the Supreme Court in this House?

[Ann McKechin]

What I would say to the hon. Gentleman is that we are aware that the McCluskey review is ongoing, and we will wish to consider its conclusions carefully when it reports. We will return to further analysis of the report in the Lords, which I hope will be available by the time this Bill reaches the other place.

We cannot continue this evening without mentioning the extraordinary attack that the First Minister and his Secretary for Justice made on both the Supreme Court and individual Scottish judges who sit in it, when they stated that the UK courts should have no jurisdiction in Scottish criminal cases. Let us be clear: no one is attacking the right for Scotland to retain its unique criminal legal system—I declare an interest, as a non-practising member of the Law Society of Scotland. However, on the other hand, those attacks smack of a political establishment that is too ready to attack anyone who dares to contradict its mantra, rather than one that is prepared robustly to tackle institutional complacency. It is entirely demeaning to Scotland’s international reputation when Scotland’s leading politician uses the language of the playground bully when describing the key relationship between the Executive and the judiciary. Mr MacAskill has referred to the UK Supreme Court as an “ambulance-chasing court”, despite it hearing on average only one Scottish case a year since devolution, and he has ignored the fact—or perhaps he was totally ignorant of it—that his own Scottish Crown Office is making referrals to the very same court.

--- Later in debate ---

[Pete Wishart]

We said on Second Reading that we would seek to strengthen and improve the Bill, offer real scrutiny and support any measures that brought significant and substantial new powers to Scotland. We are pleased that, in a number of areas, this is a better Bill today than the one presented on Second Reading.

I would also like to pay tribute to many Members who participated in the debates, particularly to those who participated in the Calman commission, and to thank people for all the hard work that was done in the Scottish Parliament Bill Committee. Although we did not necessarily agree with everything that was said, I appreciated the conscientious and diligent approach to the work.

Is this the Bill that Scotland urgently requires? I have to say that, unfortunately, the answer is no. Although we have managed to secure some more job-creating powers, this Bill falls way short of the ambitions of the Scottish people as directly expressed only a few short weeks ago, and it still lacks the measures that could have helped to develop our economy and make it grow.

Some of the new provisions are, of course, welcome. We welcome the acceptance of the amendments on borrowing as well as the devolution measures on airguns, speed limits and drink-driving, which will make Scotland a safer place. However, the Unionist parties seem almost incapable of preventing themselves from making re-reservations, which are a million miles away from where the Scottish people are in questions about their constitutional future.

[Mr Russell Brown]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way; he obviously has some time left. I hope that in the next few minutes he will explain what Bill the people of Scotland are looking for.

[Pete Wishart]

I think that we had something a few weeks ago that was called an election, and manifestos were presented for it. One manifesto had plans for including job-creating powers in the Scotland Bill and the other manifesto was produced by the Calman commission parties. I think that the Scottish people made clear which direction of travel they support.

[Mr Brown]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Pete Wishart]

I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman again.

We know what the Scottish people want when it comes to such matters. I was disappointed to hear what was almost a rant from the hon. Member for Glasgow North (Ann McKechin). Members’ personal attacks on the First Minister suggest that they have learnt absolutely nothing. Negativity does not win elections, but we hear continued, incessant negativity.

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

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Pete Wishart]

I do not have time to give way.

I can only ask Members to continue down that route so that we can continue to secure victories such as the one we secured only a few short weeks ago.

[Sir Robert Smith]

rose—

[Pete Wishart]

I have only 10 minutes left.

The Bill contains unpalatable measures that are totally unacceptable to the Scottish Government, and which were aired a moment ago, concerning the Supreme Court.

[Sir Robert Smith]

rose—

[Pete Wishart]

I will give way, for the very last time.

[Sir Robert Smith]

The hon. Gentleman spoke of a personal attack on his leader from the Opposition Front Bench. Does he not think that the head of a Government in a proper, modern, functioning democracy should show respect for the courts, which protect the individual citizen from abuse of power by the state?

[Pete Wishart]

I am almost grateful to the hon. Gentleman, because he has referred to a measure I want to deal with. The measure relating to the Supreme Court that was passed today is totally unacceptable to the Scottish Government, and will be unacceptable to the Scottish Parliament as well. When the last Scottish Parliament Bill Committee considered the Government’s proposals, even that Unionist-led Committee did not see fit to pass them. I do not think that a new Scottish Parliament Bill Committee will be any better disposed towards them.

Had I been given an opportunity to debate the issue, I would have suggested a sunset clause, so that nothing could be done until the expert group in the Scottish Parliament finishes its work under Lord McCluskey. That is the time for us to discuss how to resolve what is a real issue.

[Sir Menzies Campbell]

rose—

[Pete Wishart]

I have said that I will not give way again, and I will not, even to the right hon. and learned Gentleman. Others wish to speak.

There are real difficulties, but the solution offered by the Secretary of State will not be acceptable to the Scottish Parliament. The most critical aspect of the Bill, however, involves not the unpalatable measures that we have discussed today, but the measures that the Bill omits: measures for which the Scottish people voted when the Bill was last considered by the Scottish Parliament. What they want are job-creating powers and control over the Crown Estates so that we can further the renewables revolution in Scotland.

Given our mandate, the Scottish National party will revisit those issues in the future. On balance, however, we accept that the Bill contains substantial new powers, and we will not oppose its Third Reading.

I suppose that we can look at the Bill in two stages—pre and post its testing by the Scottish people. The Calman parties stood on their record and presented it as a major constitutional issue when they fought the election, while the Scottish National party stood on a programme involving the creation of new jobs and powers for the Scottish Parliament. The Scottish people gave the Scottish National party an overwhelming mandate to pursue that agenda, and we will continue to present the case for real job-creating powers. We will not be satisfied until we have those powers in the Scottish Parliament.

The Bill will now go to the House of Lords before it is returned to the Scottish Parliament for a further legislative consent motion. I say to the Secretary of State and the Government—

[Jim Sheridan]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Pete Wishart]

I will not give way again. I say to the Secretary of State—

[Jim Sheridan]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Pete Wishart]

I am not going to give way to the hon. Gentleman. Must I say that a third time?

I say to the Secretary of State that he should not use the fact that there are no Scottish National party members in the House of Lords to introduce any further unpalatable measures, because that would be totally unacceptable. It is democratically elected Members who should decide the fate of our nation, not unelected appointees, donors and cronies.

[Jim Sheridan]

rose—

[Pete Wishart]

I am not going to give way to the hon. Gentleman. As he is standing right next to me, I do not know why he cannot hear me.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Jim Sheridan) must resume his seat.

[Pete Wishart]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. It takes a long time for Members to understand that I am not going to give way.

Once the Bill has completed its passage in the House of Lords it will return to the Scottish Parliament, and a further legislative consent motion will be required because of the many amendments passed by the House of Commons. I know that colleagues in all parties in the Scottish Parliament will want to look closely at a number of those amendments, and I know that the Secretary of State and the House will respect the views of the Scottish Parliament. I know they will accept that the Scottish Government have a massive mandate.

Many Members have talked about this being part of the devolution story, and it is. This is the second major Bill on devolution to have come before the House. The devolution story will continue to unfold, and we will continue to go down that road, but a new story is now also starting to emerge. It is about a new journey that Scotland is about to embark upon, because at some point over the next few years we will have a proper referendum on the future of Scotland—a proper, constitutional referendum that will be about independence, and I am absolutely sure that the Scottish people will make the right choice and that Scotland will once again join the nations of the world.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

Scotland Bill

Pete Wishart Excerpts

Monday 14th March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Iain Stewart (Milton Keynes South) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Evans. I shall address the Scottish National party Members’ amendments in a moment, but first let me make an observation about this part of the Bill, particularly clause 24. I strongly support the proposal to devolve substantial tax powers to the Scottish Parliament, making it responsible for raising approximately a third of its revenue. I shall not repeat the arguments I made on Second Reading, but the principle of the Scottish Parliament raising a good part of its revenue is vital. If that does not happen, the threat to the Union will be very real. To underline that point, let me quote from an e-mail that I received last night from a constituent, Mr Haig. It is worth repeating a couple of the points he expressed.

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

He’s bored and is going to resign.

--- Later in debate ---

[Fiona O'Donnell]

My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North has answered that question. If the hon. Gentleman was not listening, or if he was not able to follow it, I am afraid I cannot take responsibility for that.

I will press on and talk about the SNP’s corporation tax proposals.

[Pete Wishart]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Fiona O'Donnell]

No, I would like to make some progress and actually talk about the amendments. [Hon. Members: “Come on!”] Oh, alright then. Don’t say I’m not kind.

[Pete Wishart]

I am trying to understand Labour’s position on our amendments. They are what the Scottish Bill Committee and Calman agreed on, and we are providing an opportunity to put them to the vote today. Is she honestly saying that she will not take the opportunity to support her own case?

[Fiona O'Donnell]

This may not be something that the hon. Gentleman is used to hearing, but I am going to tell him, “Not yet”. As my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North said, until we have a ruling and clarification, there is a risk to the Scottish Government. That does not mean withholding those powers for ever, but it is about protecting Scotland and looking out for its interests.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Mr David Gauke)]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Walker, and to respond to the debate on the proposed amendments to clause 24.

[Pete Wishart]

Just before the Minister starts, can he explain why a Treasury Minister is replying to the debate when the Bill was presented by the Scotland Office? I know there are plans to do away with the useless Scotland Office, with which the SNP agrees, but does this situation just add flames to that particular fire?

[Mr Gauke]

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman has read the Command Paper, which was signed off by both the Secretary of State for Scotland and I. The debate relates to taxation, so it seems perfectly appropriate for a Treasury Minister to respond. Indeed, I warmly welcome the kind response I got from the hon. Gentleman’s colleague, the hon. Member for Dundee East (Stewart Hosie). It is very unusual for me to be described as a “big gun” but I am none the less grateful for those words. The Scotland Office and the Treasury have worked closely on the Bill, and in particular on the provisions that we are debating, and I am pleased to continue that co-ordination.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Gauke]

It would be fair to point out that the Calman commission took into account some of those issues, because—to take the examples of corporation tax or fuel duty—there could be significant issues with full devolution, and we will of course take into account the interests of all parts of the country.

[Pete Wishart]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Gauke]

I am hoping to wind up soon, but I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman.

[Pete Wishart]

Perhaps the Minister could answer the question—a question that the hon. Member for Glasgow North (Ann McKechin) also raised—about the process in which we are now involved. When are we likely to see amendments that reflect the will of the Scottish Parliament’s Committee? Will they be introduced in the House of Lords? Like the hon. Lady, I would find that unacceptable: such amendments have to be debated in this place. When will we be able to debate them in this House?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Donohoe]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I will develop that argument in my speech.

[Pete Wishart]

I am interested to know the view of the Labour party on this issue. The names of the hon. Gentleman and five of his hon. Friends are listed as supporters of the amendment. What is the view of those on the Labour Front Bench on Westminster controlling what happens with Members of the Scottish Parliament? What is the view of Labour Members of the Scottish Parliament on that?

[Mr Donohoe]

I am sure the hon. Gentleman knows that there are varying views on the subject, as there are on many subjects. As far as my constituents are concerned, however, there is no doubt: to a person, they support the argument that I am making tonight that there should be a fundamental change to how we elect our MSPs. There was immense resistance to the fact that the person who came fourth under first past the post was eventually elected to the Scottish Parliament. That seems to me to be wrong.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Donohoe]

The hon. Gentleman makes my point. Nobody actually knows their list Members. I could not name the ones in my constituency because there are 24 of them.

[Pete Wishart]

Does the hon. Gentleman know how many people in Scotland recognise Iain Gray? What would he make of these proceedings?

[Mr Donohoe]

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman’s smile will be on the other side of his face come the end of May. There is absolutely no doubt that Iain Gray will become as well known as anyone in Scotland as a result of becoming First Minister after 3 May this year. That was a great intervention—I would be happy to take similar ones all night.

Cabinet Office

Pete Wishart Excerpts

Tuesday 21st December 2010 Commons Chamber

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

Thank you, Mr Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to speak in the all-new, super-duper, pre-recess Christmas Adjournment debate. I wish to discuss the plans for a city status competition in Her Majesty the Queen’s diamond jubilee year and the arrangements for that contest. If I get the opportunity to do so, I might just make the compelling, excellent and fantastic case for the beautiful city of Perth.

We in Perth were delighted when it was announced that there was to be a city competition in 2012 and we look forward to putting our compelling, excellent and fantastic case, alongside like-minded towns and cities throughout the United Kingdom. We naturally presumed that, once again, the Cabinet Office and the relevant Minister would attempt to ensure that a wide range of cities from throughout the United Kingdom would be rewarded with official city status, in recognition of the different civic traditions, arrangements and cultures in our diverse component parts of the United Kingdom. We therefore cannot begin to say how disappointed we were with the plans that we saw and how puny they were. Instead of encouraging a good competition, one that would match the commitment, energy, enthusiasm and ambitions of a range of candidate towns and cities across the United Kingdom, this time the Government have, for some reason, sought to award this status to only one city throughout the United Kingdom. After the efforts that we have made in our city, that has come as a crushing disappointment to Perth, as I am sure it has to other small applicant towns and cities the length and breadth of the United Kingdom.

Perth first approached the Ministry of Justice a couple of years ago to see whether it could secure official city status in advance of its 800-year anniversary: it is 800 years since Perth was awarded a city charter and became a royal burgh. We were encouraged to drop that plan and bid in the 2012 competition, which is what we have decided to do. Perth sees itself as a different aspirant city because it was an official city; it had its lord provostship. That goes back to what I was saying about the differences in tradition and culture between Scotland and the rest of the UK. We do not have mayors; we have provosts. It is bizarre to ask us to compete with towns and cities that have mayors, given that we have provosts. I look forward to the Minister’s response on that.

Perth was an official city—in fact, it was the capital of Scotland and was where the Kings of Scotland were crowned. Until the 1970s, when the town was so callously stripped of its official city status, it was considered to be the second city of Scotland. So for us this campaign is not about securing city status; it is about restoring that status and it is a matter of justice. Even in 2010, Perth is still very much considered a city: it is the “Fair City” of Sir Walter Scott’s book; it is the gateway to the highlands; it is the legal, administrative, commercial and educational centre of one of the largest areas in the United Kingdom, with one of the fastest growing populations in the country; and it even has a far-reaching international footprint, as we see when watching the English cricket team struggling to preserve the Ashes out in Western Australia.

When considering this competition, we must ask how we have done it before. In 2002, we had the Rolls-Royce version of a city status competition, when each of the nations of the UK had its own internal competition. That year, the city of Stirling was lucky enough to be awarded official city status. The millennium competition was not quite the same—with different competitions throughout the UK—but the equivalent of the Ministry of Justice at the time put real effort and energy into awarding this status to a range of cities from across the United Kingdom. Brighton and Hove, Wolverhampton and Inverness all won, so there was one winner from the south of England, one from the midlands of England and one representing the rest of the nations of the UK. That was a fantastic example of how a city competition throughout the UK could be organised and it was far more generous than what is on offer the next time around.

Such is the concern that, in a rare gesture of political unity, all the political leaders in the Scottish Parliament have come together to express their concern that Scotland will be overlooked. We in Perth are confident that we can see off all comers, because we believe that our case is fantastic, excellent and compelling, and that the beautiful city of Perth will be a real contender. However, what we presume will happen, given that there is to be only one winner, is that this competition will be lazy and sloppy. We presume that it will tend to favour the largest and those with greater access to the centre of power and—dare I say this?—it may favour applicant towns with one Conservative Member of Parliament or with several Conservative MPs.

We know that 11 towns from England are bidding to be official cities this time around, the smallest of which is twice the size of Perth and the largest of which is five times as populous, so they will have greater resources to deploy. If I were representing an English applicant town, I would expect to win this one. I would not expect the winner to be from the Celtic fringe. Given that England is the largest constituent part of the UK, I would expect one of its towns to win. All I am asking the Whip to pass on to the Minister is a request to review slightly what the Government have in mind for this city status competition and to do what was done last time around. The Government should reward a series of applicant cities from across the UK and make this fair. Let like compete with like. The Minister can still do that, because the plans can still be altered. Let us have a proper, genuine city competition that can meet and match the ambitions of communities the length and breadth of the United Kingdom.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Crabb]

I am grateful for your generosity and clarification, Mr Speaker. All previous competitions up to 2002 had been organised on a UK-wide basis. The golden jubilee competition was the only time when separate competitions were held for the devolved nations and for England. We regard the bestowing of city status as a signal honour and a rare mark of distinction. Something special will be lost if too many places are granted city status. The Government’s expectation is that only one new city will be created as a result of the diamond jubilee competition and, similarly, that only one existing city will be granted a lord mayoralty or lord provostship.

[Pete Wishart]

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that it is very difficult for Scottish cities to compete with English cities, given our different civic traditions and cultures? Does he also accept that if we are trying to ensure that a range of places across the United Kingdom are involved, there has to be more than one winner? Surely, if there is to be only one winner, the largest will naturally be the favourite.

[Stephen Crabb]

I am not sure that I accept the hon. Gentleman’s analysis at all on that. Every bid will be judged fairly on its merits. There are some strict criteria in place, the details of which are available on the Department for Culture, Media and Sport website. I hope that those criteria will allay some of his concerns.

I am sure that the tradition of referring to Perth as the fair city will continue, whatever the outcome of the competition. However, there is only one way to become recognised as a city in the UK: by having the honour conferred by the sovereign. That is the prize that awaits the successful entrant to the competition. I wish all potential entrants, including the fair city of Perth, the very best of luck.

Savings Accounts and Health in Pregnancy Grant Bill

Pete Wishart Excerpts

Monday 22nd November 2010 Commons Chamber

[John Hemming]

From a sedentary position, an hon. Member suggests that we ensure they have a job. That is true, but what we are talking about is a child trust fund that is made available at the age of 18.

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

Would not the people whom we are talking about need that money at 18 to pay for the Liberal Democrats’ tuition fees?

--- Later in debate ---

[John Hemming]

Let me ask a question. If the Labour party will not cut these three things, what will it cut? They are probably three of the easiest things to cut that could possibly be identified.

Let us take the child trust fund. At present we have a deficit. Every year, we borrow the deficit and add it to our debt. Putting money into the child trust fund means that the taxpayer—the state—borrows some money and then puts it into a fund. Some of the funds lose money while others gain money. Hopefully, 18 years later there will be a little bit of money for someone. If the Labour party cannot cut that, what will it cut? As the witnesses said, if we want to help people when they are 18, we can help them when they are 18. If we want to help 18-year-olds who are leaving care, we should help them at age 18, not so that they will have to wait for 18 years. It is absurd to borrow money today to put in a fund that might lose or might make money—there is evidence of both eventualities—and then 18 years later maybe a young person will have some money.

We have to make choices. A key question is whether people on lower incomes, and especially those who have just given birth, should spend money on food and health or save some money. In Committee, I asked Katherine Rake that question and she said:

“You cannot make a choice in that way.”––[Official Report, Savings Accounts and Health in Pregnancy Grant Public Bill Committee, 4 November 2010; c. 95, Q244.]

In essence, that is the Labour party’s argument. The Opposition are basically saying, “We don’t make choices. There’s no need to make choices. We can have this and this and this, and we can keep on going until the interest rates go sky high, we lose lots more jobs and we have a sovereign debt crisis.”

On Report, the hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Sheila Gilmore) talked about paying down the deficit. We do not pay down a deficit; we pay down debt. The deficit is the amount of money added each year to our debt, and the danger we face is that if we are not careful the interest rates on the debt will rise as well as the debt itself, and that would mean more cuts. If Opposition Members are going to argue this point of view, therefore, they have to explain where the cuts would come from, but they have not answered that. Are they going to close down hospitals to pay for these things? Are they going to sack more police officers? We face a very difficult time, but if the Opposition say they would keep these three particular projects, they have to explain where they would get the money from to pay for them. Would they put VAT up again?

[Pete Wishart]

If I had closed my eyes, I would have thought this was the hardest right-wing Thatcherite speech I had ever heard, yet it is being made by a Liberal, for goodness’ sake. Why are the Government taking this out on women and children? If cuts have to be made, why is it women and children who are in the firing line?

[John Hemming]

What we are talking about is putting some money in a fund and leaving it there for 18 years. That is not going to affect any woman or child for 18 years. What we should be doing is looking after people now. Our priorities have to be the vulnerable people now. We have to give priority to protecting the poorer, the less well off, the vulnerable and those with learning difficulties now, rather than putting some money away for 18 years.

Savings Accounts and Health in Pregnancy Grant Bill

Pete Wishart Excerpts

Tuesday 26th October 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hoban]

Perhaps the hon. Lady would tell us what she would cut instead. It is very easy for the Opposition, who did not come forward with a plan to tackle the deficit before the last election. Now, every time a cut is proposed they oppose it. As was very clear from the leaked document in The Times today, they recognise themselves that their economic plan has no substance.

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

There is no doubt whatsoever that the Labour party left the country’s finances in an appalling state, but why is the Conservative-led coalition taking it out on children and pregnant women?

[Mr Hoban]

If the hon. Gentleman looks at some of the analysis that was set out at the time of the Budget and last week’s spending review, he will see that we are taking action in both to ensure that child poverty does not deteriorate under this Government. For example, there are increases in child tax credits to families on particularly low incomes to deal with the issue of child poverty.

--- Later in debate ---

[Pete Wishart]

The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that the coalition Conservative Government are doing some appalling things to women and children, but perhaps he could talk about what the Labour party did. Was not the Labour party going to halve child poverty? What actually happened to child poverty in the last few years of the Labour Government? Did it not go up?

[Mr Hanson]

I will say just this to the hon. Gentleman: record levels of the minimum wage, record support on Sure Start, record investment in education and tackling child poverty across the board. The Labour Government have a proud record of tackling inequality and trying those issues. [Interruption.] The Financial Secretary says, “Records of deficit”. I recognise, as does my right hon. Friend the shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer, that we need to tackle the deficit, and that is where the choice is today. The choice for the Financial Secretary is to cut deeper—[Interruption.] If he stops chuntering for a moment from the Front Bench and listens, he will hear me say that choices have been made to cut the deficit much more slowly than the hon. Gentleman was doing, over a longer period. There are other issues that could be looked at. The Government’s banking levy is worth a proposed £2.4 billion. If the Labour Government had been in office, that would have been £3.5 billion. There is £1.1 billion extra already from that funding. The hon. Gentleman knows there are differences of approach, and the Labour Government would have taken a different approach to the deficit, and would have been able to save those resources in a much better way.