Scotland Bill
Debate between Alistair Carmichael and Angus Robertson(9 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Angus Robertson
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Crausby, and to follow the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen). I can give him the assurance that my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Scottish National party Benches will be resolute in our support of the Human Rights Act and the European convention on human rights.
I would like to speak to new clause 10. Paragraph 22 of the Smith report, entitled “Scottish Parliament consent to the UK Parliament making law in devolved areas”, recommended, simply and with no room for ambiguity, that
“The Sewel Convention will be put on a statutory footing.”
The details of clause 2 are therefore really important. The Scotland Bill, as drafted, seeks to implement this recommendation by adding a new subsection (8) to section 28 of the Scotland Act 1998. The positioning of this new provision is significant because the provision before it, section 28(7), makes an unambiguous assertion of Westminster’s parliamentary sovereignty and the legislative supremacy of the UK Parliament. Section 28(7) declares:
“This section does not affect the power of the Parliament of the United Kingdom to make laws for Scotland.”
This is therefore a clear statement that Westminster continues to have the legal power to legislate for Scotland across devolved, as well as reserved, areas of public policy. Clause 2 inserts section 28(8), which states:
“But it is recognised that the Parliament of the United Kingdom will not normally legislate with regard to devolved matters without the consent of the Scottish Parliament.”
In paragraph 61 of its report, the Scottish Parliament Devolution (Further Powers) Committee considered that the draft clause placed
“the purpose of the Sewel Convention in statute”—
but—
“does not incorporate in legislation the process for consultation and consent where Westminster plans to legislate in a devolved area.”
In addition, the Committee recommended that the words “but it is recognised” and “normally” in the draft clause should be removed because they weaken the intention of the Smith recommendations. We agree with the all-party Committee’s analysis.
The current clause fails to implement the Smith recommendation in three respects. First, on amendments to the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament, the Sewel convention, as set out in devolution guidance note 10, also requires the consent of the Scottish Parliament to Westminster legislation that alters the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament or the Executive competence of Scottish Ministers. The clause does not refer to either of those categories. This is a significant omission. As the House of Commons Political and Constitutional Reform Committee noted, and as the hon. Member for Nottingham North no doubt remembers:
“We heard in oral evidence from Professor McHarg and in written evidence from Dr Adam Tucker and Dr Adam Perry that the draft clause failed to acknowledge the full scope of the Sewel Convention as it is currently applied in practice. The clause refers only to the Convention’s applicability in respect of devolved matters: it was pointed out to us that the Convention is also applied to legislation affecting the competences of the devolved institutions.”
This is reflected in the UK Government’s devolution guidance note 10, which states that a Bill requiring Scottish parliamentary consent under the Sewel convention is one which
“contains provisions applying to Scotland and which are for devolved purposes, or which alter the legislative competence of the Parliament or the executive competence of the Scottish Ministers.”
DGN 10 is referred to in the Command Paper, containing the draft clauses, as follows: “It is expected that the practice developed under Devolution Guidance Note 10 will continue.”
DGN 10 has no legal effect, but sets out how the UK Government Departments legislating in Scotland will meet the terms of the convention. This practice is not reflected in the drafting of clause 2.
Secondly, on statute as a convention, the clause puts the Sewel convention into legislation as a convention, rather than putting the convention on a statutory footing. As the Scottish Government have pointed out to the Scottish Parliament Committee, this is very different from precedents where the UK has placed other conventions on a statutory footing, such as the Ponsonby convention relating to treaty ratification. Again, as the House of Commons Political and Constitutional Reform Committee noted:
“We consider that draft clause 2 does not give the Sewel Convention the force of statute, but may strengthen the Convention politically. We believe it fails to acknowledge that the Convention extends to legislation affecting the competences of the devolved institutions. We recommend that the presence of the word ‘normally’ in the Sewel Convention, and the applicability of the Convention to legislation affecting the competences of the devolved institutions, be addressed in any redrafting of draft clause 2.”
Thirdly, on the consultation requirement, as has been widely noted and as set out in DGN 10, the effective operation of the Sewel convention depends on consultation between the Scottish and UK Governments, which the Secretary of State for Scotland made play of earlier. The clause, however, fails to include any consultation requirements.
The Scottish Government’s alternative clause, which we have tabled as a new clause, addresses those deficiencies and properly places the Sewel convention on a statutory footing. The opening subsection of the alternative adds to section 28 of the Scotland Act by providing a clear statement of the Sewel convention that the UK Parliament must not pass Acts applying to Scotland about a devolved matter without the consent of the Scottish Parliament. It then defines “about a devolved matter” to encompass all three categories covered by DGN 10: legislation in a devolved area; changing the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament; and adjusting the Executive competence of the Scottish Government.
The alternative clause then provides for a new section 28A to be inserted into the Scotland Act. This is a straightforward consultation provision requiring the UK Government to consult the Scottish Government before introducing to Westminster Bills that apply to Scotland. Where the Westminster Bill would require the consent of the Scottish Parliament under section 28, as amended, the UK Government should share a copy of the provisions of the Bill that apply to Scotland with the Scottish Government 21 days before introduction at Westminster. However, there is an understanding that, on occasion, it is necessary to expedite the legislative process, and therefore the alternative clause is pragmatic and flexible in allowing the consultation requirement to be curtailed in certain circumstances.
The Scottish Parliament has of course looked at the clauses proposed by the Government, and its Devolution (Further Powers) Committee considered
“that the current draft clause, whilst placing the purpose of the Sewel Convention in statute, does not incorporate in legislation the process for consultation and consent where Westminster plans to legislate in a devolved area. The Committee considers that it should do so. Moreover, the Committee considers that the use of the words ‘but it is recognised’ and ‘normally’ has the potential to weaken the intention of the Smith Commission‘s recommendation in this area and recommends that these words be removed from the draft clause.
For those reasons, I urge Members on both sides of the Committee to support the measure we are promoting. In response to the published Bill, the Committee called for the specified words to be removed from the clause, but there has been no change: clause 2 is identical to the draft clause 2 we saw those many months ago.
Given everything we hear about reflecting, improvements, co-operation and the UK Government listening to the Scottish Government, the SNP and other parties, I would love to hear from the Secretary of State, whose ear I am hoping to catch, at what stage the Government intend to accept and implement these improvements. As drafted, the clause does not implement the Smith recommendation. As I have said, that critique was agreed by all parties in the Scottish Parliament, and I hope the UK Government will take that on board.
The clause puts the Sewel convention into statute, rather than putting it on a statutory footing, as required by paragraph 22 of the Smith report. In our view, the intention of the Smith recommendations was that key aspects of DGN 10 would be codified in statute. As it stands, the clause sets out the basic principle, but provides no statutory process for consultation and consent where Westminster plans to legislate for Scotland in devolved areas. As things stand, the Bill has not been drafted to take account of the shortcomings; does not put the Sewel convention on a meaningful statutory basis; does not adequately implement the Smith commission recommendations; and does not apply to changes to the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament or Executive competence of Scottish Ministers. That is why we will be pressing for these changes.
Mr Alistair Carmichael
Amendments 19 and 20 have their genesis in the efforts of the Law Society of Scotland and seek to achieve much the same ends as those already outlined by the hon. Members for Caerphilly (Wayne David) and for Moray (Angus Robertson). On a very literal basis, clause 2 does implement the Sewel convention, which is why the word “normally” is in there. When Lord Sewel, during consideration of the Scotland Act 1998 in the other place, gave his undertaking, the word “normally” was used. However, as has become apparent from the comments of the hon. Member for Moray and others, the operation of the convention over the years has been very different—we now have DGN 10—and on reflection, with the benefit of pre-legislative scrutiny, it should be revisited in the terms before the House. I do not necessarily expect the Secretary of State to accept the amendments, but I hope he will acknowledge that this is a legitimate point that it would cost the Government nothing to adopt. It would be an indication that they are listening and of their good will.
New clause 5 is in the name of the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen). I enjoyed the trailer for his Second Reading speech to the Human Rights Act abolition Bill—if we are ever to see it; it is notable, of course, that it was not in the Queen’s Speech. I hope that, having looked into the abyss and seen the myriad complications that would come from their proposal, the Government might find extensive and mature consideration necessary and that we might, in fact, never see that Second Reading.
Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between Alistair Carmichael and Angus Robertson(9 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Carmichael
I rarely have any difficulty in endorsing a campaign run by The Press and Journal. The question of the price being paid by electricity consumers across the highlands and islands is complex, but I know that we all benefit from being part of the wider UK energy market.
Angus Robertson (Moray) (SNP)
Scottish generators, including Longannet, provide 12% of the electricity going into the British network, but pay 35% of the transmission charges. The Secretary of State has been in government for five years. What has he done to end that discrimination?
Mr Carmichael
The hon. Gentleman is well aware that transmission charging is the responsibility of Ofgem, the energy market regulator. He will also be aware of the work that Ofgem has been doing with other parts of the energy industry in relation to Project TransmiT.
Angus Robertson
Last week, the First Minister wrote to the Prime Minister about this very subject, asking
“the UK Government to initiate a dedicated capacity assessment for Scotland, informed by stakeholder views, and take steps to transfer to the Scottish Parliament the authority to set our own national reliability standard for electricity.”
Having failed to end the discriminatory transmission charges, will the UK Government agree to those reasonable suggestions?
Mr Carmichael
The hon. Gentleman and the First Minister must both be aware that National Grid has a constant process of reviewing energy supply. The system operators in Scotland have stress-tested 140 scenarios in which Longannet and other Scottish fossil fuel generators were closed, and National Grid has the tools to keep the lights on in every one of those scenarios, including by being resilient against one-in-600-year risks. Those are the facts, and they are preferable to the sort of scaremongering that we hear from the nationalists.
Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between Alistair Carmichael and Angus Robertson(9 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Carmichael
The hon. Lady is right to say that the Scottish Government have planning and environmental regulation powers that would enable them to block any fracking project they wanted to block. It is sensible, in the circumstances, that they should be given responsibility for the licensing of such activities as well. That will be done as part of the Smith process.
Angus Robertson (Moray) (SNP)
The Scottish Government and the Scottish National party have been pressing for the devolution of all powers over fracking for some time. Why have the UK Government ruled out devolving power over fracking licences until after the general election?
Mr Carmichael
That is part of the timetable to which we are all committed. Until I heard the Deputy First Minister speak at the National museum, I had thought that the hon. Gentleman’s party was committed to it as well. We are proceeding with that speedy and tight process. I will publish the draft clauses before 25 August—sorry, I mean 25 January, which is, incidentally, before 25 August. With 25 January being a Sunday, we might even meet the deadline with a few days to spare.
Angus Robertson
Until now, the UK Government’s position has been to remove the right of Scottish householders to object to unconventional gas or oil drilling underneath their homes. What will the position be between now and the full devolution of powers over fracking? Will the Department of Energy and Climate Change give an undertaking that it will not issue any fresh licences?
Mr Carmichael
The position will be as it is at the moment, which is that if there is any fracking project in Scotland, the hon. Gentleman’s colleagues in the Scottish Government will have the power, using planning or environmental regulations, to block it. They should not seek to push the blame on to anyone else.
Devolution (Scotland Referendum)
Debate between Alistair Carmichael and Angus Robertson(10 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr Alistair Carmichael)
It is an enormous pleasure to conclude what has been one of the best debates on a range of constitutional issues that I have known in my time as a Member of Parliament. We have heard some quite remarkable contributions from all parts of our still United Kingdom. It is almost invidious to single out any, but let me do just that anyway at the risk of causing some offence.
As the hon. Member for Glasgow East (Margaret Curran) has just said, the contributions of my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (Michael Moore) and the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown) were quite outstanding for their thoughtfulness and their content.
In addition, I thought that the contributions from my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell), my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire (Sir George Young), the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen), the right hon. Members for Torfaen (Paul Murphy), for Belfast North (Mr Dodds), and for Southampton, Itchen (Mr Denham) and the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Cathy Jamieson) all brought a great deal to the debate. Inevitably, this is a debate to which the House will be returning on a number of occasions in the weeks, months and possibly years to come.
The issues addressed in this debate, and the wider debate in the country, fall into three broad categories. I shall do my best to address all three in the time that is available. First, we must consider how to fulfil the joint commitment by all three party leaders to deliver more powers to the Scottish Parliament in the light of the referendum no vote.
Secondly, we must consider how to ensure that power is properly devolved and decentralised to the nations, communities and individuals who comprise our United Kingdom. Thirdly, separately but rightly, we must consider how we might answer the West Lothian question, which has come about as a consequence of devolving power to specific parts of the United Kingdom.
The spark for this wider debate was the referendum on Scottish independence, which was held last month. The referendum was underpinned by the Edinburgh agreement between the Scottish and UK Governments that empowered the Scottish Parliament to legislate for a referendum. That agreement delivered its explicit intent: a referendum that was legal and fair in its conduct and decisive in its outcome.
The First Minister and his Deputy made it clear during the campaign that, in their view, the referendum was a once-in-a-generation event, and perhaps, as the First Minister said, a once-in-a-lifetime event. I am sure, therefore, that I am not the only Scot to be dismayed to see them now turn their back on the commitments made during the referendum. They have raised the prospect of another referendum in the near future, or perhaps even a unilateral declaration of independence if they again win a majority. That is foolish and dangerous talk from the point of view of Scotland’s business, Scotland’s economy and jobs for the people of Scotland. Unfortunately, that view was reflected again in the contribution of the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart). He described the referendum as a tremendous experience. He spoke with some passion about all the things that he loved about it. The only thing that he did not like was the outcome.
The nationalists need to confirm that they respect the result—the views of the people of Scotland—and that they will not be revisiting this issue again. [Interruption.] Does the hon. Member for Moray (Angus Robertson) wish to intervene? I will take his intervention.
Angus Robertson
I was wondering why the right hon. Gentleman did not hear what I said in my first intervention on the Leader of the House. I said that of course the Scottish National party respects the outcome of the election. Why is the Secretary of State pretending that he did not hear that?
Mr Carmichael
The hon. Gentleman answered only half of my challenge. He was challenged to say that we will not have the Scottish nationalists wanting a second referendum. If he will meet that challenge, he can stand up and do it now.
Angus Robertson
For the record—[Hon. Members: “Ah!”] For the record, is the Secretary of State for Scotland now acknowledging that the Scottish National party respects the outcome of the referendum and that that was said earlier in this Chamber? He said that it was not said. Will he correct what he just said a moment ago? Secondly, on the question of a referendum, there will only ever be a referendum in Scotland on Scottish independence if the electorate want it.
Mr Carmichael
Weasel words, Mr Speaker. I do not think we need to waste any more time listening to the contributions from that corner of the Chamber.
The vow made by the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition during the referendum campaign is already being put into practice. The Smith commission was up and running on 19 September and yesterday I was pleased to publish the Command Paper more than two weeks ahead of the schedule outlined in the previously published timetable—evidence that the Government are delivering on the vow.
The process is not just about the parties. The referendum opened up civic engagement in Scotland across sectors, communities and organisations, and Lord Smith has made it clear that he wants to hear from all those groups to ensure that the recommendations he produces are informed by views from right across Scotland. This will be the first time in the development of Scotland’s constitutional future that all of its main parties are participating in a process to consider further devolution. That is a truly historic moment and one that I very much welcome.
Of course, as many Members have pointed out, it is England that has experienced the least devolution of power in recent years and that is something that needs to be addressed. A key problem in doing so is that there is no consensus in England on what further devolution might look like. If nothing else, that much must be clear from today’s debate. I say to our English colleagues that the people in Scotland debated this issue at length over a period of decades, and they now need to do the same. What would English devolution look like? We have heard suggestions that it should involve structures within the existing constitutional architecture and of regional assemblies. We have even heard suggestions of an English Parliament. Those ideas have all been promoted in the debate today, but it is clear that the position in England is not yet settled.
Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between Alistair Carmichael and Angus Robertson(10 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Carmichael
I have had a number of discussions, as I think my hon. Friend is aware, involving my colleagues in DECC and in the Crown Estate. I am very keen to ensure that no procedural difficulties will stand in the way of the development from MeyGen, which, as he and I both know, is a very exciting and potentially lucrative development for his area.
Angus Robertson (Moray) (SNP)
Inward investment into Scotland is at a 16-year high under a Scottish National party Government and in the run-up to an independence referendum. That contrasts with all the claims of doom and gloom from the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Given that the UK Government were spectacularly wrong in their claims on inward investment, why should anybody trust the myriad Westminster scare stories?
Mr Carmichael
I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman gives me the opportunity to remind the House that of the 111 inward investment projects that were successful in 2012-13, 84 were supported by UK Trade & Investment. That is the sort of heft that is given to Scottish business by being part of the United Kingdom; that is what he wants us to walk away from.
Angus Robertson
The UK Government have launched a confrontational approach to the European Union. The Prime Minister went to Brussels last week and was outvoted 26 to 2. If smaller countries have no say in the European Union, why is it that a Luxembourger is the new President of the European Commission—from a country smaller than the city of Glasgow?
Mr Carmichael
I will take absolutely no lectures from the Scottish nationalists on the subject of confrontational approaches. It really is a mark of the desperation of the position in which they find themselves that that is the best they can come up with.
Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between Alistair Carmichael and Angus Robertson(10 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Carmichael
I very much agree with my right hon. Friend. I always think of the United Kingdom as being a family of nations. Of course, like all families, we do have those moments where we have disagreements, and we do occasionally want to do things in a slightly different way, but as a family the ties that bind us are so much greater than the differences that divide us. That is why I believe that Scotland, come 18 September, will choose to remain part of that family of UK nations.
Angus Robertson (Moray) (SNP)
But the people of the borders and the rest of Scotland are being subjected to the self-styled “project fear” campaign, which its own supporters describe as negative, nasty, and threatening, and who also say that the Prime Minister is toxic in Scotland. Why are even the Secretary of State’s own colleagues saying this?
Mr Carmichael
I have to say that it is a bit rich to hear the right hon. Gentleman talking about “project fear” when the First Minister went to Carlisle on St George’s day to deliver a lecture that I can only describe as project ridiculous. The fact of the matter—there is no escaping this for the nationalists—is that for people living in the constituencies on either side of the border, there are real benefits to being part of the United Kingdom. The nationalists want us to walk away from those benefits.
Angus Robertson
Leading members of the right hon. Gentleman’s own campaign have told people in the borders and the rest of Scotland that they will have to show a passport at the border; drive on the right-hand side of the road; worry about their pensions, when in this place people are being told that they are safe; and that they will not be able to use their own currency, when the media in London are being briefed that that will be safe. Why do his colleagues think that the people of the borders and the rest of Scotland will fall for this demeaning, insulting nonsense?
Mr Carmichael
The question of the borders highlights perfectly how the Scottish nationalists want to have their cake and eat it. On the one hand, they tell us that we could have a common travel area, which works very well with the Republic of Ireland at present. At the same time, they tell us that we will have a widely divergent immigration policy, which the Republic of Ireland does not have. They can have one thing or the other: they cannot have both. That is why their prospectus is flawed.
Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between Alistair Carmichael and Angus Robertson(10 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Carmichael
Unfortunately, my hon. Friend highlights a constituency case of the sort that has been all too familiar to me over the years. In fact, in many ways, it makes the case for the need for reform. I would be more than happy to meet him and his constituents and assist them in any way that is open to me.
Angus Robertson (Moray) (SNP)
It is now nearly three years since all three UK parties were resoundingly defeated by the Scottish National party. In those three years, there was plenty of time for the coalition Government and indeed the official Opposition to consider further devolution, including that advocated by the Scottish Affairs Committee. Will the Minister confirm whether they will or will not publish a comprehensive joint devolution proposal?
Mr Carmichael
The hon. Gentleman will get the Government’s response at the same time as everyone else, but he cannot get away from the fact that his Government in Edinburgh have systematically stripped power, influence and accountability away from island and coastal communities. They are not to be trusted with this.
Angus Robertson
The coalition parties and the official Opposition have spent the past three years expressing nothing but groundless, relentless negativity about the future of Scotland. They have dubbed it “project fear”. The Conservative party said that it had a line in the sand and that there would be no further devolution. The Labour party is proposing even less than a few years ago, and the Liberal Democrats are in favour of federalism in a lopsided model that will never ever work. Why should the electorate believe a single word of any of the three parties on the issue of devolution—
Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between Alistair Carmichael and Angus Robertson(10 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Carmichael
Indeed, the hon. Lady makes a point that was made eloquently—and, I thought, in a very measured way—by the Governor of the Bank of England in his speech last week in Edinburgh. He made the point that a currency union such as that proposed inevitably involves ceding some degree of national sovereignty—the very opposite of what independence is supposed to be about. One wonders why any nationalist would, in all sincerity, genuinely want one.
Angus Robertson (Moray) (SNP)
This week the Financial Times reported that an independent Scotland should have healthier state finances than the rest of the UK. So far, more than 1,200 business owners and directors have declared their support for a yes vote by joining the pro-independence business group, Business for Scotland. Does the Secretary of State recognise their role in the Scottish economy and welcome their contribution to the referendum debate?
Mr Carmichael
I will, of course, speak to businessmen and women of all views at any time in Scotland. The difficulty for the hon. Gentleman is that the most recent polling exercise undertaken in the business community showed that roughly three quarters of business people in Scotland intend to vote no. They know that independence would be bad for their business.
Angus Robertson
All the evidence from polling in recent weeks shows a substantial swing to the yes campaign, and the polls also show that by a majority of 4:1, the public wish to see a debate between the Prime Minister and First Minister Alex Salmond. How long can the Prime Minister continue supporting everybody else becoming part of the debate, but run away from one himself?
Mr Carmichael
Make no mistake, Mr Speaker, we know exactly why the nationalists want that debate between the Prime Minister and Alex Salmond: they are trying to set the decision up as a contest between Scotland and England, which it absolutely is not. This is about Scotland’s best-placed constitutional future, and it is to be decided by Scots in Scotland.
Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between Alistair Carmichael and Angus Robertson(11 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Carmichael
I will continue to make representations on behalf of the whole food and drink industry in Scotland, in which the hon. Gentleman and his all-party group play an important part. I have joined the hon. Gentleman on many occasions over the years as part of such delegations, and I will continue to give him as much support as I can.
Angus Robertson (Moray) (SNP)
Does the Secretary of State not accept that 80% of the price of a bottle of Scotch whisky is duty, which is paid to the United Kingdom Treasury? Duty discrimination by the UK Government is widening the gap between the price of whisky and the price of other beverages. How does that help the industry and employees?
Mr Carmichael
The point to which the hon. Gentleman should respond—although I suspect that he will not—is that the Scotch whisky industry does very well as part of the United Kingdom industry, taking full advantage of the string of embassies and UKTI offices that we have throughout the world, and his policy of independence puts that at risk.
Angus Robertson
In opposition, the right hon. Gentleman and I, along with others, lobbied the Treasury to end tax discrimination. In fact, the right hon. Gentleman himself tabled an amendment for that purpose, supported by Liberal Democrat Members and the Scottish National party. Since becoming Secretary of State for Scotland, he has taken the Tory shilling, he is letting the industry down, and he is supporting a discriminatory duty. When will he stand up and be Scotland’s man in the Cabinet, rather than the Tories’ man in Scotland?
Mr Carmichael
I do hope that that sounded better when the hon. Gentleman rehearsed it in the mirror earlier this morning, because it sounded pretty poor just now. There is no escaping the fundamental truth that his policy would be the ruination of the Scotch whisky industry, for no good reason.
Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between Alistair Carmichael and Angus Robertson(11 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Carmichael
For, very possibly, the first time in the 30 years for which I have known my right hon. and learned Friend, I am one step ahead of him. I have, in fact, visited those facilities, and I was immensely impressed, principally by the fact that they are already accessible to some 75,000 people in the area. They will indeed constitute a lasting legacy. Glasgow city council has the opportunity to provide a business legacy, and I am delighted to announce that it has made the Glasgow city chambers available to UK Trade & Investment and other organisations for the duration of the games so that they can promote business opportunities.
Angus Robertson (Moray) (SNP)
I welcome the Secretary of State to his position. Today is a very sad day for many families in Glasgow, and I am sure the thoughts of everybody on both sides of the House are with them. How will the legacy to Glasgow of the Commonwealth games be affected by large-scale skilled industrial job losses in the city?
Mr Carmichael
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his welcome. As I have already said, we are working with UKTI to bring more business opportunities to Glasgow. As for the announcements, we will hear from the Secretary of State for Defence later today what the full extent of these developments is going to be, but they will be best tackled if we all work together. We have known for a long time that this day was coming.
Angus Robertson
And the legacy to Glasgow will be serious if nothing is done to help those who need it, so what can the Secretary of State and his Government do to help people in these circumstances?
Mr Carmichael
I will be doing what I have been doing since the day and hour I took over this job. I will work with the hon. Gentleman’s colleagues in the Scottish Government, if they are prepared to work with me. I will work with the councillors and officers at Glasgow city council. I will work with UKTI and, most of all, I will work with BAE Systems, which, in very difficult circumstances, has handled itself in a way that should be commended.