Food Banks (Scotland)

Anas Sarwar Excerpts

Wednesday 19th December 2012 Westminster Hall

[Lindsay Roy]

I agree wholeheartedly with my hon. Friend. I will cite examples from my constituency.

I commend highly the initiative, moral purpose, compassion and tenacity of those doing voluntary work in the face of adversity. I warmly welcome, too, the work of Citizens Advice Scotland, supermarkets such as Sainsbury’s, Waitrose and Tesco and the local authorities who are intervening to help. Collectively, they are trying valiantly to meet the desperate needs of many people who face genuine poverty—working families, those on benefit, pensioners and young people.

Charity and voluntary work is highly demanding, and usually rewarding when needs are met, but sometimes recently it has become a soul-destroying venture, because needs cannot be met even with all the resources in the local community and the good will it provides. Such volunteers are, in every respect, local heroes who contribute above and beyond the call of duty to address hunger and poverty that is sadly increasingly rife in our society. I pay tribute to those outstanding individuals and groups, who put service before self and make real differences to the lives of those in despair through poverty.

What a sad indictment of the Governments at Westminster and Holyrood that so many Scots are dependent on handouts and nobody has bothered even to gather statistics. I shall illustrate that later with a response from the Department for Work and Pensions.

[Anas Sarwar (Glasgow Central) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate. On Friday, I and the shadow Secretary of State for Scotland visited a food bank in my constituency. We were told sad stories of people, even working people, who have to go to food banks for food parcels. At the weekend, that same organisation—Elim Pentecostal Church, working in partnership with the Trussell Trust—was working with the messy church in Toryglen on Saturday on a toy bank, because many families cannot afford to buy their children toys at Christmas. Local people give toys—another demonstration of how Scotland is coming together to help people in vulnerable communities. We now need our Governments to come together to help such communities too.

[Lindsay Roy]

I welcome my hon. Friend’s intervention, which stressed the situation I have been highlighting.

The Governments are strong on rhetoric, but short on action in dealing with the human tragedy that is seeping through our communities, where payday loan sharks capitalise on fuel, clothing and food poverty. We are told again and again that we have caring and compassionate Governments and we are all in this together, and yet there is an explosion of food and fuel poverty. It is an outrage. Our good track record in responding to human tragedy and emergencies abroad must be matched here. Welfare begins at home.

The hallmark of a civilised society is how we treat the poor and vulnerable, and we are falling well short for those who are disadvantaged and disabled. The Tory-led and SNP Governments have shown a callous disregard for the increasing number of citizens on the breadline. They should hang their heads in shame.

I want to give hon. Members a flavour of the nature and extent of the food crisis that faces people in my constituency. We affectionately refer to the YMCA and the YWCA as the Y. To their eternal credit they have run food banks and homeless shelters for 20 years. They inaugurated a food bank long before the term was commonly used and recognised. Numbers were small and their success was impressive. Mary Hill and her team do a fantastic job, way beyond realistic expectations. I visited the Y on Monday and, as I was leaving, I met a former pupil, now in his mid 20s. He had been a model student, worked hard and got an apprenticeship, but had lost his job. He was unsure how to react when he saw me—hon. Members might say that too—but seriously, tears welled up in his eyes as he told the staff that he had no food until his next benefit payment on Friday. He had 7p in his pocket. He clearly felt ashamed and uncomfortable, and I reassured him that the Y would do all that they could to help him in his crisis. That visit was his first, and it symbolises the recent upsurge in demand of more than 50%. The Y cannot cope on their own, so they are outsourcing food bank pick-ups from local churches and other voluntary organisations.

Rationing is occurring in the Y. The senior caseworker recently told me that they have been opening bags of rice and rationing the rice, giving people just enough to see them through one day. She says that some have been so undernourished that they can provide them only with soup, because their stomachs are not used to food and cannot handle a full meal; and they are not drug addicts. What a sad indictment. Understandably, victims do not want their names publicised, because of the stigma, low self-esteem and lack of hope associated with their plight. In a very real sense, they are the hidden hungry and, as I will illustrate later, they do not come into the statistics at all.

Two examples of the callous and inhumane treatment by Government agencies, particularly the Department for Work and Pensions, are worthy of note. The first concerns a young man who was badly beaten up; the perpetrator was jailed for two years. The young man’s employment and support allowance was stopped after he failed an Atos assessment. Despite the best efforts of my constituency staff and his doctor, who had sound medical evidence, his appeal was rejected. He now has no income for two months—his appeal will be held at the end of January—and is totally dependent on the good will of his friends in the Y and associated organisations.

The other example concerns a father whose wife was giving birth to their third child. He was instructed to visit a company 9 miles away, but it was snowing and he had two children at home, so he did not attend to pick up a leaflet. As a result, despite the explanation given both by me and other folk in the constituency, his appeal was turned down and he is now on hardship benefits. There was no flexibility, no human understanding. I do not blame the DWP personnel, because that is what they are told to do. It is disgraceful; what an outrageous indictment of life in Fife, Scotland and the UK in the 21st century. The only Government agency that is planning to help is Labour-controlled Fife council, and we will take that forward at a meeting on Monday.

The Y plans to join the Trussell Trust link of officially recognised food banks, but the franchise fee is £1,500, which is an additional sum of money for it to find. The caseworker’s assessment is stark:

“The working poor and benefit recipients are being manoeuvred into a long-term famine”.

She also warns that

“the eye of the storm has yet to hit as April looms, when the bedroom tax for many will further reduce income”.

According to the Trussell Trust, there are 21 official food banks in Scotland and, since April, almost 6,200 people throughout Scotland have received emergency food parcels, including almost 2,000 children. About 6,000 people in Scotland benefit daily from FareShare services, but I submit that that is only the tip of a much larger Scottish poverty iceberg, as local food banks are emerging throughout Scotland. With minimal research, I have discovered that there are 10 in my constituency, which has about 65,000 to 70,000 people. According to Save the Children, one in seven of Scotland’s poorest children do not get enough to eat. I am sure that others speakers will elaborate and give more information from their experience, as hon. Friends have already done.

Scots are trapped between two Governments who have their priorities wrong. The Scottish National party could intervene now, and it has the power to do so. According to my information, the Scottish Government have found thousands of pounds for political saltires, and have spent £500,000 on the First Minister’s visit to the Ryder cup, £400,000 on the rental of Scotland house during the Olympics and £30 million on communications and ministerial support—much of it no doubt fixated on the referendum—at the expense of the real needs of the poor in Scotland. I understand that the last time food banks and food poverty was mentioned in the Holyrood Chamber by the First Minister was in September—so much for the commitment to protect Scots from the worst excesses of the coalition Government. We hear regular promises of a land of milk and honey on separation, but the SNP commitment to the poor hungry seems shallow to say the least. Indeed, it suits the SNP to sit back and blame the coalition Government, rather than, in its quest for separation, take the initiative.

The number in poverty is dramatically increasing, with gas and electricity prices rising between 8% and 14%. In part, the food crisis is exacerbated by the increase in fuel poverty, which the SNP said that it would eliminate by 2016.

--- Later in debate ---

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

Thank you, Mr Betts, for calling me to speak and I will endeavour to keep to the time stipulations.

I begin by commending the hon. Member for Glenrothes (Lindsay Roy) on bringing such an important issue to the House today in one of the last debates that we will be having in Westminster Hall before the Christmas recess, when I am sure that many of us will eat and drink a lot more than is necessarily good for us. It is, therefore, timely for us to remember that some people’s festivities will be extremely frugal this year, particularly if they are in food poverty.

I must confess that I do not think food banks are a good means of addressing the low-income inequality that gives rise to the need for them, but they are playing an increasingly important role in emergency provision for people who are in crisis. We can only commend the people in our local churches and communities who are stepping up to fill that gap in what should be an important part of our social protection provision, to ensure that people do not go hungry at what is a very difficult time for many people economically.

The Trussell Trust and Citizens Advice Scotland have both presented a picture—one that is remarkably similar across the islands—of a doubling in demand for food bank provision during the last year alone. This morning, it is particularly important to pay tribute to the work of CAS, which has done so much to highlight the exponential growth in food banks and, critically, has also attempted to understand the reasons for that growth. Its analysis, especially in its “Voices from the Front Line” report, which was published this autumn, identifies the key drivers very well.

Margaret Lynch, chief executive of CAS, has described the historical backdrop of food parcels and the situation that we are in now. She points out that charities such as the Salvation Army and the Society of St Vincent de Paul have always provided practical assistance for families in crisis who temporarily could not feed themselves. In this recession, the number of working families and people on benefits who need help to feed their children and themselves has increased exponentially. Margaret Lynch says:

“The National Minimum Wage has failed to keep pace with the massive increases in food prices over the last 5 years, leaving many low income families facing food insecurity. The fact that 50% of those getting food parcels are working is shocking.”

[Anas Sarwar]

It is interesting to note that the Scottish National party failed to turn up to vote in favour of the national minimum wage when it was put in front of this Parliament.

Let us not argue about what the cause of this crisis is. What are the Scottish Government specifically doing to help ease the pain of families across Scotland?

[Dr Whiteford]

I have to disagree with the hon. Gentleman, because if we do not understand the causes of this crisis and articulate them clearly and properly, we cannot take effective action. We have seen his own Government in previous generations throw money at problems but with no, or negligible, impact. Until we understand what is driving this crisis, there is absolutely no point flinging words around Westminster Hall.

The fact that 50% of people claiming food parcels are working is—

Unemployment in Scotland

Anas Sarwar Excerpts

Wednesday 5th December 2012 Westminster Hall

[Gemma Doyle]

I think that the hon. Gentleman will find that we are discussing unemployment in Scotland. I am setting out very clearly what the Scottish Government whom he supports are failing to do. We need to get the economy back on track. There is no black-and-white answer, but the Scottish Government are failing desperately the people of Scotland. If more of the hon. Gentleman’s colleagues were interested, perhaps they would have turned up this morning.

The hon. Gentleman does not have to listen just to me. The Scottish Chambers of Commerce is also very concerned and has called on the Scottish Government to use the levers at their disposal to stimulate business growth, because they clearly are not doing so at the moment.

[Anas Sarwar (Glasgow Central) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate. She is making a very positive and passionate case. On the point made by the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil) about the unemployment statistics in Scotland, my hon. Friend is right to say that unemployment has fallen across the UK but risen by 7,000 in the last quarter in Scotland. One reason for that is the number of people who are leaving school and not going into employment or to university or college as a direct result of the thousands of college places cut by the SNP Government.

[Gemma Doyle]

My hon. Friend is spot-on. I have met 17-year-olds in my constituency who were due to start a college course and thought that they had their future mapped out, but whose course was cut at a day’s notice because of cuts to Clydebank college. My hon. Friend is absolutely right.

My constituents have been particularly badly let down by the Scottish Government. Despite having one of the most challenging job markets in the whole UK, the Scottish Government have chosen to ignore us. In the initial plans to set up enterprise zones in Scotland, West Dunbartonshire did not even merit inclusion in the initial considerations. After snubbing our area, the Finance Secretary refused to meet me and local representatives to discuss his decision. In March this year, when West Dunbartonshire had the highest youth unemployment in Scotland, we were excluded from any support from the Scottish Government’s youth unemployment strategy fund.

There is no logic, no help, no jobs—only politics. The Scottish Government talk only of the limitations of the current constitutional settlement. Let us imagine the position if there were another devolved nation in the UK, one that could lead the way and would grab and use every power that it had to help its young people and wring every drop of help out of the levers of power that it had. It just so happens that, in Wales, Labour’s Welsh Government are doing exactly that through Jobs Growth Wales. That scheme is providing jobs—not work experience or training—for unemployed 16 to 24-year-olds, paying them the national minimum wage for a minimum of 25 hours a week and getting 4,000 young people a year back to work. I am told that most of those jobs are in the private sector. The scheme requires the positions to be new, not replacements—helping Welsh businesses to grow even in this tough economic climate.

If that is good enough for young people in Wales, it should be good enough for young people in Scotland. However, the Scottish Government have one priority, which they are pursuing relentlessly. I wish that it were job creation, and I hope that they will look very carefully at the Welsh scheme. At the moment, however, they are pushing everything else aside to pursue separation, in the hope that the people of Scotland will take a risk and cross their fingers that the grass will be greener on the other side.

Only last week, someone from Scottish civic society told me that their fear is that the Scottish Government are standing back deliberately, letting things get worse and worse, all to boost the fading chances that people will back their flawed plans for separation come 2014. At the heart of the SNP is a mistruth, the often repeated mantra that separating from the rest of the UK will mean that all of Scotland’s problems will be solved.

I want to roll back the years slightly to 1968, when Mick McGahey, the National Union of Mineworkers Scotland Area president, argued at the Scottish Trades Union Congress for a Scottish Parliament but against separation. He said that his members had more in common with the London dockers, the Durham miners and the Sheffield engineers than they had ever had with the “barons and landlord traitors”, as he called them, of Scotland. That is still true today, because someone unemployed in West Dunbartonshire has more in common with someone unemployed in the west midlands than with the speculators who caused the economic collapse, even the Scottish ones.

The workers movement has always been an international one. Constitutional wrangling will do nothing for the 218,000 Scots who want a job. In fact, it may harm business confidence. Last month, Rupert Soames, chief executive officer of Aggreko, which is one of Scotland’s six FTSE 100 companies, the largest temporary power generator company in the world and based in Dumbarton, said that the disadvantages of separation were

“large, serious and…likely to arise”

and would create

“a great deal of business disruption”.

Most worryingly, he said that business leaders were unwilling to speak out because

“over the past couple of years, anyone who has dared open their mouths on the subject with views that are contrary to those of the SNP have brought down on themselves rains of bile and ire, which is really very unpleasant.”

He said that a lot of the language was very intimidatory. What a damning indictment of Scotland’s Government. I am sure that the bile and ire will be raining down on me on Twitter later. In fact, I saw the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil) on his phone, so perhaps he has already been at it. We need the voice of business in this debate. We need them to be the job and wealth creators. We need a frank discussion, for the 218,000 families dealing with unemployment and for every person in Scotland.

I am told that during a recent conference, the Deputy First Minister, who walked away from Scotland’s health service to lead the nationalists’ referendum strategy, was asked about plans for welfare provision in a separate Scotland. He reportedly said that it would take four or five years to work out the details. Scots do not button up the back; we are not going to vote for a blank sheet of paper. No answers on welfare, no attempt to drive down unemployment and no real dialogue with business—only an obsession with separation. We should not be in a situation where almost a quarter of a million people are out of work without any proper provision to help them back into jobs. It just is not good enough.

I want us to debate employment, not unemployment, and celebrate our world-leading sectors of energy, food and drink—particularly whisky—tourism, life sciences, electronics, defence and aerospace, and manufacturing. Right now, Scots are caught in a toxic storm of the Tory-led Government’s cuts and the Scottish Government’s refusal to help. It is time for them both to step up to the plate, put aside their obsessions and ideologies, and help the people of Scotland back into work.

--- Later in debate ---

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

I welcome you to the Chair, Ms Dorries. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for West Dunbartonshire (Gemma Doyle) on securing the debate and on tackling head-on the vital issue of unemployment in Scotland.

We have heard throughout the debate that the people of Scotland are being failed by two Governments, in Westminster and in Holyrood. The coalition can barely keep itself together, never mind effectively govern the country, and the SNP is entirely consumed by the independence referendum, which means that it is not tackling the real problems Scots face in their everyday lives. With 218,000 Scots unemployed, few issues are more important for both Governments to tackle, or indeed more important for the people of Scotland, but our priority does not, sadly, appear to be the priority of either Government.

The coalition’s ill-fated Work programme, which we have heard about this morning, has got only four out of every 100 Scots back to work. That figure is really startling and lays bare the Government’s complete failure to get to grips with the unemployment crisis. It is also alarming that the Scottish unemployment rate is 8.1%, which is higher than the 7.8% UK average. As a result of the bleak economic outlook, underemployment has also been on the increase. This Government simply cannot get Britain working, and as a result they cannot get its economy growing again.

Youth unemployment is a particular concern. It is another statistic that is higher in Scotland than in the UK as a whole, at 23.5% compared with 21.7%, with nearly half of all unemployed Scots being aged 16 to 24—a tragic proportion, of which the Minister should be ashamed. If action is not taken soon to tackle that, those young people will become, as one of my hon. Friends has said, Cameron’s lost generation, and Scotland will be less able to take full advantage of opportunities that come our way in the future, which would be a total and utter disgrace.

Long-term unemployment also contributes to an ever-increasing welfare spend. Some 38,395 people in Scotland have been claiming jobseeker’s allowance for longer than six months, which is in contrast to fewer than 8,000 in 2008. Even more worryingly, the number of Scots claiming JSA for at least 12 months has grown by 198% since 2008.

Something has gone seriously wrong with the Government’s unemployment strategy, and they plainly have no ideas about how to bring jobs and growth to Scotland. The failure of the Work programme has contributed to an increase in welfare spend of about £20 billion more than expected. The priorities are all wrong, as can be seen in the Chancellor casting 100,000 16 to 24-year-old Scots on to the dole, while giving a tax cut to millionaires.

To try to tackle that £20 billion overspend in the welfare budget, significant changes will come into force shortly, and they will have a devastating impact on Scotland. It has been calculated that, due to the welfare changes, £114.8 million will be removed from the Scottish economy in Glasgow alone, and £6 million will be removed from the economy of Clackmannanshire, which is Scotland’s smallest county and is in my constituency. I have no doubt that that cash grab will affect local economies, and it will, according to the Fraser of Allander Institute, lead to a further 2,000 or so job losses and—guess what?—an even greater demand for welfare.

To kick-start the economy and create jobs, the Government should, as has been said, take on board Labour’s proposal to put revenues from the 4G spectrum auction to good use. Scottish Labour at Holyrood would use any Barnett consequentials from the growth spending on key investment priorities, such as house building, which I feel extremely strongly about. With nearly 40 years’ experience in the construction industry, I am dismayed to see the stagnation from which the industry is suffering, but that is no surprise when the Government are cutting capital investment by 21% by 2014.

The Government seem to be failing to grasp that with every £1 invested in construction the economy benefits by £3—those numbers have been confirmed by independent economic research. The promise of a threefold return should be incentive enough for the Government to invest in the industry. There are few better ways to kick-start economic growth than with a national house-building scheme and support for construction. There are few better ways to deliver skills in great numbers than through investment in the construction industry, and there are few better ways to impact positively on our high streets than through investment in housing and construction.

I want to pick up on some of the points that have been made this morning. That there are no Scotland Office Ministers on key Cabinet Committees that focus on growth, such as the Growth Implementation Committee, is indeed a great worry for Scotland and, I imagine, a great embarrassment to the current residents of the Scotland Office. I share the opinion expressed by my hon. Friends that the scrapping of the future jobs fund, which has been recognised by the Centre for Economic and Social Inclusion for its achievements, was a mistake, and there is a stark contrast between that recognition and the failure of the current programmes.

My hon. Friend the Member for West Dunbartonshire talked about how the Scottish National party has cut more than 30,000 public sector jobs, but I want to take this opportunity to make the Chamber aware of remarks made by Keith Brown, the Transport Minister in the Scottish Parliament, who, when pressed recently in a debate with me on what would happen to UK civil service jobs in an independent Scotland, said:

“I was waiting for the day when someone from Labour came forward with a positive reason for independence and perhaps we’ve just heard it—a reduction in the number of civil servants in Scotland”.

I am afraid that if that lot have their way there will be many more public service job losses in Scotland.

We have heard what Labour is doing where Labour is in power. We have heard about what Labour is doing in West Dunbartonshire, in Fife, in Edinburgh, in Inverclyde and in Wales, and all those efforts are to be applauded. I also want to draw attention to the Glasgow Guarantee made by Scottish Labour in power in Glasgow city council, which has resulted in a 4.4% fall in the number of young people claiming JSA in the past two years. The real point here is to compare that achievement with that of the Minister and his Government colleagues, which is a 6.9% rise over the same period.

My hon. Friend the Member for West Dunbartonshire referred to what I can only liken to attempted bullying by the Scottish Government in respect of separation, and I think we all agree that such activity is reprehensible. Indeed, over the past few days Mr Salmond has been defending the right to free speech in the press while at the same time appearing hellbent on stifling it in the Scottish business world.

Many issues are hitting Scotland hard at this time, with 218,000 people out of work, a Work programme that does not work, a rising welfare bill, welfare cuts that will increase the demands on welfare, a lack of growth in the economy, 16 to 24-year-olds being condemned to a future on the dole, a growth in underemployment, rising energy costs, a fixation in the Scottish Government with separation, and a lack of investment from Holyrood in further education for our young people.

[Anas Sarwar]

My hon. Friend mentioned the fixation with independence. Is he aware of figures out this week that show that corporation tax in the Republic of Ireland is 12.5%, with unemployment at 15%, and in Northern Ireland the figures are 24% and 8% respectively? Does that not show that the SNP’s policy of cutting corporation tax is incoherent and does not guarantee jobs?

[Gordon Banks]

I agree wholeheartedly with my hon. Friend. There is a lot that the SNP says in Holyrood that does not bear true when put under the microscope.

The Governments in Holyrood and Westminster are not focusing on policies to address unemployment. They are too distracted with their own agendas of cuts and separation. That is why one in 10 Scots are working fewer hours than they would wish to, which is contributing to a rise in in-work poverty. It is why unemployment has increased by 3.3% since 2008, and it is why 80,000 people in Scotland have been unemployed for more than 12 months. It is also why, in the past year, long-term unemployment has risen by 3% in the UK but by 11% in Scotland, and it is why economic inactivity among disabled people stands at more than 49% in Scotland. That nearly half of all unemployed Scottish workers are aged 16 to 24 is a damning statistic, but neither the coalition nor Alex Salmond seems to be focusing on that as a major issue.

In light of those extremely worrying trends, the Governments in Westminster and Holyrood need to take positive action, and I want to make a brief remark about shovel-ready projects. We are all in favour of moving such projects into job creation, but if we do that in Scotland in the way that the Forth road bridge project was handled, with all the contracts being given to overseas companies, keeping people in work in Spain, Poland, Switzerland and Germany rather than in Scotland, there is something fundamentally wrong with the procurement process, as we have heard this morning.

I urge the Chancellor to get a grip of his welfare policies and to understand their impact on our economy, and to get a work programme that does what it says on the tin. The priorities of both Governments need to change from the narrow agenda of cuts and separation, and to focus on the real tragedies occurring in our cities, towns and villages. It is the Scottish people who can deliver growth into the Scottish economy if the Governments of Holyrood and Westminster provide them with the right tools and opportunities. To do anything less demonstrates that the priorities of the Governments are not those of the Scottish people.

Scotland and the Union

Anas Sarwar Excerpts

Thursday 29th November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Anas Sarwar (Glasgow Central) (Lab)]

I am almost tempted to wish that there was no time limit, because the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) was making the case stronger than anyone on either side of the House could have done. He clearly forgot his “Yes Scotland” positivity pills this morning, as it took nine minutes before we heard any positive case for Scotland’s becoming an independent country.

We need to change the language of this debate, and I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs Laing) and my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Graeme Morrice) who have pushed this debate and provided us with an opportunity to do so today. We need a positive, engaging debate about what is in the best interests of Scotland and the UK’s future, not the language of whether Scotland is too small or too wee to be a successful country—incidentally, only SNP Members say that; no Labour Members have ever used such language. The question that I would throw back to the nationalists is this. I believe that the people of Scotland are creative, talented and innovative enough to be successful in the United Kingdom—why don’t they?

The referendum is not about whether Scotland can or cannot manage on its own. Of course Scotland could be a successful, independent country, and it insults the intelligence of the Scottish people to suggest that it could not. The choice is not about whether Scotland can be successful but about whether it would be a fairer and more prosperous country with more opportunities if it works in partnership with England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Labour Members believe that it will be, and we will be making that positive case in the referendum.

I am not modest about Scotland’s ambitions. I genuinely believe that Scotland stands taller and shouts louder when it works in partnership with other areas of the UK, representing ourselves on the global stage. Yes, the Union has a proud history—300 years of shared history, security and prosperity. It has enjoyed success, as hon. Members have heard many times before. A Scot created the Bank of England, a Welshman our NHS and an Englishman our welfare state—but this is not about history; it is about Scotland’s future.

Scotland deserves an open, engaging debate, not only on its constitutional settlement, but, more importantly, on what kind of Scotland we want to live in and want our children to live in. What will Scotland look like in 20 years’ time? Will it be able to compete with other parts of the UK and in the world?

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

I am sure the hon. Gentleman is aware that inequality in Scotland increased over the term of the previous Labour Government. Does he believe Scotland will fulfil its potential as an equal and fair society as part of the Union?

[Anas Sarwar]

It is untrue to say that health inequalities widened under the Labour Government, but it is factually correct to say that inequalities are increasing in Scotland under the watch of Alex Salmond, Nicola Sturgeon and the Scottish Government. Health inequalities are increasing and educational opportunities are decreasing. People from working class backgrounds in Scotland are less likely to go to college or university than people from working class backgrounds in England and Wales. That is happening on the watch of the Scottish National party, not of the Tories or Labour, so will the hon. Lady please not lecture Labour Members on our record? She should focus more on her party’s record in government.

What Scotland do we want to create for future generations? We want it to be a successful country in which to bring up our children, but what role do we want Scotland to play in the world? I want Scotland not to isolate itself, but to engage with its partners in the UK to take on the big challenges of global poverty, to fight climate change, and to fight for justice and fairness in the world. What differentiates Labour Members and SNP Members? Labour Members did not come into politics because we wanted to fight poverty only in our constituencies or our country. We want to fight poverty and create opportunity not only in Glasgow and Edinburgh, but in Manchester, Birmingham and around the world. I do not believe we will do that by creating a border between Scotland and England. There is a vote on a UN resolution today on enhanced status for the Palestinian people, which will hopefully work towards a positive resolution by which we have an independent Palestinian state living side by side with Israel. I came into politics to fight for an independent Palestinian state and for self-determination for the people of Kashmir, not to break up my own country. I want to fight injustice in other parts of the world.

One big point is that we can make the positive case for Scotland economically, emotionally, socially and politically. The most successful aid agency in the world is headquartered in Scotland. It employs hundreds of people, has a budget of £7 billion, helps to save hundreds of thousands of lives every year, and lifts hundreds of thousands of people out of poverty every year, which demonstrates the collective strength of Scotland working in partnership. We are a key member of the UN Security Council not for power or prestige, but to fight tyranny and oppression around the world. I want Scotland to have its full voice in that process. We are a leading economy and country in the G8. A Scottish leader as Prime Minister worked with the G8 to stop a global recession becoming a global depression. Those are positive arguments for Scotland remaining part of the UK, not the negative arguments we get from the SNP.

On the quality of the debate, we will have heated debates and the usual Scottish politics spats between Labour and the SNP and others between now and the referendum—[Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire wants to make an intervention, I am more than happy to take it. We are divided politically, but we do not want our country to be divided in the process. Whatever happens in the referendum and whatever decision Scotland makes, we must ensure that we come together in the best interests of Scotland and ensure that we fight and create a fairer, more equal country.

[Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)]

I apologise for not being in the Chamber at the start of the debate; I was in a Bill Committee.

My hon. Friend mentions the quality of the debate. Will that not be enhanced if the First Minister is straight with the Scottish people and if his arguments stay on the same track? The arc of prosperity used to mean Ireland and Iceland, but now it has moved on to the Scandinavian countries. Until we have a consistent and honest debate, we will not have a fair playing field.

[Anas Sarwar]

I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend. When the Minister systematically destroyed the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire on Britishness, he reminded me that, throughout the SNP’s existence, it has claimed it wants independence because England has never treated Scotland fairly, and because Scotland has never had a fair deal within the UK, but SNP Members imagine that everyone will treat Scotland fairly and work together to create a better country when it separates from the UK. That just does not stack up.

SNP Members make assertions on NATO and EU membership. The hon. Gentleman said today that the biggest threat to Scotland remaining part of the EU was from the UK, but he cannot guarantee that Scotland will remain a member of the EU if it chooses independence. We need facts rather than assertion. SNP Members say that Scotland will keep the pound and automatically have a seat on the Monetary Policy Committee; that the BBC will break up and Scotland will have better quality programmes; and that our credit rating and Royal Mail services will remain the same. They are assertions—not one of them is based on fact. The people of Scotland deserve better. Throughout the SNP’s existence, the answer to any question has always been “independence”, but now that the question is independence, it does not have the answers for the people of Scotland.

Scotland deserves a transparent and open debate. It deserves to know what Scotland will look like if it chooses independence. It deserves better than a First Minister and a Scottish Government simply asserting that independence will be whatever people want it to be. That is not good enough. The SNP cannot say to one audience that Scotland will have the Monaco taxes, but then say to another audience that we will have Scandinavian public services. It cannot say that Scotland will have none of the horrible welfare changes and reforms, but that it will have similar corporation taxes to Ireland. That does not add up and is not credible, and disrespects the people of Scotland.

[Mr Weir]

The hon. Gentleman is making his points as he always does, but does he not accept that it is up to the people of Scotland whom they vote into power after independence, and that it is up to them to decide how the shape of the new Scotland develops? Surely he accepts that the people will decide that in the first election after we win independence in 2014.

[Anas Sarwar]

The people of Scotland have an opportunity, through strengthened devolution, to have more of a say in decisions on their lives made in the Scottish Parliament and in local government, which has taken a hammering under the current Scottish Government. They can recognise that although there is nowhere better than Scotland, there is somewhere bigger, and that is working in partnership with the UK and global agencies to take on the challenges.

[Mrs Anne McGuire (Stirling) (Lab)]

Would my hon. Friend have more confidence in his statement if the SNP declared here and now that it will dissolve itself the day after a referendum if there is a yes vote?

[Anas Sarwar]

SNP Members are probably more concerned about what happens the day after Scotland votes resoundingly no and rejects their vision of independence. The SNP is two different factions glued together on one track. When they divide, it will be interesting to see how they cope.

We are having a heated debate today and we will have a heated debate in the next two years.

[Pete Wishart]

Only when the hon. Gentleman tries to shout me down.

[Anas Sarwar]

I feel very sorry for the hon. Gentleman, because we heard in the Europe debate last week the pre-published “speech they feared”. I promise him that the people of Scotland and the Labour party do not fear the SNP or Alex Salmond. We do not fear an open and honest debate on the future of Scotland, or fear challenges to our record. We do not fear debating the future of our country. The SNP should come forward with that open and transparent debate. Let us, for Scotland, keep ourselves in the Union.

Oral Answers to Questions

Anas Sarwar Excerpts

Wednesday 21st November 2012 Commons Chamber

[David Mundell]

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

[Anas Sarwar (Glasgow Central) (Lab)]

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

[David Mundell]

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

Referendum (Scotland)

Anas Sarwar Excerpts

Monday 15th October 2012 Commons Chamber

[David Mundell]

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

[Anas Sarwar (Glasgow Central) (Lab)]

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

[David Mundell]

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

Scottish Separation

Anas Sarwar Excerpts

Tuesday 10th July 2012 Westminster Hall

[Dr Whiteford]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for that intervention. However, across Scotland, the Scottish Government have shown their commitment to living standards through a range of measures including on pay, prescriptions and all kinds of things that Labour could have dealt with when it was in power and chose not to.

There are various myths about Scotland’s economic position, some of which we have already heard this morning. I am glad that we have not heard too much about the biggest myth of all: that Scotland cannot pay its way. That is simply because the evidence just does not stack up. The reality is that the official Government expenditure and revenue figures show that Scotland has a smaller fiscal deficit than the UK as a whole—not just this year or last year but over the past five years. Even when North sea oil revenues fell by 50% in 2009-10, Scotland’s fiscal position remained stronger than that of the UK as a whole. In the most recent figures for 2010-11, Scotland accounted for 9.3% of UK public spending but 9.6% of UK tax revenue. Our 9.6% of UK tax was generated with just 8.4% of the population, which adds up to £1,300 for every man, woman and child in Scotland.

However, despite the relative strength of the public finances, as a result of the financial crisis and the fiscal mismanagement of successive UK Governments, the UK has a legacy of debt—as, indeed, the hon. Member for Livingston pointed out. Scotland will have to deal with that debt, whether we are independent or not. I put it to the hon. Gentleman that if UK public debt was allocated on a per capita basis, for 2010-11—the last year for which figures are available—Scotland’s net debt would be 51% of GDP compared with 60% for the UK as a whole. Let us not pretend that that is good, but it is certainly not as bad as some people might think. We must consider the reality of the current situation without necessarily looking at Scotland in pure isolation.

Scotland’s fiscal position is stronger than that of the UK, and it will remain so if we remain committed to utilising Scotland’s strong economic foundations and asset base to ensure fiscal responsibility. Recent figures published by the Office for National Statistics showed that, in 2010, Scotland was the third richest part of the UK—behind London and the south-east—with a gross value added per head of 99% of the UK average. That is excluding oil and gas output. If Scotland’s geographical share of oil and gas is included—the internationally recognised way to distribute such a resource—the GVA adds up to 115% of the UK average. That makes us approximately the 6th highest in the OECD.

[Anas Sarwar (Glasgow Central) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Dr Whiteford]

I will not, thanks. I will try to make some progress.

I represent a constituency that is very much at the heart of the energy sector, so the maturation of the oil and gas fields presents economic challenges and opportunities. That is why it is so important for us to continue to invest in renewable energy, carbon capture and energy supply chains. Yet renewable energy producers in Aberdeenshire are paying £21.49 per kilowatt to connect to the grid, while London-based generators are being subsidised by £13.35 per kilowatt. That is a classic example of Westminster policy making undermining our economic potential.

--- Later in debate ---

[Anas Sarwar]

The hon. Lady is clearly very passionate about the case for independence. I just have a brief question. Did she make a submission to the Scottish Government’s consultation and, in her submission, did she ask for one question or for two?

[Dr Whiteford]

I do not want to go down the road of discussing the referendum, but I have always been very clear that I want one question on the ballot paper. I am happy to have that debate, but I am also listening. It is very sad that politicians are not listening to what people who are not involved in political parties are saying about this. Many of them are contributing and we have seen some very interesting ideas and good proposals from a diverse range of sources. It would be good if all of us listened to what people in civil society are saying to us. I am very clear about where I stand on the issue: I want Scotland to have the powers of an independent country, and I will argue vociferously for that. I do not see what is complicated.

I would like Scotland to have the power to make better tax policies. I would like us to have capital borrowing powers, so that we can make the investments in our infrastructure that we so badly need. I would like us to be able to build the houses and the roads we so badly need. I would like us to have the ability to incentivise the development of new technologies in renewable energy and the low carbon, life science, small business and tourism sectors. Those are the places where our economic growth will come from. If we were putting the investment into those sectors, it would have a huge impact on our economy.

If we had influence over the Crown Estate, which manages our seabed out to 12 miles and almost half our foreshore, we would be in a much stronger position to co-ordinate the efforts of manufacturers, the energy sector and regulation and planning to deliver the full benefits of the marine renewables energy revolution for Scotland.

Being independent would also enable us to boost our international profile. It would help us to contribute to key decision making in Europe and beyond and it would give us powers to boost our connectivity and linkages with our key trading partners. At a time when the emerging economies are growing so fast, it is crucial that we have an opportunity to connect with them directly and more effectively than we are able to do at the moment.

All these things give us a chance to tackle inequality. I just point to the apprenticeship scheme—25,000 young Scots will get an apprenticeship this year alone. By creating training opportunities, bringing people into the work force and retaining their skills, frankly, we can save the welfare state millions of pounds in unpaid benefits. If we had a joined-up system, with co-ordination between economic, education and welfare policies, those savings could be reinvested better than they are at the moment and used to boost economic activity.

I envisage Scotland thriving and prospering, but right now I am watching an austerity agenda running out of control while the UK economy stagnates. I believe that Scotland can do better and has the opportunity to do better. That is why I want the Scottish Parliament to have the levers of independent governance at its disposal. That does not mean that there will not be hard decisions to make, but it does mean taking responsibility for improving life in Scotland and building a vibrant and resilient economy that supports our people and reflects our values.

--- Later in debate ---

[Anas Sarwar (Glasgow Central) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Robertson. Having known you through Glasgow politics, I will be very strict with my time; I do not want to incur your wrath. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Graeme Morrice) on securing the debate. The discussion today shows the passion and energy in the debate. I will take this opportunity to get to the facts of what Scotland would look like if it was a separate country.

I want to make a few quick points at the outset. The referendum is not about whether we think Scotland can survive; of course Scotland can survive as an independent country. It insults the intelligence of the Scottish people to suggest that it could not survive as an independent country. The choice on the ballot paper is not one of survival; it is whether we believe that Scotland is a fairer, more prosperous place as part of the UK or as a separate country. I believe the second, which is why I will make a positive case for Scotland remaining within the UK.

Scotland has played a key role in the success that is the UK. We have 300 years of shared history, security and prosperity. A Scot was the founder of the Bank of England, a Welshman created our national health service and an Englishman created our welfare state. Those are things of which we should be collectively proud, and that is why, in the run-up to the referendum, we will make the emotional, political, social and economic case for Scotland remaining part of the UK.

I want to touch on one point about the positive-negative case. It is often said that those who support the UK are negative about Scotland and those who support separation are positive about it. I argue the opposite. The people of Scotland are talented enough, creative enough, ambitious enough and innovative enough to be successful in the UK. It is for the separatists to tell us why they think that Scots are not.

We heard from the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Dr Whiteford), the successor to Alex Salmond, that a single-question referendum is her preference, so let us stop the games and get on with the substantive arguments. Another SNP Member is here, the hon. Member for Angus (Mr Weir), and I am willing to take an intervention if he can tell us whether, if he put in a submission to the Scottish Government’s consultation, it was for one question or two. I am happy to take an intervention if he wishes.

[Mr Weir]

I thank the hon. Gentleman, but if he had listened when I intervened on the hon. Member for Livingston (Graeme Morrice) he would have heard that my preference was for one question.

[Anas Sarwar]

There we have it: two SNP MPs saying that they have put in submissions, both saying that they would prefer one question. Perhaps they could get on the phone to their leader and pass on the message that he should stop being so feart and just get on with the referendum and let Scots make the choice.

I have one minute on the substantives of the economic debate, so I will be very quick. I genuinely believe that Scotland’s influence is greater as a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council and NATO, not for prestige, but to fight tyranny and repression around the world. We benefit from membership of the G8, where a Scottish leader, as Prime Minister of the UK, tackled the global economic crisis to stop a recession becoming a depression.

Scotland’s compassion is better demonstrated by being a partner in the Department for International Development, which is headquartered in Scotland, employing 490 people, with a budget of £7 billion. What would happen to those jobs if we were a separate country? We benefit from shared infrastructure, defence and foreign affairs, as does shipbuilding on the Clyde and jobs. We would not be in that position if we were a separate country.

We benefit from sharing the risks and rewards. We saw the collective strength of the UK in bailing out Scotland’s banks. Would that have been possible if we were a separate country? We benefit from the fact that we are a larger single market—our current biggest business partner is England. If we became a separate country, it would become our biggest competitor. We also benefit from being part of the strongest monetary union in history. Leaving would mean that we would have to have our own currency, join a weaker euro or leave a foreign country to set our interest rates and our borrowing and spending limits.

I could go on and on, but I see you, Mr Robertson, nodding at me to finish. Let us end the games about what a referendum will look like and get on with the big choice and have the debate. After the referendum, let us get on with making Scotland a fairer and more prosperous place.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Mundell]

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

[Anas Sarwar]

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

[David Mundell]

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

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

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

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

Scotland Bill

Anas Sarwar Excerpts

Thursday 26th April 2012 Commons Chamber

[David Mundell]

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

[Anas Sarwar (Glasgow Central) (Lab)]

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

[David Mundell]

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

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

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

Oral Answers to Questions

Anas Sarwar Excerpts

Wednesday 18th April 2012 Commons Chamber

[Michael Moore]

The Scottish National party is changing its position on what currency it wishes to adopt and how it would go about this. There is no doubt that the SNP needs to answer some hard questions on this matter and resolve, for us all, what an independent Scotland would look like. I think that Scotland is better off in the UK.

[Anas Sarwar (Glasgow Central) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State will be aware that a separate Scotland would have to create its own currency, join a weaker euro or make its biggest business partner its biggest business competitor, with the Bank of England setting its interest rates, its spending limits and its borrowing limits. Does this not show the incoherence of the SNP’s economic policies?

[Michael Moore]

The hon. Gentleman is entirely right to point out that even in its best moments, when it tries to offer us some detail, the SNP does not resolve what a monetary union with the rest of the UK might look like, how it would deal with the fiscal rules and the regulatory environment or whether the Bank of England would be the lender of last resort. I think that Scotland deserves some answers on those points.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is entirely right. It is welcome that a greater proportion of 18-year-olds are applying to university than at any time in the past 13 years. No one pays up-front for their tuition or other fees, which is also welcome. He is absolutely right that university entry is about academic merit.

[Anas Sarwar (Glasgow Central) (Lab)]

Q14. The Deputy Prime Minister said recently:“We have succeeded to pull the economy back from the brink”.With record youth unemployment, growth lower than forecast and inflation up, does that not show that the Deputy Prime Minister is the Prime Minister’s broken arrow—he does not work, but the Prime Minister cannot fire him?

[The Prime Minister]

I notice that there was absolutely no welcome of the fact that today unemployment has fallen, employment has gone up and youth unemployment has come down. Of course, unemployment is much too high and far more needs to be done. Let me bring the House up to date with one scheme, the work experience scheme, on which the evidence is growing. Fifty per cent. of the young people going into the scheme come off benefits within six months. That means that it is 20 times more cost-effective than the future jobs fund. That scheme is part of the youth contract that the Deputy Prime Minister has been spearheading, and he has been doing an extremely good job.

Oral Answers to Questions

Anas Sarwar Excerpts

Wednesday 11th January 2012 Commons Chamber

[David Mundell]

I entirely agree. The measure has had a significant impact in Scotland, and more than 2 million basic-rate taxpayers will benefit from it during the current Parliament.

[Anas Sarwar (Glasgow Central) (Lab)]

After another week that has been dominated by political debate and headlines relating to Scotland’s constitution, we must not ignore a report by End Child Poverty showing that 50% of local authority areas in Scotland contain wards in which 30% of children are living in poverty, and that in some wards in my constituency the figure is 50%. What action is the Secretary of State taking, along with the Scottish Government, to ensure that every child in Scotland is given the best start and opportunities in life?

Scotland’s Constitutional Future

Anas Sarwar Excerpts

Tuesday 10th January 2012 Commons Chamber

[Michael Moore]

I absolutely agree with my right hon. Friend. Various suggestions about “devo max” have been thrown around without any definition of what it might be and nobody has been willing to stand up and say that it is actually what they want to put forward themselves. Of course I agree with him that the Liberal Democrats have proudly proposed ways to modernise the United Kingdom constitution, and all parties in this House will continue to do that. What matters for now is that we get on and have a clear and decisive decision about our future, and I welcome the Deputy First Minister’s comments yesterday.

[Anas Sarwar (Glasgow Central) (Lab)]

I broadly welcome the Secretary of State’s statement. Clearly the SNP won a mandate for a referendum, but now that it has won that mandate it is no longer the SNP’s or Alex Salmond’s referendum, but Scotland’s referendum, because Scotland’s political future is way more important that any political party or individual politician. So does the Secretary of State agree that all political parties, and civic society, must come together in the best interests of the people of Scotland and decide when that referendum should take place?

[Michael Moore]

First, may I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his new role within the Scottish Labour party? I am sure that he will be travelling the length and breadth of the country to make the case that he was just making, among other things. As for his central point, I agree that it is important that people of all parties, and those of none, get involved in this debate, so that all the people of Scotland are engaged in resolving the process and then getting on with the real debate.