Oral Answers to Questions
Andrew Bowie Excerpts(1 week, 4 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)
I join the Secretary of State in congratulating Steve Clarke and Scotland football team for qualifying for their first world cup since I was 11 years old. I remember getting the afternoon off school, and when we have our first game next year I hope that Mr Speaker takes the same approach to the parliamentary day as my headteacher took to the school day.
Scotland has a long, proud history of nuclear power generation. We have the skills, the sites and the local support. But we also have, in the SNP Scottish Government, a luddite mentality, choking-off investment, preventing new jobs and going against the wishes of local communities, such as those in Dunbar, which the Secretary of State knows well, who want Torness secured for future generations. What does the Secretary of State think it will take for the SNP to join the growing list of countries around the world, and allow the global revolution in clean, safe nuclear power to reach Scotland?
Mr Alexander
I am happy to tell the hon. Gentleman what I think it will take: it will take a change of Government next May. It is time for a new direction in Scotland.
Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)
A key driver of growth in Scotland is the agricultural sector, but Scottish farmers feel utterly ignored and totally abandoned by this Labour Government. I have received a copy of a letter that was delivered to all Scottish Labour MPs urging them to call on their own Government to reconsider the family farm tax. One farmer who wrote to Labour Members said that these tax changes would destroy the family farms that feed Scotland and that he was delivering the letter as a plea for their future. Will the Minister tell the House if those pleas have fallen on deaf ears?
Kirsty McNeill
The hon. Gentleman and I have discussed this issue many times, and he is aware that we are striking a fair balance between supporting farmers and fixing the public services on which all our rural communities rely. We have taken a fair and balanced approach that protects family farms, while also fixing the public services that we all rely on, including our own constituents.
Andrew Bowie
Pleas from farmers to the Minister and the Secretary of State are being ignored, just as other pleas from other sectors that are key to driving growth in Scotland have been ignored. Scotland has the worst of both worlds: two socialist and economically illiterate Governments, and a Scotland Office that turns a deaf ear to the pleas of the sectors that could drive growth in our country. It is no surprise that the Scottish people are about to reject Labour in May’s election yet again. After today’s Budget, who does the Secretary of State think will feel most abandoned—Scottish famers, Scottish distillers, Scottish family businesses, Scottish oil and gas workers, or poor Anas Sarwar and the Scottish Labour party?
Kirsty McNeill
The hon. Gentleman is perfectly well aware that the majority—three quarters—of those claiming agricultural property relief will be completely unaffected. However, what will affect every single person in Scotland is the Chancellor’s Budget that is set to help with living standards, to drive growth and to put the financial management at the heart of our public finances.
Draft Education (Scotland) Act 2025 (Consequential Provisions and Modifications) Order 2025
Andrew Bowie Excerpts(1 week, 5 days ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Hobhouse. This instrument follows the Education (Scotland) Act 2025, which was passed by the Scottish Parliament in June this year and gained Royal Assent in August. As the Minister set out, that Act dissolved the Scottish Qualifications Authority, established Qualifications Scotland to replace it, and established the role of His Majesty’s chief inspector of education in Scotland. This statutory instrument enables that Act by amending references to the SQA in UK legislation, ensuring that the qualifications are recognised throughout the United Kingdom. Importantly, that allows the body to operate and be adequately recognised throughout the UK, which is outside the scope of the Scottish Parliament; hence we are here today.
I take this opportunity to thank my MSP colleagues in the Scottish Parliament for their work in challenging the Education (Scotland) Act and holding the Scottish Government to account on poor educational outcomes. I pay particular tribute to my friend Miles Briggs, the Scottish Conservative MSP for the Lothian region, for highlighting the limitations of the Scottish Parliament’s Bill. There are significant questions about whether the legislation makes progress on the wider educational reforms that are so desperately required. We believe that it is a missed opportunity to enact genuine and meaningful reform of Scottish education.
While the order we are considering today is unobjectionable, it would be remiss of me not to take the opportunity to raise the state of the Scottish education system. Once the pride of the country, the Scottish education system has suffered poorer and poorer outcomes. The Conservative legacy in education saw students in England climb the international league tables from 27th to 11th in the world in maths in 2022, while Scottish students continued to slip down the programme for international student assessment rankings in maths and science under the Scottish National party Government—it is a shame that none of its Members could join us this afternoon. Earlier this year, the head of Scotland’s second-largest teaching union said that “education is broken” and that the school system
“has passed the tipping point leading to crisis”.
The “Curriculum for Excellence” is anything but.
At the core of this is the Scottish National party’s desperation to be different for difference’s sake. It is exceptionalism gone too far, and nowhere is that more evident than in the Scottish education system. For once, the SNP Government should take a look at what works south of the border, put their pride and politics aside and emulate best practice for the sake of Scottish students. The SNP has something—lots—to learn from the Conservative party’s legacy, especially in the English school system. However, that is a debate for another day and another place, so I will leave it at that. His Majesty’s Opposition will not stand in the way of this instrument.
Oral Answers to Questions
Andrew Bowie Excerpts(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Speaker
Order. It says Scotland in the title for these questions. They are not linked to Northern Ireland. I call the shadow Secretary of State.
Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)
The agricultural sector is woven into the fabric of communities across Scotland. It employs thousands and contributes millions annually to the economy, but farmers across Scotland have been left in fear for their families’ future and their way of life because this Government want to tax them out of existence. Despite the clear messages from the farming community, supported by the NFUS, this Government are ploughing on regardless and completely ignoring the damage they are doing. The truth is that they do not understand—and worse: because those people do not vote Labour, they do not care, do they?
Kirsty McNeill
I will reiterate it in case the shadow Secretary of State did not hear me: both myself and the Secretary of State represent semi-rural and farming constituencies. We are in ongoing dialogue with constituents. We absolutely understand the pressures they face, which is why we have said that we will support family farms and that only the very richest will be affected. Our constituents rely on public services and they require investment in those public services, and that is exactly what this tax change was designed to do: introduce fairness but also raise revenue that will benefit all our communities, including rural Scots.
Mr Alexander
I find myself in agreement with my hon. Friend from the Western Isles. The North sea has provided decades of good jobs, not just for people from the Western Isles and across Scotland but from the whole of the United Kingdom. The last Conservative Government did not believe in industrial strategy—it is as basic as that. It is not just a difference of policy; it is a difference of philosophy. We believe in open markets and an active state. That is why we set up GB Energy, that is why there is a transition fund and that is why people can rely on Labour.
Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)
I welcome the right hon. Gentleman back to the Dispatch Box as Secretary of State for Scotland after his sabbatical over the last 20 or so years. The messianic zeal of his colleague the Energy Secretary to see the destruction of our oil and gas industry is having real-life consequences. Scottish workers are being made unemployed in their thousands, while this Government ban the drilling and exploration of oil and gas in British waters, and import more gas from Norway, which gets it from the very same sea that we are prevented from exploiting. Come on, Secretary of State; it is all a little unhinged, isn’t it?
Mr Alexander
Where to begin? We have a Government that have invested in GB Energy and that have a transition fund up against an Opposition that abjectly failed in their responsibilities towards the North sea. We just heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Torcuil Crichton) that 77,000 jobs were lost. That is the record that they own, and we will continue to point it out.
Andrew Bowie
The Secretary of State for Energy is not the messiah. Week after week, I come to this Chamber to ask Energy Ministers and Scotland Office Ministers why they are content to sacrifice one of this country’s greatest national assets and allow highly skilled workers to go on the scrap heap or go overseas. As Scotland’s man at the Cabinet table, the Secretary of State knows that his job is to speak up for those people who are losing their jobs today, not to defend the Secretary of State for Energy. Will he explain that to the people of Aberdeen when he visits next week?
Mr Alexander
I gently remind the shadow Secretary of State that there is a difference between abuse and argument, and in relation to his substantive arguments, of course I am happy to be Scotland’s voice at the Cabinet table. That is why only next week I will be meeting a range of energy companies based in Aberdeen and listening directly to them. That dialogue has already started. I think we can do better than his question.
Devolution in Scotland
Andrew Bowie Excerpts(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)
I start by congratulating the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) on securing this debate—at the second attempt. I know how important devolution in Scotland is to him, a signatory of the claim of right and a founder Member of the Scottish Parliament, and that he wants to see it work better for the people of Scotland. I remember the day the Scottish Parliament was reconvened, in the words of Winnie Ewing. I was not quite as young as some of today’s contributors, but I was still at primary school. It was a seminal moment. I am from one of those generations of Scots who cannot really remember a time before there being a Scottish Parliament. As somebody who has worked in the Scottish Parliament, it is a place for which I have great fondness.
The machinery of devolution, set in motion over a quarter of a century ago, was intended to bring decision making closer to the people, to empower communities and to enhance accountability. It was never meant to be a stepping stone to separation, nor a shield for poor governance. When we assess devolution, we must consider whether it has brought power closer to communities, whether it fosters accountability and whether it delivers essential services for Scots and across Scotland to a high standard.
Under the Scottish nationalists, the system is not delivering for Scotland. The creeping transfer of powers from communities to Holyrood undermines the core ambition of delivering power into local hands. While the civil service in Edinburgh is fed to the point of bloating, power is usurped from local authorities and delivered to centralised decision makers. In 1995, the Labour shadow Secretary of State for Scotland predicted that devolution would kill separatism “stone dead”, that delivering power to the Scottish Executive, then creating a Scottish Parliament, would satiate the separatist appetite. Sadly, that has turned out not to be the case.
In 2015, in the wake of the failed bid for independence, the Smith review was commissioned to set out provisions for greater devolution. From that experiment, we now know that it matters not how much is given; it will never be enough for the nationalists. The nationalists in Scotland bray out for more, more, more while delivering less and less and less. Today I implore the Minister, the Secretary of State and this Government to be brave and stand firm in support of our United Kingdom and move away from the “devolve and forget” mentality.
Stephen Gethins
The Labour party did some analysis that showed that Liz Truss’s mini-Budget cost homeowners in the UK £336 billion—about five or six times the budget of the Scottish Parliament. What impact does the hon. Member think that had on devolution and trust in this institution?
Andrew Bowie
When the Scottish Parliament was established, and when the Scottish Executive, now Government, were created, I think the Scottish people expected it to do a bit better than continually comparing its record and role to the role of the UK Government. People are frankly fed up of, “England is doing worse,” and would like some accountability and responsibility to be held by those who have been elected to Holyrood and, indeed, hold power over vast swathes of life in Scotland.
We all agree that some mistakes were made under the last Conservative Administration—some—but that does not in any way excuse the hon. Member for never once standing in this place and resiling from or showing any contrition about the litany of mistakes and the sheer disaster that has befallen some of the public services that our constituents, represented by most of the MPs in this room, have to suffer day in, day out. That includes falling standards in education and Scotland’s NHS, fewer local services, libraries closing and transport infrastructure failing to meet even the level at which it was at in 1997 when the referendum was held. We acknowledge our mistakes and acknowledge that we did not get everything right over the last 14 years. It would be quite nice if one day a Scottish National party Member of Parliament was able to do the same about their Administration in Edinburgh.
Scots face the highest tax burden anywhere in the UK, with little to show for it. Under the Scottish nationalists, the standard of services—education, healthcare, policing—has taken a severe blow. Waiting lists grow longer, Police Scotland faces cuts, violence in schools is rising, and outcomes in education and health lag behind those in England. Despite more funding per child, Scottish pupils are falling behind. Despite higher per capita spending on healthcare, life expectancy is lower and more patients wait over two years for treatment. The NHS in Scotland has recovered less well from the pandemic. The challenges of rurality and deprivation are real, but they are not excuses. Under the Scottish nationalists, Scots pay more and get less.
Let us be absolutely clear: devolution is not the problem. The problem is the party in power in Edinburgh—a party that clamours for more powers, more control and more devolution, yet fails to deliver on the powers it already holds; a party that centralises, duplicates and bloats the civil service in Edinburgh while outcomes deteriorate. Just last week we heard the broken record of the SNP regurgitating plans to tear apart our United Kingdom, including reports of £10,000 of taxpayers’ money spent on a pro-independence propaganda campaign. I would like to ask the Government whether they plan to get a grip on that and prevent the Scottish Government from spending UK taxpayer money on research and advertising on their obsession with independence. It is time for the SNP to focus on the priorities that matter to Scots.
Devolution of greater powers over welfare were implemented through the Scotland Act 2016, yet here we are, nearly a decade later, still seeing statutory instruments coming through Westminster to tidy up the unfinished business of devolved welfare responsibilities. The duplication, the inefficiency and the inefficacy are staggering, and that is only the beginning.
The failures of the Scottish Government under the nationalists are not a foreign concern. One of the problems that has resulted from devolution is that Scottish, Welsh and the majority of Northern Irish issues fail to be debated on the Floor of this House. School performance crashing down the international tables; rising antisocial behaviour; falling police numbers—these are not just Scottish issues, but issues for all of us in this United Kingdom.
The Conservatives will no longer accept a “devolve and forget” mentality. It has allowed the Scottish Government to evade scrutiny and accountability for far too long. My MSP colleagues, led fantastically by Russell Findlay in the Scottish Conservatives, work tirelessly in Holyrood to hold the SNP to account, but it is also our job here, in the sovereign Parliament of the United Kingdom, to do that.
Were it not for bold and correct decision of the Conservative Secretary of State, Alister Jack and the now Leader of the Opposition to stand up to the absurd Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill, we would have biological men in women’s spaces—prisons, refuges, bathrooms and changing spaces. By the way, although the Bill was implemented and brought forward by the Scottish National party, it was supported by Scottish Labour. It also appears to be supported by the Reform party, according to their justice adviser. The Labour party has since conceded it was wrong to support the Bill, which prompts the question of whether they read it at the time.
We in the Conservative party will not stand by in this place while drugs deaths ravage communities in Glasgow, while children from deprived backgrounds suffer the most from poor educational opportunities in a schooling system that was once the envy of the world, or while the concerns and safety of women and girls in prisons and protected spaces is ignored and trivialised. We will not stand idly by and allow the Scottish nationalists to fail Scots so tremendously. We refuse to devolve and forget.
Twenty-five years on from the creation of the Scottish Parliament, it is time to take stock and reflect on the successes, but also on the failures, of that institution and its Government. It is time to evaluate not just the structure of devolution, but the performance of those entrusted with its powers. We remain committed to devolution, but the Conservatives will not shy away from asking whether the current settlement is delivering for Scots.
Oral Answers to Questions
Andrew Bowie Excerpts(4 months, 4 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)
Last Sunday, 6 July, marked 37 years since the Piper Alpha disaster, an incident that claimed the lives of 165 men and affected many more, particularly in and around the north-east of Scotland. We remember them, their families and friends, and indeed all those who continue to do the dangerous work offshore in our oil and gas industry, ensuring that the lights stay on in this country. Will the right hon. Gentleman please tell the House when the industrial strategy will replace the tens of thousands of jobs that are set to be lost in the North sea on his watch?
Ian Murray
I join the hon. Gentleman in paying respects on the 37th anniversary of the Piper Alpha disaster. It has left an indelible scar on Scotland, and we will never forget the lives that were lost, but we will also never forget that it was the catalyst for making sure that the North sea is the safest place to do oil and gas anywhere in the world—the UK is world leading.
I can answer the hon. Gentleman’s question by saying that he and his party have opposed all the initiatives that this Government have put forward in order to get to clean power by 2030. I gently say to him that when he finds out who the former Energy Minister was in the previous Government, he is going to be very disappointed.
Andrew Bowie
We are very proud of our record on supporting the oil and gas industry. Talk about the Government having their heads in the sand: 400 jobs will be lost in the North sea every two weeks on the Secretary of State’s watch. That is a Grangemouth-sized event every two weeks. The only strategy that this Government have is a deindustrialisation strategy. There is an industry with a skilled workforce that is ready and willing to generate energy, revenue and jobs in Scotland, so come on, Secretary of State, let us have a real industrialisation strategy. Remove the energy profits levy, overturn the ban on licences, and let us return to a policy of maximum economic recovery from the North sea.
Ian Murray
The energy profits levy was brought in by the former Energy Minister in the previous Government, who just so happens to be sitting across from me at the Dispatch Box today. We have the North sea transition consultation, which has closed. That sets out the pathway to a just transition in the North sea, which will protect jobs, and we want to get to clean power by 2030. Those are the jobs and the careers of the future, but that transition has to take those jobs with it.
Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)
This weekend, I was at the Fettercairn show in my constituency, and I note that the Secretary of State was at the royal highland show in Edinburgh two weeks ago. With new research showing that more than 16,000 jobs are expected to be lost as a direct result of Labour’s family farm tax, what message did the Secretary of State and the Minister have for the farmers they met at the royal highland show about the Government’s plans to kill family farms in Scotland? Judging by the comments made to me this weekend, the fear, anger and disgust at how this Government have treated the agricultural sector and rural Scotland very much remain.
Kirsty McNeill
Our message to the farming community, including the National Farmers Union of Scotland—I meet its representatives regularly and, indeed, spoke at its annual conference—is that there has to be fairness in the Government’s approach to the public finances. The latest figures from 2021-22 show that 40% of the value of agricultural property relief went to just 7% of claimants, which is neither fair nor sustainable.
Spending Review 2025: Scotland
Andrew Bowie Excerpts(5 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)
It is an absolute pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today, Sir John, and I thank you for your patience and indulgence in chairing this debate.
It is almost a through-the-looking-glass moment this morning, listening to the Labour party criticising the Scottish Government for their decisions and the Scottish National party representative, the hon. Member for Arbroath and Broughty Ferry (Stephen Gethins), criticising the Labour Government for the SNP’s decisions. For all of us, it has been an interesting morning after the night before.
Scotland is struggling with the consequences of the Labour Government’s economic incompetence: taxes for businesses up, growth down, unemployment up and business confidence down. Scottish Financial Enterprise has warned:
“The current inflationary pressures, coupled with stagnant productivity and increasing levels of tax, pose significant headwinds to business investment.”
And that was before the charade—the farcical scenes—that we saw yesterday, which will inevitably mean more tax rises coming down the tracks in the autumn.
Richard Baker
Is it not the reality that economic growth is increasing under this Labour Government, in rather sharp contrast to the experiences of hon. Members under Liz Truss, which I think were somewhat different for the whole country, including Scotland?
Andrew Bowie
The hon. Member will recall that when the Conservative Government left office in July 2024, we had the fastest growing economy in the G7. He will also surely acknowledge that as a direct result of decisions taken by his Chancellor and his Government, growth has halved since Labour got into power. That is not a record of which he should be proud. Labour is growing the economy by far less than we had expected to grow the economy by when we left office. Surely he can acknowledge, because his name was on an amendment yesterday, that some of the decisions taken by his Government have been to the detriment of this country and its economic growth.
Hon. Members should not take my word for it. Unite the Union has said that this Government have placed the oil and gas industry on a “cliff edge”. The Scotch Whisky Association said the increase in spirits duty was a “hammer blow”. The Scottish Hospitality Group called the Budget last year
“a blow to businesses across the country”.
The National Farmers Union of Scotland has made it clear that this Government’s decisions will cause “huge difficulties” to the agricultural sector in Scotland, because the family farms tax is devastating farms in Scotland. This is a Government who do not understand rural Scotland, and they clearly do not care to.
National insurance contributions are up, increasing costs to businesses across the country. In my constituency of West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine, the conversations that I have had since the Chancellor’s disastrous Budget last October have revolved around reducing headcount and reducing ambition for expansion, which I know is an experience shared by just about every Member of this Parliament. With the Government’s Employment Rights Bill coming down the tracks, we will see the burden on businesses increase still further and growth shrink.
Business confidence across the entire United Kingdom is falling dramatically, and that is especially the case in Scotland. This Labour Government do not understand business and they have decided not to prioritise growth or prosperity. The chief executive of Scottish Financial Enterprise was right to urge recognition that the UK Government cannot tax their way to economic growth and sustainable growth.
As for the Scottish Government, the SNP has presided over 17 years of mismanagement during its tenure. Economic growth in Scotland has been consistently lower than it has been south of the border. There is no excuse. Higher income tax rates are driving away talent, there is a failure to pass on the savings from business rates, and there have been madcap schemes that undermine the UK internal market, such as the ill-conceived deposit return scheme. At every turn, the Scottish Government seek to make business in Scotland less profitable, less productive and less competitive.
Now, on top of all that, we have to add the spending review from this UK Government, which, the Scottish Hospitality Group declared does “absolutely nothing” to support its sector. The Federation of Small Businesses said that the spending review
“was not the business-focused day”
that it had hoped for. Unite the Union said that the spending review
“lacks the vision to deliver the fundamental change needed for everyday people”
and that it was a
“missed opportunity to lay out the funding to tackle key issues, including the energy costs crippling British industry”.
It is clear that this Chancellor’s spending review does not deliver for Scots, Scotland or Scottish business.
Although we welcome the Government’s commitment to defence and spending on new nuclear, it is evident that rural Scotland—aspirational Scotland—is being ignored, overlooked and left behind by the socialist Government in London and wilfully driven into the ground by a nationalist Government in Edinburgh. The Fraser of Allander Institute has described the spending review as a “rollercoaster”, with short-term boosts followed by real-terms cuts in later years.
We welcome the Government’s commitment to increase defence spending. In a time of increasing uncertainty, it is essential that we have the domestic capacity, supply chain, resources and skilled personnel to defend this country. The continued investment in the Dreadnought-class submarines is essential, and I am incredibly proud that this fleet is hosted in Scotland, at HM Naval Base Clyde. Just last week I was in Rosyth, in the constituency of the hon. Member for Dunfermline and Dollar (Graeme Downie), to see the missile tubes for the Dreadnought-class submarines and the Columbia-class submarines for the United States being constructed by the incredibly skilled workforce at that Babcock yard. This programme is expected to support thousands of jobs in Scotland.
However, serious questions about defence spending remain unanswered. The Government have still not clarified whether the Chagos deal moneys will be classified as defence spending, and they have given no indication of how they will reach the 3% and now 5% commitment to defence spending overall. After yesterday’s farcical scenes, which failed to save the Government any money whatsoever, we have no idea how they will meet the commitments signed up to at NATO just last week.
The oil and gas industry, which is incredibly important to my part of the country, has been let down year after year by the Scottish nationalists, who had a policy of presumption against new oil and gas. If left to the SNP Government, they would have shut down the industry yesterday—and it looks like, with the Labour party in charge, they will get their way. By increasing the energy profits levy, removing investment allowances and abolishing new exploration licences, this Government have signalled that the North sea is uninvestable and the oil and gas industry in Scotland is closed for business.
This industry is vital to the economy of Scotland and the United Kingdom, with a supply chain spanning the entire country and with roots in every single constituency. But this Government’s total ignorance of the oil and gas industry and the north-east of Scotland, their incompetence on the economy and their disregard for the hundreds of thousands of workers in the North sea, as well as their dangerous ineptitude when it comes to our energy security, are deeply damaging.
I turn to the trumpeted invention of the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, Great British Energy. I find it difficult to muster any enthusiasm or optimism. With the ongoing ambiguity over the company’s purpose and scope, the Government still cannot answer the basic question of what on earth this organisation is going to achieve, how many people it will employ and what it will do in the long run. While we welcome the announcement of an award to Rolls-Royce for the delivery of small modular reactors following the down-selection process that I proudly launched when in government, we regret deeply that the Scottish nationalists’ luddite opposition to new nuclear—to clean power and to opportunity for Scotland—means that those benefits will not be seen north of the border.
There are some positive notes. Confirmation that Edinburgh University will host the UK’s most powerful supercomputer, paving the way for leadership in artificial intelligence and computing, is welcome, but this followed a delay of almost a year, after the Labour Government announced the cancellation of the project, which was unveiled by the Conservative Government just last year.
Thank you, Sir John, for your patience and indulgence this morning. I, along with many Scots, am bitterly disappointed. Scotland has been let down for 17 years by a failing nationalist Government in Edinburgh, and now it is being severely let down by a Labour Government here in London as well.
Oral Answers to Questions
Andrew Bowie Excerpts(6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ian Murray
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the question. What astonishes me more than anything is that the shadow Secretary of State for Scotland was the Energy Minister when the energy profits levy was brought in.
Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)
indicated dissent.
Ian Murray
The hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but he was the Energy Minister. Indeed, as my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur) may remember, the leader of the SNP in Westminster, the right hon. Member for Aberdeen South (Stephen Flynn), did not support the levy, then did, then did not, and then put in the SNP’s manifesto that it would be extended to every single Scottish industry. I am at a loss, as is my hon. Friend.
Andrew Bowie
I start by congratulating the famous Aberdeen football club—the only team in red I like to see winning—and the manager Jimmy Thelin, the players and all the coaching staff for winning their eighth Scottish cup a week and a half ago, qualifying for the Europa league in the process. The pride and jubilation on the streets of Aberdeen last Sunday show just how much the club means to the north-east of Scotland. Even more important to the north-east than Aberdeen football club is the oil and gas industry. What does the Secretary of State make of the report published by Robert Gordon University this week that warns of 400 job losses every two weeks in the North sea?
Ian Murray
I join the shadow Secretary of State in congratulating—through gritted teeth—Aberdeen on winning the Scottish cup. Speaking as a big Hearts fan, it is always nice to see the smaller clubs doing well in national competitions. [Interruption.] I do not know whether I have lost or won the House there, Mr Speaker.
We have this discussion across the Dispatch Box a lot during questions. We are aiming for clean energy by 2030, and setting up GB Energy in Aberdeen—something that the shadow Secretary of State voted against, of course—to ensure a transition. We have a declining and mature base, and we need to create the jobs of the future and the future industries in Scotland. He should support that, rather than voting against it. The EPL was brought in by his Government.
Andrew Bowie
To be absolutely clear, there is no transition under way. It is not the Conservative party saying that; it is the Robert Gordon University Energy Transition Institute. These mythical jobs in renewable energy simply do not exist yet. There is a slowdown in offshore wind deployment and a steep decline in offshore oil and gas activity as a direct result of Labour’s ideological policies—400 job losses every two weeks, a steep decline in skilled roles, nowhere for supply chain jobs to go but overseas, and a decline in the workforce of 25%. Why? Because of massive investor uncertainty due to negative sentiment around oil and gas as a result of the ban on licences and the EPL extension. When will the Secretary of State and the Scottish Labour party grow a backbone, stand up to the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, and stand up for Scotland and Scottish workers?
Ian Murray
I do not know whether the hon. Member agrees with net zero anymore—certainly, his party leader does not seem to believe in it—but that is where the jobs are for the future. There is a declining base in the North sea. Companies are making that transition already, and we need to ensure pace; that is the big issue. We need regulatory change and investment, and GB Energy is there to ensure that. The National Wealth Fund is making investments as well. We have seen £600 million invested in Scottish Power’s infrastructure. Things are starting to happen, but we need cross-party support on this.
Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)
For years, there has been under-investment in Scotland’s roads. The A9, A96, A77 and A75 are all in dire need of upgrading or dualling; work on all of them has been delayed or even cancelled by the SNP. In the spirit of improving economic co-operation between the nations of the UK, and specifically between Scotland and Northern Ireland, and given how vital the A77 and A75 are to individuals, businesses and hauliers, will the Minister seek the ringfencing of the Barnett consequentials that will arise as a result of this morning’s announcement by the Chancellor, so that the SNP must spend that money on improving roads in Scotland?
Kirsty McNeill
We are in conversation with all the relevant parties, but yes, we would like an increase in trade, and in the transport infrastructure that supports it.
Devolution (Immigration) (Scotland) Bill
Andrew Bowie ExcerptsFriday 25th April 2025
(7 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Devolution (Immigration) (Scotland) Bill 2024-26 View all Devolution (Immigration) (Scotland) Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)
It is a pleasure to speak in this debate, and I must thank the hon. Member for Arbroath and Broughty Ferry (Stephen Gethins) for introducing it. It is a shame that only six Scottish Labour MPs have seen fit to turn up to the debate, given their majority in representing Scottish constituencies, but I will move on to the Scottish Labour position on the Bill in due course. Some 40% of Scottish Conservative MPs have turned up to this today, in comparison with only 16% of Scottish Labour MPs, which I would say is a roaring success.
I must start from first principles. Devolution of immigration and asylum is a non-starter. It is, frankly, an absurd and unworkable idea, and the Conservative party is resolutely opposed to it. If we were in government, we would have the courage of our convictions and vote against the Bill, but the weak approach of the Labour party to this Bill, in avoiding a vote and trying to talk it out, should shame the Secretary of State and, indeed, the Government and the Scottish Labour party. Whatever our view of the proposal, on this Bill Members should have a vote—Members should be forced to say what their position actually is. We all know why there is not going to be a vote today: it is because the branch office in Edinburgh might like certain elements of the Bill, but London Labour says no—’twas always thus.
I am proud to say that the Conservative party opposes the Bill, but the Labour party—the Scottish Labour party—is scared to do anything that might damage its SNP-lite approach to politics and Scotland. It is supine in opposition in Holyrood and absent from the field in government. Labour should have the courage of its convictions to vote against the Bill today, despite how uncomfortable it might make certain Government Members.
Turning to the Bill, the idea that immigration and asylum matters should be devolved to Scotland simply should not be countenanced.
Stephen Gethins
I will start on a positive note: I think we should take the Bill to a vote. I take the shadow Secretary of State’s point, but why does he think that Michael Gove backed this Bill? When Labour sticks him in the Lords, Lord Gove could take this Bill through the Lords. Does the shadow Secretary of State agree?
Andrew Bowie
Michael Gove, soon to be Lord Gove of Torry, is answerable for his own opinions on whether immigration powers should be devolved to Scotland. I would not be in any way surprised if his views on that issue have changed, as indeed have his views on certain other issues over the years.
First, we should not enable regional immigration policies within the United Kingdom. Secondly, there is absolutely no case for a special immigration policy for Scotland outwith the United Kingdom’s legislative framework. Thirdly, the Scottish Government under the SNP over the past 18 years have demonstrated an unparalleled and unprecedented level of incompetence, which ought to preclude consideration of granting greater powers over, frankly, anything. We all know that there is such a thing as Scottish exceptionalism. The only exceptionalism that the Scottish Government have demonstrated is an exceptional reverse Midas touch to almost every single area over which they have responsibility, whether it is education, health or transport infrastructure. I could go on.
Pete Wishart
Just before the shadow Secretary of State gets into his usual anti-Scottish Government stuff, he has told us what he does not like about this Bill moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Arbroath and Broughty Ferry (Stephen Gethins). How would the Scottish Conservatives resolve our population demography crisis and the fact that we have a shrinking working-age workforce in Scotland? What would they do?
Andrew Bowie
If the hon. Gentleman has some patience, I will come to that. I do not intend to detain the House for quite as long as he did in giving his remarks, but I will come to what the Scottish Conservatives propose to address the demographic challenge that we face north of the border.
There is no case for devolving immigration to Scotland. Doing so would be unproductive at best, and given the SNP’s record in Holyrood, it would likely be disastrous. The devolution of immigration policy to Scotland would be incoherent within a United Kingdom and, indeed, wholly impractical.
We have heard arguments today that Scotland is more reliant on immigration than elsewhere in the UK. In many sectors, such as healthcare, adult social care, construction and agriculture, the UK benefits from—or relies too heavily upon, some might argue—imported labour. The Migration Advisory Committee, however, has found that labour market needs are similar across the UK and that there is no case for Scottish exceptionalism in this regard or for a Scotland-specific immigration system.
Let us talk about attracting skilled labour to Scotland. Let us start by looking at one of Scotland’s most successful industries: oil and gas. That is an industry we should be championing. We should be championing the world-class workforce, the leading supply chain, and the opportunities for growth, for good, well-paid jobs and for prosperity. I represent a constituency in a region that is seeing a decline in the number of people living and working there. That is a direct result of years of hostile rhetoric towards this energy industry from the Scottish National party, or is it not still the policy of the SNP to have a presumption against oil and gas? It was the SNP that was in coalition with the extremist Scottish Green party. With this Labour Government, it looks like that party might be getting its way, with a refusal to grant new licences and cuts to investment allowances signalling that the North sea is closed for business. That is driving industry and people away, and opportunities for well-paid jobs are drying up.
If the Scottish National party are serious about attracting a talented and productive workforce to Scotland, it should start by rethinking its policies towards our home-grown energy industry and start backing Scottish workers and Scottish businesses. A Scottish Government publication from last year admits that they
“need an immigration system that supports our higher education sector”.
Goodness me! Under the SNP, universities, students and staff have not been supported, but have been utterly hung out to dry. Dundee University is in dire financial straits, shedding 600 jobs to make emergency savings. My former university, Aberdeen, has resorted to a hiring freeze in an attempt to fill a £15 million shortfall. The University of Edinburgh echoes those warnings, saying that it needs to reduce costs by £140 million.
Chris Law
The shadow Secretary of State is correct to raise the dire situation at Dundee University. There is a £35 million deficit, £12.5 million of which is a direct result of Conservative policies that have meant a restriction on immigration visas for dependants. We saw an 84% drop the year that that came in, with an 18% drop even among undergraduates coming on their own. Why will he not take some responsibility for the fact that Dundee University is facing such dire circumstances because of his party’s heinous hostile immigration policies?
Andrew Bowie
Goodness me—talk about taking responsibility! It was only a few weeks ago that the SNP’s Education Minister refused to take any responsibility for the situation facing higher education in Scotland and claimed that there is no direct link with the failed funding model on which Scottish universities rely north of the border. That model has made them far too reliant on foreign students paying exorbitant fees to keep their doors open, rather than being funded properly from the Scottish Government’s own budget. SNP Members have failed to mention that. When they talk about immigration in the context of higher education, they always fail to mention that the funding model designed by the Scottish National party has obliged our higher education institutions to be so reliant on stratospheric fees to keep the doors open and keep research going. No contrition and no responsibility—that is the Scottish National party.
Chris Law
The shadow Secretary of State is being generous in giving way. To be clear, this is not a policy that affects just Dundee University, or even just Scotland. It is affecting universities across these islands, in England, Wales and Scotland. Of the top 10 universities that are facing financial problems, due in large part to immigration policies brought in under the last Conservative Government, more than half are in England. Would he like to spread the blame across these islands, rather than making it specifically about Scotland?
Andrew Bowie
I am very happy to talk about our record on higher education and compare it with the Scottish National party’s. It is a fact that someone from a deprived background in England is more likely to get into university than someone from a similar background in Scotland. That is a record of which the Scottish National party should be ashamed. There are fewer opportunities for Scottish students to get into world-leading Scottish higher education institutions than before the Scottish National party came into office.
The SNP cannot admit that its funding model has failed, although the University and College Union in Scotland has said so and has repeatedly called on the Scottish Government to address the decline in Scottish university funding. If the hon. Gentleman acknowledges and apologises for the Scottish Government’s failures, I might then engage in a debate about whether we should look at an immigration system that does more for Scottish higher education.
Josh Fenton-Glynn
Listening to the Conservatives after 14 years in government and the Scottish National party after 18 years in government argue about who is responsible for the problems in universities is a bit like watching two bald men argue over a comb. However, the point is well made that this is a national problem. National problems are not solved by having a different policy for different parts of the country; they have national solutions across the British Isles.
Andrew Bowie
I agree with the hon. Gentleman that we are far better when we work together on these islands than when we drive each other apart.
The Scottish National party’s model for higher education in Scotland has been nothing short of a failure. Disadvantaged teenagers are less likely to get into university in Scotland than their peers south of the border. The Scottish National party is failing the least well-off in society, blocking social mobility through the transformative power of education.
Seamus Logan
After the shadow Secretary of State’s long litany of talking down Scotland, the Scottish Government and all their failures, can he explain why the people of Scotland have elected the SNP for the past 18 years and why the polls show that we can expect to be elected again next year?
Andrew Bowie
It ill behoves me to correct the hon. Gentleman, but I was not talking down Scotland; I was talking down the Scottish National party’s record. I know the SNP thinks that it is Scotland and that Scotland is the SNP, but it most certainly is not. As for setting out a long litany of failures, I have only just started, believe you me—but as this debate must conclude at 2.30 pm, we simply do not have time to go through the list of failures of the Scottish National party in government over the past 18 years. The people of Scotland will have the chance to demonstrate at the polls next year whether they have confidence in the Scottish National party to continue in government. That is the only poll that matters, and we will see what happens in May 2026.
Let us address the utter absurdity of the Scottish Government’s proposed additional Scottish graduate visa, which would allow graduates four unsponsored years. It is even possible that those on the four-year graduate visa would qualify for permanent residence. Members have also raised the issue of Scotland’s declining birth rate. Proposing immigration as a quick fix for a declining population is wrong-headed and short-sighted. High immigration to solve low birth rates and an ageing population is a pyramid-scheme response. Working-age immigrants initially slow the growth of the age dependency ratio; however, they will in turn age and perpetuate the same crisis. Nations across the developed world face the myriad issues that an ageing population presents. The Scottish National party should be more focused on supporting working families and improving the economic outlook and prosperity, rather than proposing unfettered immigration. It might take the radical approach proposed by the Scottish Conservative party of making Scotland the lowest-taxed, rather than the highest-taxed, part of our United Kingdom and see what that does to attract people north of the border.
Dave Doogan
The hon. Member is too kind. Will he identify which SNP elected Member has prescribed unfettered immigration to Scotland, because I would like to know?
Andrew Bowie
As I often used to say when I was on the Government Benches, I will write to the hon. Gentleman with my answer—I am sure there is one. The idea that immigrants to a country as compact as ours would not seek job opportunities in other areas of the UK, should they so wish, is for the birds. Are we talking about border posts at Berwick, or papers being checked on the Caledonian sleeper? We are talking about a party founded over 90 years ago with the sole aim of achieving Scotland’s separation from the rest of the UK—but it still cannot tell us what currency should be used in that separate Scotland. The idea that SNP Members could design an intuitive scheme so foolproof and clever that nobody could take advantage of the situation is absolutely absurd, and nobody takes that seriously.
Turning back to the Government, it is a real shame that the Labour Government are choosing to talk out this private Member’s Bill rather than be forced to take a stance, but that is unsurprising, because we are well used to Labour Members demonstrating the utterly supine nature of the Scottish Labour party on Scottish issues. When faced with the madness of the SNP’s gender recognition Bill—this was raised this morning—Labour whipped their MSPs to vote to allow male offenders into women’s prisons. When the Labour leader in Scotland pays lip service to the plight facing oil and gas workers in the north-east of Scotland as a direct result of the Government’s damaging policies, Labour MPs stay silent. They refuse to stand up for women in Scotland; they refuse to stand up for working people in Scotland. Time and again, they refuse to do the right thing. Devolving immigration policy to the Scottish Government is clearly not the right thing, and Labour should have the courage of its convictions and say so.
As set out this morning, there is no case for the devolution of immigration. This is an invented exceptionalism. Scotland is no more dependent on immigration than the rest of the United Kingdom, and the purported crises—funding for universities, the rural workforce and the declining birth rate—are not solvable by this supposed silver bullet. This is a lazy solution to a series of complex issues that the SNP in Holyrood have neglected to resolve with the power already in their hands.
Stephen Gethins
I was careful to outline the views of the Scottish hospitality sector, care sector, tourism sector and Reform Scotland, and I could have gone on. Does the hon. Member think that they are wrong? We all think Michael Gove is wrong on a number of things; the hon. Gentleman clearly thinks that Mr Gove is wrong on this. Does the hon. Member think that all those sectoral organisations are wrong?
Andrew Bowie
I represent a part of the country that relies on tourism for its economic prosperity, and when I speak to the Scottish hospitality sector, it is not immigration that it raises as its biggest concern, but the failure of the Scottish National party—the Scottish Government—to pass on the rates relief for hospitality businesses across the United Kingdom. That is the biggest issue facing hospitality and tourism in Scotland right now, and the hon. Member would do well to raise point that with his colleagues in the Parliament north of the border who have power over that rate of tax. Parcelling out reserve powers to the SNP Government will solve none of the problems raised in this debate, and as I said, the Labour party should have the backbone to say so.
A month ago, I was on a Statutory Instrument Committee on the devolution of the operation of some Social Security Scotland competences in order to avoid duplication with the Department for Work and Pensions. I said that in devolving these powers to the Scottish Government
“We have created additional barriers, burdens and borders where there were none before, and we have added no benefit whatsoever for those receiving…payments either north or south of the border.”—[Official Report, Third Delegated Legislation Committee, 25 February 2025; c. 5.]
By the way, it has cost more than £650 million so far to establish Social Security Scotland, so lessons should be learned by the Labour Government. Just as many Labour Members believed in 1997 that devolution would kill nationalism stone dead, too many UK politicians of all parties, mine included, believe that giving ever more power to the Scottish Government will appease the Scottish National party’s desire for independence. It will not; that is the reason the SNP was founded, and it is a perfectly rational and respectable position to hold, but the desire to break Scotland away from United Kingdom will not be diminished by devolving ever more powers to Holyrood. Far too often, far too little thought is given to the impact of devolution on the policies or functions on which people rely. Is the complex, expensive, duplicative and bureaucratic quagmire brought about by Social Security Scotland working with the DWP in Scotland really to the benefit of those in receipt of benefits?
We must ensure that we do not have devolution for devolution’s sake. We must decide whether the devolution of a certain power to the Scottish Parliament will have a beneficial impact on people and businesses in Scotland. If the answer is no, the answer to devolving the power must be no, and the Government should have the courage of their convictions and say so. The Government could have demonstrated that they understood that. They could have forced a Division and voted down this flawed and fanciful Bill.
There is no case whatsoever for the devolution of immigration and asylum policy to Scotland, but even if there were, it would not be practicable to do that. It is not viable. Instead of those in the SNP coming up with madcap schemes to sow more division and create more difference across our one nation, they ought to spend more time and money on proposals for investing in Scotland’s underfunded universities, tackling violence in the classrooms, bringing down the length of NHS waiting lists, reducing drug deaths, building desperately needed new roads and bridges, improving community policing and making our neighbourhoods safer; but we see where their priorities lie. It is not just that the plans in the Bill are unviable, would be grossly inefficient and are completely unnecessary; devolving power over immigration to the SNP-run Scottish Government would be to the detriment of Scots and the United Kingdom.
We could spend countless hours in this place on statutory instruments designed to realign Scotland with the rest of the UK where needless duplication has already occurred—for example, across the justice system, and across welfare and benefit payments. We do not need more needless duplication to be created by thoughtless legislation. I have set out His Majesty’s official Opposition’s opposition to this motion on the basis of its economic and political impacts, but this is also a matter of principle. It is about whether we ought to be introducing sub-national visa and immigration systems, creating a more powerful sub-national or devolved Government in Scotland. The record of the SNP Government is damning, and we cannot in good conscience allow yet further vandalism.
Ian Murray
I am tempted to say that Scotland is not a region but a country, but I will not go down that rather juvenile route. The clear point is that the No. 1 priority and mission of this new UK Labour Government is economic growth, because we require it in our communities. If the hon. Gentleman is saying that everything is rosy in Scotland, he should go to his communities and see whether he thinks that is indeed the case. There are lots of wonderful opportunities in Scotland in terms of economic growth, and we should be exploiting those to create the jobs and careers of the future. That is a key part of what we should be talking about.
It is clear that levels of immigration need to be reduced. The Prime Minister has also been clear that we will not be introducing an arbitrary cap. This issue will not be resolved by gimmicks, unlike what we see from Opposition parties. It is simply not enough to cap numbers. Without a joined-up approach, our economy will be left without the skills it needs to grow. By creating a fair and properly managed system, we will reduce net migration back down to sustainable levels. We will achieve that through the hard work of tackling the root causes of reliance on overseas recruitment, not through gimmicks such as arbitrary targets. We want to ensure that businesses are helped to hire domestic workers first. We will ensure that different parts of Government draw up skills and workforce improvement plans in high migration sectors.
When the hon. Member for Arbroath and Broughty Ferry introduced his Bill, he challenged the Labour Government on what we were actually doing. Let me just read our manifesto to him, because actually it reflects much of what he was asking for, but that is not what his Bill wants to try to achieve. It states:
“We will strengthen the Migration Advisory Committee, and establish a framework for joint working with skills bodies across the UK, the Industrial Strategy Council and the Department for Work and Pensions. The needs of our economy are different across the regions and nations, and different sectors have different needs. Given skills policy and employment support are devolved we will work with the Scottish Government when designing workforce plans for different sectors. This will ensure our migration and skills policies work for every part of the UK.”
It also states:
“The next UK Labour Government will also ensure that UK-wide bodies are more representative of our nations and regions, this includes representation for Scotland on the Industrial Strategy Council, and Scottish skills bodies working jointly with the Migration Advisory Committee.”
Before the hon. Member for Arbroath and Broughty Ferry pops up and says, “Well yes, but who is on the Migration Advisory Committee?”, I refer him to Professor Sergi Pardos-Prado, professor of comparative politics at the University of Glasgow. He was recruited to the Migration Advisory Committee because of his knowledge on migration-related issues in devolved areas. All of the accusations laid by the hon. Member for Arbroath and Broughty Ferry through his 51-minute speech have been completely dispelled by the manifesto and the actions of this Government already.
Andrew Bowie
So far there is very little in what the Secretary of State is saying that I can disagree with. If he does believe that the Bill is unnecessary, why are his Government adopting tactics today to avoid a vote on it? Why do they not have courage of their convictions and vote it down?
Ian Murray
The hon. Gentleman should be pleased, because there are only two of them to go down any of the Lobbies; 40% of the Scottish Conservatives are here, and that makes two of them—I still think it is too many, but we will work on that at the next election.
As I have said, it is simply not good enough to cap numbers without that joined-up approach. We recognise the compounding pressures that the asylum and resettlement system is placing on local authorities and devolved Governments. That is something we have not really spoken about today, but we are committed to addressing that and delivering long-term solutions, not the sticking plaster politics that we hear from the parties opposite. We are looking at these issues carefully and will develop a new cross-Government strategy, working with stakeholders across the country and the devolved Governments, who will be vital partners in this work.
We want to ensure that any policies alongside the broader approach to asylum and resettlement work in lockstep with the Government’s objectives to end homelessness and—I am sorry to mention a devolved issue—build 1.5 million new homes over the course of this Parliament in England. That is not happening in Scotland. It is important to us to work together to ensure positive integration outcomes and improve access for all.
Oral Answers to Questions
Andrew Bowie Excerpts(7 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)
I associate myself with the Secretary of State’s remarks about the passing of His Holiness Pope Francis. I also wish all those not fortunate enough to have been born north of Hadrian’s wall a very happy St George’s day.
While he is not a graduate of the University of Aberdeen, like me the Secretary of State is a beneficiary of a Scottish university education. Scotland has some of the finest and most respected higher education establishments in the world, but as we saw last week at the University of Aberdeen, in warnings from the University of Edinburgh and, most starkly, at the University of Dundee, where over 600 jobs are being shed to make emergency savings, the current funding model, overseen by the SNP, is failing our institutions and our young people. I know we agree on that, but will the Secretary of State also acknowledge the devastating impact on Scottish university budgets of his own Government’s national insurance increase, adding £45 million to their salary bills, or will he continue to defend that job-killing, anti-growth tax on workers?
Ian Murray
The shadow Secretary of State is defending the SNP’s dreadful record on higher education in Scotland. It is clear from the principal of the University of Edinburgh, Sir Peter Mathieson, that the problems the university is having to deal with are caused by the underfunding of students from Scotland, which has meant the books have had to be balanced with an ever-increasing number of international students. The number of international students at the University of Edinburgh, for example, is still going up, although not as high as projected, and that is the major cause of the financial problems at Scottish universities. The Conservatives would do well not to hide behind the SNP and support it in that process.
Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)
Does the Secretary of State agree with the Scottish Labour leader, who says there is no question but that there has to be new oil and gas, or does he agree with his colleague the Energy Secretary, who has banned new licences in the North sea and is overseeing the accelerating decline of the UK’s oil and gas basin?
Ian Murray
The Energy Secretary and his Department are involved in a consultation on the just transition at the moment, but I go back to my earlier answers: if we are to get clean power by 2030 and to have an energy mix in this country, we require oil and gas, we require renewables and we require nuclear. It is a simple process.
Andrew Bowie
I think we all heard that, and I am sure Anas Sarwar did. The Secretary of State was unable to agree with his own leader in Scotland, and is so in hock to the UK Labour party that he cannot stand up for Scottish workers or the Scottish oil and gas industry. It has always been the party interest over the national interest for Labour, with no notice taken of the Scottish Labour party. Ten years ago, the Scottish Labour party was described by its own leader as being simply the “branch office”. Nothing has changed, has it?
Ian Murray
The Government’s sole purpose initially, in their first few months in office, was to clear up the mess that the hon. Gentleman’s party left in this country, including the £22 billion black hole. We will get on with delivering our missions, including clean power by 2030. That is what we are focused on, because that is what is good for jobs, good for bills and good for the environment.
Draft Social Security (Scotland) Act 2018 (Scottish Adult Disability Living Allowance) (Consequential Modifications) Order 2025
Andrew Bowie Excerpts(9 months, 1 week ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)
Thank you, Ms Hobhouse—today’s SI has a pithy title. I am grateful to the Minister for her remarks.
Today should serve as a salutary lesson for the new Government about the law of unintended consequences. In 2014, following the referendum on separation, the Smith commission was convened by the then Prime Minister, David Cameron, resulting in a host of recommendations to increase the power and responsibility of the Scottish Parliament. One of the powers devolved through that process was the ability to deliver elements of social security in Scotland. The devolution of certain powers by the Scotland Act 2016 was eminently sensible.
On income tax, for example, although I passionately believe that it is not in the interests of the Scottish people, businesses or the wider economy to have more tax bands and higher tax rates than the rest of the UK, it is an eminently sensible and, indeed, Conservative belief that those responsible for spending public money should also be responsible for raising it. I just wish that Scotland would blaze a trail by being the lowest taxed part of the United Kingdom—I think of the investment and the economic benefits that would be reaped.
We are gathered here this afternoon to discuss the devolution of certain elements of social security, and thereby the increased complexity of how these benefits are delivered to the people of Scotland and how they interact with other benefits and other delivery bodies across the UK. With hindsight, I wonder whether this was a positive move for Scotland and, indeed, the UK.
Broadly speaking, this is a sensible and technical statutory instrument that has our support. Clearly, those who are entitled to Scottish adult disability living allowance should not also be entitled to the UK Government’s disability living allowance, attendance allowance or personal independence payment. The fact we have to take the time and effort to legislate to make sure that is the case is plainly absurd.
The explanatory notes set out plainly that we are also legislating to ensure that those receiving Scottish adult disability living allowance retain access to the same treatment as those on disability living allowance:
“while Scottish Adult Disability Living Allowance operates in a broadly similar way to Disability Living Allowance, it should interact with reserved social security benefits in the same way as Disability Living Allowance.”
Of course, it should. But that statement never needed to be made, that explanation was not required and this legislation was not needed before the creation of an entirely separate operation to deliver what is, in effect, the exact same benefit. We have created additional barriers, burdens and borders where there were none before, and we have added no benefit whatsoever for those receiving benefit payments either north or south of the border. It has cost more than £650 million to establish Social Security Scotland, which is years late, has resulted in duplication and has added cost and complexity to the process.
The Smith commission, the Scotland Act 2016 and Social Security Scotland were all established, convened, reported and legislated for before any of us on this Committee were elected to this place. They are now a fact, but a lesson must be learned by the Labour Government. Just as many Labour members believed in 1997 that devolution would kill nationalism stone dead, too many UK politicians of all parties—my own included—believe that giving ever more to the Scottish Government will appease the SNP’s desire to break away. Far too often, far too little thought has been given to the impact of devolution on the specific policies or functions on which people rely. Is the complex, expensive, duplicative and bureaucratic quagmire of Social Security Scotland after the 2016 Act really to the benefit of those in receipt of benefits?
We must ensure that we do not have devolution for devolution’s sake. What must be decided is whether the devolution of a certain power or powers to the Scottish Parliament will or will not have a beneficial impact on the lives of the people and businesses of Scotland. If the answer is no, the answer must be no.
I have some practical questions for the Minister about the implementation. Social Security Scotland and the Department for Work and Pensions will need a very sophisticated operating system to ensure that the provisions of this draft order become a reality. Is the Minister confident that the systems are in place to accurately determine who is in scope and to avoid the duplication that this SI seeks to avoid? Given the cost and delays to Social Security Scotland—the IT systems have already cost more than £220 million—does the Minister have any indication of the cost of ensuring that the system is able to cope? On the other side of the coin, will the system be sufficiently agile to ensure that complex situations do not result in people being denied the payments to which they are entitled?
Likewise, in relation to Northern Ireland, article 5(3) may be quite complicated to administer. What work has the Minister undertaken with the Northern Ireland Executive to ensure a properly joined-up system across these islands? Although there has not been a formal consultation on the changes made by this draft order, will she update the Committee on whether she has consulted informally? Is she working with the Scottish Government on an information campaign to ensure that those affected are aware of the changes?
Finally, it is possible that the Scottish and UK rates could diverge over time, with one becoming higher or lower than the other. Has the Minister assessed what this would mean for broader eligibility for UK Government benefits or, indeed, for people living on either side of the border? I note that the draft order will need to be reviewed should there be changes to the Scottish adult disability living allowance or the reserved legislation. Can the Minister outline what circumstances would bring this about?
On a broader point, the devolution of welfare is not straightforward. It may well become much more complex over time as the systems diverge. Why we devolved welfare in the first place remains a complete mystery to me, but I would appreciate answers to my substantive questions.