SportsDirect (USC Dundonald)

Debate between Angus Brendan MacNeil and Brian H. Donohoe

Tuesday 27th January 2015 Westminster Hall

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

It is good to see you in the Chair, Mr Hollobone, and the Minister in her place. Of course, Mr Hollobone, you and I served in the same police force for 10 years, and I think that you still serve in the police, so it is good to see you here—after this debate, we might need your services.

I would like to make a few remarks by way of background to the reason why I asked for the debate. This year is the celebration of the 800th anniversary of the sealing of Magna Carta, one provision of which was that no free man should unreasonably be deprived of his livelihood. I am speaking on behalf of 245 workers in my constituency who question whether they are treated as free men and women.

USC is a clothing distribution company providing goods to retail distribution outlets. It opened in 1989 in Edinburgh. The company was worth £43 million by 2004, when it was purchased by Sir Tom Hunter, a constituent of mine, but it went into administration in 2008, after which 43 of the 58 stores were bought by Sir Tom. That happened through something called pre-packaged administration, whereby a deal is struck to sell parts of the business before it is put into administration, minimising losses and cherry-picking the most profitable part of the business. At the time, MPs, through the Commons Select Committee on Business and Enterprise, raised serious concerns about that practice. In particular, the hon. Member for Mid Worcestershire (Sir Peter Luff) said:

“The principle of administration is sound but you’ve got to make sure that the administration process is working in a way that doesn’t disadvantage people and impose other costs on the economy”.

In 2011, SportsDirect bought 80% of USC, and it completed the purchase of the remaining 20% in 2012. In 2013, SportsDirect bought the company Republic—more of that later—out of administration and merged it with USC. USC’s headquarters have long been in Dundonald in central Ayrshire. On 28 December last year, 245 people —79 permanent employees and 166 agency or zero- hours contract workers—were employed at the Dundonald site.

On Wednesday 7 January, senior managers arrived at the site early in the morning and informed staff that the business was not making money and was going into administration, and that all the stock would be removed to SportsDirect’s central depot in Shirebrook. There then followed a pantomime: staff were not told that they were being made redundant and were asked, would you believe, to assist with the removal of the goods. I am told that some 100 journeys were made by heavy goods vehicles between then and when the process was completed, on Sunday 11 January.

It is not clear whether USC/SportsDirect’s actions were initiated by the companies themselves or as a result of creditors, a clothing company called Diesel, seeking a winding-up order because of unpaid bills, to which USC/SportsDirect responded by moving the company towards administration, presumably resulting in Diesel joining the list of creditors that would have to wait for payment. I have heard it said that there was a one-week delay in the court process, which I am told means that the timetable followed by the company is even further out of kilter with what staff were told at the time. I seek clarification from the Minister on that point.

No information was given to staff about the future of Dundonald and their jobs until Wednesday 14 January, when Philip Norvell from Gallaghers dismissed all the staff, telling them that they would not receive any money at all from SportsDirect and that anything owed to them would have to be claimed from the Government via the administrator.

On Friday 16 January, Republic, a wholly-owned subsidiary company of SportsDirect, bought the USC business, apart from the Dundonald warehouse and operation, from the administrators. At the same time, billionaire Mike Ashley is well known for his love of football—he owns Newcastle United—and his company, the very same SportsDirect, has just bought a 26% stake in Rangers Retail Ltd, in return for £10 million of credit, adding to his previous 49% stake and making a total of 75%. Rangers football club gets a very small percentage of the profits from that retail activity. The worrying thing is that that is very much the pattern that he adopted in buying USC: he built up a majority stake in stages before finally assuming control of the company.

Of course, there are rules governing the ownership of football clubs, especially as there have been some notorious multiple owners such as the pensions robber Robert Maxwell. There must be a question whether Ashley’s activities are a precursor to a greater involvement in Rangers football club itself. Is it right for an individual to have a serious financial stake in more than one side? Is this man more than just a shareholder? Has he become the banker of the club?

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

Does the hon. Gentleman feel, as I do, that the behaviour of Mike Ashley is damaging to him, and that the contrast between his wealth and the way the workers were treated is appalling?

[Mr Donohoe]

I am coming to that, but he does not care a damn. That is clear, given what I am about to say.

The USC Dundonald situation is a murky affair. It leaves unanswered a lot of questions about the way some businesses are allowed to operate. For instance, did Diesel seek a winding-up notice on USC as a result of unpaid bills, as claimed in some reports? That is an answer that I need this afternoon. If so, what alternative courses of action were considered by SportsDirect—such as, for example, paying the bill to its loyal workers at Dundonald? Was USC/SportsDirect’s action in seeking administration a response to the claim made by Diesel or was it initiated by the company separately? Was there a delay in the timetable for granting administration and, if so, what was the impact on the work force and the potential timetables for redundancy and required consultation on both redundancy and business plans? Was that brought to the notice of the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills? What will the cost to the public purse be of supporting the 245 people who are out of work without back pay, holiday or redundancy payments and who have bonuses of as much as £12,000 outstanding?

Trident Renewal

Debate between Angus Brendan MacNeil and Brian H. Donohoe

Tuesday 20th January 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr MacNeil]

The hon. Gentleman tempts me on the rule of Scotland, but my final word on this is that we will fulfil our full NATO obligations as a non-nuclear member of NATO. About 90% of its members have no difficulty with that. My goodness, there is all this excitement about Norway and Denmark as well as Scotland—Members should get over all this!

I listened intently to the speech by the right hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Dame Joan Ruddock). She mentioned the 1980s—a time I clearly remember as a teenager, when nuclear annihilation was seriously talked about and people did seem to comprehend the awful, frightening and terrifying possibility of the use of nuclear weapons. Over time, people have perhaps become more blasé and this has crept into our discourse, so there is a not as much understanding of the insanity of nuclear weapons as there used to be. That may be to protect our own sanity personally from day to day, because if we were to comprehend it, it would blight our lives. We have a feeling of powerlessness about it, so why worry about it day to day—if it is going to happen, it is going to happen. I say as a crofter from the highlands, however, that this is akin to the happy lambs who play in a meadow unaware of the autumn slaughter—the mass slaughter—to come.

The right hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford reminded us of the wisdom and courage of Colonel Petrov, who had the data and information available to his senses from the best technology available at that time—that the west had fired five nuclear weapons at the USSR. What would have happened if he had acted in the way he was meant to act or in the way we were told he would act, or if he had acted logically on the basis of MAD—mutually assured destruction? If my memory serves me correctly, this comes from the theories of John Nash, the Nobel prize winner in economics. If Colonel Petrov had responded in that way, I would not have seen my 16th birthday. I have thus had 28 bonus years as a result.

If Colonel Petrov is still alive, I say that if ever there were a man deserving of the Nobel peace prize, it is certainly he. We were saved by our alleged enemies—perhaps by their humanity. We were saved again by a Soviet submarine commander during the Bay of Pigs incidents in Cuba in the early 1960s. The actions of those two men disproved the MAD theories, which were the foundation of the nuclear club to which the UK had itself belonged. They behaved in a way in a way that was outside MAD. They did not do mutually assured destruction, although they thought they would be destroyed themselves.

As the right hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford said, our luck will eventually run out. Nuclear weapons have been in the hands of human beings for only 70 years. Given the two near misses that I have cited—and there have been more—I invite Members to engage in a thought experiment. Had nuclear weapons existed since Roman times, how much would history have progressed before nuclear annihilation? If we extend our 70 years to 140, or 210, or 300, how long will it be before it all goes wrong and our luck runs out? If our luck does run out, it will run out big style. I have to say, with respect to my friends in the Green party, that it is not gradual global warming that should be worrying us, but immediate global frying and the destruction of all creation—a sin like no other, which may result from omission or commission.

There will be more years of this possibility if mankind continues to possess nuclear weapons. The statistical chance of their use keeps increasing. If we had had them in Roman times, many events in history might not have happened. The world could have ended in 300 AD. If nuclear weapons had fallen into the hands of a Hitler, a Genghis Khan or even Jihadi John, or any similar despot or madman, he would have used them and the planet would have been destroyed. MAD—mutually assured destruction—could well have been framed for such people.

Nuclear weapons seem, bizarrely, to be subject to the law of triviality, which was summed up well by C. Northcote Parkinson in his 1959 book, “Parkinson’s Law, or the Pursuit of Progress”. If you will indulge me, Madam Deputy Speaker, I shall quote from it. Parkinson said:

“The Law of Triviality...briefly stated, it means that the time spent on any item of the agenda will be in inverse proportion to the sum involved.”

I would add “or to the danger of the position.” I believe that the £100 billion cost of the renewal of Trident will go through on an extremely small nod. Indeed, the issue is so trivial that Labour in Scotland has described tonight’s vote as meaningless, and its newly elected leader has described his party’s former policy of unilateral nuclear disarmament as a “flirtation with surrealism”. As was pointed out by the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (John Woodcock), Labour has indeed moved, and that is why the polls are showing what they are showing in Scotland. It seems that Labour policy is not to engage properly in this debate, at a time when food banks are on the rise and Labour is supporting austerity.

Perhaps there is some movement in a graveyard in Cumnock where lie the remains of Keir Hardie, because it is a disgrace, and a significant example of the law of triviality, that Labour is ignoring this issue and is not taking it seriously. Parkinson’s law of triviality actually refers to something that deserves greater engagement and understanding.

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

I cannot believe what the hon. Gentleman has just said. At a time when submarines from Russia are going up the Clyde and tankers from the same place are at the top of Scotland, he is trying to tell us that we should not have a deterrent. That is absolutely unreal. The idea that we should find ourselves defenceless in those circumstances is a crazy notion.

[Mr MacNeil]

This is not the first time that the hon. Gentleman has struggled to comprehend or believe things, but it is very alarming that he has told us that Russian submarines are going up the Clyde. My goodness! I thought that we had a deterrent. It is clear that his nuclear policies are failing, because by the sound of things, those submarines will be docking in Greenock or Port Glasgow any minute now.

This is not a trivial matter, and it is perhaps due to the difficulty of comprehending it that it is subject to the law of triviality. If ever there was an issue that required engagement for the safeguarding of our future and that of the planet, it is the awfulness, the ghastliness, the death and the destruction that nuclear weapons could cause—and perhaps, sadly, will cause one day.

Scotland’s Place in the UK

Debate between Angus Brendan MacNeil and Brian H. Donohoe

Thursday 6th February 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr MacNeil]

My hon. Friend makes a great point. Labour is out of power in Scotland, and, like the Liberals and Tories, is heading ever further downwards.

Scotland will not affect the Government of Westminster 98% of the time. Regardless of that, our first job as representatives of the people in Scotland is to make the lives of those who live in Scotland better. Concern about who is in government in London, Paris, Madrid, Berlin or Dublin should not be the guiding light of any Scots democrat: it should be the conditions of people in the housing estates of Easterhouse, Castlemilk, Sighthill and The Raploch and bettering our cities.

[Mr Donohoe]

rose—

[Mr MacNeil]

My time is limited.

Our concern should be improving lives in Lochaber, better quality jobs in Sutherland, more young people staying in Lewis, and a flourishing Skye. No more neglect! Our concern should not be the red Tories or the blue Tory Government in London, but the needs of the people of Scotland and the democratic will of the people in Scotland, regardless of where in the world they are from. Our immigrants are very welcome in Scotland, as my hon. Friend the Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) has often said. Scotland’s destiny is in those people’s hands, and only a yes vote keeps that destiny in the hands of the people in Scotland.

We are at a crossroads in Scotland. Do we have the courage to deliver a better future to succeeding generations? The Norwegians did. Dirt poor when they made the decision in 1906, without the manifest advantages of Scotland today, they now have an oil fund for future generations so that when the oil runs out, the money will not. The finances of Scotland are good, despite having a tax system that is not designed to optimise or maximise Scotland’s potential. But in each and every of the last 32 years, estimates show that Scotland has contributed more tax per person than the UK as a whole. The figures for Scotland are equivalent to £10,700 tax per head annually, while for the UK as a whole they are only £9,000. From 2007-08, public spending has been a lower share of Scotland’s GDP than in the UK as a whole. Taking tax and spending together, over the past five years public finances in Scotland have been better than in the UK as a whole by £12.6 billion.

Finance (No. 2) Bill

Debate between Angus Brendan MacNeil and Brian H. Donohoe

Thursday 18th April 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr MacNeil]

I shall speak to new clause 3 and against clause 183 stand part.

Air passenger duty is fast becoming one of the most damaging interventions by the Westminster Government in the Scottish economy, which over the past 30 years has provided more tax per person per year than across the United Kingdom as a whole. The chairman of VisitScotland, Mike Cantlay, says he is “extremely fearful” of the long-term impact of air passenger duty levies on the long-haul market to Scotland, which have left the country at a competitive disadvantage compared with countries such as Ireland. He added:

“To say to a potential visitor to Scotland from Australia, for example, that before you even book you will be paying hundreds of pounds extra for the sake of coming here, because the UK has a deficit to fund, is not an easy sell. It is lunacy for our industry.”

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

How many journeys would be affected by the new clause?

[Mr MacNeil]

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman knows the answer to that question better than I do. It will affect thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of journeys. It is estimated that the present arrangements have cost Scotland about 2.1 million visitors since the introduction of air passenger duty a few years ago, and the effect of that on the Scottish economy is mammoth.

[Mr Donohoe]

May I draw the hon. Gentleman’s attention to the wording of new clause 3? Does it not in fact cover only long-haul flights? It does not cover connecting flights through Heathrow or any other airports. How many actual journeys will it therefore cover? I understand that there are only two such long-haul journeys per week to Northern Ireland, for example.

[Mr MacNeil]

The hon. Gentleman will understand that this covers all aspects of journeys feeding into Scotland, and he will know full well that air passenger duty is adversely affecting the Scottish economy. Does he take a contrary view?

[Mr Donohoe]

As the chairman of the all-party parliamentary aviation group, may I remind the hon. Gentleman that we have reported on this matter? The duty has a great effect on everyone in the United Kingdom, not just those in Scotland.

[Mr MacNeil]

I do not dispute that it has a great effect on everyone in the United Kingdom, but Scotland is currently in the United Kingdom and it therefore affects Scotland. I look forward to hearing the hon. Gentleman’s speech. I am sure that the points he raises will be very welcome.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr MacNeil]

I am sure that the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire will be on his feet presently to confirm his attendance in Inverness.

[Mr Donohoe]

That has nothing to do with this debate. The hon. Gentleman should know that his proposal, which is what we are discussing, does not constitute the devolution of APD. What he is talking about is the equivalent of what happens in Northern Ireland, which affects one flight a day. What I and the all-party aviation group are suggesting is that APD be taken away completely. If he proposed that, I would support him. Is the SNP likely to consider that?

[Mr MacNeil]

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has investigated the level of APD on flights from London airports to Inverness. Doubtless, he will be flying to the happy band that is the Labour conference this weekend. [Interruption.] As my hon. Friend the Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) says, he will no doubt do so with enthusiasm.

Not only does APD receive a lot of criticism in Scotland and the UK; it has attracted international derision. Two days ago, at a conference in Trinidad and Tobago, it was not only criticised by Caribbean countries as discriminating against the region, but was described as

“a clear market distortion and barrier”

to tourism worldwide by a senior UN tourism official, Carlos Vogeler, the UN World Tourism Organisation’s regional director for the Americas. He added that APD

“can actually produce a net damage to the economy, particularly in those destinations which are so dependent on air travel, such as the Caribbean”.

Surely, on a social union basis, we should treat other Commonwealth countries, such as the beautiful Bahamas, on a fairer basis. At £332 for a family of four flying economy, its air tax is higher than the £268 in tax when flying to Hawaii.

I will give four reasons why APD should be devolved to Scotland. First, APD is making Scottish airports uncompetitive in their efforts to attract new direct international routes. It is needlessly restricting Scotland’s ability to realise the economic and business benefits that direct air connections bring.

Secondly, APD is designed for the circumstances in the south-east of England, not the rest of the UK. It is, at best, a demand-management tool for Heathrow—a stretched airport that will have no further runways until one is built in a panic in a few years’ time, as Ryanair’s Michael O’Leary predicts. Heathrow needs demand to be limited because it is at capacity and the Chancellor therefore has a coincidental fiscal cash cow. Scottish airports have the capacity for growth and this tax blocks it. Independent control over APD through devolved powers would give Scotland the ability to meet its own needs rather than Heathrow’s. My view of demand management is supported by the chief executive of the Scottish Chambers of Commerce, Liz Cameron, who said:

“Current rates of APD seem more suited to controlling capacity constraints at Heathrow than they do with the needs of regional airports, and devolution of this tax would afford the Scottish Government the opportunity to create an air transport package for Scotland designed to improve our direct international connectivity.”

Thirdly, a Scottish aviation tax regime would incentivise the introduction of new direct international services, which is important for business connectivity and in-bound tourism. We could do that by reducing the rate of duty, or indeed exempting it, in the early years of a new service—the most challenging financial period—until a route is established.

Fourthly, the Treasury said that it is devolving “aspects” of APD in Northern Ireland, making great play of the “unique” commercial challenges it faces—that was perhaps mentioned earlier by the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute. Scotland’s aviation sector also has specific and long-running competitive disadvantages that need to be addressed, and only the devolution of APD will do that. It is unacceptable that the UK Government are still not prepared to commit to the devolution of APD to Scotland, and I warn that such intransigence angers people at first, but when they calm and look rationally at the situation, they see the need for independence, which will be voted for a year next autumn.

According to a report published in October 2012 by York Aviation,

“by 2016 Scotland’s airports will be handling around 2.1 million passengers per annum fewer than they might have been if the APD changes since 2007 had not been implemented.”

It concludes:

“Constraining the growth of Scotland’s airports via APD can ultimately only have a negative impact from this perspective. APD makes it harder for airports to attract new routes or improved levels of service. Over time this will impact on Scotland’s attractiveness as a place to invest and its competitiveness in international markets. This in turn will negatively impact on Scotland’s international economy, including key sectors such as banking and finance, oil and gas, creative industries, technology businesses and advanced manufacturing”.

By establishing the highest passenger tax on flying in the world, the UK Government have finally managed to become the best in the world at something: unfair taxation. They are blocking growth with a gatekeeper tax.

The SNP Government are building a better Scotland. Scottish GDP grew by 0.5% during the fourth quarter of 2012—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Sedgefield (Phil Wilson), who is from north-east England, might laugh, but I am sure a successful Scotland on his border would benefit north-east England as well. Would he rather have an independent successful Norway on his border or a Scotland that at the moment is in hock to whatever decisions are made by the Tories at Westminster? “Better Together with the Tories” is the Labour mantra.

amendment of the law

Debate between Angus Brendan MacNeil and Brian H. Donohoe

Monday 25th March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr MacNeil]

It is reputed to be the world’s most onerous tax on air travel, and I am sure the hon. Gentleman will agree that it is damaging Scottish airports terribly.

[Mr Donohoe]

I do agree with the hon. Gentleman on this occasion; it is not very often I can say that. The Government are doing absolutely nothing for air passengers, the aviation industry and those who work in it. They continue with this tax, while our competitors throughout the world are laughing at us. The Government are prepared to examine other measures, but not the tax that affects not only my constituency but others throughout the United Kingdom.

The Chancellor says that he wants to boost house building, but how is the bedroom tax going to help to do that? Surely it will add to the confusion about the sort of housing stock we require. I predict that it will be worse than the poll tax for people in my constituency; indeed, I am already seeing signs of that. It will prove to be the Government’s Achilles heel, just as the poll tax was for Margaret Thatcher.

Future growth forecasts have had to be revised, and the Office for Budget Responsibility says that in 2015 most people will be worse off. All in all, the Budget offers the British people nothing other than more of the same failed policies of the last three years. The approach simply is not working, and the Government should own up to that and change tack today, for the sake of the UK economy as a whole.

Reflecting on it, this is the worst Budget I have witnessed since being elected in 1992.

Air Passenger Duty

Debate between Angus Brendan MacNeil and Brian H. Donohoe

Thursday 1st November 2012 Commons Chamber

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

I congratulate the hon. Members for Witham (Priti Patel) and for Crawley (Henry Smith) on securing this debate. As a co-sponsor of the motion, as well as a seasoned and regular air traveller, I apologise to the House: because of the inclement weather coming in from the Atlantic, I shall try to rush back to Scotland this evening rather than waiting, or having my constituents wait until tomorrow afternoon before they see me.

I do not know whether I was targeted, but as chairman of the all-party aviation group I certainly received my fair share of correspondence on the petition connected with this debate. Indeed, I do not believe I have ever been contacted by as many constituents on any subject in my time in this place, and I have been here for some 20 years. As has been mentioned, the all-party group instigated an inquiry, not only into this tax but into the whole question of aviation and its future in the UK. It was clear from that work—a fairly major inquiry, with some 50 submissions and two oral evidence sessions—that we are likely to damage the whole UK economy unless we get this tax right. That was clear to me and the all-party group, with all conclusions supported by all parties in the House that were part of the inquiry, which is a first when it comes to the future of air traffic.

A report is available, and if hon. Members ping me an e-mail, I will send them a copy, if they have not already read it. The report has been sent to the Prime Minister and a fairly sizeable number of Treasury civil servants have asked for a copy, as a consequence of which I presume that the Minister is aware that the report is in existence. If he has not done so already, I would ask him to look at it, because we still await a response from Treasury officials and the Minister. There is overwhelming support from all sections of the House; indeed, we have already heard—as I am sure we will hear again this afternoon as we approach 5 o’clock—about the disadvantages of air passenger duty, as well as the evidence for those disadvantages. The vast majority of submissions received stated that the UK was being placed at a significant competitive disadvantage as a result of the tax. That applied to 43 of the 51 submissions, which I suggest is overwhelming.

But—and it is a big “but”—it is impossible to draw a comprehensive picture of the national economic impact of air passenger duty without Treasury support in looking at the issue far more closely. I am looking for that support from the Government this afternoon, and I also hope to see their response to the report sooner rather than later. The report also mentioned reports from the British Chambers of Commerce and from Oxera. They were good reports with credible data sources, but they were selective. We need a comprehensive assessment of the effects of the tax, and that is a task for the Treasury to undertake.

There are examples of air passenger duty leading to direct commercial loss. We have already heard my right hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Paul Goggins) talk about Manchester airport, and say that AirAsia X cited ever-increasing taxes as its primary reason for abandoning its flights to UK destinations. I have been given other examples as well. It is a matter of public record that Continental Airlines, now part of United Airlines, would have abandoned flights from Belfast to the United States had the level of APD not been reduced in October 2011.

If only some thought could be given to the idea of regional variation, as my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Michael Connarty) said. That would have the greatest effect on the regions in question. Only yesterday, Aberdeen, Glasgow and Edinburgh airports called for immediate action on the levy. They estimate that, by 2016, £210 million less will be spent each year in Scotland because of the tax. Glasgow airport’s managing director, Amanda McMillan, has said that APD

“will continue to damage Scottish aviation by making routes unviable and decimating Scotland’s links to the rest of the world.”

As my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock (Sandra Osborne) said, the problem is also affecting my own airport at Prestwick.

[Mr MacNeil]

Given the quote from the managing director of Glasgow airport that the hon. Gentleman has just read out, does he support the Calman commission’s recommendation that air passenger duty should be devolved to Scotland?

[Mr Donohoe]

The hon. Gentleman might well be shocked by this—indeed, I expect him to fall off his seat—but I do actually support that proposal. I would suggest, however, that any such duty should not be frittered away, as many of the tax receipts obtained by the Scottish Government are. I would suggest that, if it were devolved, it should be hypothecated so that the money could be put into the airports, rather than into some of the other high-falutin’ schemes that happen north of the border at present—[Interruption.] I do not know what the hon. Gentleman is saying from a sedentary position, but I will give way to him again if he wants to intervene.

[Mr MacNeil]

Surely the idea behind devolving APD would be to cut it to make Scotland more competitive.

Road Fuel Duties

Debate between Angus Brendan MacNeil and Brian H. Donohoe

Tuesday 13th September 2011 Westminster Hall

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

I welcome you to your rightful place in the Chair, Mr Hancock, and I also welcome the Economic Secretary to the Treasury and my hon. Friend on the Front Bench, the Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy), to this extremely important debate. It is also good to see that all parties in the House are, I think, represented here, and I look forward to what they have to say. I particularly want to hear what the Economic Secretary has to say about the high levels of road fuel duties in this country. I also want to put on record my thanks to the Speaker for allowing the debate to take place at this time.

This year, 2011, has been eventful in every sense of the word. It has perhaps been the most financially eventful year in the history of politics. It has been a rollercoaster. We have seen global financial turmoil, and the stock market has fluctuated at a rate that I have never seen before. We are seeing the beginnings of high unemployment levels, along with a rise in inflation, increasing transport costs, and tax changes that I have never witnessed in my time in the House—I have been here some 20 years. The past eight months have delivered a record-breaking run of price rises, those of petrol and diesel being among the most alarming.

Across the UK—there are, of course, highs and lows across the country—the average price of petrol reached a high in May of 137.43p per litre, and an examination of the relevant website just last night showed that the average price just now is not far from that. There is a differential of some 24p per litre between the highest and the lowest price across the country. I remember that when the Labour party was in government there was a near revolution when the truckers blockaded the refineries as a consequence of high fuel prices. Interestingly, we have not seen anything like that since, and I wonder why.

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

I am not certain from the tone of the hon. Gentleman’s voice whether he wants a blockade of refineries by truckers across the United Kingdom.

[Mr Donohoe]

The hon. Gentleman should know, as should all Members, that I would be the last person in this place to call for a revolution and civil disobedience.

There is absolutely no doubt, however, that the high fuel prices are at the point of driving people out of jobs, which is the most serious aspect of the matter. I shall give an example, which makes me angry, of the desperate situation of a nurse in my constituency. She has had to put up with a wage freeze for the next two years, her pension contributions have gone up, she has to pay double for parking at the hospital in Glasgow where she works, and she has to find £100 extra a month to get to and from work because of the high fuel prices. That proposition cannot feasibly be sustained for too long, but she cannot use public transport because of where she stays and where the hospital is. That problem must be looked at.

Regarding what the Government take per litre, I always remember a case from some years ago of a retailer who was determined to show the breakdown of the price of petrol and diesel. He was told that that was not the form, and the petrol company said that it would no longer supply him, for some obscure reason. When one considers that of the average 135p price of a litre of fuel, 81p is taken, one starts to understand the cost to the individual buying the petrol or the diesel. A good 60% goes on dealing with Government intervention in the form of fuel duty, and there is also VAT. Indeed, 20% VAT increases the price of petrol by 2.5%, putting something like 2.5p on it. In addition, outside of Government intervention in the price, there are the oil companies, and it is time to argue for a windfall tax on their profits. I know that there has already been a tax, which a lot of colleagues are very concerned about in relation to the oil companies’ continued investment, but I believe that the Government should look at the correlation between profit and price.

I have already argued that a significant portion of the price of petrol and diesel in this country is made up of the Government take, and I argue that it is higher than in most other European countries as a consequence of the high level of tax. Is there any opportunity to make the price cheaper? I am sure that the Economic Secretary will argue that in the present climate there is no leeway—no room for manoeuvre—but I suggest that there might be, and I shall come on to that later.

The reason for this debate is obvious: the price of fuel is crippling a great number of the people whom I represent and, I am sure, a great many of those represented by other Members here this morning. The Institute for Fiscal Studies has announced that the living standards of UK families will decline by more than 10% over the next three years, and it predicts that in real terms the typical household income will fall by 3.5% in the year to April, which will be the steepest drop since 1981. We understand that there is little room for offsetting falling living standards by cutting taxes, but the matter must be looked at. The level of tax and duties on petrol and diesel is cutting off the prospects of many struggling families and small businesses, and since I secured this debate I have had dozens of e-mails from small businesses with examples of just what it is doing to them.

The situation is also destroying job prospects, in particular among young people. I have already had a summit in my constituency, attended by the Secretaries of State for Work and Pensions and for Scotland. Youth unemployment is reaching levels that I never thought possible—it is as high as 70% in many areas. That cannot be sustainable and it is not helped at all by the cost of living today, particularly in more rural areas—I see that the hon. Members for Argyll and Bute (Mr Reid) and for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil) are present.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Donohoe]

The blasé slogan “Either eat or heat” is becoming a reality faced by many of my constituents, particularly the elderly. The hon. Gentleman is right. It is a major concern, and it should concern the Government.

To return to the economic point, the industry should look into the fact that some oil providers supply their own forecourts with fuel at one price while selling the same fuel to a second retailer down the road at a higher cost. Something must be done about that. Anyone who travels two miles along the road from Prestwick to Ayr in my constituency can see it at first hand. Prices at forecourts using the same supplier vary 6p from one end to the other, which should not be allowed. Two-tier pricing is becoming a joke.

[Mr MacNeil]

I hear what the hon. Gentleman says about two-tier pricing, but I am sure that he will sympathise with areas of one-tier pricing, such as my constituency, where all prices are high and the closest cheaper fuel is a ferry ride away. Does he not feel that there has been too much inaction by successive Governments on tackling the problem?

[Mr Donohoe]

I agree entirely. It is interesting to note that Shetland has some of the highest petrol prices in Scotland, although half the United Kingdom’s total oil supply flows through two pipelines there. Another instance is Grangemouth, where the refinery for Scotland is based. The price of fuel there is also among the highest in Scotland. That does not stack up.

Scotland Bill

Debate between Angus Brendan MacNeil and Brian H. Donohoe

Tuesday 15th March 2011 Commons Chamber

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

Let me continue where we left off yesterday in discussing new clauses 1 and 2, particularly the question of first past the post being the fairer system—

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

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Donohoe]

I will give way when I have developed my argument one stage further than when I left off. An important aspect of this is that first past the post is the system that is best understood by the electorate—indeed, I would argue, it is almost the only system that is understood by the electorate.

[Mr MacNeil]

I think that if the hon. Gentleman looks at yesterday’s Hansard, he will find that we finished where I left off. At 10 pm last night, I was about to ask him what he had against the good people of the Western Isles in wanting to give them only one Member, with every other constituency getting two.

[Mr Donohoe]

I have always thought that the Member who looks after sheep should be able to count. If he could count, he would know that there are not that many people in the electorate of the Western Isles. In those circumstances, I thought it only fair that there should be just the one Member. As I said previously, there would be one Member for Orkney and one Member for Shetland. That would mean that there would be 118 Members of the Scottish Parliament, all elected on the basis of first past the post. If the hon. Gentleman tells me that I have got the figures wrong, perhaps I need to go back to school to do a bit of arithmetic, but I can tell him that I was one of the brightest children in the school at arithmetic; indeed, I got 100% on many occasions.

However, perhaps one area where I was not very strong was dates, because earlier in the debate I said to the hon. Gentleman that the Scottish elections were on 3 May whereas—he should have corrected me—they are on 5 May.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Donohoe]

That is common sense, if I may say so. When I made the calculation to put together my submission to Calman, we did not have this nonsense of reducing the number of MPs in this place. That idea is patently stupid in Scotland. The hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (John Thurso), who is present, will know that the area he represents will become even more enormous under these calculations than it is. Perhaps the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority should visit him to check out what his expenses should be in those circumstances. However, I digress somewhat.

I shall return to the issue of savings and first past the post. It is clear from this debate that there is a case to be made for this idea. It is clear from the number of public representatives on the London assembly that there can be adequate government for a population double the size of Scotland’s with some 30 members. Given the responsibilities in London, one would presume that it was possible to run the Scottish Government with the numbers that I propose.

[Mr MacNeil]

The hon. Gentleman wants to reduce the number of parliamentary representatives from Scotland. Will he lead by example and suggest that Scotland no longer needs to send any MPs to Westminster, because Scotland should be independent and all powers pertaining to Scotland should be moved from Westminster back to Scotland?

[Mr Donohoe]

The first people who could go in these circumstances are, of course, the nats. That would be very useful. I am surprised that only four of their six Members are here today. However, looking at the Labour Benches, perhaps I should not argue that point too forcefully.

To return to my serious argument, first past the post is the most sensible system on the basis of turnout. If we look at the turnout at elections—today I had the good fortune of having the Library do so—we see that there is no doubt that we, as a group, need to reconnect with the public. It is highly probable that we will go below 50% turnout at this year’s Scottish elections. In the 2007 election, the turnout was just above 52%. In the election to the Westminster Parliament last year, the figure was just under 64%. On that basis, we should consider the matter seriously.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Donohoe]

I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman, who is my MP, as he knows. I came into Parliament thinking that I was a Labour MP, but over the years I have come to understand that I represent not just Labour voters but 100% of my constituents, including those who vote and those who do not vote. I have always taken that view. The hon. Gentleman makes a good intervention, and I am grateful for it, but I do not know what it has to do with the subject in hand.

If one accepts that list Members are not to make representations on behalf of individual constituents, the question is why do they advertise constituency surgeries? On one occasion, such a Member, who will remain nameless, advertised a surgery in my constituency. I was not very pleased, so I decided to look through all the files in my office—some 2,500 files—for some awkward cases. I decided I would phone those awkward cases and tell them that this individual was having a surgery in Irvine, and that they should attend because he made such a good MSP. Seventeen people trooped to his surgery, and he never did a surgery in Irvine again. That is the practical way to overcome the problem of added list Members in the Scottish Parliament. If anyone wants a wee bit of encouragement to do likewise, I am more than happy to oblige.

[Mr MacNeil]

I was wondering whether the awkward cases had already been sent to the hon. Gentleman.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Donohoe]

On the basis of what has just been said, I am almost of a mind to press the new clause to a vote.

Let me make some points to sum up. I would argue that this has been one of the better debates on the Bill that we have had across the piece. It has at times been humorous and it has been good-humoured, which is unusual in some respects. It has also at times been useful and interesting to be able to draw out some of my long-held points of view. I am conscious that in these circumstances—given that this debate is just the beginning—we should withdraw our proposal, and so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 3

Maritime policy

‘(1) The Scotland Act 1998 is amended as follows.

(2) In Schedule 5, section E3, leave out—

(a) the Coastguard Act 1925”.

(3) After section 90 insert section 90A as follows—

“Maritime and Coastguard Agency (Scotland)

90A (1) The Maritime and Coastguard Agency is to be treated as a Cross-Border Public Authority for the purposes of sections 88 to 90.

(2) The funding, operation and planning authority of Maritime and Coastguard Agency facilities in Scotland shall reside with the Scottish Government and the appropriate Scottish Minister.

(3) These parts of the Maritime and Coastguard Agency which are the responsibility of Scottish Government shall be known as the Maritime and Coastguard Agency (Scotland).

(4) The Maritime and Coastguard Agency (Scotland) will be responsible for maintaining and upholding domestic and international laws and obligations in the Scottish Waters.

(5) For the purposes of this section, the Scottish Waters are as defined by the Scottish Adjacent Waters Boundary Order 1999.”.’.—(Mr MacNeil.)

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Mr MacNeil]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Scotland Bill

Debate between Angus Brendan MacNeil and Brian H. Donohoe

Monday 14th March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Donohoe]

I am sure my hon. Friend has examined my two new clauses, which are self-supporting. It is correct that in the first instance I want to bring back coterminous boundaries for all MSPs, so that there is a semblance of an organisation that can be supported by all parties in this place and elsewhere. However, the second point that I want drive home is as important as the first. I do not believe that list Members should be allowed, under any circumstances, to pick up the funds that are currently available to them to represent—or not represent—what they perceive to be their constituents.

That brings me neatly to list MSPs themselves. On a substantial number of occasions, the list Member has cherry-picked, to the detriment of the possibility of inward investment by companies of some size into my constituency—I take exception to that more than anything. On the basis of what they perceived to be environmental issues, they have come in and destroyed any possibility of a company coming into my constituency. That is wrong, and there must be accountability, but the list Member is not accountable to constituents as I am to mine. That must be fundamentally wrong. No hon. Member can tell me whether the list Members have any accountability within the structures of their political parties. That is the problem. There is no accountability whatever for list Members—[Interruption.] Does the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil) want to intervene?

[Mr MacNeil]

indicated dissent.

[Mr Donohoe]

I did not think he would. That demonstrates exactly what I am saying. There is no accountability, and no structure to allow it, for list Members. That is a major problem, and why I have tabled new clauses 1 and 2.

[Mr Donohoe]

The only one I could think anybody would recognise would be the ex-Member for Cumnock, Carrick and Doon Valley, George Foulkes. Whether that is because of his politics or because he was the chairman of Hearts I do not know.

[Mr MacNeil]

I am grateful that the hon. Gentleman mentions list MSPs. In the highlands, we know that Rob Gibson and David Thompson are the SNP list MSPs, but I have no idea whatever who the Labour MSPs are.

[Mr Donohoe]

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

[Mr Donohoe]

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

[Mr MacNeil]

I do not know who the highlands Labour list MSPs are, so could the hon. Gentleman inform us?

[Mr Donohoe]

I think one of them is David Stewart.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr MacNeil]

Think?

[Mr Donohoe]

Am I right?

[Mr MacNeil]

indicated assent.

[Mr Donohoe]

The hon. Gentleman indicates that I got that one right.

The fact is that we must look seriously at the current situation. This argument is what might be described as a slow burner, but I would like to develop it by moving on to the first-past-the-post system. I realise that I am running out of time, but I have a lot of support on both sides of the Committee, even if some hon. Members are hiding behind their mantle.

The fact is that there is only one solution to the problem that we face north of the border—to bring about first past the post for every MSP. As a result, I suggest, for all sorts of reasons, that the best solution is that instead of the list Members system, by which there are 129 MSPs, we simply have two MSPs per Westminster constituency, with the exception of the Western Isles and Orkney and Shetland. I would make that concession. I am sure that the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar would be very happy with that indeed. As a result, we would have 119 Members.

[Mr MacNeil]

Will the hon. Gentleman tell us—