Oral Answers to Questions

Brian H. Donohoe Excerpts

Wednesday 24th April 2013 Commons Chamber

[David Mundell]

Indeed, that is a poignant memorial to Dr Livingstone. It was particularly memorable to see members of his family laying a wreath on the gravestone, along with President Banda, at the commemorative service.

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

I presume that Dr Livingstone was a great educationalist, who believed in education. What has the Minister’s right hon. Friend the Secretary of State done to set up the school-industry liaison committees that he promised me some months ago?

[Mr Speaker]

Order. That is very tangentially related to the 200th anniversary of the birth of David Livingstone. The hon. Gentleman should not speculate about what Dr Livingstone would have said, because the fact is that he did not—he was not in a position to do so and he cannot do so now. I think we had better move on. I call Iain Stewart.

Oral Answers to Questions

Brian H. Donohoe Excerpts

Wednesday 13th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[David Mundell]

The hon. Gentleman and his colleagues fail ever to mention the discretionary housing payments fund, which will support people in difficult situations. He and his colleagues should be urging councils in Scotland to make use of that money. Scotland will get a very good share of the £155 million being provided.

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

Does the Minister not recognise the fact that there are people crying as a result of being given notices right now that tell them that they will have to get out of their house, or lose housing benefit as a result, come 1 April? That is the reality of the situation. Can the Minister not waken up to that fact?

[David Mundell]

I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman and others are not working with their local councils and housing associations to draw attention to the availability of the discretionary payments funds and the fact that there will be an opportunity to support the most vulnerable.

Constitutional Law

Brian H. Donohoe Excerpts

Tuesday 15th January 2013 Commons Chamber

[The Secretary of State for Scotland (Michael Moore)]

I beg to move,

That the draft Scotland Act 1998 (Modification of Schedule 5) Order 2013, which was laid before this House on 22 October 2012, be approved.

I am grateful that we have longer to debate the order than would usually be the case. This reflects the interest that hon. and right hon. Members have shown in the issue and the time they have spent scrutinising it, not least in the Scottish Affairs Committee, whose report is a very important contribution to the parliamentary process.

On 15 October 2012, the Prime Minister, the First Minister, the Deputy First Minister and I signed an agreement on behalf of our respective Governments that will, if the order is approved by this House and the other place, allow a legal, fair and decisive referendum to take place on Scottish independence. We will face the most important political choice that people have taken in Scotland in more than 300 years.

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

What is the role of the Electoral Commission? Can the Scottish Government override it or is it mandatory for them to accept what it says?

[Michael Moore]

I applaud the hon. Gentleman’s early intervention. He will not be surprised to know that he has anticipated slightly an issue that I will turn to at reasonable length, with the House’s permission, later in my speech. Put simply, we expect the same standards to apply to the Scottish Parliament as apply here—no greater, no less.

This process began with the Scottish National party’s victory in the May 2011 Scottish parliamentary elections and its manifesto pledge to hold an independence referendum. From the very beginning, we recognised the political mandate that the SNP had secured for a referendum. However, as I set out in the House just over a year ago, the Scotland Act 1998 is very clear that the Scottish Parliament cannot legislate on matters reserved to this Parliament. That includes the constitution and, specifically, the Union of the kingdoms of Scotland and England.

That is why we published a consultation paper on 10 January 2012, which set out the different ways to deliver a legal referendum. Shortly afterwards, the Scottish Government set out their own consultation.

Our paper sought views on how to facilitate a legal, fair and decisive referendum. We set out the available legislative options and stated that our preferred option was to provide the Scottish Parliament with the legal competence to legislate itself. This received the overwhelming support of those responding to our consultation. More than 70% of respondents agreed that the Scottish Parliament should be given that power. Throughout the discussions with the Scottish Government, we stressed that there should also be a single question to deal decisively with the issue of independence. Three quarters of respondents to our consultation agreed. In our consultation paper, we set out our view that the Electoral Commission, the independent body responsible for overseeing referendums in the UK, should be responsible for this referendum. That is the same position as for any other referendum.

The UK Government’s position was supported by 86% of respondents. Indeed, that was a point that the Scottish Government accepted fairly quickly. They moved from their initial proposal to establish a separate Scottish body to oversee the poll to a position of accepting that the Electoral Commission was the right body to oversee the referendum.

We also sought views on timing and on the franchise. On timing, we sought views on when the referendum should be held. Many people supported our view that it should be held sooner rather than later. Indeed, the order before us today provides an end date for the referendum, but it does not prevent it from being held sooner. It will be for the Scottish Government and the Scottish Parliament to set the referendum date.

On the franchise, we asked for views on who should be entitled to vote in the referendum.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Ian Davidson (Glasgow South West) (Lab/Co-op)]

I speak to the report of the Scottish Affairs Committee on the subject. I welcome the fact that we have reached this stage and that we are having a referendum. The Committee makes clear our view that the Edinburgh agreement was reached by compromise and consensus between Scots at Westminster and Scots at Holyrood. We congratulate both teams.

It is noticeable that the agreement has been made by Scots, not just between the two Parliaments. Much congratulation has been given to the Secretary of State, but kind words are due to the Under-Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell), who also played a role in the exercise, and to their teams who constructively engaged throughout. In the same spirit, the Deputy First Minister, the Business Manager of the Scottish Parliament and their teams should be congratulated too.

The deal was reached by a process of collaboration, discussion and debate. It demonstrates that even though the two sides are far apart on the principle of separation, they were none the less able to come together to debate and agree the best way forward procedurally. That is important.

The Committee takes the view that it is right in principle that the practical details of the referendum be handled in the Scottish Parliament. Once our report was published, I read comments from a member of the SNP, who said that it was grudging. Our report is not grudging about the process; we believe it is right in principle that the procedural details be agreed in the Scottish Parliament, but with that power comes responsibility. The referendum will be Scotland’s shop window on the world, so it has to be handled with pride and probity. We have heard from SNP Members that it will meet the gold standard for election conduct. I hope that is true. As we said, we fear the worst but hope for the best.

We need to look at how agreement about the process will be handled in the Scottish Parliament. The Scottish Affairs Committee may diverge from some of my colleagues on the role of the Electoral Commission. In line with how the deal in Edinburgh was reached, we take the view that the best possible option is for the two campaigns themselves to come to agreement. It is better that the participants in the referendum reach agreement on all the procedures. If that fails—if it is not possible—it will be appropriate for the Electoral Commission to play a role.

The title of our report asks, “Can a player also be the referee?” We have some doubts about whether a player active on behalf of only one side can be trusted to set fair rules for something as crucial as the referendum. If consensus cannot be achieved, we want the impartial Electoral Commission to guide us as to what should be decided.

The third and worst option—below consensus and below the Electoral Commission: at the very bottom—would be the pursuit of factional advantage, which could be described as the “aggregation of marginal gains” by the majority with control in the Scottish Parliament and who dread defeat. The point has already been made that the Scottish Government control the Scottish Parliament and they are both the creatures of the SNP. There is genuine fear that at every stage of the process, they will seek to shave advantage, steal inches and make marginal gains on the principle that mony a mickle maks a muckle—that is a test for Hansard.

It is important that scrutiny of the section 30 order and its implementation does not end with its passage through the House. Those of us who are elected by Scots in Scotland, such as my parliamentary colleagues and me, must remember that we represent a larger number of Scots than Members elected to the Scottish Parliament, as turnout in our election was at least 10% higher. If anybody can claim the right to speak on behalf of Scots in Scotland it is us.

We began our investigation by seeking to clarify where power lay for the determination of the rules of the referendum. It is clear and, I think, universally accepted that as of now the Scottish Parliament does not have the power to hold a referendum. Until recently, the Scottish Parliament was unwilling to accept that and prevaricated for a long time over calls for a second question, which it has now abandoned. That prevarication and procrastination delayed both the introduction of the order and the legislation that will come under it, and thus the referendum itself.

It is now clear that the Scottish Government accept that the Scottish Parliament does not have the power to run a referendum or to determine the rules, and that they can only conduct a referendum to dissolve the United Kingdom if the necessary powers are granted to them. When granting such powers, especially as we will no longer have an influence on how they are conducted, we have a particular responsibility to satisfy ourselves not only that the correct powers are being transferred but that they will be used in accordance with the agreement between the Governments, which is related to the order.

I welcome the fact that much is made in the order of the role of the Electoral Commission. Guidelines are set and there will be no second question. There is a deadline for the length of time that the process can run. The Scottish Parliament can and will be held to account, not only by MSPs but by the people of Scotland on the extent to which it abides by those rules. The Committee and I particularly welcome the fact that the statement accompanying the section 30 notice expressed the view that arrangements should meet

“the highest standards of fairness, transparency and propriety, informed by consultation and independent expert advice.”

That is an exceedingly high standard, and I hope that the Scottish Government and the Scottish Parliament will live up to it.

[Mr Donohoe]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful argument on the need for the Scottish Government to give some form of assurance to the Scottish people as to whether they will accept the position of the commission.

[Mr Davidson]

I will come on to that, because we want to place on record our unanimous view as a Committee. That is important, because the membership includes many people who disagree about many things, but there is unanimity on the fact that a referendum will take place, and we very much welcome the steps taken to bring that about. We are of the view, and we wish to make this explicit, that the question of Scottish separation or independence is something that only the Scottish people can decide. Whatever their views, people in the rest of the United Kingdom must be bound by that decision. If, on the other hand, the Scottish people confirm that they wish to remain part of the United Kingdom, we echo the words of the First Minister, who said that the question of separation should be regarded as firmly settled for a generation or more.

Translating the question of “Made in Scotland” into the detail, we think that it is right that the legislation should be introduced in the Scottish Parliament, which will determine the timing and the franchise, subject to the involvement of the Electoral Commission. The wording of the question and the administration of the referendum will be decided by the Scottish Parliament. We do not accept, as I said earlier, the self-serving argument made by the Scottish National party that the Scottish Parliament already has those powers, and that in some way it and it alone has the right to express a view. In the interests of transparency and fairness, and in the interests of devolution, for which many of us here have spent a long time fighting and arguing, we believe in principle that the Scottish Parliament is the appropriate place for those to occur.

We strongly believe that transferring those powers to the Scottish Parliament makes it essential to deal with the issue of losers’ consent. Those who lose the referendum cannot turn round and say that they were cheated if they were responsible for drawing up the rules. There is a heavy burden on the SNP to accept the fact that it cannot subsequently complain that the rules were drawn up unfairly. It cannot cry, “We wuz robbed” if it was responsible for drawing up those rules. With the transfer of that power comes the responsibility to accept the result, as we have said, for a generation or more.

The question of how those powers are exercised brings me back to the aggregation of marginal gains, and the SNP’s intention to seek to gain partisan advantage from every aspect of the referendum process. It has been given the opportunity to twist the rules, and unfortunately it is our expectation that that is what it will try to do. It is difficult for any party in those circumstances to be both a player in the game and to try to exercise the role of a neutral referee, which is why we are of the view that, ideally, consensus should be reached on the rules and regulations. Failing that, the role of a neutral referee is essential.

We are concerned about the timing of the referendum. The Secretary of State said that the process was initiated by the UK Government, who produced a timetable that demonstrated that it would be possible to hold a referendum in 2013. Even though Scottish Ministers in the Scottish Parliament have promoted a referendum on independence since 2007, they failed to introduce a referendum Bill in the Scottish Parliament between 2007 and 2011. The Scottish Government were elected with an overall majority in May 2011, but showed no interest in promoting their core policy until the UK Government issued a consultation document in January 2012. Since then, the Scottish Government have taken every possible opportunity to delay, and they intend to delay the referendum as long as possible in 2014. We very much welcome the fact that the UK Government insisted that the referendum could not be delayed beyond the end of 2014, although we believe that that is unduly long, and that the referendum could and should be held much sooner.

We see no reason for delaying the referendum until the end of 2014, except for perceived partisan advantage. The referendum will be timed to take place after the anniversary of the battle of Bannockburn, which is celebrated mainly because Scots slew large numbers of English people, and after the Commonwealth games in Glasgow. The fact that those events will take place before the referendum gives people the opportunity to celebrate the politics of identity and ethnicity. We thought that Scotland in the 21st and 22nd century would be looking forward, and would be progressive and positive. Celebrating the murder of hundreds or thousands of English people does not necessarily provide the best base on which to move forward. The timing of the referendum to celebrate that ancient battle gives entirely the wrong message to the world about the spirit motivating modern Scotland.

Not only does the delay cause general inconvenience to business and uncertainty but, in relation to the shipbuilding industry in my constituency, it puts a substantial number of jobs at risk by conflating the timing of a referendum with the timing of major orders. We are about to produce a report that will show the difficulties for the future of the shipyards caused by the timing of the referendum. We hope that the Scottish Parliament will take that into account and decide to bring the referendum forward so that it is held much earlier than the end of 2014. We think that the delay has been imposed purely for partisan advantage, and we can see no other logical reason for it, and we condemn undue delay.

Oral Answers to Questions

Brian H. Donohoe Excerpts

Wednesday 9th January 2013 Commons Chamber

[David Mundell]

What the people of Scotland know is that it is the same old Labour: there is no apology for the mess that it left the economy in and its only proposal is more spending, more borrowing and more debt.

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

Question 5, Mr Speaker.

[Mr Speaker]

No, not number 5. The hon. Gentleman must be patient. I am coming to him. I am saving him up. He is worth saving.

[David Mundell]

Nothing that SNP Members say or do surprises me. The SNP’s position is totally hypocritical. The Scottish Government are asking nurses and NHS workers to take a 1% pay rise, yet they want benefits to rise by more than that.

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

5. How many people in Scotland have used food banks in the last 12 months.

[Lindsay Roy (Glenrothes) (Lab)]

12. How many people in Scotland have used food banks in the last six months.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (David Mundell)]

Jobcentre Plus operates a food bank referral service. However, the Government do not hold information on the number of people seeking assistance from food banks.

[Mr Donohoe]

We are in 2013 and not 1813, are we not? The need for food banks this year in Scotland is an abominable reflection on society. There is even a food bank in Prestwick, which is one of the most salubrious parts of my constituency. According to the Trussell Trust, 15% of the people who use that food bank are in employment. What an indictment that is of the Government.

Food Banks (Scotland)

Brian H. Donohoe Excerpts

Wednesday 19th December 2012 Westminster Hall

[Lindsay Roy (Glenrothes) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts, as we debate what is fast becoming a national disgrace—I refer to the widespread growth of poverty in our society, and in Scotland in particular, and the consequent mushrooming of food banks throughout the country, both formally and informally, via charities, churches and voluntary organisations. As constituency MPs, we know what is happening on the ground. It is distressing to find that neither the UK Government nor the Scottish Government have been able to get any reliable statistics on the extent of food poverty in our country. I regard that as a gross dereliction of duty. They are what I call the “don’t know and don’t care” Governments. My plea is for them to establish the facts about food banks and food poverty, and to do so quickly.

This morning I want to focus on four related themes. First, I want to praise the many individuals and organisations stepping up to the mark to address this unprecedented food crisis. Throughout the country, groups are often overwhelmed by the extent of food poverty in their communities. Secondly, I shall highlight real-life constituency cases that hon. Members will find appalling. There are already food banks not on the official list that are operating informally. Thirdly, I shall present a picture of the food crisis in Scotland overall and identify some of the causes. Lastly, I want to emphasise the apparent complacency of two Governments who have abdicated their welfare responsibilities to those in desperate poverty and exhort them to think again about their priorities. In particular, I want to focus on the legitimate needs of the increasing number of constituents who are marginalised in society, many of whom keep a low profile due to the perceived stigma and the shame of seeking handouts. [Interruption.] While I locate this mobile phone—it is lovely to see somebody on call—I will give way.

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

I thank my hon. Friend for giving way and congratulate him on securing the debate.

[Mr Clive Betts (in the Chair)]

Order. Only one Member should stand at a time please.

[Mr Donohoe]

Thank you, Mr Betts. I am sorry. Will my hon. Friend confirm that he is saying that in this age—in 2012—there is a necessity for food banks? Is that not an abrogation of all Governments’ responsibilities?

[Lindsay Roy]

Absolutely. I could not agree more. The only organisation or government I know of that is beginning to take a significant interest in this is Labour-controlled Fife council, for whose area I am MP.

In particular, I want to focus on the legitimate needs of the increasing number of constituents who are marginalised in society, many of whom keep a low profile due to the perceived stigma and the shame of seeking handouts, when they once had a pride in catering for their own and their family’s needs.

I commend the many charities, trusts, churches and voluntary organisations, such as the Trussell Trust, FareShare and the plethora of local groups, that have set up food banks in our communities—and they are not only for Christmas.

--- Later in debate ---

[Graeme Morrice (Livingston) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Glenrothes (Lindsay Roy) on securing this debate.

I welcome the opportunity to speak on this important topic, as last week’s autumn statement revealed the true scale of the Prime Minister and the Chancellor’s economic failure. While millionaires get a £3 billion tax cut, it is people who are already struggling to make ends meet—lower and middle-income families, and pensioners—who are paying the price for this failure. Every day, people in this country go hungry for reasons ranging from losing their jobs, to receiving an unexpected bill on a low income. Some 13 million people are living in poverty in this country.

I find it abhorrent that in 2012, people have to rely on food banks or go hungry. What kind of society are we living where so many of our citizens cannot afford to eat properly or keep warm, yet the rich get richer under the coalition Government’s tax breaks for the very wealthy, and the banks continue to make astronomical profits and pay out obscene bonuses? Back home, the SNP Scottish Government stand idly by.

Britain’s biggest food bank operator, the Trussell Trust, has more than 250 food banks throughout the United Kingdom, of which some 10% are located in Scotland. This year alone, it launched three food banks per week in response to demand, which has been exacerbated by the current economic climate. Incredibly, up to 1,000 food banks are needed to satisfy demand that has leapt by 30% a year since the recession began.

The Trussell Trust fed 110,000 people in the first half of this year, and 250,000 hungry Britons—a quarter of a million—will have used emergency food banks by the end of the year. What a dramatic change in a relatively short space of time.

The latest figures, which are four times higher than two years ago—that represents a 400% rise in people using food banks—include parents too poor to feed their children and desperate householders forced to choose between eating and heating. Even people in work are on the breadline, and the number of people struggling to feed themselves is rising. Let me say for the benefit of the Minister that the sole purpose of food banks is to provide an emergency supply of up to three day’s worth of non-perishable and nutritionally balanced food, such as tinned soups, meats and pasta, to individuals and families in crisis who would be at risk of going hungry.

[Mr Donohoe]

Is it not absolutely ironic that in two days’ time Halls of Broxburn, in my hon. Friend’s constituency, is closing and as a consequence, the workers are setting up a food bank? Is that not an indictment against the nationalists and the Government in Westminster?

[Graeme Morrice]

Indeed. It is a sad indictment of both Governments. The example my hon. Friend gave is based in my constituency, and some 1,700 people are in the process of losing their jobs.

The food produce is donated by churches, voluntary groups, individuals and the public via collection days outside supermarkets. To help sustain anonymity, food parcels are handed out from the food bank warehouse distribution centre by volunteers and no deliveries are made. Access to emergency food boxes is secured via the exchange of a voucher, which may be issued by social workers, health visitors, GPs and the police.

Christmas is a particularly difficult time for people with little or no disposable income. I wonder whether Dickens ever imagined such a bleak picture more than a century and a half on from “A Christmas Carol”. Could he have guessed that many of these neglected people would come not from the poorer, deprived sections of society but from middle and lower-income families, and include pensioners? Fewer than 5% of food bank clients are homeless; many are in working families; one third of recipients are children. What a sad indictment of modern society under the Prime Minister and Alex Salmond. The Tories’ instinctive dislike of the poor and the spread of food banks seem to go hand in hand under this Government. How long ago would collecting food parcels for the hungry have been virtually unthinkable in the UK?

I am really disgusted that the Government place so much effort on reforming the benefits system and, in turn, punishing the most vulnerable in our society. Yet if the Government concentrated at least some effort on collecting taxes from the international corporations that operate in this country and on closing some of the loopholes in the tax system, there would be more money to go around. It also makes me sick that the outgoing Governor of the Bank of England is to receive a £7.64 million pension pot, while British kids go hungry.

Increasing costs of food and fuel combined with static income, high unemployment and changes to benefits are causing more and more people to turn to food banks for help. Coalition Government austerity cuts and squeezed incomes are forcing people with jobs, as well as benefit claimants, regularly to queue up for food parcels. Many people everywhere are struggling to make ends meet and household finances are being stretched like never before. A small financial crisis, such as a repair bill for a car or a big bill, can quickly turn into a massive disaster. For many people, buying food slips down their list of priorities simply because other things, such as rent, gas and electricity, have to take precedence. For all those people, turning to a food bank is a last resort.

The effects on poorer people can be devastating. An elderly constituent said in an impassioned plea to me when she visited my surgery that she shivers every time she hears the words “food bank”. It reminds her of the depression and conjures up images of breadlines. Many had hard existences in her day, but looking after people was considered a prime moral virtue, regardless of status.

In my own area, the West Lothian food bank is in the process of being developed in association with the Trussell Trust. I believe that the trust’s experience, coupled with the enthusiasm of those concerned, will ensure that the endeavour will succeed. It serves as a good example of effective community building and is testament to how communities in my constituency and throughout West Lothian—and, indeed, across the country—are harnessing and investing their own resources to assist those in greatest need. I pay tribute to them.

What can be done? The first step is for the Government to stop pretending that poverty is not happening. It would be good to see the Government recognise what is very much evident: that it is the most vulnerable who are in greatest need. We need to break down the barriers and change attitudes between the new “us” and “them”—rich and poor.

We also need to appreciate that if the curtains are closed early in the morning, perhaps there is an elderly pensioner trying to keep the heat in, or an impoverished single mum hiding her shame at her inability to feed her children properly, or an unemployed youngster depressed at being unable to find a job.

Some practical interventions could help: a package of support put in place by the Government for those experiencing an acute crisis in their personal circumstances; and a longer-term Government strategy for dealing with the issues identified in this debate. Ultimately, however, we need a lasting change of direction by this Government or, ideally, a change of Government itself: to one who demonstrate compassion, put ordinary people first and recognise the right priorities.

I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to offer by way of a solution to this completely avoidable crisis.

Oral Answers to Questions

Brian H. Donohoe Excerpts

Wednesday 21st November 2012 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

That is a very kind invitation. I recently held a meeting at No. 10 Downing street for all the 78 free schools that have been established over the past two and a half years. We are making good progress. I want many hundreds of free schools to be established between now and the next election. It is of note that, whereas the last Government managed 200 hundred academies in 13 years, we have managed 2,000 in two and a half years. We want to give the academies and free schools agenda the biggest boost that we can.

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

Q7. When he next expects to visit Central Ayrshire.

[The Prime Minister (Mr David Cameron)]

I look forward to visiting Scotland soon and will obviously look carefully at whether I can visit the hon. Gentleman’s constituency of Central Ayrshire.

[Mr Donohoe]

I thank the Prime Minister for his response. A few months ago, he came to Troon in my constituency and he was going to give me the opportunity to take him around. One of the areas I was going to take him to was the Troon shipyard, where I served my apprenticeship many years ago—in fact, when he would probably still have been in short trousers. Outside the door of the shipyard on a Thursday was a man called the tallyman, who was a loan shark. He charged half a crown, which is 12.5p, per £1 each week on a loan to a shipyard worker. Today, we are hearing all about these—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. May we have a question? One short sentence. Now.

[Mr Donohoe]

Mr Speaker, you hold one of the great offices of state, as does the Prime Minister. What is he personally going to do to drive these sharks out of our economies?

[The Prime Minister]

I enjoyed my visit to Troon. I made the offer to the hon. Gentleman at that time that I would happily share a platform with him to defend our United Kingdom, but for some reason the invitation got lost in the post. I therefore make the offer to him again.

The hon. Gentleman makes a serious point about payday loans. We have seen the preliminary report by the Office of Fair Trading. We need to take action, and that is why we are giving the OFT a new power to suspend a consumer credit licence with immediate effect when there is an urgent need to protect consumers. The report shows that many companies are not sticking to the guidelines, and that is not acceptable.

Engagements

Referendum (Scotland)

Brian H. Donohoe Excerpts

Monday 15th October 2012 Commons Chamber

[David Mundell]

I thank my hon. Friend for that robust contribution. He is right. The people of Scotland will see through the lack of detailed policy from the Scottish National party on what an independent Scotland would be like. As I have said in response to other questions, they will also see through any trickery or chicanery attempted in the setting of the question, the franchise or the spending limits.

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

On the question of 16 and 17-year-olds, if—as is possible—not every single person of that age gets the opportunity to vote, there could be a legal challenge against that decision. What would happen to the referendum in those circumstances?

[David Mundell]

I am sure that the Scottish Government will want to ensure that whatever proposals they make to allow 16 and 17-year-olds to vote in the referendum are legally watertight.

Oral Answers to Questions

Brian H. Donohoe Excerpts

Wednesday 20th June 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

There is plenty of scope for an Adjournment debate, I think.

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

The Secretary of State recently visited my constituency. I wonder whether he could give us a progress report on how he has got on with the schools-industry liaison committees.

[Michael Moore]

I regret to inform the hon. Gentleman that I have not made as much progress as he would wish me to. I hope, however, that he will recognise the important support that we have given to Irvine, in the form of the enterprise allowances—the 100% capital allowances that are now available—and I will be happy to catch up with him on the school-industry partnership and the Scottish Government’s role in it any time soon.

Oral Answers to Questions

Brian H. Donohoe Excerpts

Wednesday 18th April 2012 Commons Chamber

[David Mundell]

I believe that we need to move on from the discussion of issues of process relating to the referendum, and engage in a substantive debate on the issues that would affect Scotland if it became independent. Having, it would appear, campaigned relentlessly for independence, the SNP now seems to want to delay the question and the issues for as long as possible.

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

Does the Minister agree that the high price of fuel is creating major problems in Scotland, and that, at a stroke, cutting VAT, which is perhaps the unfairest tax in the country, would help Scottish families, who are suffering greatly as a result of the Budget.

[David Mundell]

rose—

Oral Answers to Questions

Brian H. Donohoe Excerpts

Wednesday 11th January 2012 Commons Chamber

[David Mundell]

Uncertainty over Scotland’s position in the EU, and uncertainty over which currency Scotland would use if it were ever to become independent, would certainly hinder inward investment into Scotland.

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

4. How many young people are not in employment, training or education in Scotland.

[The Secretary of State for Scotland (Michael Moore)]

The annual population survey of 2010 estimates that 36,000 18 to 19-year-olds in Scotland were not in education, employment or training between 2009 and 2010.

[Mr Donohoe]

I thank the Secretary of State for that response, but it does not really answer the question of what is happening between the ages of 16 and 18, which is as important, if not more important. What is he doing to encourage youngsters to enter industry and to enable them to take up apprenticeships as joiners, electricians and plumbers, because this Government have failed to attract people into those industries? Does he agree that the idea, which I suggested to him at a meeting, of setting up schools-industry liaison committees is worth supporting?

[Michael Moore]

The hon. Gentleman rightly continues to focus on this issue. We are all deeply concerned about youth unemployment. I have visited his constituency, and I have also had other meetings in Ayrshire and elsewhere, and it is right that we should join the Scottish Government, employers and all the agencies to help young people—aged between 16 and 18 and of any age—to find work or support. The youth contract that we announced before Christmas will bring £1 billion of extra investment into supporting the young unemployed, whether through wage incentives, additional work experience and opportunities or money to the Scottish Government. That money could also be used to create the school-industry liaison groups the hon. Gentleman wants.