Scotland Bill

Debate between David Mowat and Debbie Abrahams

Monday 8th June 2015 Commons Chamber

[David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Moray (Angus Robertson), although it would certainly have been more of a pleasure if he had taken my intervention earlier. I will ask the question that I would have asked then. He made the point that the end of the SNP Members’ amendment says that they want full fiscal autonomy “in the medium term”. Would he care to tell the House when the medium term is? They were talking about a period of 18 months when the referendum was taking place.

The hon. Gentleman did say something that was correct: the people have spoken. The people spoke in the general election, and there is absolutely no question but that there is a mandate for the Bill before us. It is absolutely right that Members from both sides of the House move forward with the vow and all it means in a way that shows trust and good faith, and we will do that.

I will make a number of observations about the fiscal framework, and I would be interested to hear Ministers come back on those points. In his initial remarks, the Secretary of State used the phrase that the solution had to be long lasting and fair, which are big words. My concern is that a solution based on a fiscal framework that is not fair will not be long lasting. I do not believe that the use of the Barnett formula, as it is currently envisaged—even with changes through the devolution of certain revenue-raising powers—is fair on my constituents, or indeed those in Wales or in other parts of England. The flawed Barnett formula settlement is unfair on middle England, and as a result, this whole settlement may unwind.

Let me say a few things about the Barnett formula on which we need to be clear. The first is that it does not represent a subsidy to Scotland, or it has not over the past 25 to 30 years. I have never said that it did. Broadly speaking, the extra money that Scotland gets—£1,600 per head—has been paid for by the proceeds of Scotland’s oil. We can look at the analysis year by year, but the Institute of Directors analysis has said that that, roughly speaking, has been the case over the past 25 to 30 years. It is not a question of subsidy, but of fairness and of need. When we are allocating public spending across our state, there should be cognisance of where that money is required to be spent to have the biggest impact. Indeed, a progressive party—we are continually told that the SNP is progressive—should surely be at the forefront of wanting a formula based on need.

[Debbie Abrahams]

Will the hon. Gentleman therefore explain why he has taken £254 per household from my constituency in Oldham and given it to an affluent area in Surrey?

[David Mowat]

I have not taken any money from anyone, or given any money to anyone. The hon. Lady’s constituents in Oldham receive roughly £1,600 a year less from public spending than they would receive if they had the same demographic profile and lived north of the border. That is an anomaly, and it is an anomaly that causes a potential risk to a settlement that is necessary and right.

Conservative Members do not question the fact that there is a Scottish Government now, and that that Government have entitlements.

Universal Credit

Debate between David Mowat and Debbie Abrahams

Monday 7th July 2014 Commons Chamber

[David Mowat]

As I said, I have not been serving on the Select Committee and I have not heard about the confidence she mentions. My point is that decisions are made during the life cycle of a programme that effect changes, and if, every time that happens—

[Debbie Abrahams]

There was a two-week difference between the Department saying that everything was fine in a memo that we received and the NAO’s publication of its cataclysmic report condemning what the Department is doing. Is that the sort of time scale that the hon. Gentleman has in mind?

[David Mowat]

I do not know, because I was not aware of that. The hon. Lady’s intervention, like much of her speech, is along the lines of, “We’re doing our job; if only the Secretary of State would do his job and hurry up and get this delivered, everything would be all right.” My substantive point is that delivering this application is harder than delivering the Olympics, and it behoves all of us to get behind the 1,000 or 2,000 people who are trying to do it. That is not to say that individual mistakes have not been made. There have almost certainly been lots of mistakes; it would be odd if there had not been.

As to progress, the issue is not that things have not been done; it is what we do now and how we deal with it. I am going to be kind to the Opposition and talk about the Olympics rather than the national health service project that wrote off about £10 billion. The Olympics was a joint success—a success for our country—and yet its budget increased by a factor of four. When the right hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Dame Tessa Jowell) came to the House and announced that the budget was going up by a factor of four, Members on both sides of the House, broadly speaking, tried to understand why that had happened, accepted it, and knuckled down to get the project delivered. In the end, there was not a cigarette paper between the two parties in terms of the approach to that project of national significance—as this one is. The Secretary of State and his team are trying to do a very difficult thing in delivering this application, to be used by 10 million people, in parallel with existing systems which, every week, continue to be used by 10 million people. Of course mistakes have been made; as I say, it would be odd if they had not. The issue is whether, on the whole, it is being managed correctly and whether, structurally, we are doing the right thing.

I had thought that Labour supported the basic tenets of universal credit, but some of the comments by the hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams) about scope implied that she has severe reservations. She may be right; I am not an expert. It seems odd that Labour Members are raising issues such as scope at such a late stage of the programme. To some extent, they are the Opposition and perhaps it is reasonable that they oppose, but there is a difference between opposing and what I would call opportunistic carping—not only that, but opportunistic carping that is destructive, not constructive.

That brings me to Labour’s four-point plan, to which Mr Baldrick would have been delighted to give his name. Point 1 is to stop the programme and think about it for three months—not to review it, not to stop rolling it out, but to stop it completely. It is not totally clear to me what they would be stopping—development, implementation, the front end, the legacy systems and interface work, or perhaps all of it. It is not totally clear to me what they would do with the 1,000 people—to take a round number—who are currently doing all these tasks. They are saying, “No, let’s just stop it, with an immediate write-off of all that.”

Point 2 is to get the NAO to have a look at the programme. That is fair enough; one cannot argue with asking the NAO to look at something. Of course, it would have to use people with expertise in programmes of this type, of whom most of the good ones are in the civil service and working on this programme. Nevertheless, let us do it anyway.

The really interesting thing about the plan is points 3 and 4, which represent major, significant scope changes. If we make such changes to a programme right near the end, that is when everything goes wrong—when things have to be retested, budgets change, and all the rest of it. The great thing about these major scope changes is that, according to the four-point plan, they will be done at “no additional cost”. The two points propose to remove some of the onus on self-employed people and to continue to pay the primary carer.

On the train this morning, between Watford and Euston, I costed Labour’s four-point plan at £89,611,207.31. That costing—I am very happy to take an intervention on it—includes 11 new applications, 47 new screens, 190 database changes, 201 reports, a 40% test rerun, and 88 new interfaces. I may have spent only 11 minutes on the calculation to come up with that number, but that is 11 minutes more than Labour Members have spent on putting it into their plan and saying they can achieve it with “no additional cost”. I would be delighted if one of them wants to intervene on me—but intervention came there none.

Office for Budget Responsibility (Manifesto Audits)

Debate between David Mowat and Debbie Abrahams

Wednesday 25th June 2014 Commons Chamber

[Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)]

I agree with some bits in the speech the hon. Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman) has just made.

[David Mowat]

The last bit!

[Debbie Abrahams]

Certainly not the last bit. Last month’s elections were a wake-up call for all of us, and if we do not heed it, the future of politics will not look good. Far too many people feel completely disfranchised from politics and do not trust politicians. Too many people either stayed at home or cast their vote for a protest party. That is why I fully support the motion for the OBR to independently audit the spending and tax commitments of the main political parties in next year’s general election.

Undertaking that analysis would be a major step forward to help increase openness and transparency in politics. It would enable proper scrutiny and debate on the spending plans of all political parties, and enhance the democratic process. Ultimately, it would contribute to informed decision making, which is surely what we should all want. We are here as public servants to reflect issues in our constituencies and to develop policies that respond to those issues. Communicating our policies is part of our job. That is certainly the form of politics that Opposition Members want to develop.

This proposal is part of a process of addressing the major power imbalances and associated inequalities in our country, and we are absolutely determined to tackle it. We will continue to stand up to powerful vested interests, from media barons to the big energy companies. Information is power, and having information about how the Government or political parties intend to spend public money is very powerful.