Oral Answers to Questions

David Mundell Excerpts

Wednesday 24th January 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)]

1. What recent discussions he has had with the Scottish Government on the devolution of powers to the Scottish Parliament after the UK leaves the EU.

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

It would be remiss of me not to point out that tomorrow marks the anniversary of the birth of Robert Burns, and I am sure that the whole House would like to join me in wishing well not only to those who are organising and participating in events around the world but to everybody who celebrates the life and legacy of Scotland’s great bard.

As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has made clear, we are intensifying our discussions with the devolved Administrations on powers returning from the EU. I had a useful discussion with Mike Russell early in the new year, and I am confident that discussions will continue to be productive.

[Mike Amesbury]

The hon. Member for East Renfrewshire (Paul Masterton) said during the Committee stage of the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill:

“I will not support a Bill that undermines devolution and does not respect the integrity of the Union.”—[Official Report, 4 December 2017; Vol. 632, c. 733.]

If that is the position of the Scottish Conservatives, why did they vote against the Labour amendment that would have safeguarded devolution?

[David Mundell]

It is quite easy, in opposition, to pursue stunts and gimmicks, and that is what the Labour amendment was. This Government have made it quite clear that we would agree an amendment to the Bill with the Scottish Government and the Welsh Assembly Government, and that is what we are doing.

[Ross Thomson (Aberdeen South) (Con)]

Figures published today show that trade between Scotland and the rest of the UK is four times more important to Scotland than its trade with the European Union. Does my right hon. Friend therefore agree that, as powers return from the EU to Scotland, we must ensure that we protect the UK internal market so that businesses in Scotland may continue to flourish?

[David Mundell]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend, and I would point out that those figures were produced by the Scottish Government themselves. Trade within the UK is worth four times as much to Scotland as its trade with the EU. When “Scotland’s place in Europe” was published last week, it disappointed me that that fact was not recognised.

[Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)]

Will the Secretary of State tell the House what he thinks is wrong with the devolution powers in the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill, and how he would like to see them fixed? Or is it that, in this week of Burns celebrations, he is just the great puddin’ o’ the chieftain race?

[David Mundell]

The hon. Gentleman always has an interesting take on events, but I am clear that we want to work with the Scottish Government and the Welsh Assembly Government, and with the Scottish Parliament, whose Finance and Constitution Committee has set out its views on clauses 10 and 11 of the Bill. I want to reach agreement with them, so that the Government will recommend a legislative consent motion.

[Bill Grant (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that Brexit presents an enormous opportunity for the Scottish Parliament to gain even further powers?

[David Mundell]

It represents not only that opportunity but an opportunity to use those powers. We never hear the Scottish National party talking about how the powers devolved to Scotland after we leave the EU will actually be used. That is the debate we should be having now.

[Lesley Laird (Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath) (Lab)]

First, on behalf of the lassies, may I echo the sentiments expressed by the Secretary of State and wish everyone in the House a happy Burns day? In December, I stood at this Dispatch Box and was comforted to hear the Secretary of State commit to bringing forward amendments to the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill on Report. Sadly, he did not keep that commitment. Will he now please tell us why?

[David Mundell]

The answer is very simple: we could not meet the timescale that we had aspired to. I take responsibility for that. I gave a commitment at the Dispatch Box that we would bring forward amendments on Report, but we were unable to reach agreement with the Scottish Government and the Welsh Assembly Government on those important amendments within the timescale. Significant work is ongoing in that regard, and the commitment to amend the Bill is unchanged. However, it will involve an amendment that can command the support of the Scottish Parliament, not a gimmick amendment.

[Lesley Laird]

That lack of planning is extremely disappointing, because the Secretary of State, in failing to keep his commitment, has now singlehandedly put the future of the devolution settlement in the hands of the other place. Given his lack of judgment in his previous commitment, how confident is the Secretary of State that an amendment will come back to this place that all parties will find acceptable?

[David Mundell]

The hon. Lady is relatively new to this House, but she will know that this Chamber will be able to discuss the amendment, which will be discussed by the Scottish Parliament when we seek its legislative consent. The Scottish Labour party has been all over the place on the EU, and I have no idea how it will vote on a legislative consent motion when it comes to the Scottish Parliament, but I hope that it will be yes.

[Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP)]

2. What recent discussions he has had with (a) Cabinet colleagues and (b) the Scottish Government on devolving powers to Scotland after the UK leaves the EU.

--- Later in debate ---

[Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)]

15. What recent discussions he has had with (a) Cabinet colleagues and (b) the Scottish Government on devolving powers to Scotland after the UK leaves the EU.

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

My answer is “many.”

[Dr Whitford]

And yet the Secretary of State cannot name one. He failed in his promise to amend clause 11 in this House to avoid undermining the principle of devolution to Scotland and Wales, as not just Scotland’s governing party, but all Scottish MPs will be excluded from the next stage of the debate. Will he tell us now what proposals will be brought forward in the Lords?

[David Mundell]

I echo the remarks that Michael Russell made yesterday in Holyrood, where he said:

“The Scottish Government… aims to agree amendments to the bill with the UK Government that would allow a legislative consent motion to be brought to the chamber and passed.”—[Scottish Parliament Official Report, 23 January 2018; c. 31.]

Mr Russell and, indeed, Mark Drakeford in the Welsh Assembly have not given a running commentary on the negotiations, and I do not intend to do so either.

[John Mc Nally]

Holyrood’s Finance and Constitution Committee has stated that clause 11, as currently drafted, is incompatible with the devolution settlement in Scotland. Does the Secretary of State agree?

[David Mundell]

I have committed to amending the Bill—my commitment remains exactly the same—so that it meets the concerns of the Committee set out in its report and so that a majority of Members of the Scottish Parliament can vote for a legislative consent motion in respect of the Bill.

[David Linden]

The Secretary of State was left looking a bit glaikit this morning when the Brexit Secretary said that the Secretary of State had potentially made a promise that he could not keep. Is not the reality here that all the talk from the Tories about giving power back to Scotland is nothing less than a power grab and that that lot—the Scottish Conservatives—are just Lobby fodder?

[David Mundell]

The pantomime season is over, and the hon. Gentleman’s theatrical tone strikes a discordant note with the tone set yesterday by Michael Russell, the Minister in the Scottish Government responsible for such matters. There was no suggestion of a power grab. The suggestion was that both Governments are engaged in intensive negotiations to agree an amendment to the clause.

[Mhairi Black]

I appreciate the Secretary of State’s honesty in saying that he ran out of time to get the amendments in, but unfortunately that is not good enough. How can he justify it being okay that Michelle Mone and Alan Sugar will have more of an impact on the Bill than Scotland’s elected Members, some of which sit on the Secretary of State’s side of the House?

[David Mundell]

From everything that I see and read in Scotland, the hon. Lady has a considerable impact on events in Scotland, and I am sure that her views on the Bill will be well recorded. The amendment will be debated in the House of Lords. I regret that it is being brought forward in the other House, but we simply did not meet the timescale to which we aspired. There will be a further opportunity to debate the amendment in this House, and the Scottish Parliament, which SNP Members say they are concerned about all the time, will also be able to have an extensive debate and vote on the clause.

[Deidre Brock]

Will the Secretary of State’s colleagues in the House of Lords make the changes he promised us he would make to the Brexit Bill? And will he sit down with the Scottish Government thereafter to discuss what further powers need to be devolved?

[David Mundell]

I intend to sit down with the Scottish Government next week to discuss progress on amending clause 11. In relation to further devolution, the Smith Commission determined the nature of the settlement, to which all parties in the Scottish Parliament signed up. This Government do not support changes to the devolution arrangements, as agreed in the Smith Commission.

[Drew Hendry]

The Secretary of State has failed to answer for his broken promise to this House and to his Tory colleagues in Scotland on clause 11. That means Karren Brady, Sebastian Coe, Joan Bakewell and 26 Church of England bishops now have more say over Scotland’s future than Scotland’s elected MPs. Will the Secretary of State finally apologise for that sad state of affairs?

[David Mundell]

I am sure the hon. Gentleman’s views and mine on the future of the House of Lords are closer than he would anticipate. I have taken full responsibility for not meeting the timescale I originally set out. We are committed to amending the Bill, and to amending the Bill in agreement with the Scottish Government and the Welsh Assembly Government. I would have thought that that is something even Opposition Members would recognise.

[Gavin Newlands]

In a rare lucid moment, the hon. Member for Stirling (Stephen Kerr) said

“the Government made a clear commitment to the House on the amendments to clause 11, and I took those commitments at face value. As a Conservative Member, I never want to get to the point where I cannot take commitments given to me…at face value”,

and that

“they have let this Chamber down by not delivering on what they promised.”—[Official Report, 16 January 2018; Vol. 634, c. 819-21.]

Will the Secretary of State apologise to his own colleagues, to this House and, more importantly, to the people of Scotland for letting us all down?

[David Mundell]

I think the hon. Gentleman seeks to conflate two issues. The commitment to amend the Bill remains unchanged. The Bill will be amended in agreement with the Scottish Government and the Welsh Assembly Government. We failed to meet the timescale to which I aspired, and I take full responsibility for that.

[Martin Docherty-Hughes]

Resistance to further devolution of powers comes from many quarters, such as the Constitutional Research Council led by the Secretary of State’s friend, and prominent Scottish Tory, Richard Cook. As we all know, the CRC funded the Democratic Unionist party’s version of hard Brexit in the campaign. Does the Secretary of State now agree that it is time for full disclosure of those funds? If he does not, it undermines the very principles of liberal democracy that he says he stands up for.

[David Mundell]

That is an entirely separate issue. As you will recognise, Mr Speaker, a whole range of procedures are in place for people who have issues or concerns about the funding of political activity.

[Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Ind)]

Will the Secretary of State confirm that, when the United Kingdom leaves the European Union, the flag of this nation will remain the Union flag and that no devolved Assembly should try to restrict it from being flown, whether at the white cliffs of Dover, Land’s End or John o’Groats?

[David Mundell]

As my hon. Friend knows, in September 2014 the people of Scotland voted overwhelmingly to remain within the United Kingdom, and the Union Jack is the flag of the United Kingdom. It beggars belief that, at a time when children’s hospital wards are being closed, educational standards are falling and Police Scotland is in chaos, the priority of the First Minister of Scotland is flags.

[Mr Paul Sweeney (Glasgow North East) (Lab/Co-op)]

The Secretary of State talks a good game but, unfortunately, delivery does not appear to be his strong point. Speaking of auld acquaintance, it turns out that his key adviser tasked with increasing awareness of devolution across Government is none other than the interim chief executive of Carillion. Given the shambolic handling of clause 11 last week, how does the Secretary of State think that is going?

[David Mundell]

First, it is not correct to suggest that non-executive directors take policy decisions in relation to Government Departments. Keith Cochrane has done an excellent job as a non-executive director of the Scotland Office, and I pay tribute to him as one of Scotland’s most respected businessmen. However, in order not to become a distraction at a time of very important work for the Scotland Office, he has decided to step aside from his responsibilities until the investigation into Carillion and any subsequent inquiries are complete.

[Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)]

May I also wish you a very happy Burns season, Mr Speaker?

The Secretary of State talked of a powers bonanza and could not list one new power. He promised amendments on clause 11 and no such amendments were tabled. Can we now believe another word he says in this House?

[David Mundell]

I know that the hon. Gentleman does not necessarily have the best of relations with some people in the Scottish Government, but perhaps he could have a word with them about the publication of the frameworks. I am keen that we publish what has been agreed in relation to frameworks, but the current position of the Scottish Government is that that should not be published.

[Pete Wishart]

The right hon. Gentleman is personally responsible for a breakdown in the relationship between this House and the Scottish Government, and the breakdown in relationships between all the Members of this House. The Brexit Secretary today has suggested that the right hon. Gentleman is the blockage to progress. He has accepted full responsibility for not producing these amendments. Has he now had the time to think about his own position?

[David Mundell]

Again, the hon. Gentleman strikes a completely different tone from Michael Russell, who has pursued a very professional approach to these matters. They are complicated and difficult matters, and it is important that they are thoroughly debated, discussed and agreed. The reason the Government did not bring forward an amendment at that stage was that no amendment had been agreed with the Scottish Government, but we are committed to delivering that.

[Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)]

3. What plans the Government have to further cross-border co-operation on economic development between Scotland and the rest of the UK.

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

Today’s figures from the Scottish Government again show that Scotland’s trade with the rest of the UK is worth nearly four times that with the EU. We know that more than half a million Scottish jobs depend on the vital UK internal market, and that people in Scotland want a UK-wide approach to trade. As the UK prepares to leave the EU, it is essential that we ensure that the important UK internal market can continue unimpeded.

[Kevin Foster]

My right hon. Friend will be aware that the First Minister of Scotland recently said that,

“independence must be an option”,

highlighting once again some people’s interest in separation, not governing. Does my right hon. Friend agree that keeping separation on the table makes constructive, co-operative working difficult, and that opportunities will be missed both for Scotland and the UK as a result?

[David Mundell]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. It has just become absolutely clear that when Nicola Sturgeon and the SNP are asked what they want from Brexit, the answer is another independence referendum.

[Ged Killen (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Lab/Co-op)]

Brexit poses the biggest risk to Scotland’s economy. If the Government want to show co-operation with the Scottish Government, does the Secretary of State agree that the sectoral reports that are available to MPs in this place should also be made available to MSPs?

[David Mundell]

I understood that they had been made available to MSPs. If that is not the case, I will ensure that it is.

[Douglas Ross (Moray) (Con)]

This week, Moray Council discussed the projects that will be included in the ambitious Moray growth deal. The Secretary of State knows of my strong support for the bid, so will he join me in Moray to meet the people involved in the Moray growth deal bid, to show the UK Government’s commitment to take these from proposals to projects delivered?

[David Mundell]

These growth deals and city deals across Scotland are very important to the economy as we prepare to leave the EU. I am excited by the proposals that have been brought forward by stakeholders in Moray and I would be delighted to visit with my hon. Friend.

[Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

Does the Secretary of State agree that today’s export statistics show the importance to Scotland of remaining in both the EU and the UK, despite the SNP’s latest attempt to break that link by taking down the flag?

[David Mundell]

The hon. Lady will expect that I will agree with part of what she said. Of course, as the people of Scotland voted, Scotland must remain in the UK and benefit from the UK internal market, but the people of the United Kingdom have voted to leave the EU, and we are leaving the EU.

[Jeff Smith (Manchester, Withington) (Lab)]

4. What discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy on Government funding for the renewable energy sector in Scotland.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Kerr (Stirling) (Con)]

7. What recent discussions the Government have had with the Scottish Government on the implementation of city region deals in Scotland.

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

I spoke to the Scottish Government Cabinet Secretary for the Economy, Jobs and Fair Work last week. We will meet again shortly to discuss our joint approach, including how we can deliver for my hon. Friend on the Stirling and Clackmannanshire deal.

[Stephen Kerr]

Will the Secretary of State confirm to the House that the UK Government are committing new money to the Stirling and Clackmannanshire city region deal, not simply rebadging existing funding? When he next meets the Scottish Government, will he secure a similar commitment from them that they will put new money into the deal and not just rebadge existing funding?

[David Mundell]

I confirm that the UK Government will definitely put new money into the Stirling and Clackmannanshire deal. That has always been our approach to such deals, and that is why they have such a transformative effect. I will speak to Keith Brown on the issue my hon. Friend raises, but I know Mr Brown takes a particular interest in that deal.

[Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)]

All the city region cash that has gone Inverness’s way is most welcomed by residents of Inverness. However, other communities in the Highlands such as Wick, Thurso and Tain struggle to see the benefit. It is supposed to be a city region deal. Will the Secretary of State look into why it is not working as it should?

[David Mundell]

I will of course look into the hon. Gentleman’s point, which was also raised with me when I was on Skye. May I use this opportunity to rebut the fake news that Skye is full and not open for business to tourists? It is open for business and a great destination.

[Tom Pursglove (Corby) (Con)]

8. What recent discussions he has had with businesses in Scotland on the economic opportunities available to them after the UK leaves the EU.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Masterton (East Renfrewshire) (Con)]

11. What progress the Government have made on ensuring that common frameworks with the Scottish Government are in place when the UK leaves the EU.

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

The UK, Scottish and Welsh Governments agreed the principles that will guide how we approach common frameworks in future at the Joint Ministerial Committee on EU Negotiations on 16 October. Those principles have facilitated constructive engagement at official level, and we expect to make significant further progress in the coming months, including publishing our analysis.

[Paul Masterton]

During those constructive discussions, has the Secretary of State received any indication from the Scottish Government about how they intend to use the plethora of new powers that they will receive?

[David Mundell]

As I said in response to a previous question, we have heard nothing from the Scottish National party or the Scottish Government about how they intend to use the new powers that will be available after we leave the EU. Let us have a debate about using powers for Scotland’s benefit, not about process.

[Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)]

12. Whether he has had discussions with the Scottish Government on their abolition of hospital car parking charges.

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

I have not had discussions with the Scottish Government regarding hospital car parking charges. The policy falls wholly within their area of devolved competence.

[Robert Halfon]

The vast majority of national health service hospitals in Scotland do not charge for car parking. Will my right hon. Friend initiate discussions with the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care to explore the options for extending that to England?

[David Mundell]

I am sure that my colleague the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care will have heard my right hon. Friend’s comments.

The Prime Minister was asked—

Referendum on Scottish Independence

David Mundell Excerpts

Monday 13th November 2017 Westminster Hall

[Martyn Day]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention, but I hoped that I had clarified that point by reading out the full position in our manifesto. There are two conditions in it: a clear and sustained majority for independence, or a significant material change, and the example we gave is being played out in front of us just now. Indeed, it is very timeous that we are debating this issue as the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill enters Committee stage, which might fulfil that democratic mandate of ours.

However, we are not out of Europe yet. I say this as someone who was strongly pro-remain, but I hope that the disaster of Brexit can be avoided and that the will of 62% of the Scottish people can—

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

Will the hon. Gentleman give way on that point?

[Martyn Day]

Certainly.

[David Mundell]

It is very important that it is on the record for the 500,000 SNP “yes leavers”—the people who voted to leave the EU—that the position of the SNP is to block the UK leaving the EU. I think that is what the hon. Gentleman just said.

[Martyn Day]

I would be quite happy to block the UK leaving—I say that unashamedly as a remainer. I hope that we can create a situation in which the 62% of the Scottish people can have their wishes respected. The Scottish Parliament put forward a sensible compromise position, which comes a long way from where I would start but allows us to stay in the single market.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alan Brown]

The hon. Gentleman is making that inference; I am not.

We keep hearing today about divisive referendums, and to me that is one side seeking to delegitimise the whole process of another vote. If we are talking about division, I say to my neighbour, the hon. Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock (Bill Grant), that I thought it was truly shameful to bring in the memory of those who served in the armed forces as an argument for not holding another referendum. I have friends who serve in the armed forces, and they are pro-Scottish independence. That is not them disrespecting their colleagues that they serve beside, and the debate should not stoop to that level.

It is clear that many people do not want another referendum. Equally, many people did not want a referendum in 2014, yet it still resulted in the biggest vote ever held in Scotland. It engaged people who had never been interested in politics before, and it was a model of democracy—we cannot forget that. Sixteen and 17-year-olds were given the vote; EU citizens were allowed to vote. It was a vote based on residence, not nationality, and had the UK Government followed that example in the European referendum vote, we would not have the Brexit shambles that we have now.

There should be nothing to fear about undergoing another democratic exercise. We respected the 2014 vote; but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Martyn Day) pointed out earlier, everyone is well aware that a key campaigning tactic of Better Together was saying that the only way to stay in the EU was to vote no. How significant that was in the final vote, we cannot say for certain.

[David Mundell]

On that point—

[Alan Brown]

I will let the Secretary of State in.

[David Mundell]

It is a mythology that has been created. The issue at the core of the debate about the EU in the 2014 referendum was how an independent Scotland would become part of the EU. That was a question that those campaigning for a yes vote were unable to answer during that campaign, so perhaps the hon. Gentleman could answer it now. How would an independent Scotland become a member of the EU?

[Alan Brown]

Quite simply, Better Together put out campaign literature that said, “How to secure membership of the EU: vote no”. That is what the campaign was.

There is the sheer, rank hypocrisy of those who campaigned using that as a tactic, and then actually campaigned to leave the EU. I am looking at quite a few of the Members on the Conservative side who did that—all except for the hon. Member for Angus (Kirstene Hair), who found the EU referendum too difficult to vote in. She must be glad that the Tory Whips down here reckon that abstention is the best way forward on many Opposition votes.

I appreciate that Scotland being dragged out of the EU against its will has not yet caught the fire of the general populous as a reason to hold an immediate referendum; however, surveys have shown that people would like a referendum when the impact and effects of Brexit are fully understand. There is a will to have another referendum, not right now, but sometime in the future.

--- Later in debate ---

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

I am delighted to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger, and I commend Mr Bailey for his earlier efforts in chairing this debate, which opens for many people outwith Scotland a window on Scottish politics. When I considered replying to this debate, I was, like the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone), mindful of the words of The National, which indicated this debate was very important. It is therefore surprising that less than half of the SNP Members of Parliament sought to even attend the debate, never mind take part. Let us make that absolutely clear, so that it is on the record, before we hear about the next Unionist conspiracy to make sure that only two or three SNP MPs got to speak, while Unionists crowded them out. It was a choice not to take part in this debate, which I think readers of The National will be most disappointed to hear.

We have added in some ways to the collection of human knowledge. It is disappointing that the Westminster leader of the party, the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford), has left. I am sure the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown) said one thing that he would have agreed with: anything Alex Salmond says cannot be relied on. It is good to get that on the record before that well-known Bolshevik begins his new career.

One point that will be of interest to many yes voters and SNP voters is that the position of the SNP is to block the UK leaving the EU. That will not go down well with the 500,000 yes voters and the 400,000 SNP voters. I do not think it will go down well with Jim Sillars; I look forward to hearing his response. It will not go down well with Alex Neil and the SNP MSPs who voted to leave the EU, but at least the position is clear: the SNP is for blocking the UK leaving the EU.

Another point flushed out, which was clear from several Members and certainly clear in the speech made by the hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Tommy Sheppard), is that another independence referendum, in the view of the SNP, is simply paused. It is not over, not stopped, but paused. That is why there is a very important message to everyone listening to this debate. Every vote ever cast for the SNP will be taken as a vote in support of another independence referendum and in support of independence. That is the case. We have heard it justified as to why the SNP is entitled to take this position, because every single person who voted for them wanted another independence referendum and wants independence. So Scotland beware: vote SNP, get another independence referendum. We have to be very clear on that.

From a Unionist point of view, we could take some solace in the complacency of the SNP—something the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson) referred to. The fact that the SNP came within 600 votes of losing another six seats does not seem to have been taken on board. Earlier, the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Brendan O'Hara) was promoting the support for the SNP in his constituency, but forgot to tell us that his vote came down by nearly 10% and the Conservative vote went up by 18%. That was a clear message from his voters that they did not want to hear about independence.

I thought that the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Martyn Day) sought to offer a balanced view of the two petitions; he mentioned both, and that probably fulfilled his obligation. What he did not say, of course, was that the petition asking for an independence referendum only got heard on the back of the 220,000 people who did not want an independence referendum, because a petition that attracted fewer than 40,000 votes would not in itself get a debate in Parliament.

We have had an independence referendum—that was the theme of much of what has been said. It was a legal and fair referendum. Many aspects of the engagement were welcome. In particular, I found the school debates in which I took part encouraging, in terms of how our young people applied themselves. Nobody, however, can deny that there were many aspects of that referendum that were seriously unpleasant and that we would not want to hold up as a model. It is important for us in the political class to recognise that although we might go on about how great it was that 84.7% of people voted and all the meetings that were held, ordinary members of the public did not enjoy the referendum process. Other than those who are diehards on both sides of the debate, I do not find people on the doorstep who say, “That 2014 referendum was great—the best time of my life.” What they say—even those who voted yes—is: “I don’t want to go through that again.”

[Gerard Killen]

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that if we were to accept demands for a second independence referendum from the Scottish National party and it was successful in that referendum, it would set a precedent to revisit that decision in a third referendum for Scotland to go back into the United Kingdom? What precedent would that set for the future constitution of the UK?

[David Mundell]

The hon. Gentleman is correct. We were told in the Edinburgh agreement that the result would be respected on both sides. The hon. Member for East Lothian (Martin Whitfield) referred to the reconciliation service, at which I was present. I was hopeful, at that point, that it would lead to a way forward. That did not happen.

There was a point at which the SNP, and those people who had argued for yes, came out and said that to make their case they needed to make a bigger tent, bring more people in, and convince people. Today, however, we have heard what has become the core of their message: the people of Scotland were duped and we need to do it all over again. That is essentially what we have heard from SNP Members. In the tirade of negativity from the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun, nothing positive was said about what an independent Scotland would be like or would do. In particular, nothing was said about Andrew Wilson’s report on how the £14 billion deficit would be managed. That is a piece of information that I would want, as a Scottish voter, before there was any prospect of opening up another independence referendum.

A lot of the arguments have been well rehearsed. I will not respond to the essentially political points made by the shadow Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Lesley Laird). We see in Scotland how the Scottish Labour party talks about the Labour party, and that is what she has replicated here today. All of us who support the United Kingdom should follow the example of her colleague, the hon. Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Hugh Gaffney), who made the case, albeit from a socialist perspective, for the United Kingdom, as my hon. Friend the Member for East Renfrewshire (Paul Masterton) did very eloquently too.

The message from this debate, this petition and everything we have heard from the SNP is that we cannot be complacent. We must make the case for the United Kingdom all the time, and ensure that in elections the SNP does not get itself into a position where it can take forward another independence referendum.

Edinburgh and South East Scotland City Region Deal

David Mundell Excerpts

Thursday 20th July 2017 Written Statements

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

In March 2016, the Government announced their intention to negotiate a city region deal for Edinburgh and south-east Scotland. As well as deals across England and Wales, this follows the successful agreement of city region deals for Glasgow and Clyde Valley, Inverness and the Highlands and Aberdeen city region.

I can today inform the House that the Government have reached agreement with the Scottish Government and regional partners on a heads of terms for a city region deal for Edinburgh and south-east Scotland.

This deal will bring in excess of £1 billion of investment into the Scottish capital city region. Local partners’ aspirations are that this investment will create in excess of 21,000 good quality jobs.

Central to the investment is the UK Government contribution of up to £300 million, which is being matched by Scottish Government. This investment is expected to unlock a considerable further investment from the city region’s universities, higher education sector and the private sector.

UK Government investment will support local partners in delivering their ambition to make Edinburgh a leader in data-driven innovation. Building on existing regional excellence in R and D and innovation, the investment will see significant investments in digital infrastructure and data storage as well as the development of five R and D hubs across the city-region. These hubs will focus on growth in key sectors of the local economy such as data science, robotics, financial services, creative tech and agri-tech.

We will also deliver our manifesto commitment to support a new concert hall in Edinburgh, meeting the need for a mid-sized venue in the city.

Projects and programmes announced in the heads of terms document will be subject to the development and approval of business cases. Moving forward, the Government will work with the Scottish Government and the civic, academic and business leaders of Edinburgh and south-east Scotland to ensure the successful implementation of the deal.

This represents an important step in delivering the UK Government’s commitment to a city deal for each of Scotland’s cities, as we work to strengthen the Union and build a United Kingdom that works for everyone.

[HCWS103]

Government’s Legislative Programme (Scotland) 2017-19

David Mundell Excerpts

Thursday 22nd June 2017 Written Statements

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

The legislative programme for the first Session was outlined by Her Majesty on Wednesday 21 June.

This statement provides a summary of the new Government legislation for 2017-19 and its application to Scotland. It does not include draft Bills, Law Commission Bills or Finance Bills. The programme will include three Finance Bills to implement budget policy decisions.

The Government’s legislative programme will bring forward important legislation required in relation to exiting the European Union, whilst also continuing to deliver on important domestic policy.

Legislation will be brought forward to support advances in transport technologies, making the UK a leader in industries including electric cars and commercial satellites. The Government will also legislate to provide for greater work flexibility for members of the armed forces, improve the provision of financial advice and will support energy efficiency though the smart meter regime.

The Government’s repeal Bill will help to deliver a smooth and orderly exit from the EU. In addition several further bills on EU exit will legislate in keys areas such as trade, customs and immigration.

In addition to this new programme, we remain committed to implementation of the Scotland Act 2016. Moving forward, the UK Government are committed to working closely with the Scottish Government to implement these important powers, including the significant transfer of welfare responsibilities. The powers devolved in the Act will result in the Scottish Parliament becoming one of the most powerful devolved Parliaments in the world.

In line with the Sewel convention, the Government will continue to work constructively with the Scottish Government to secure legislative consent motions where appropriate.

The Bills listed in section 1 will apply to Scotland, either in full or in part. Some of these bills may engage the Sewel process depending on final content. Section 2 details Bills that will not apply in Scotland.

Section 1: Legislation applying to the United Kingdom, including Scotland (either in full or in part).

Repeal Bill

Agriculture Bill

Armed Forces (Flexible Working) Bill

Automated and Electric Vehicles Bill

Courts Bill

Customs Bill

Data Protection Bill

European Union (Approvals) Bill

Financial Guidance and Claims Bill

Fisheries Bill

High Speed Rail (West Midlands - Crewe) Bill (technically applies to the whole UK but concerns the Fradley - Crew route)

Immigration Bill

International Sanctions Bill

National Insurance Contributions Bill

Nuclear Safeguards Bill

Smart Meter Bill

Space Industry Bill

Trade Bill

Travel Protection Bill

Section 2: Legislation that will not extend to Scotland.

Civil Liability Bill

[HCWS4]

Scotland Act 2016: Commencement Regulations

David Mundell Excerpts

Wednesday 30th November 2016 Written Statements

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

In March this year, Her Majesty the Queen gave Royal Assent to the Scotland Act 2016, marking an important milestone in fulfilling the UK Government’s commitment to deliver on the Smith Commission agreement, making the Scottish Parliament one of the most powerful devolved Parliaments in the world.

Since Royal Assent, a number of important provisions in the Act have come into force, including new powers in relation to consumer advocacy and advice, gaming machines, equalities, transport, and welfare.

I can today inform the House that the UK Government have made the commencement regulations for the following sections of the Scotland Act 2016:

13: Power of Scottish Parliament to set rates of income tax

14: Amendments of Income Tax Act 2007

15: Consequential amendments: income tax

The regulations ensure that the transfer of income tax powers will occur, as agreed by the UK and Scottish Governments, from 6 April 2017, bringing into force substantial new financial levers enabling the Scottish Government to set income tax rates and thresholds for the earned income of Scottish taxpayers.

In addition, commencement regulations will be made on 5 December for the following sections of the Scotland Act 2016, to be commenced in April 2017:

20: Borrowing

21: Provision of information to the Office for Budget Responsibility

67: Destination of fines, forfeitures and fixed penalties

These commencement regulations represent another milestone in delivering the recommendations of the Smith Commission agreement, and it is a testament to the constructive work between the UK and Scottish Governments.

The two Governments continue to work closely together to ensure a safe and secure transition of the remaining powers in the Scotland Act 2016.

[HCWS293]

Scotland Act: Commencement

David Mundell Excerpts

Thursday 14th July 2016 Written Statements

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

In March this year, Her Majesty the Queen gave Royal Assent to the Scotland Act 2016, marking an important milestone in fulfilling the UK Government’s commitment to make the Scottish Parliament one of the most powerful devolved parliaments in the world.

On 23 May, two months since Royal Assent, a number of important provisions in the Act came into force. These included new powers in relation to consumer advocacy and advice, gaming machines, equalities and transport, and marked an important milestone in the devolution of powers to the Scottish Parliament and Scottish Government.

The Joint Ministerial Working Group on Welfare met in June to take forward discussions on commencement of the welfare sections of the Act. This was the first meeting of the group since the Scotland Act 2016 gained Royal Assent and since the new Scottish Parliament was elected. The UK and Scottish Governments both agreed an approach to commencing the welfare and employment support powers set out in the Act. This approach included bringing into force 11 welfare sections of the Scotland Act 2016.

I can today inform the House that, with the agreement of the Scottish Government, we will now commence the following sections of the Scotland Act 2016:

Section number: section title

24: Discretionary payments: top-ups of reserved benefits

25: Discretionary Housing Payments

26: Discretionary payments and assistance

28: Powers to create other new benefits;

29: Universal credit: costs of claimants who rent accommodation

30: Universal credit: persons to whom, and time when, paid

31: Employment support

32: Functions exercisable within devolved competence

33: Social Security Advisory Committee and Industrial Injuries Advisory Council

34: Information-sharing

35: Extension of unauthorised disclosure offence

Commencing these powers brings into force substantial new levers which will allow the Scottish Government to design a welfare system tailored to local needs, while maintaining our social union and the benefits of being part of the United Kingdom. For example, these regulations bring into force the power for the Scottish Parliament to create its own new benefits in any area of devolved responsibility.

The UK and Scottish Governments have been working together constructively to enable this and will continue to do so. We recognise the importance of ensuring the safe and secure transition of powers. Work is continuing on the remaining welfare sections of the Act and both Governments are committed to reaching an agreed approach on how they should be commenced. A further meeting of the Joint Ministerial Group on Welfare is expected to take place in the autumn.

I am pleased that the commencement regulations also include section 65 of the Scotland Act which enables Scottish Ministers to appoint a member to the Ofcom board. The section also requires Scottish Ministers to lay Ofcom’s annual report and accounts before the Scottish Parliament and underlines my commitment to implementing the Scotland Act 2016 and the Smith Commission agreement.

The commencement regulations I have made today represent another milestone in making the Scottish Parliament one of the most powerful devolved Parliaments in the world.

[HCWS90]

Government’s Legislative Programme (Scotland) 2016-17

David Mundell Excerpts

Thursday 19th May 2016 Written Statements

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

Following the passage of the Scotland Act 2016, the Scottish Parliament is now poised to become one of the most powerful devolved Parliaments in the world. Ensuring the smooth transfer of those new powers will be a major priority for the UK Government over the next parliamentary Session and beyond.

A total of 13 of the 21 new Government Bills for this Session of Parliament contain provisions that apply in Scotland, either in full or in part. Elements of others may extend later depending on discussion with the Scottish Government.

The Government’s legislative programme has three clear aims: to deliver security for working people across our country, to increase the life chances for the most disadvantaged, and to strengthen our national security. Some of the Bills announced yesterday apply across the UK, while others cover areas where responsibility is devolved to the Scottish Parliament.

UK legislation on the digital economy will enable the building of world-class digital infrastructure including fast broadband and mobile networks, as well as helping to support new digital industries.

A new Lifetime Savings Bill will create a new help to save scheme to support those on the lowest incomes to save and also a new lifetime ISA, providing savers with a bonus on savings that can be used for a first home, or retirement, or both.

A Better Markets Bill will give UK consumers more power and choice, open up markets and make economic regulators work better. We will also take forward further reforms in a Pensions Bill that will provide greater protections for people in master trusts and remove barriers for consumers who want to access their pension savings flexibly.

This statement provides a summary of the new Government legislation for 2016-17 and its application to Scotland. It does not include draft Bills.

In line with the Sewel convention, the Government will continue to work constructively with the Scottish Government to secure legislative consent motions where appropriate.

The Bills listed in section 1 will apply to Scotland, either in full or in part. Section 2 details Bills that will not apply in Scotland, though some elements could be extended later following discussion with the Scottish Government.

Section 1: Legislation applying to the United Kingdom, including Scotland (either in full or in part);

Better Markets Bill

Criminal Finances Bill

Lifetime Savings Bill

Modern Transport Bill

Overseas Electors Bill

Pensions Bill

Small Charitable Donations Bill

Cultural Property (Armed Conflicts) Bill

Digital Economy Bill

Wales Bill (as a constitutional bill this extends to the UK, but policy will impact on Wales)

Higher Education and Research Bill

Neighbourhood Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Bill of Rights

Section 2: Legislation that will not apply in Scotland, though some elements could be extended following discussion with the Scottish Government.

Counter-Extremism and Safeguarding Bill

NHS (Overseas Visitors Charging) Bill

National Citizen Service Bill

Bus Services Bill

Children & Social Work Bill

Education for All Bill

Local Growth and Jobs Bill

Prison and Courts Reform Bill

[HCWS4]

Scotland Bill

David Mundell Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd March 2016 Commons Chamber

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

I beg to move, That this House agrees with Lords amendment 1.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments 2 to 62.

[David Mundell]

This is a truly significant day for Scotland. If this Bill completes its parliamentary progress, it will add to the already extensive responsibilities of the Scottish Parliament a range of important new powers. It provides even greater opportunities for the Scottish Government to tailor and deliver Scottish solutions to Scottish issues. The Scottish Parliament that returns in May will be a powerhouse Parliament that has come of age. Crucially, it will be much more accountable to the people who elect it, which is the hallmark of a mature democratic institution.

I am pleased to say that Lord Smith of Kelvin has confirmed that the Bill puts into law the agreement that the five main political parties in Scotland reached, and that the fiscal framework that was agreed means that the recommendations of his commission have been delivered in full.

Last week, the Scottish Parliament debated the motion on whether to grant legislative consent to the Bill before us today, and the agreement was unanimous. Deputy First Minister John Swinney remarked:

“The Smith process delivered an agreement for additional powers that—if they are used in the right way—can benefit the people of Scotland.”—[Scottish Parliament Official Report, 16 March 2016; c. 3.]

I agree with him wholeheartedly on that.

The debate last week demonstrated the consensus among all parties in Scotland that these new powers present a tremendous opportunity for Scotland. That was clear in their unanimous vote to grant legislative consent to this Bill. This process goes to show that both of Scotland’s Governments and both of Scotland’s Parliaments can work effectively together in the interest of the people in Scotland and right across our United Kingdom.

No individual or party held a monopoly of wisdom on how the Smith agreement might best be translated into legislation. Many people, both inside and outside this Chamber, have contributed to the Bill as it stands before us today. I thank hon. Members and noble Lords for their contributions as the Bill passed through this House and the other place.

[John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

I am grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way. When this important work was being done, there were obvious and big consequences for England. Which Minister or Ministers spoke for England during the negotiations?

[David Mundell]

My right hon. Friend has asked that question before. This legislation has been debated on the Floor of this House and on the Floor of the other place. Extensive scrutiny of the Bill has taken place. Indeed, there has been the opportunity to scrutinise the fiscal framework as well, so extensive scrutiny has been delivered in relation to this legislation for the people of England, Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland.

The Bill has been strengthened by the scrutiny it has received, and I am pleased that the amendments that I will cover shortly are a positive and constructive culmination of that process.

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

Going back to the previous intervention, it was obvious from the voices on the Scottish National party Benches that all the other Ministers, especially those from the Treasury, spoke for interests other than those of Scotland. Is it not time to move away from this form of devolution, whereby we effectively get the crumbs from the table at Westminster, to a model that Copenhagen shares with the Faroe Islands and Greenland, in which the larder is always open and they get to choose their own powers. Instead of taking the crumbs from Westminster, we should be able to take the powers that we want from Westminster when we want them.

[Hon. Members]

Hear, hear!

[David Mundell]

The hon. Gentleman’s colleagues may agree with him, but I do not think that the people of Scotland do. The people of Scotland made it very clear in September 2014 that they wanted to remain part of our United Kingdom, but they wanted a Scottish Parliament with enhanced powers, which is what this Government are delivering. The hon. Gentleman strikes a rather sour note, given the consensus within the Scottish Parliament and among his colleagues in the Scottish Government—a consensus that recognises the importance of the powers that will be delivered by this Bill if it completes its passage today.

I also acknowledge the work of the Committees of both the Scottish and the UK Parliaments, including those chaired by the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) in this place, by the noble Lords, Lord Lang, Baroness Fookes and Lord Hollick, in the other place and by Bruce Crawford in the Scottish Parliament. The broad range of evidence and expertise they marshalled in the Bill’s scrutiny has improved it materially.

I also wish to thank the Deputy First Minister, John Swinney MSP, and Scottish Government officials for their always courteous engagement in this process. Scotland gets the best outcome when its two Governments work together.

I am truly grateful to all my officials at the Scotland Office and the officials from the 10 other Whitehall Departments whose hard work has got us to this stage. My noble Friends Lord Dunlop and Lord Keen of Elie have played an essential role in the Bill’s passage through the other place; I also commend Lord McAvoy and Lord Wallace of Tankerness in particular for their work. The origin of the Bill is the Smith agreement, and I once again pay tribute to Lord Smith of Kelvin and the representatives of all five of Scotland's main political parties for reaching an agreement that redefined the devolution settlement.

--- Later in debate ---

[Angus Robertson (Moray) (SNP)]

I am delighted to follow the hon. Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray). It is a calumny that he has been described as negative. He spent much of his time at the Dispatch Box trying to be positive about the Scotland Bill. Parts of his speech were positive and we welcome that, and we also welcome the Secretary of State’s positive comments.

The Scotland Bill is an important step in extending the responsibilities of the Scottish Parliament and in Scotland’s journey towards greater self-government. That journey has quickened in pace since the Scottish National party was first returned to power in 2007. The Bill follows progress including the Scotland Act 2012, the independence referendum and the Smith commission itself. As Deputy First Minister John Swinney has said, the Bill delivers additional powers that can benefit the people of Scotland, including extended powers over tax, new powers over welfare, and responsibilities for the Crown Estate, tribunals and the licensing of onshore oil and gas activity.

The agreement on a fiscal framework published on 25 February increases the Scottish Parliament’s financial responsibility, is consistent with the Smith principles of no detriment, and is fair to the people of Scotland. As the Bill, including the amendments under discussion, provides useful powers and has moved towards delivering more of the recommendations made by the Smith commission reports, and as the agreement on the fiscal framework would be a fair basis for future funding consistent with the principles agreed by the Smith commission, the Scottish Government recommended that the Scottish Parliament should consent to the Bill. On 11 March 2016, the Devolution (Further Powers) Committee published its report on the Scotland Bill and the fiscal framework. Although it makes recommendations on specific policy areas, its overall conclusion is that the Scottish Parliament should consent to the Bill. That is what is before us. On 16 March, the Scottish Parliament consented to the legislative consent motion for the Bill.

The SNP has, of course, governed in Scotland for nine years, and every indication is that the people of Scotland have been delighted with the governance of Scotland under the SNP. I join the Labour party spokesman in paying tribute, as I did earlier today, to every outgoing Member of the Scottish Parliament—not least my right hon. Friend the Member for Gordon (Alex Salmond)—of all political parties, who have worked hard to achieve the best governance that decision-making closer to home can bring.

The outgoing Scottish Government have already acted with pace and creativity, in consultation with others, to be ready to use the limited powers—there are, of course, limits on the powers that are being devolved. That includes introducing a social security Bill within the first year of the new Scottish Parliament, to support the transfer and administration of Scotland’s new, devolved social security benefits. It also includes enhancing opportunities for employment and inclusive economic growth by improving support for people to move into employment through reform of the Work programme and linking employment programmes with training and education.

The outgoing Scottish Government have also committed to abolishing fees for employment tribunals, to reduce the burden of air passenger duty by 50%, and to promote equalities by taking early action on gender balance on public boards. They have also set out longer-term intentions for further income powers, are committed to a progressive taxation policy and have applied that to the decision on existing tax powers. Commencement of most of the new powers will take place in 2016, but new arrangements for the use of major new powers on matters including tax and welfare will not be in place before April 2017 following scrutiny of the proposals by the Scottish Parliament.

On 11 March 2016, the Scottish Parliament’s Devolution (Further Powers) Committee published its final report and gave its unanimous recommendation that legislative consent be given to the Scotland Bill. That was described as

“a significant milestone in a remarkable political process”

by Committee convener Bruce Crawford MSP. I pay tribute to him and his colleagues on the Committee, as I do to my hon. Friend the Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart), the Chair of the Scottish Affairs Committee, for their work. Although the Scotland Bill and the Smith commission could have delivered more effective and coherent powers to the Scottish Parliament, the Bill provides useful additional powers in important areas such as taxation and social security.

The UK Government amended the Bill to reflect some of the comments of the Scottish Government, the Scottish Parliament and its Committees. With an agreed fiscal framework that increases the Scottish Parliament’s responsibility and protects the Barnett formula, the Scottish Government recommended that the Scottish Parliament consent to the Scotland Bill. The final report of the Devolution (Further Powers) Committee also had some important things to say:

“There are still some areas where we feel that the Scotland Bill continues to fall short of the spirit and substance of Smith…Nevertheless, the Bill has been improved during its passage through our detailed scrutiny and we welcome the fact that the Secretary of State for Scotland has been prepared to listen to the evidence we have presented and improve the Bill in other areas…in our view, on the basis of the information provided to date by both governments, we are prepared to endorse the fiscal framework underpinning the powers to be devolved to Scotland as part of this Bill. Therefore, on balance, we recommend that the Scottish Parliament gives its legislative consent to the Scotland Bill.”

UK Government amendments that implement more of the Smith report, including the permanence of the Scottish Parliament, are welcome. However, it needs to be said that the Scotland Bill continues to fall short of the spirit and the substance of Smith in some areas, including the devolution of employment programmes and the future operation of the legislative consent provision. It is important to understand that the UK Government can still effectively veto the exercise of devolved powers over universal credit by inserting their own date for the changes to commence. The social security provisions on discretionary payments and assistance are still subject to restrictions, notably for those who are under sanctions. The Smith report was clear that the Scottish Parliament should have complete autonomy over devolved benefits. The Scotland Bill is many things, but it is not federalism or near-federalism. Anybody who understands the powers of the German or Austrian Länder knows that to be true. It is an improvement, and it is progress.

We in the SNP thank all in the Scottish Government who have been involved, especially John Swinney. We also thank those on the UK Government side, even though—this is an important rider—I see that there is a Minister from the Treasury on the Treasury Bench, and we all know that the Treasury wanted a fiscal framework that would have made Scotland worse off by £7 billion. Thank goodness for the efforts of John Swinney and colleagues in the Scottish Government. I would like to take the opportunity to thank my SNP MP colleagues, who have worked so hard on the Bill throughout the parliamentary process. In fairness, it is also right to place on record the fact that Members in the other place spent a lot of time on the Bill.

Most importantly, I thank all those in Scotland who have believed in more powers. They did not draw lines in the sand or say, “This far, and no further”, as others have done, even in the recent past. Thanks to all those yes voters and all those SNP voters, Westminster has had to take note. This is just the latest stage on Scotland’s journey, and there will be many more. We agree with the amendments, and we wish the Bill to proceed. That is exactly what will happen today.

[David Mundell]

I will not detain the House for long, but I want to respond briefly to some of the points that have been made.

I add my best wishes to all Members of the Scottish Parliament who are leaving at this election, particularly my colleagues and others who were elected to the Scottish Parliament alongside me back in 1999. A number of people who have served in Parliament throughout that period are leaving, and others who are standing in the election will be leaving, although not necessarily of their own accord. We should wish them well.

Inverness and Highland City Region Deal

David Mundell Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd March 2016 Written Statements

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

In March 2015, the Government announced their intention to negotiate an Inverness and Highland city region deal. As well as deals across England, this followed the successful agreement of a city deal in Glasgow and Clyde Valley. An Aberdeen city deal was announced on 28 January 2016.

I can today inform the House that the Government have reached agreement with the Scottish Government, the Highland Council and other partners on a heads of terms city region deal for Inverness.

This heads of terms city region deal agreement provides a transformative opportunity to position the area as a region of digital opportunity and strength, thereby enabling the highlands to be the best digitally connected rural region in Europe.

Central to this will be a significant funding package which invests up to £315 million of public money into the regional economy. As part of this funding package, the UK Government will commit up to £53.1 million, the Highland Council along with regional partners will commit up to £127 million and the Scottish Government will commit up to £135 million. This funding package will be provided over a 10-year period subject to detailed business cases, statutory processes and implementation plans.

The UK Government’s contribution to the fund will support a set of proposals from the region intended to enable the highland area to be the most digitally connected rural region in Europe by investing into extended digital coverage, including superfast broadband and mobile 4G connectivity.

It will also support a package of new innovation measures that builds on existing academic and industry expertise in Inverness, as well as business support networks across the highlands. This will include exploring ways to support a multi-disciplinary centre focused on the commercialisation of new medical products and technologies, and a northern Scotland innovation hub.

[HCWS638]

Points of Order

David Mundell Excerpts

Wednesday 24th February 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

It is open to any Member who believes that he or she has made a mistake to correct the record voluntarily. It is not the responsibility of the Chair to arbitrate between competing claims about a sequence of events, and nor is it my responsibility to interpret what the Minister might have meant in responding to the hon. Gentleman at the time. The hon. Gentleman has made his point with force and alacrity—we would expect no less of him. If the Secretary of State wishes to respond, he is perfectly at liberty to do so, but he is under no obligation.

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

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I have noted what the hon. Gentleman has said and will have the matter investigated.

[Mr Speaker]

The Secretary of State has kindly said that he will have the matter investigated. I ought to emphasise, for the avoidance of doubt, that he was not the Minister who answered in the debate. I hope that the hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford) is satisfied with his prodigious efforts for the day and that we might now move on to other fare. I know that he will be absolutely delighted that we can now move on to the ten-minute rule motion, to be put forward by his hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Drew Hendry). I am sure that he is sitting expectantly with that in mind.