Public Sector Pensions
David Mundell Excerpts(12 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)
I beg to move,
That this House recognises and appreciates the valuable work done by public sector workers; believes that they should receive pensions which are affordable, sustainable and fair; further believes that the changes announced since June 2010 by the Government are primarily for the purposes of deficit reduction rather than a move to secure the long-term sustainability of public sector pensions; notes that these changes are unfair on public sector workers who will have to work longer, pay more and receive less in their pension when they retire; further notes the findings of the National Audit Office that the 2007-08 pensions re-negotiation changes will generate estimated savings of 14 per cent. by 2059-60 and the conclusions of the House of Commons Committee of Public Accounts’ Thirty-eighth Report of this Session on the Impact of the 2007-08 changes to public sector pensions (HC 833), that the cost of public service pensions has reduced substantially because of these changes; agrees with criticism in both reports of the failure to develop a long-term strategy for the role of pensions in recruitment and retention to the public sector; condemns the Government’s threat to cut devolved administrations’ budgets if they do not implement the Government’s immediate levy on pensions contributions; and calls on the Government to reverse its unfair changes to public sector pensions.
The motion stands in the names of my right hon. and hon. Friends from the Scottish National party and Plaid Cymru, and of Members from the Labour party and, I understand, from the Social Democratic and Labour party.
Last week, a day of action saw more than 2 million people across the UK join in protests against changes that will make those affected—mainly women—work longer, pay more and receive less when they retire. This year alone, bankers walked away with £7 billion in bonuses. As one constituent said to me last week:
“This is just a way of getting extra cash from public workers. And it is just not fair.”
We are proud to hold this debate on behalf of all those people across the UK who are directly or indirectly affected by the Government’s changes, and we note that despite having 36 Opposition day debates since the changes were announced in June 2010, the official Opposition have not seen fit to devote even one of those opportunities to debate the public sector pensions proposals. Whatever the evasions, the nods and the winks, and the ducking and diving of others, we are glad of the opportunity to show clearly where we stand.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (David Mundell)
This is characterised as a joint debate between Plaid Cymru and the Scottish National party, yet last week we saw SNP Members of the Scottish Parliament cross the picket lines to ensure that the Scottish Parliament functioned, while Plaid Cymru Members of the Welsh Assembly refused to cross picket lines and the Welsh Assembly did not function. Where is the coherent position in that?
Hywel Williams
It has clearly escaped the right hon. Gentleman’s attention that the SNP are in government in Scotland, while in Wales—alas—we are not.
David Mundell
I am afraid that I do not find that a tenable explanation. All SNP Members of the Scottish Parliament are not in the Government, although they may act like it. Those people crossed the picket lines and spoke in a debate on this very subject.
Hywel Williams
Honestly, I think we need to move on to the subject of the debate. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will have time later to make those and other fatuous points.
Hywel Williams
My hon. Friend has anticipated a point that I was going to make, which will doubtless be made again by other nationalist party members. Anyone reading the popular press would imagine that public sector workers were driving around in this year’s model of car and enjoying two or three foreign holidays a year, but that is not, of course, the case.
We say “Let us have negotiations”, but is the 3.2% imposition itself negotiable? What the Government have announced today will merely shift the burden from one group of workers to another. They are trying to squeeze out some sort of deal, but we utterly reject that way of going about things.
David Mundell
I think it important for the hon. Gentleman to clarify whom he means by “we”. The Scottish National party is in government in Scotland, and a number of choices are available to it. For instance, there are funds that it could allocate to reduce pension contributions, but it has chosen not to do so.
Hywel Williams
Again, I do not want to go down that particular avenue—[Interruption.] I have some things to say that the Minister might like to listen to. My hon. Friends will be responding to his point later, but let me say now that the possibilities to which he alludes constitute a broad spectrum of theoretical options for consideration, and that the Scottish Government have expressed no preference. I am sure that others will say more about that later.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (David Mundell)
The weather in Scotland today is very stormy, and our thoughts are with those who are having to endure the consequences of that. I do not know whether this debate will be equally stormy.
Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)
I hope the Minister will not think just about the people enduring travel disruptions, but will realise that the majority of those who will be working hard to resolve any problems that arise will be public sector workers.
David Mundell
I do realise that—and that may be the only point on which I agree with the hon. Lady.
I thank the hon. Member for Arfon (Hywel Williams) for opening the debate. He spoke for about 20 minutes, and in that time he at least said exactly the same about Scottish National party policy on this issue as was revealed in a two-and-a-half-hour debate in the Scottish Parliament last week, which was precisely nothing. I will return to that subject.
As the hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Sheila Gilmore) has already mentioned, no Member would disagree with the following sentiments in the motion:
“That this House recognises and appreciates the valuable work done by public sector workers”
and
“believes that they should receive pensions which are affordable, sustainable and fair”.
Indeed, those sentiments form the foundations of our reform of public service pensions. Our objective is to put in place new schemes that are affordable, sustainable and fair both to taxpayers and public service workers. Let us be clear: public service pension reform is needed. The costs have increased by a third in the last 10 years, to £32 billion, and the Office for Budget Responsibility forecasts that, without reform, spending on pensions will rise by almost £7 billion over the next five years.
Understandably, this is a contentious issue, but fairness remains the cornerstone of our approach. We believe that public service workers deserve a good pension in retirement, as a fair reward for a lifetime spent serving the public. We recognise the vital contributions made by teachers, nurses, council employees and civil servants to the well-being of our society now and in the future.
That is why in June 2010 my right hon. Friend the Chancellor commissioned Lord Hutton, a Work and Pensions Secretary in the previous Government, to take an unbiased and clear-headed look at public service pensions and make proposals for reform. His landmark report has set the parameters of the debate, and it has been rightly lauded for its depth and vision.
Lord Hutton set out an overwhelming case for reform. He said that
“the status quo is not tenable”,
that
“future costs are inherently uncertain”,
and that at present the public
“cannot be sure that schemes will remain sustainable in the future.”
In his interim report, he found that there was a clear justification, based on the past cost increases borne by the taxpayer, to increase contributions in the short term to ensure a fairer distribution of costs between taxpayers and members. We accepted that recommendation, and increases in member contributions will take place, starting next year. However, next year’s increase merely reflects the increase already planned by the previous Government. We remain committed to securing in full the overall savings of £2.3 billion in 2013-14 and £2.8 billion in 2014-15 that we announced at the 2010 spending review.
In his final report, Lord Hutton produced a blueprint for a new landscape of public service pensions. It is based on retaining defined-benefit schemes but moving to a fairer career-average basis, and increasing the retirement age in line with the state pension age to protect the taxpayer against future increases in life expectancy.
Jim McGovern (Dundee West) (Lab)
Presumably the Minister is talking about UK public sector pension schemes, whereas the motion seems to be specifically about devolved pension schemes. Does he agree that if there is a solution, it will be that the separatists in Edinburgh just say, “We won’t apply any changes”? Does he also agree that their excuse of continually saying, “The big bad boy in London did it” and then running away is wearing thin?
David Mundell
On that point, I can agree with the hon. Gentleman. The Scottish Government have considerable flexibility to make their own choices, but they have chosen not to do so.
Mr Weir
Will the Minister confirm that the Chief Secretary specifically said that if the Scottish Government did not accept these changes, he would fine them £8 million per month, which amounts to £100 million a year and half a billion pounds over the spending period? How are the Scottish Government supposed, effectively, to pay for this twice, and thereby pay £1 billion?
David Mundell
What I can make clear to the House is that as a result of last week’s autumn statement the Scottish Government will receive approximately £69 million extra in resource departmental expenditure limit funds, that as a result of the Budget they received an extra £112 million, and that between the Budget and the autumn statement they received an extra £90 million, which they had not budgeted for.
Mr Weir
However, will the Minister please explain what difference that makes, as we are still going to lose half a billion pounds over this spending period? There is still going to be a massive cut if the Scottish Government do not follow what this Government are imposing upon them.
David Mundell
The difference it makes is that the SNP will have the option to back up its words with deeds, but instead it fails to do so. Its argument is entirely based on blaming the Westminster Government. It has funds available to make these choices, yet it prefers to deceive public service workers in Scotland by suggesting that everything is entirely at the behest of the Westminster Government.
Mr Weir
Will the Minister therefore go to the Chief Secretary and say, “Take away this threat and allow the Scottish Government to do what they want to do for Scottish public sector workers”? Is the Minister happy that there will be this cut of half a billion pounds over the spending period?
David Mundell
I know the hon. Gentleman does not want Scotland to remain in the United Kingdom—that is his policy—but he and his Government have the ability to make this choice, as the hon. Member for Dundee West (Jim McGovern) set out, yet they have chosen not to do so.
Katy Clark (North Ayrshire and Arran) (Lab)
We should look at what the SNP has actually done in this respect. It has responsibility for the Scottish Public Pensions Agency, whose submissions to the Hutton review were far worse than what the coalition Government propose.
David Mundell
I will not presume that the hon. Lady was complimenting the Government, but she is correct in that all four of the suggestions the Scottish Government made to the Hutton inquiry would certainly leave Scottish public sector workers no better off than under the UK Government proposals, and a number of those suggestions would leave them distinctly worse off.
Pete Wishart
As an Under-Secretary, the Minister surely recognises the difference between a Government agency and a Government spokesperson.
David Mundell
I recognise the full ambit of the First Minister’s many responsibilities and I do not believe that such a submission would have been made without consultation with the Scottish Government.
Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)
I think we are getting to the crux of some of the issues. I would never agree with what the coalition Government are doing to public sector pensions in Scotland, but the Scottish National party did put in a report to the Hutton review that was far more draconian than what the Government are proposing. The SNP may be trying to say to the House that this was done by an agency, but why did the Scottish Government not contribute a proposal to the review?
David Mundell
The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point. It reinforces what all of us who are aware of day-to-day Scottish politics know, which is that the SNP Government in Scotland speak with one word but their deeds are quite different.
I return to what I was discussing before the interventions. The Government accepted Lord Hutton’s recommendations in full and can reassure the House that the reformed public—
Cathy Jamieson (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab/Co-op)
The Minister has made much of Hutton’s report and fairness, but does he not agree it seems odd that the Government jumped the gun by announcing the 3% increase before Hutton’s final report? How does that demonstrate fairness?
David Mundell
I know that the hon. Lady was not in the House at the time, but the 3% figure is broadly equivalent to the sum that her Government had identified in the pre-Budget report in 2009.
David Mundell
I will give way in a moment, but I want to make some progress.
The Government continue to engage actively with the trade unions to agree what the new pension schemes will look like. Discussions began in February and the Government remain fully committed to meaningful engagement. Scheme-level discussions are continuing with the trade unions, with meetings yesterday, today and tomorrow, which deals with a question asked by the hon. Member for Arfon. Significant progress has been achieved and the trade unions have welcomed many of the commitments that we made at the start of this process, including the one that public sector schemes will remain defined-benefit schemes, with a guaranteed amount provided in retirement. That, of course, was one of the options not put forward by the Scottish Public Pensions Agency.
David Mundell
I am going to take an intervention from the hon. Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock (Sandra Osborne) once I have completed this section of my speech.
The unions also welcomed the commitment that all accrued rights will be protected. Everything that public servants have earned until the point of change they will keep, and it will be paid out in the terms expected, at the retirement age expected. Final salary means just that: that someone’s accrued rights will be based on their final salary, not at the point of change but whenever their career ends or they choose to leave the scheme. No public service worker need worry about the entitlements they have already built up.
Sandra Osborne
The Minister talks about public sector reform, so why is the 3% rise going straight to the Treasury? That has nothing to do with the sustainability of public sector pensions.
David Mundell
As the hon. Lady knows, the Treasury underwrites the scheme. The Treasury requires to be paid out whatever is required to be paid out in relation to the scheme. The scheme does not operate on a basis of contributions and pay-outs, because the Treasury is underwriting the scheme so that everybody is paid in full as is their entitlement.
David Mundell
May I just make a little progress and then give way again? I think I have been generous with my time.
Our reforms are not retrospective, nor do they seek to correct the past failure of the Labour party; they are driven by the need for fair, affordable and sustainable pensions in the future. We have reached agreement with the unions on the importance of transparency, equality impacts, participation rates and opt-outs, scheme governance and high-level principles to inform consultations on scheme-level pensions.
David Mundell
I will give way in a moment.
We have set out our proposals. When we make our reforms, the taxpayer needs to be properly protected from the future risks arising from increases in life expectancy by the link between the scheme normal pension age and the state pension age. On 2 November, after months of negotiations with the trade unions, the Government set out a revised offer that was more generous by 8%.
The offer is generous. Most staff on low and middle incomes will retire on a pension that is as good as what they expect today, and for many it will be better. Lord Hutton has said that it is difficult “to imagine” a more generous offer. The offer includes generous transitional arrangements for those closest to retirement; those closest to retirement should not have to face any change at all. This approach mirrors the steps taken in relation to increases in the state pension age, and it is fair that the same applies here. Anyone 10 years or less from retirement age on 1 April 2012 can be assured that there will be no detriment to their retirement income. However, this enhanced offer is conditional upon reaching agreement. It is an offer that can inform the scheme-by-scheme talks which will continue until the end of the year. Of course, if agreement cannot be reached, the Government may be required to revisit our proposals and consider whether those enhancements remain appropriate.
Hywel Williams
Some time ago, the Minister referred to a meeting held yesterday, but will he clarify who was involved? Was a Minister involved in the discussions?
David Mundell
My right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General and my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury have made it clear that the meetings are ongoing on a regular basis in respect of the specific schemes. I am sure that I will be able to give the hon. Gentleman the information he requires.
Our objective remains to agree reforms of the main schemes—those for teachers, health and the NHS, the civil service and firefighters—by the end of the year, and my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary will update the House in due course. The Government’s preferred scheme would produce better pensions for those on low and middle incomes who have devoted a lifetime to public service. At the same time, public service pensions will remain considerably better than those available in the private sector, as my hon. Friends have suggested. A primary school teacher earning £32,000 per year could receive a pension of £20,000 under our proposals. To earn the equivalent pension in the private sector, an employee would have to pay in more than one third of their salary.
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
Several of my constituents who work in the private sector have told me that they totally agree that public sector workers should get sustainable, affordable and fair pensions, but they are concerned that for them to have a similar pension they would have to increase their contributions by a factor of three or four. They do not think that that is fair in the current circumstances.
David Mundell
My hon. Friend makes a good point and I empathise with it as the MP for a constituency that has some of the lowest private sector wages in the UK.
Only 10% of private sector workers have access to the type of scheme that I was describing, which is at a guaranteed level and is inflation proofed, while only one third of private sector employees currently get any contributions from their employers.
Jonathan Edwards
I come back to the issue of the divide-and-rule strategy of playing the public sector off against the private sector. Is the Minister aware that the average pension of a retiring teacher is £9,000 per annum, and that the figures for NHS workers, for civil servants and for members of the armed forces are £7,000 per annum, £6,000 per annum and £7,500 per annum respectively? Do those figures seem unfair to him?
David Mundell
It is a question not of playing the public sector off against the private sector but of setting out a fair scheme for public sector workers, and that is what this Government are seeking to do.
The motion mentions two reports, one by the National Audit Office and the other by the Public Accounts Committee, which do not provide us with sustainable and lasting models for the future. Pensions, as they stand, are not affordable. As Lord Hutton says,
“the status quo is not tenable.”
The Office for Budget Responsibility’s latest forecast demonstrates that long-term costs have continued to increase since March, so reform is now essential because the costs of public service pensions have risen dramatically over the past few decades. The fact is that we are all living longer; the average 60-year-old is living 10 years longer than was the case in the 1970s.
David T. C. Davies (Monmouth) (Con)
I thank my hon. Friend for the points he is making. Does he agree that unless these reforms go ahead public sector workers will not be able to rely on anything, because there might not be any money to pay them anything? That is why it is so important that these reforms go ahead.
David Mundell
I absolutely agree. The speech from the hon. Member for Arfon seemed to me, particularly on Wales, to be very much an argument for the status quo.
Katy Clark
We already know that public sector pensions are, on average, less than £5,600 a year, so if they are going to be even lower what will people live on—state benefits?
David Mundell
There is no suggestion that those on the lowest pay will receive lower state pensions. The Labour party has been very keen to engage in such scaremongering, but the Government’s proposals specifically protect those on the lowest earnings of below £15,000.
Before I finish, I want to turn to some of the specifics about Scotland.
Dr Whiteford
I hope that when the Minister comes to explain the protection for low-paid workers he will be able to clarify something about which many people in trade unions have been asking. Will part-time workers’ earnings and the increase in their contributions be calculated on the basis of full-time equivalent wages?
David Mundell
They will be based on full-time equivalent wages. That point is clear. The difference on pensions between this Government and the Scottish Government is that we are clear on the points that people might not want to hear rather than pretending to people that they can have everything when that is not sustainable.
Dr Whiteford
The contributions of a woman who works part-time in a professional job—for example, as a nurse or a teacher—but takes home less than £15,000 a year will be increased not at the lower rate but at the higher rate of a full-time equivalent.
David Mundell
The hon. Lady knows that in all aspects of employment, the full-time equivalent applies. That is what will apply to pensions.
David Mundell
Indeed. The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point and I am about to come on to some of the issues about the Scottish Government. The point that has been underlined several times in this debate is that there are many issues on which the Scottish Government could make a decision but have chosen not to do so.
Susan Elan Jones
I am sure it could be. The Minister refers to transparency and clarity but yet again refuses to answer the question about ministerial involvement, or lack of it, in negotiations. Why will he use those words yet refuse to do that?
David Mundell
My understanding is that my colleague the Secretary of State for Health is meeting NHS unions as this debate is going on. There are significant ministerial discussions.
We have set out that the budgets of the devolved Administrations, who have these powers, would not be adjusted accordingly if they chose not to implement the reforms, because they have received higher settlements that reflect the proposed changes. If the devolved Administrations do not implement our public sector pensions reforms, Barnett consequentials will be reduced.
The Treasury wrote to tell the Scottish Government they had to apply the 3.2% increase in contributions or make up the shortfall and presented them with a choice. They could have chosen not to apply the increased contributions and make up the difference to the Treasury, but they followed a now familiar pattern: they failed to take any sort of decision and blamed Westminster at every turn. Their manufactured outrage is a smokescreen designed to cover the fact that they have no answers for the people of Scotland on how they would fund public sector pensions, never mind the wider state pension. We have asked them often enough—
David Mundell
I have already set out all the additional money that the Scottish Government have received since the budget settlement last year from which they could have made these choices. Sometimes, choices are difficult, but the Scottish Government prefer to pretend to people that they are on their side while not being willing to take difficult decisions.
Ian Murray
You are talking about choices that the SNP Scottish Government will make and one of the big choices they made was to cut capital spending far faster and far further than your own Government.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
Order. The hon. Gentleman is referring to the Minister and should refer to him as the Minister or “he”. “You” means the occupant of the Chair, and this is nothing to do with me, fortunately.
David Mundell
That is a phrase often used in Scotland, Madam Deputy Speaker, by one of the—
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. I say to the Minister that I am absolutely aware of the use of “you”, but I think that in parliamentary debates we should stick to the convention here, as I am sure he agrees.
David Mundell
I will indeed do that, Madam Deputy Speaker.
The SNP Scottish Government have played fast and loose with Scotland on pensions. Rather than making responsible suggestions, they resort to scare tactics. In this motion, the SNP and Plaid Cymru are frightening people by saying that they will receive less pension. The SNP’s submission to Lord Hutton, as we have heard, offered at best no better and in some cases a much worse deal. The Scottish Public Pensions Agency, an agency of the Scottish Government, headed by the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth, John Swinney, made a number of interesting suggestions when it illustrated options for further change. It suggested reducing current employer contribution cap levels with members meeting all costs above that cap. Alongside that, it proposed to reduce the levels of benefits available without necessarily reducing the levels of contributions.
Pete Wishart
I am listening very carefully to the hon. Gentleman. I suppose it should not come as a surprise to anybody in this House that there are now more giant pandas in Scotland than there are Tory MPs; listening to the Minister, we can see why. Will the Minister concede that there was no submission from the Scottish Government to the Hutton report, but there was a submission from an agency of the Scottish Government?
David Mundell
I do not accept that analysis. The hon. Gentleman might have got a laugh if he had thought that up himself rather than stealing it from the Twittersphere.
The Scottish Government’s proposals were a toxic cocktail topped up by suggestions to introduce later retirement ages, change accrual rates, apply changes to all members, not just new scheme members, and move to a defined contribution scheme, which places the risk of uncertainty over the value of the final pension on the member. All those proposals would mean a worse deal for public service employees than the coalition’s proposals.
David Mowat
I am listening very carefully to the Minister’s comments on the interaction between the Scottish Government and himself. Does he agree that one of the interesting features of the motion is the last part, which appears to concede the point that the Barnett consequentials should be reviewed and that certain types of expenditure should be taken out of them? If that is a principle that the SNP wishes to adopt, we should consider the Barnett formula more generally and the whole settlement and block grant for Scotland.
David Mundell
My hon. Friend makes an interesting point, because that is one issue on which there is an absolute divide between Plaid Cymru and the SNP. Plaid Cymru wants significant change to the Barnett formula and, as I understand it, the SNP does not. That is part of the inherent illogicality that is at the heart of their argument.
I am surprised that we hear nothing these days about independence, which is relevant. Perhaps that is because Plaid Cymru does not promote independence. I look forward to hearing SNP Members set out exactly how an independent Scotland would be able to fund not only existing pensions, but provide enhanced pensions, without consequences for pensioners in Scotland. I am sure that we will hear calls for the break-up of the United Kingdom.
I also look forward to hearing from Labour Members. I understand that Labour MSPs chose not to take part in the debate in the Scottish Parliament because they were working in their constituencies that day. I know that the Labour party has not been an effective Opposition in Holyrood, particularly since the hon. Member for Glasgow East (Margaret Curran) left, but not to turn up at all is taking that to an extreme. I look forward to hearing their contributions today.
Iain Stewart
Absolutely. It is just a smoke screen.
It would create an enormous muddle if we had to pull apart the pension contributions, and we have heard absolutely nothing from the Scottish nationalists about how they would do that.
Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)
I do not intend to repeat the statements about the importance of public sector pensions that have been made so eloquently by many of my colleagues.
I am surprised that SNP Members, who among others have called this debate, have apparently not wanted to speak in it, because only one has done so. However, some of the comments they have made in interventions need to be addressed. It is not true to say that Labour Members have not raised the subject of public sector pensions in this House. Perhaps SNP Members were not here on 30 November to hear what the Leader of the Opposition said at Prime Minister’s questions and were not here during the Opposition day debate that followed, when several Members from my party made very strong speeches in support of public sector workers and on the pensions issue.
Moreover, in this week’s Opposition day debate on the economy, only one SNP Member was present, for a short time—the hon. Member for the Western Isles (Mr MacNeil). I will not attempt to pronounce the Gaelic name for his constituency because, as a lowland Scot, Gaelic is not native to me, and I am not going to pretend that it is. That was the extent of their interest in debating the economy and the issues that are so important in underpinning this debate on pensions, because unless we get the economy right, we will be in some difficulty. Today, several SNP Members left the Chamber early, presumably to put out their press releases to say how they had raised this important issue, but in reality they have not.
In the motion, SNP Members condemn the coalition Government for not being prepared to give them the money directly so as to be able to relieve some, but by no means all, public sector workers in Scotland of the contribution increase. They cannot have their cake and eat it within the system. They cannot have the Barnett consequentials when they like them and decide that they do not want them when they do not like them. Yes, it would be different if they achieved independence, although at that point we would have to ask, “How are you going to afford all the things that you say you are going to afford?”
David Mundell
Is the hon. Lady as surprised as I am that we have not heard a single mention of independence from SNP Members? As I understood it, that was their solution to all the pension issues in Scotland.
Sheila Gilmore
I suspect that in the fantasy world of the debate on independence, as it tends to be, SNP Members would indeed say that that is the answer, but they have to know how they would fund that and about issues to do with tax and making people as well off as possible.
During the SNP Member’s brief appearance in Tuesday’s debate on the economy, he kept talking about the Scandinavian economies. Of course, in the Scandinavian economies there is a very different view of taxation. It is disingenuous of the SNP to want to pose as a low-tax party and tell people that they can have wonderful public services and, at the same time, council tax freezes—which, by the way, are very regressive because they most benefit the people who are best off. The SNP has to decide where it wants to be. It deliberately put such a sentiment in the motion because it wants to be able to say that Labour Members will not support it.
We are in support of public sector workers. We do not think that what the Government are doing is right. We feel, very strongly, that we have to stop what this Government are doing, which is constantly to pit one group of workers against others. They are setting public against private, setting people in work against people who are out of work, and stirring up what I heard described on two occasions on Radio 4 at the weekend as an atmosphere of anger and bitterness. In the discussions on phone-in programmes about what is happening, all the clips were of people shouting at each other, saying, “Why should I, as a private sector worker, pay for your pension?” No commentator said, “Where is that anger being generated from?”, but it is being deliberately stirred up by this Government—
Dr Eilidh Whiteford (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
This has been a wide-ranging debate and I think that there is agreement across the House that pension provision in the long term needs to be affordable, sustainable and fair, not just for public sector workers but for all old age pensioners.
Although we agree on those long-term objectives, the central contention of the debate has been that the short-term measures to reduce the deficit will hit public sector workers but be of no benefit to them. The issue at the heart of the debate is that the proposed 3.2% increase to public sector pension contributions is a straightforward cash grab by the Treasury on public sector workers. It has nothing to do with building long-term sustainability into our pensions system, but is unequivocally a short-term measure to cut the deficit.
Several hon. Members have pointed out that this is not fair and not affordable for a public sector work force who are already feeling the full effects of austerity measures that have gone too far, too fast. Most public sector workers are facing a two-year pay freeze, a 1% pay rise in 2013, increases in VAT and national insurance, and inflation of more than 5%. The cost of their essentials, such as heating, food and fuel, is going through the roof. The pressure on household budgets is intense and is getting worse.
In that context, increasing pension contributions for short-term gain is just the wrong thing to do. It is being done at the wrong time, for the wrong reasons and in the wrong way. It carries the risk that large numbers of people, especially part-time workers, will drop out of schemes altogether because of the immediate financial pressures that they face.
I think, and most Members on both sides of the House agree, that public sector pensions matter. They matter to the one in five people who are directly affected. They matter to the rest of us who depend on public services and who realise that our public service work force are critical to the delivery of high-quality services. Above all, they matter to all of us who care about the welfare of older people in retirement. All of us want to enjoy a decent level of income. For parts of the country that have a high dependency on the public sector work force, the issue is even more acute.
David Mundell
What I do not understand about the hon. Lady’s logic is that the Scottish National party has said that it wants to have a referendum on independence for Scotland in the next four years. The area on which that would most significantly impact is pensions and pensioners, yet in her contribution and in the contributions of her fellow SNP Members, we have heard nothing about independence or about how pensions would be provided, guaranteed or sustained in an independent Scotland.
Dr Whiteford
I refer the right hon. Gentleman to the Order Paper and the motion that we are debating. It will come as no surprise to anybody in the House that I believe in independence—I am an SNP Member. However, we are talking about public sector pensions and the Government’s proposals. It might be a nice distraction for the Government to talk about other issues that are equally relevant to Scotland’s future.
One of the most disappointing things about this debate has been that the Government have tried to defend their proposals by constantly highlighting the disparity between public and private sector pensions. We owe a debt to the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Katy Clark) for pointing out the detrimental state of private sector pensions. When the Government responded to the interim Hutton report, my understanding was that they accepted its conclusion that pensions should not become a race to the bottom. However, speaker after speaker on the Government Benches has resorted to the argument that because private sector pensions are really poor, public sector pensions should be levelled down. That will not in any way address our pensions challenge. It is not sustainable and it is not fair to anyone in the private or public sector.
We have some of the highest levels of pensioner poverty in Europe. Currently, 30% of pensioner households and a massive 43% of single pensioners, most of whom are women, are in receipt of income-related benefits, whether that is pension credit, housing benefit or council tax benefit. Having large numbers of older people on means-tested benefits is not the way to do things. It is the price that we pay for poor pension provision. It is not an efficient way to support people in retirement.
The other big myth that has been well and truly blown out of the water today is that public sector pensions are gold-plated. Quite simply, they are not. Member after Member has pointed out that most public servants retire on modest incomes. The PCS points out that its average member’s pension is only £4,200 year. That is £80 a week, which is only £4 above the Government’s pensioner poverty figure. If such people’s pensions are reduced or they opt out because of the new conditions and contribution increases, it will simply put the burden back on means-tested benefits to keep people out of abject poverty in their old age.
In local government, in which 67% of the work force are women, the average woman’s pension is only £2,800 a year. Almost half of local government workers are on pensions of less than £3,000, and even in the NHS, in which salaries are much higher because of the professional qualifications involved, three quarters of members are still on pensions of less than £9,000 a year.
The Government have tried to sell us their proposals on the basis that low and middle-income earners will be protected from contribution increases, and may even be better off as a result. That is one of their key claims. However, because of the switch in indexing from RPI to CPI, all public sector workers will lose out in the longer term, and they will all be working longer. That indexing switch has been mentioned in the debate, and I am sorry that more Members did not vote against it when they had the chance to do so back in February. They have a chance to rectify that now, and I hope that they will support us in the Lobby today.
Perhaps the most misleading aspect of the Government’s approach to the contributions increases is that they have said there will be protection for low-paid workers. As the Minister admitted earlier, the contributions of part-time workers will be calculated on the basis of full-time equivalent salaries, which will have massive implications for women, who make up the vast majority of part-time workers. About 32% of the women in our work force work part-time so that they can combine employment with unpaid work in the home or looking after others.
The Government have said that workers on incomes under £15,000 will not pay increased contributions, and that other low earners on up to £21,000 will pay reduced contributions, but when we look at the small print, we see that those thresholds, calculated on the basis of full-time equivalent salaries rather than their actual take-home pay, will mean that even professional people such as nurses and teachers who work part-time will have their pension contributions increased.
Parliamentary Written Question (Correction)
David Mundell Excerpts(12 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (David Mundell)
I regret that the written answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin) on 15 November, Official Report, column 665W, contained an error. The answer stated that the TaxPayers Alliance applied for permission to bring judicial review against the Secretary of State for Scotland in respect of the Glasgow Commonwealth Games Act 2008 (Games Association Right) Order 2009. This is not correct. The application for permission to bring judicial review was made by Big Brother Watch and not by the TaxPayers Alliance.
The correct answer is as follows:
David Mundell: In the last Parliament there were two applications:
(1) Derek Traynor and James Fisher raised petitions for judicial review against the Secretary of State for Scotland and Scottish Ministers in respect of the Scottish Parliament (Elections etc.) Order 2007. The applications were unsuccessful at first instance in the Court of Session, the petitioners appealed, and the appeals remain pending at their request. The legal costs incurred by the Secretary of State for Scotland to date are £4,555.50.
(2) Big Brother Watch applied for permission to bring judicial review against the Secretary of State for Scotland in respect of the Glasgow Commonwealth Games Act 2008 (Games Association Right) Order 2009. The application was refused. The Scotland Office’s legal costs were £7,080. The Scotland Office applied for costs against the applicant. Costs were awarded in part and they have been paid.
There have been no applications for judicial review against the Scotland Office since May 2010.
Scotland (Poverty)
David Mundell Excerpts(12 years, 11 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (David Mundell)
Thank you, Mr. Robertson. I welcome the opportunity to appear under your chairmanship, and it is particularly appropriate that you are in the Chair for this debate on St. Andrew’s day. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock (Sandra Osborne) for instigating this debate. She and other hon. Members who have contributed to the debate are correct to say that there should be more discussion and debate of these issues in relation to Scotland, and that there should be more discussion and debate in this Parliament in respect of the reserved issues for which this Government are responsible in Scotland. Scotland has two Governments, both of which play a significant role and both of which should be held to account.
I also agree that the two Governments should work more closely together on many of the issues that have been touched on today. Sadly, for reasons also touched on by many hon. Members, principally the obsession of the SNP Government in Edinburgh with independence and constitutional issues, it has not always been possible to have the dialogue that would serve the people of Scotland best—on substantive matters in relation to policy objectives and outcomes, rather than the debate constantly being about who did what.
We have had a number of detailed contributions to the debate, particularly by the hon. Member for Glasgow North (Ann McKechin), and the hon. Member for Aberdeen South (Dame Anne Begg), who chairs the Select Committee. I give them a firm commitment that I will take away the points that they have made, and raise them with Department for Work and Pensions colleagues and I will write back to them on their specific points. While we might not be in agreement on the policy prescription, or whether the policies of the Government of which they were a part delivered much of what the hon. Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock set out, I am in agreement with them that the issues that they raised are important and significant.
As ever, I commend the right hon. Member for Stirling (Mrs McGuire) for the passion in her contribution. Again, the issues that she raised are worthy of much more significant debate, especially in relation to the concerns about the impact of hidden poverty, which is not just a financial issue. There would be agreement across the House on that. I listened to the points made by the right hon. Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Mr Clarke). I do not necessarily agree with what he had to say, but I sense his passion on the issue, and he has a long track record of fighting the cause of the poor, and that is to be commended. My hon. Friend the Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr Reid) did not make a speech, although it felt as if he did. It will not surprise you to learn, Mr. Robertson, that I agree with most of the points that he made in his interventions. I am sure that, over the Christmas period, when he reflects on such matters, as he was asked to do by the right hon. Member for Stirling, he will reflect on the many achievements of the coalition Government in taking forward their agenda. When he intervened on the hon. Member for Glasgow North East (Mr Bain)—I welcome him to the first real exchange that we have had since he took his position—my hon. Friend the Member for Argyll and Bute make the most significant point, which is how the various aspirations that were expressed during the debate would be paid for. We did not hear anything about that. We heard again about Labour’s five-point plan. As far as I am aware, that is a £20 billion black hole for which no funding has been identified.
Sandra Osborne
Does the Minister agree that a far more effective way of solving the youth unemployment problem would be a £2 billion tax on bank bonuses, which would fund 100,000 jobs for young people?
David Mundell
The hon. Lady knows that the Government have moved forward with a bank levy, which has raised more than the tax on bonuses that her Government set out. It is populist to say, “tax the bankers,” but that does not set out where the money would come from that would create the funding she suggests.
I hope the hon. Lady will join me in welcoming yesterday’s announcement on the youth contract—a significant step forward in tackling what everyone accepts is the serious problem of youth unemployment. Of course, it was not acknowledged in today’s debate that youth unemployment rose under the previous Labour Government. Youth unemployment is a serious issue, on which we should be trying to work on a cross-party basis. That is why I was pleased to be part of a seminar in Ayrshire with the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Donohoe), bringing together the UK Government and the Scottish Government to look at the underlying problems of youth unemployment. That is why I am pleased that my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions will host a national meeting in Scotland with John Swinney to focus on youth unemployment in Scotland.
Oral Answers to Questions
David Mundell Excerpts(13 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
3. What steps he is taking to reduce administrative costs in his Department.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (David Mundell)
Scotland Office Ministers are determined that the Office contribute to the Government’s task of reducing the budget deficit. I and my officials are bearing down hard on administrative costs through a range of efficiency measures, including using framework contracts negotiated by other Government bodies, sharing resources with the other territorial offices and making more efficient use of leasehold property.
Mr Bone
The Prime Minister wants to see smaller and more effective government. Only last year, the Secretary of State for Scotland called for the abolition of the Scotland Office. Would the very capable Minister not be making a career enhancing move if he suggested now from the Dispatch Box that we should abolish the Scotland Office, the Wales Office and the Northern Ireland Office and replace them with an office for the Union?
David Mundell
Absolutely not. At this time, when the United Kingdom faces its greatest ever danger from separatists, the Scotland Office is a bulwark against independence.
Mr Brian H. Donohoe (Central Ayrshire) (Lab)
Is that what is called cutting the Department to the bone? Will the Minister name all the staff of his Department? I remember telling a previous Secretary of State that it must be the only empire in the whole of Westminster where the Secretary of State is able to name all his staff: can he?
David Mundell
I pay tribute to the staff of the Scotland Office. With a small number of staff, we have pursued the Scotland Bill, a very significant measure, through this House and into the other place. The Scotland Office has a key role to play as we move forward in preserving Scotland’s place in the United Kingdom.
Mark Menzies (Fylde) (Con)
4. What recent assessment he has made of the benefits to Scotland of the Union; and if he will make a statement.
Mike Freer (Finchley and Golders Green) (Con)
6. What assessment his Department has made of the report of Electoral Commission Scotland on the 2011 elections to the Scottish Parliament; and if he will make a statement.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (David Mundell)
I welcome the Electoral Commission’s finding that the Scottish Parliament election was well administered and voter focused.
Mike Freer
Given that the Scottish Government did not complain about the Electoral Commission being involved in the elections, does my right hon. Friend think it odd that they now want to set up their own independent commission on the referendum?
David Mundell
I agree with my hon. Friend. The SNP Government had no complaint about the Electoral Commission’s involvement in the Scottish Parliament elections and the alternative vote referendum but, at great cost to the taxpayer, they intend to set up their own commission to oversee the referendum. No wonder so many people are speculating that that is an attempt to rig the referendum.
Mr Ian Davidson (Glasgow South West) (Lab/Co-op)
Will the Minister meet the Electoral Commission in Scotland on 30 November, or will he, like me, be supporting the public sector strike against Tory cuts in pensions?
David Mundell
I welcome the fact that the hon. Gentleman, as convenor of the Scottish Affairs Committee, brought the Electoral Commission before his Committee. That will provide valuable evidence in the debate on the role that it should play in any referendum.
Iain Stewart (Milton Keynes South) (Con)
Is my right hon. Friend aware of any recommendation in the report about changing the electorate in Scotland in the same way as the Scottish Government want to gerrymander the electorate for their independence referendum?
David Mundell
I am not aware of any such suggestions in the Electoral Commission report, but my hon. Friend is correct to highlight the issues with the Scottish separatists’ referendum that are causing such uncertainty—the franchise, the question and the timing. [Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. I appeal to the House to come to order and listen to Mr Frank Doran.
Miss Anne McIntosh (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
9. What discussions he has had with the First Minister on reform of the common fisheries policy.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (David Mundell)
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I have regular discussions with the First Minister and his officials on a range of issues of significance to the Scottish economy. I have frequent discussions with the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs and Environment, including a meeting last week on the common fisheries policy and other matters.
Miss McIntosh
Does the Minister agree that the direction in which the negotiations on fisheries are going is entirely in the interests of the Scottish and UK fisheries in ending discards and allowing for regional fisheries agreements?
David Mundell
I agree with my hon. Friend, just as I agree with Bertie Armstrong, chief executive of the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation, who stated in his evidence to the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, which she chairs, that the UK should speak with one voice in fisheries negotiations.
Katy Clark (North Ayrshire and Arran) (Lab)
What discussions has the Minister had with the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon) about tradeable quotas to ensure that they are not taken advantage of by multinationals who use the UK as a flag of convenience?
David Mundell
I am sure that the Under-Secretary will have understood the hon. Lady’s point. She, like me, will welcome the fact that there will be a Backbench Business Committee debate on fisheries next week.
Fiona O'Donnell (East Lothian) (Lab)
10. What discussions he has had with the Scottish Government on the level of unemployment in Scotland.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (David Mundell)
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I are in regular contact with John Swinney, the Scottish Minister responsible for employment, about unemployment in Scotland. Scottish Government officials and agencies have been involved in all the employment seminars that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has held over the past six months.
Fiona O'Donnell
Will the Minister tell the people in my constituency who have lost their jobs since he got his job whether unemployment is a price worth paying for a deficit reduction plan that is choking off growth and raising Government debt?
David Mundell
I tell the hon. Lady to be slightly less predictable and finally to take some responsibility for the situation in which her Government left this country, including the biggest peacetime deficit in our history.
Mr Alan Reid (Argyll and Bute) (LD)
Unemployment in Kintyre could be reduced if the community bid to take over the former RAF base at Machrihanish goes ahead. I hope that the Ministry of Defence will make a contribution towards making the water supply fit for purpose, so that the community’s bid is viable. Will the Minister please encourage the MOD to do so?
David Mundell
I am happy to meet my hon. Friend and take forward his concerns with the MOD.
Mrs Anne McGuire (Stirling) (Lab)
Will the Minister take responsibility for something that his Government have done? This morning, House of Commons figures show that youth unemployment in my constituency has risen by 218.2%. What is he going to tell the young people of Stirling that the Government have done over the past 18 months?
David Mundell
The right hon. Lady knows that youth unemployment rose under the Labour Government too. It is a serious issue, and it should not be the subject of party politicking. We should all work together to resolve youth unemployment.
Constitutional Status (Scotland)
David Mundell Excerpts(13 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (David Mundell)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Glasgow South (Mr Harris) on securing this debate on what is an important issue, and I thank all hon. Members for their presence at it. I note the hon. Gentleman’s participation in the contest for the leadership of the Scottish Labour party. I would wish him well, but I know that that would damage his chances. There is also a contest for the deputy leadership of the Scottish Labour party. As I have already made clear, when a newspaper headline read, “Mundell Backs Davidson”, it did not refer to the hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Mr Davidson), so that should help his chances.
The Government have been clear that they are totally opposed to the break-up of the United Kingdom. The Prime Minister has committed to working constructively with the devolved Administrations on the basis of mutual respect. There are many issues on which the Government have worked successfully with the Scottish Government. However, we do not agree with the Scottish Government in their pursuit of separatism. On that issue, we will give them no succour. Whatever factors played a part in May’s election result, a rise in support for Scottish separatism was not one of them.
However, let me be clear that we are not complacent about the Scottish Government’s call for a referendum on the breaking up of the United Kingdom. We are challenging them. They must answer the substantive questions, to which the hon. Member for Glasgow South referred, about what they mean by “independence”. They have been uncharacteristically shy in setting out exactly what independence would involve and what it would cost.
After repeated questioning, the Scottish Government have now told me that the 2009 White Paper “Your Scotland, Your Voice” and the 2010 draft Referendum (Scotland) Bill hold all the answers. As hon. Members would expect, we are scrutinising those papers thoroughly. However, so far they appear simply to raise more questions than answers. We now also have another glossy SNP pamphlet entitled “Your Scotland, Your Future”, in which, as usual, dozens of promises are set out but there are no facts and no evidence.
The hon. Gentleman raised valuable points about the Scottish Government’s proposed referendum. First, the date of the referendum is crucial. Not only is the current situation unsettling, but many people’s patience is being tested by the lack of detail coming from the Scottish Government on what independence would actually mean. Business leaders are now beginning to say that they are worried about the uncertainty that that is creating about Scotland’s future, which is damaging to Scotland and to the United Kingdom. We are trying to get more detail out of the Scottish Government. At present, all that we have to go on is the vague time line of
“the second half of the parliamentary term”
and no other detail. We do not have to accept that that is satisfactory. As the hon. Gentleman said, that time scale was never a manifesto commitment. In fact, the First Minister revealed the notion only a week before the elections took place. If the case for separatism is so strong, why wait to hold the referendum?
Secondly, the hon. Gentleman mentioned the referendum question. The First Minister has raised the prospect of “devolution-max”, also known as “independence-lite”, or possibly “full fiscal autonomy”, and is dangling it as a supposed third way. That is a fallacy. There is no third way. The only choice is between separatism and remaining in the United Kingdom.
We can review and update the devolution settlement, as Calman did and as the Scotland Bill is currently doing. The Calman commission, formed through cross-party consensus, recognised the strength and benefits of the economic and social union between Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom. Its recommendations are now being implemented through the Scotland Bill, which represents a radical, historic and significant change to the financing of public services in Scotland. We can allow the settlement to evolve, but selling the Scottish people the undefined SNP construct of “devo-max” is selling the Scottish public a pig in a poke. Any referendum question needs to be clear—yes or no to separatism. As the hon. Gentleman said, anything else would simply be jiggery-pokery.
Thirdly, the hon. Gentleman mentioned the franchise. The Scottish Government have indicated that 16 and 17-year-olds should be given the right to vote in any referendum. Many people are already suspicious that the SNP is trying to rig the electorate to get the result it wants. Is it appropriate to experiment with changes to the franchise on a matter of such importance as the future of Scotland?
Finally, the hon. Gentleman discussed the role of the Electoral Commission. It is an independent body, respected for ensuring transparency in polls across the United Kingdom. In their 2010 draft referendum Bill and consultation paper, the Scottish Government stated that they intended to create their own electoral commission for any referendum. Questions have to be asked about that course of action. What is wrong with the current Electoral Commission, which has delivered so much in Scotland to date? What is the motive behind the Scottish Government creating their own commission? How many extra costs would that create for the taxpayer?
The hon. Gentleman also made a valid point about the Canadian Clarity Act, and it is worthy of further consideration. Hon. Members will be aware that the Scottish Affairs Committee is holding two inquiries into questions relating to a referendum and what the break-up of the United Kingdom would mean for Scotland and the rest of the UK. I have no doubt that academics and experts called before the Committee will be keen to explore the Canadian Clarity Act and its parallels with Scotland.
Mr Ian Davidson (Glasgow South West) (Lab/Co-op)
The Minister correctly identifies that the Scottish Affairs Committee is looking at aspects of a separation referendum. Will he make the resources of government, particularly civil servants, available to provide information to the Committee? That would help us to clarify some of the questions that we identify in our current trawl. Those issues will require settlement before any referendum is held, so that the Scottish public can be well informed.
David Mundell
I can give the Committee Chairman that assurance. The Government will do everything we can to support the Committee’s work, because we believe that the people should be well informed before any referendum takes place. We sincerely hope that the Scottish Government will follow our example and be forthcoming with the same level of information, which is required not just by the Committee, but by the people of Scotland if they are to make a decision on this important matter.
Pete Wishart
The Minister does not quite understand that the days of this House determining and dictating what the Scottish do in future are over and gone, and do not matter any more. Does he foresee any situation or condition in which this Westminster Conservative Government will take over the referendum process?
David Mundell
If the hon. Gentleman believed a word of that diatribe, he would call the referendum now and demonstrate what the people of Scotland think.
We share so much in common across the United Kingdom and we have a successful partnership that delivers stability and prosperity for all parts of the nation. I think we will see people across Scotland coming out in favour of the most successful economic and social union ever when they eventually get the chance to vote. It is right to keep the United Kingdom together when so much unites us. The best of the UK is still to come.
Let hon. Members be in no doubt that the Government will not be neutral on the break-up of the United Kingdom. We will continue to argue for a better future for Scotland within the UK. We look forward to continuing this debate and to contributing to the Scottish Affairs Committee inquiries in due course, and to the Scottish Government’s co-operation with those two inquiries, when they can answer the questions raised in the debate. What the people of Scotland need now is not vulgar triumphalism from Mr Salmond and glossy brochures from the SNP, but facts, evidence and answers.
Question put and agreed to.
Oral Answers to Questions
David Mundell Excerpts(13 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Jim McGovern (Dundee West) (Lab)
1. What recent discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions on Remploy’s operations in Scotland.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (David Mundell)
The Government are totally committed to supporting disabled people into employment, and the amount of money going into that is being protected. A consultation event on the future strategy of Remploy is taking place in Glasgow today, and Remploy staff have been invited to attend.
Jim McGovern
As job losses continue to increase in my constituency, can the Minister say whether he intends to engage with the Department for Work and Pensions to ensure that the Remploy jobs in Dundee are protected?
David Mundell
I can assure the hon. Gentleman, who is a doughty fighter for Remploy, that no decisions have been made. I understand that he attended a meeting in the Scottish Parliament organised by Helen Eadie MSP that undertook to submit a response to the consultation on Remploy, and that response will be welcome.
Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP)
The Dundee Remploy factory is in the constituency of the hon. Member for Dundee West (Jim McGovern), but many of my constituents work in it. The factory makes first-class chemical and biological suits, which are required by the emergency services and the military. I urge the Minister to speak not just to the Department for Work and Pensions, however important that might be, but to the Ministry of Defence and the Home Secretary to ensure that the emergency services and the military look carefully at what Remploy produces and, in particular, the quality of the suits that the Dundee factory makes.
David Mundell
The hon. Gentleman will know that his constituency neighbour has already met the MOD, which has confirmed the high standard and quality of the work Remploy does in its Dundee factory. However, I urge the hon. Gentleman and everyone in Scotland with an interest to take part in the consultation.
Tom Greatrex (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Lab/Co-op)
I am sure that the Minister is aware that as well as the Dundee factory there are seven other Remploy factories in Scotland. Does he accept that while his colleagues in the Government are talking about the importance of manufacturing it would be crass and foolhardy to embark on the closure of factories that provide goods and jobs, where public sector procurement could make the difference to ensure that they are viable in future? Will he make representations across Government to ensure that the jobs in those eight factories in Scotland are protected?
David Mundell
I am sure that the hon. Gentleman agrees that it is not acceptable that around 50% of disabled people are out of work and that those who are in work often do jobs that are far below their potential. Closing the unemployment gap between disabled and non-disabled people could boost the overall economy by £13 billion, and the Government want to achieve that. We are undertaking a consultation; I urge him and everyone with an interest to take part in it.
Jim Sheridan (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (Lab)
2. When he last met representatives of the six largest energy providers in Scotland.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (David Mundell)
Scottish forces gave assistance to forces in England through the provision of police support units. During the debate in the House on 11 August, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said:
“I am aware of the excellent role that Scottish police officers played, particularly helping the West Midlands force. I saw for myself their impact when they arrived in Birmingham, and it is very good that our forces can co-operate in that way.”—[Official Report, 11 August 2011; Vol. 531, c. 1081.]
Fiona Bruce
Does the Minister agree that the excellent cross-border support provided by Scottish police has exemplified to everyone in Britain the advantages of a flexible, devolved United Kingdom?
David Mundell
I entirely agree. There are many examples of Scottish forces’ playing an important role in incidents elsewhere in the United Kingdom, not least in dealing with the shootings that took place in Cumbria in 2010.
Bob Blackman
Londoners welcomed the robust standard of policing brought from Scotland during the recent riots. What plans are there for closer co-operation, joint operations and further training, so that we can learn the lessons of the past?
David Mundell
As the Prime Minister made clear on 11 August, Strathclyde police have achieved significant success—particularly in Glasgow—in pursuing gang-related initiatives, including a community initiative to reduce violence. They are committed to working with the Metropolitan police and other forces in England to share best practice in that regard.
Michael Connarty (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (Lab)
During the recess, I spent six days with Lothian and Borders police as part of the parliamentary police scheme. The people with whom I worked were concerned about the possibility that the call on Scottish forces would deny them, for example, any holidays in August next year during the Olympics, and also about the possible impact on the budget of Scottish forces. Is the Secretary of State lobbying to secure adequate recompense for the Scottish forces for the contribution that they have made, and will make in the future, to English policing?
David Mundell
The hon. Gentleman will know that there are arrangements with the Home Office for occasions when police forces are deployed from other parts of the United Kingdom. However, I am sure that the Home Secretary has heard the specific points made by the hon. Gentleman, and I will raise them directly with the Scottish Government.
Mr David Amess (Southend West) (Con)
8. What recent discussions he has had with the Deputy Prime Minister on establishing a commission on the West Lothian question.
Mr William Bain (Glasgow North East) (Lab)
12. What assessment he has made of the effects on job creation in Scotland of the employer’s national insurance holiday scheme.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (David Mundell)
As of 7 September 2011, Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs has received 922 successful applications for the national insurance holiday scheme from new businesses located in Scotland. Of the 396 applications received for the 2010-11 financial year, 386 claimed the national insurance contributions holiday, supporting approximately 1,300 new jobs.
Mr Bain
Should not the Minister be lobbying the Chancellor to create a proper strategy for growth for Scottish manufacturing and construction, instead of offering such complacent support for a scheme that has created less than 10% of the jobs that were forecast and that has been described by the Federation of Small Businesses in Scotland as badly designed and failing to deliver at a time when the country needs the creation of new jobs?
David Mundell
We will certainly not be taking any lectures on national insurance from Labour, a party that sought to introduce a jobs tax in 2009. [Interruption.] I had the benefit of visiting the hon. Gentleman’s constituency last week, and I would have thought that he welcomed the fact that these jobs that did not exist before and that they have a better chance of becoming permanent with the NIC holiday—[Interruption.]
Mr Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
It seems you are not alone, Mr Speaker.
Job creation is majorly affected by fuel costs. In my constituency in Stornoway fuel is £1.50 a litre and in Uist it is £1.57. A huge component of those prices is the cost of distribution from the refineries. A few months ago, the Secretary of State gave me assurances that he would look into this. Can the Minister update me on any progress that has been made regarding fuel distribution from refineries?
David Mundell
I can update the hon. Gentleman on the progress on receiving the derogation from the EU to allow fuel prices in his constituency and other remote parts to be lower than they currently are. I should have thought that he welcomed this coalition Government’s delivering that commitment.
Oral Answers to Questions
David Mundell Excerpts(13 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Graeme Morrice (Livingston) (Lab)
1. What recent discussions he has had with the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the effects on Scotland of the rate of inflation.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (David Mundell)
I have regular discussions with my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on a wide range of issues, including the state of the economy. Inflation is being pushed higher by rising global commodity prices. This is a global problem that requires global solutions.
Graeme Morrice
I thank the Minister for his answer. It is now clear that the Government’s VAT hike in January helped to drive up inflation, which is squeezing family incomes, hitting consumer spending and holding back strong growth. Will the Minister now speak up for families and businesses in Scotland and urge the Chancellor to reverse the VAT rise to help to boost consumer confidence and bring down inflation?
David Mundell
As the hon. Gentleman knows, the former Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Mr Darling), said that he would have done exactly the same in relation to VAT, and a cut in VAT would do nothing to reverse global commodity price rises. It would, however, do a lot to reverse the Government’s hard-won credibility for getting the deficit down. Of course, credibility on economic matters does not seem to be important to the Opposition.
Mr Mike Weir (Angus) (SNP)
In answer to my written parliamentary question, the Office for National Statistics confirms that, in four of the past five years, the rise in domestic gas prices far outstripped the rate of inflation—this is before the latest rise—while family incomes are at best static. What steps can the Government take to protect already hard-pressed families from these escalating costs in the coming winter?
David Mundell
The Government are concerned about the rise in fuel prices, especially gas prices. One of the measures we have taken is to ensure that the poorest families have protection in relation to their fuel costs.
Ann McKechin (Glasgow North) (Lab)
I am sure that the Minister will welcome the inquiry Ofgem announced today into Scottish Power’s price rise and the way in which it announced the change to consumers. Does he agree that it is completely inappropriate for energy companies to add to the increased cost of living in Scotland by deciding to hike domestic bills? What personally is he doing about this?
David Mundell
There is widespread concern in Scotland about these actions, especially about the recent fuel cost rises announced by Scottish Power. As the hon. Lady knows from previous questions, the Secretary of State and I have raised these issues with the energy companies.
Ann McKechin
Although it is very nice to meet up, I think that Scottish consumers are looking for action as they face a rise of an average of £198 a year in their bills while wages are being frozen, prices are rising at well above the target inflation rate and borrowing is now £46 billion higher than expected because of the decrease in economic activity. Does the Minister agree that it is now time for a plan B, and for the temporary cut in VAT that Labour has called for?
David Mundell
It will not surprise the hon. Lady when I say most certainly not. In setting out those woes, she has not acknowledged her part as a Minister, and that of her party, in bringing this country to the verge of bankruptcy, or the need to take the tough action that this Government have taken. She also knows that the shadow Chancellor is in a majority of one in setting out his proposals—
Mr Turner
Does my hon. Friend agree that the last thing we want, having passed the Scotland Bill and with new powers devolved to Wales, is another expensive parliamentary assembly or talking shop in England, as the British Parliament here can cope with English matters, but decided by English MPs?
David Mundell
I agree with my hon. Friend. I have always expressed the view that there is no desire for an English Parliament—and the same two people have always written to me afterwards to say that I am wrong.
Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)
Does the Minister agree that this issue is much more complex than Conservative Members sometimes allow? A good example arose in the debates on university tuition fees before Christmas. That might have been regarded as a purely English issue, but it had tremendous consequences for Scotland.
David Mundell
I acknowledge the hon. Lady’s point. This is a complex issue, which is why the coalition Government are committed to establishing a commission to look at it. I hope that it will be able to take evidence from people such as the hon. Lady.
Mark Lazarowicz (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab/Co-op)
I am sure the Minister is right when he says that there is no great demand for an English Parliament. Does he not accept that the proposal to have two classes of MPs in this House, which is coming from many supporters of the proposals of the hon. Member for West Worcestershire (Harriett Baldwin), effectively amounts to setting up an English Parliament in this building? Is that not inevitably the road that his Government will go down if they accept having two classes of MPs in this House?
David Mundell
I do not acknowledge the hon. Gentleman’s point because the devolution settlement means that different MPs in this House already have different responsibilities, depending on whether they are from Scotland, England, Northern Ireland or Wales. The Government are committed to look at the West Lothian question, which is a substantive issue that the previous Government ignored, and will set up a commission later this year.
Alun Cairns (Vale of Glamorgan) (Con)
4. What steps the Government plan to take to ensure a stable economic environment for businesses in Scotland.
Mr Alan Reid (Argyll and Bute) (LD)
6. What recent discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Transport on the Clyde coastguard station in Greenock.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (David Mundell)
I have regular discussions with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport on a range of issues of mutual interest, including the future of Scottish coastguard stations.
Mr Reid
May I pay tribute to David Cairns, who had been campaigning to save the Clyde coastguard station before his tragic early death? The waters around Argyll and Bute, with all its islands, peninsulas and sea lochs, present a unique challenge to seafarers. If the Clyde coastguard station is closed, however, all the valuable local knowledge of the area held by the people who work there will be lost. Will the Minister draw that to the attention of the Secretary of State for Transport and urge him to keep Clyde coastguard station open?
David Mundell
It is appropriate that there is mention of David Cairns, who gave distinguished service as a Scotland Office Minister, at this first Scottish questions since his tragic death. I assure my hon. Friend that his points will have been heard, as they were in the recent Westminster Hall debate in which he took part. The Department for Transport will make no announcement on the future of coastguard stations until the Transport Committee has reported.
Tom Greatrex (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Lab/Co-op)
I associate myself with the comments that have been made about David Cairns.
As the Minister will know, concern is sometimes expressed in Scotland about what he actually does. In a spirit of co-operation, may I offer him an opportunity to allay that concern by expressing, in clear and unambiguous terms, his opposition to the disastrous plans of the Department for Transport to close the coastguard centre in Greenock? Will he stand up for Scotland in that regard?
David Mundell
As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Scotland Office always makes the case for Scotland, and for facilities and resources in Scotland. I welcome the approach of my colleagues in the Department for Transport, who say that they will listen to all representations following their consultation and await the report of the Select Committee on Transport.
Mr Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Clyde coastguard is important to the west coast of Scotland. As one who represents a west coast constituency, I believe that we have already suffered from the loss of Oban coastguard a decade or so ago. Does the Minister agree that—as the doughty fighter Anne McLaughlin is always reminding me—we need Stornoway, Shetland and Clyde coastguards on the west coast as a maritime insurance policy?
David Mundell
I would characterise the hon. Gentleman himself as a doughty fighter for the station in Stornoway. He has made significant representations, and they have been heard. My colleagues in the Department for Transport will announce their conclusion after the Select Committee has delivered its report.
Ian Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)
7. What recent discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills about the transfer to the Scottish Parliament of the power to set rates of corporation tax.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (David Mundell)
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I regularly discuss a range of devolution issues with the Advocate-General. We regularly discuss devolution issues in relation to the Scotland Bill, which is delivering the Government’s commitment to strengthening the devolution settlement.
Anne Marie Morris
No doubt the Minister is acutely aware of the importance of reform of the common agricultural policy to farmers both in Scotland and elsewhere in the United Kingdom. Given the importance of agriculture to the economy, does he agree that it is essential that we secure a deal for our farmers that is fairer and more transparent?
Mr Speaker
Order. The Minister’s mellifluous tones diverted me from the fact that the content of his answer did not relate to the question that had been asked. I am sure that he will now talk about agriculture and not about devolution.
David Mundell
Thank you, Mr Speaker. I can inform the hon. Member for Newton Abbot (Anne Marie Morris) that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland was in Brussels last week, where he made the very points that she has just made.
Miss Anne McIntosh (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
9. What recent discussions he has had with the Advocate-General on devolution issues.
Miss McIntosh
As ever, I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Has the Advocate-General yet received an update on the progress made by the expert group set up by the Scottish Government, which is examining the role of the United Kingdom Supreme Court?
David Mundell
The Advocate-General wrote to the chair of the Scottish Government expert group, Lord McCluskey, offering a meeting, but has now received a response from the group’s secretariat saying that, owing to their timetable, members of the group have not had time in the first instance to receive submissions or hear evidence. What appears to have happened is that an expert group is set up by the First Minister one week, meets the following week—with no evidence taken in any week—and reports the week after.
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)
That was a most disappointing response. Will the Government start supporting the integrity and independence of Scots law, work constructively with the Scots group chaired by the eminent Lord McCluskey and promise to do nothing to reform the Supreme Court until the group has reported?
David Mundell
I should have hoped that the hon. Gentleman, like his colleague, Jim Sillars, the former deputy leader of the Scottish National party, would have sought to disassociate himself from the appalling comments that the First Minister has made about Lord Hope, which Jim Sillars described as “foolish” and “juvenile”. [Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. There are far too many private conversations taking place in the Chamber. It is very discourteous to the Member asking the question and to the Minister answering it. I want to hear Sir Menzies Campbell.
Sir Menzies Campbell (North East Fife) (LD)
What possible confidence can we have in the findings of a group that is unwilling to meet the Advocate-General, who last year established an inquiry for precisely the same purpose as this group has been established?
David Mundell
The right hon. and learned Gentleman makes an extremely good point. As I said in my initial response, it seems incredible that a group set up to consider this very complicated issue is not going to take evidence or receive submissions. I am pleased that the Advocate-General has in any event made his information available to the group, so that might give us some confidence in the report it produces.
Mark Menzies (Fylde) (Con)
10. What steps he is taking to promote Scotland as a destination for international inward investment.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (David Mundell)
This issue was raised in discussions between my right hon. Friends the Deputy Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Scotland and the First Minister on 9 June. As announced by my right hon. Friends the Chancellor and the Secretary of State on 13 June, the Government are bringing forward to 2011 the power for Scottish Ministers to make prepayments, which will allow work on the Forth replacement crossing to begin.
David Mowat
I thank the Minister for that reply. He will be aware that two major bridge schemes are about to take place in the UK: the Forth road bridge, to be funded by the Treasury and by the means that he has just given us, and the Mersey gateway in Cheshire, to be funded substantially by tolls. How can the Government justify that difference in the same country?
David Mundell
The justification is devolution; it is a decision of the Scottish Government to proceed with the Forth replacement crossing on the basis that there will be no tolls on it.
Scotland Bill (Programme) (No. 2)
David Mundell Excerpts(13 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (David Mundell)
I beg to move,
That the Order of 27 January 2011 (Scotland Bill (Programme)) be varied as follows:
1. Paragraphs 6 and 7 of the Order shall be omitted.
2. Proceedings on consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on the day on which those proceedings are commenced.
3. Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after the moment of interruption on that day, or one hour after they are commenced, whichever is the earlier.
I wish to speak briefly to the programme motion, so as to allow Report to begin. As Members will see, the Government are amending the programme order to allow Report stage to run until 10 pm and Third Reading to conclude one hour after that. Members will be aware that the Health and Social Care Bill was recommitted today, and that one hour was agreed to for that debate. That has resulted in a shift in today’s business. The Government believe that it is important that the Scotland Bill receives an appropriate amount of time for debate on Report, which is why we are allowing for proceedings on Report to continue until 10 pm, and for Third Reading to conclude at 11 pm.
I am aware that the hon. Member for Dundee East (Stewart Hosie) raised concerns in the Chamber yesterday about the amount of time available to debate the remaining stages of the Bill. The programme motion will extend time for debate on the Bill, and I hope that it will allay his concerns. I look forward to consideration of amendments on Report, and to the debate that the Bill will receive on Third Reading.
Oral Answers to Questions
David Mundell Excerpts(13 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (David Mundell)
The Secretary of State for Scotland and I are in regular contact with the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions on a range of issues concerning implementation of universal credit in Scotland.
Guto Bebb
In Scotland, the public sector accounts for about 50% of gross domestic product. If we are to succeed in making the country less dependent on the public sector, we need to ensure that the private sector has access to the personnel that it needs to grow. Does the Minister agree that universal credit will help to make work pay, and that it will contribute to the rebalancing of the economy of Scotland and the UK?
David Mundell
I do indeed agree with my hon. Friend, who will be pleased to note that already during the incapacity benefit reassessment trial taking place in Aberdeen, a large number of people who not only want to work, but also want the support to help them to work, have been identified and have found opportunities to work in the private sector.
Mr Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Will the proposed universal credit in Scotland be affected by the Chancellor’s proposed changes in tax and national insurance, particularly in relation to the tax proposals in the Scotland Bill?
David Mundell
The hon. Gentleman has followed the progress of the Scotland Bill in detail, but he will know that in relation to the core aspects of universal credit and benefits, the Government have given an undertaking that no one will be worse off in cash terms when universal credit is introduced.
Iain Stewart (Milton Keynes South) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that the current complexity of the benefits system means that too many Scottish claimants do not receive the benefits to which they are entitled, and that universal credit will help to target the right support on the right people?
David Mundell
I certainly agree with my hon. Friend. The amount of benefit that goes unclaimed in Scotland is a national disgrace. The system of universal credit will simplify the benefits system, as well as making work pay and combating worklessness and poverty. That is something that hon. Members on both sides of the House should welcome; it is a marked change from the 13 years of inaction from the previous Government.
Mary Macleod (Brentford and Isleworth) (Con)
3. What assessment he has made of the likely effect on the Scottish economy of the implementation of “The Plan for Growth”.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (David Mundell)
Returning the United Kingdom to sustainable economic growth is the Government’s overriding priority. We are doing everything to create the conditions that enable all businesses in Scotland to be successful and create more jobs. Our plan for growth is a plan for the whole of the UK.
Mary Macleod
What views and reactions is my hon. Friend aware of among our colleagues in the Scottish Parliament and the business community in relation to the Government’s proposals to support small and medium-sized businesses?
David Mundell
The Government’s proposals for reducing corporation tax and for making changes to national insurance have been widely welcomed by businesses across Scotland. Of course, as my hon. Friend will know, small businesses in Scotland have particularly benefited from small business relief, which was delivered by Conservative MSPs.
Ann McKechin (Glasgow North) (Lab)
Inflation is at double the Government’s target, growth has been downgraded for the next two years, retail figures are down and consumer confidence is at rock bottom. Will the Minister for once stand up for Scotland and concede that while the cuts may be hurting, they are not working, and that it is time for the Government to have a plan B for growth?
David Mundell
This Government do have a plan for growth—unlike our predecessor. We have set out ambitious objectives to create the most competitive tax system in the G20, to make the UK the best place in Europe to do business, to encourage investment and exports, and to create the most flexible and educated work force in Britain.
I am sure the hon. Lady is good at figures. She will know that her party started the Scottish elections with a 10-point lead, and that today it has an 18-point deficit. That is good work with figures.
Mr Mike Weir (Angus) (SNP)
Can the Minister tell us what part of the plan for growth is behind the bright idea of his colleague the Chief Secretary to the Treasury to impose a massive increase in taxation on the oil and gas industry, jeopardising investment and up to 50,000 jobs?
David Mundell
The hon. Gentleman would have some credibility in asking that question had he not repeatedly raised in the Chamber the issue of the costs of petrol and fuel oil in his constituency. It is clear that the Chancellor and the Chief Secretary got the balance right in the Budget between the taxation of the oil industry and the taxation of the motorist. If the hon. Gentleman wants to tell his constituents that they should be paying 6p a litre more on their fuel, he is welcome to do so.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
7. Whether his Department and the Treasury have assessed the potential effect of banking failure on the economy of an independent Scotland.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (David Mundell)
Banks and other financial institutions are vital to the functioning of the economy. Although no specific work has been commissioned on the banking bail-out in Scotland, a 2010 National Audit Office report states that the total amount at stake is currently £512 billion. As of December 2010, £124 billion in cash had been invested in Government financial interventions. Based on NAO data, the Scottish Parliament Information Centre, SPICe, has estimated that the Royal Bank of Scotland and the Lloyds Banking Group were provided with £470 billion. SPICe also calculated that this figure was three times the annual Scottish GDP, and that the total UK Government intervention of £751 billion was equivalent to just over half of UK GDP.
Mr Hollobone
Do those figures not show that, like Iceland and Ireland, a separate Scotland would simply not have been able to survive the international banking crisis on its own? Is it not the case that Scotland’s economy will always be better off inside, rather than outside, the United Kingdom?
David Mundell
I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. It is interesting that as we enter the Scottish Parliament election period, the Scottish National party appears to have forgotten its proclamation about the arc of prosperity and Scotland’s wish to join the economies of Ireland and Iceland. The First Minister, Alex Salmond, also appears to have forgotten saying in the 2007 campaign:
“We are pledging a light-touch regulation suitable to a Scottish financial sector with its outstanding reputation for probity, as opposed to one like that in the UK, which absorbs huge amounts of management time in ‘gold-plated’ regulation.”
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)
That response shows that what has characterised the Scottish election campaign is that positivity wins over negativity. Will the right hon. Gentleman at least acknowledge and recognise that the failure of those so-called Scottish banks was down to UK regulation?
David Mundell
I do not think that the hon. Gentleman was listening to my last response. His leader, Alex Salmond, previously described the UK regulation as “gold-plated” and, at the previous Scottish elections, offered the voters “light-touch regulation”. This is the same Alex Salmond who said that the banking crisis was down to “spivs and speculators”.
John Thurso (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
One of the most pernicious effects of the banking failure in Scotland at the moment is the withdrawal by nationalised banks at short notice of funding for small businesses, such as TDI Ltd in my constituency. What will the Minister do to hold the moneylenders’ feet to the fire and get Project Merlin properly adhered to?
David Mundell
The Secretary of State and I are in regular contact with the banks operating in Scotland to ensure that Merlin goes forward as envisaged. We are also willing to take up individual cases such as the one that my hon. Friend mentions, which, if he refers it to us, we will refer directly to the banks in question. [Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. There are far too many private conversations taking place in the Chamber. It is very discourteous, and I am sure that the House wishes to hear Mr Greg Hands.
Greg Hands (Chelsea and Fulham) (Con)
Thank you, Mr Speaker. Will the Minister join me in welcoming the report by the Independent Commission on Banking, under Sir John Vickers, and will he remind the House who, in the last Parliament, awarded Sir Fred Goodwin a knighthood for services to banking?
David Mundell
My hon. Friend’s interventions at Scottish questions are always welcome. He is quite right to suggest that it was the Labour Government who not only awarded Sir Fred Goodwin his knighthood but involved him in virtually every other initiative that they pursued in Scotland. The Vickers report is to be welcomed in Scotland, as it is elsewhere in the United Kingdom.
Karl MᶜCartney (Lincoln) (Con)
11. What progress he has made on measures to prevent the coincidence of elections to the House of Commons and to the Scottish Parliament in May 2015.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (David Mundell)
Government amendments to the Fixed-term Parliaments Bill deferring the 2015 Scottish Parliament elections until 5 May 2016 were agreed by the other place on 29 March.
Karl MᶜCartney
In addition to outlining those measures, will my right hon. Friend update the House on progress towards the establishment of the commission to examine the West Lothian question, on its membership and on when we might expect to see its conclusions and recommendations?
David Mundell
As my hon. Friend knows, the coalition’s programme for government promised to establish a commission to consider the West Lothian question. A commission will be established this year to consider it, and the Government are committed to addressing the issue. We are continuing to give careful consideration to the timing, composition, scope and remit of the commission. It will need to take into account our proposals for reform of the House of Lords to create a wholly or mainly elected second Chamber, the changes in how this House does its business, and amendments to the devolution regimes such as those in the Scotland Bill, which is now before the House.
Jo Swinson (East Dunbartonshire) (LD)
12. What discussions he has had with ministerial colleagues on the potential for renewable energy generation in Scotland.
Scotland Bill
David Mundell Excerpts(13 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Donohoe
If the hon. Gentleman intervenes again to give me some understanding of that point, I might be able to accede to it.
David Mundell
Perhaps I might help the hon. Gentleman. My calculation is that there would be 101 Members. After the passage of the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill, there will be 52 constituencies in Scotland. If each had two Members, there would be 104. However, there are three constituencies that he feels should have only one Member, although my reading of new clause 1 is that people would still have two votes. There would therefore be 101 Members in the new Scottish Parliament. Does he think that that would be sufficient to conduct the Parliament’s business?
Mr Donohoe
The Minister has made my point very well in relation to making savings, which is the next point that I want to make progress on, if I may.
Michael Connarty
I should like Glasgow city council—which is a wonderful council—to be properly resourced, rather than having its budget cut by 3.7%. That is what the Scottish Government have just done, at a time when the city needs more resources. Other areas with a large proportion of SNP councillors are experiencing very small cuts. That is another abuse for which the people will take the Government of Scotland to task, and will take the SNP to task in particular.
Proportionality has not worked in our system. I do not approve of the single transferable vote. I do not believe in that kind of proportionality, because I think that it moves so far away from the idea of accountability that the public reject it, and I do not think that we will get very far with any other amendment that appears to distort what we have in the House of Commons at present. When a Member of Parliament is elected, he or she is accountable. People know whom they elected, why they elected them, and how to get rid of them. If we cannot introduce a system that provides some credibility, the Scottish Parliament will go spinning off into the future with no credibility at all. I therefore hope that the Committee will pass new clauses 1 and 2.
David Mundell
I welcome you back to the chair, Ms Primarolo. I hope that, unlike the hon. Member for East Lothian (Fiona O'Donnell), you did not have a sleepless night in anticipation of the debate. Given the level of interest that has been expressed, the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr Donohoe) has clearly done the Committee a service by promoting a debate on these issues.
Let me say at the outset that the Government will not support the new clauses, principally because we believe that a fundamental part of the devolution settlement that was voted for in the 1997 referendum was the agreement that the Scottish Parliament should be elected on a proportional basis. There is a range of debates to be had on issues relating to proportionality, and some of those issues have emerged this afternoon, but it is clear that a fundamental aspect of the Scottish Parliament is that it is a proportionally elected institution.
I must confess that during my time in the Scottish Parliament I was a regional list Member. Therefore, I must defend that cadre. Many Members from all the main political parties in Scotland have served with distinction as regional list Members, including Peter Peacock, who served on the Scotland Bill Committee, and Lord Foulkes, who was mentioned in our debate yesterday. We should not accept any general diminution of their contribution to the Scottish Parliament, as they have played their roles.
Stewart Hosie
Is that not the argument that was being used earlier: that losers can become winners? Why would a Labour Member make that case, when the Minister is explaining that that is precisely what the Labour party is now doing?
Mr Donohoe
May I make it perfectly clear that I am opposed to the position referred to by the hon. Member for Dundee East (Stewart Hosie), as is my constituency party and as are many other constituency parties across Scotland?
David Mundell
I fully take on board what the hon. Gentleman says, and I praise his consistency on this issue, but others who have been critical of the regional list system now want to use it to save their political careers, and I regard that as hypocrisy.
David Mundell
As has been said, there has been a change from the view that Members should not stand on both the list and in constituencies to a position where that should be done when it is in someone’s self-interest.
Mr Tom Harris (Glasgow South) (Lab)
I apologise for not being here for the debate before now, but I wish to clarify one matter. I hope the Minister will recall that in the first Scottish Parliament elections Donald Dewar stood as a candidate for Anniesland, in addition to being No. 1 on the Glasgow list. A number of prominent first-past-the-post candidates also stood on the list, so this is not a new procedure in the Labour party—it has been going on since 1999.
David Mundell
As I recall, the reason given for Labour Members taking that approach was that they were encouraging people to vote on the list; they were seeking to demonstrate that prominent people were on the list and so it was an important vote in which to participate.
Mark Lazarowicz
Will the Minister remind us whether there are any Conservative list MSPs standing for a first-past-the-post seat in the forthcoming elections?
David Mundell
Indeed there are, but the Conservative party has been clear and absolutely consistent in its policy. It has not changed its policy to suit the electoral needs of individual constituency MSPs who fear for their future.
Pete Wishart
The Minister rightly says that the Conservatives have been consistent about this—the list has saved the neck of the Conservative party in Scotland. Has he any idea what the Labour Front-Bench team’s position is on this matter? We have not heard a contribution from Labour Front Benchers on this; all we have heard are the siren voices of the “first-past-the-posters” at the back. Labour seems to be split from top to bottom on this issue, but does the Minister have any idea as to its view?
David Mundell
The hon. Gentleman probably shares my belief that the Labour party view will be what is in the interests of the Labour party, and not necessarily what is in the interests of the electorate in individual constituencies in Scotland.
Michael Connarty
I am glad that the Minister gave way after that terrible slur on the Labour party. We are talking about the views of Members of this House, and it is very important that we take them seriously and do not start messing around. It is clear that the parties had a view. I recall Donald Dewar saying that the idea was that, as in Germany, the leader of the list would be seen as a symbol of what the list stood for. All the arrangements were proportional in Germany, but because we had this divergence between the first-past-the-post and list systems, our arrangements became totally confused in the eyes of the electorate. We are not seeking party advantage; we are looking for the electorate’s advantage.
David Mundell
I recognise the hon. Gentleman’s consistency on this issue, but I was confused by one of the contributions from the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Cathy Jamieson), who was part of a Labour-led Scottish Government who introduced the single transferable vote into local government in Scotland. Much of the argument that I have heard today did not provide evidence that that was done on the basis of support from within the Labour party. As one Member on the Opposition Benches pointed out, it was also done without consulting people across Scotland. On the point that the hon. Lady did raise, may I say, for information purposes, that when a council by-election is required, the STV system used does not guarantee ongoing proportionality? One of the problems with STV systems is that by-elections are difficult and complex matters.
Mr Davidson
A moment ago, Mr Kettle accused members of the Labour party of coming to a position based on self-interest. Given that he is in an alliance with another bad lot to promote an alternative vote referendum, despite neither party preferring AV as an electoral system, it can hardly be said that other people are pursuing their self-interest in this matter. Might I add that, to be fair, the Liberals welcome AV, because they predict that they will have a better result than they achieved in Barnsley and will at least come second in the referendum?
The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Dawn Primarolo)
Order. May I add that I would like the Minister to return to discussing the new clause?
David Mundell
Thank you, Ms Primarolo. I will take on board what you say and, as ever, I note the hon. Gentleman’s comments. Some of what he said in his contribution was helpful, in that there is an acceptance, following the Arbuthnott commission’s report, that some form of review of electoral systems in Scotland is required. The Arbuthnott commission suggested that that should take place post-2011, and the Government share that view.
Mr Donohoe
I am sure that the Minister will concede that nothing I am proposing today would come into effect until after this year’s elections.
David Mundell
The hon. Gentleman has proposed a very specific change to the electoral system for the Scottish Parliament. It would mean that two Members would be elected from each constituency other than the three constituencies that have been identified. Although it seems to suggest that everyone would have two votes in those three constituencies, the new clause does not appear to show what would happen to the second of their votes. He has set out his intentions in this debate, but the provisions are technically defective. However, I advise him, and the Opposition Members who have expressed clear views about how they would change the electoral system for the Scottish Parliament, to take part in any review that is forthcoming on the nature of that electoral system. That is one basis on which the Government reject the new clauses.
Cathy Jamieson
I am listening to the Minister with interest. Is he actually offering that very review that he is talking about? If so, when will it take place?
David Mundell
The date of the next Scottish Parliament election has changed as a result of the Fixed-term Parliaments Bill, and the Government have indicated that a review of the implications for the Scottish Parliament will be required. A review of the voting system for the Scottish Parliament elections could form part of a wider review of issues relating to the Scottish Parliament.
Mr Davidson
May I just clarify a point? The Minister said that the proposal put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr Donohoe) is not clear on the question of what would happen in respect of people having two votes. May I refer him to the wording? New clause 1 states:
“each elector to cast one or two votes of equal value, with no more than one vote to be given to any one candidate, in constituencies returning two members”.
It continues:
“the two candidates with the most valid votes to be elected in such constituencies.”
So I understand that the reference to people having “two votes” applies only to the constituencies that are not the three identified.
David Mundell
I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s analysis, but I do not think it stands up to legal scrutiny in that regard.
Mr Donohoe
Can the Minister just tell me why? I have read that provision at some length and I am clearly of the opinion that it covers the points that he says it does not.
David Mundell
The interpretation of that provision is that people in the Western Isles, Orkney or Shetland could still have two votes.
David Mundell
That is a clear possible interpretation of that provision. The hon. Gentleman is better advised making his case not on the technicalities of the wording, but on his strong beliefs about this issue.
On new clause 2, I have made clear the Government’s view that it is a matter for the Scottish Parliament to regulate the conduct of its Members and the relationships between list and constituency Members. On that basis, we cannot accept the new clause.
Mr Doran
My argument is that a problem is not solved just by moving it to Scotland. There are fundamental problems with the coastguard—for example, most of the equipment that it uses is 40 years out of date. There is new technology available which is necessary for proper safety on our seas. The money needs to be invested. Given the present financial situation, one of the few ways that money can be invested, sadly, involves the closure of a number of coastguards. I have been told by workers at my own coastguard that with the new technology, Aberdeen could cover the whole of Scotland, but the point that I made earlier about the Western Isles is recognised. The issue will not be resolved simply by asking for it to be devolved to the Scottish Parliament.
I am by no means in favour of everything proposed in the consultation paper published by the Government, but what is needed is a properly co-ordinated national system, which we do not have at present. We have groups or pairs of coastguard stations which can communicate with one another, but in the event of a major disaster or a major incident, it is difficult to see how we could get the full benefit of a national system and the investment that we need to make by separating the Scottish service from the rest of the UK and allowing that to operate on its own.
I was heavily involved in the aftermath of the Piper Alpha disaster, when the coastguard played a pivotal role—I do not know which other stations were involved. The service then was very similar to what it is now, and there was not the capacity to involve the whole of the coastguard operation throughout the UK. Given what we have seen in other countries in recent years, it is possible that that facility may be necessary in the future. As I have said, the way to resolve a major infrastructure problem is not to cut it off and devolve it to Scotland, which is a blinded and fundamentalist view of how we should function.
We need a co-ordinated system throughout the UK. One of the key weaknesses of breaking up the system is what the Scottish Government would or could do with it. Like many people, I am suspicious about the fact that the SNP Government in Edinburgh have made no attempt to give us a proper Budget for the next three years, as we have seen the current Government and the previous Labour Government produce for the UK. Of course, there is an election on the way, so that will be the main consideration.
If the coastguard system is to be upgraded to modern standards, where will the necessary money come from? If the hon. Gentleman was successful with his new clause, there would clearly have to be some transfer of money from the UK to pay for the existing system, but not for upgrading it. The system that I hope will be based in my constituency at Aberdeen, once the consultation exercise is over and the investment has been made, will serve not just Scottish waters, but almost half the UK—it will be capable of serving the whole UK. Would that be on offer in a system run under the narrow nationalist view that the hon. Gentleman is taking? I do not know.
I need to know, and the Committee needs to know, where the money will come from to upgrade and modernise the system. It is not clear that that money exists in the Scottish Budget. If the SNP Government cannot afford to build any new schools and are not able to fund local services properly, how will they modernise the coastguard system, which is essential for the safety of our maritime fleet, our sailors and our fishing industry? The hon. Gentleman is well aware of the dangers inherent in that industry. There are more industrial accidents and deaths in the fishing industry than in virtually all the rest of industry in Britain put together. The most dangerous industry in Britain depends on the coastguard, and many operators in the fishing industry are based in his constituency.
If the new clause is part of a campaign to save the hon. Gentleman’s own coastguard station, fine. I can accept it on those terms, but if it is a serious attempt to change the system, it must be rejected.
David Mundell
This is a debate on an important issue, and in many respects I share the sentiments expressed by the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Mr Doran). If the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil) is raising the issue to ensure that it is debated and his concerns are heard, then I accept his right to do so. However, if he is seriously suggesting that the coastguard service should be devolved, then obviously the Government cannot accept his proposal. The point to be made is that this matter was not brought before the Calman commission; nor was it brought before the Scottish Parliament’s Bill Committee or the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs as something that he had considered, along with the other changes that he proposed. Indeed, I am not even aware of the matter being raised as part of the so-called national conversation—something that you will have heard about in these exchanges, Ms Primarolo—which was promoted by the SNP Government in Edinburgh with the primary purpose, it would appear, of furthering the cause of independence at public expense.
Pete Wishart
The Minister keeps going on about things not being raised by the Calman commission, but nor was Antarctica or appeals to the Supreme Court. The Minister cannot have it both ways. The Government are introducing some stuff that was not in Calman, so surely they can consider other stuff that was similarly not in Calman.
David Mundell
As the hon. Gentleman is aware, the issue of Antarctica was fully considered by the Scottish Parliament’s Bill Committee and the Scottish Affairs Committee. It was not simply plucked out of the air and dealt with in an amendment in this place.
I understand the SNP’s dogmatic opposition to the Scottish Adjacent Waters Boundaries Order 1999 and its view that if Scotland had more ocean under its control, that ocean would benefit from SNP policies, but I am afraid that it is not a view I subscribe to. As the SNP knows, the Scottish Adjacent Waters Boundaries Order has two effects. First, it determines the boundary of waters that are to be treated as internal waters or the territorial sea of the UK adjacent to Scotland. That is relevant to the definition of “Scotland” in section 126(1) of the 1998 Act, which is used for the purpose of exercising devolved functions and the extent of the Scottish Parliament’s legislative competence. Similar provision is made in legislation relating to Northern Ireland and Wales for the purposes of their devolution settlements.
Secondly, the order determines the boundary of those waters to be treated as sea within British fishery limits adjacent to Scotland. That is relevant to the definition of “the Scottish zone”—in section 126(1) of the 1998 Act—in which the Scottish Parliament has legislative competence to regulate sea fisheries in accordance with the EU’s common fisheries policy and where fishermen are subject to Scots law. Scottish Ministers also have various Executive functions that are exercisable in the Scottish zone in relation to matters such as licensing and planning.
Crucially, the order defines boundaries off both the west and east coasts using the median line mythology recommended by the UN convention on the law of the sea. It is always interesting when we find the SNP in disagreement with the UN because it does not suit its purposes. This is the standard international mythology—methodology for defining water boundaries. It is illogical to use it off the west coast but deploy a boundary based on historical practice off the east coast. The Government have no plans to redefine the nautical boundaries between Scotland, England and Northern Ireland. We cannot accept that a boundary order should be issued in 2012 when no reason has been given for the need to do so other than SNP dogma. Although we recognise the strength of feeling on the coastguard, which is an important topic of debate, I urge the hon. Gentleman not to press his new clause.
Mr MacNeil
I will be brief in the hope that we will get to the vote. I am perplexed as to why the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Mr Doran) wants to leave the Tories in charge of Scotland’s coastguard.
Tom Greatrex (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Lab/Co-op)
I do not intend to detain the Committee because there are other new clauses we wish to debate.
The new clause deals with an issue that was probably neglected in the transfer of powers to the Scottish Parliament in relation to rail, and it is appropriate and sensible that we use the opportunity of this Bill to resolve that. On that basis, we intend to support it and assume, given that it is a sensible proposal on a technical issue, that the Government will not have too much of a problem with it.
David Mundell
I was disappointed that the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty) missed out Symington station as one of those that I continue to campaign to be reopened in my constituency, as it has brought vital rail services to that part of Scotland.
I was interested in the hon. Gentleman’s analysis of the requirements of the rail services in Scotland. His constituency counterpart, Helen Eadie, was the only Labour MSP to vote against the legislative consent motion for the Bill in the Scottish Parliament. Of course, Mrs Eadie is well known for her radical views on the Scottish rail network, proposing as she has the demolition of the Forth rail bridge. I was pleased that he did not suggest that that would fall within the powers of the Scottish Parliament.
Thomas Docherty
It might help the Minister to know that the Forth bridge is a category A listed building, so unfortunately Mrs Eadie would not have the ability to knock it down.
David Mundell
I am grateful for that confirmation, because the newspaper article that I read described Mrs Eadie as being unrepentant despite criticism from several quarters in that regard.
I am afraid that I must disappoint both the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife and the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Tom Greatrex), because the Government cannot support new clause 9. It deals with rail responsibilities, as the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife explained, and seeks to give the Scottish Parliament legislative competence over the provision of rail passenger services that start and finish in Scotland. That is a much longer list than the one to which he alluded, because it involves all cross-border services, including the Virgin franchise services on the west coast main line, which do not start and finish in Scotland and remain the responsibility of the Department for Transport.
Iain Stewart
Is my right hon. Friend aware that Glasgow and Edinburgh councils are running a strong campaign for the construction of a high-speed line from London to the midlands and further north, with the simultaneous building of a high-speed line from Scotland southwards? That would provide additional cross-border services, and it, too, would have to be taken into account when framing legislation such as this.
David Mundell
Indeed. As my hon. Friend will know, the coalition Government are committed to high-speed rail services throughout the United Kingdom. On Thursday, there will be an event in Glasgow, attended by a Transport Minister, about a consultation on the ongoing developments in high-speed rail. The first part of the high-speed rail service from London to Birmingham is vital for its further development into Scotland.
Mr Weir
I am listening closely to the Minister, but I am slightly confused. He is talking about the development of high-speed rail, which will be very good if it comes to Scotland—we will see whether the Government ever get it there—but that service does not begin and end in Scotland, and neither do the Virgin or east coast services. I do not understand his point. The new clause refers to services that begin and end in Scotland—basically, the ScotRail franchise as it operates at the moment.
David Mundell
My point, which I am sure that the hon. Gentleman does not recognise for dogmatic reasons, is that there are important rail services in Scotland that cross the border, and that those services remain important.
Mark Lazarowicz
Given that that is the current situation, why on earth are the Government opposing a new clause that refers to services that “start and finish”, not “start or finish”, in Scotland?
David Mundell
If the hon. Gentleman had listened to the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife, he would have heard him give a very narrow definition of services which start and finish in Scotland, without giving sufficient recognition to the fact that there are significant services that cross the border.
Mr Tom Harris
I listened closely to my hon. Friend’s speech, and he was very explicit in saying that the new clause refers only to the ScotRail franchise. That includes one cross-border service, the Caledonian sleeper, but this would have no effect whatever on other franchise services that cross the border—Virgin, East Coast and TransPennine Express. They would be completely untouched; nothing would change in their operational or financial arrangements. The only thing that would change is the ScotRail franchise. Can the Minister explain why that is beyond the wit of the Government?
David Mundell
If the hon. Gentleman had been listening, he would realise that I have said that Scotland benefits from a mix of services within the ScotRail franchise, and that cross-border services are vital to Scotland. I would have hoped that he would support the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes South (Iain Stewart) that high-speed rail is important to Scotland. However, none of those things is why the Government do not support the new clause.
Iain Stewart
The Minister is being very generous. I am happy to stand corrected, but I believe that there is a cross-border ScotRail service. It probably goes through Dumfries in his constituency to Carlisle and on to Newcastle. How will that service be included in the new clause?
David Mundell
There are indeed services that travel from Glasgow to Dumfries and on to Newcastle.
However, the Government’s objection to the new clause is that we are committed to maintaining a GB-wide national rail network that is publicly specified, funded in the public interest and provided by the private sector. The new clause would interfere with that national network. If the intention of the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife is to allow for a not-for-dividend operator of the ScotRail network, that is possible within the current framework.
Mr Tom Harris
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way once more. I agree with him that the GB-wide network should be publicly specified and commercially provided by the private sector. However, surely it goes against the spirit of devolution and of the Scotland Bill to deny Scottish Ministers the right to take a different view with regard to one self-contained franchise in Scotland. Surely devolution is about allowing Scottish Ministers to make mistakes, if that is what they wish to do.
David Mundell
The devolution settlement is indeed about allowing the Scottish Government to take decisions in respect of the areas for which they are responsible, as determined by the Scotland Act 1998 and the Scotland Bill. This discussion is about whether the issue in question should be devolved to the Scottish Government. The Government do not agree with that proposal because we believe that it would open the opportunity to fundamentally alter the national framework by allowing a renationalisation of the railway in Scotland.
David Mundell
The hon. Gentleman knows better than most that the Government were required to take over the east coast main line as a measure of last resort. Within the framework of the rail industry, there have to be measures of last resort. It is not a measure that the Government wish to promote. As I have said, we wish to promote a national rail network that is publicly specified, funded in the public interest and provided by the private sector. As I have also said, if it is the intention that a not-for-dividend company should operate, there is nothing to stop that in the present arrangements.
Thomas Docherty
I would not wish to suggest that the Minister is misleading the House—he has obviously been misinformed by the civil servants in the Box—but the Railways Act 1993 is explicit that a public sector operator cannot run the railways. I would be happy to go out to the Lobby and get the section of the Act that says that.
David Mundell
The hon. Gentleman is seeking to give a different definition. I am specifying a not-for-dividend organisation. If he wants to go beyond that and into the realms of opening up the powers for the Scottish Government to renationalise the railways in Scotland, he should promote that point in a different debate, and not by tabling a new clause to this Bill. If he genuinely believes that the railways in Scotland should be renationalised, he should make that argument in the appropriate place.
The hon. Members for Dunfermline and West Fife and for Rutherglen and Hamilton West said that this was a minor matter that was being brought forward at this stage because it had simply been overlooked. However, I believe that it would have benefited from the thorough scrutiny of the Scotland Bill Committee in the Scottish Parliament and from discussion in the Scottish Affairs Committee.
John Thurso
I have no doubt that the Minister is right to resist the amendment, because I am sure that it is technically deficient in some way, but—[Laughter.] I took part in the entire Committee stage of the Railways Act 2005, and the intention was to devolve everything that could be devolved to the Scottish Government in relation to the railways. Is there no room for compromise to allow for what is a reasonably sensible suggestion without breaking the principle that the Minister is evoking?
David Mundell
The hon. Gentleman, as always, offers wise words. I thought that he was going to refer to the debate in this House on 31 March 1998, although he was not then a Member, in which rail powers were debated in the context of the original Scotland Bill. The hon. Member for Central Ayrshire was prominent in that debate, as he was in our earlier discussion on voting systems.
Mark Lazarowicz
Again, I honestly do not understand the Minister’s position. The new clause refers to the provision of rail services, but it does not provide for the devolution of the rail infrastructure. The tracks and the rest of it could not be sold off. I suggest that he remembers that he is in a coalition and rethinks this issue before he is deserted by some of his colleagues to his right.
David Mundell
I have set out why the Government cannot accept the new clause. The Government believe that the devolved powers, which are significant, are best exercised within a coherent GB structure, as provided under the Railways Acts of 1993 and 2005. We believe that it is essential that the overall regime for the provision of rail passenger services and their regulation remains a reserved matter. It would not be sensible to run the railway in such a way that the Scottish Parliament could overturn the framework that governs the operation of passenger services on a GB basis. Our policy is to maintain a unified national rail network that is subject to appropriate oversight by Scottish Ministers. I believe that the current system achieves that. I therefore ask the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife to withdraw the new clause.
Thomas Docherty
This should have been a relatively short and reasonable debate. As my hon. Friend the Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Tom Greatrex) said, on the face of it there should have been no opposition to the new clause. I am therefore pretty surprised by the rather weak arguments that the civil servants have foisted upon the Minister, who I think knows better.
To address the point made by the hon. Member for Milton Keynes South (Iain Stewart), it would be absurd if a railway line that ran from Glasgow down through Ayrshire, Dumfries and Galloway did not have its terminus in Carlisle. There is a variation in the operating rules that allows ScotRail to run that service to Carlisle. That service is part of the ScotRail franchise and has no impact on the other services that run through and connect at Carlisle.
Jacob Rees-Mogg
I think that those of us who support the Union are also being principled. These tax revenues—these forms that generate income for the state—must be preserved in their entirety. Once we start cutting them up bit by bit, we end up making calculations and saying “Actually, Scotland is receiving rather too little from the Crown Estate rather than too much.” I do not think that that argument works. I think that the Crown Estate must be viewed as a whole, as an indivisible part of an indivisible Crown. That is what I want to see: the traditional constitutional position which this country has enjoyed and which has made it such a great nation. Let us have no more attacks on private property or the indivisibility of the Crown, and let us have a reasonable settlement in taxation between the people of England and the people of Scotland, not to mention those of Northern Ireland and Wales, who also deserve their fair share of the total pie of economic wealth.
David Mundell
I welcome the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg), because I am afraid that our debates on matters Scottish tend to become somewhat homogenous, and it is good to have a different perspective on our deliberations. It was also good to hear again about the threat of the hot breath of rapacious socialism and the harm that it can do in Scotland, because we need to hear that. As we near the forthcoming Scottish Parliament elections, I will urge my colleagues to do their best to repel that threat.
My hon. Friend’s contribution was in marked contrast to that of the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil), who again sped through his speech, which was simply a recounting of the usual dogma. Instead of making a coherent case, he simply said that the Crown Estate should be devolved to Scotland because everything should be devolved to Scotland.
Those of us who have been present in the Chamber throughout the deliberations on this Bill noted yet again the strong divergence between what we have come to know as London SNP and Edinburgh SNP. Although the hon. Gentleman launched an attack on the Crown Estate, none other than Jim Mather, SNP Energy Minister in Scotland, has said that the Scottish Government
“greatly value the strong working relationship with the Crown estate commissioners as it helps us all to ensure that Scotland leads the UK in giving wave and tidal energy developers opportunities to harness the power of our seas.”
The characterisation of the Crown Estate by the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar was therefore misleading. Although I take on board the points that the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr Reid) made about the operation of the Crown Estate, and acknowledge that he is a doughty campaigner for change to the estate, I am afraid that I do not recognise the characterisation of the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar. As he knows, the Secretary of State has sought to engage with the Crown Estate, and the estate has moved forward in a number of positive ways, such as through the production of its annual report, and the meetings it has with Scottish Ministers, MSPs, Scottish local authorities and many interest groups.
However, although there are positive aspects to the development of the Crown Estate, the Government recognise that a number of issues have been raised during the progress of the Scotland Bill and following the Calman deliberations, which is why we look in particular to the Scottish Parliament LCM Committee report, which stated that it had identified a number of radical options for the future development of the Crown Estate but that time was needed to consider them. We agree with the Committee when it says that it noted with some interest that the Scottish Affairs Committee in the House of Commons will review the work of the Crown Estate commissioners in Scotland, and that that was an important development. The Secretary of State for Scotland’s positive attitude to this initiative was also noted. That sums up the Government’s position. We greatly welcome the inquiry that the Scottish Affairs Committee has said that it will carry out into the operation of the Crown Estate in Scotland. That will present an opportunity for the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute and others who have strong views about the Crown Estate to set them out, and the Government will look closely at the outcome of that inquiry.
What we will not do is respond favourably to dogma and to a view that the Crown Estate should simply be devolved for the sake of doing so. Although I have no hope that the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar will do so, I ask him to withdraw the motion for his new clause.
Mr MacNeil
I noted that the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr Reid) said that coastal communities should benefit, but I was told earlier by a Liberal Democrat that they would look to mess about with a pretended technicality. Unfortunately, that is the usual stance of the Liberal Democrats: on the one hand it is not enough, yet on the other hand it is too much, and the upshot is that they want to leave it all with London. They will be judged in Scotland, so at least we will probably all be saved from having to listen to their pious words for years to come. In short, their position is that London is best, helping local communities is not on their agenda, and they will be voting for the status quo. Highlanders will know what to do at the May elections: sweep the Liberal Democrats away at the ballot box. Both the hon. Gentleman and Labour talk about local communities, but do nothing about that.
The hon. Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg), whom I have great respect for and like personally, pronounces Na h-Eileanan an Iar very well. He did so not once, not twice, not three times, not four times, but five times. All I can say is he must have had a very good teacher. I should tell him, however, that Crown rights in Scotland long predate George III.
Mr Davidson
Perhaps it would be a century, but I think that it would be just under an hour and a quarter. In that way, when it was noon by Greenwich mean time, it would be about 13.14 in Scotland. Scotland would constantly be on Bannockburn time. I think that the concept of Bannockburn time is what the nationalists are after: “Here’s tae us, wha’s like us. A lot of them are deid now right enough, but we do actually remember them.” This proposal is simply about seeking division for its own sake.
The hon. Member for Milton Keynes South (Iain Stewart) was very helpful in reminding us that schedule 5 to the Scotland Act 1998 covers more matters than just time. It also covers the calendar. I am sure that the idea of a public holiday on Alex Salmond’s birthday will be a recommendation from the SNP. We have had the Julian calendar and a variety of different calendars. A nationalist calendar is the logical consequence. Why should an independent country be stuck with the same calendar as England? There are logical arguments for that, but the SNP is not the party of logical arguments; it is the party of passion, of Bannockburn and of “Here’s tae us, let’s be separate.”
I think that there is a real difficulty in all of this. I very much hope that the SNP does not chicken out here. I hope that it puts the new clause to the vote so that we can see just how ludicrous its proposals are, and the extent to which it is treating the Scotland Bill as nothing more than a joke. We are trying to improve the governance of Scotland; the SNP is trying to create divisions. The proposal to have separate time zones is absurd.
David Mundell
I am starting to be very concerned about the extent to which I agree with the hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Mr Davidson). Indeed, the hon. Member for the Western Isles has done something remarkable this evening—he has led me to agree 100% with the hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway (Mr Brown), which is a very rare occurrence. I could not have put it better—the new clause is sheer lunacy, and Members on both sides of the Chamber have set out why.
It is important to reflect on the findings of the Calman commission, which highlighted the importance of cross-border institutions and functions of the UK Government that bind the people of Scotland and the rest of the UK in a “social union”. It stated its view that a consistent British isles time zone was an important aspect of that. Of course, the SNP wants to destroy that social union. As has been said in the debate, having two separate time zones in the UK is one way in which it would seek to do so.
I think it was the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Mark Lazarowicz) who pointed out the contradiction in the position of the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil), who has spoken passionately against any proposal to change the time, but who has now tabled a new clause that makes the change that he says he opposes much more likely.
From the outset, this Government have said that they would not consider adopting single/double summertime, central European time or any variation on them without the agreement of all nations of the UK. The Prime Minister has been unequivocal in stating that having different times operating concurrently in the UK is not an option. On Second Reading of the Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Rebecca Harris), the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr Davey), made clear the Government’s opposition to the Bill. Additionally, as the hon. Member for the Western Isles will be aware, at the time of the publication of the UK Government’s tourism strategy on 4 March, the Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport, my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (John Penrose), reiterated the Government’s commitment that no change to current policy would happen without the approval of the whole UK.
Were the new clause to be accepted, Scotland would have the power to determine its own time zone. As the hon. Member for Glasgow South West pointed out, that would give the Scottish Parliament the capacity to make a change just for the sake of being different. The contribution to the debate that I thought was most illustrative was the one from Northern Ireland, from the hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson). He indicated that although the power in question was available there, nobody would wish to use it. That brings us back to the dogma of the SNP in making proposals, as I have said before, either because it sees them as a way of breaking up the UK or simply for the sake of having power.
If Scotland were to have a different time zone from the rest of the home nations, daily transactions between Scotland and the rest of the British Isles would take on an unwanted added complexity. Importantly, it could put Scotland at an economic disadvantage. It could certainly disadvantage my constituents, and those of the hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway and the Secretary of State for Scotland, which should not be countenanced.
The new clause would be detrimental to the Union between the people of Scotland and those of the rest of the UK, which is clearly why it was tabled. It runs contrary to the spirit and effect of the Bill and the views of the Calman commission, which put at the heart of its work the retention of the United Kingdom. Anyone who has a commitment to retaining the UK should oppose the new clause.
Mr MacNeil
The hon. Member for Milton Keynes South (Iain Stewart) pronounced my constituency name well, putting the Minister to shame—I note again that he referred to my constituency by its old name.
The hon. Member for Milton Keynes South and I agree on many things, and have together worked to fight off the forces of darkness who are trying to force central European time on us—they call it Churchill time, but we call it Chamberlain time, because it is definitely appeasement. He can rest assured that the date of Easter will remain the first Sunday after the first full moon after the equinox, which perhaps brings me neatly to the hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Mr Davidson). He is not keen on Bannockburn time, but I wondered whether he was working on moon time given some of his interventions and suggestions.
I am calling not for the time zone to change, but for the power to ameliorate if London makes a change. We in Scotland want to keep the time as it is. The danger is that London will foist something on Scotland that we do not want. The new clause is about giving the power to Scotland.
Tom Greatrex
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her intervention, and I hope to address the point that she has raised.
Calman looked at this issue in a degree of detail. The issue was mentioned in the White Paper of November 2009, but it does not appear in the Bill. The new clause addresses Calman recommendation 5.11, which states:
“The Scottish Parliament should not have the power to legislate on food content and labelling in so far as that legislation would cause a breach of the single market in the UK by placing a burden on the manufacturing, distribution and supply of foodstuffs to consumers, and Schedule 5 to the Scotland Act should be amended accordingly.”
Calman looked at the exception of trade descriptions in relation to food from the general reservation of consumer protection issues in the Scotland Act 1998. At the same time, the devolved Administration in the Scottish Parliament have responsibility for public health. The evidence taken by Calman was largely oral, and it was instructive. The chief executive of the Food Standards Agency made it clear in oral evidence that the potential for policy divergence was a concern that should be eliminated by making a change akin to that proposed in this new clause and said that the information should be available throughout the UK. Evidence from representatives of both the Royal Environmental Health Institute of Scotland and the College of Medicine and Veterinary Medicine echoed that point and said there was a potential issue, although I am sure that the Minister will want to remind us that both of them made it clear that in practice there has not been a problem yet. This recommendation was welcomed by the Scottish Retail Consortium, CBI Scotland and the Food and Drink Federation. It was referenced in the Command Paper from which I assume the Minister will draw his remarks on this new clause, and it is a recommendation that we seek to insert into the Bill.
The Scottish Retail Consortium made a number of points about areas in which public health is not a factor, such as that a requirement to label or produce food differently in different parts of the UK places a heavy burden on retailers and manufacturers and could breach the ethos of the single market. A number of examples have been cited—for example, mandatory environmental labelling with different requirements in Scotland from other parts of the UK—that could place a financial and administrative burden on the food industry, and many of the companies affected would be small firms providing specialised products who do not wish their markets to be limited to just one part of the UK. The introduction of this measure would not stop the often successful voluntary schemes that already exist and to which the Command Paper makes reference.
The Government suggest in the Command Paper that potential activity by the Scottish Parliament in food labelling must be agreed by the UK Government and the European Commission, and therefore the protection is in place and is robust enough. The Command Paper goes on to suggest that this Calman recommendation is superfluous. There is a clear argument that it is not superfluous, but that what we require in this matter is clarity. That is the content of the representations from food manufacturers, food retailers and business organisations in Scotland.
This new clause enables the Calman commission recommendation, which mysteriously disappeared between the November 2009 White Paper and the Bill being published, to be enacted. It provides clarity, which is what the industry is looking for, and it provides an opportunity for the Government to deal with an issue that the Command Paper seems to wish to dismiss.
David Mundell
I welcome this opportunity to discuss a substantive issue in relation to the Calman commission report and the subsequent Scotland Bill. It compares favourably with some of the discussions and superfluous issues that have been raised by the SNP during the course of the evening.
Hon. Members will know that the Calman commission made a recommendation on food content and labelling which, as the hon. Gentleman has pointed out, is not included in the Bill. I shall set out the Government’s reasons for deciding not to include it, as was made clear in the Command Paper. Although the recommendation seems sensible on paper, it presents a wide range of difficulties in practice, and I shall set those out. As he has said, the Scottish Parliament’s report on the Scotland Bill also sought a fuller explanation for the Government’s position. The commission made the following recommendation:
“The Scottish Parliament should not have the power to legislate on food content and labelling in so far as that legislation would cause a breach of the single market in the UK by placing a burden on the manufacturing, distribution and supply of foodstuffs to consumers, and Schedule 5 to the Scotland Act should be amended accordingly.”
The commission also recommended that the Scottish Parliament’s and Scottish Government’s abilities to deal with public health issues should remain, so the recommendation does not cover this aspect, and the Government fully support that.
Importantly, and rightly, Calman recognised that food content and labelling are almost exclusively regulated at European Union level, so any scope for national flexibility at member state level when implementing this European law is extremely narrow. Hon. Members will know that general and nutritional labelling is currently being recast in a proposed European regulation. The resulting legislation will be directly applicable across the whole of the United Kingdom. A number of other labelling and food standards matters are governed by European directives.
Even where no specific food-related legislation has been adopted at European Union level, free movement principles mean that any food which can be lawfully sold in any member state must be able to be sold throughout the United Kingdom, and vice versa. Significantly, single market rules seeking to avoid barriers to trade being erected apply equally to rules applied in just one part of a member state. Any national measure would need to be notified at member state level, and clearance would need to be obtained from the European Commission before adoption. Before seeking such clearance, consideration would always need to be given to the potential for any disruptive impact within the United Kingdom.
I emphasise to right hon. and hon. Members that the Scottish Parliament is already in a position where it cannot legislate to set particular Scottish standards for food content in cases where that would breach the single European market or supplement existing European regulations. The Scotland Act prohibits the Scottish Parliament from legislating in a way that is incompatible with Community law, and Scottish Ministers have no power to carry out any executive act which is incompatible with that law—to do so would be ultra vires and any such act would have no effect.
It is relevant to the Calman commission’s recommendation that member states may restrict the free movement of goods in exceptional and limited cases. One example where that might be possible is if the Scottish Parliament were to need to take action for the purposes of public health. Again, however, Calman did not suggest any restrictions in this area. The Government are aware of only two instances where Scottish food legislation imposes different requirements from those that apply in England. First, the sale of raw milk or cream for direct human consumption is banned in Scotland but permitted, subject to certain restrictions, in England—European legislation specifically allows that. Secondly, the rules regarding food storage temperature control requirements are much more detailed in England than in Scotland. Both those differences predate Scotland’s ability to make its own legislation and both relate to food safety, not general food labelling or standards. That suggests to the Government that there is not a substantial problem to be addressed. There is therefore no need, in our view, to amend the Scotland Act.
Amending schedule 5 to the Act poses a number of possibly insurmountable problems, at the root of which is the fact that the Calman commission’s recommendation seeks to address a particular effect of legislation—that is, the breach of a single market. The purpose test that applies to the reserved matters in schedule 5 to the Act requires both the purpose and the effect of a provision to be taken into account. It is therefore possible for a provision to have an effect on a reserved matter and yet not relate to it when the purpose test is applied. Simply including a matter in schedule 5 does not guarantee that it can never be affected by legislation that is in the competence of the Scottish Parliament.
There is no precedent for enabling the Scottish Parliament to legislate on a matter provided that its legislation only has certain effects. Even if it were possible to create a new type of reserved matter, there would still be problems. Indeed, any such measure would depend on a definition of what is meant by the United Kingdom single market, which is a concept at the heart of Calman’s recommendation. Furthermore, any amendment of the Scotland Act would create a divergence between the different countries of the United Kingdom as the devolved institutions in Northern Ireland and Wales are not subject to equivalent restrictions.
To summarise, although Scottish Parliament legislation of the type that Calman’s recommendation is designed to prevent is theoretically possible, it is highly unlikely. The likelihood of the Scottish Parliament’s legislating on food content and labelling in a field where exemptions can be found from single market legislation and where any applicable European regulations can be simultaneously disapplied is very limited. The likelihood of its doing so for purposes that are not related to legitimate actions in the field of public health is extremely low.
Finally, any national measures on labelling or content where a member state may be able to act would need to be notified to the European Commission at member state level.
Mr Davidson
May I seek guidance from the Minister? If we have a vote on this matter, will all Unionist Members be voting at 10 o’clock and the nationalist Members be voting on the 13.14 principle at quarter past 11?
David Mundell
That is a very good point. One thing that always interests me about those who promote the time change is that they rarely seek to refer to it as central European time and the imposition of time from Europe on the rest of the—
The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. It was not a particularly brilliant joke the first time round. Can we now get back to new clause 19?
David Mundell
I apologise, Mr Evans, for getting sucked into matters that diverge from the subject under discussion.
The Government appreciate the concern behind the Calman recommendation, and we have fully considered its implications. The hon. Member for East Lothian (Fiona O'Donnell), who has shown great stamina throughout today’s proceedings by taking part in many of the individual debates, asked whether we had consulted the retail and business sector. I am pleased to tell her that I have met the Scottish Retail Consortium and discussed this issue in detail. I have also met the director of the CBI in Scotland, who has also previously set out concerns on this matter. I hope that I have been able to persuade both organisations that the legal basis, which I have set out in detail, is a sound one and is the basis on which the Government did not include that particular recommendation in the Bill.
On the need for legislative change, taking together all the points I have made, the Government do not necessarily consider—