Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between David Mundell and Eilidh Whiteford

Wednesday 25th February 2015 Commons Chamber

[David Mundell]

Absolutely. Some 32,620 people in Scotland have found work through the Work programme, which means they can bring home a wage, support their family and play a part in their wider community.

[Dr Eilidh Whiteford (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)]

By any measure the Work programme has been a failure. It has wasted public money and let down the people depending on it. When will the Government listen to not only the Smith commission, but the dozens of civil society organisations in Scotland that have called for employment support to be devolved so that we can develop an integrated system in Scotland that actually works?

[David Mundell]

I do not think that the 32,620 people who have found work through the Work programme would agree with the hon. Lady’s assessment. It is now time for her party to come forward with its proposals for an alternative to the Work programme, rather than just criticising the Government and calling for more powers. This Government have given a commitment to effect a transition to such a programme, but first we need to know what it will be.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between David Mundell and Eilidh Whiteford

Wednesday 7th May 2014 Commons Chamber

[David Mundell]

I do agree with my hon. Friend. She will be aware that since 2010 the Scottish Government have had an additional £1.3 billion in funding that they could have used to provide affordable housing in Scotland. We used to hear constantly in the Chamber about the number of shovel-ready projects in Scotland, but we have not seen much shovelling.

[Dr Eilidh Whiteford (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)]

The bedroom tax has been a costly fiasco in Scotland. It should never have happened, but I am glad that the Government have at long last agreed to allow the Scottish Government to mitigate its worst impacts. However, the Secretary of State recently boasted that we have a “fantastic” benefits system. Does the Minister think that he was talking about the bedroom tax, or is he also living in a parallel universe?

[David Mundell]

I certainly do not live in the universe that the SNP inhabits. It has not given us a single detail of how a welfare system would operate in Scotland. Indeed, in the 670 pages of the Scottish Government’s White Paper, there is just one reference to the establishment of such a system. The SNP set up a commission, but we have heard nothing from it, so I am afraid that I shall take no lessons from the hon. Lady.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between David Mundell and Eilidh Whiteford

Wednesday 19th March 2014 Commons Chamber

[David Mundell]

It does not surprise me that the hon. Lady does not draw attention to the fact that, on the basis of statistics announced today, employment in Scotland increased by 15,000 over the quarter, and has increased by 79,000 over the year. The Scottish employment rate rose by 0.3%. The way out of poverty is work, and this Government are delivering jobs.

[Dr Eilidh Whiteford (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)]

3. What assessment he has made of the effect of the Government’s welfare reforms on levels of child poverty in Scotland.

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

The Scottish Government child poverty strategy report was published in September 2013 and states that child poverty in Scotland is at its lowest level since 1994. Welfare reform will be subject to the normal policy review process in due course.

[Dr Whiteford]

I am appalled by the Minister’s complacency. He should be aware that more than half the children in poverty in Scotland have working parents, and that the Child Poverty Action Group estimates that 100,000 more children will be pushed into poverty as a consequence of welfare reform. Why do his Government think that it is okay to make children pay the price of austerity, and does he think that it is a price worth paying?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between David Mundell and Eilidh Whiteford

Wednesday 5th February 2014 Commons Chamber

[Dr Eilidh Whiteford (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)]

2. What recent discussions he has had with Scottish local authorities on changes to housing benefit.

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

In recent months, I have met every local authority in Scotland, and most of them twice, as part of an ongoing dialogue with local authorities and other stakeholders in Scotland on what the impact of welfare reforms and the challenges of implementation have been for them, their services and their tenants.

[Dr Whiteford]

The Minister will therefore know that 80% of the households in Scotland affected by the bedroom tax are the home of someone with a disability. He knows that there is a mismatch between the available housing stock and the needs of tenants, and he knows that Scottish MPs, including Government Back Benchers, voted overwhelmingly against this policy. Will the Government now lift the legal restrictions on discretionary housing payments to allow the Scottish Government to mitigate the impact of this nonsense of a policy?

[David Mundell]

What I do know is that the hon. Lady has a brass neck. She is a member of the Scottish Affairs Committee, but fails to take up her place. This issue was debated in detail yesterday and if she had been present she would know that the Scottish Government already have the powers to take measures if they genuinely believe there are concerns with welfare policies.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between David Mundell and Eilidh Whiteford

Wednesday 11th September 2013 Commons Chamber

[David Mundell]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend, not least because the Scottish Government and the Scottish National party have set out no coherent plans for a sustainable pensions system in an independent Scotland.

[Dr Eilidh Whiteford (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)]

The Minister must think that people in Scotland are buttoned up the back. He knows as well as I do that in terms of both revenue and GDP, Scotland spends a lower percentage of its money on pensions than other parts of the UK. Does he accept that the lower life expectancy in Scotland and other demographic trends make it important that decisions on pensions are made in Scotland by Scotland for Scotland?

[David Mundell]

I know that the people of Scotland are not buttoned up the back. They understand that the Scottish Government and the SNP say one thing in private and another thing in public. In private, John Swinney has made it absolutely clear that the affordability of pensions would be a serious issue in an independent Scotland. That is a fact. [Interruption.]

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between David Mundell and Eilidh Whiteford

Wednesday 13th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[Dr Eilidh Whiteford (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)]

2. What estimate he has made of the number of households in Scotland affected by the under-occupancy penalty.

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

In its impact assessment, published on 28 June 2012, the Department for Work and Pensions estimates that 80,000 claimants of housing benefit in the social rented sector in Scotland will be affected by the under-occupation measure.

[Dr Whiteford]

The Minister knows as well as I do that thousands of people in low-income households in Scotland who are going to lose out because of the bedroom tax have no realistic prospect of moving to a smaller house. According to that impact assessment, claimants in Scotland will be disproportionately hit because of the mismatch between the available housing stock and the needs of tenants, so will the right hon. Gentleman take this opportunity to distance himself from the shameful attempt of this Government to stigmatise and penalise people who live in council houses and need help with their rent?

[David Mundell]

What is shameful is the way that the Scottish National party plays party politics with vulnerable people, pretending that there can be no welfare changes, yet putting forward nothing in their place and not indicating how welfare would be paid for in an independent Scotland.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between David Mundell and Eilidh Whiteford

Wednesday 9th January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Dr Eilidh Whiteford (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)]

It will come as no surprise to the Minister to learn that I opposed the cap on in-work benefits last night because it will hammer thousands of families in Scotland who are trying to bring up children while working hard in low-paid jobs. However, does he share my surprise that some senior MPs, including members of the last Labour Government, who left his Government with an almighty mess in the public finances, did not even turn up to vote last night?

[David Mundell]

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

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between David Mundell and Eilidh Whiteford

Wednesday 12th September 2012 Commons Chamber

[David Mundell]

The hon. Lady was not present at this week’s reception at Dover house, where many of the leading stakeholders on child poverty, including Save the Children, were in attendance and there was a significant discussion about the issue. She can be assured that both the Secretary of State and I take these issues very seriously.

[Dr Eilidh Whiteford (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)]

The so-called greening measures proposed for the new CAP have caused consternation throughout the farming community. In a recent National Farmers Union survey, almost three quarters of those surveyed thought that they would have an adverse environmental impact; half thought that they would harm biodiversity; and all of them thought that it would cause financial problems for their business. What is the Minister doing to make sure that those measures do not form part of the new CAP?

[David Mundell]

The Government are aware of those concerns, not just in Scotland, but throughout the rest of the United Kingdom, and the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Miss McIntosh), has reported to that effect. The Government will seek to do all they can to minimise the impact of such greening measures, if they are adopted.

Scottish Separation

Debate between David Mundell and Eilidh Whiteford

Tuesday 10th July 2012 Westminster Hall

[Dr Eilidh Whiteford (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)]

I am happy to have the opportunity to speak in today’s debate, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Livingston (Graeme Morrice) on bringing such an important issue before the House of Commons.

Before we embark on what the future of Scotland might look like, it is important to reflect on the past. If we do not understand our history, including economic history, we are in danger of becoming victims of it, and there is no way round the fact that over the past 30 years, successive Westminster Governments have let the Scottish economy languish. Our economic growth has lagged well behind that of our neighbours and competitors in the UK, Europe and further afield.

In the three decades before the current financial crisis, growth in Scotland averaged only 2.1%, against 2.7% in other comparable small EU countries, and across the G7 countries. That chronic underperformance has had adverse consequences for generations of people in Scotland, and we must ask ourselves why it has happened. Unless we think that there is something inherently inferior about Scotland or Scottish people, or some inherent weakness in the Scottish economy, we must conclude that such underperformance is a direct consequence of poor political and economic policy decision making, and a systematic failure to address the weaknesses and maximise the strengths of the Scottish economy.

[David Mundell]

I am interested to hear what the hon. Lady has to say about policy making and political judgments. Does she still support the Scottish Government’s previous position of joining the arc of prosperity with Iceland and Ireland?

[Dr Whiteford]

The Minister makes an interesting point, and it is important to look at the performance of small nations in the vicinity of Scotland. My constituency in the north-east of Scotland is close to Norway, which I think has outperformed every country in Europe over the past three decades. We should also look at the impact of the recession and at how smaller countries such as Austria, Denmark and Sweden have been more resilient and managed to experience a less deep economic crisis. Even countries such as Iceland that went so far down during the economic crisis have bounced back with much greater dexterity than the UK economy—[Interruption.] The Minister is smiling, but he should be hanging his head in shame at the economic recession that this country is slowly trying to scramble out of. That is a shameful record for a country that has the potential to be prosperous.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Whiteford]

The geographical reality with which we are dealing is that much of our renewable energy potential is located on and off the coast of Scotland. We have 10% of wave energy potential, 25% of tidal energy potential and 25% of offshore wind resources. That is a huge legacy across Europe, and we have to make the most of it. At a time when climate change puts pressures on all our energy supplies and when we absolutely have to reduce carbon emissions, that kind of investment has to happen. We must not discriminate against people in the more outlying parts of these islands because that is where such energy can and must be produced.

We absolutely need to capitalise on that opportunity to create jobs and build on our existing research strengths in our world-class universities, which are consistently being assessed as among the top in the world. In the area of science, engineering and technology, relative to our GDP, Scotland is currently No. 1 in the world for research. We also have a worldwide reputation for excellence in medicine and life sciences. We are doing very well at attracting multinational businesses to Scotland, as well as in relation to a growing number of indigenous companies.

[David Mundell]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Dr Whiteford]

I would like to give way to the Minister, but I am not going to because I am conscious that other people want to contribute.

We also have real international competitive advantages and excellence in key sectors such as food and drink—another area that is very important to my constituency—and, despite difficult times for the banking sector, we have a strong and broadly-based financial services industry, where there has recently been some welcome diversification and investment. I see that as a solid foundation for Scotland economically and there is no reason why, with those opportunities, we cannot succeed. Scotland has the assets and the fiscal balances and, with the ability to make independent policy decisions, we would have the tools to grow our economy.

Another myth that has been touched on today is that we would want to abandon sterling. I want to make it absolutely clear that no one is proposing dispensing with sterling. Retaining the pound is in the interests of Scotland, the rest of the UK and the currency itself. A free flow of goods, services, labour and capital is in everyone’s interest, and a sterling zone will provide businesses both in Scotland and in the rest of the UK with the certainty and stability for trade, investment and growth.

There is no doubt that monetary policy underpins price and macro-economic stability, but it is a blunt tool for tackling Scotland’s other economic challenges. It will not address youth unemployment; it will not directly lead to investment in infrastructure or promote innovation; it will not boost skills, target overseas investment or promote investment in key sectors; and, to come back to the point I made at the start, it will not integrate our tax, health, education and benefit systems to maximise economic opportunity and tackle inequality. That is why I believe we need to be independent and to have real policy-making powers in Scotland.

[David Mundell]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Dr Whiteford]

I will not, thank you.

Frankly, the Scottish Parliament would do a better job of welfare reform than the UK Government, who seem intent on vilifying people who do not have a lot of money. Instead, we could develop a more workable system. The Scottish Parliament is already doing a better job on health, and we are not going down the road towards privatisation. In addition, we are doing a better job on education, and we are not charging students £9,000 a year to complete their studies in higher education. The current levers open to the Scottish Parliament do not go nearly far enough to realise our economic potential.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between David Mundell and Eilidh Whiteford

Wednesday 20th June 2012 Commons Chamber

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

The UK Government have worked hard to influence the content of the “General Approach” at the Fisheries Council. It would deliver positive benefits for Scotland’s fisheries and those who depend on them, and I welcome its commitment to manage fish stocks sustainably, to move towards more regionalised fisheries management and to ensure that discards are eliminated.

[Dr Whiteford]

I also welcome the progress that was made in Luxembourg last week, but does the Minister think that this would be an appropriate juncture in the process at which to introduce more transparency into fisheries management in the form of the UK Government making public the individuals and companies that hold fish quota here?

[David Mundell]

I agree with the hon. Lady that it is important for the UK Government and the Scottish Government to work well together, and the recent Fisheries Council is a good example of them doing that for the benefit of Scotland’s fishermen.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between David Mundell and Eilidh Whiteford

Wednesday 18th April 2012 Commons Chamber

[David Mundell]

What I think is fair is that half of pensioners over 65 in Scotland will not pay any tax at all; that those earning less than £10,000 will, by the end of this Parliament, be subject to a personal allowance of £10,000; and that this Government have delivered the largest increase in the pension—£270 compared with the 75p offered by the previous Government.

[Dr Eilidh Whiteford (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)]

Those pension increases will, of course, be wiped out by this tax grab. People living on modest pension incomes have already paid a very high price for the financial crisis. They have lost the value of their savings and investments, and they are having to face inflation and extremely low interest rates. How can the Minister justify this tax grab on pensioners while taxes are being cut for millionaires?

[David Mundell]

I am afraid that I am not going to accept any lectures on economics from the hon. Lady. She is offering pensioners in Scotland the prospect of breaking up the United Kingdom, with no certainty as to where pension funding would come from.

Female Employment (Scotland)

Debate between David Mundell and Eilidh Whiteford

Wednesday 18th January 2012 Westminster Hall

[David Mundell]

The Secretary of State and I have had ongoing discussions with the Scottish Government on employment and wider economic issues and on how we can dovetail our policies to ensure that they work in the best way for people in Scotland. The hon. Lady clearly highlights a significant issue, which I will take up again with the Scottish Government the next time I have the opportunity to do so. I appreciate the importance of the issue that she is raising.

The UK Government recognise the issue of child care and are implementing measures geared to helping more women into work. The hon. Lady will be aware that, following the autumn statement, the Scottish Government will receive more than £500 million in addition to the sums that they had anticipated they would receive. In relation to that funding, the Scottish Government will have the opportunity to invest more in child care and skills development.

Looking forward, the integration of child care into universal credit when it is introduced in 2013 will protect work initiatives and ensure that support is focused on low-earning families. As I have said, we know how important child care is in helping mothers into work. Child care costs will be supported through an additional element in the universal credit. Support for the costs of child care within the universal credit will be made available to all lone parents and couples, where both members are at work, regardless of the number of hours they work. On average, families with children are more likely to have a higher than a lower entitlement under the universal credit.

More broadly, the Department for Work and Pensions is taking a number of measures to assist all claimants into work. The advisory support in job centres across Scotland is tailored and personalised to the individual’s needs. Claimants of both genders have access to a range of “Get Britain Working” initiatives, including work clubs, enterprise clubs, the work together scheme, work experience, new enterprise allowance and sector-based work academies. Similarly, work trials allow employers and employees the chance to try out employment opportunities.

The Work programme is a key part of our reforms and, as the hon. Member for Glasgow North knows, it went live in June. We are also helping to break down the barriers to employment through the flexible support fund, which can assist with child care expenses, travel costs and clothing costs. It also targets support to particular groups of claimants. The DWP is looking at bids for grant funding from bodies that specifically support lone parents and women with special needs, such as mental health issues.

Across Scotland, there is huge concern about youth unemployment and, obviously, a significant number of the people affected by that are female. Youth unemployment has been rising since 2004.

[Dr Whiteford]

Does the Minister agree that the Scottish Government’s commitment to ensuring that every young person in Scotland between the age of 16 and 19 has an apprenticeship, college or university place or training opportunity is a good thing and that it is the right direction to be moving in to tackle youth unemployment?

[David Mundell]

I can certainly assure the hon. Lady that I accept that many things the Scottish Government do are good. What I do not accept is the often presented premise that, if the Scottish Government do something, it is a good thing, and if the UK Government do something, it is a bad thing. We need to work together, particularly on issues such as youth unemployment.

As I said, youth unemployment has been rising since 2004 and is an issue on which we all need to take an interest. That is why I am particularly pleased that John Swinney is going to join the Secretary of State and me at a national convention to consider the issue of youth unemployment, with all other relevant stakeholders from throughout Scotland. In terms of identifying issues and concerns, we have undertaken a number of very successful events in Irvine, Hawick and Falkirk to date, and a national event will take place in Dundee in March.

We have also announced the youth contract, which will bring an extra £1 billion of extra investment into supporting the young unemployed, whether through wage incentives, additional work experience and opportunities or money to the Scottish Government. There will also be the offer of a work experience place for every 18 to 24-year-old who wants one before they enter the Work programme.

The UK Government cannot solve the employment challenges facing Scotland alone. The Scottish Government have many policy levers, with important responsibilities for education, skills, business tax and enterprise, which can be used to improve the employment situation. Scotland’s two Governments must work together to achieve this.

Question put and agreed to.

Public Sector Pensions

Debate between David Mundell and Eilidh Whiteford

Thursday 8th December 2011 Commons Chamber

[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 Eilidh Whiteford (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)]

rose—

[David Mundell]

Perhaps the hon. Lady will agree with me on them.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between David Mundell and Eilidh Whiteford

Wednesday 9th March 2011 Commons Chamber

[David Mundell]

I will seek out that information for my hon. Friend and write to him.

[Dr Eilidh Whiteford (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)]

The changes announced last week to social fund crisis loans will cut the level and availability of loans for essential items such as beds and cookers. Does the Minister agree that that will push vulnerable people on lower incomes towards high-cost lending and into the arms of loan sharks, exacerbating problems that Scotland already has?

[David Mundell]

I do not agree with the hon. Lady’s analysis. I am surprised to hear again from the Scottish National party that it does not welcome the devolution of elements of the social fund to the Scottish Parliament.

Scotland Bill

Debate between David Mundell and Eilidh Whiteford

Monday 7th March 2011 Commons Chamber

[David Mundell]

I welcome you to the Chair, Mr Benton.

I can assure the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Michael Connarty) that nothing that the Government put forward this evening is in any way determined by the fact that these proceedings are televised. I hope that we are bringing forward a reasoned response to important issues that have been raised in the debate on these amendments.

I wanted, during this discussion, to clarify the SNP’s position, and I am sure that the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) will understand why. I think that the logical explanation is that we now have devolution in the SNP, with a London SNP that is proposing an amendment to clause 11 and an Edinburgh SNP that is in agreement with it as it stands. In those circumstances, I find it extremely odd that the hon. Gentleman suggested that he was going to push this matter to a Division. He will have seen the Scottish Parliament’s Scotland Bill Committee report, which, in paragraphs 142 to 144, confirms that it was a unanimous view of that Committee that clause 11 should be supported. It states:

“We note that this excludes those air rifles, air guns or air pistols which are of a type declared by rules made by the Secretary of State under section 53 of the 1968 Act to be ‘specially dangerous’. These particular weapons are already banned and we see no reason why this would change.”

The Committee went on unanimously to recommend support for clause 11.

[Dr Whiteford]

I have here a copy of the Scotland Bill Committee report, which came out last week. If the right hon. Gentleman looks at paragraph 142 and the footnote attached to it, he will see that in fact there was a division on that point and the view was not unanimous at all.

[David Mundell]

The hon. Lady will also be aware of the text of the LCM to be put forward by the Scottish Government. Her Scottish Parliament colleague, Fiona Hyslop, kindly sent it to me, listing several clauses to which the Scottish Government want changes made. Clause 11 is clearly stated not to be one of them.

[Dr Whiteford]

May I once again draw the Minister’s attention to paragraph 142 and footnote 28, which clearly show that two members of the Committee, Brian Adam and Tricia Marwick, caused a split on the issue? Will he acknowledge that for the record?

[David Mundell]

I acknowledge for the record that the vote took place, but I also point out to the hon. Lady annex A, where the minority views on the issues on which her colleagues felt particularly strongly are set out, clearly stating their disagreement.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Whiteford]

Will the Minister clarify exactly which issues remain outstanding with the Scottish Federation of Housing Associations that necessitate a further meeting?

[David Mundell]

Following our meeting with the federation, I wrote extensively on the specific points that I had raised. My interpretation concerned whether Westminster would be as responsive as the Scottish Parliament if new issues arose. It is extremely important to take on board that this is about new issues and not about the adequacy of the Housing (Scotland) Act 2010. That Act is in place, as are the arrangements for insolvency. The issue is whether, if the arrangements that have been put in place did not work and other arrangements had to be brought in, that could be done expeditiously in the House of Commons, and I believe it could. Indeed, one Opposition Member is the former distinguished Communities Minister of the Scottish Parliament and I cannot imagine that she would allow the Government to sit idly by while there were requests for changes to insolvency procedures in respect of registered social landlords in Scotland. That issue is not a basis for continuing concern, but we are committed to the dialogue involving the Insolvency Service and the federation.

It is important to re-emphasise the point that the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk confirmed—that the Scottish Parliament’s current powers in relation to RSLs are not whole powers regarding RSL insolvency. They relate only to the winding up and only where it concerns a moratorium on the disposal and management of property held by an RSL, so the Scottish Parliament is not currently able to make provision for all aspects of the law on RSLs. The view of the Calman commission was that the ability to make provision in this area was fragmented and should be returned to Westminster to deal with that fragmentation. Clearly, there are Members who could never agree with the return of powers to Westminster, however sensible that might be, but I hope that on this occasion they will accept that the measure will benefit Scottish business and will not be detrimental to the RSL sector. On that basis, I hope that the Committee will not divide on clause 12.

Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.