Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between David Mundell and Hugh Gaffney

Wednesday 19th June 2019 Commons Chamber

[David Mundell]

My Cabinet colleagues are present, and I am keen to ensure that as many UK Government jobs as possible are in Scotland. Last week, I was delighted to launch the new UK Government hub in Edinburgh, which will house 3,000 UK civil servants.

[Hugh Gaffney (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (Lab)]

The Scottish Government have launched an independent review of the joint campus of Buchanan and St Ambrose High Schools in my constituency, after health and safety concerns were raised by parents, pupils and staff. Does the Secretary of State agree, like me, with the concerned parents, pupils and staff, who think that an independent review must properly assess the water quality and the site of both schools, including for air and soil contamination—for the past, present and future of these children?

[David Mundell]

Obviously, that matter is ultimately for the Scottish Government, but I know that the hon. Gentleman is a real champion for the parents and pupils at those schools, and I will do everything to assist him in taking forward their concerns.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between David Mundell and Hugh Gaffney

Wednesday 8th May 2019 Commons Chamber

[David Mundell]

I am absolutely clear that the results of both referendums—in 2014 and in 2016—should be honoured. The Government are determined to do so.

[Hugh Gaffney (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (Lab)]

12. What recent discussions he has had with Cabinet colleagues on the level of child poverty in Scotland.

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

I have regular discussions with Cabinet colleagues on a range of issues and we are committed to action that will make a meaningful difference to the lives of disadvantaged children and families. This goes beyond a focus on the safety net of the welfare system to tackle the root causes of poverty and disadvantage. The UK Government will work with the Scottish Government on their child poverty strategy given that this spans both devolved and reserved interests.

[Hugh Gaffney]

In a recent report, the Resolution Foundation projected that the Scottish child poverty rate will hit 29% by 2023-24—the highest rate in 20 years —and concluded that the Government’s welfare reforms are to blame. Will the Secretary of State take a stand in the Cabinet against policies like the unfair benefit freeze or will he allow more children to fall into poverty?

[David Mundell]

I do not accept that analysis. Of course there is concern about the number of children in poverty in Scotland, but, as I outlined in my initial answer, the best way to resolve it is for the Scottish Government and the UK Government to work together and focus on a really important issue rather than constantly discuss the constitution.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between David Mundell and Hugh Gaffney

Wednesday 17th October 2018 Commons Chamber

[Hugh Gaffney (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (Lab)]

4. If he will meet the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions to discuss the potential cost to the public purse of the Government’s reassessment of people who may be eligible for personal independence payments in Scotland.

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

Yes.

[Hugh Gaffney]

The Labour party and the people of Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill, and of Scotland, all want PIP reassessments to be scrapped immediately. They are cruel, callous and entirely inhumane. Will the Secretary of State therefore agree that they should be scrapped?

[David Mundell]

I can advise the hon. Gentleman that the Scottish Government have had legislative competence over PIP since May 2017, as part of this Government’s continued commitment to implement the Smith commission in full. At the Scottish Government’s request, the UK Government will continue to be responsible for PIP until the Scottish Government are ready.

Glasgow School of Art

Debate between David Mundell and Hugh Gaffney

Tuesday 19th June 2018 Commons Chamber

[David Mundell]

The hon. Lady ends her question with a very good sentiment, and I echo it fully. The School of Art has been able to draw on worldwide expertise and to develop and see through skills that were not previously exercised, and it stands in a good position to know what would be needed in a future restoration, although the scale of this restoration would obviously be much greater than the previous one.

[Hugh Gaffney (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (Lab)]

I am someone who delivered to Glasgow for 25 years as a postal worker, and the Mackintosh building was one my favourite buildings to deliver to. Will the Secretary of State not only deliver on the promise that he has just given to re-fund the building, but bear in mind the students and workers in the building?

[David Mundell]

One of the issues that I will discuss with Professor Inns and others is students, workers and the current capacity, because although the Mackintosh building was in effect destroyed, the School of Art’s principal building was also badly damaged in terms of its operability. We want to discuss those issues and how they can be most helped in that regard.

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill: Sewel Convention

Debate between David Mundell and Hugh Gaffney

Thursday 14th June 2018 Commons Chamber

[David Mundell]

I have been listening to Mr Downie for nearly 20 years; at that time, he used to lobby the Scottish Parliament when I was an MSP. Of course we listen to the views of anyone who comes forward, but I disagree with that interpretation. The Bill, as businesses across Scotland recognise, is about bringing certainty on the day when we exit the EU. It is about ensuring that people know what the legal position is, and that is universally welcomed by businesses across Scotland.

[Hugh Gaffney (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (Lab)]

There is an important factor in the origins of the Sewel convention: the consent of the Scottish Parliament. As no agreement has been reached or consent given, will the details be published in the missing EU White Paper, which should have been published before any votes were taken in this House?