Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between David Mundell and Lindsay Roy

Wednesday 19th March 2014 Commons Chamber

[David Mundell]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. Since the coalition Government came to office, 2.2 million people in Scotland have seen their income tax bills reduced.

[Lindsay Roy (Glenrothes) (Lab)]

Will the Minister confirm what impact the imposition of the bedroom tax has had on child poverty in Scotland?

[David Mundell]

On the spare room subsidy, the hon. Gentleman is aware that the Government have introduced significant contributions in relation to discretionary housing payment. He knows as well that the Scottish Government have significant powers to contribute to any mitigation that they think is necessary.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between David Mundell and Lindsay Roy

Wednesday 9th January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Brian H. Donohoe (Central Ayrshire) (Lab)]

5. How many people in Scotland have used food banks in the last 12 months.

[Lindsay Roy (Glenrothes) (Lab)]

12. How many people in Scotland have used food banks in the last six months.

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

Jobcentre Plus operates a food bank referral service. However, the Government do not hold information on the number of people seeking assistance from food banks.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Mundell]

Although I share the hon. Gentleman’s concern about the use of food banks and the fact that there are vulnerable people in crisis situations, I do not accept the pretence that food banks have come into existence since this Government came to power. That is simply not true. There were food banks under Labour; it is simply that they were not advertised in jobcentres.

[Lindsay Roy]

What message does the Minister have for the increasing number of people in my constituency who are being forced to go to food banks to feed their families? What will he do to alleviate that situation?

[David Mundell]

I acknowledge the hon. Gentleman’s concern because he instigated a useful Westminster Hall debate on this matter. The Government will continue to do all that we can to help and support the vulnerable in his constituency and elsewhere.

Food Banks (Scotland)

Debate between David Mundell and Lindsay Roy

Wednesday 19th December 2012 Westminster Hall

[David Mundell]

I am afraid that I am not going to take any lessons from the hon. Lady, who had the temerity to quote “The Grapes of Wrath” in this Chamber but takes absolutely no responsibility for bringing this country to the brink of bankruptcy and creating the backdrop for the situation in which people now find themselves in so much difficulty. The Labour spokesman for Scotland, the hon. Member for Glasgow North East (Mr Bain), was as lucid as the shadow Chancellor in setting out exactly how Labour would deal with the issues. It comes back to the same things: more borrowing, more spending and more debt. That is exactly what got us into this difficulty and why we are in such difficult times.

[Lindsay Roy]

Can the Minister tell us what lessons he has learned from this debate?

[David Mundell]

The principal lesson that I have learned is that Labour has learned nothing from its time in office and has nothing to suggest other than soundbites. Of course it is a serious problem that people in Scotland have insufficient income for food. I take it as a very serious problem, but I do not believe that there is some miracle solution. Opposition Members suggest the return of a Labour Government, but they would simply pursue the same policies that brought us to the situation that we are in.

In the limited time available, I will deal with one or two of the specific points raised. All Members with individual constituents facing difficulties with the DWP or other parts of Government, such as the constituent mentioned by the hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway (Mr Brown), should refer them to Ministers in this Government, or to me and the Secretary of State. We are happy to take forward those proposals. I am sure that the hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway and others were not suggesting that there should be no system of sanctions for those who do not operate within DWP rules and guidelines.

The hon. Member for East Lothian (Fiona O’Donnell) mentioned benefit delays. That is an issue of concern, but from April 2013, DWP will replace the current interim payments—crisis loan alignment payments, for those who cannot wait until their benefit is due—with an improved system of short-term benefit and universal credit advances. Those advances of benefit, unlike the current social fund, will not be budget-capped. We heard, as we did in last week’s debate, about the transfer of the social fund to the Scottish Government. We highlighted in that debate that the funds being transferred to the Scottish Government are not ring-fenced. I take it from what the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Dr Whiteford) said about the Scottish Government’s approach that those funds might be ring-fenced when the Scottish Government receive them, and I certainly hope that they will work with local authorities to bring decision making on the social fund closer to the people who need it most.

Contrary to what we sometimes hear in debates like this, there is good news. Some 300,000 people in Scotland will be better off under the transfer to universal credit, and 3,100 fewer people are claiming jobseeker’s allowance than a year ago. That does not hide the fact that there are serious difficulties and that these are hard times. Particularly at this time of year, all our thoughts should be with the people who are suffering in these hard times. As I did at the outset of my remarks, I commend all the charitable and voluntary organisations that work closely with people in the most vulnerable situations to support them not just at this time of year but throughout the year. This is an important debate, and I again congratulate the hon. Member for Glenrothes on securing it. On that basis, I conclude my remarks.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between David Mundell and Lindsay Roy

Wednesday 21st November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Lindsay Roy (Glenrothes) (Lab)]

1. What assessment he has made of the potential effects on jobs in Scotland of Scottish independence.

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

The UK Government firmly believe that Scotland is, and always will be, better off in the UK. The UK Government are undertaking a programme of analysis to evaluate how Scotland contributes to, and benefits from, being part of the UK.

[Lindsay Roy]

I thank the Minister for that answer. Will he explain why there is so much concern among those working in the defence and supply chain industries in Scotland over the future of their jobs?

[David Mundell]

I can advise the hon. Gentleman that, as of April, there were 15,880 regular armed forces and Ministry of Defence civilian personnel based in Scotland, and an additional 40,000 people employed in defence-related industries in around 800 companies. Not one of those people could guarantee their job under an independent Scotland.

Scotland Bill

Debate between David Mundell and Lindsay Roy

Thursday 26th April 2012 Commons Chamber

[David Mundell]

With the leave of the House, I shall respond specifically to the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington South (David Mowat), because I understood all the other Members who have spoken to be expressing support for the amendments, some more grudgingly than others.

I do not wish to question the accuracy of my hon. Friend’s analysis of the debates that have taken place in the House of Lords and the Scottish Parliament, but according to my reading of Bruce Crawford’s contribution to the Scottish debate, he made no reference to the no-detriment principle. He did, however, refer to the Holtham approach. There are two separate issues in play. The Holtham approach is about the adjustment of the block grant.

[Lindsay Roy (Glenrothes) (Lab)]

Can the Minister confirm that the same Bruce Crawford did not describe the Bill as a poison pill, a dog’s breakfast, and dangerous?

[David Mundell]

I accept the hon. Gentleman’s recollection of what Mr Crawford may have said about the Bill on previous occasions, but as I said earlier, I welcomed his constructive approach in his dealings with me, with the Secretary of State and with the UK Government in taking the Bill through the Scottish Parliament by way of a unanimously expressed legislative consent motion.

During the debate in that Parliament, Mr Crawford referred to the Holtham approach, which, as I said a moment ago, relates to the adjustment of the block grant and is separate from the no-detriment principle. The Government have accepted that, as in relation to Wales, the Holtham methodology should apply for calculating block grant adjustments. That is the basis on which we will move forward. I do not accept that over the past 12 years or so the Scottish Parliament and Government have been deprived of funds. As others have said, no matter how much money is allocated to the current Scottish Government under whatever mechanism, it would never be enough.

The no-detriment principle refers to how the financial system will operate after the Scottish rate of income tax comes into force. Under that principle, the UK Government would either compensate the Scottish budget for the costs of their policy change on the devolved tax base through the block grant, or receive funds back if the Scottish budget benefits from the policy change in raised receipts. The cost or benefit to the UK from decisions taken on the income tax structure is therefore exactly the same as it would have been before this Bill devolved 10p on income tax to Scotland, and the Scottish budget would be no better or worse off.

The Office for Budget Responsibility will forecast the impact of UK decisions on the Scottish rate of income tax, and we will take steps to ensure that the Scottish budget is compensated. There is therefore a principle of reciprocity. Where one Administration either gains or loses as a result of decisions taken by the other Administration, across the shared income tax there are measures in place to compensate for that loss or gain. This is simply a matter of common sense. It is based on the principle of accountability, which lies at the heart of the statement of funding policy.

I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington South that where decisions taken by any of the devolved Administrations have financial implications for UK Departments, or where UK decisions lead to additional costs for any of the devolved Administrations, the body whose decision leads to the additional cost will meet that cost.

Lords amendment 2 agreed to.

Clause 10

Continued effect of provisions where legislative competence conferred for limited period

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between David Mundell and Lindsay Roy

Wednesday 18th April 2012 Commons Chamber

[David Mundell]

It will not surprise the hon. Gentleman that I do not accept his analysis. He and others who scaremonger on this issue fail to point out that more than half of those in Scotland aged over 65 will not pay any tax at all.

[Lindsay Roy]

Is the Minister not ashamed of his Government’s decision to reduce tax for the wealthiest Scots while at the same time penalising pensioners with a tax grab, whereby they will lose up to £322 per annum?