Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between David Mundell and Sheila Gilmore
Wednesday 25th February 2015

(9 years, 9 months ago)

Commons Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sheila Gilmore Portrait Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

6. For what proportion of participants in the Work programme in Scotland job outcome payments have been made to providers of that programme.

David Mundell Portrait The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (David Mundell)
- Hansard - -

Work programme participants are some of the hardest to help and can experience multiple barriers to finding work. There are two providers in Scotland: Ingeus has supported 21.2% of all claimants into a job outcome; and Working Links has supported 20.4% of claimants into a job outcome.

Sheila Gilmore Portrait Sheila Gilmore
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

The Work programme has performed worse in Scotland than in any English region. In the meantime, successful local projects such as the Engine Shed in my constituency have had to close. Does the Minister agree that powers over this should be devolved as quickly as possible—and not just to the Scottish Parliament, but to local authorities?

Draft Scotland Clauses

Debate between David Mundell and Sheila Gilmore
Thursday 22nd January 2015

(9 years, 11 months ago)

Commons Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
David Mundell Portrait David Mundell
- Hansard - -

I have two points in response. First, that issue will be discussed at the first meeting of the joint ministerial group. Secondly, whatever happens to the current PIP regime, as we move forward on benefits, we need to have a clear idea of what the Scottish Government are proposing. The transition will be affected by what we are transitioning to, so on the devolution of benefits, it is very important for the Scottish Government to come forward with their proposals. None of us wants to see a UK system being switched off without a Scottish system in place.

Sheila Gilmore Portrait Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

Following on from that, one important thing that could be done over the next few months would be to get the involvement of many organisations—voluntary organisations, charities and so forth in the disability and carers sector, for example—in framing some of these ideas. Can the Minister tell me how these organisations are going to be involved right from the start, because I believe that they will have important insights into this work? They need to be convinced that this will give them—I believe it will—an ability to shape a much fairer welfare system.

David Mundell Portrait David Mundell
- Hansard - -

The hon. Lady makes an excellent point. I have already discussed that with the Scottish Government, and it will form part of the agenda for the first meeting of the joint ministerial welfare group.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between David Mundell and Sheila Gilmore
Wednesday 26th November 2014

(10 years ago)

Commons Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
David Mundell Portrait David Mundell
- Hansard - -

The Smith commission has engaged in a widespread consultation with all aspects of Scottish society. I understand that there were some 14,000 submissions, and the commission will obviously look closely at all of them.

Sheila Gilmore Portrait Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

What everyone wants, in Scotland and in England, is the certainty of knowing how we are to move forward. My party is committed to including a Scotland Bill in the Queen’s Speech when we win the general election next May. Will the Minister’s party make the same commitment?

David Mundell Portrait David Mundell
- Hansard - -

I do not share the hon. Lady’s arrogance, but what I do share is the commitment to delivering the Smith commission’s proposals. We have made it absolutely clear that draft legislation will be produced by 25 January next year, and there will be a commitment to enact that legislation in the next Parliament.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between David Mundell and Sheila Gilmore
Wednesday 20th June 2012

(12 years, 6 months ago)

Commons Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sheila Gilmore Portrait Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

2. What discussions he has had on the effect of the Scottish Government’s modern apprenticeship scheme on employment in Scotland.

David Mundell Portrait The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (David Mundell)
- Hansard - -

I am in regular contact with the Scottish Government on a range of issues. Later this week, the British-Irish Council is due to discuss the effectiveness of programmes and policies to support youth employment in Members’ respective Administrations.

Sheila Gilmore Portrait Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

In the Scottish Parliament last week, the Labour spokesperson on youth unemployment, Kezia Dugdale MSP, uncovered figures showing that of the 25,000 modern apprenticeships that the Scottish Government claim to have set up, more than 10,000 involved people who were already in work. Does the Minister agree that the Scottish Government should spend public money on creating additional jobs, and not just on rebadging jobs?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between David Mundell and Sheila Gilmore
Wednesday 22nd February 2012

(12 years, 10 months ago)

Commons Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
David Mundell Portrait David Mundell
- Hansard - -

I do agree that that is a reasonable and fair measure, and constituents in constituencies such as mine cannot understand how the Labour party and the nationalists can promote the idea that the benefit cap should be higher than £35,000.

Sheila Gilmore Portrait Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

Is not the truth about the benefit cap, however, that if such a household on £419 a week, as cited by the previous questioner, had six children—like some of my constituents do—who had to be cared for, they would also receive child benefit, and that therefore the comparison that has been made is not fair? What is going to happen when the discretionary housing payments to a council—that is the only answer from the Government—run out?

David Mundell Portrait David Mundell
- Hansard - -

The hon. Lady should listen to her hon. Friend the Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves), when she says that if Labour is to be taken seriously on any issue it has to

“pass the test of fiscal credibility.”

On this issue, that is a very relevant point.

Public Sector Pensions

Debate between David Mundell and Sheila Gilmore
Thursday 8th December 2011

(13 years ago)

Commons Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
David Mundell Portrait The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (David Mundell)
- Hansard - -

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 Portrait Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

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 Portrait David Mundell
- Hansard - -

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.

--- Later in debate ---
Sheila Gilmore Portrait Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

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 Portrait David Mundell
- Hansard - -

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 Portrait Sheila Gilmore
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

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—

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between David Mundell and Sheila Gilmore
Wednesday 22nd June 2011

(13 years, 6 months ago)

Commons Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
David Mundell Portrait David Mundell
- Hansard - -

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 Portrait Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

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 Portrait David Mundell
- Hansard - -

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.

Constitutional Law

Debate between David Mundell and Sheila Gilmore
Wednesday 24th November 2010

(14 years ago)

Commons Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sheila Gilmore Portrait Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

In the light of the Minister’s comments and the criticisms that there have been of the 2007 election, why is now not the moment to rethink the fact that there will be two different types of election next year, and potentially in 2015 as well? That could be avoided entirely by the Government changing their mind.

David Mundell Portrait David Mundell
- Hansard - -

As the hon. Lady will know, having contributed to other debates, that issue has been debated in the House during the consideration of the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill and the Fixed-term Parliaments Bill. However, I will address it later in my remarks.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between David Mundell and Sheila Gilmore
Wednesday 27th October 2010

(14 years, 1 month ago)

Commons Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sheila Gilmore Portrait Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

9. What recent discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills on the implications for cross-border students of the Government’s proposals for higher education funding.

David Mundell Portrait The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (David Mundell)
- Hansard - -

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills announced the publication of Lord Browne’s report on higher education and student finance on 12 October 2010. The Government plan to publish a White Paper outlining detailed proposals in the winter.

Sheila Gilmore Portrait Sheila Gilmore
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

There are obviously considerable consequences for Scotland in any proposals to reduce the teaching grant because of the proposals on loans. What discussions have taken place about the possibility of large numbers of English students wishing to study in Scotland, to the detriment of Scottish students?

David Mundell Portrait David Mundell
- Hansard - -

The hon. Lady raises an important point. Her question is one of those posed by Lord Browne’s report, and it will need to be addressed through debate and consultation. We intend to publish a White Paper in the winter leading, subject to parliamentary time, to a higher education Bill in autumn 2011.