Offshore Petroleum Licensing Bill

Debate between Douglas Ross and Nigel Evans

Committee of the whole House
Tuesday 20th February 2024 Commons Chamber

[Dave Doogan]

I do not know about you, Mr Deputy Speaker, but I have just about heard enough from the hon. Member today. For the fourth time, Government Members’ association between the number of licences issued and the number of oil and gas jobs protected is specious at best. We have been accused by them—including, I think, the hon. Member—of wanting to put the oil and gas industry in Scotland to the sword. There is no such plan. The leader of the SNP and Scotland’s First Minister Humza Yousaf was in Aberdeen just yesterday talking about how Scottish oil and gas workers must never be left behind.

I am disappointed in the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (David Duguid)—I thought more of him—misquoting Humza Yousaf, who said that he would rather Aberdeen was not the oil and gas capital of Europe but the renewable energy capital of the world. That promises vastly more economic opportunity for workers in Scotland. Government Members had better start dealing with that.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. I remind Members that this is a Third Reading and that we should not be reopening arguments that were heard in Committee or previous stages.

[Douglas Ross]

I respect that ruling, Mr Deputy Speaker, but I do not think it is reopening anything, because we have not got any further. I have tried at Second Reading, in Committee, and now at Third Reading. Why is it so difficult for SNP Members who represent communities in the north-east of Scotland to say what is actually in their own draft energy strategy? It says there is a “presumption” against new “exploration” for oil and gas “in the North sea”. The fact that the hon. Member for Angus cannot simply stand up and give his own position tells us exactly how people in the north-east of Scotland feel. The SNP has breathtaking hypocrisy on this issue. It wants to run down the oil and gas sector. It is no friend of the oil and gas sector. Of course, the SNP asked the Green party into government—that tells us everything we need to know.

Delivery Charges: Scotland

Debate between Douglas Ross and Nigel Evans

Monday 7th March 2022 Commons Chamber

[Douglas Ross]

Well, that is for others to decide, but I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who is a fellow member of the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs.

Before my hon. Friend and I joined the Committee, it had looked at this issue. I have also secured Westminster Hall debates on it, including one that the Minister responded to 15 months ago, and I have raised it at Prime Minister’s questions. I know that it concerns Members across the House and our constituents, particularly those of us in the north of Scotland and the highlands and islands, and I make no apology for raising it again.

The surcharges on the delivery of products bought by people in Moray and across many parts of Scotland are punitive and unfair and have been going on far too long. Businesses and couriers are treating my constituents and the people affected with utter contempt. It is completely wrong, and something must be done. To put into perspective how many people the issue affects, a Scottish Parliament briefing paper suggests that 440,000 people in Scotland live in areas affected by the surcharges. To put that into context, the same report says that 87% of adults in the United Kingdom buy online. That figure rose as high as 95% during the pandemic. That means that a big number of shoppers—95% of 440,000 people—are being punished not for what they want to buy, but because of where they want to buy from.

It is absolutely wrong that the issue is raised time and again, but no action seems to be taken by the businesses or the couriers to deal with the problem. The Scottish Parliament Information Centre’s report says that the additional cost of delivery charges in commonly affected areas, compared with the rest of Scotland, is £45 million. That is £45 million that someone has to pay because they live in Moray, Inverness or one of many areas north of Perth—not the cost of the products, but the cost to deliver them.

I would like to give some examples from my constituency, and one from slightly further afield, that I have been dealing with as the local MP. I have made it very clear that I want constituents to tell me when they have faced such problems, because I want to stop them. The only way we will stop them is by highlighting the injustice, highlighting the unfairness of the system and trying to get some action. I am glad that some action has been taken. The Advertising Standards Authority has issued several enforcement notices in cases that I have referred to it and in many others. Indeed, the Minister and I discussed that in our previous debate, but let me give just a few examples.

A constituent in Mosstodloch purchased a wallet with no delivery charge advertised, yet when it came to the checkout online £15 was added. The ASA issued an enforcement notice on that company, because it had advertised no additional charges to mainland United Kingdom. A Findhorn resident tried to order a battery for a strimmer and was told it would be £30 to deliver to the IV36 postcode, which was almost more than the cost of the battery itself. Another constituent in Dyke was quoted £15 to order a tap for his motor home, even though free UK delivery was advertised. Dyke, in Moray, is part of the UK. How do these companies not get it? Why do they think that somehow we are cut off? We are not—we are part of the mainland UK. Therefore, if they advertise “free delivery to mainland UK”, whether for a tap for someone’s motor home or for something else, the person deserves to get free delivery to mainland UK. A constituent from Forres ordered goods worth £89 and the company was offering free delivery on orders over £40. She put in her IV36 postcode and the delivery charge rose to £117. So from free delivery for purchases of over £40, for her purchase of £89 it then became £117. Unfortunately, on this one, the ASA stated that because the company did not say that the free delivery applied to the whole of the UK, it was not able to take action. I would be interested to hear the Minister’s thoughts on that. Free delivery was being advertised, but just because the company did not say it was to the whole of the UK it got away with it.

Another constituent from Findhorn had ordered £155-worth of specialist pipe insulation. Normal delivery was going to be £9.95, but they entered their IV36 postcode and an additional £40 was added, taking the total delivery cost to £50. In this case, the ASA did issue an enforcement notice, and I am pleased to say that the constituent got a full refund from the company. It accepted that it had done wrong in this case, even though it applied the charge in the first place. Another constituent put in an order for some garden equipment and although free UK mainland delivery was advertised, they were asked to pay a surcharge of £24 for “Scottish highlands”. We are not in the Scottish highlands. There is a Highland Council region, and Aberdeenshire and Aberdeen regions. Moray is a region on its own, yet we are again lumped in with the highlands. Finally, a product was ordered by one of my constituents in Elgin and they were told that the delivery charge was going to be £149.95. They then changed the address to that of a relative in Rothes, which is about 10 miles from Elgin and has an AB postcode, and there was no delivery charge whatsoever. So by travelling 10 miles within Moray one can go from a charge of almost £150 for delivery to having no charge at all. That just highlights issues with both businesses and couriers; they each try to blame each other, but they are both as guilty as each other and are imposing these charges when there is no good reason to do so.

I was looking at the debate that the Minister and I held in Westminster Hall some time ago, when we spoke about how companies must at least be up front. We might not like the small print but if they are up front about things, in some cases we have to accept it. I do not accept it, but they are also not being up front. Another constituent in Elgin bought a bed for £435 and the order went through and was completed, but several days later she was contacted to say, “Actually, we have looked at your address and there is going to be a £70 surcharge for delivery.” That happened days after the purchase had been accepted by the company and agreed with my constituent. They believed that they were going to pay a certain amount, only then to get a phone call or an email to say, “Actually, we’ve found out where you live, we think it is too far away and we are going to put on another £70.” That is indefensible on the part of these companies and couriers; I am sure the Minister would agree on that, and so something must be done about it.

I also said I would give one example from outwith my constituency, and I could have chosen literally hundreds. However, the example that I gave in a previous Westminster Hall debate—even previous to the one that I had with the Minister, because I have raised this issue a number of times before—was that it would sometimes be cheaper for me to buy an item in London, and instead of paying a charge to some company for it to be delivered to Scotland, pay for a seat for the gift I had bought, or some other parcel, on my easyJet flight.

That is no longer the best example that I could give. A resident of Inverness, Jim Oliver, was seeking to help his mother-in-law, who was trying to purchase a gardening tool online. The cost of the gardening tool was £40, but she was going to be charged £2,000 for delivery. [Interruption.] Oh, it gets worse! It gets a lot worse than that. Jim decided to try himself. He typed in the same product name, and the delivery charge came out, not more expensive than buying a seat on the easyJet flight to get it up to Inverness, but more expensive than the world’s most expensive footballer. They could have bought Neymar for less. The delivery charge for a £40 product came in at £2,001,997.

That was clearly a computer glitch, but I also want to highlight the fact that these companies just do not care. They literally do not care about their customers in parts of Scotland if they allow their system to say, “We will charge you more than the cost of Neymar to deliver this product to Inverness.” That demonstrates the contempt in which a number of these businesses hold our area, and the fact that they have got away with it for so long allows them to continue in the same vein.

I must give credit to the Advertising Standards Authority for the work that it does in this area. It has seriously tried to tackle the issue, and has been extremely diligent in pursuing cases that I have put to it. It has tried to deal with them by means of enforcement notices—I have given examples in which that has not been possible—but what is an enforcement notice? What does it do? It is a slap on the wrist. Enforcement notices are clearly not stopping other companies following similar practices, they are clearly not acting as a deterrent, and people in Moray and other parts of the north of Scotland are being treated completely differently from people elsewhere in Scotland and the United Kingdom as a whole. We need tougher enforcement from the ASA, and I think we should consider what further powers we could give it to take far stronger action.

I decided to return to that debate in Westminster Hall and remind myself of the points that the Minister raised in his response. I wonder if he can update us on some of the issues. Back then, he said:

“The consumer protection partnership chaired by officials in my Department continues to work on the issues.”

Can he tell us what work the partnership is doing, and what proposals it has advanced to him or to other Ministers? He also noted that

“Ofcom will be undertaking a review of its future regulatory framework for post”

—and, presumably, other items—

“over the next year.”—[Official Report, 9 December 2020; Vol. 685, c. 453WH.]

That will have reached a conclusion by now. I do not know whether there have been any delays as a result of the pandemic, but can the Minister tell us what the outcome was of Ofcom’s review?

In the past the Minister and his predecessors have been averse to the idea of legislating in this area, but does he accept that the longer we debate the issue—the more times I return to it, or it is raised by Members from my part or other parts of Scotland—while the current measures are not dealing with the problem, the more important it is to consider legislation? Why do 440,000 constituents in the far north and many other parts of mainland Scotland have to live with this day in day out, week in week out, year after year? For these prices are going up year after year. We read in parliamentary briefings that the cost for many parts of Scotland is going up and up. It was £45 million in 2021; what will it be in 2022 or 2023 if this continues?

Will the Minister seriously consider potential legislation? In the more immediate term, will he agree to meet me and some of the big companies involved—the couriers and some of the other companies that are most guilty of adding excessive charges for constituents in Moray and many other parts of the highlands and the north? We need to get these companies round the table and explain to them that the problems they are causing and the issues that this causes for local representatives and the Government have to be dealt with. At the moment, they seem to be continuing as if nothing is wrong, although, as I have tried to explain tonight, things are continuing to go wrong. We need a meeting with them and the Minister, sitting round the table, to hear their responses to these concerns and to the cases that I and other elected Members put to them. If they think that they are in the right, we need to hear the reasoning behind that, but if they accept, as I hope they will, that they are in the wrong for imposing these excessive charges, we need to hear what they will do about it. I hope that the Minister’s office will help to bring these people round the table and help to deal with the situation before it is allowed just to go on and on.

This is simply unacceptable. It was unacceptable when I raised it in 2017 in my maiden speech, it was unacceptable when I raised it with the former Prime Minister at Prime Minister’s questions, it was unacceptable when I raised it with the Minister’s predecessor in Westminster Hall and it was unacceptable when I raised it with this Minister in Westminster Hall. It is still unacceptable now, as I raise it in this Chamber in March 2022, that my constituents are forced to pay these excessive charges simply because of where they live. This is a postcode lottery. It is no longer acceptable to treat people in Moray and many parts of the country so differently from their friends and relatives in other parts of Scotland or the United Kingdom.

The time for action has long passed. It has not come quickly enough, and we now need firm action from the Government to deal with this issue. Once and for all, we need to deal with the problem that many people have faced for far too long. I hope that, in responding to this debate, the Minister can update us on any actions taken since this was previously raised in this House, tell us what more can be done and give some hope to the people of Moray as they look to the year ahead. It is never too early to mention Christmas, and people will already be thinking about purchases for the year ahead and going into Christmas—[Interruption.] Well, it probably is too early to mention Christmas, but genuinely, people look at purchases and are deterred from buying them, not because they do not want or need the product but because they are unwilling to pay these extortionate costs. The people of Moray and the people of the highlands and islands are watching with interest tonight to see what hope the Minister and his Department can give them that this long-running problem will soon be just a bad and distant memory and that we can look forward to a future when Moray and other parts of Scotland are not affected by these extortionate costs.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I wish you all a merry Christmas, and I call the Minister.

Cost of Living Increases

Debate between Douglas Ross and Nigel Evans

Monday 24th January 2022 Commons Chamber

[Douglas Ross]

I note, having asked the hon. Lady to tell me what currency an independent Scotland would have, that she failed to do so. She did, however, mention the White Paper, which was very detailed. It said that oil would be worth $114 a barrel. I am not sure that oil ever achieved that figure; it is certainly not worth that much at the moment. I really do not think that the White Paper is a strong argument for the SNP to focus on, but—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. I know that the hon. Member is having fun, but this is about the cost of living increase and not some possible referendum in Scotland, so could we get back to the subject matter, please? [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”]

[Douglas Ross]

SNP Members are cheering because they are hoping that I move on very quickly. Like any good official, I will follow the rule from the referee and agree to do so. However, I think that many people in Scotland will be watching and will have heard that not a single SNP Member was able to answer such a crucial question for Scotland’s future.

I welcome the opportunity to discuss an important issue for my constituents in Moray and for constituents across Scotland and the United Kingdom. Households are struggling with the rise in global energy prices; with inflation as a result of spending decisions taken by Governments across the world, including this Government, who have invested £315 billion to get us through the global pandemic; and, of course, with rising prices of essential items such as food because of continued supply chain issues, again as a result of the pandemic.

--- Later in debate ---

[Owen Thompson (Midlothian) (SNP)]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker, I beg your forgiveness—I am not an expert in “Erskine May”—but I understand that if a Member resumes their seat without an intervention, they are deemed to have concluded their contribution.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

As Christmas has just passed, let us be a little generous. Have you finished your contribution, Mr Ross?

[Douglas Ross]

I am grateful for your generosity, Mr Deputy Speaker, and I will begin to conclude my speech.

It is interesting that the Scottish National party uses such tactics when the hon. Member for Glasgow East (David Linden), who introduced the debate, cannot stand up against the party in Holyrood and say that its cuts have affected the cost of living in Scotland.

[Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. If the hon. Member for Moray (Douglas Ross) sits down, how is that an SNP tactic?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Well—I call Douglas Ross.

[Douglas Ross]

I would think a bit more about that comment if the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Angus Brendan MacNeil) had not arrived in the Chamber about five minutes ago for a debate introduced by his party.

Points of Order

Debate between Douglas Ross and Nigel Evans

Monday 20th September 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

This is an urgent matter, and I thank the hon. Lady for giving me forward notice of her point of order. I am sorry to hear about the stress that her constituent is now facing and the circumstances in which they find themselves. I am also concerned by the response that the hon. Lady has described from the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office. Mr Speaker has said repeatedly from the Chair that responding in a timely and accurate way to Members’ representations is of the utmost importance, especially in the case of Afghanistan, which, as I have said, is urgent and critical. The hon. Lady has put her point on the record and I trust and expect that Ministers will respond to it quickly. If not, I know that she will pursue the matter; I am sure that the Table Office will be able to help and to suggest ways in which she might be able to do so.

[Douglas Ross (Moray) (Con)]

Further to that point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I know that the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) delivered her point of order with all sincerity, but the letter from the Foreign Office also said that it had received more than 200,000 emails in a very short period of time. The letter from the Member of the House of Lords also gave MPs a direct email address to which to send any further information that might have been missed. For people watching these proceedings, I think it is important to explain the entire letter, not just the selected points from the hon. Lady.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

That is definitely not a matter for the Chair. The hon. Gentleman has put his point on the record, but in the case of Afghanistan, clearly these are life and death matters. The correspondence, irrespective of how it has come, has got to be addressed properly.

Leaving the EU: Impact on the UK

Debate between Douglas Ross and Nigel Evans

Wednesday 17th March 2021 Commons Chamber

[Douglas Ross]

I am grateful to Ian Murray for giving way, because I just had to check—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order.

[Douglas Ross]

I am grateful to the shadow Secretary of State for Scotland for giving way. He has spoken a lot about the deal—the deal that he voted for in this House in December—but his new Scottish party leader in Holyrood voted against it. Who is right—the leader of Scottish Labour or the Labour shadow Secretary of State?

Scotland: General Election and Constitutional Future

Debate between Douglas Ross and Nigel Evans

Wednesday 17th March 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Rarely has a point of order been more effective—

[Douglas Ross (Moray) (Con)]

rose—

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

But now there is a challenge.

[Douglas Ross]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I hope that this one is just as effective. The House has just voted on an amendment that said that we believe

“the priority of the Scottish people is to recover from the effects of the covid-19 pandemic, and that it would be irresponsible to hold a referendum at this time.”

I wonder whether you can clarify something, because I thought I heard you say, when you confirmed the numbers, that more than 50 MPs voted against it and, therefore, against prioritising a recovery from covid-19 over another referendum. Can you confirm that it was the SNP MPs in this House who voted against a recovery and for another referendum, and that it is unacceptable to the people of Scotland that they are putting party priorities above the public?

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

That sounds to me like an extension of the last debate. I could not confirm one way or the other which individuals voted which way, but I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will await with eager anticipation the delivery of exactly who voted which way either through Hansard or other electronic means. I think it is now time to move on to the next debate.

Alcohol Duty

Debate between Douglas Ross and Nigel Evans

Thursday 25th February 2021 Commons Chamber

[Douglas Ross (Moray) (Con) [V]]

I am grateful for the opportunity to debate today how we deliver a competitive duty system for alcohol producers. It will not surprise Members to know that my central interest here is in supporting Scotland’s national drink. Moray is home to more than 50 Scotch whisky distilleries. However, many other Members from across the United Kingdom will in the weeks and months ahead be making calls of support to the Treasury team for producers of other drinks. Indeed, my constituency also has several small craft breweries that will be keeping a close eye on any proposed changes in the UK alcohol duty system, and I will come to some of their concerns later.

Since I was first elected in 2017, all my Scottish Conservative colleagues and I have continually worked with partners from the whisky and wider spirts industry in Scotland to secure substantial wins for the sector. In every Budget since my election, the UK Treasury has taken the decision to freeze the duty on spirits. That has been very much welcomed and illustrates the major show of support from successive Conservative Governments for this vital sector.

However, it is still the case that just under £3 in every £4 spent on the average bottle of whisky is taken as tax. That is among the highest tax rates on an alcoholic beverage in the world and higher than the tax paid on wine, beer, and cider. In fact, a unit of alcohol served as Scotch whisky or gin is taxed 16% more than wine, 51% more than beer and 256% more than cider. That is why I was pleased when the Conservative party committed in its 2019 manifesto to

“review alcohol duty to ensure that our tax system is supporting British drink producers.”

Indeed, I well remember the Prime Minister’s visit to Diageo’s Roseisle distillery, less than 1 mile from where I am speaking today, to make that announcement as I joined him on the campaign trail for the 2019 general election.

I welcome the fact that the Government are currently taking that review forward, as promised. This is even more important in the context of the UK’s departure from the European Union. We now have the opportunity to think differently about how we tax alcohol in this country. This is an opportunity, which the Government have to seize, to redress the many historical injustices in the alcohol duty system and use it not simply to raise revenue but as a tool to back our domestic producers with a solid foundation in the home market as they look to expand to new markets around the world.

The Scotch whisky sector employs 11,000 people in Scotland and supports more than 40,000 jobs across the United Kingdom, contributing £5.5 billion to our economy in the process. Much of that employment is in rural areas such as my constituency, Moray, where distilleries are a key local employer. It is a sector of significance and tradition, with a long history. However, it is also a sector that is facing real challenges right now, some of which are unique to the alcohol industry, while others are symptoms of the times we live in.

The covid pandemic and the resulting restrictions imposed on our day-to-day lives have affected all parts of the economy. We all know that these restrictions were necessary to curb the spread of the virus, but we must also acknowledge the economic damage that has been done as a result. The whisky and wider drinks sector has lost tourism income because of the travel restrictions in many parts of Scotland that we have now faced for more than 11 months. It has also lost many of its business customers due to the closure of pubs and restaurants for long periods both here in Scotland, since the whole of mainland Scotland went into lockdown again on Boxing day, and across the rest of the United Kingdom.

At the same time, for much of the last year those in the sector have been unable to access Scottish Government grant funding because they were not directly affected by the restrictions under the strategic framework. That would have meant that distilleries could open as tourism visitor attractions, even though most people in Scotland—not to mention international visitors and those from elsewhere in the United Kingdom—would have been unable to travel to those visitor centres. The impact that this has on the local economy here in Moray and other parts of the country cannot be overestimated. Tens of thousands of visitors come to Moray every year to follow the Speyside whisky trail or go on individual tours of distilleries. All those visitors spend more money elsewhere in the local economy—on accommodation, on food and in our local shops.

The Scotch whisky sector is also struggling with the impact of the 25% tariff introduced by the United States in October 2019. The industry has estimated that this has resulted in a cut in exports worth £500 million. As the Scotch Whisky Association has pointed out, this is a 35% drop in exports to the United States that is being borne by producers both large and small. For a sector with a trading history of more than 150 years, this is damaging an essential part of its business and trade with its biggest market. The Scotch whisky sector is in no way involved in the dispute between Airbus and Boeing, but it is paying the price for it, alongside a range of other iconic products, some of which are sadly based here in Moray as well, so we are really feeling the impact. This is clearly unfair and a source of great distress for the sector.

I am grateful for the efforts of the Secretary of State for International Trade over the last few months and years to get these tariffs removed. It is no easy task, but I believe that with the support of her Cabinet colleagues, she will prevail. In the meantime, I urge the UK Government to do all they can to deliver clear support for the sector, both in the short term, through next week’s Budget, and in the longer term, to build a solid foundation through duty review.

I would also like to take some time to acknowledge the contribution made by spirits other than whisky. Scotland has a long and rich history of gin distilling, and Scottish gin has seen an enormous level of growth over the past decade. Twenty years ago, we would only have found two Scottish gin distilleries, but in 2020, there were more than 60 across the country. With many gin producers making more than one type of gin, the number of Scottish gin brands is believed to have climbed to around 140. Like whisky, 70% of the price of a bottle of gin is currently collected in tax. By comparison, less than €1 is claimed in duty on a bottle of wine in France. This takes us back to the central point of my contribution. We have a huge opportunity to look at how we put duty on alcohol differently in this country and to introduce a fairer system for producers in Scotland and other parts of the United Kingdom.

As I mentioned earlier, while my focus is on whisky, other Members will no doubt be making the case to the Minister for changes to the taxation of other drinks, including cider and beer. Despite the dominance of whisky distilleries here in Moray, there are craft brewing firms that are also making a significant impact, with businesses such as the Lossiemouth-based Windswept Brewing Co. It is one of 60 independent craft brewers in Scotland that are also making a huge contribution to our UK alcohol receipts.

Ahead of this debate I was contacted by Nigel Tiddy from Windswept, and the work those there have done to build up that business has been so encouraging. Seeing them continuing through this pandemic, I want to ensure that we continue to support companies such as Windswept and other craft brewers throughout this country as we come out of this pandemic. I know that they are watching this debate and this review very closely, and I will continue to engage with them after today’s debate.

This is another fast-growing sector of our economy that has faced major challenges over the last 11 months. We all want to see the existing growth in the craft brewing industry continue. I know that such businesses and their trade body, the Society of Independent Brewers, are calling for changes to small brewers relief and supporting the pubs and taprooms that these companies rely on for most of their sales. They are also calling for recognition by Government of the role of smaller producers and the challenges they face growing their businesses.

As I have already said about the argument for changes to the spirit taxes, there is an opportunity to review the entire system of alcohol taxation. The Treasury said at the time of its call for evidence in September 2020 that the current alcohol tax structures are “complex—and arguably outdated”, and I agree. We can reform these structures and develop a system that is fairer and, importantly, encourages the growth we want to see in these vital sectors of our economy.

To close, my message is that it is time to right the historical wrong in our tax system. It is time to see Scotch whisky taxed properly, not to see it continue to be more heavily taxed in its home country than imported wine. It is time that we backed Scotch whisky with a tax system that supports home producers in their own market. I have met the Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury on this matter, and I know her interest in the subject.

I hope that, in responding to the debate, the Minister is able to outline where we have got to with the review, the timescale for it and what more the UK Government need from stakeholders as the overhaul of this system progresses. There is a need to set out a clear timetable to complete the current review of alcohol duty, and this should deliver a pathway to reform that better serves consumers and enables growth that will benefit our whole economy.

I was proud to campaign on this much-needed reform at the last election, just as I have been proud to stand up for Moray’s huge array of Scotch whisky distilleries and other producers at every opportunity since I became the MP for this seat in 2017, but now words and promises must be turned into action. A duty review is long overdue, and I look forward to working with the UK Government to deliver our manifesto commitment on this. I think we can all agree that if we do that, it is something we can raise a glass to.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I did not suspend the House after the Welsh affairs debate because both contributors to this Adjournment debate are coming via video link, but we have sanitised the Dispatch Box in the unlikely event that the video link goes down and we need to use it.

Constitutional Law

Debate between Douglas Ross and Nigel Evans

Tuesday 19th May 2020 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Douglas Ross)]

I beg to move,

That the draft Victims and Witnesses (Scotland) Act 2014 (Consequential Modification) Order 2020, which was laid before this House on 25 March, be approved.

I start by reminding the House that my wife is a serving police officer in Scotland—a police sergeant in Moray—which clearly relates to the business in front of us today.

May I take the opportunity, for the first time at the Dispatch Box, to welcome the hon. Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray) to his role as shadow Scottish Secretary, and the hon. Member for Ogmore (Chris Elmore) as the shadow Under-Secretary of State for Scotland? I look forward to working with them both in the weeks and months ahead.

May I also send our best wishes to the shadow Scottish Secretary’s predecessor, the hon. Member for Rochdale (Tony Lloyd)? All of us in this House were extremely concerned when he spent 25 days in Manchester Royal Infirmary. He is a great servant to this House and his community, and we wish him continued success as he recovers from coronavirus.

I am grateful for the opportunity to debate this order. Police officers and staff are on the frontline each and every day protecting the public. Members will likely have seen some media reports showing that, in the first three weeks of the current restrictions, police in Scotland recorded more than 100 coronavirus-related attacks and threats aimed at officers. These included officers being spat at or deliberately coughed on. Attacks against our officers and staff are deplorable and completely unacceptable, and this order facilitates police officers in Scotland in receiving the support they need should that ever happen. This will be quite a technical speech about the orders and the legislation in front of us, but we should always remember that behind this important order are our police officers and staff who are unacceptably being attacked in Scotland, and we must do everything we can to prevent that.

This order is part of the Government’s ongoing commitment to devolution and is made in consequence of the Victims and Witnesses (Scotland) Act 2014, which I shall refer to as the 2014 Act, and has been requested by the Scottish Government. This order is made under section 104 of the Scotland Act 1998, which allows for necessary or expedient legislative provision in consequence of an Act of the Scottish Parliament. In this case, provision is required in consequence of the aforementioned 2014 Act.

Through the 2014 Act, the Scottish Government sought to increase the support available to victims and witnesses of crime in Scotland. In doing so, the Scottish Government made provision for the creation of a new pathway called the restitution order to be imposed on offenders who assault a police officer or certain other prescribed persons. That will mean that those who assault police officers can be compelled to contribute towards the cost of support services for such victims. In the event of a non-payment of a restitution order, the Scottish Government were to enforce payment through a deduction in sums from benefits where appropriate. However, social security schemes for making deductions from benefits are not within the executive competence of Scottish Ministers.

The Criminal Justice Act 1991 introduces a process whereby fines can be collected through certain benefits. This order therefore amends Section 24 of the 1991 Act by referencing the restitution order and indicating that it should be treated in the same way as a fine for the purposes of that section. This facilitates the Scottish Government’s aim by allowing the recovery of the penalty via deduction from an offender’s benefits.

The process for collecting the restitution order from an offender’s benefits will follow the same process as for other fines or compensation orders. These are predominantly means-tested benefits such as income support and universal credit. The 1991 Act gives the Secretary of State the power to introduce a process whereby courts can apply for a deduction from an offender’s benefits to pay for a fine or compensation order through what is called a deduction from benefits order.

Once the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service has secured a deduction from benefits order, the Department for Work and Pensions will recover the restitution order on behalf of the courts in Scotland by direct deduction from an offender’s benefits. The funds collected will be transferred to the restitution fund, which will be held and managed by the Scottish Government, although functions can be delegated to a third party.

The fund will directly benefit police officers and police staff by securing the provision of any type of treatment which is intended to benefit the physical or mental wellbeing of the victim. Examples of this include the police treatment centres in Auchterarder and Harrogate, where treatment ranges from physiotherapy to psychological wellbeing,

The territorial extent and application of this instrument is England, Wales and Scotland. The territorial application is required as the courts in Scotland need to be able to make the deduction from benefits order, and agencies in England, Scotland and Wales may need to carry out the processes to ensure that the deductions are made. In addition, it provides for the collection of the restitution orders imposed on offenders who move from Scotland to one of the other two territories after conviction, and it also provides for those who reside in England and Wales but committed the offence in Scotland and were therefore tried by a Scottish court.

To summarise, this instrument facilitates the recovery of the Scottish restitution order by deductions from an offender’s benefits in appropriate cases. The order only gives Scottish Ministers the necessary powers to apply to the Secretary of State for a deductions from benefit order; it does not set the policy. That is, of course, a matter for the Scottish Government, under the scrutiny of the Scottish Parliament.

The UK Government remain committed to strengthening the devolution settlement, and this order demonstrates the two Governments working together to deliver for the people of Scotland. It also reiterates our support and respect for police officers and staff across the country. These police officers and staff do so much to protect us; with these orders we are supporting them. I commend the order to the House.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Before I call Ian Murray, I remind those taking part in the debate who are not in the Chamber that they have a 10-minute limit, so they should have a timing device made available to them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Douglas Ross]

This has been a largely consensual debate, although I have to say that it is rather strange that I am not the most political speaker in debates on Scottish matters now. It seems that some of our colleagues when they were in the Scottish Parliament had a newfound zest for political points, as has the former Secretary of State for Scotland, my right hon. Friend the Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell). Those points were rightly made across the board, from Conservative, Labour and Liberal Democrat Members. I think the hon. Member for East Lothian (Kenny MacAskill) also acknowledged that the pace of introducing this order has been far too slow. I agree with every speaker who has suggested that this should have been done far quicker, because members of our police force across Scotland should have been benefiting from this for years.

I want to pick up on a number of points that have been made. The hon. Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray), the shadow Scottish Secretary, briefly mentioned football. I thought long and hard about mentioning football, but I thought that this week of all weeks, with the sad demise of his club to the championship next season, it was perhaps not the right time to mention it. Clearly, that wound will be open for some time and we will bear that in mind as we go along with our proceedings throughout this Parliament.

The hon. Gentleman raised an important point on the affordability of these orders and any sanctions imposed. It is important to note that the court has discretion over whether to impose a deduction from benefits order and the amount imposed. Under section 253E of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995, the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service must take into consideration the means of the offender in determining the amount of any fine. In addition, the Department for Work and Pensions must take into consideration the ability to pay when deducting benefits, and this will apply to the restitution order. The offender can appeal against the imposition of the restitution order and the amount imposed, as well as appeal to the Department for Work and Pensions if they feel there is insufficient benefit for the payment deduction to be made. It was an important point, but I hope the clarification reassures the hon. Gentleman.

I now wish to deal with the points raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale. It was clearly an important question, because it took him nine minutes and 40 seconds to get to it! However, I genuinely enjoyed his contribution. It was a well-thought-out and passionate speech in defence of our police officers across Scotland. He was right to commend the chief constable of Police Scotland, Iain Livingstone, for his approach and the guidance he is giving to officers the length and breadth of Scotland, who police by consent. I also thought it was important that my right hon. Friend considered in great detail the effects of this order across borders, because his constituency, like those of my right hon. Friend the Scottish Secretary and my hon. Friend the Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont), is along the border between Scotland and England. As I said, the collection of the restitution order imposed on offenders who move from Scotland to England and Wales is covered in the order, which also provides for those who reside in England or Wales but commit an offence in Scotland and are tried in Scottish courts. That is important.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale also asked about the DWP’s capacity to deal with these restitution orders. I have raised this issue and been in discussions with the Department about it. There has been a steady increase in recovery applications, from 17,581 in 2010-11 to 24,362 in 2016-17, but the Department is content that it has the capacity to deal with any increase in work arising from this order.

The hon. Member for East Lothian brought his experience as the Cabinet Secretary for Justice in the Scottish Parliament to this debate. He spoke of his visits to Auchterarder, which were doubtless made in that role. I have not visited the treatment centre at Auchterarder, but I have spoken to many people throughout Scotland who are unanimously in praise of the work that happens at Auchterarder—I am sure it happens at Harrogate, too. I know police officers who have tried to get professional and private help, who have had long-running injuries and who thought there was nowhere else to turn, but when they have gone to Auchterarder they have, almost by a miracle, received the treatment that has allowed them to get back to work, doing full duties, and has improved their private and personal lives. As well as highlighting the outstanding work of our police officers and staff across Scotland, we should also take the opportunity today to thank those who work at Auchterarder to get our police officers back on to the frontline on duty across Scotland. As is suggested by everyone I have spoken to and by the speech today from the hon. Gentleman, they clearly do excellent work and should be recognised for that.

I also wanted to pick up on one other point the hon. Gentleman raised. He was right to say that no one in the police or any of our emergency services, or indeed in any job in public or private life, should expect that part of their job is to put up, in whatever way, with abuse or violence. I do not always agree with him, but we can all agree that no one in society, including police officers, should have to put up with that type of abuse in their working life.

The hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine) spoke about us working together, and it is right that across parties and across this House we are working on this issue to get this order through to ensure that the restitution orders are in place as quickly as possible now. She was also right to talk about the length of time it has taken to get to this stage, which others have also mentioned. The Scottish Government have stated that the initial work to set up the victims’ surcharge model proved more complex than was initially anticipated and this had a knock-on effect on the impact and implementation of the restitution orders, but that should not have meant it has taken seven years, since the legislation was first passed, to get to this stage.

That means there have been a lot of missed opportunities for police officers and staff across Scotland, which is extremely unfortunate. I do not want to dwell too much on the past, though, and we now look at the positives of getting this legislation through, but it was a point well made by the hon. Member for Edinburgh West while outlining her support for the order.

Finally, we heard an excellent speech from the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain), who comes from a family of police officers. Having one police officer and one politician in our family, I cannot be sure whether our young son Alistair is going to follow his mother or father, but given that my wife continually buys him toys that resemble police cars and make noises, I know which direction she is pointing him in.

The hon. Lady was right to highlight her family’s involvement in the police and, sadly, how each and every member of her family has suffered assault or abuse in their duties as police officers. Whether it was her husband being knocked unconscious at football, or in her own case attending the scene at someone’s house, she put into sharp focus what this debate and the order is all about.

I wish to highlight the example the hon. Lady gave about her father, who she said suffered an assault in police cells. It is important that she put that on record because, as I said in my opening remarks, the order is imposed on offenders who assault police officers or certain other prescribed persons—and such a prescribed person could be someone working in police custody. They are not police officers, but the civilian staff in police custody also unfortunately suffer the abuse and assaults that we are discussing today, and they are also covered by the order. It is important that we discuss their involvement in respect of the order and policing in Scotland.

The hon. Lady asked about the potential number of applications for restitution orders. It is obviously difficult to put a precise figure on it, but the Scottish Government estimate that there will be in the region of 250 to 500 restitution orders a year, with an average value of around £350, giving a total somewhere between £87,500 and £175,000. Those are clearly rough figures based on the advice and best estimate of the Scottish Government, but I think the hon. Lady was right to seek that figure to show how much money could have gone towards supporting our police officers and staff across Scotland had restitution orders been available earlier.

I thank all right hon. and hon. Members for their contributions. It has been a largely consensual debate of a type we do not often see on the Floor of the House of Commons; as others have stated, such proceedings would normally be held in a Committee Room. Although public and available online, such proceedings do not get the attention that proceedings in this place get. It is right that our police officers and staff the length and breadth of Scotland can see their Parliament uniting in a common goal to support them in the terrible circumstances where they face assault or abuse at work. We have heard an unequivocally clear message from both sides of the House and from all parties representing Scotland that we are behind our officers and behind our police staff. We thank them for everything they do, not only in these challenging times to deal with covid-19, but at all times, because they are on the frontline protecting us. With this order, we can help to protect them. I therefore commend the draft order to the House.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I announced to the House earlier this afternoon Mr Speaker’s provisional determination that a remote division would not take place on the question now before the House. That is also the final determination.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That the draft Victims and Witnesses (Scotland) Act 2014 (Consequential Modification) Order 2020, which was laid before this House on 25 March, be approved.