Oral Answers to Questions

Fiona O'Donnell Excerpts

Wednesday 13th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[Michael Moore]

Clearly, there is a significant contribution to our current energy mix from nuclear. My hon. Friend will be aware that planning on these matters is devolved to Scotland. It is a matter, rightly, for the Scottish Parliament to determine. For my part, I am delighted that we are seeing an increase in the proportion of renewables in our energy mix as part of a sustainable, affordable energy supply in the UK.

[Fiona O'Donnell (East Lothian) (Lab)]

EDF Group’s nuclear power stations, including Torness in my constituency, produced their highest output for seven years in 2012. Does the Secretary of State agree that there is a continuing long-term role for nuclear in keeping the lights on in Scotland?

[Michael Moore]

I do not think that anybody can ignore the significant contribution that nuclear makes. Like the hon. Lady, I have many constituents who are employed at Torness. Nuclear power stations play an important role in our local economies, but I want to see a sustainable mix across the energy supplies and generation sector, and with renewables and others in the mix, that is a good thing too.

Constitutional Law

Fiona O'Donnell Excerpts

Tuesday 15th January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Michael Moore]

That is a classic example of the debate that rages over whether 16 and 17-year-olds should vote in elections. I take it from that intervention that the hon. Gentleman is not a supporter. However, this is a matter for the Scottish Parliament.

[Fiona O'Donnell (East Lothian) (Lab)]

I thank the Secretary of State for giving way; he is being very generous. We, as campaigners, will be contacting minors to seek their views and discuss the issues. Has he had any discussions with the Scottish Government about the rules and regulations that will apply to parties engaging with people who are not yet adults?

[Michael Moore]

The hon. Lady hits on an important, sensitive and practical point that must be considered carefully in any legislation on this issue that is introduced in the Scottish Parliament. Until the legislation is published and people can consider its detail, her point cannot be properly examined. I am confident that the Scottish Government are alert to that issue and it is incumbent on them to bring forward appropriate proposals with the necessary safeguards.

--- Later in debate ---

[Michael Moore]

My right hon. and learned Friend highlights an important issue and principle. In the order and the political agreement that sits alongside it, we set out what we believe should happen when the referendum process is resolved in the Scottish Parliament. As I said earlier, we are observing and honouring the principles of devolution so that when a matter is devolved from this place to the Scottish Parliament, it becomes that Parliament’s responsibility, including all the details and everything that goes with it. We are not, however, disfranchised from the political debate. Plenty of MSPs offered views on this process long before it went anywhere near the Scottish Parliament, and I am confident that lots of MPs will contribute to the debate long after it has left this place, and, if it is passed, the other place as well.

[Fiona O'Donnell]

Will the Secretary of State confirm whether, as well as actively encouraging members of the armed forces from Scotland to register to vote, people will be encouraged to register their sons and daughters who are 16 and 17 years old? This issue will affect their lives as well.

[Michael Moore]

The hon. Lady adds to the points made by her hon. Friends. I am confident that all these issues will be debated in the Scottish Parliament, and I encourage her, and others, to make such representations directly. We are not stymied in this debate simply because we have passed the legal process—assuming that we do; I do not wish to take the House for granted in that respect.

--- Later in debate ---

[Margaret Curran]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. May I be absolutely crystal clear? The way to stop devolution in Scotland, in its current form and in any further developments, is to vote for separation. That is the way to end devolution. If people want to continue devolution and have a strong element of devolution in the partnership that is the United Kingdom, they should vote against nationalist wishes in the referendum.

The referendum offers us the opportunity to settle the question decisively, once and for all. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Mrs McGuire) said, this is a fault line in Scottish politics—people either support partnership with the United Kingdom or they support separation. We need to settle this once and for all, and then move away from the issue that keeps Alex Salmond awake at night to the concerns that keep our constituents awake at night.

Let me turn to the order. As the Secretary of State has outlined, article 3 removes the reservation of the power to hold a referendum on the independence of Scotland from the rest of the UK, and stipulates conditions relating to the date of the poll and the nature of the question. On this side of the House, we have argued consistently for a poll that would come earlier than 2014, as has been indicated. As business leaders, civil society and others have said, a vote conducted more than 18 months from now while the country continues to face some of the most testing economic circumstances in a generation, adds, at the very minimum, to the uncertainty faced by the Scottish people.

We would have sought an earlier poll. However, we understand the challenges faced by Government, the issues around the legislative timeline and the need to provide a full debate. As such, we hope that the period between now and the referendum itself will be used to full advantage. If I can make reference to a comment made by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North (Ann McKechin, I hope that that timeline—the amount of time involved—will ensure that the Scottish Parliament has the maximum time to debate and process this issue. It should also be used to ensure that Scots are provided with a robust and informed debate. So far, Scots are not getting the information to which they are reasonably entitled, even at this stage, by the party proposing separation. There is still much more information to be given by those who are proposing separation. As the protagonists, it is reasonable to expect them to do that.

Article 3 provides the clarity that the referendum will consist of a single question, as I made reference to in response to my right hon. Friend the Member for Stirling. For a decision of this magnitude, we have always believed that this is the only way to provide absolute clarity for the Scottish people. A multi-question referendum, as some on the nationalist Benches have argued for, would not only have led to confusion but, as the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs has previously pointed out, would have been out of step with international precedents. It would also have been detrimental had we included a question for which there was no clear offering, in terms of powers to the Scottish Parliament, and no group able to make the case where there was no distinct proposal and no clarity about the details of what was being proposed.

Although the issue concerning the number of questions has been resolved, the order gives the Scottish Parliament the power to set the wording of the question. In this area, we still have several concerns. First, we are not confident that the question proposed by the Scottish Government provides those voting in the referendum with sufficient clarity. Secondly, in the light of that, we are concerned that the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister have not committed themselves to following the recommendations of the independent, objective Electoral Commission.

[Fiona O’Donnell]

My hon. Friend is making a reasoned and reasonable contribution. Hansard has sought clarification about whether SNP Members have today been described as “big fearties” or “big fairies”. Would she like to express her opinion?

[Margaret Curran]

Oh dear, dear, dear! Both. Can I say that? Would that be okay? I do understand it, however, and perhaps I can offer clarification for people. On that basis, I would certainly say both.

The agreement between the UK and Scottish Governments sets out:

“Both Governments agree on the importance of the referendum being overseen in an impartial way by bodies that can command the confidence of both sides of the campaign.”

That is an essential element of the agreement. It is not simply the oversight of the campaign, however, but how the recommendations and views of the Electoral Commission are treated by the Scottish Government that will determine whether the process is seen as impartial by the people of Scotland. If the SNP and the Scottish Government wish to reassure all participants in the referendum that they will conduct it properly, fairly and equitably, with respect to all interests, they could easily offer that reassurance by accepting the wording of the Electoral Commission. That would take us further down the road, so I hope that we can get an offer on that today. Ministers in the SNP Government have to set aside partisan advantage and approach the process with Scotland’s best interests, not their party’s, in mind, and it would be reassuring if they could clarify the matter so as not to be open to that charge. They could easily prove that they are not open to it.

The Electoral Commission’s role has to extend beyond the wording, however. We accept that the Electoral Management Board will deal with the practical arrangements for the referendum, but, to ensure the probity of the process, the Scottish Government must accept the rulings of the Electoral Commission, not just on the wording but on the key issue of campaign funding. The commission has made known its views on funding, but the Scottish Government are at odds with it. Clearly, we cannot end up in the ridiculous situation where the future of our country is determined by campaigns that have a sum total of 1p to spend per voter over the entire regulated period. We are also concerned that the Scottish Government’s proposed limits would lead to restrictions on the ability of third-party organisations, such as trade unions and businesses, to participate fully in the campaign. As I have said, the length of the campaign offers the opportunity for a full and robust debate on Scotland’s future, and surely an informed and knowledgeable voter is worth more than a penny.

Although the order will formally pass the relevant powers to the Scottish Parliament, much of the detail about how the referendum will proceed is contained in the memorandum of agreement. The status of this agreement has been the subject of some debate, however, so will the Secretary of State or the Minister confirm the status of the agreement? Does it legally bind the parties concerned? If not, what legal advice have they received regarding its status? We would have preferred the order to contain the level of detail in the memorandum, but we understand the practical considerations involved, and, as I said at the outset, the agreement and order, if taken together and if followed in the spirit and the letter, provide the basis for a fair, legal and decisive referendum. People in Scotland will not look kindly on any attempt to ignore or wilfully reinterpret the agreement or on any party playing party politics with that. Understandably, that would be seen as cynical and disingenuous.

With this order, we come one step closer to the 2014 referendum and an historic decision for the people of Scotland. The tone and tenor of our debate have to match the aspirations we have for it, so we have to move away from the confusion and muddle that have characterised too much of the discussion so far, grasp the nettle and deal with the difficult and challenging issues facing Scotland. That is what the Labour party is doing and will continue to do. The debate cannot simply be an accountancy exercise; it must be a debate where we lay out our alternative visions for the future of Scotland and its people; and a debate that meets the aspirations of generations of Labour advocates of devolution.

If I may make further reference to Donald Dewar, let me say that introspection will not solve our problems, and nor will a preoccupation with constitutional points scoring. Responding to the needs of the Scottish people is what matters. In passing the order, we will pass another milestone towards a referendum in which the Scottish people will have their say on whether to break with a partnership of 300 years or continue in the family of nations that is the United Kingdom. “Section 30” is a technical term and will not grab the imagination of too many Scots, but it will usher in a debate of enormous magnitude in which the future of families, industries, services and much else will be at stake. Today is the clarion call to get on with the substance of the issues and to determine the arguments that look to the future of that great country of Scotland.

[Mr Charles Kennedy (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (LD)]

I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute what I anticipate to be briefly to this debate and in support of the opening Front-Bench speeches, which I think we have all appreciated, to a greater or lesser extent.

I begin with a personal, if perhaps philosophical, point: I have never had any difficulty, during my career or personal and private life, with the fundamental distinction —a decent, honourable and everyday distinction—between those of us who consider ourselves lifelong nationalistic Scots and those who fundamentally consider themselves political nationalists. One thing that surprises me, not altogether but somewhat, is the coyness at home from within the nationalist camp about the debate—which will, one hopes, be given further impetus by the passing of the order—and how it will develop and what will happen, depending on the outcome of a referendum. That seems rather to miss the point. To a nationalistic Scot, putting the issue of independence fairly and squarely in front of the electorate in a referendum and, in those time-honoured words, hoping for a legal, fair and decisive outcome, is a perfectly legitimate, democratic and honourable thing to do.

Equally, however, just as those of us who are still deeply committed to electoral reform—despite last year’s massive setback in losing the referendum so decisively—are not going to give up our belief in electoral reform, so political nationalists are not going to give up their beliefs, and why should they? I have lifelong friends—not active in politics—who have voted SNP come hell and high water. It might be high water now, but there have been days of hell, as all political parties have experienced over the decades. Who knows? Those days might come round again.

The First Minister’s statement that the referendum would settle the issue for a generation was an interesting, if perhaps unnecessary, one—something of a hostage to fortune. I hope that it will settle the issue for a generation—in the minds of most Scots I think that it will, if the referendum is seen to be legal, fair and decisive—but, in the mind and the heart of a political nationalist, it cannot be the final word on the matter. It will be a never-ending referendum, given that the nationalist cat is out of the bag, and we have to be honest about that with the people of Scotland. The Scottish national party has to be a bit more upfront with the people of Scotland to that effect as well. Either that, or the party signs up to the words of the First Minister, when as party leader several years ago he said that the referendum would, at the very least, settle the matter for a political generation. That would be in the best interests of Scotland, the body politic and the long-term economic prospects of the country. This afternoon provides a very good opportunity for SNP Members to subscribe to the words of their own leader, now First Minister of Scotland, and to create a degree of calm and assuredness on the other side of the referendum, whatever the result.

[Fiona O'Donnell]

rose—

[Mr Kennedy]

I am happy to give way to my old sparring partner.

[Fiona O'Donnell]

We will be sparring again on Saturday night in a Burns supper at Lochaber high school. Will the right hon. Gentleman explain why he thinks the SNP turned down the offer from Wendy Alexander to “bring it on” in the last term of the Scottish Parliament?

[Mr Kennedy]

Over many years, the more I have heard from successive honourable and very good friends, such as those sitting on the SNP Benches right now, the less I have sought to try to explain anything on behalf of political nationalists. That, I think, is altogether a bridge too far. I have had a hard enough time over 30 years trying to explain the Social Democrat party, the alliance, the Liberal Democrats, the meaning of federalism and all the rest of it, without taking on additional baggage that is, I am glad to say, somebody else’s responsibility.

My second point relates to the issue of the nature of the Scotland that we have now, and what that should tell us, as we pass this order, about the conduct of the debate—the factual and political debate that will ensue. Like others who were in this Chamber at the time, I am reminded of the dog days of the Thatcher and then the Major Administrations, who set their faces like flint against any prospect of Scottish devolution, despite it being

“the settled will of the Scottish people”,

as the late great John Smith said, as evinced through vote after vote in ballot box after ballot box over election after election the length and breadth of the country. The best we got was the charade of a travelling circus, courtesy of Michael Forsyth, called the Scottish Grand Committee, which would jet into Stornoway and jet out after a few hours, having shed little in the way of light on matters. In fact, as time went on and parts of Scotland got more wise to what was happening, it generated a well-organised local or regional demo at the expense of the Conservative Government on the issues of the day that were pertinent to the borders, the Western Isles, the highlands or wherever.

As that went on, and as all three political parties experienced that frustration, I think we were against what we saw as the undemocratic control of Scotland and certainly the deeply unhealthy centralisation of power here in London. An awful lot of us voted yes with enthusiasm for devolution and welcomed the establishment of the Scottish Parliament, although—I will be honest—we never anticipated, particularly under the voting system used, that one day a majority SNP Government would be returned. I congratulate SNP Members on that historic breakthrough. We also never anticipated that a majority SNP Government in Holyrood would display the self-same centralist tendencies that were the hallmark of the Thatcher and Major Administrations. In particular, those who represented parts of Scotland outside the central belt in the outlying parts of Scotland—I know that this feeling is shared by some right hon. and hon. Members representing central belt constituencies, too, not least as far as local authorities are concerned—did not anticipate or vote for a devolutionary process that was transferring over-centralised power in the south-east of England to over-centralised power in Holyrood and across the central belt of Scotland.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rory Stewart (Penrith and The Border) (Con)]

I thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and my colleagues for allowing me to contribute to the debate. I feel that it is very difficult for someone who represents an English constituency to speak about this subject.

I want briefly to discuss three questions. First, should there be a referendum at all? Secondly, what are the criteria on which we should determine whether there should be a referendum? Thirdly—this takes up a point raised in the powerful speech of the right hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Mr Darling)—why do we need more investment in information, and, in particular, the spending of more money on media debates?

The question of whether there should be a referendum is a very big issue. Traditionally, we have not had proper procedures for constitutional change in Britain. The reason this question is so important is that it matters not just in relation to Scotland, but in relation to every constitutional change introduced in this country. Britain is the only advanced democracy left in the world—in fact, almost the only country left in the world—that does not formally distinguish between constitutional law and normal law, and tries to introduce constitutional change by means of simple majorities in Parliament. That cannot be right. Every other country recognises that the constitution exists to protect the people from the Parliament: to protect them from us. We cannot, with shifting single majorities, set about changing the thing that protects the people, which is why every country from America to Italy to Greece to Spain demands super-majorities, constitutional assemblies or referendums.

The answer to the second question—why should we have a referendum about this issue?—is also extremely important, and it too relates to what was said by the right hon. Member for Edinburgh South West. It involves the very difficult issue of how political institutions such as this Parliament—this building—can define an entire identity. A serious problem with some of the arguments advanced by supporters of the Scottish National party is the way in which they have tried to trivialise the issue. They have tried to suggest that it does not really matter, and that it is possible to get rid of a single Parliament without anything really changing. My constituents are often told that nothing will change, although 12,000 of them registered as Scots in the census and more than 50% of telephone calls made from Carlisle are made to people in Scotland.

In fact, everything we know from every country in the world suggests that the fundamental, defining feature of identity is a political institution. Much more than ethnicity, much more than culture, political institutions keep people together, which is why we must have a referendum.

How do we know that? Well, I know it from my own constituency, because Cumbria was itself a nation. It was a kingdom. For 700 years, Cumbria and Northumbria ruled the kingdom that stretched from Edinburgh in the north to Sheffield in the south. Why does Cumbria not have an identity that crosses the border today? Because it is no longer a political entity. It no longer has a Parliament, and it no longer has a king. Why are French people in France different from French people in Switzerland? For one reason only: their Parliaments split. Why has Britain grown apart from the Commonwealth countries to which it was so close 50 or 60 years ago? Because the political institutions split.

Scotland itself is another example. Why is it a nation? That is a difficult question to answer. Scotland has had Norwegians in the north, Welsh Celts around Strathclyde, Irish sea raiders, and Anglians coming into Lothian. The one thing that holds it together is the community of the realm. It is the political institution that creates the nation. We in Cumbria know why that matters in Britain. Cumbria was a centre point of horror because two Parliaments and two kingdoms split apart. That border created the monstrosity.

That leads me to the question of why more money needs to be invested in the campaign, and why we need more media investigation. The answer is that the issue of political institutions and Parliaments is difficult, and perhaps even boring. It is not stuff that gets people excited. People voting in a referendum will find it hard to follow all the issues without an enormous amount of information. The Scottish National party is, of course, right to say that some of the prophets of doom who suggest that independence will lead to the end of the world are wrong. Independence will not lead to the end of the world, and that is why information matters.

Independence will not cause the war between England and Scotland to start again. Those days of savagery, murder, pillage and rape—what we saw in Cumbria for 400 years—will not return, because the world has changed. Nor will Scotland or England become a failed state. Scotland and England are extremely advanced, educated countries, each with its world-class businesses, and although both may undergo a process of difficulty and insecurity, they will subsequently be able to adjust and thrive. That is not the problem; the problem is something much more difficult and much more elusive, which anyone voting in a Scottish referendum needs to understand but will not be able to understand unless we invest money in enabling the subject to be discussed as openly as possible. That is the importance of political institutions. It is a question of understanding, as we understand in this House, why this place matters. Why does it matter that Scottish and English MPs sit together in a single Parliament? It matters because it provides the formal process for mutual consideration.

The SNP is again absolutely correct that, theoretically, there is nothing to stop Scotland being friendly to England or England being friendly to Scotland in the absence of a joint Parliament. There is no reason, theoretically, why an English MP could not take into account Scotland’s interests when thinking about their constituency in relation to common agricultural reform or agricultural subsidies, for instance. There is no reason, theoretically, why a Scottish MP in an independent Scotland could not think about England’s nuclear interests when considering the positioning of submarine bases. In practice, however, it is the formal elements of this Chamber and our Committees and Government that force us to think about each other.

I sit on the Foreign Affairs Committee. It matters that the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Mr Roy) attends that Committee day in and day out, forcing the Foreign Office to answer questions that relate to Scotland. Instead of having to rely on good will, we have created institutions. Those institutions bring together much better people, too.

[Fiona O'Donnell]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that good will is under threat, as well as the institutions? What would be the effect on his constituents of an independent Scotland having a substantially lower corporation tax rate than England?

[Rory Stewart]

That is a good question, and there are many other similar questions we might ask. It is easy to come up with hypothetical examples—such as that corporation tax point—of ways in which people could grow apart, but the key point is that, without a United Kingdom, there will be no formal processes and incentives to think through such matters. At present, however, we create the forums.

I am only three months married, so I hesitate to say this as I do not know what on earth I am talking about, but it strikes me that formal institutions such as marriage force people to discuss things, to compromise and to think in ways that we might not if that formal institution were not in place. [Interruption.] Perhaps I am wrong about that, however. It was foolish of me to hold forth on the importance of that institution on the basis of just three months of married life.

The institution of the United Kingdom and its Parliament has four key benefits. The first of them is that it brings people together. Over more than 400 years it has brought together incredibly talented people, including people we barely recognise as being Scots or English, who would not have come together if we had not had a United Kingdom. It has brought together leaders of all our parties. We often forget that Scotland produced not just the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown), but also William Gladstone and, indeed, the crofter’s grandson, Harold Macmillan. Scotland produced the ideas, the culture and the nation that challenges England and makes the United Kingdom better. Scotland played an important part in creating not just our modern economic theory, but the ideas behind the national health service, and also all the richness of the culture of Britain. Because we have this United Kingdom and this shared institution of Parliament, as our different strengths alter over time, we contain that within a single unity. There was a time when Scottish novels were better than English novels. There was a time when—

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Davidson]

Yes. The amount that the Electoral Commission is proposing is similar to the cash amount that was allowed in the 1997 referendum, but as a result of inflation, its real value has halved. Our belief is that, for a regulated period of 16 weeks, the spending limits should be bigger. As I understand it, £750,000 works out at 1p per voter per week of the campaign period, and I genuinely believe that that is insufficient. The Scottish Government are suggesting that the figure should be even lower.

This is a good example of how those of us who are active in Scottish politics are free to disagree with the Electoral Commission’s initial proposals. We can campaign for it to change its mind, but, at the end of the day, everyone involved should say that they would commit themselves to accepting the commission’s decision if it does not change its mind. The Scottish Government are unwilling to do that, however. They have reserved unto themselves the right to impose their view—which is presumably what suits them best—on top of, or instead of, the Electoral Commission’s view.

[Fiona O’Donnell]

The order also transfers to the Scottish Government the power to decide who can make donations to the campaign. What is the view of my hon. Friend’s Committee on foreign donations being made to the campaign?

[Mr Davidson]

I will come to that in a second.

The Better Together campaign was unequivocal in saying that it would accept the ruling of the Electoral Commission. The yes campaign would not do so, however. It said that it would commit itself on whether to support the Electoral Commission only when it had heard what the commission’s judgment was. That also implies that it might not accept the judgment. Presumably, that position is based on self-interest.

My hon. Friend mentioned donations a moment ago. The clear issue is whether foreign donations should be accepted. Again, there is a difference between the campaigns and again I think that is based on perceived self-interest. The Better Together campaign has said that this is about the United Kingdom and that only people and organisations in the United Kingdom should be able to play a meaningful role by providing financial support. The yes campaign has said that it is prepared, in principle, to accept unlimited amounts of money in bundles of £500 or less from foreign sources. It has set up a front organisation in the United States that is designed to generate organisational support for the yes campaign and for separation. Some of those involved in that have made it perfectly clear, on websites and the like, that part of their function is to raise money for the SNP and its separation campaign.

Some people might have doubts about how much impact small amounts of up to £500 could have. When we took evidence from the True Wales campaign, which took the “no” side in the recent Welsh referendum, it said that virtually all its money had come from small donations. It was able to run an entire campaign almost entirely on small donations. Many of us will remember the publicity that was given to the Obama campaign and others in the United States—most notably, that of Howard Dean—which received a substantial amount of their money from a multiplicity of small donations. So even though the £500 limit might not appear to be a great deal, those donations could be significant when aggregated.

The major question of principle that needs to be addressed is whether the referendum in Scotland can be bought and sold with foreign gold—[Interruption.] I know that some people have heard that term before, but it is true none the less. Should the referendum be bought and sold with foreign gold? The SNP seems to have no scruples about that. However, those of us who are committed to the United Kingdom and to fair elections say that we should abide by the principle of PPERA and the guidance from the Electoral Commission. It is clear from the guidance and the spirit of PPERA, although perhaps not from the letter of it, that foreign money should not be involved in such referendums. Even at this late date, I hope that the Scottish Parliament and the SNP show confidence in their ability to raise money from Scots in Scotland and desist from taking foreign money.

--- Later in debate ---

[Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)]

It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Livingston (Graeme Morrice); we all, in this House, enjoy hearing him reading out his speech to such great effect. I turned up to this Chamber—[Interruption.] I managed to get through two sentences before, as you have noticed, Mr Deputy Speaker, the hecklers started to kick in. Many people in Scotland have been watching today’s debate, and I wish the cameras could pan across on to the hon. Gentlemen on the Labour Benches to show the ugly face of Westminster Unionism. I was on my feet for two sentences before the heckling started and the attempts to shout me down began. Unfortunately, we commonly see that in this House.

[Fiona O’Donnell]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Pete Wishart]

No, I am not giving way to the hon. Lady. When I came here today, I thought that we were going to have a good, positive debate. I thought that we all agreed that devolving this power to the Scottish Parliament under section 30 was a good idea, but what have we seen? We have had such a sour debate today. We have heard personal attacks, once again, on the First Minister—we do expect those. We have heard a surly acceptance of the fact that the Scottish Parliament has a right to deliver this referendum—a thing both Governments have agreed. I thought that today would be almost a joyous affair, which is why it has been so depressing to listen to one dreary speech after the next, and all the incessant and consistent negativity. [Interruption.] Here we go again, Mr Deputy Speaker. I really hope that the people of Scotland are watching this, because they have to see how Labour Members respond to these debates. They are not interested in listening to the other part of the debate, and it is very unfortunate that, again and again, we have to listen to these voices attempting to shut things down. I believe it is a pleasure and privilege to speak in today’s debate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Fiona O'Donnell (East Lothian) (Lab)]

I am very pleased, and do not in the least begrudge sitting for many hours, to have the opportunity to contribute to this debate. This is a truly momentous moment and I pay credit, as others have done, to those who have been involved in negotiations to get us to the point at which the House—I hope this evening—can sign off a section 30 order and we can move on to the next phase.

It is a pleasure, as always, to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Cathy Jamieson) whose contribution had just the tone we want in this debate as we go forward. These issues are important to the Scottish people, and although there can be robust disagreement, they should always be considered in a tone of respect. I do not think there is anything worth while in life that justifies treating one’s fellow human beings badly.

That takes me neatly to the contribution from the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart). Until then, the tone of the debate had been reasoned, restrained and respectful. His contribution, however, had a sour tone, and I do not even know whether he is aware of that. No other Member of his party consistently adopts such a tone in his contributions in the House and other places on the estate. I do not know whether his unpleasantness informs his politics, or his politics his unpleasantness, but he is rapidly becoming the Reverend I. M. Jolly of the SNP. It may surprise some people that we have managed to debate the section 30 order for so many hours, but so many elements of this issue are important. Significantly, we have spoken a lot today about the franchise. The hon. Gentleman thought that we were being downbeat and rubbishing it, and criticising or not trusting the Scottish Government, but it is not about that.

I know that this challenge will be difficult and that it will not be possible to meet the aspirations of everyone who wants, through this order, to vote in the referendum. It is, however, important that people who are Scottish, and feel they are Scottish, know that the Parliament in Holyrood has done everything it can to make this a showcase for the world and the fair, exemplary example of a referendum that we all want to see.

This referendum divides even my own family. My daughter lives in Scotland so that will be fine and she will have a vote, but I have three sons who were all born in England but consider themselves Scottish. One lives and works in Brussels and he will have a vote, but the ones in Gateshead and London will not. I do not know whether there is a solution, but we must at least acknowledge the issue. My sons still come home and often work in Scotland and this referendum will change their lives and that of my family for ever. Their not being able to vote would be a frustration and a disappointment and all we are doing today is urging the Scottish Parliament to do everything in its power to reach the aspirations of such people.

I welcome the inclusion of 16 and 17-year-olds and would like them to be able to vote in every election in the United Kingdom. I am concerned, however, to ensure that all 16 and 17-year-olds have the right to vote and that no section is disfranchised. I remember the lessons of the poll tax. Some families were nervous about putting their young ones on to the electoral register because of that tax, and I wonder whether some parents—especially in poorer communities—might be nervous and concerned about the bedroom tax. This is not about talking down the SNP or the Scottish Parliament but about saying, “We are passing this over to you. Please make every effort to ensure that every 16 and 17-year-old has the chance to vote, and that we have the chance to engage with them throughout the debate.”

The hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire spoke about the warm relationship that Scotland would continue to have with the rest of the United Kingdom, post the referendum and whatever the outcome, yet he mocked Conservative Members for daring to contribute to the debate. I just wanted to say that he does not speak for the people of Scotland. The majority of us realise that there are four nations that stand tall and proud to make up this family of nations, each with its own individual identity, like a tree in a forest, while under the surface our roots are entwined.

[Anas Sarwar]

Poetry!

[Fiona O'Donnell]

Poetry in motion. That is a strength and a relationship that I believe binds these nations together.

I also want to talk about the timing of the referendum. The order says that it can be any time before the end of next year, but no one seems to have mentioned the fact that we might not have a referendum. I do not think we should rule anything out when it comes to the Government in Holyrood. It may be that they find it inconvenient to have a referendum at this time and try to find a way out, but I hope we will see the process through, because it is time. I agree with the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Mr Kennedy) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Mr Darling) that it will not end there for the nationalists. They will not say, “Well, that’s it. It’s over—it never happened for Scotland”; it will carry on. However, it is different for those of us who believe in the family of nations. I do not think we will be calling for a referendum to take us back in five years’ time. That is perhaps the difference.

I do not exaggerate, but whatever happens, the next morning a sizeable section of the Scottish nation will be devastated by the result. We will have to pull ourselves together. That is why the conduct of the election and the process leading up to it, including the powers that this order transfers to the Scottish Parliament, are so important: so that people can see that the process is fair and transparent. We should have the involvement of the Electoral Commission as an independent body—of course we do not know what it will say: that is because it is independent. It is important that we should seek the advice of a body with such experience—and whose advice no Government here have ever rejected—so that we have a question that is fair and does not lead to or prompt a response from the Scottish people.

It is also important that, within the spending limits, the Scottish people should be allowed access to all the information they need to make a decision. I do not think it should surprise people that the SNP has called for the amount to be lower than what those of us in the Better Together campaign are calling for. Indeed, the boundaries between the Scottish Government and the yes campaign are being blurred day by day. Last night we heard Blair Jenkins, the leader of the yes campaign—the chief executive—announcing that the Scottish Government would be making various announcements in the lead-up to the White Paper. Why did that come from someone in the yes campaign? That was an announcement for the Scottish Government. There is blurring and, at times, misuse, and we need to be vigilant about that.

[Mr MacNeil]

Whether or not Blair Jenkins said that last night, it has been known about for ages. It was hardly an announcement coming uniquely from Blair Jenkins. If I tell the hon. Lady that the Scottish Government will have 15 papers before the end of the year, is that an announcement from the Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar? I am just saying it.

[Fiona O'Donnell]

I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. This is a man—not him, but Blair Jenkins—who kept saying, “Oh, I’m not a politician,” but then he turns up on politics programmes and makes highly political comments. Let us not kid ourselves for one moment that this is someone who is independent or separate from the SNP.

My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South West (Mr Davidson) should not feel bad that he seems to have a problem in his relationship with the SNP. Let us remember that in the yes campaign there has already been a trial separation between the SNP and the Scottish Greens. As I recall, there are only two of them in the Scottish Parliament, so the problem is less his and more that of the Scottish nationalists. It is about the way they do their politics.

Let me draw my comments to a conclusion. We have had a good debate today. It has set the agenda; or rather, it did not “set the agenda”—that would be arrogant —but made some helpful suggestions to the Scottish Parliament about how the debate should be conducted. Although I very much hope that the outcome will be the right one, I also hope that we have a debate and a campaign that do not divide Scotland and Britain, because that would be in no one’s interests.

--- Later in debate ---

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

We have had a full and wide-ranging debate. I never doubted that we could fill six and a half hours with contributions from across the Chamber, representing parties across the political spectrum and, importantly, constituencies across the United Kingdom.

At Scotland Office questions, I said that I am never surprised by the actions of the Scottish National party, but I must admit that I was surprised that SNP Members left their Benches empty for a significant part of today’s debate, and did not listen to the contributions and views of others, even if they did not agree with them. The hon. Member for Moray (Angus Robertson) started the debate well for the SNP with what could almost be described as a statesmanlike contribution. However, the SNP must recognise that the tone and behaviour of the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) and the somewhat erratic behaviour of the Member representing the Western Isles lead people to have concerns about how the SNP majority in the Scottish Parliament will take the matter forward.

The order that we are debating today is of the utmost constitutional significance. The right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Mr Kennedy) set exactly the right tone in his contribution on the context of the debate and the political history of Scotland that has led us to this point. The order paves the way for a legal, fair and decisive referendum that will determine Scotland’s future: whether we will be a Scotland that affirms its commitment to this, our United Kingdom, or whether we will be a Scotland that chooses to leave the greatest political, economic and social union that has ever existed. I make no apology for putting my point of view strongly and passionately in this debate, and it is clear that others will also do so. Although we are discussing process today—the legal mechanism to provide the Scottish Parliament with the power to bring forward a referendum Bill—that process will result in the most important decision that people in Scotland will ever be asked to take. Separation will not be for Christmas 2014, but for ever. That is why the process has been debated so comprehensively, not just in this House but between the Governments in the run-up to the Edinburgh agreement, and will continue to be debated by parties in the Scottish Parliament.

To answer an intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart), and to refute directly some of the comments of the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire, Members of this Parliament will still have a role in that debate and will be entitled to contribute to it. The issues can still be debated in this House of Commons and the other place. Our electorate in Scotland would expect nothing else.

The order ensures that the referendum will be legal, and that is why we are delivering the section 30 order. I am pleased that the Scottish Government now recognise the importance of doing that. The referendum must be fair—and it must be seen to be fair, as many Members have said. At the end of the process, no side can be allowed to cry foul—a point that the Chairman of the Scottish Affairs Committee, the hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Mr Davidson) made in his usual colourful way. The debate must be conducted on a basis of well established principles, which have applied to referendums held across the United Kingdom, by successive UK Governments, and which both the Scottish Government and the UK Government put their names to when they signed the Edinburgh agreement last October. The process must produce a decisive result.

Businesses up and down Scotland tell me that they want to get the issue resolved once and for all. They want to get on with concentrating on rebuilding Scotland's economy, to focus on jobs, housing, and people’s real concerns. The Government want that too, but we accept that following the May 2011 election for the Scottish Parliament, the question of independence cannot be ignored. We must address the issue, and we must answer the question: do we want to stay in the United Kingdom or do we want to leave it for ever?

The order will ensure that the referendum can take place. As the Secretary of State said in his opening remarks, it will ensure that the referendum contains a single question about independence, and that there will be no second question or second referendum to cloud the issue or prevent a clear result. It will ensure that the referendum can be held no later than the end of 2014, and it will ensure that important aspects of normal referendum law that would otherwise be outside the Scottish Parliament’s competence can be included in the referendum Bill, such as the rules governing campaign broadcasts and mail shots. It will also make the Scottish Government and Parliament responsible for setting the detailed rules and regulations governing the referendum. That is an important responsibility, and, as more than one Member has observed, one to which the world will pay close attention. The Deputy First Minister said that the highest international standards would apply to the referendum, and we shall all be holding her to account.

The right hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Mr Darling), who has already played and, I believe, will continue to play an important and increasingly decisive role in the forthcoming campaign, pointed out that the Scottish Government would have to respond to the advice of the Electoral Commission on the wording of the question and the setting of the various spending limits for the referendum campaign. I look forward to hearing the Scottish Government’s rationale for the spending limits that they have devised. Apart from the argument that people do not like money to be spent during elections, I have heard no rationale that challenges the established limits set by the Electoral Commission. It is important that we, and all who will participate in the referendum, understand the reasons for the proposed financial limits.

If the Scottish Government choose not to accept the Electoral Commission’s advice, they will have to justify their decision. As a number of Members have pointed out, the UK Government’s position is clear: they have never failed to accept Electoral Commission advice on a referendum question. The Scottish Government will also have to specify the franchise for the referendum, and if they choose to extend it to 16 and 17-year-olds, they will have to answer the important questions about data protection and access to the register for information relating to minors to which my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Mrs Laing) referred. In turn, it will be for the Scottish Parliament to scrutinise the Scottish Government’s legislation. It will have to examine all the proposals carefully.

Members have expressed concern about the current operation of the Scottish Parliament. Like the hon. Members for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Cathy Jamieson) and for Glasgow East (Margaret Curran), I was once a Member of the Scottish Parliament. At that time, when Labour was in a coalition with the Liberal Democrats and had a majority in the Parliament, it was always members of the Scottish National party who feared that their views might not be given due weight because there was a majority Government. I expect them to behave now as they behaved then in speaking up for minority views and ensuring that they are heard in the Scottish Parliament. I want them to make us confident that the Bill will be debated in a way that takes account of the views of all the people of Scotland. However, I myself am confident that my colleagues, Opposition Members and our Liberal Democrat coalition partners will be able to hold the SNP Government to account as the Bill is debated, in order to ensure that the referendum is legal, fair and decisive.

The memorandum of agreement signed by the Prime Minister, the First Minister, the Secretary of State and the Deputy First Minister on 15 October was an important first step. That was an important moment not just because of the agreement that had been reached, but because of the very public commitment given by Scotland’s two Governments to ensure that the referendum would meet the very highest standards, and that party politics and passions on both sides of the debate would not intervene in the establishment of a legitimate and fair process. It will be for both sides to stand by and live up to the agreement, and the UK Government give that commitment unreservedly.

There are clearly strong feelings in the House about 16 and 17-year-olds having a vote. As has been said, there will be a debate in Backbench Business Committee time next week, when Members will be able to discuss the topic in more depth. I believe any decision by the Scottish Government to allow 16 and 17-year-olds to vote will not achieve a partisan objective, as I am confident that when the votes are counted we will see that support for remaining an integral part of our United Kingdom comes from young and old alike.

[Fiona O'Donnell]

Does the Minister share my pleasure in the latest poll result, which included 16 and 17-year-olds and showed that the Better Together campaign currently has a 20-point lead?

[David Mundell]

I was very pleased to see that, but I am not complacent and all of us who support Scotland’s remaining part of the United Kingdom must get out and about in Scotland, under the leadership of the right hon. Member for Edinburgh South West, and make sure we get our message to all parts of Scotland.

The hon. Lady made a point about 16 and 17-year-old sons and daughters of servicemen. The hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Pamela Nash) and others stressed the need to allow our servicemen and women and their partners to vote, and there are procedures in place for that, but there are no procedures for their 16 and 17-year-old children. The Scottish Government must address that matter.

There has been much consideration of the Electoral Commission, and all Members who spoke about it—apart, perhaps, from those on the Scottish National party Benches—made it clear that they would accept the views of the Electoral Commission, even if it did not adopt their party’s position on the referendum question and funding. We should all welcome the fact that under this agreement the Electoral Commission will play a role, because only a few months ago the Scottish Government did not wish the Electoral Commission to play any part in the referendum, and wished instead to set up their own electoral commission.

To those who asked what would happen if the Scottish Government did not follow the advice of the Electoral Commission, I say this: the people of Scotland will not take kindly to being played for a fool. Public trust is a precious commodity and, as the First Minister discovered following his recent comments on the EU, it can be quickly lost. I say to Alex Salmond, “Ignore the advice of the Electoral Commission at your peril.”

We have not heard about process alone in this debate. We have also heard about why this order matters. It matters because people want to get on with the real debate. Not only politicians, but ordinary people in Scotland, and each and every one of us who will be asked to cast a vote, want to hear about the real issues.

It is perfectly legitimate for the UK Government to set out Scotland’s current position within our United Kingdom in a series of papers, which we will do this year. The hon. Member representing the Western Isles tells us we will have 15 papers from the Scottish Government. We look forward to that, but I hope they shed more light than anything we have heard from them so far.

The agreement reached between the UK and Scottish Governments will ensure that a referendum on Scottish independence can take place. The section 30 order we have debated today ensures that there will be a single-question referendum on independence before the end of 2014. The memorandum of understanding ensures that the referendum will be based on the principles set out for referendums held across the UK. Together, the order and the memorandum mean that we can have a referendum that is legal, fair and decisive. I believe we are better together in the United Kingdom than we would ever be apart, and I commend the order to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That the draft Scotland Act 1998 (Modification of Schedule 5) Order 2013, which was laid before this House on 22 October 2012, be approved.

Food Banks (Scotland)

Fiona O'Donnell Excerpts

Wednesday 19th December 2012 Westminster Hall

[Fiona O'Donnell (East Lothian) (Lab)]

I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in the debate. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Glenrothes (Lindsay Roy) on securing the debate. I have known him for some time, having worked with him for three months in the lead-up to his glorious by-election victory, and no one in this place is more committed to serving the people he represents.

We now have a food bank in East Lothian. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Cathy Jamieson) and the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Dr Whiteford), I have mixed feelings about having to come together to fill the gaps the Government should attend to, and propping up their failure. However, I have increasingly encountered food poverty in my surgeries, and heard about it from local churches and community organisations. I felt that the stage had been reached where to do nothing was not acceptable.

As the data collected by the Trussell Trust show, many of the situations affecting people are caused by interruptions or delays in benefits. That is something on which the Government can act. They can do something about it, and I hope the Minister will comment on it. I draw his attention particularly to the issue of tax credits. A family recently got in touch to tell me about a change in circumstances. Their tax credits were stopped by Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs while a review took place. The delay seemed unreasonable—I am sure that many hon. Members have experienced similar cases—and in the meantime, after that family of six had paid for child care and rent, they were left with £80 a month to pay all their bills and feed their children. That is unacceptable in a civilised society.

The other major cause of food poverty in my constituency is the imposition of sanctions on people by the Department for Work and Pensions. I understand that there must be consequences and people must comply; but surely there is a duty of care on the DWP and the Government, and people should at least have access to shelter and food, two of the most basic human needs, whatever their situation. A man who turned up at our citizens advice bureau had not eaten for three days. The Government are not going to starve people into work. That approach will simply not deliver.

I want to draw attention to the impact of food poverty on the health and well-being of children particularly. The development of the brain in the early years is very much affected by the emotional environment and by nutrition, so it is a major concern that young children in Scotland do not get the food they need. A witness who gave evidence to the Select Committee on International Development recently said that the litmus test of a Government is how they are affected by poverty and how they affect poverty. The present Government fail that test. They are not engaging with the issue, and not taking action. I recently tabled a question to the Prime Minister and asked

“whether he has visited a food bank in the last six months; and whether he plans to visit a food bank in the next six months”.

His answer was:

“I have meetings and discussions with a wide range of organisations and individuals at a variety of locations around the country. My engagements are announced as and when appropriate.”—[Official Report, 29 November 2012; Vol. 554, c. 455W.]

That is a shocking response to the most desperate situation that families, pensioners and vulnerable people in my constituency face. The Government are out of touch and need to get to grips with the problem.

Two things have surprised me recently as East Lothian food bank begins to offer help and support. The first really should not have surprised me: that was the generosity of the people of East Lothian. At a recent supermarket collection day at Asda, two weekends ago, people with plenty were willing to share and people who had little were determined to do something. It is amazing how similar that experience is to that described by my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun. People often said, “I know what it’s like not to be able to put food on the table.” It is an experience I have had as a mother, as well. I am sad to say that that was when Mrs Thatcher was Prime Minister. Food poverty is not always where we expect it to be. We had a lovely detached four-bedroom house. Suddenly the mortgage doubled and we were unable to make ends meet. At that time we had a bank that charged us £50 whenever we were overdrawn, and set us even further back into debt; so I absolutely understand the situation that many families face. The other thing that surprised me is the need. We started to offer support last Tuesday. In seven days the number of referrals has been increasing, and yesterday we had 10. The Government must find out the scale of the problem.

The Government also need to stop demonising the poor. The Chancellor spoke about drawn curtains, but he needs to think why someone would have no sense of purpose in life, and no hope of having a reason even to open their curtains, rather than characterising such people as lazy and unwilling to contribute to society. He will no doubt have his annual skiing holiday, perhaps at Klosters. I do not blame him, as, let’s face it, he has not had a good year; but poor people are human too. They have needs, and need an escape and coping strategies. The Government should stop demonising them and do something about the causes of poverty.

I spoke last night to one of the mothers who received a parcel from the food bank. She talked about how her daughter was enjoying a tin of sardines, and she had not known that she liked them. I realised that I had prepared that food parcel, and it was one of the best feelings in the world to put that parcel together and imagine the pleasure it would bring to a family.

I will leave the Minister with some words from my summer holiday reading, “The Grapes of Wrath” by John Steinbeck. If the Minister has not read it, I recommend it, because no one understands poverty quite like John Steinbeck:

“The causes lie deep and simple—the causes are a hunger in a stomach, multiplied a million times; a hunger in a single soul, hunger for joy and some security, multiplied a million times.”

I ask the Minister please to do something.

[Mr Russell Brown (Dumfries and Galloway) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (Fiona O'Donnell). I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Glenrothes (Lindsay Roy) on securing the debate.

It is only a week since we last had a debate in Westminster Hall on food poverty. I want quickly to mention one or two things that were raised then, and to discuss a local organisation in my area. We all know of the good work of the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, and we heard in the debate last week that its latest report shows that 13.2 million people in this country live in poverty. There is also the recent shocking report by Save the Children. There is no doubt that Save the Children, along with the Children’s Society and Barnardo’s, does tremendous work the length and breadth of the country. That Save the Children report, which was released in September, states that well over half of parents in poverty—some 61%—say they have cut back on food, and more than a quarter—26%—say they have skipped meals. That comes back to the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Cathy Jamieson) made about mothers all too often saying, “I’ll get something later.” Those words resonate with me because I come from a large family, and on numerous occasions my mother said that, without my realising what she was really saying. We would be having a meal as a family of five children, and mother was going to get something later—that probably never happened.

I want to raise again today a point I raised in last week’s debate, because it is important that we understand just how desperate things get for people. In the Save the Children report, a parent is quoted as saying:

“A year or so ago, we literally relied on any money we raised at car boot sales to pay for food for the week. Some weeks weren’t too bad, others were dire. The British weather decided how we lived that week (when it rained, the turnout at car boot sales fell).”

It is terrible to think that people have to go to such lengths to have money for food.

I want quickly to mention the First Base Agency in Dumfriesshire, organised by a guy called Mark Frankland. Mark is real local worthy. He initially set up the agency to help and support individuals with drug and alcohol problems, and from the success of that he went on to work with veterans, providing them with support through a gardening scheme. They managed to produce some fresh vegetables, and I suspect he must have also had some kind of livestock, because he ended up producing eggs as well.

Mark is a well-known guy who does a lot of work, and the scheme for veterans was therapeutic work, to get some guys back on the road. He has developed a local charity into a business, and that business provides a factoring service for a local registered social landlord, thereby creating a number of jobs that are given over to veterans. Mark has also, very much under the radar, provided food parcels. He is not a recognised food bank of the kind that colleagues have described this morning and in other debates, but he has provided food parcels for a number of years to some of the most vulnerable individuals and families in the local area. Support through churches and local charities has enabled it all to happen. I spoke to Mark yesterday, and he told me that between November last year and November this year the demand for food parcels trebled. One of the parcels that he manages to provide lasts a family for about three days.

From a wider perspective, all too often we hear comparisons in the House between the UK’s deficit and debt and those of Greece and Spain, with people saying that we are in the same ball park. The fact is that about 2.5% of the population in Greece and Spain is supported by voluntary sector handouts, and that equates to 10 times the support we are experiencing in the UK through food banks and other charities. I absolutely balk, therefore, at the idea that we should be compared with those countries, and I am pleased that we are not there along with them because I wonder what some families, households and communities would be experiencing if the situation was as bad as that.

Colleagues have mentioned the Department for Work and Pensions, and I want to give an example similar to the one that my hon. Friend the Member for Glenrothes gave. A single father with three children fell foul of the DWP—the Department, not the staff; the staff are only delivering the systems and policies that are dictated to them. The unfortunate gentleman fell foul of the DWP when he missed an appointment, an appointment of which he said he definitely never received notification. Sanctions were imposed, including a two-month suspension. A father and three children had to simply get by—on what? Fresh air? People must have some kind of support. Frustratingly, the guy was unemployed. He had spare time on his hands, so he went along to the First Base Agency and helped Mark Frankland. He saw it as a duty to do a bit of voluntary work for someone who had helped him in the past.

[Fiona O'Donnell]

Does my hon. Friend share my concern that the Government are not just dividing rich against poor, but the deserving poor against the undeserving poor?

[Mr Brown]

Absolutely. I could not put it better myself.

So with a two-month suspension and no money, how could the family cope? What kind of lesson or way of existing is that? What kind of environment is that in which to bring up children? Let us not forget the point that my hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian made about the need for children to be fed properly, to enable them to develop at a young age. It is life experiences in the early years that have the most impact on children.

We have talked about the SNP Government, and I appreciate that that is not an issue for the Minister to respond to, unless he finds that he has the same train of thought as I do on it. Local government is, however, under real pressure, and what Mark Frankland at the First Base Agency has been experiencing for a long time is social services referring families to him for food parcels. I have spoken to Mark in the past 24 hours and he has told me that social workers will arrive at his office today to pick up food parcels to deliver to some of their clients. A little extra money into social services from the Scottish Government would go a long way.

--- Later in debate ---

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for the first time, Mr Betts. I congratulate the hon. Member for Glenrothes (Lindsay Roy) on securing this debate, and I thank all Members who have taken part. I have listened to some positive things being said not just about food banks but about other voluntary and community organisations operating across Scotland and in individual constituencies.

I put on record my thanks to the many organisations that provide food banks and other services, and especially to their volunteers. Many such organisations, if not most, are set up by charities and churches, which have a valuable role to play in supporting the most vulnerable in their local communities. We should feel thankful for the work that they do to provide support in sometimes desperate situations. As some Members have acknowledged—including the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Cathy Jamieson), who gave a thoughtful speech, as ever—such organisations have been doing that work for a considerable time.

Although I will address the issue of the increase in the use of food banks, we should not suggest that the work of such organisations, or the need to help and support the most vulnerable in our society, began recently. The issue is ongoing and serious, and it must be constantly challenged and worked on. Many Members gave many indications of that in their contributions, including examples such as unexpected bills, whatever their source, for those on low incomes.

Much of what we have heard recently about food banks has been through the findings of the Trussell Trust, a network of food banks providing services throughout Scotland and the UK. The Department for Work and Pensions, through Jobcentre Plus, has worked with the Trussell Trust to establish a food bank referral service, a simple signposting process to help claimants who say that they are in financial difficulty find alternative sources of assistance. People will not be referred where assistance and support is available directly from Jobcentre Plus.

What Opposition Members did not tell us is that when they were in Government, Labour refused to allow food banks to advertise by putting leaflets in jobcentres. This Government have allowed them to, and jobcentre advisers now also tell people about food banks. Some of the expansion, although not all, is due to the fact that people now know about the existence of food banks who did not know before we told them. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions told Parliament in September:

“When we came to office, I was told by the Department that despite the constant requests from a variety of people who provide food banks, in particular the Trussell Trust, to put their leaflets in jobcentres to advertise what they were doing, the last Government said no, because they did not want the embarrassment of their involvement. We immediately allowed them to do so, which is one reason for the increase in the number of people seeking food banks.”—[Official Report, 10 September 2012; Vol. 550, c. 13.]

[Fiona O'Donnell]

It is unbelievable: the Minister almost seems to be congratulating himself on the scale of growth of food banks. That and payday lending are the only areas in which this Government are delivering any growth.

[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.

Scotland Bill

Fiona O'Donnell Excerpts

Thursday 26th April 2012 Commons Chamber

[Fiona O'Donnell (East Lothian) (Lab)]

The money derived from the landfill tax is currently ring-fenced in the UK, bringing back direct environmental benefits to communities. Does my hon. Friend know whether the Scottish Government will continue that approach?

[Mr Bain]

My hon. Friend raises a pertinent point, because although we hear demands for powers made by certain parties, no purpose is ever given for the devolution of those powers. It is a staggering omission that we know absolutely nothing about the future of stamp duty land tax, given that it is due to be devolved to Holyrood in just a few short years. We have heard about the lack of evidence provided for the devolution of other taxes, with the Institute for Fiscal Studies setting out convincing evidence in its “Green Budget” a few months ago that devolving corporation tax would involve a race to the bottom and be a very risky endeavour indeed.

Oral Answers to Questions

Fiona O'Donnell Excerpts

Wednesday 9th November 2011 Commons Chamber

[David Mundell]

I am sure that the Under-Secretary will have understood the hon. Lady’s point. She, like me, will welcome the fact that there will be a Backbench Business Committee debate on fisheries next week.

[Fiona O'Donnell (East Lothian) (Lab)]

10. What discussions he has had with the Scottish Government on the level of unemployment in Scotland.

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

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I are in regular contact with John Swinney, the Scottish Minister responsible for employment, about unemployment in Scotland. Scottish Government officials and agencies have been involved in all the employment seminars that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has held over the past six months.

[Fiona O'Donnell]

Will the Minister tell the people in my constituency who have lost their jobs since he got his job whether unemployment is a price worth paying for a deficit reduction plan that is choking off growth and raising Government debt?

[David Mundell]

I tell the hon. Lady to be slightly less predictable and finally to take some responsibility for the situation in which her Government left this country, including the biggest peacetime deficit in our history.

Scotland Bill

Fiona O'Donnell Excerpts

Tuesday 15th March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Donohoe]

Of course I agree with my hon. Friend, and I shall return to that point.

[Fiona O'Donnell (East Lothian) (Lab)]

I can tell my hon. Friend that I barely slept last night waiting to make this intervention. Will he at least acknowledge that the current system came about as a result of a consultative process—the Scottish Constitutional Convention—which the Committee should respect?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Donohoe]

I am extremely grateful to my Member of Parliament for raising that point. Of course it is a serious point and it has to be addressed, because it causes dissent and demonstrates that the list system in Scotland does not—and will not—work, and is not seen as fair.

[Fiona O'Donnell]

I thank my hon. Friend for being so generous in giving way. I know that he would never be partisan, but surely he can see the benefit for the thousands of people in the highlands and islands region who vote for Labour candidates, and who, thanks to the system, have three excellent candidates in Peter Peacock, Rhoda Grant and David Stewart.

[Mr Donohoe]

Well, I got one out of three, so I did not do too badly. I bet that if I asked the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil) to name his seven list Members—or even the 24 in my constituency—he would be lucky to name three of them. But I will give way, if he is going to reel them off. [Interruption.] He has it on his website! That is a bit of a cheat, would you not say, Mr Hoyle? Anyway, I am coming to the end of my contribution, you will be glad to know.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Reid]

That is a fair point. I am fully in favour of proportional representation, but every electoral system can be improved. One way of improving this system would be to move from closed to open lists, which would give the electorate a choice. Another reform is also possible: if cherry-picking of constituencies by regional list Members is considered to be a problem, we can adopt the system in Wales whereby no one can stand both for a constituency and on the regional list. That would remove the problem of cherry-picking at a stroke, because there would be no advantage for a regional list Member in cherry-picking a particular constituency.

[Fiona O’Donnell]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we have already seen improvements, such as the removal from the list of the vanity party that was “Alex Salmond for First Minister”?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Reid]

There is no way of predicting what would have happened, because we do not know how people would have used their later preferences. The hon. Gentleman’s analysis is of interest, but I do not think we can make any such assumption.

[Fiona O'Donnell]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, once again, the constitutional cuckoo, the SNP, has benefited from a system drawn up by the Scottish Constitutional Convention, with which it did not even engage?

[Mr Reid]

I was certainly disappointed that the SNP did not engage, but it benefited from a system that had widespread support throughout Scotland and was endorsed by the Scottish people in a referendum.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Lazarowicz]

rose—

[Fiona O'Donnell]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Pete Wishart]

I will give way to the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Mark Lazarowicz) first.

[Pete Wishart]

I am grateful for that intervention, but it still seems an awful lot—almost an eighth, and there are six signatories. It also seems to me that the numbers are growing. I saw the heads nodding in agreement with the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire and I suggest and suspect that he has growing support. If he remains tenacious on this issue, his view might prevail in the Labour party. That is the direction in which things are going and that is what we are beginning to see.

[Fiona O'Donnell]

rose—

[Pete Wishart]

I think that we have heard this point; is it on the same issue?

--- Later in debate ---

[Fiona O'Donnell]

It is.

[Pete Wishart]

Oh, go on then.

[Fiona O'Donnell]

I appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s enthusiasm for the subject. If I might help him with the maths, the equivalent proportion of Scottish National party Members would be seven eighths of one MP.

[Pete Wishart]

We really are having arithmetic and mathematics lectures today.

I think that the momentum is with the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire. Opinion is moving in the same direction as him and I think it is starting to go with him. I looked around and saw some of the enthusiasm from some of his hon. Friends this afternoon and I think the Labour party has a genuine problem. I have a solution, however, Mr Hoyle, in which you might be interested. I understand that the Labour party is holding an important conference this weekend, so the hon. Gentleman should get a day return—not the Caledonian sleeper—up to Oban and have this debate with the Labour party. The Scottish people need to know what the Labour party is doing.

I believe that the Labour party is split from top to bottom on this issue and that has to be resolved. I know that up at Oban it will be the usual whinge-fest.

--- Later in debate ---

[Pete Wishart]

People are nodding their heads. I detect that this is becoming a real issue. Frankly, it scares and alarms me if that is the debate within the Labour party. Whether it is a substantial minority or a majority within the Labour party who feel this way, the Scottish people need to know about this. They need to be aware that this is the Labour party’s intention. These two new clauses are totally wrong and it is appalling if a substantial minority in the Labour party believe this is the way forward. They would remove one of the central pillars of the Scottish Parliament—its internal democracy. They would remove all the proportionality that has been agreed and is the settled will of the Scottish Parliament.

[Fiona O'Donnell]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Pete Wishart]

I have given way to the hon. Lady already, so I will move on.

The hon. Member for Central Ayrshire and many of his colleagues want to return to the good old days of the old Glasgow council, when 69 Labour members, out of 79, were elected on 48% of the vote. That is democracy Labour-style—90% of members on 40% of the vote. Thank goodness we will not be going back to that. People are saying that is right and that it is what they want and I believe that that underpins all these measures—the Labour party benefiting massively from first past the post.

In the past few years, this issue has consistently come up. In the 10 years that I have been in the House, we have had these debates about Arbuthnott and other matters. We were told that we could not call the Scottish Government a Government and that we had to call them the Scottish Executive. I remember the days of the timid, unadventurous Labour Executive, always casting their eyes southwards to London, awaiting orders, instructions and directions about what to do, but those days have gone. We now have an SNP Government in Scotland and we will never again have the House of Commons clicking its fingers and the Scottish Parliament doing that dance. I look forward to that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Pete Wishart]

I will name one MSP with lofty ambitions. He has the ambition to be the First Minister of Scotland. When he went out there, we found that 50% of the Scottish people did not recognise him, and another 33% just did not like him.

[Fiona O'Donnell]

I wonder which party in Scotland the hon. Gentleman would say has the best record on constitutional reform—the parties in the Scottish Constitutional Convention, Labour and Lib Dems who delivered STV for local government, or an SNP Government who could not even deliver a referendum.

[The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. That is not relevant to the new clause either.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr MacNeil]

I am glad that the hon. Gentleman agrees with me on the substantial thrust of my argument and I hope to see him with me in the Lobby as a result. Would I have done this if such a proposal had not been made at the moment? Perhaps not, but given the safety concerns, this matter is pressing. Given that the process started without any risk assessment from the MCA, despite the relevant Minister telling me at the Dispatch Box that there had been such an assessment, I think that politics has to meet the pressing concerns among Royal National Lifeboat Institution crews, people who used to be involved in shipping, working coastguards and a variety of people across the community—certainly in the highlands and islands and, I imagine, further down to the Clyde and over to the Forth and, indeed, Shetland.

New clause 4 would redress a bizarre part of the Scotland Act that prevents the Scottish Government from creating incentives for the maritime industry in Scotland. Currently, the Government of Scotland have the ability to incentivise travel for maritime journeys that both start and end in Scotland, which has meant that a successful pilot project on the west coast for the road equivalent tariff has been brought to the Outer Hebrides and to Coll and Tiree. We hope that policy will continue, as it has done quite a lot to help the economies of those areas in a time of severe economic downturn.

Maritime policy is vital to Scotland as we are responsible for 70% of all the fish landed in the UK. Aberdeen is home to the North sea oil industry and lands nearly 4.5 million tonnes of cargo annually from approximately 8,000 ships. Clyde port lands 7.5 million tonnes of cargo and Stornoway port in my constituency has 200,000 people travelling through it each year. The ability to control the maritime economy is surely vital to what is a maritime nation. It is vital to secure future growth in the Scottish economy.

The figures that I have presented for the Aberdeen and Clyde ports are small in comparison with Southampton, which lands 75 million tonnes of cargo annually. Currently, the shipping industry coalesces around the south of England leaving little else for the rest of the UK. It is peculiar that most of Scotland’s goods are transported to the south of England and then driven into Scotland. With ever-increasing fuel costs and more congested motorways, surely that is not a good idea. The cost of moving goods to Scotland will invariably increase as the costs of transportation increase, and we propose that costs could be saved if there were an incentive for ships to land their goods in Scotland. The professor of maritime research at Edinburgh Napier university, Alf Baird, put it succinctly when he said that

“the present reality is that firms located in Scotland are considerably worse off in international transport cost terms compared with firms located close to hub ports in the south east of England…firms in the central belt of Scotland are between 15-23% worse off, while firms in the highlands are 22-33% worse off, and firms located on remote islands between 37-63% worse off…From a purely Scottish perspective this therefore raises the question—is the current method of serving Scottish industry’s global import and export needs through remote UK ports sustainable in the long run? Or, in other words, will rising domestic UK transport costs (rail as well as road) make Scottish industry even less competitive in global markets than it is today, leading to further job losses”—

that is the important point, as we want to keep people in employment—

“in manufacturing and reduced competitiveness?”

[Fiona O'Donnell]

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is glad to pause for breath. He has said that he is proposing these new clauses because Calman missed them out, but did he put forward any submissions to the Holyrood Bill Committee or the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs about these matters?

[Mr MacNeil]

The most appropriate place for the measures is in the Bill, which is why I have chosen to bring them forward now.

Professor Baird has asked rather straightforward questions that should be addressed by a specific maritime policy with regard to seaport provision in Scotland and the impacts of such a policy for trade and economic development. Surely, Scotland should be able to entice shippers to send goods to our ports. As the home of the large northern ports of the UK, we are well placed to provide efficient ports for shipping goods throughout Scotland and, perhaps, the rest of the UK. We should at least be given the opportunity to try. However, there are restrictions in place and all we can do is hope that companies land their goods there. This issue is at the crux of our main argument. Scotland needs to have the economic levers to promote growth, which would also help with the aggregate growth of the British Isles. Without the ability to entice business to Scotland, we will lose a real chance to grow sectors of our economy that could provide a counterweight to other portions of the Scottish economy. Our new clauses would ensure that the Scottish Government have the ability to promote the Scottish shipping industry and Scottish ports.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr MacNeil]

I should have known that someone from the economic powerhouse that is Northern Ireland was sitting behind me—I say that with irony.

Unfortunately, the Minister indulges in the usual slurs and dogma, and he is wrong in some of his assertions. He said nothing about helping communities; he tried to pin all this on some sort of political agenda in the Scottish National party. The new clause is not about that; it is about the powers people need to affect the day-to-day occurrences in their communities and around their islands. Tonight, people will see past the words of certain politicians.

[Fiona O'Donnell]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr MacNeil]

No. I do not know when we last had a vote on this, but tonight’s vote will enable people to make many judgments for years to come. We will judge this for years to come.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Brown]

I must tell the hon. Gentleman that we have moved on: we now have trains, buses and taxis, so people would not necessarily walk.

I want to get back to the debate on the hon. Gentleman’s new clause, because I want the House to have time to debate new clause 19 as well. The hon. Member for Milton Keynes South (Iain Stewart) said that the hon. Gentleman’s proposal was ludicrous; I would go further and say that it is sheer lunacy. In January 2007, the Energy Saving (Daylight) Bill was introduced by the hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr Yeo). Many Members might have considered supporting it, but for the fact that it contained a nasty clause that gave the devolved Administrations the opportunity to opt out. I ask the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar and others who support his proposal to consider how the drivers in a small haulage business based in two locations—let us say Carlisle and Dumfries—would manage the tachograph when moving from one side of the border to the other.

The new clause makes no sense whatever. I hope that, rather than dividing the Committee on the proposal, the hon. Gentleman will see sense. His proposal would make it more likely that we would end up with two different time zones. I urge him to withdraw the new clause.

[Fiona O’Donnell]

I will make my contribution brief as well, although I shall not speak at quite the same speed as the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil). He reminded me of a child who needed to go to the toilet as he delivered his speech so terribly quickly. The hon. Member for Milton Keynes South (Iain Stewart) said that he had risen to speak with a heavy heart. I am rising with a sore head, and that is not just about the sleep deprivation that I mentioned earlier. It is because I honestly cannot understand what possessed the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar to table this new clause. He cannot bring a proposal before the Committee and then not want us to discuss its possible implications. He cannot tell us what any Scottish Government, even his own, might choose to do with such powers, given that he voted against the sell-off of the forests in England while his Government tried to sell off the forests in Scotland. It is essential that we scrutinise the implications of the new clause. It exposes the fact that the SNP is good at minority reports and at gesture politics, but not good at government.

[Dr Whiteford]

I will take entirely personally the hon. Lady’s positive comment about minority reports. I took part in a debate on the issue of time zones a few months ago, and I was struck by the strength of feeling among many Government Members who represent English constituencies who would really like to see the time zones in this country change. My worry is that that would plunge my constituents into darkness on winter mornings, meaning that they would have to contend not only with icy roads and low temperatures but with limited amounts of sunlight. A Scottish Government would have no room in any negotiations on that matter, should a Government in this place choose to impose a change to the existing arrangements. As I understand it, the whole point of my hon. Friend’s new clause is to strengthen the likelihood of maintaining the existing arrangements, not to undermine them.

[Fiona O’Donnell]

I am still struggling to follow this argument. The SNP is asking for a power that it says it has no intention of using because the effects would be undesirable. The hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar seemed to say that, should the time zone change here, he would recommend that the Scottish Government fell in line with such a decision as he had no intention of having two different time zones. It has already been pointed out that we are far more likely to end up with two time zones if we devolve this power. It would be easier for such a decision to be taken simply on the basis of taking English concerns into account.

[Mr Frank Roy]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the only way to have two time zones in the United Kingdom is to vote for the new clause?

[Fiona O’Donnell]

Absolutely; I could not have put it more simply. My headache immediately disappears and we have clarity.

There are some questions that I would like the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar to address. First, has he spoken to Microsoft or other PC manufacturers about their systems and whether they would be able to cope with this change? Has he considered the implications for travel? It is possible that I could leave my constituency and be in this place before I had left. I wonder how the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority would respond to time travel and thinking that I came to this place in a Tardis. We have already heard about television and radio schedules. These are serious concerns, and they are the implications of what he is asking for. We might get the 10 o’clock news at 9 o’clock or 11 o’clock, we might know the results of the national lottery draw in Scotland before it is made in England. I have seen SNP Members holding their heads in their hands as we put forward these various possibilities, but if the hon. Gentleman is going to push the Committee to vote on this matter, he has to consider the ramifications.

Let us be clear about this: the SNP is no good in government in Holyrood, is no good in government in local authority areas, and in this Chamber it is putting forward a most ridiculous proposal that I hope the Committee will oppose.

[Thomas Docherty]

I want to make two observations based on an example taken from either side of the Committee. Under this proposal, the Minister from the Scotland Office could be taken in his Government car from his very nice house in Moffat down to Carlisle and then go back in time an hour to catch a train that had left Carlisle an hour earlier.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tom Greatrex]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

I hesitate to introduce an element of gravity to the proceedings, given some of the entertainment that has featured so far. Over the past few hours, however, there has been much debate on issues that did not feature in the Calman report. This issue was dealt with in the report, but it does not feature in the Bill. It featured in the previous Government’s White Paper and is referred to in the Command Paper that accompanies the Bill, but it is one of the issues that appear to have fallen off the edge of the Calman process.

During this Committee stage the Government have produced explanations, some convincing and others less so, for the fact that they are not implementing some of Calman’s recommendations. Part of the purpose of the new clause is to give them an opportunity to explain why they are not implementing one particular recommendation. I note that the Scottish Parliament legislative consent memorandum Committee, in one of its conclusions, suggested that the Government provide a fuller explanation. As I am sure that its members read the Command Paper before reaching that conclusion, I suspect that merely repeating the terms of the Command Paper will not serve to provide the explanation sought by the Committee.

[Fiona O’Donnell]

Will my hon. Friend press the Minister to tell us what representations the Government have received from either the retail or the manufacturing sector in support of their action?

Oral Answers to Questions

Fiona O'Donnell Excerpts

Wednesday 9th March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Anne McGuire (Stirling) (Lab)]

7. What discussions he had with the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions prior to the publication of the Welfare Reform Bill on the likely effect on Scotland of the measures in that Bill.

[Fiona O’Donnell (East Lothian) (Lab)]

10. When he last met anti-poverty campaigners in Scotland to discuss the potential effect in Scotland of the measures in the Welfare Reform Bill.

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

The Secretary of State for Scotland and I are in regular contact with ministerial colleagues in the Department for Work and Pensions. We also meet regularly organisations in Scotland with an interest in welfare and combating poverty.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

Order. There are far too many private conversations taking place in the Chamber. Let us have a bit of order for Fiona O’Donnell.

[Fiona O'Donnell]

Like you, Mr Speaker, I am feeling in a generous mood, so I will give the Under-Secretary of State a third chance to redeem himself. The Prime Minister’s excuse for removing the mobility component was that it addressed an anomaly between those in hospital and those in residential care. Will the Under-Secretary of State at least acknowledge that residential care homes are based on a social model, and not a medical model?

[David Mundell]

I certainly acknowledge that residential care homes are social rather than medical institutions primarily. However, as the hon. Lady will know, having been present at this morning’s debate in Westminster Hall, many care homes operate the mobility aspect of disability living allowance differently. The basis on which it is applied to a person in a home in Scotland and what it is applied for is dependent on which home they are in. I am sure she will agree that that is not acceptable.

Scotland Bill

Fiona O'Donnell Excerpts

Monday 7th March 2011 Commons Chamber

[David Mundell]

My understanding is that the Scottish Parliament would at this stage be able to take forward its own proposals in relation to a gun or implement of that type. As I understand it, we are not at the stage of having a definition for the weapon in relation to the incident, but there are implements of that nature for which the Scottish Parliament already has the power to make provision, as the hon. Gentleman knows.

[Fiona O'Donnell (East Lothian) (Lab)]

Will the Minister confirm that BB guns are covered by the 1968 Act?

[David Mundell]

There are definitions in the 1968 Act of certain weapons. A BB gun is not defined as a type of gun in that regard. It would be within the remit of the Scottish Parliament to make provisions in that regard as part of its ongoing responsibilities.

The clause will allow the Scottish Parliament the freedom to design its own controls over air weapons, while allowing the UK Government to retain a consistent regulatory framework across the UK for the most dangerous weapons. That will send the clear signal that the UK does not tolerate deadly weapons. As I have said, it is important to note that we are considering not what law on air weapons should apply in Scotland, but who should be responsible for taking that decision. The clause will not automatically create a separate regime in Scotland, but it will give the Scottish Parliament responsibility for that decision. Any consideration of an alternative regime will require the Scottish Government, the Scottish Parliament and other stakeholders to listen to all the views represented in Scotland and, crucially, to work through any cross-border issues that arise.

Amendment 39 would ensure that the 1968 Act continues to apply until the Scottish Parliament puts a new regulatory regime in place.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Mowat]

rose—

[Fiona O'Donnell]

rose—

[Pete Wishart]

I have a real choice here. I will give way to the shadow Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[Pete Wishart]

Perhaps I will stick to the amendment and put the case for continuing to leave the matter in the hands of the Scottish Parliament.

[Fiona O'Donnell]

I cannot believe that the hon. Gentleman has got me animated about the issue because it seems so clear-cut. What would the position be for someone who trains as a health scientist in Scotland? Could they work in England or would they be regulated to work only in Scotland?

[Pete Wishart]

Reciprocal arrangements work across a variety of jurisdictions. Of course a health scientist trained in Scotland could work in England. We have a separate NHS, which has developed differently from the NHS in the rest of the UK in the past 10 years—that seems to have escaped hon. Members in the debate. It has new professions that require different regulation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Pete Wishart]

I have no doubt that that is exactly what was said, but the only evidence taken by the Calman commission was from two royal colleges, which talked only about doctors.

[Fiona O'Donnell]

rose—

[Pete Wishart]

I have already given way to the hon. Lady. The UK Department of Health evidence to the commission concluded:

“The Department of Health is not seeking any change to the reservation of the health professions in the Scotland Act 1998. In practice, both the Government and the devolved administration have always sought to apply a UK-wide framework to the regulation of health”.

It is not interested in re-reserving the issue, and I do not know why we are.

We have a different NHS in Scotland, and it is recognised that the implementation of some policies would have to be different in Scotland. Given that the provision is clearly anti-devolutionary and not in the interests of the NHS in Scotland, we will not support it, not because of any knee-jerk response but because of the examples that I have mentioned and that I hope have been accepted by the Committee. We have a toehold in regulation across the UK, we will not give it up lightly and we will oppose the clause.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Reid]

The hon. Gentleman is perfectly correct—[hon. Members: “Oh!”] I did not say in what he was correct. He was correct when he said that the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire stated that he wanted all professions regulated separately in Scotland. However, my point was that SNP Members have not tabled an amendment to that effect, which I suspect indicates that even they lack confidence in their case.

[Fiona O'Donnell]

Perhaps I could assist the hon. Gentleman in correcting my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South West (Mr Davidson). He was wrong in omitting to point out that not only did the Lib Dems come sixth in Barnsley, they lost their deposit.

[Mr Reid]

I suspect that if I respond to that intervention, Mr Hoyle, you will rule me out of order.

To go back in order, if as the SNP suggests all health care professions—doctors, dentists and so on—are regulated separately in Scotland, it would add more cost and bureaucracy. It would also mean that a doctor who is qualified in Scotland and who wants to move to England would have to get separate qualifications, and vice versa. That would not benefit patients, and nor would it assist professional development.

Scotland Bill

Fiona O'Donnell Excerpts

Thursday 27th January 2011 Commons Chamber

[Pete Wishart]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who knows about these issues and understands the difficulties that the Bill would create.

Why are we giving the Scottish Parliament new fiscal responsibilities that would damage it? That is one of the proposals that we will seek to correct during the Bill’s passage. We will be making suggestions about how it could be dealt with. We are prepared to work with the Government, because we want to improve and strengthen the Bill. We want to make it a powerhouse Bill that will serve our nation and be a credit to the communities that we serve.

As we have heard, the Bill has already been debated in the Scottish Parliament, and has been subject to what has been described as an independent Bill scrutiny Committee. I certainly hope that the proceedings in the House of Commons will be a bit more useful and relevant than what we have seen in the Scottish Bill Committee thus far. We have seen a Labour convener haranguing and harassing independent witnesses, as a result of which several have decided not to take part in the proceedings because of what they feel is an in-built bias. The Scottish Bill Committee seems to be more interested in considering options that are not even in the Bill than in examining the dangerous tax plans that it contains. I hope that we can do a bit better than that down here, Madam Deputy Speaker. As you know, and as we are already observing, Scottish debates in the House of Commons are always characterised by their good nature and conviviality.

[Fiona O'Donnell (East Lothian) (Lab)]

The hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways. He cannot say that he wants rigorous scrutiny, and then say that we were too hard on people who provided false information in support of his case.

[Pete Wishart]

I do not know what the hon. Lady is referring to. I have never said anything about false information.

In a spirit of consensus and co-operation, let us start with the issues on which we all agree, for obviously there are such issues. We all agree with the Secretary of State and with our Labour colleagues that devolution is, in the words of Donald Dewar, a process and not a one-off event, and that is important. We may disagree on the conclusion of that process—we believe in independence, and my Labour colleagues believe in something else—but we all agree that devolution is a process, and that we will continue to see a transfer of powers from the House of Commons to the Scottish Parliament.

A point was made earlier about the reference to the Scottish Government in the amendment. When I first came to the House 10 years ago, Labour Members were appalled at the prospect of a Scottish Government. The Secretary of State probably remembers the debates in which they expressed their view. They helpfully said, “They can call themselves ‘The White Heather Club’ if they want, but they will never be a Government.” We are a Government now, thank goodness, and the Labour dinosaurs, some of whom I see in their places, will never go back to having an “Executive” running Scotland. That is a good thing too.

An important new development is that we all agree now that some financial powers—fiscal powers—should be devolved to the Scottish Parliament. We never had that important source of agreement before. We fundamentally disagree on the measures in the Bill, but we agree that financial responsibility should be a feature of the Scottish Parliament. I look forward to that, and that is another area of agreement. We will oppose measures in the Bill, but it is good that we now all agree that financial powers are required for the Scottish Parliament.

The most important thing that everyone in this House can agree on—this ran through everything to do with Calman—is that the Scottish Parliament has been an overwhelming success. The Secretary of State is of course right to say that there is no question—only people on the fringes of politics in this House would even suggest this—of ever going back to having no Scottish Parliament again. What typifies that more than anything is the fact that a Conservative-led Government are legislating for more powers and responsibilities to be given to the Scottish Parliament, because only 12 short years ago the Tories campaigned so energetically against the Scottish Parliament. That shows the progress that we have made, and there will be areas of agreement as we go through the Committee stage in this House.

Although we agree on many things in the Bill, there are many things with which we fundamentally disagree.

--- Later in debate ---

[Fiona O'Donnell (East Lothian) (Lab)]

I pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce) for an illuminating and useful contribution to today’s debate. I am afraid that mine will not be as lengthy, but I humbly hope that it will also illuminate the debate.

I am sorry that the love of Scotland of the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs Laing) could not hold her in the Chamber longer, because she expressed disappointment that today’s debate is not taking place on the birthday of Mr Robert Burns. However, I can confirm that it takes place on my birthday, and I can think of no better way to celebrate than to speak in support of the Scotland Bill.

[John Robertson]

How sad!

[Fiona O'Donnell]

I expect that it is a reflection of what has happened to my life since coming to this place.

I begin, rather unusually, by apologising to the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) for my rather bad-tempered intervention. It makes me angry when I hear the SNP, given its record, complaining about the process that has brought us here today, and the Calman commission. It also makes me angry when the hon. Gentleman questions whether the Bill will receive due scrutiny. I hope that, now he has heard the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North (Ann McKechin), he realises that Labour will give the Bill due scrutiny, and that he will also welcome the inquiry by the Scottish Affairs Committee, on which the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Dr Whiteford) serves. That will give us further opportunities to examine the Bill.

I remind the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire that the Calman commission consulted the public, experts and interested groups at 12 local engagement events all over Scotland. It received 300 written submissions, and held 50 public and 27 private evidence sessions. That compares more than favourably with the national conversation. The hon. Gentleman asked my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North how much it had cost. A conversation among Unionists is a far bigger conversation than one just among nationalists.

I am particularly pleased to be speaking in today’s debate because I follow in the footsteps of John P. Mackintosh. His approach was one of integrity and commitment, and he wanted genuine constitutional reform and the flourishing of the democratic expression of the Scottish people. I should like to remind Members who have visited the Scottish Parliament, and to inform those who have not, that the Donald Dewar room at Holyrood carries this quote from John P. Mackintosh:

“People in Scotland want a degree of government for themselves. It is not beyond the wit of man to devise the institutions to meet these demands.”

Labour finally devised the institution to meet those demands and delivered on Keir Hardie’s original aim of home rule. Another of my predecessors, John Home Robertson, not only believed in home rule, but lived and breathed it as he served East Lothian in both the House of Commons and the Scottish Parliament.

Constitutional reform should rise above party politics. The SNP has shown throughout today’s debate not only that its politics are separatist, but that its approach to politics—the way it does politics—is separatist. The Labour way is to work with other parties to achieve consensus, which is what it has done through the Scottish Constitutional Convention and the Calman commission. SNP representatives were absent from both, which must make theirs the longest political huff in history. They are less outside the tent than squatting on a different campsite altogether. Indeed, they have not been happy campers, although there have been an unusual number of references to caravans.

We today take Scotland forward to a new era. It is right and it is time that the Scottish Parliament takes greater responsibility for its expenditure and matches that with accountability. Of course, the Bill goes further than that in giving substantial borrowing powers to Scotland. I hope that we can now move away from a time when the SNP Government used every capital building programme as an opportunity to fight at Westminster, rather than as an opportunity to fight for Scotland.

SNP Members have still to tell us whether they will vote for the Bill or seek to wreck it today. They have an opportunity to see Scotland move forward, but they appear to be unwilling even now to rise to give us clarity on that question—[Interruption.]

[Pete Wishart]

I just got bored listening to this. I’ve heard it all before.

[Fiona O'Donnell]

If the hon. Gentleman is bored, he could make the debate more interesting by intervening to answer that question, but he remains silent.

The SNP has argued for full fiscal autonomy for Scotland, but that is not what Scotland needs. Scotland needs the security that is offered by remaining part of the Union, which is what the Bill gives it.

What would the SNP have done with the banks in an independent Scotland? [Interruption.] Yes. I am afraid that it is all fantasy and Brigadoon on the SNP side. I urge SNP Members to think again—in the words of another Scottish poet—and to consider giving their support to the Bill. I also I urge them not to press to a Division an amendment that seeks to deprive Scotland of an opportunity to move forward.

I thank the House for the short time that it has indulged me, and urge hon. Members to support the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs McGuire]

I do not wish to interpret the SNP’s tactics, but it is certainly bizarre that their amendment says that the “Bill as a whole” is “unacceptable”, given that the mover of the amendment, the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart), tried to appear consensual on some of the areas on which there is agreement. I do not know which part of the brain was not working when the amendment was tabled, but it definitely calls on the House to vote against something that SNP Members agree with in some way. That is a question for them to answer, but I am delighted that my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow Central (Anas Sarwar) has raised it.

The Bill, like the Scotland Act 1998, was developed as a result of consensus, as the right hon. Member for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce) has highlighted. The engagement of civic society, communities and individuals, as well as of political parties, is the hallmark of the legislation—as it was of its 1998 predecessor. In terms of political party consensus, there have been positive developments over the years. As the hon. Member for Epping Forest has clearly shown, the Conservative party in Scotland and across the UK boycotted the Scottish Constitutional Convention in the early 1990s, campaigned for a no vote in the 1997 referendum and voted against the first Bill when it came through Parliament. However, it is now working in partnership with other political parties that see the strength of the Union as key to the future of our country. I always welcome the sinner that repenteth.

Some things never change, though. The SNP stood apart from the consensus building up to 1998 and boycotted the Calman commission for reasons that I cannot understand and have not heard properly explained. I think the SNP amendment is somewhat churlish and flies in the face of all the views that have been expressed by the Scottish people through elections and consensus. If the SNP wants an independent Scotland, its first aim must be to prove its case to the Scottish people.

[Fiona O'Donnell]

As the SNP has fallen silent, will my right hon. Friend tell us why she thinks the party bottled it when offered the chance of a referendum by Labour in Holyrood?

[Mrs McGuire]

I gave up many years ago trying to get into the political mind of the SNP and I do not know if I want to revisit some of those early nightmares I had in trying to understand it.

I want to concentrate on the additional fiscal powers. Some of us in the House are old enough to remember the 1978 proposals of the then Labour Government, one weakness of which was that they contained no taxation powers—no variation to what was then called the Scottish Assembly was to be allowed. To an extent, that lesson was learned when the 1998 legislation was introduced. The plus or minus 3% provision was intended to deal with the flaw in the earlier legislation, which of course failed the somewhat artificial 40% referendum test. The discussion around Calman recognised that the time was right to build on the 1998 Act and devolve more responsibility for revenue raising to the Scottish Parliament.

In addition, the Bill gives us a package of other changes that will enhance the Scottish Parliament’s fiscal responsibility, including new borrowing powers, a stamp duty land tax, a landfill tax and, of course, the power to create new taxes, subject to the approval of both the Scottish and UK Parliaments, which I think is a responsible way forward. The assessment of those new taxes, however, must be open and transparent so that it does not feed into the arguments of the conspiracy theorists who will interpret anything less as an attempt to undermine Scotland. However, the Scottish Parliament should recognise, as I am sure it will, that any proposed new tax must be assessed according to its potential impact on economic incentives in Scotland.

I want to raise one area of concern on the new Scottish rate proposals. The implementation and impact of that power must be thoroughly tested and developed, and not only with Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, important though that is. I know that the qualification for liability for the Scottish rate will be the same as or similar to those already set out in the Scotland Act 1998. Although we can easily see the implications for the basic and higher rate taxes, people in Scotland must also have clear information on the impact on their tax liability of pension contributions, to which the hon. Member for Milton Keynes South referred, and any unearned income, such as dividend receipts and bank interest. That sounds as though it concerns only a small group of people, but many people in Scotland earn interest through bank accounts and from dividends. I ask the Minister, both today and throughout the Bill’s scrutiny, to consider how the current regime of tax credits on dividends, for example, will be managed if there are different tax rates in different parts of the UK.

What discussions have there been about the implications of variable tax? What will happen if someone uses an address for their unearned income, such as a bank based in London, Cardiff, Halifax or wherever, that is different from that used for their individual taxation north of the border? I know that those problems are not insurmountable. There might be issues of detail, but frankly, we want the system to be robust and watertight from the beginning, otherwise the Bill will be nothing other than a job creation scheme for accountants—having been married to an accountant for 39 years, I have no problem with that in principle. The Secretary of State, given his previous career as an accountant, will have some knowledge of how accountants can take a piece of legislation, dissect it and then work their way around it. I hope that those issues can be solved properly so that we can ensure a robust system.

The Bill certainly makes some common-sense adjustments to the devolution settlement, such as the licensing of controlled substances and appointments to the BBC Trust, and there are other changes that are welcome in principle. However, greater discussion and clarification will be needed as the Bill goes through the House. For example, the power to set drink-driving limits, which has been mentioned by several hon. Members, should be considered. Different limits north and south of the border could cause confusion. Again, that is an issue not of principle, but of clarity. If we are to devolve power on the licensing system for air weapons, we will undoubtedly need a clearer definition of what constitutes an air weapon than that currently specified in the Firearms Act 1968. I assume that the Secretary of State will be having discussions with ministerial colleagues in the Home Office to ensure that the power that is being handed over will take account of how technology has changed in the intervening years in the manufacture of air weapons.

Let me deal briefly with some of the attacks that have been made on the Bill, which are crystallised in the SNP amendment. It has been criticised for not giving meaningful economic powers, and yet the Scottish Parliament will now be able to raise significantly more income as a result. In addition, there will be additional borrowing powers of up to £3 billion. When there is a cyclical fall in tax receipts, which we might see during a recession, there are powers to manage that problem.

I know that the hon. Member for Dundee East (Stewart Hosie) is, or appears to be, an expert on all things fiscal, but, although he might be able to identify some of the problems, his analysis and conclusions are sometimes questionable. I advise him that not all of us agree with his suggested outcomes. Of course, we know that all that is code for fiscal autonomy, which in turn is camouflage for independence. I have no problem engaging with that argument, but we have to be realistic and admit that that is what the debate is all about: it is a debate for those who want to see the United Kingdom broken up and those of us who want to see it strengthened through the greater devolution of powers.

I am delighted to support the Bill, and I resent what almost amounts to rivialisation of some of its elements. The Scotland Act 1998 was one of the most complicated pieces of legislation ever to go through this House. It had to unpick legislation dating back over 300 years, since the union of Parliaments, so it was not straightforward. Stage hypnotists might not have been at the top of the political agenda, but legislation on stage hypnotists had to be dealt with as part of the Act. Indeed, given the number of hours we spent on it, I wonder how we did not realise that we had given Scotland power over Antarctica. I do not quite know how that slipped through in all those hours, but we should not trivialise the detailed work that had to be done to present that Act and to deliver a Scottish Parliament, or suggest that it somehow undermines the Scottish people’s right to autonomy through devolution.

Issues of detail and clarification will undoubtedly need to be debated in the Chamber over the next few weeks, but the Bill is a natural progression along the road that we set down in 1998, and if Donald is up there on his cloud, he will definitely see that it is part of the process, and that 1998 was not just an event.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stewart Hosie]

That is what the Command Paper says, but because the Barnett rules have the effect of squeezing income, we will have to see precisely how the no-detriment clause works. Will it be an up-front no-detriment clause that pays against forecasts, or will it be retrospective and pay only if the estimate be lower than the forecast? None of that is at all clear yet. That is precisely the kind of issue that we want to probe with more detailed amendments in Committee.

The limited borrowing powers are slightly poorly designed and would constrain the Scottish Government, rather than assist them. Fundamentally, the borrowings can be made not against forecast reductions in revenue, but against reconciled outturn receipts 12 months after the end of the financial year. That means that revenue borrowing cannot even act as an automatic stabiliser to fill the tax gap during a downturn—something that every party accepts is necessary and supports. In short, the powers will expose the Scottish Government to the full negative impact of the economic cycle, rather than present them with the ability to mitigate those problems.

Secondly, revenue borrowing will be capped at £200 million in a single year and at £500 million in total. Therefore, even if the timing of the borrowings could have been sorted out, the limits would have been inadequate to close the revenue gaps in 2008-09 and 2009-10, when the calculated budget shortfalls were £400 million and £800 million respectively. That might be what the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun meant when she referred to the economic parts of the Bill.

Thirdly, the repayment of borrowings within four years almost certainly means that repayments will have to be made at precisely the wrong point in the economic cycle. To make that point more solid, I should explain that the proposals would have required the revenue borrowing needed to cover the shortfalls between 2008-09 and 2009-10 to be repaid in the current comprehensive spending review period, when the Scottish block grant is already under pressure from proposed cuts of more than £3 billion. Borrowing and repayment should be possible over the entire economic cycle and should not have arbitrary timelines attached to them. Cyclical borrowing can mitigate volatility, but the proposals will generate additional volatility in future budgets.

The highly limited revenue borrowing powers that are proposed will be further constrained because the first 0.5% of any shortfall—about £127 million in 2014-15—will have to be found from cuts in the cash reserve before retrospective revenue borrowings can even be found.

The second borrowing power in the Bill is for capital expenditure. It is welcome, but could be improved. The cumulative borrowing total that is set out is £2.2 billion. That is quite low compared with recent Scottish Government investment of more than £3 billion a year. Borrowing in any year will be limited to 10% of the capital DEL—approximately £230 million by 2014-15—not the total budget. For example, a replacement Forth crossing costing between £1.7 billion and £2.2 billion would use up the entire additional capital borrowing, if we were able to secure it under the constrained limits set out by the Treasury. The only way to increase the limit to allow additional borrowing would be for the UK Parliament to agree to a legislative amendment. I am not sure that that is the best approach for securing long-term sustainable capital investment.

The borrowing powers in the Bill will limit the Scottish Government to certain types of borrowing. They will be able to use loans, rather than bonds or other instruments that would provide greater flexibility. Transport for London, which is a local authority in respect of its borrowing powers, is currently issuing commercial paper worth £7 billion for Crossrail and other projects. Birmingham city council issued paper to the tune of £250 million in 2006, and it seems passing strange that what should be seriously enhanced powers for the Scottish Parliament would not even put it on a par with TFL or Birmingham city council in its ability to raise cash through commercial paper for important national infrastructure works.

We are also concerned, like the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun, that the Bill might not provide access to capital quickly enough to meet Scotland’s needs. The proposal is that access will commence from 2013, subject, as we heard earlier, to Treasury approval on a per-project basis. In the face of the budget cuts and the urgent need to invest in infrastructure, that is not soon enough.

The remaining tax proposals in the Bill are limited, although welcome. I have to say, however, that the Conservatives appear to have U-turned on some of the taxes that Calman said should be devolved. As I said, this is not a dry, academic exercise, and we would like stamp duty to be incremental, so that people do not pay the full whack for hitting the threshold. I am glad that responsibility for that is being devolved. It was worth £593 million in Scotland in 2008-09, but that was only 1.4% of all the non-North sea revenue raised in Scotland.

[Fiona O'Donnell]

The hon. Gentleman has been very reasonable in acknowledging the parts of the Bill of which he approves. Would his amendment not therefore have been more reasonable if it had said “on the whole” rather than “as a whole”?

[Stewart Hosie]

There are forms of words that can be accepted, tabled and selected and forms of words that cannot. I stand by the amendment, because it is important to challenge the Bill in areas in which we do not believe it comes up to scratch, and it would appear that many of our concerns are shared among the parties. To have a dry, sterile debate about the words in the amendment rather than its substantive nature does the Labour party no good. That is the only time I have been partisan in my entire speech, and I will stick to that.

Oral Answers to Questions

Fiona O'Donnell Excerpts

Wednesday 1st December 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. This sort of noise is very discourteous. I want to hear Fiona O’Donnell.

[Fiona O’Donnell (East Lothian) (Lab)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker.

The voluntary sector in Scotland plays a vital role in supporting some of our most vulnerable families. The increase in VAT will cost Scotland’s voluntary sector dearly. What is the Minister actually doing to support that sector, so that it can deliver his vision of a big society?

[David Mundell]

This Government are committed to supporting the voluntary sector in Scotland and elsewhere in the UK, but the hon. Lady should tell people in that sector and elsewhere in Scotland that the rise in VAT is a consequence of her party’s Government’s overspending.