Oral Answers to Questions

Gordon Banks Excerpts

Wednesday 14th January 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Carmichael]

It is clear, beyond any doubt, that a substantial amount of money is going in from this Government, the Scottish Government, local authorities and European funds to this most important area of economic development. Responsibility for delivery, at the end of that money, rests with the Scottish Government. I take it, from the comments of my right hon. Friend and others in the House, that the Scottish Government need to be telling our communities more.

[Gordon Banks (Ochil and South Perthshire) (Lab)]

Someone once said:

“We have got to stop thinking of broadband and other connectivity issues as being some sort of luxury. It is as important to the future sustainability of our communities as having a supply of water or electricity.”

Does the Secretary of State still agree with his own words? If so, can he tell communities in Ochil and South Perthshire and elsewhere in Scotland why, when we have running water and electricity, we still do not have superfast broadband?

[Mr Carmichael]

I absolutely stand by my own words. I recognised them as soon as the hon. Gentleman started to quote them. It is a view that I still hold and it is why this Government have made a substantial investment. If he has particular cases relating to delivery, which unfortunately we have passed to the Scottish Government, I am more than happy to help him in any way I can.

Oral Answers to Questions

Gordon Banks Excerpts

Wednesday 7th May 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Carmichael]

Mr Speaker, I am delighted that you were able to fit the hon. Gentleman in; otherwise, we would all have missed his monthly comedy turn. It is quite remarkable that he chooses to ignore the advice given by the permanent secretary to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, setting out why a currency union would be bad for the rest of the United Kingdom and bad for an independent Scotland. Why does the hon. Gentleman want something that would be bad for Scotland?

[Gordon Banks (Ochil and South Perthshire) (Lab)]

Last week, 18% of members of Scottish Chambers of Commerce confirmed that they are making plans to move out of Scotland in the event of a yes vote, and 63% believe that an independent currency or the euro would be bad for business. Today we have heard from the British Chambers of Commerce that 85% of their businesses are against independence, and nearly half identified currency concerns as the most important issue for them. What reassurances can the Secretary of State give the House about currency for businesses on both sides of the border?

[Mr Carmichael]

The only reassurance I can give is that if people in Scotland vote no, they will continue to enjoy the use of the pound and they will continue to have the Bank of England as a lender of last resort. Beyond that, everything is uncertain.

Scotland and North-east England Post-2014

Gordon Banks Excerpts

Tuesday 4th March 2014 Westminster Hall

[Gordon Banks (Ochil and South Perthshire) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Weir. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Phil Wilson) on securing this important debate and on his passionate contribution, in which he argued for the strengths of the Union of the United Kingdom. We have heard a lot this morning—about the impacts of independence on the steel industry in Scotland and the north-east; border controls and barriers; connectivity between the north-east and Scotland; EU membership; euro membership and currency in general; farming; North sea oil exploration and engineering; and a history lesson about Bavaria and Prussia from my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw).

I have seen things from both sides of the border. My father was a Scots miner, who married my mother, an Englishwoman, in Dunfermline abbey. They lived in Dunfermline, and then moved back to the north of England—that is where my mother was from. I was born in Acomb, in Northumberland, in the constituency of the hon. Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman). I lived in Northumberland and then Cumberland, as it was then, until I was 14, before moving to Clackmannanshire in Scotland, where I have lived since, and I now have the privilege of representing it as part of my constituency. In the 1970s and 1980s, I worked for 10 years for the UK’s biggest house builder, Barratt, a north-east company that has in the past seen excellent growth and rewards from its Scottish business ventures. That kind of relationship is under pressure from independence.

[Mr MacNeil]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Gordon Banks]

I will say this once and only once to the hon. Gentleman: I will give way once, and I hope his intervention is much better than his contribution.

[Mr MacNeil]

That is a disappointing tone to take. All I can say is that I am severely surprised. The hon. Gentleman has mentioned the different countries of his ancestry. Had his parents or grandparents been from countries outside the UK, would he have had a difficulty about that? Had he an ancestor from Denmark or Ireland, would he be internationalist on this issue, or does the fact that his ancestors are from the UK give him a particular difficulty?

[Gordon Banks]

It was not any better than the speech, at all. The hon. Gentleman really needs to be saved from himself in this place. My experience is of understanding the relationship between north-east England and Scotland, first hand. Those bonds demonstrate, I feel, the underlying strength of the Union, a sentiment that I know is shared by most Members present, with one obvious exception. Such links highlight that the debate surrounding independence does not affect Scotland in isolation but has significant implications for the rest of the UK. Nowhere is that felt more keenly than in north-east England.

My hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield spoke with conviction about the common identity shared by Scotland and the north-east, and I am in full agreement with those sentiments. There can be no doubt about the bond in our industrial centres, such as Glasgow and Newcastle, or Sunderland and Dundee, based on our shared history, family and political perspective.

I, too, remember the 1980s, when Scotland and the north-east stood together against the poll tax and pit closures. People recognised then, as we do now, that any political change that we hope for can be reached only through the unity of shared identity and interests. That common bond would simply not be achievable if Scotland and the north-east were in separate countries.

The bonds of the 1980s can be felt just as strongly today, as can be seen by the fact that close to 150,000 people who were born in Scotland live in north-east or north-west England, and we have heard today about the many who travel across the border to work every day. Most of those people have made it abundantly clear that they do not want the break-up of the UK, as can be seen in a recent independent poll, which showed that 62% of Britons want Scotland to remain part of the United Kingdom. People want that not only because of the bonds that we share, but because of an underlying recognition that independence for Scotland could leave them worse off.

That brings me to an important point, echoed throughout today’s debate: independence has the potential to create uncertainty for our nearest neighbours, as well as for Scotland. John Tomaney, formerly of Newcastle university, has indicated that independence could have significant economic consequences for the north-east; in particular, he has highlighted the undesirable situation of Scotland competing directly with the north-east for investment. North-east England would be in the unfortunate position of being caught between a prosperous south and an independent Scotland fixated on implementing Irish levels of corporation tax. The end result would be a dangerous race to the bottom when it comes to wages and conditions, a scenario that would have serious implications for not only job security but the growth and development of the economies of both Scotland and the north-east.

That concern is not restricted to today’s debate; it has been voiced over a number of years. In evidence to the Calman commission on Scottish devolution in 2009, the North East chamber of commerce expressed its concerns about what it called

“the creation of a Scottish rate of Corporation Tax”,

identifying

“the potential for wasteful competition”.

That view was recently echoed by the chamber’s head of policy, Ross Smith, who has stated that the north-east

“will feel the impact of any competition from north of the border more keenly than others”

and that

“the future of Scotland is a big issue for many businesses”

in the region.

Those concerns are only reinforced by the fact that the nationalists still have no credible plans on what currency would be used in an independent Scotland—that issue has been explored today, and we are still waiting for an answer. The situation leads only to uncertainty for the thousands of companies in the north-east and north-west that trade directly with Scottish businesses. The separatists are putting economic output and jobs in north-east England in jeopardy.

With just over six months to go until the referendum, the SNP has simply not provided any substantial answers to those important questions and many others raised today. As a result, it is damaging Scotland’s prospects with its crossed fingers, and its strapline from Alex Salmond of “Trust me: it’ll be all right on the night.” It also runs the risk of damaging the north of England, part of the country that would be an independent Scotland’s biggest supplier and marketplace. That is why it is insincere of the SNP to assert that backing an independent Scotland would be in the best interests of the economy of north-east England, while not being straight about the impact on the north-east of its proposed cut to corporation tax.

We have a bigger idea than independence. As we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield, Labour is a national party, not a nationalist one. By their very nature, nationalists are separatists, whereas my party has its roots firmly in the whole of the UK, as has been shown today. I would encourage people to pay attention to the Institute for Public Policy Research’s “Borderland” report, which argues that the key to success for north-east England lies in more joint working with Scotland—a point we heard in contributions from hon. Members today. Working within the shared institutions of the UK is the obvious means of delivering and achieving that, rather than trying to forge a relationship with a newly formed foreign country.

This debate will go on, so perhaps we should have another debate on the same topic. The hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil) bemoaned the 1:18 ratio among Members here today. Perhaps he can put in for a debate; then he could make a longer contribution, although that might be a bit of a challenge. However, today’s debate has made it clear that although the outcome of the referendum is rightly a matter only for people living in Scotland, the debate must be open to all. Open debate will be vital in the coming months if we are to provide any clarity in the uncertainty that the independence referendum poses for Scotland and the north-east. Independence for Scotland will do nothing to build jobs, improve social justice or raise the aspirations of people in north-east England.

As I said, I was born in north-east England, in the UK. I have lived in north-east England and in central Scotland, in the UK. I have worked in central Scotland and in this place, in the UK. I intend to make sure that, after 18 September, living in central Scotland and working in this place, I am still living and working in the UK. That is why I welcome today’s debate, and I hope there will be further opportunities to discuss these issues in the weeks and months ahead.

Oral Answers to Questions

Gordon Banks Excerpts

Wednesday 5th February 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Carmichael]

These are all reasons why it is important to improve transparency in the market and the range of tariffs available. That has been the result of the action this Government have been taking. Under the previous Government there were at one point no fewer than 400 different tariffs available, so it was no surprise that people were confused. Simplicity is the way ahead and the Government are working on that, along with the regulator.

[Gordon Banks (Ochil and South Perthshire) (Lab)]

We know that energy bills have rocketed under the Secretary of State’s Government and that Labour will freeze energy prices. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) said this morning, one third of British investment in renewables comes to Scotland, but Scots contribute less than one tenth. That means that the rest of the UK supports Scottish renewable generation through their bills. Does the Secretary of State agree that the best future for renewables in Scotland, and the best way to keep costs down for Scotland, is for Scotland to stay part of the United Kingdom?

[Mr Carmichael]

That is absolutely the case. Scotland has a tremendous opportunity to contribute to the growth of renewable energy as part of the United Kingdom, but that will take subsidies that come from consumers’ bills, the cost of which is spread across the whole nation, not simply the households of an independent Scotland. It would be madness for the renewable energy industry to support Scottish independence.

Oral Answers to Questions

Gordon Banks Excerpts

Wednesday 24th April 2013 Commons Chamber

[Michael Moore]

The hon. Gentleman raises a hugely important issue which will be one of the big questions that we ask in Scotland as we build up to the referendum next year. The security and the scale of the United Kingdom allows us the solidarity of common provision across the United Kingdom, and we have the means to pay for that, even in difficult economic times, as we have had recently. We have not seen or heard anything from the Scottish National party or their supporters about how they would do that in an independent Scotland.

[Gordon Banks (Ochil and South Perthshire) (Lab)]

There is a link between welfare and the use of food banks, and I have raised the topic of food banks a number of times in this place through questions and petitions and directly with the Prime Minister, which have all seemed to go unanswered. The Secretary of State will have seen today’s report from the Trussell Trust revealing that the number of people using food banks in Scotland has increased from fewer than 5,000 last year to more than 14,000 this year. Can he tell the House why he is letting this happen?

[Michael Moore]

My right hon. Friend the Under-Secretary and I have met people at food banks, and recently I met the executive chairman of the Trussell Trust. As the chief executive would point out, as I am sure he has to the hon. Gentleman, there is a range of complex reasons going back many years for why people need access to food banks. We continue to look at this very carefully. I do not want people to have to go to food banks to get support. I am happy to continue that dialogue with the hon. Gentleman.

Constitutional Law

Gordon Banks Excerpts

Tuesday 15th January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Angus Robertson]

The position will be exactly the same as that of the UK Government: the Scottish Government will listen to the Electoral Commission’s advice and the Scottish Parliament will then decide.

[Gordon Banks (Ochil and South Perthshire) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Angus Robertson]

I will not give way again, as I have already made the point three times on the same question.

Before having to reiterate the same answer for the third time, I was making the point that the procedural issues flowing from the section 30 order will be resolved in the Scottish Parliament, and that is a good thing. That proposition that Scotland should be a sovereign nation has a long and honourable tradition. In this House, it goes back to long before the permanent parliamentary representation of the Scottish National party, which began in 1967, or indeed before the arrival of the first SNP MP in 1945. It is worth remembering the role of Robert Cunninghame Graham, who was elected as a Liberal MP for North West Lanarkshire in 1886 and was commonly described as the first socialist MP in this House. As the founder and first president of the Scottish Labour party, and the first president of the Scottish National party, he consistently supported independence.

The call for a direct Scottish voice in the world has a long tradition, too. It includes the attempts by the Scottish Trades Union Congress to secure Scottish representation at the Versailles peace talks. For more than 75 years, the SNP has sought to restore Scottish independence through the democratic process. I am extremely proud to follow a great many outstanding democrats who furthered the cause of Scottish self-determination—a vision for all in Scotland, regardless of where we come from. Sadly, some true giants of that movement have recently passed away and will not be here for the referendum, including Jimmy Halliday, the SNP chairman during the 1950s, who passed away just before Christmas. I also reflect on the recent passing of Stephen Maxwell and that a few years ago of Professor Sir Neil MacCormick. I would have wished them all to have been here to be a part of this great debate and decision that we will make in Scotland. We genuinely stand on the shoulders of giants: those who have made the case for self-government and given their time and effort to make progress through the democratic process. This section 30 order is a testament to all who believe in the democratic process, democratic debate and the sovereignty of the people. Our challenge—this is for those on both sides of the referendum debate—is to ensure we do this in a way worthy of the proposition, the opposing case and, most importantly, the electorate.

In conclusion, I believe that the best future for the people of Scotland—a fairer, more economically successful, more outward-looking and internationally engaged Scotland—will be secured by a yes vote in the referendum. I believe we can secure an improved relationship on these islands, based on mutual respect and the social union, which is not dependent on where Governments and Parliaments sit. Let us pass this section 30 order today so that we move on to debate that vision and so that the people make their decision.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gordon Banks (Ochil and South Perthshire) (Lab)]

The spirit of consensus has been a key characteristic of today’s debate on the passing of this order. We support the order, as my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow East (Margaret Curran) has already said, and we support the fact that the Scottish people should be in the driving seat and making the decision. However, a huge of amount of debate needs to take place before the people of Scotland make the biggest decision on the constitutional future of our country since 1707. I pay thanks to the many groups and organisations that provide us with a number of briefings, such as the Law Society of Scotland.

We have heard interesting and stunning contributions from Labour Members: my right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Mr Darling), my hon. Friends the Members for Glasgow South West (Mr Davidson) and for Glasgow Central (Anas Sarwar), my right hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Mrs McGuire), my hon. Friends the Members for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray), for Edinburgh North and Leith (Mark Lazarowicz), for Livingston (Graeme Morrice), for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Mr McCann), for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Cathy Jamieson) and for East Lothian (Fiona O'Donnell). I will take some of the issues they have raised today and explore them a little further.

My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South West spoke in support of his own Scottish Affairs Committee report and argued for the need for losers’ consent in this process—an important point to make. He also argued that it is the responsibility of the losers to accept the result for a generation or more, as has been stated by the First Minister in the past. My hon. Friend brought to the debate the question of whether the SNP can be both player and referee, and spoke of the need for the Electoral Commission to be the only referee.

My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow Central spoke about keeping his country together and about a fight. I tell him this: it will be a fight, but I will be standing shoulder to shoulder with him. Rightly, he stated that a yes vote in 2014 will last forever. He also highlighted that 45% of SNP voters do not support independence and that often the SNP’s actions do not match its rhetoric.

My neighbour, my right hon. Friend the Member for Stirling, exposed the antics of the SNP and spoke of the need to carry the referendum debate forward positively on all sides—such comments have been made by many hon. Members, but have not always been delivered by the words that followed. My right hon. Friend made the important point that, by our actions today, a great responsibility has now been placed on the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government.

My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South spoke about how it was Scottish Labour that delivered devolution and improved it. He expressed concern over the SNP’s control of the Scottish Parliament, and its singular function in and out of Holyrood to deliver independence rather than to address issues, such as food bank queues in his constituency. He also asked whether we can trust the First Minister and said that the jury was out on the SNP Government’s ability to be fair—a view that I think is possibly shared by many Labour Members.

My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh North and Leith highlighted the concern that it will be damaging for Scotland if the days following the referendum are filled with rancour. As my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South West said—I think my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh North and Leith alluded to the same fact—the losers need to accept the outcome of the referendum. He also called for the Electoral Commission to take the role of the referee in this process.

My hon. Friend the Member for Livingston reminded us that the Scottish constitutional future is really all about the future of the Scottish people. He was unconvinced that the nationalist majority in Holyrood would not be used to act in a partisan way. My hon. Friend the Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow sought assurances on the role of the top civil servant in this process in Scotland and how the civil service must not be silenced for doing its job. I will come back to that point. My hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun called for a reasonable and respectful debate, and respect for the Electoral Commission’s role—a strand running through many contributions from Labour Members. She also referred to the lack of support for the commission coming from the SNP. The burden being passed to Holyrood is great. Our devolved Parliament must prepare a Bill that presents the people of Scotland with a clear choice: whether or not to separate from the rest of the UK. There can be no fudged question with undue bias. In the light of that, it is paramount that the Scottish Government pay heed to the commission’s recommendation. That argument has been well made by my hon. Friends.

I want to pick up some more points made during the debate. My right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West expanded on the need for a fair question and the fact that the Scottish Government must accept the commission’s view. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South West again talked about the weasel words from the SNP over its biased question and how it had no reason not to accept the commission’s view. He also confirmed that no self-respecting polling organisation would ask such a question—no surprise there. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow Central said that voters must have a clear question, that the commission should decide on the question and that it should not be for politicians to decide. We should respect the role and independence of the commission. That way, the question will be seen as fair.

[Mr MacNeil]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Gordon Banks]

If the hon. Gentleman can control his E numbers and sit down, he will have plenty of opportunity to get in later.

My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South expressed concern about attempts to sideline the commission on the issue of the question and challenged the SNP to accept the commission’s advice, but there were no takers at that point in the debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Livingston also called for a question that was approved by the commission.

[Mr MacNeil]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Gordon Banks]

The hon. Gentleman will have a contribution to make later, I am quite sure.

The commission is extremely well respected, and no Government or Assembly within the UK have ever failed to reach agreement with it on such issues. [Interruption.] I am sorry, but the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil) is wrong. The Deputy First Minister claims to hold the commission in high esteem. Why, then, can she not give an unequivocal assurance that the Scottish Government will implement its recommendations? Particularly given that the Scottish Government are, for the first time in the history of the Scottish Parliament, governing with a working majority, it is appropriate that extra care be taken to ensure that the process is open and transparent.

The order states that the referendum must be held before the end of 2014. The Opposition, as well as our colleagues in Holyrood, had hoped that the Scottish Government would bring forward that date in order to end the uncertainty over Scotland’s constitutional future. Frankly, we could be forgiven for thinking that after 80 years the SNP would be ready to put this to the ultimate test—the test of the Scottish people. It is surprising that it is so reticent. Without doubt, it would be in Scotland’s best interests to have this decision made as soon as possible, but the Scottish Government appear prepared to take it to the wire. It is therefore essential that in that time we show the benefits of remaining in the most successful political and economic union the world has ever seen.

Funding is another issue that has been addressed in the debate. My hon. Friends have made valid contributions on this issue, and I want to pick up on them now. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow East raised the issue of a 1p spend for each voter in Scotland—and you know what you get when you spend a penny! My right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West, however, said that to secure a respectable turnout and a clear decision we need to spend money. That was further amplified when he advised us of the turnouts in Quebec in 1980 of 85%, and in 1995 of 93.5%. He also spoke about the importance of the commission playing a continuing role, but he expressed his doubts about how the permanent secretary in Holyrood might be restricted in ensuring that the Scottish Government, in the regulated period, play a neutral role. We all share his concern.

It is crucial that both sides of the argument are able to fund their campaigns effectively, but it should be clear that funding should not be rigged to benefit one side to the detriment of the other. To have a referendum on the future of Scotland within the UK, but with businesses and unions limited in their ability to campaign by imposing lower spending limits than the Electoral Commission recommended, and to have a referendum on the future of Scotland within the UK but with far lower spending limits for the umbrella campaign groups than was recommended by the Electoral Commission and that were in place for the Welsh referendum and the AV referendum: these will both be seen for what they are. In short, to have the Scottish Government as a referee and player will in itself be seen for what it is.

Labour Members feel that the Electoral Commission is the most appropriate body to deal with these arrangements, and we are happy to be bound by its proposals. It is the body best placed to offer independent advice on such matters. We heard a contribution from my parliamentary neighbour the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) in answer to a question about whether the Scottish Government would accept the Electoral Commission’s advice. His answer was, “Yes, yes, probably.” I am prepared to sit down to allow him to intervene to take away the “probably” and leave the “yes, yes”. No takers? There’s a surprise.

The Scottish Parliament is now ingrained within Scottish culture, and it has matured as a legislature. I believe that it is the feeling of this House that it is not for the Scottish Government in isolation to decide how to present the referendum to the people of Scotland. The Government must recognise that the people of Scotland deserve nothing less from their Government than an open, balanced and transparent referendum process. From this day forward, it will be unacceptable to the people of Scotland if the SNP uses its majority status in Holyrood to railroad through unfair outcomes on the question, funding and overseas donations. Indeed, on this matter, the First Minister could do worse than take the sound advice in last week’s report of the Scottish Affairs Select Committee.

There is so much more to discuss, including the day, the extended length of the regulated period and the extension of the tariff to 16 to 18-year-olds. Let me say a word or two on this final matter before I finish my remarks. If 16 to 18-year-olds are to be included in the franchise, it must be all 16 to 18-year-olds, as my hon. Friends have argued in the debate—not just the attainers, which would be an unacceptable cop-out. The impact of the shift from household to individual voter registration, which will be going on at the same time, should also be recognised. My point to the Scottish Government, then, is: “So do it, yes; but do it right.”

I visit schools in my constituency as often as I can. On Friday last week, I met a small group of sixth-form pupils in Alva academy. When I raised the issue of 16 to 18-year-olds voting, the merits of the idea were discussed. I was heartened to be told by one pupil that she was desperate to get the chance to vote: she wanted to vote, she was committed to vote, and she could not wait to go into the ballot box to show her support for Scotland within a strong United Kingdom.

It is essential that Scotland’s future is decided by the Scottish people through a referendum made in Scotland. The future of Scotland is too important for any party to play games with, and I hope the Scottish Government will listen to this debate and understand that they must put any thoughts of their own individual ambitions aside and do what is best for the Scottish people.

This must be a fair, legal and decisive referendum, and for this to take place the Scottish Government must accept the findings of the Electoral Commission. The burden of responsibility that has been placed on the Scottish Government is, as I have already said, great. They must show respect to the Scottish people, do right by the Scottish people and put any desire to create the rules for their own advantage to one side. To do anything less will damage Scotland and the Scottish Parliament’s international standing, which would be intolerable.

The eyes of the world are watching Scotland and we have a right to expect the Scottish Government to act in the best interests of Scotland in providing a fair and transparent referendum process. The First Minister can do this, or his Westminster colleagues can do it here today. It is simple: agree to accept the proposals of the independent electoral expert in the UK—the Electoral Commission. This is the standard that I believe the people of Scotland have set for the Scottish Government, and they cannot be allowed to fall short of it.

Oral Answers to Questions

Gordon Banks Excerpts

Wednesday 9th January 2013 Commons Chamber

[David Mundell]

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

[Gordon Banks (Ochil and South Perthshire) (Lab)]

Two years ago, the Secretary of State said about the Government’s plans that

“the horrible truth is that across the country everyone is going to have to make a contribution”.

The horrible truth of life in Scotland under his Government, however, is that a food bank in my constituency has experienced a father walking a 15-mile round trip for a bag of food to feed his family. Is that an appropriate contribution while the Government give a £2,000 a week tax cut to millionaires?

[David Mundell]

I have already indicated that the Government are always concerned about those who need to use food banks in any circumstances, but I will not take any lectures from the hon. Gentleman and the Labour party on millionaires when they want to give them child benefit.

Unemployment in Scotland

Gordon Banks Excerpts

Wednesday 5th December 2012 Westminster Hall

[Gordon Banks (Ochil and South Perthshire) (Lab)]

I welcome you to the Chair, Ms Dorries. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for West Dunbartonshire (Gemma Doyle) on securing the debate and on tackling head-on the vital issue of unemployment in Scotland.

We have heard throughout the debate that the people of Scotland are being failed by two Governments, in Westminster and in Holyrood. The coalition can barely keep itself together, never mind effectively govern the country, and the SNP is entirely consumed by the independence referendum, which means that it is not tackling the real problems Scots face in their everyday lives. With 218,000 Scots unemployed, few issues are more important for both Governments to tackle, or indeed more important for the people of Scotland, but our priority does not, sadly, appear to be the priority of either Government.

The coalition’s ill-fated Work programme, which we have heard about this morning, has got only four out of every 100 Scots back to work. That figure is really startling and lays bare the Government’s complete failure to get to grips with the unemployment crisis. It is also alarming that the Scottish unemployment rate is 8.1%, which is higher than the 7.8% UK average. As a result of the bleak economic outlook, underemployment has also been on the increase. This Government simply cannot get Britain working, and as a result they cannot get its economy growing again.

Youth unemployment is a particular concern. It is another statistic that is higher in Scotland than in the UK as a whole, at 23.5% compared with 21.7%, with nearly half of all unemployed Scots being aged 16 to 24—a tragic proportion, of which the Minister should be ashamed. If action is not taken soon to tackle that, those young people will become, as one of my hon. Friends has said, Cameron’s lost generation, and Scotland will be less able to take full advantage of opportunities that come our way in the future, which would be a total and utter disgrace.

Long-term unemployment also contributes to an ever-increasing welfare spend. Some 38,395 people in Scotland have been claiming jobseeker’s allowance for longer than six months, which is in contrast to fewer than 8,000 in 2008. Even more worryingly, the number of Scots claiming JSA for at least 12 months has grown by 198% since 2008.

Something has gone seriously wrong with the Government’s unemployment strategy, and they plainly have no ideas about how to bring jobs and growth to Scotland. The failure of the Work programme has contributed to an increase in welfare spend of about £20 billion more than expected. The priorities are all wrong, as can be seen in the Chancellor casting 100,000 16 to 24-year-old Scots on to the dole, while giving a tax cut to millionaires.

To try to tackle that £20 billion overspend in the welfare budget, significant changes will come into force shortly, and they will have a devastating impact on Scotland. It has been calculated that, due to the welfare changes, £114.8 million will be removed from the Scottish economy in Glasgow alone, and £6 million will be removed from the economy of Clackmannanshire, which is Scotland’s smallest county and is in my constituency. I have no doubt that that cash grab will affect local economies, and it will, according to the Fraser of Allander Institute, lead to a further 2,000 or so job losses and—guess what?—an even greater demand for welfare.

To kick-start the economy and create jobs, the Government should, as has been said, take on board Labour’s proposal to put revenues from the 4G spectrum auction to good use. Scottish Labour at Holyrood would use any Barnett consequentials from the growth spending on key investment priorities, such as house building, which I feel extremely strongly about. With nearly 40 years’ experience in the construction industry, I am dismayed to see the stagnation from which the industry is suffering, but that is no surprise when the Government are cutting capital investment by 21% by 2014.

The Government seem to be failing to grasp that with every £1 invested in construction the economy benefits by £3—those numbers have been confirmed by independent economic research. The promise of a threefold return should be incentive enough for the Government to invest in the industry. There are few better ways to kick-start economic growth than with a national house-building scheme and support for construction. There are few better ways to deliver skills in great numbers than through investment in the construction industry, and there are few better ways to impact positively on our high streets than through investment in housing and construction.

I want to pick up on some of the points that have been made this morning. That there are no Scotland Office Ministers on key Cabinet Committees that focus on growth, such as the Growth Implementation Committee, is indeed a great worry for Scotland and, I imagine, a great embarrassment to the current residents of the Scotland Office. I share the opinion expressed by my hon. Friends that the scrapping of the future jobs fund, which has been recognised by the Centre for Economic and Social Inclusion for its achievements, was a mistake, and there is a stark contrast between that recognition and the failure of the current programmes.

My hon. Friend the Member for West Dunbartonshire talked about how the Scottish National party has cut more than 30,000 public sector jobs, but I want to take this opportunity to make the Chamber aware of remarks made by Keith Brown, the Transport Minister in the Scottish Parliament, who, when pressed recently in a debate with me on what would happen to UK civil service jobs in an independent Scotland, said:

“I was waiting for the day when someone from Labour came forward with a positive reason for independence and perhaps we’ve just heard it—a reduction in the number of civil servants in Scotland”.

I am afraid that if that lot have their way there will be many more public service job losses in Scotland.

We have heard what Labour is doing where Labour is in power. We have heard about what Labour is doing in West Dunbartonshire, in Fife, in Edinburgh, in Inverclyde and in Wales, and all those efforts are to be applauded. I also want to draw attention to the Glasgow Guarantee made by Scottish Labour in power in Glasgow city council, which has resulted in a 4.4% fall in the number of young people claiming JSA in the past two years. The real point here is to compare that achievement with that of the Minister and his Government colleagues, which is a 6.9% rise over the same period.

My hon. Friend the Member for West Dunbartonshire referred to what I can only liken to attempted bullying by the Scottish Government in respect of separation, and I think we all agree that such activity is reprehensible. Indeed, over the past few days Mr Salmond has been defending the right to free speech in the press while at the same time appearing hellbent on stifling it in the Scottish business world.

Many issues are hitting Scotland hard at this time, with 218,000 people out of work, a Work programme that does not work, a rising welfare bill, welfare cuts that will increase the demands on welfare, a lack of growth in the economy, 16 to 24-year-olds being condemned to a future on the dole, a growth in underemployment, rising energy costs, a fixation in the Scottish Government with separation, and a lack of investment from Holyrood in further education for our young people.

[Anas Sarwar]

My hon. Friend mentioned the fixation with independence. Is he aware of figures out this week that show that corporation tax in the Republic of Ireland is 12.5%, with unemployment at 15%, and in Northern Ireland the figures are 24% and 8% respectively? Does that not show that the SNP’s policy of cutting corporation tax is incoherent and does not guarantee jobs?

[Gordon Banks]

I agree wholeheartedly with my hon. Friend. There is a lot that the SNP says in Holyrood that does not bear true when put under the microscope.

The Governments in Holyrood and Westminster are not focusing on policies to address unemployment. They are too distracted with their own agendas of cuts and separation. That is why one in 10 Scots are working fewer hours than they would wish to, which is contributing to a rise in in-work poverty. It is why unemployment has increased by 3.3% since 2008, and it is why 80,000 people in Scotland have been unemployed for more than 12 months. It is also why, in the past year, long-term unemployment has risen by 3% in the UK but by 11% in Scotland, and it is why economic inactivity among disabled people stands at more than 49% in Scotland. That nearly half of all unemployed Scottish workers are aged 16 to 24 is a damning statistic, but neither the coalition nor Alex Salmond seems to be focusing on that as a major issue.

In light of those extremely worrying trends, the Governments in Westminster and Holyrood need to take positive action, and I want to make a brief remark about shovel-ready projects. We are all in favour of moving such projects into job creation, but if we do that in Scotland in the way that the Forth road bridge project was handled, with all the contracts being given to overseas companies, keeping people in work in Spain, Poland, Switzerland and Germany rather than in Scotland, there is something fundamentally wrong with the procurement process, as we have heard this morning.

I urge the Chancellor to get a grip of his welfare policies and to understand their impact on our economy, and to get a work programme that does what it says on the tin. The priorities of both Governments need to change from the narrow agenda of cuts and separation, and to focus on the real tragedies occurring in our cities, towns and villages. It is the Scottish people who can deliver growth into the Scottish economy if the Governments of Holyrood and Westminster provide them with the right tools and opportunities. To do anything less demonstrates that the priorities of the Governments are not those of the Scottish people.

Oral Answers to Questions

Gordon Banks Excerpts

Wednesday 12th September 2012 Commons Chamber

[Michael Moore]

May I put my hon. Friend’s question in context? We ended the compulsory closure programme that we inherited from the Labour party, which saw 5,000 post offices close over a seven-year period, including more than 400 in Scotland. We are investing in the post office network to ensure that it is sustainable. As the hon. Gentleman will know, the DVLA contract must be conducted under EU procurement rules, and it is about not only the cost but other important criteria such as customer service and security of supply. We will ensure that all those objective tests are met.

[Gordon Banks (Ochil and South Perthshire) (Lab)]

One in five post offices in Scotland is under threat of closure because of this Government’s policies. The nationalists criticise that, but they have scrapped the post office diversification fund, which shows them to be no better than the Secretary of State and his friends. If a post office does not accept parcels, cash deposits or withdrawals, and does not provide DVLA services, is it a post office? Is the Secretary of State happy to sit idly by while the Tories and the nationalists destroy our post office network?

[Michael Moore]

May I welcome the hon. Gentleman on his debut at the Dispatch Box? He has a strong track record in Scottish politics, and I look forward to the debates that we will have over the months and years ahead. It was, however, quite a cheek to lead with that question, not least because—as I said in an earlier reply—it was the Labour Government who closed 5,000 post offices across the UK, including more than 400 in Scotland. We want to see a sustainable network. We are investing in that and are determined to ensure that services across the country go through the Post Office.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Prime Minister]

I congratulate the hon. Lady on her new role in the Treasury. She has every ability to ensure that the Government deliver on our green commitments. What I would say to her and all our right hon. Friends is that it is this Government who set up a green investment bank with £3 billion to spend and this Government who have committed £1 billion to carbon capture and storage. We have the first incentive scheme anywhere in the world for renewable heat, we are putting money into low emission vehicles, we have the mass roll-out of smart meters and we are also the first Government to introduce a carbon floor price. Those are all steps of a Government committed to the green agenda.

[Gordon Banks (Ochil and South Perthshire) (Lab)]

Q13. In 1993, the chairman of the Conservative party, Norman Fowler, said that if the £365,000 given to the Tories by Asil Nadir was stolen, that money would clearly be returned. Now that Asil Nadir has been convicted of theft, does the Prime Minister agree with his party’s former treasurer, Lord McAlpine, that it is tainted money that shames the Conservatives and that they have a moral duty to give it back? When will the Prime Minister go in his pocket and get the cheque book out?

[The Prime Minister]

I have not seen the evidence for that. What I would say to the hon. Gentleman, however, is this: what about the £12 million that his party has taken from the trade unions that are threatening to bring this country to its knees?

Oral Answers to Questions

Gordon Banks Excerpts

Wednesday 18th April 2012 Commons Chamber

[David Mundell]

I agree absolutely with my hon. Friend’s sentiments, but as he and many other Members are aware, this Government inherited the worst deficit in peacetime history from the Labour Government, and stabilising our nation’s finances must be the focus of their efforts.

[Gordon Banks (Ochil and South Perthshire) (Lab)]

My question relates directly to the question from the hon. Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Mr Evennett) and the Minister’s answer to it. Does the Minister agree that the Scotland Bill will increase the amount of revenue gathered in Scotland to about a third of its spend, and will thus decrease dependency on a block grant?

[David Mundell]

I agree that the Scotland Bill represents a radical, historic and significant change to Scotland’s financing. More than a third of spending by the Scottish Parliament will result from funding from taxes that it determines and raises. That is a major step forward in terms of devolution and accountability, and should be welcomed by all Members.