Food Banks (Scotland)

Graeme Morrice Excerpts

Wednesday 19th December 2012 Westminster Hall

[Graeme Morrice (Livingston) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Glenrothes (Lindsay Roy) on securing this debate.

I welcome the opportunity to speak on this important topic, as last week’s autumn statement revealed the true scale of the Prime Minister and the Chancellor’s economic failure. While millionaires get a £3 billion tax cut, it is people who are already struggling to make ends meet—lower and middle-income families, and pensioners—who are paying the price for this failure. Every day, people in this country go hungry for reasons ranging from losing their jobs, to receiving an unexpected bill on a low income. Some 13 million people are living in poverty in this country.

I find it abhorrent that in 2012, people have to rely on food banks or go hungry. What kind of society are we living where so many of our citizens cannot afford to eat properly or keep warm, yet the rich get richer under the coalition Government’s tax breaks for the very wealthy, and the banks continue to make astronomical profits and pay out obscene bonuses? Back home, the SNP Scottish Government stand idly by.

Britain’s biggest food bank operator, the Trussell Trust, has more than 250 food banks throughout the United Kingdom, of which some 10% are located in Scotland. This year alone, it launched three food banks per week in response to demand, which has been exacerbated by the current economic climate. Incredibly, up to 1,000 food banks are needed to satisfy demand that has leapt by 30% a year since the recession began.

The Trussell Trust fed 110,000 people in the first half of this year, and 250,000 hungry Britons—a quarter of a million—will have used emergency food banks by the end of the year. What a dramatic change in a relatively short space of time.

The latest figures, which are four times higher than two years ago—that represents a 400% rise in people using food banks—include parents too poor to feed their children and desperate householders forced to choose between eating and heating. Even people in work are on the breadline, and the number of people struggling to feed themselves is rising. Let me say for the benefit of the Minister that the sole purpose of food banks is to provide an emergency supply of up to three day’s worth of non-perishable and nutritionally balanced food, such as tinned soups, meats and pasta, to individuals and families in crisis who would be at risk of going hungry.

[Mr Donohoe]

Is it not absolutely ironic that in two days’ time Halls of Broxburn, in my hon. Friend’s constituency, is closing and as a consequence, the workers are setting up a food bank? Is that not an indictment against the nationalists and the Government in Westminster?

[Graeme Morrice]

Indeed. It is a sad indictment of both Governments. The example my hon. Friend gave is based in my constituency, and some 1,700 people are in the process of losing their jobs.

The food produce is donated by churches, voluntary groups, individuals and the public via collection days outside supermarkets. To help sustain anonymity, food parcels are handed out from the food bank warehouse distribution centre by volunteers and no deliveries are made. Access to emergency food boxes is secured via the exchange of a voucher, which may be issued by social workers, health visitors, GPs and the police.

Christmas is a particularly difficult time for people with little or no disposable income. I wonder whether Dickens ever imagined such a bleak picture more than a century and a half on from “A Christmas Carol”. Could he have guessed that many of these neglected people would come not from the poorer, deprived sections of society but from middle and lower-income families, and include pensioners? Fewer than 5% of food bank clients are homeless; many are in working families; one third of recipients are children. What a sad indictment of modern society under the Prime Minister and Alex Salmond. The Tories’ instinctive dislike of the poor and the spread of food banks seem to go hand in hand under this Government. How long ago would collecting food parcels for the hungry have been virtually unthinkable in the UK?

I am really disgusted that the Government place so much effort on reforming the benefits system and, in turn, punishing the most vulnerable in our society. Yet if the Government concentrated at least some effort on collecting taxes from the international corporations that operate in this country and on closing some of the loopholes in the tax system, there would be more money to go around. It also makes me sick that the outgoing Governor of the Bank of England is to receive a £7.64 million pension pot, while British kids go hungry.

Increasing costs of food and fuel combined with static income, high unemployment and changes to benefits are causing more and more people to turn to food banks for help. Coalition Government austerity cuts and squeezed incomes are forcing people with jobs, as well as benefit claimants, regularly to queue up for food parcels. Many people everywhere are struggling to make ends meet and household finances are being stretched like never before. A small financial crisis, such as a repair bill for a car or a big bill, can quickly turn into a massive disaster. For many people, buying food slips down their list of priorities simply because other things, such as rent, gas and electricity, have to take precedence. For all those people, turning to a food bank is a last resort.

The effects on poorer people can be devastating. An elderly constituent said in an impassioned plea to me when she visited my surgery that she shivers every time she hears the words “food bank”. It reminds her of the depression and conjures up images of breadlines. Many had hard existences in her day, but looking after people was considered a prime moral virtue, regardless of status.

In my own area, the West Lothian food bank is in the process of being developed in association with the Trussell Trust. I believe that the trust’s experience, coupled with the enthusiasm of those concerned, will ensure that the endeavour will succeed. It serves as a good example of effective community building and is testament to how communities in my constituency and throughout West Lothian—and, indeed, across the country—are harnessing and investing their own resources to assist those in greatest need. I pay tribute to them.

What can be done? The first step is for the Government to stop pretending that poverty is not happening. It would be good to see the Government recognise what is very much evident: that it is the most vulnerable who are in greatest need. We need to break down the barriers and change attitudes between the new “us” and “them”—rich and poor.

We also need to appreciate that if the curtains are closed early in the morning, perhaps there is an elderly pensioner trying to keep the heat in, or an impoverished single mum hiding her shame at her inability to feed her children properly, or an unemployed youngster depressed at being unable to find a job.

Some practical interventions could help: a package of support put in place by the Government for those experiencing an acute crisis in their personal circumstances; and a longer-term Government strategy for dealing with the issues identified in this debate. Ultimately, however, we need a lasting change of direction by this Government or, ideally, a change of Government itself: to one who demonstrate compassion, put ordinary people first and recognise the right priorities.

I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to offer by way of a solution to this completely avoidable crisis.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

Unemployment in Scotland

Graeme Morrice Excerpts

Wednesday 5th December 2012 Westminster Hall

[Graeme Morrice (Livingston) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Dorries, and it is good to see you back out of the jungle. I welcome the opportunity to speak in this important debate, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for West Dunbartonshire (Gemma Doyle) on securing it.

This debate is being held on the day that the Chancellor of the Exchequer delivers his autumn statement, which will highlight the true scale of his poor performance in the period of high unemployment, weak growth, rising borrowing and declining wages that is gripping the nation. Even the outgoing Governor of the Bank of England has warned that the UK faces a

“rather unappealing combination of a subdued recovery, with inflation remaining above target for a while”.

The latest quarterly inflation report indicates that the UK could be stuck in a low-growth environment, with economic problems in the eurozone and the rest of the world continuing to have an impact.

The Ernst and Young ITEM Club report published on Monday states that Scotland’s overall output decline of 4% over the past four years puts it on a par with the troubled Spanish economy, and that Scotland’s economy is unlikely fully to recover until 2016. This year will be the third out of five in which the Scottish economy has shrunk. The report also predicts growth of just 0.7% next year, which was “well below normal” and lower than the expected UK figure. It estimates that 60,000 jobs will be shed in the Scottish public sector between the start of the 2008 financial crisis and the end of its forecast in 2015.

[Lindsay Roy (Glenrothes) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Dorries.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the local government in Fife is investing £5 million in creating modern apprenticeships, which is an extension of the jobs fund?

[Graeme Morrice]

Yes, and I welcome that initiative by Labour-led Fife council. Others that have been mentioned—initiated by Labour-led local authorities in Scotland—are clearly to be welcomed.

The matters I was referring to represent yet more miserable news for Scotland, and underline the need to address business growth and harness the job-creation potential of our small and medium-sized businesses as a top priority. It is a cause of concern that the Scottish unemployment rate is 8.1%, which is higher than that of the UK. Some 218,000 people are now out of work in Scotland. The UK and Scottish Governments must share responsibility for those continually disappointing figures. As a result of their decisions, this is a really bad time for families who are worried about their jobs and their children’s futures, and are struggling with higher food prices and energy bills.

In my constituency, long-term unemployment rose by 380% in the past year, which is the worst figure since the general election. That is truly depressing news for young people and women, and for the 1,700 workers who are losing their jobs at the Hall’s of Broxburn meat processing plant and for the 50 employees at Vion’s headquarters in Livingston. People in Scotland are not only falling victim to the failed policies of this bungling Tory-led and Lib Dem coalition in Westminster, but are suffering from the Scottish National party’s inaction and incompetence in Holyrood. I notice that the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil) has just left.

The coalition Government are running out of excuses. Their flagship welfare-to-work programme has failed to get people into proper jobs. Under the Work programme, firms and charities are paid to find jobs for the long-term unemployed, but as my hon. Friend the Member for West Dunbartonshire said, only 3.8%—four in every 100— of Scottish people on the programme succeeded in gaining a job for six months or more, which is well below target.

[Jim McGovern (Dundee West) (Lab)]

It gives me no pleasure to say that the Dundee city council area has the worst record for creating jobs under the Work programme. The figure currently stands at 1.4%. We obviously have the separatists in power in Edinburgh and in Dundee. When can we expect them to stop saying that the big bad boy in Westminster did it and ran away?

[Graeme Morrice]

Indeed. I certainly concur with my hon. Friend’s comment. I will be coming to that same point shortly. Let me emphasise again that the Work programme is a miserable failure because the Government are not taking seriously their responsibility to create jobs, and what they have done has been exposed as worse than doing nothing.

The figures show that 101,000 young people are out of work in Scotland and, at 23.5%, the proportion is higher than in the UK. That means that close to half of all unemployed people in Scotland are between the ages of 16 and 24. If we deprive such a substantial number of young people of the benefits of work, we will once again pay the price for many generations to come. They are David Cameron’s lost generation. With such high levels of youth unemployment, education and training are crucial to enhancing young people’s skills and improving their chances of finding a job. Many young people I speak to in my constituency express the view that Government, and decision makers more generally, have abandoned them.

The default position of Alex Salmond and the SNP Government at Holyrood is to blame the situation on the London parties, and that is now wearing thin. It would be a tragedy for Scotland, and for the UK as a whole, if the devastating impact of the economic slump on hard-working people, families and communities is made worse by the unholy trinity of David Cameron, George Osborne and Alex Salmond failing dismally to do anything meaningful on jobs for Scots.

In contrast, Labour has a clear, coherent five-point plan for growth and jobs to help struggling families and support small businesses. Increasing employment will only come from business growth, so both Governments must boost capital investment, and the UK Government must incentivise business lending, to enable firms to create more jobs. The Government can start to address the matter in Scotland, and across the UK, by using the £3 billion windfall generated from the sale of the 4G mobile phone spectrum.

I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to offer at the end of this debate. The Government must take responsibility and come forward with an action plan to tackle unemployment and give Scotland’s people the opportunities that they need to thrive.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Mundell]

There was a black hole because, for a significant period of time, the previous Government were spending more than they brought in. That is the reality, and the hon. Gentleman cannot pretend otherwise. Today we have heard various versions of the plan Labour now has to turn the economy around, but the core of that plan remains more spending, more borrowing and more debt—exactly the same prescription that brought the country to its current state.

[Graeme Morrice]

Is it not the case that the current Government are borrowing far in excess of what they are spending? Indeed, based on their original projections, they are borrowing substantially more than they anticipated.

[Nadine Dorries (in the Chair)]

Order. We are getting into a debate on the economy, rather than on unemployment in Scotland. Can we keep to the subject of the debate?

Scotland and the Union

Graeme Morrice Excerpts

Thursday 29th November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Graeme Morrice (Livingston) (Lab)]

I am pleased to be a co-sponsor of the debate, alongside the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs Laing), whom I am delighted to follow. In a way, as a Scot who represents an English constituency, she epitomises what the motion is about: the rich blend of the best of all four corners of our land that has made the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland the success story it so evidently is. There is no doubt that the United Kingdom is greater than the sum of its constituent parts. Although I might disagree with her politics, I have no doubt that we, as Scots, share a love of our country and want to see what is right and proper for its people and for future generations. It is also fitting that we are holding this debate on the eve of St Andrew’s day, the national occasion when we Scots come together to celebrate our patron saint and demonstrate our pride in all things Scottish.

As the motion states, Scotland has made a significant contribution to the United Kingdom over the 305 years of the Union, and it continues to do so. Indeed, our shared history goes back even further to the union of the Crowns in 1603, when a Scot, James VI, sat on the English throne as James I. He was the first of six monarchs in the Stuart line who ruled both England and Scotland, as well as Ireland, until the Glorious Revolution, and then again to 1714. In fact, it was Queen Anne, the last of the Stuart line, who became the first monarch of the political union of Britain.

With the Acts of Union in 1707, Scotland quickly took advantage of the abolition of trade tariffs with England and trade blossomed. The 18th century also saw the Scottish enlightenment, a period characterised by momentous intellectual and scientific accomplishments, so much so that Voltaire said:

“We look to Scotland for all our ideas of civilisation.”

With the advent of the Union, Scots took up positions of power in politics, the civil service, the Army and Navy, trade, economics, colonial enterprises and other areas across the emerging British empire. The historian Neil Davidson has observed:

“Far from being ‘peripheral’ to the British economy, Scotland...lay at its core.”

Indeed, throughout the industrial revolution Scotland more than punched above its weight and became known across the world for its excellence in engineering, as typified by Clyde-built ships.

Through advancements in medicine and its inventive spirit, distinct banking system and contribution to art, literature and culture, Scotland has always added greatly beyond its shores. Even in times of adversity, the people of Scotland have not been wanting. During the first world war, despite Scotland having a population of only 4.8 million, over half a million Scots went to the front. My purpose in touching, albeit briefly, on 300 years of Scottish history is to point out that many of our achievements and benefits were because of our place within the UK, not in spite of it.

Scotland is linked intrinsically to the rest of the United Kingdom socially, politically and economically. The single market within the UK affords significant economic, trade and employment opportunities to people on both sides of the border. Our membership of the European Union, through the United Kingdom, provides a vast marketplace for Scottish exporters. Together we have a place at the top table of the European Council of Ministers and we are one of the G8 forum of the world’s largest economies and a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council, all of which allows us to wield unprecedented influence on the European and global stages. As a member of NATO, we have collectively benefited since the war from international security and defence co-operation on a grand scale.

When it comes to the economy, Scotland has a very important relationship with the rest of the UK. Scotland benefits from access to a market comprising tens of millions of people within a single jurisdiction. Scots are employed by firms based in the rest of the UK, and people in the rest of the UK benefit from employment opportunities with Scottish-based companies. Indeed, in 2010 Scotland’s exports to the rest of the UK were worth double its exports to the rest of the world— £44 billion and £22 billion respectively—and manufacturing exports were estimated at £13 billion.

[Mr Tom Clarke (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (Lab)]

I welcome my hon. Friend’s point about manufacturing industry. Does he agree that the sizeable increase in manufacturing, which is taking place as we speak, has arisen mainly as a result of the Scottish contribution?

[Graeme Morrice]

I certainly concur with my right hon. Friend on that point.

In addition to the shared opportunities, the pooling of resources across the UK allows risk as well as reward to be spread, as seen most notably in the bail-out of the Scottish-based banks during the financial crisis, when the UK, led by a Scot, injected £37 billion of capital into the banks—an amount in excess of the total budget of the Scottish Government.

The legal framework for business is more or less uniform across the entirety of the UK. That means that there is a similar taxation, regulatory and employment law regime throughout the UK. On the benefit of a single market both to Scotland and to the rest of the UK, the director general of the CBI has stated that the

“raft of common laws and regulations...make operating across the different constituent parts of the union more efficient.”

The National Institute of Economic and Social Research has noted that the Scottish economy is

“more integrated with the rest of the UK than Europe or the rest of the world.”

With regard to jobs, people on both sides of the border benefit from employment opportunities engendered by Scotland being part of the Union. The UK Government are a major employer in Scotland, with more than 30,000 civil servants bringing almost £700 million annually to Scotland in salaries alone. Thousands of jobs also rely on the defence sector in Scotland, with 40,000 people employed in more than 800 companies. Companies from the rest of the UK contribute about one fifth of private sector economic activity in Scotland.

On energy, North sea oil is an important contributor to the UK economy, accounting for thousands of jobs in the north-east of Scotland, and a valuable source of revenue for the UK Treasury. However, the supply is declining and unstable. Recent reports show that North sea oil production fell by 30% in 2011 compared with the previous year. For the past 18 years, the level of public spending in Scotland has dwarfed the total revenue from North sea oil; in 2009-10, the difference was £18 billion. In fact, welfare spending in Scotland in 2010 was three times higher than North sea oil revenue. Of course, oil and gas remain an important part of the Scottish and UK economies and will do so in the years to come, but to bet Scotland’s economic future on this sector, as the Scottish National party does, is naive at best and foolhardy at worst. Moreover, Scotland being outwith the UK would create uncertainty for the future of Scotland’s renewables industry, and potentially lead to higher fuel bills and a £2 billion burden on Scottish businesses, due to Scotland receiving a disproportionate share of the available subsidy compared with the rest of the UK. These figures highlight the many benefits of Scotland being part of the UK economy in that we are able to work together in partnership to share the risks and rewards involved in harnessing our energy resources.

Scotland being part of the UK also allows us to pool our resources and distribute them on the basis of social need across the welfare state. If it were outwith the UK, that would place a major question mark over its ability to continue to fund benefits at current levels and to meet state and public sector pension commitments. It is simply an illusion for the SNP to promise Scandinavian levels of welfare spending while supporting Irish levels of taxation.

There are many other positives on which I could elaborate, such as the flexibility across borders which has over the years benefited people on both sides and led to high levels of migration in both directions; indeed, I personally have been a beneficiary of that. Our common currency is one of the oldest monetary unions in the world. A practical and more recent example is the benefit derived by Scottish athletes from UK sports funding, facilities and coaching in the run-up to the Olympics and Paralympics. It is interesting to note that all but three of the Scots who won medals at the Olympics had team-mates from the rest of the UK.

[Lindsay Roy (Glenrothes) (Lab)]

Is my hon. Friend aware that three Scots Olympians have been nominated for the BBC sports personality of the year award?

[Graeme Morrice]

Indeed I am. All three—Sir Chris Hoy, Andy Murray and Katherine Grainger—train and reside in England and clearly benefit from Scotland being part of the United Kingdom. Of course, we pay tribute to those athletes as part of Team GB and wish them every success in the BBC sports personality of the year award. [Interruption.] Indeed, they cannot all win, but we would like to see them do so.

There is much more I could say about the benefits to Scotland and the rest of the UK of Scotland remaining a strong partner within the Union. I am sure that other Members will fill any gaps in my speech and expand on some of the points I have made. I conclude by mentioning one of Scotland’s and the UK’s most notable achievements in its 300-year history—devolution. Devolution has been a great success and has provided new vigour to the United Kingdom. Whether in Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland, devolution is working but also developing, as it will continue to do in future. As we are all well aware, support for devolution and attachment to the UK in Scotland is stronger than support for independence. Scots share the same social attitudes and values as people in the rest of the UK. They are just as alert to the risks and uncertainties of separation and have a real comprehension of the benefits and advantages of remaining part of the UK. Therefore, all things considered, there is no doubt that we are all better off together.

Scottish Separation

Graeme Morrice Excerpts

Tuesday 10th July 2012 Westminster Hall

[Graeme Morrice (Livingston) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I am delighted that I have been able to secure this Westminster Hall debate on a vital issue to the future of Scotland and its people, in view of the pending referendum.

Before I move to the substantive part of my contribution, I should like to say a few words about the referendum campaign so far. I congratulate those responsible on the recent launch of the cross-party Better Together campaign, which will lead the debate on the positive economic and social case for Scotland’s remaining an integral part of the United Kingdom. In stark contrast to the vacuous and celebrity-driven launch a few weeks earlier of the campaign by those who advocate separation, the Better Together launch, ably fronted by my right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Mr Darling), drew on the experiences of real Scots the length and breadth of the country who spoke passionately about why they believe we are stronger within the UK. This grounded campaign is based on hard facts and figures, exploring the many positive benefits of being part of the UK and exposing the deficiencies in the separatist plan to end this highly successful political, social and economic union.

On the other side of the debate, the Scottish National party and the Trotskyist fringe parties had, somewhat predictably, fallen out among themselves even before Alan Cumming had had time to board the plane to return to his New York home. The splits quickly became even wider when the recently appointed head of the so-called yes campaign ruled out a second referendum question on devo-max, an option Alex Salmond and the SNP are desperately clinging to as they face up to the fact that they cannot win the first question. Even the well-respected senior Scottish nationalist, Margo Macdonald, called at the weekend for a single, simple question on separation and criticised the yes campaign for refusing to spell out the details of what independence would mean.

[Lindsay Roy (Glenrothes) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Graeme Morrice) on securing this vital debate. Can he explain why he believes that a referendum should be based around a single question? What are the problems with multi-option referendums?

[Graeme Morrice]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention. As I continue with my contribution, I will come to that point and develop an argument accordingly.

According to reports yesterday, it now looks like the Greens could soon follow Margo Macdonald’s lead, potentially leaving the SNP in the ludicrous position of being the only party supporting a multi-question referendum on the issue that it has spent its entire existence campaigning for.

[Mr Mike Weir (Angus) (SNP)]

The hon. Gentleman is talking nonsense. The SNP position is and always has been that it is in favour of independence. As the First Minister has made clear, if there were a demand from civic Scotland for a second question, it would be considered. To go on about this is nonsensical. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would like to get to the meat of this debate.

[Graeme Morrice]

I note the hon. Gentleman’s intervention. I am surprised that, although for its entire existence the raison d’être of the Scottish National party has been independence, it wants to get sidelined on the issue of devo-max or devo-plus, without the questions being defined.

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

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, if the SNP truly wanted to get to the meat of the debate on separation, it would press ahead, agree the process—the referendum, the single question—and get on with it? Alex Salmond and the SNP are prevaricating over process.

[Graeme Morrice]

I could not agree more. I will certainly develop that theme as I progress in my contribution.

Sadly, the other predictable aspect of the campaign so far is the level of vitriol already displayed by the so-called cyber-nats—small-minded people who seem to glory in spewing forth hatred about their opponents on every available website and online forum. The contributions of these people, who often hide behind online anonymity, only serves to harm the debate on Scotland’s future, not to mention our nation’s reputation as a welcoming and tolerant place. Although I am willing to accept that some of these extreme nationalists have nothing officially to do with the SNP or the yes campaign, it would be refreshing if more senior SNP figures condemned and disowned their extremist bile. Any interventions?

[Mr Weir]

Yes, some horrible things are said on Twitter, but there are also, if people want to use such terms, cyber-Brits, who make equally vicious attacks on nationalists. It is terrible that the hon. Gentleman is being so one-sided. This is supposed to be a debate about the economic arguments, but we have heard nothing about that, which is typical of the no campaign so far.

[Graeme Morrice]

I am coming on to the meat of the debate. The hon. Gentleman doth protest too much.

I shall now move on to the meat of this morning’s debate—the economic consequences of Scottish separation. Some Scots regard the potential economic consequences of breaking away from the UK as neither here nor there. So important to them is the dogma of Scotland going its own way that even if every shred of available evidence demonstrated beyond any doubt whatever that Scotland would be worse off outside the UK, they would still not hesitate to break up Britain. To most Scots, that stance—call it the “Braveheart” factor, or whatever—is simply not credible. Although the debate is and should be about more than economics, there is little doubt that at its crux are the economic consequences of separation. The vast majority of our fellow citizens are interested in what will improve their lives and those of their families and the communities in which they live.

It is hard to deny that, in these turbulent economic times, the size, strength and stability of the UK economy gives Scotland’s businesses a huge advantage over their competitors on the continent and elsewhere. Scotland’s biggest market is the rest of the UK and it has undoubtedly benefited from being an integral part of the world’s oldest and most successful single market. I believe that most people in Scotland already recognise and embrace this. A survey conducted by the Scottish social attitudes survey at the end of last year showed that fewer than one in three Scots back separation, which was roughly the same figure as in 2005. Hon. Members will also have noted the results of the latest opinion poll on separation, conducted by TNS BMRB after both campaign launches, which puts those opposed to separation on 50% and those in favour on just 30%. The latter figure is the lowest received in favour of separation in five years of surveys by the Edinburgh-based pollster and means that in just six months a deficit of nine points for those backing separation has more than doubled. Judging by these figures, even the most ardent nationalist would struggle to argue that the yes campaign had got off to a good start.

Putting opinion polls aside and accepting the premise that, to coin the well-known phrase from American politics, “it’s the economy, stupid” that will determine the outcome of the referendum, let us turn to the available evidence on the key economic questions. Some of the most interesting expert contributions to the debate so far have come from Professor John Kay, a former economic adviser to Alex Salmond. Writing for The Scotsman shortly after the Scottish Parliament elections in May last year, Professor Kay said:

“Independence, if achieved, would bring complications—both political and economic. The reality is that Scotland would gain little by full independence. In the modern world, economic sovereignty for small nations is inescapably limited, and political sovereignty is largely symbolic.”

More recently, while speaking at The Scotsman’s “Economics of Independence” conference, Professor Kay spoke of his belief that Scotland faces five years of economic uncertainty if it opts to separate from the UK.

The potential economic damage ensuing from a long period of transition to a separate Scotland was highlighted at the same conference by oil expert Professor Alex Kemp of Aberdeen university. Professor Kemp said that the complex process of transferring responsibilities from UK Departments to a separatist Scottish Government would involve

“negotiations extending over a considerable time”.

Such fears about the potential impact of a vote for separation, and the instability and uncertainty inflicted on Scotland’s economy, have been voiced by many other academic and business leaders over the past few months. Even one of the SNP’s highest-profile supporters and financial backers, the highly successful businessman Sir Tom Farmer, does not support its separation plans. He stated in a recent BBC interview:

“I’ve never seen or heard anything yet that’s convinced me independence is the right way forward for Scotland. It’s not just about money, but, if it ended up that the country was going to be in dire poverty because of independence, I don’t think anybody wants that.”

For my part, I have drawn on the best available evidence for the likeliest economic impact on Scotland of separating from the UK. I want to focus on three aspects of the economic debate: oil and gas revenues; the share of the UK’s public debt that Scotland would assume if it were to separate from the UK; and a separate currency in Scotland.

Those three vital economic and financial questions were among several highlighted in the excellent Select Committee on Scottish Affairs report on “The Referendum on Separation for Scotland: Unanswered Questions”, published in February this year. I take the opportunity to pay tribute to the Committee’s excellent work. Under the skilled chairmanship of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South West (Mr Davidson), it has embarked on a forensic investigation of the many unanswered questions that hang over the separation debate. My hon. Friend and his colleagues—I see one present today—deserve the thanks of all Members of this House for the detailed and meticulous way in which they are examining so many important points worthy of further detailed consideration, not least the economic matters on which I will now focus.

[Lindsay Roy]

Of the many unanswered questions, which one gives my hon. Friend the greatest cause for concern?

[Graeme Morrice]

That question begs the question: many questions give me concern—not least, defence.

I now move on to North sea oil, which has long been regarded by the supporters of separation as the jewel in the crown of a Scotland outwith the UK. The Library standard note on “Scotland’s economy: current situation and issues related to independence”, published in April this year, highlights three key issues when considering this critical question—the division of the UK continental shelf and, therefore, of the oil reserves; future production levels; and the price of oil.

The argument has always been that a separate Scotland should be due the lion’s share of the North sea’s oil, and that the tax revenue from the fields would therefore accrue to Scotland. The suggestion that a separate Scotland would be due most of the North sea’s oilfields, however, is very much open to debate, and most experts agree that nothing concrete could be concluded before the negotiations on separation. Furthermore, the boundary issue aside, the reality is that oil and gas can simply no longer be relied upon in the way that the SNP has always suggested, because of the production and price questions.

Fossil fuels are a declining resource, and the trend of reduced production is now clear. Oil and gas production is falling rapidly; in 2011 it was down by 19% on the previous year, and recent Department of Energy and Climate Change figures show that oil production fell by 13% in the first quarter of this year and gas production by 14%. Future projections suggest that many North sea fields will have ceased production by the 2020s, while the cost of extraction is increasing year on year.

Oil also has a history of price volatility. The Library note shows that it has varied in recent years from a low of nearly $9 a barrel in November 1998 to a peak of almost $150 a barrel in July 2008. The price of oil is closely linked to production, with a low oil price making it less economical to invest in hydrocarbon extraction. In terms of tax revenues from oil, the 2008 Kemp and Stephen paper referenced in the Library note stated:

“It should be stressed that the projections of tax revenues are subject to much uncertainty. Thus oil prices have been very volatile and this should remain the case over the next few years.”

Oil and gas of course remain an important part of the Scottish and UK economies, and will do so for many years, but to bet Scotland’s economic future on the sector is naive at best and foolhardy at worst. Those latest figures highlight the importance of a balanced economy that is not over-reliant on one industry. They also demonstrate one of the many benefits of Scotland being part of the UK economy: we are able to work together in partnership to share the risks and rewards involved in harnessing our energy resources.

[Tom Greatrex (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Lab/Co-op)]

My hon. Friend is making an important point on energy. Does he agree that the current support regime for renewable energy is levied on consumers throughout the whole of Britain and, because Scotland is where the resource is, that support goes disproportionately to Scottish generators? Does he realise that about 10% of consumers are in Scotland, but that about 30% of the support goes to generators in Scotland? Is that not another example of us working well together and getting the most benefit from a renewables future?

[Graeme Morrice]

I entirely agree with what my hon. Friend says, and it is a further argument.

[Mr Weir]

Why is Scotland, of all countries, incapable of having a regime to support renewable energy? Countries such as Norway, Lithuania and Ireland can all do it. Also, if we are talking about the cost of energy, why does a generator in the north of Scotland have to pay £21.96 to feed into the grid, while a generator in London receives a payment of £13.35? The existing system is hardly fair.

[Graeme Morrice]

I certainly agree that Scotland is capable of sustaining a renewable energy industry, but we will do better together within the United Kingdom.

I now want to move on to the share of the UK public debt burden that should be assumed by a separate Scotland. That a breakaway Scotland would have to shoulder some of the UK’s public debt is beyond question. What is certainly open to debate, however, is how the debt to be assumed should be calculated and what factors would contribute to those calculations, including the share of the debt accrued through the bank bail-out. Members are aware of a number of recent studies to have explored this critical question.

February’s National Institute of Economic and Social Research report on the economy of a separate Scotland explored the difference between apportioning debt per capita or pro rata, concluding that there is only marginal difference between the two. The report stated:

“With a pro rata transfer of existing UK public debt, Scotland would enter independence heavily indebted with no insurance from fiscal risk sharing or fiscal transfer mechanism with the rest of the UK.”

The Institute of Economic Affairs report published just last month suggested that a separate Scotland could be saddled with an eye-watering £110 billion national debt. The report highlighted that, with the UK’s debt having recently topped £1 trillion and the expectation that it will rise even further by 2015, Scotland’s share could be even greater than £110 billion. The report’s author, Dr Richard Wellings, suggested that that high debt, which would be comparable to Portugal’s at present, coupled with decreasing oil revenues, as already referenced, would almost certainly require urgent cuts to public spending. Even calculating the public debt on the basis of population size, a proposal described as reasonable by a spokesperson for the First Minister, the report made Scotland’s share of the debt around £93 billion—still a significant burden for a small nation—and around three times greater that the Scottish Government’s current budget.

[Mr William Bain (Glasgow North East) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making a compelling argument for Scotland staying part of the United Kingdom. Does he think that it is unbelievable arrogance by those who want Scotland to leave the United Kingdom that they have not yet devised a debt target for a separate state? How on earth can the public be informed in a referendum if they deny people that information?

[Graeme Morrice]

My hon. Friend makes a valid point. The SNP’s argument seems to be predicated on contesting the robust figures provided by the experts in support of Scotland remaining part of the UK. Despite the differences in some of the figures that have been suggested, there is absolutely no doubt that, as the David Hume Institute report that was published in March indicated, the figures reached

“will be determined as much, if not more, by politics as by statistics”.

The undeniable point is that a separate Scotland would have to take on considerable and currently unknown public debt. Regardless of what the exact figure might be in the hypothetical scenario of a yes vote—clearly, we would not know that until negotiations on Scotland’s secession from the UK were complete—that debt, coupled with a relatively volatile tax revenue base, is likely to have a significant effect on future public expenditure, so why take the risk in the first place? Furthermore, a whole raft of additional costs that a separate Scotland would incur in setting up embassies, collecting taxes, creating new institutions to replace those broken up by separation and establishing a welfare system and armed forces, and so on, would add further to that uncertainly.

The currency to be adopted by a separate Scotland is arguably the question on which the SNP and those who advocate separation have undergone most contortions in recent times, and that is saying something. Until recently, most nationalists were strongly in favour of joining the euro, and lukewarm, at best, about the pound. As the influential SNP MEP Alyn Smith said at the party’s 2009 conference:

“We are a Nordic, European country, currently part of a debt-laden sub-prime toxic assent currency…we don’t want to be part of and which is not serving our interests well.”

At the same conference, the Scottish Government Finance Minister, John Swinney, declared that he was in favour of joining the euro, but that the final decision to join should be determined by a referendum. In January 2009, Alex Salmond said:

“I think there is a strong argument for the euro, and I think as sterling declines even further that argument is being made very strongly.”

Now, even they have realised that that is not such a sensible idea, and they have become converts to retaining sterling, although without bothering to have any discussion whatever with the UK Government. That is an astonishingly cavalier approach to such a vital question.

Between the SNP’s enthusiasm for the euro and its recent conversion to keeping the pound, it has debated options for introducing an entirely separate Scots currency. Veteran nationalist, Jim Sillars—a former key ally of Alex Salmond—even proposed last year that a separate Scotland should adopt a Scottish dollar, although I understand that no one from the Scottish Government has written to Barack Obama about it yet.

It is widely accepted that a separate Scottish currency would be a serious disadvantage to business. Although the commitment to a separate Scotland retaining sterling may sound more credible, as the recent article on the high price of separation in The Economist highlighted, it would be a monetary union without fiscal union, which has proved disastrous for the eurozone. It would, of course, be fraught with well documented problems, especially on fiscal responsibility and the lender of last resort, which were highlighted in the Library’s standard note on Scotland’s economy, which I referred to earlier.

Under formal monetary union with the UK, as has been widely highlighted, the Bank of England would continue to form monetary policy for both the remaining UK and the separate Scotland, so removing a key aspect of economic independence from the tools available to a Scotland operating outside the UK. Even if no formal monetary policy was agreed, the Library note states that

“in such a scenario, Scotland’s monetary policy would be determined by the Bank of England which would only be considering the interests of the rest of the UK.”

[Mr Bain]

My hon. Friend is being generous in giving way. Is the situation not even worse? The economic madness of separating fiscal and monetary policy would be detrimental to Scotland’s economy, and a democratic deficit would be created. As Members of Parliament, we can scrutinise what the Chancellor does on defining financial stability and regulating the banking sector. Which of Scotland’s parliamentarians would have democratic accountability in the proposals that Alex Salmond has come up with?

[Graeme Morrice]

None of them. That is clearly a problem, and a step backwards.

[Mr Weir]

My understanding is that when Gordon Brown—perhaps I should still call him the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath—was Chancellor, his greatest boast was that he had made the Bank of England independent. How does Scotland have any influence on it at the moment?

[Graeme Morrice]

In terms of setting interest rates and so on. The Chancellor still has a role in that regard —a role that a separate Scottish Government in an independent Scotland would not have. There would be no accountability, no influence and no say in that, and the UK Government have confirmed that officially.

Whichever way one looks at the matter, the SNP’s policy of retaining the pound sterling as a separate currency for Scotland is a proposal engulfed by uncertainty. At the same time, the SNP insists that a separate Scotland would be entitled to automatic membership of the European Union—a position that is in serious doubt, as highlighted by last year’s well documented Library standard note on “Scotland, independence and the EU”, which states:

“There is no precedent for a devolved part of an EU member state becoming independent and having to determine its membership of the EU as a separate entity, and the question has given rise to widely different views.”

[Mark Lazarowicz (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab/Co-op)]

Even assuming good will on both sides of the argument for an independent Scotland trying to renegotiate terms with the EU—I do not believe that there is any reason to assume hostility from other EU member states—the fact is that the EU is not, to put it kindly, the swiftest-moving institution. Is it not likely that even with the best will in the world the new arrangements would take a long time—years—to finalise, yet again leading to the continued uncertainty about which we heard earlier?

[Graeme Morrice]

I certainly agree with that proposition. Going back to the 1992 general election campaign, I recall that the SNP talked about independence within Europe. I note that it is not banging on about that now.

For the sake of argument, let us assume, although it is unlikely, that a separate Scotland would be permitted to join the EU immediately. We know with some certainty that such a position would require Scotland to commit to joining the euro at some point in the future, taking the nationalists back to the same risky and unpopular position that they have tried desperately to abandon. Again, it seems to be beyond doubt that the unknown risks posed by breaking up Britain are significant and that the uncertainty about which currency the country would use could not possibly be good for business or families in a separate Scotland.

I have tried to focus on a few of the numerous essential economic consequences of separation. I could have looked at many others, including whether the tax base of a separate Scotland could sustain a separate Scottish economy and what personal and business taxation rates would have to be levied, whether the Scottish Government could meet existing UK Government state and public sector pensions commitments, what the impact would be of turning our biggest trading partner into our biggest competitor, what the cost would be to our economy of losing UK Government shipbuilding contracts and what a separate Scottish Government could borrow. I am sure that other Members will want to address those and other questions in the time that remains.

I would like to go back to where I started and the wider debate on this subject. It has been fascinating to watch the twists and turns of the SNP over the past few months. It has demonstrably failed to answer a series of critical questions about the consequences of its plans to separate Scotland from the UK, despite that having been its raison d’être for more than 75 years. Those in the SNP leadership must wonder where they can go next, as they face up to the prospect of support for separation flatlining, no matter how far into the future they push the referendum.

Many in nationalist circles must also be asking themselves how their leaders have managed to squander the considerable political capital that they enjoyed just over one year ago. What remains clear is that the economic dimension to the separation debate is crucial, and there is an absolute responsibility on the UK and Scottish Governments to publish the best available information and projections of the potential economic consequences of breaking up the UK, as debate on that crucial question continues and intensifies. Ultimately, as long as economic evidence continues to show that Scottish families will be better off remaining in the UK, coupled with the wider social, cultural and political strength derived from our interdependence with the rest of the UK, Scotland’s place as an essential part of a strong United Kingdom will be secure for many years to come.

[Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)]

Order. I do not propose to impose a formal time limit on speeches, but I imagine that John Robertson, who will follow me in the Chair, will wish to call the Front-Bench speakers at about five past 12. Five Members have written in advance to express a desire to speak, and I shall call them in this order: Dr Whiteford, Mark Lazarowicz, Mike Weir, Anas Sarwar and Jim Shannon. Other Members may wish to intervene in the knowledge that they are unlikely to get called in the time that we have available.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Whiteford]

I will not give way just at the moment, although I will in a bit. The problem of inequality is particularly frustrating because, in spite of a period of unprecedented growth in the global economy, the previous UK Government missed a genuine opportunity to deliver a more prosperous and fairer society. It is hard not to reach the conclusion that those opportunities for growth were squandered by an unsustainable boom that had too few beneficiaries.

[Graeme Morrice]

I am listening intently to the economics of the hon. Lady’s argument. She will be aware that a lot of these things are currently within the gift of the SNP Administration of the Scottish Government. Is she also aware that before 2007, when the Labour-led Scottish Executive were in power for eight years, growth in Scotland was above the UK average? Since 2007, however, growth levels in Scotland have been below average for the UK.

[Dr Whiteford]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, but I am slightly confused. My understanding is that according to almost every indicator—whether unemployment, employment or foreign direct investment—the Scottish economy is outperforming the UK economy. It would behove the hon. Gentleman well not to make too much play of the previous Administration’s record. Even in recent weeks, we have seen the debts that have been stacked up through poor private finance initiative investments. The Labour party took on the mantle of its Tory predecessors, and stacked up £31 billion in PFI debt. The chickens have fairly come home to roost in the past few weeks, and we are seeing NHS trusts starting to go bankrupt. Those choices left us sharply exposed to the worst financial crisis for a generation, and now the present Government’s austerity measures are strangling recovery and pushing more of our citizens below the breadline.

The failure of successive Westminster Governments to make economic policy decisions for Scotland that help our economy grow and resonate with the values of the people of Scotland has convinced me that we need the opportunity to bring decision-making powers home to Scotland so that we can set better priorities and maximise our economic potential.

Livingston New Town

Graeme Morrice Excerpts

Monday 5th March 2012 Commons Chamber

[Graeme Morrice (Livingston) (Lab)]

I am absolutely delighted to have secured this debate just a few weeks before Livingston’s official golden anniversary on 16 April. You, Mr Speaker, may recall that my previous Adjournment debate in the Chamber, on youth unemployment in my constituency, took place at 2 o’clock in the morning, so I am pleased that at least this evening we can expect to go to bed on the same day as we got up.

I am delighted also that the Minister replying to my address is the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the right hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell), who I am sure will respond in sympathetic terms, as I do not intend to be in any way partisan during my speech.

It is a great honour and privilege to represent the Livingston constituency, and, although I always remind people that the constituency consists of many more communities than just Livingston new town, I must say there is no doubt that Livingston, which is also where I live, is very much at its centre.

I want to use this evening’s debate to say a little about the history of the town and some of the major developments and milestones in its first 50 years, but I want mostly to pay tribute to some of the many individuals and groups that have contributed to Livingston’s remarkable success story.

Livingston is West Lothian’s largest town and, in the main, has become the political, industrial, social, educational and cultural hub of the whole county. Livingston is also the second-largest urban area in the Lothians, after Edinburgh, with a population of 55,000, making it the seventh largest town or city in Scotland. Yet only 50 years ago it consisted of just three tiny villages: Livingston Village, Livingston Station and Bellsquarry.

The transformation began when Livingston, on the banks of the River Almond, with its beautiful scenery including the Pentlands hills to the south and the Bathgate hills to the north, was identified as the fourth of Scotland’s five new towns, under the post-war Labour Government’s New Towns Act 1946, in large part to help ease overcrowding in Glasgow.

Livingston was officially designated a new town on 17 April 1962, and work began immediately to build the new community. The driving force behind the town’s development was the Livingston Development Corporation, more commonly known as the LDC, which was responsible for all aspects of planning and regulating the town’s growth. The LDC guided Livingston until the corporation’s mandate expired on 22 March 1997 and the town’s functions and assets transferred to the new unitary West Lothian council.

The LDC’s plan to expand the town dictated that it should grow in an orderly fashion from east to west, so, while the first new town residents were housed in the existing village of Livingston Station, the initial major housing development was built on the sloping hillside of Craigshill.

The first residents of the new scheme in Craigshill, Mr and Mrs James Gilchrist and their son Robert, moved in on schedule in April 1966 to 39 Broom Walk. Craigshill’s covered shopping centre, known as The Mall, was developed, and the new town’s first primary and secondary schools, Riverside primary and Craigshill high, were also built in Craigshill. Several more new developments followed in quick succession, with Howden, Ladywell, Knightsridge, Dedridge, Eliburn, Deans, Carmondean, Bankton and Murieston all becoming well known Livingston new town communities.

A key element of the LDC’s town planning and construction involved the new development being based around those neighbourhoods, each with its own schools, shops, health services and other amenities. Indeed, one of the significant, if not unique, characteristics of Livingston is its extensive segregated path network, its greenways, open spaces and tree belts, which are always well maintained and provide a rural feel to urban living. This careful planning, providing communities with the resources they needed to flourish from the outset, has been critical to Livingston’s successful growth over the years.

An early means of support for the new rapidly growing communities of Livingston were the various churches that were built to accommodate the spiritual needs of the population. Uniquely in Scotland, Livingston was, from the start, designated an ecumenical parish in a joint initiative by the Church of Scotland, the Scottish Episcopal Church, the Methodist Church in Great Britain and the Congregational Union of Scotland. The ecumenical parish has six places of worship. Of course, there are also churches of other denominations, notably the Catholic Church, the Baptist Church and the Free Church. More recently, Livingston mosque was established to serve the community’s growing Muslim population.

As the population grew, an ambition for further education opportunities to be provided closer to home arose, and in July 2001 the new state-of-the-art West Lothian college was opened—the first new purpose-built college in Scotland for 25 years. West Lothian college, under the current leadership of its principal Mhairi Laughlin, has an excellent academic reputation and provides thousands of residents with the opportunity to study locally rather than having to travel to Edinburgh or Glasgow. The college’s story sums up the speed of progress that was made in developing the town and just how quickly things have changed over these five decades.

Over recent years, Livingston has become synonymous with shopping, with its vast retail centre at Almondvale. Consisting of 1 million square feet of retail space and attracting 13 million shoppers each year, it is the largest regional retail centre in Scotland.

Turning to sport and culture, Livingston boasts the Lothians’ only senior football club outside the capital, following the establishment in 1995 of Livingston FC out of the old Meadowbank Thistle team. Within just seven years of moving to the purpose-built Almondvale stadium, the club had achieved third place in the Scottish premier league and qualified for the UEFA Cup. Livi, as the team is referred to by its fans, also won the 2004 League Cup, beating Hibernian at Hampden Park. People in Livingston have also shown commitment to many other sports, with Livingston rugby club, based at Almond park, being one of the first clubs established in the new town; Livingston cricket club, located at Murieston; and a plethora of other clubs accommodating almost every sport in existence.

Livingston’s cultural heart is Howden Park Centre, which hosts a range of performances and exhibitions. Reopened following extensive refurbishment in July 2009, the venue won the prestigious Edinburgh Architectural Association “Building of the Year” award in 2010. The town also has a thriving network of cultural groups and organisations, including, to name but a few, Livingston Art Association, the Livingston Fiddlers, and the New Town Entertainers. Many older residents will remember the Livingston festival, which was initiated on the town’s 10th anniversary in 1972 and by 1981 had become the largest community festival in Scotland. This has since been replaced by local communities in the town having their own gala days.

Livingston has been fortunate in having a wide array of voluntary and charitable groups that give vital community input and that, again, are unfortunately too numerous to mention in the time available, although I put on record my appreciation for the work undertaken by the local neighbourhood networks in the town.

At the same time as the housing went up, new communities moved in and social institutions grew, industry and businesses started locating in Livingston in substantial numbers, bringing jobs and economic security to the area. The LDC prioritised attracting big employers to the town, running a simple but effective advertising slogan, “Make it in Livingston”, and emphasising the excellent transport links, highly skilled work force and good local services. Indeed, Livingston benefits significantly from its location between Edinburgh and Glasgow, with its east-west motorway and rail links, and its proximity to Edinburgh airport and the Forth bridges.

Large investments have been made in the area by local and national government, and by companies from the UK and overseas. The technology industry was one of the largest growth areas and Livingston quickly became the capital of Scotland’s silicon glen. The LDC developed Kirkton campus, a technology park, at a time when many advanced technology companies from the US and Japan were seeking an appropriate location for their European operations. Over the years, Mitsubishi Electric, Cameron Iron, which is now Wyman-Gordon, BSkyB, Gore-Tex, Schuh, NEC and Motorola, to name but a few, have chosen to locate in Livingston. Some of those major employers have unfortunately been lost over the years, particularly after the decline of the silicon glen in the early and mid-1990s, but Livingston remains a popular business destination.

What of Livingston’s most valuable resource, its people? A key characteristic of the new town’s population is the diversity of the backgrounds and experience that people have brought to Livingston. Although many of those who first moved to Livingston came from overcrowded communities in Glasgow, over the years others have been attracted from the more traditional West Lothian communities, other parts of the Lothians and even much further afield, with people seeking a new start in a new town. More recently, that has included immigrants from the Indian subcontinent and eastern Europe. Their integration has been another positive milestone in the town’s development.

Although time does not allow me to mention the many individuals who have contributed to the success of Livingston over the last 50 years, I will highlight a few notable names, including my predecessors in the constituency, all of whom have played an important part in the town’s history. When the town was founded in 1962, it was split between the two parliamentary constituencies of West Lothian in the north, which was represented by my good friend Tam Dalyell, and Midlothian in the south, which was represented by the late Alex Eadie. Tam and Alex played a vital role in Livingston’s early development, working closely with the LDC and the local authorities, until 1983 when, following boundary changes, the new Livingston constituency was created, encompassing the whole of the new town and the surrounding areas.

It was then that Robin Cook became the MP. He remained the local representative until his untimely death 22 years later in August 2005. The story of Robin Cook is well known to the House and I have paid tribute to him in the past. Robin was a strong advocate and defender of Livingston. Perhaps his greatest achievement locally was to persuade the Government to provide a new district general hospital in the town. In 1989, St John’s hospital was opened.

With the advent of the Scottish Parliament in 1999, Livingston’s first MSP was Bristow Muldoon, who held the seat until 2007. I believe that the Minister knows Bristow very well indeed.

Moving on to others who deserve to be recognised for their service, I pay tribute to the lifelong Livingston Station resident, Willie Pender. After a lifetime of public service in West Lothian, Willie sadly passed away recently. He played a significant part in Livingston’s development as a member of the LDC, a long-standing Labour councillor, a member of the Lothian health board and a justice of the peace. He was also a war hero, having served in the Navy during world war two as part of the Arctic convoys and in the defence of Malta. No one is better placed to pay tribute to Willie than his close friend Tam Dalyell, who described Willie as

“having made a massive contribution in the 1960s to the 1980s to the important decisions of West Lothian Council, affecting education and every other aspect of local government”.

Willie was truly one of the great figures in the 50-year history of the town and will be missed greatly by his family and friends.

Another man who has made a lasting contribution to the development of Livingston is Sandy Pirie. He was the head teacher of the town’s first secondary school, Craigshill high school. He was largely responsible for establishing the school as the hub of the community, making it effectively a community school long before the concept and title were conceived formally. In addition to his pioneering educational contribution, Sandy played a prominent role in the promotion of the ecumenical, cultural and charitable life of the new town. I was fortunate enough to serve with him on the West Lothian council education services committee from 1996 to 1999, when I was council leader and he was a co-opted religious representative. We also served together on the West Lothian Educational Trust.

I want to mention a few other significant individuals—fairly briefly, unfortunately, given that time is now against me. Rev. Dr James Maitland, a Church of Scotland minister, was a strong proponent of bringing the churches closer together and a leading light in the Livingston justice and peace group. He died in 1996, and the Maitland nursery at Williamston primary school in the town is named after him.

Raymond Birrell, also sadly now deceased, was an engineer with the LDC but also a prominent community activist, who in particular gave of his time to encourage young people to pursue an interest in music. Birrell gardens in Murieston is named in his memory. John Hoey, my good friend, was the driving force behind the development of the Craigsfarm community complex, the first free-standing community facility in the new town, and also served as a local government councillor for the area for several years.

Wilma Shearer and Roley Walton created Dedridge environment ecology project in 2007, to improve the Dedridge burn plantation and make it more accessible for community members. They have done a remarkable amount of work to improve the area over the past five years.

Manus McGuire raised his family in Livingston. He started life as a social worker, switched to law, became a partner in Thompson’s solicitors and subsequently became chairman of industrial tribunals for Scotland. David Duncan was building manager for the LDC and oversaw much of the building of the infrastructure and housing estates in the town. Jim Wyllie is the surviving member of the town’s oldest industry, the mill on the River Almond. Jim Keegan was the first solicitor advocate under the scheme that set them up and was recently appointed Queen’s counsel, and Jim Hamilton, now deceased, was a head teacher at Bellsquarry primary school and manager of the Scottish badminton team that participated at the Commonwealth games in Edinburgh and New Zealand. The public square by Murieston medical practice is named after him.

Plans are well advanced locally to celebrate Livingston’s golden anniversary. That will rightly involve the local community and its schools and voluntary groups, and I am pleased to have had the opportunity to share in the celebrations, albeit prematurely, with this Adjournment debate tonight.

Although the new town is only 50 years old, few could disagree that it has been a remarkably successful, vibrant and productive 50 years. Looking to the future, I am quite sure that the strong community spirit, great endeavour and decency of Livingston’s people, coupled with its beautiful and central location, guarantee it many more years of success. I am sure that the next 50 years will be just as fruitful as the first 50 have been.

Scotland’s Constitutional Future

Graeme Morrice Excerpts

Tuesday 10th January 2012 Commons Chamber

[Michael Moore]

There have been a number of months where the prospect of two questions has been bandied around, although when pressed Ministers were unable to answer how one would determine which result to pay heed to if both were given yes votes, particularly if independence got, say, 51% and extra powers got 80%. Apparently, independence would have won. We need a single, clear question, and I am glad that after many months of skirting around this, the Deputy First Minister yesterday conceded that point and said she wanted a single question herself.

[Graeme Morrice (Livingston) (Lab)]

I welcome the Secretary of State’s statement. Could he therefore confirm that if the UK Government devolve the power to hold a referendum on separation, as he has said, to the Scottish Government, Alex Salmond would have no excuses left whatsoever for not getting on this year, or next year at the very latest, with holding a referendum on Scotland’s future?

[Michael Moore]

I want that referendum to take place sooner rather than later. We are offering to fix a problem that exists and make sure that we can get on and conduct that referendum in a reasonable way. I hope that we will be able to work together with the Scottish Government to get those issues resolved and get on with that debate.

Public Sector Pensions

Graeme Morrice Excerpts

Thursday 8th December 2011 Commons Chamber

[Graeme Morrice (Livingston) (Lab)]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I shall try to take less than five minutes, which is predicated on my taking no interventions.

I welcome this afternoon’s debate, although I am somewhat surprised that the Scottish National party, whose Members have not given a speech yet, has chosen the topic of public pensions, given the very thin ice on which they find themselves with this issue. While 300,000 public sector workers and over 70% of the people of Scotland backed last week’s day of action, the SNP sided with the Tories and Lib Dems, and refused fully to support pensions justice. Not for the first time, the SNP’s warm words do not match up to its actions. Many are now asking: what is the difference between the SNP Administration in Holyrood and the coalition Government here? The SNP implements Tory cuts in public sector pensions, pay, jobs and public projects. Indeed, last week’s revelations about the submission to the Hutton inquiry from the Scottish Government’s Scottish Public Pensions Agency showed that the SNP is prepared to suggest even deeper cuts to pensions than those proposed by the Tory-led coalition. Perhaps the SNP Members here today can explain why their party in Scotland is doing the Tories’ dirty work for them.

Like, I am sure, those of numerous other Members, many of my constituents have contacted me to condemn the Government’s actions on public sector pensions. They have already had forced on them a change in the pension calculation from RPI to CPI, which Hutton says represents a 15% cut in pensions benefits.

[Dr Whiteford]

Why did the hon. Gentleman not vote against the move from RPI to CPI when he had the chance?

[Graeme Morrice]

What I am not supporting is this coalition Government’s position on public sector pensions, and I am certainly not supporting the SNP and Scottish Government input into the issue. When they had the opportunity, they went to the Scottish Public Pensions Agency and argued for a position that was even more draconian than that of the Tories and Lib Dems.

Many people face plans to increase contributions by an average of 3.2%, but, as we heard from several hon. Members, not a penny of the money raised will go into pension schemes. The constituents who contacted me are hard-working, public sector employees carrying out vital jobs. They have kept our public services going and have already made a major contribution to tackling the deficit. They have endured a pay freeze for two years and face an increase of only 1% when the freeze ends—in effect, another pay cut. They are not only angry about the Government’s proposals to make them pay more and work longer for less pension but are incensed at the insensitive and misleading way in which Ministers have dealt with this issue. Above all, they are fed up with hearing about “gold-plated public service pensions” and other misinformation about this complex issue.

The Hutton report clearly rejected the idea that public pensions are “gold-plated”. Figures from the National Association of Pension Funds show that the median salary-linked public sector pension currently paid out is worth £5,600 a year, compared with £5,860 in the private sector. Of course, there are many medium and low-paid workers in the private sector who have little or no pension provision, which is a serious problem, but that is not a reason for public service pensions to be attacked by this Government. The artificial divide that the Government have sought to foster, pitting public against private, is failing those at the heart of the debate—the millions of people who need a good pension on which to retire.

To conclude, it is time for the Government to come clean on this issue and drop the myths and misinformation about public service pensions that they have been peddling for months. Public service pensions were reformed by the previous Government and are both affordable and sustainable. The Pensions Policy Institute has estimated that existing pensions reforms have reduced the immediate cost of benefits by 12.5% and should result in savings of around £13 billion on the NHS, teachers’ and civil service schemes, spread over a 50-year period. The question now is whether the Government choose to negotiate a fair and reasonable deal or continue with their ideological drive to undermine public services, demoralise public service workers and destroy their pensions.

Oral Answers to Questions

Graeme Morrice Excerpts

Wednesday 14th September 2011 Commons Chamber

[Michael Moore]

I have no idea what the hon. Gentleman is saying about these questions, but perhaps he would like to look to the way in which the previous Government behaved; indeed, perhaps he is trying to give us an insight into that. All I will say to him is that, unlike the previous Government, we are determined to recognise that there is an issue that needs to be discussed and considered. It is complex, as there are lots of issues that we will have to consider, but then the House can get on with doing all the work it needs to do.

[Graeme Morrice (Livingston) (Lab)]

Does the Minister agree with me as a West Lothian Member of Parliament that it is deeply unsatisfactory that a commission on a constitutional issue affecting Scotland has been set up with no opportunity for any consultation on its terms of reference or any involvement by Parliament until the commission presents its findings?

[Michael Moore]

I am sorry that that is the hon. Gentleman’s attitude. I thought he would welcome the fact that we are setting up the commission. I am sure that when it is set up, he will want to contribute to it. He raised some issues, including on the terms of reference, and my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary in the Cabinet Office has made it absolutely clear that we will listen to all the points that are made to us. [Interruption.]

Oral Answers to Questions

Graeme Morrice Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd June 2011 Commons Chamber

The Secretary of State was asked—

[Graeme Morrice (Livingston) (Lab)]

1. What recent discussions he has had with the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the effects on Scotland of the rate of inflation.

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

I have regular discussions with my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on a wide range of issues, including the state of the economy. Inflation is being pushed higher by rising global commodity prices. This is a global problem that requires global solutions.

[Graeme Morrice]

I thank the Minister for his answer. It is now clear that the Government’s VAT hike in January helped to drive up inflation, which is squeezing family incomes, hitting consumer spending and holding back strong growth. Will the Minister now speak up for families and businesses in Scotland and urge the Chancellor to reverse the VAT rise to help to boost consumer confidence and bring down inflation?

[David Mundell]

As the hon. Gentleman knows, the former Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Mr Darling), said that he would have done exactly the same in relation to VAT, and a cut in VAT would do nothing to reverse global commodity price rises. It would, however, do a lot to reverse the Government’s hard-won credibility for getting the deficit down. Of course, credibility on economic matters does not seem to be important to the Opposition.

Scotland Bill

Graeme Morrice Excerpts

Tuesday 15th March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Donohoe]

I was two out again. I am not doing so well in that sense.

[Graeme Morrice (Livingston) (Lab)]

Following on from the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Cathy Jamieson), is my hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr Donohoe) aware of the recent case in which a regional list MSP for Central Scotland was claiming to be almost a constituency MSP for Airdrie and Shotts, to the extent that he had surgery posters with “Airdrie and Shotts” on them? The regional area that he covers is, of course, much larger. I suspect that it was done for electoral reasons, with his being the SNP candidate for the Airdrie and Shotts Scottish parliamentary constituency.

[Mr Donohoe]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Graeme Morrice]

My understanding of the system is that there are two candidates, and therefore two votes. Of course that is based on first past the post. It is not dissimilar to the system that applies to local government elections in England when there are several candidates for several seats within a multi-member ward and electors have several Xs to put on a ballot paper.

[Mr Reid]

That is correct. However, two Members are elected: the first two. That is not first past the post.

The hon. Member for Central Ayrshire criticised the system for election to the Scottish Parliament in which the person who finished second in the constituency might still be elected on the list, but the same would apply under the strange system that he has come up with in the new clause.

[Graeme Morrice]

The hon. Gentleman has got this wrong. There would be two candidates—there could be two Labour candidates standing, or two Lib Dem, Tory or Scottish National party candidates—and the electors would have two votes. I would vote twice, and put down two crosses for two Labour candidates. There is not a second candidate, therefore; there are two firsts, and the electors have two votes—the two crosses.

[Mr Reid]

Yes, but some people might not vote for party tickets. This system is used in English local government elections, and it is very uncommon for the first two candidates to get exactly the same number of votes. One will finish first, and another will finish second, and sometimes where there is a close result candidates from different parties get elected.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Graeme Morrice]

The SNP has a preoccupation with the Labour party; why does not the hon. Gentleman simply address the issue?

[Pete Wishart]

I am offering a solution so that the issue can be resolved and fixed up once and for all. The Scottish people want to know what the Labour party thinks. Labour designed this mechanism; let us see what it thinks about it now.

--- Later in debate ---

[Pete Wishart]

I am grateful, Mr Hoyle.

I do not think that the signatories to the new clauses singularly loathe the additional member system—they also loathe the single transferable vote for local government in Scotland and everything to do with proportional representation.

[Graeme Morrice]

indicated assent.

[Pete Wishart]

That is their view. They want the death of PR in Scotland.

A few interesting things came out of the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire’s contribution, the most interesting of which was about list Members. I think he has to take this up with the Labour list Members in the highlands, in north-east Scotland and in mid-Scotland and Fife. I know that SNP list Members are particularly active within the larger constituencies and do a fantastic job.

--- Later in debate ---

[Pete Wishart]

The hon. Gentleman will have had his own experiences with these issues.

An hon. Member has pointed out that there have been problems with list Members on a couple of occasions, but I am surprised that it is only a couple of occasions. List Members seem to co-exist with first-past-the-post Members on reasonably good terms. I recognise a number of issues and problems that have been identified by a number of Members.

[Graeme Morrice]

Further to my intervention earlier in the debate, is the hon. Gentleman aware of the situation of one Scottish National party MSP, Alex Neil, who was admonished by the Presiding Officer of the Scottish Parliament for giving the impression, despite the fact that he is the regional list MSP for Central Scotland, that somehow he was a local constituency MSP for Airdrie and Shotts, which has its own directly elected constituency MSP?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Davidson]

Is it not interesting that in debates about changing the voting system we were always told that changing to a proportional system would boost the turnout? In fact, if anything, the reverse is true. I accept much of the argument made by the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil) about media coverage, and I recognise that the situation is more complex, but those who argued for proportional representation never made that point. They suggested a clear correlation that has been demonstrated to be untrue.

[Graeme Morrice]

Is my hon. Friend aware that at the general election in May, turnout under first past the post increased by about 4%? It is going in the right direction.

[Mr Davidson]

That is an excellent point, and I am glad that it has been made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Michael Connarty]

The point is that when the electorate then see that person’s behaviour in the list system, they are puzzled. I give the example of the Lothian Members, who are centred mainly in the city of Edinburgh. Where do the SNP list Members have their office? They have it in a little village called Whitburn in my constituency—well out of the city centre and the locale near the Parliament. That might have something to do with the fact that every time we have an election, the person who loses for the SNP stands against my MSP under first past the post, and that constituency happens to cover the village of Whitburn and areas in West Lothian. That clearly distorts not only the electoral system but the use of resources allocated to list Members, basically to try to back up the challenge under first past the post. New clause 1 would remove that problem by providing for two Members for each MP seat—it could be split in half or done some other way. That would give people the sort of representation that they like.

I have no doubt that colleagues in all the political parties in Scotland believe that when people come to see them, they know that they are their representatives and that they are accountable to those people. In the Scottish parliamentary system, however, people do not really know because of the number of layers involved. They might go to the list Member, and if they get nothing there they will try the first-past-the-post Member and vice versa. The list Member might first back up the person and then take a different view. Then it might come to seeing the Member of Parliament to find out whether they will back them up.

[Graeme Morrice]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who represents a constituency in the local authority area where I have a constituency. I certainly share his views and concerns on this matter and I empathise with his viewpoint. Does he agree, however, that the real problem is the absolute confusion among the electorate about the difference between constituency MSPs and regional list MSPs? Within Scotland, possibly 99% of the electorate, if asked, would not know who all their regional list MSPs were.

[Michael Connarty]

That is an easy question to answer. It is quite clear that most people in this Chamber, if asked to list them, would not know all the regional list MSPs in their area. That is not the way I like to see the issue, however. It is not so much about confusion among the electorate; it is more that the electorate are not well represented. It is not because they are confused, but because the system invites certain behaviours that run counter to good representation. People do not know who is accountable to them and it is quite clear that list members are not accountable to the electorate. They are accountable to their party, because it is the party that puts them on the list and into the system.