Public Finances: Scotland

Ian C. Lucas Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd February 2016 Commons Chamber

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

Let me add my welcome to this debate this afternoon. A debate on Scottish public spending is important at any time, but it is particularly apposite today, as our colleagues at Holyrood are debating the latest draft Scottish Budget.

I am sure that we will be hearing a lot from SNP members about austerity, even as their counterparts in the Scottish Parliament vote through massive cuts to Scottish local government, while maintaining a council tax freeze which prevents councils from addressing their shortfalls and making use of the new Scottish rate of income tax. Public spending is about choices, and I am proud to be part of a Government who cut tax for over 2.3 million people in Scotland, reducing the tax paid by a typical taxpayer by £825 and taking 290,000 Scots out of paying any income tax at all.

[Ian C. Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)]

Will the Secretary of State give way?

[David Mundell]

I have not started yet. I will give way to the hon. Gentleman in due course.

On the motion and the amendment, let me start by reminding the House what the Government are working on in relation to the fiscal framework. We are implementing the Smith commission—a cross-party agreement for the future of Scotland. I am determined to deliver the legislation required to implement the Smith agreement in full. That is why we are negotiating a new fiscal framework agreement for the Scottish Government. That is what the people of Scotland voted for—a stronger Scottish Parliament in a strong United Kingdom. They did not vote for independence. As the SNP’s former adviser Alex Bell has noted,

“the SNP’s model . . . that it was possible to move from the UK to an independent Scotland and keep services at the same level, without either borrowing a lot more or raising taxes”

is “broken”.

We base our position on the principles set out in the all-party Smith agreement. Smith stated that a fiscal framework needed to be agreed—that there should be no detriment at the initial point of devolution, that there should be appropriate indexation to adjust the block grant in future years, that this should be fair to taxpayers across the UK, and that we should address so called “spillover effects”. That means that the Scottish Parliament and Government will take on more economic responsibility and accountability.

Scotland Bill

Ian C. Lucas Excerpts

Monday 8th June 2015 Commons Chamber

[Ian C. Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Angus Robertson]

I have taken many interventions, and I will now make progress. There is no doubt that the Bill does not match the pledges of the campaign or the spirit and letter of the Smith deal. The Bill falls short and, more importantly, it has also been overtaken by another election—the general election of a few weeks ago—in which the SNP had overwhelming and unprecedented success.

[Ian C. Lucas]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Angus Robertson]

For the second time, I will not. I want to make progress.

--- Later in debate ---

[Angus Robertson]

I want to make some more progress.

This is a cross-party committee, and as its convenor Bruce Crawford MSP said when launching the interim report in May,

“the current proposals do not yet meet the challenge of fully translating the political agreement reached in the Smith Commission into legislation.”

This is really important. If all the political parties in this House believe that this Bill should deliver on Smith, and if all our colleagues in the Scottish Parliament say it does not fully do so, the Government must listen and they must act.

The errors that those in the Scottish Parliament seek to address go to the heart of what was agreed in the Smith commission. First, on welfare, the Bill as it stands retains a UK veto over changes to universal credit, among other things. That is unacceptable. The Secretary of State denied that there is a veto right in the Bill. I do not know how many Members present have read the Bill, but I invite them to turn to clause 24(4) on page 26, which states:

“The Scottish Ministers may not exercise the function of making regulations to which this section applies unless…they have consulted the Secretary of State about the practicability of implementing the regulations”.

The veto rights are there in black and white. [Interruption.] I hear someone from the Labour Benches say, “So?” Do they think it is a problem or not? Their colleagues in the Scottish Parliament think it is.

[Ian C. Lucas]

rose—

[Angus Robertson]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree with his colleagues in the Scottish Parliament that the Smith proposals should be delivered?

[Ian C. Lucas]

I am not giving way at this point.

[Angus Robertson]

There was I being hectored and accused of being frit and not taking interventions, but when Members are put on the spot as to whether they support their own colleagues in the Scottish Parliament, they run away.

Smith Commission

Ian C. Lucas Excerpts

Thursday 27th November 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Carmichael]

I thank my hon. Friend for referring to me and my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (Michael Moore). My hon. Friend is right to say that constitutional change has to come to other parts of the United Kingdom. However, it is not for me to tell the people of England how they want to govern themselves. They have to have that conversation and make the decision for themselves.

[Ian Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)]

Will the Secretary of State confirm that the amount of revenue raised by income tax in Scotland will not affect the amount paid to Scotland under the Barnett formula?

[Mr Carmichael]

No, the amount taken from income tax will now be divorced from the Barnett formula. The Barnett formula will operate for that part of the public expenditure grant to Scotland and the Scottish Parliament that remains after that process.

Scotland’s Constitutional Future

Ian C. Lucas Excerpts

Tuesday 10th January 2012 Commons Chamber

[Ian Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)]

Is it the UK Government’s position that the referendum should take place within 18 months of today?

[Michael Moore]

No. If the hon. Gentleman looks at the consultation paper, he will see that no date was set in the consultation. I certainly believe it should be sooner rather than later and I hope to persuade the Scottish Government and people across Scotland that we should have it as soon as possible. However, 18 months is not the position of the Government and is not in the consultation document.

Oral Answers to Questions

Ian C. Lucas Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd June 2011 Commons Chamber

[David Mundell]

I would characterise the hon. Gentleman himself as a doughty fighter for the station in Stornoway. He has made significant representations, and they have been heard. My colleagues in the Department for Transport will announce their conclusion after the Select Committee has delivered its report.

[Ian Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)]

7. What recent discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills about the transfer to the Scottish Parliament of the power to set rates of corporation tax.

[The Secretary of State for Scotland (Michael Moore)]

I have regular discussions with Cabinet colleagues on a wide range of issues. The Scottish Government included the devolution of corporation tax among its requests for amendments to the Scotland Bill. To date, the Government have not received any detailed proposals from the Scottish Government.

[Ian Lucas]

On the same day the Business Secretary said that the logic of devolving corporation tax was irresistible, he subsequently said that he fully supported the Government’s position in opposing it. Is not the Business Secretary a bit of an embarrassment both to Scottish business and to the Government, and is it not about time he started speaking to the Secretary of State for Scotland about important matters such as corporation tax?

[Michael Moore]

I assure the hon. Gentleman that the Business Secretary and I are at one on the issue.

Oral Answers to Questions

Ian C. Lucas Excerpts

Wednesday 27th October 2010 Commons Chamber

[David Mundell]

Yes. The right hon. Gentleman is correct to highlight the inefficiencies of the current system, which is why the coalition Government are committed to the reform of the welfare system. It is an issue that I will draw to the attention of the Minister at the Department for Work and Pensions who will visit Scotland tomorrow.

[Ian Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)]

7. if he will discuss with the Deputy Prime Minister the merits of enabling UK-resident Scots living outside Scotland to vote in any future referendums on the relationship between the UK Government and the Scottish Executive.

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

The Government have no plans for a referendum on the relationship between Scotland and the rest the United Kingdom and, as far as I know, neither do the Scottish Government. The franchise for a referendum is normally provided for in the legislation setting the referendum question and rules.

[Ian Lucas]

I thank the Minister for that reply. My constituent, Mrs Massey, is a Scot and British. Why should she be excluded from any future vote on the arrangements for Scotland within the UK?

[David Mundell]

I am sure that, like me, the hon. Gentleman will do everything he can to campaign to retain Scotland’s place in the United Kingdom, and I see no immediate prospect of any such referendum.