Scotland: Transport Links
John Lamont Excerpts(2 weeks, 1 day ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered transport links between Scotland and the rest of the UK.
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mrs Lewell-Buck, for the first time. I congratulate you on your position.
I am pleased to have secured this debate to highlight the significance and importance of improving transport links between Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom. My constituency sits in the very south of Scotland, right next to England. That is one of the reasons why I was such a passionate campaigner for remaining in the Union in the 2014 independence referendum, and why I continue to believe firmly in Scotland’s place within the UK.
In the Scottish Borders, many of my constituents have family just a few miles away in England, and most have friends just over the border. People often head to England for days out and to socialise. Some travel south every day to work; others come north to do the same. Others regularly go south for medical treatment, especially since the SNP wrecked Scotland’s NHS.
Our lives are interconnected, so our transport network must be appropriately connected too. People’s everyday lives depend on good, safe, reliable and affordable transport across the Borders and down to England. Today, I want to talk about the railway and road connections between Scotland and the rest of the UK. I will raise some of the key routes, the challenges to improve them and the opportunities that are available if we do so.
The Borders railway has undoubtedly been a great success story since it was restored between Edinburgh and Tweedbank. For many years, I have been working hard with local campaigners to see it extended to Hawick and Newcastleton, and on to Carlisle. I have been doing everything I can to keep making the positive case for the extension.
I firmly believe that the extension of the Borders railway would be a game changer for our local area. In the general election campaign last year, I pledged to work hard to deliver the extension that we all want to see. I will keep my promise to local people by spending the next parliamentary term focused on advancing that project. I am seeking to bring together a cross-party consensus about the importance of the extension. I will work constructively with the Scottish Government where possible, and I intend to have open dialogue with the new Labour Government on what we can do to achieve that project together.
This does not need to be a party political issue. It can be something on which we work together in the interests not only of the Borders but of the south of Scotland and the north of England too. Indeed, the previous United Kingdom Conservative Government worked constructively with the Scottish Government, and in March 2021 agreed to jointly invest £10 million for a study to look at the feasibility of extending the railway to Hawick and Newcastleton, and on to Carlisle.
Unfortunately, I have to say with real regret that it appears that the Labour Government simply do not grasp the importance of extending the Borders railway and are not willing to do what is right not only for the people of the Borders but for commuters and people travelling between Scotland and England. I have not been encouraged by the early signs from the new Government regarding the Borders railway extension.
After writing to seek assurances about Labour’s commitment to the project, I received a response from the Minister of State for Rail, Lord Peter Hendy, who said that Labour will “review” the previous transport commitments and “assess” this proposal. He was not able to comment on the next steps for the scheme. I find that response very poor, considering the importance to our economy and our public transport network of the extension of the Borders railway to the wider area. Better rail services would be a fantastic boost to people across the Scottish Borders.
The Borders railway extension could unlock economic potential, create thousands of jobs, improve social mobility and transform the local rail network, yet despite the previous Conservative Government’s commitment to provide funding for a feasibility study, the new UK Labour Government have refused to give the same commitment. Many local people have told me that they now feel that the Labour Government are betraying the people of the Borders by putting the feasibility study on hold.
At the very least, it is worth progressing the feasibility study so that we can establish the most effective and efficient way to proceed. It is crucial that the feasibility study goes ahead so that a proper assessment of the railway can be undertaken. I will continue to work with the Campaign for Borders Rail to further that project.
I will also talk about other train services from Berwick-upon-Tweed, and the importance of that station to the Scottish Borders and south-east Scotland. There are proposals by the rail industry and Network Rail to change the frequency and journey times from Berwick-upon-Tweed to London. Although some routes from Berwick going north are set to be improved, the number of trains going south to London will fall substantially. The proposed changes to the timetable will mean that there will be just 11 trains on weekdays, down from 15, and only eight on weekends, down from 12. That means that at least 25% fewer trains will go from Berwick to London, which will not help people travelling south for work and will not allow people to get around the country easily.
I raised my concerns with the rail industry, and particularly with London North Eastern Railway, as recently as this morning, but I am afraid the response has been extremely disappointing. The industry believes that the changes will be positive because there will be faster and more frequent services from Newcastle and Edinburgh. That will undoubtedly improve connectivity for passengers in those cities, but I fear that rail travellers from small town UK and the rural communities that such stations serve will yet again be left behind.
Moving on from the railways, I also want to raise the importance of roads to rural areas and the wider economy.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
Before the hon. Member moves on, when it comes to Scotland and northern England transport links, does he have a view on the practice of Avanti, which runs the west coast route from London Euston to Glasgow? Whenever there is any kind of problem on the line north of Preston, whether it be in north Lancashire, Cumbria or the south of Scotland, Avanti’s habit is to stop all trains at Preston, so everywhere between Preston and Glasgow, be it Oxenholme or Motherwell, has no service. Does he think that Avanti is in breach of at least the principle of its contract in failing to serve north Lancashire, Cumbria and Scotland?
John Lamont
I am grateful to the hon. Member for raising that point. I will not comment on the legality of whether Avanti has breached its contract, but I think he is making the point that there is an issue, or at least a perception, that train companies do not think that customers and passengers north of Manchester or north of Birmingham are as important as those in the south. We need to remember, however, that the communities in the northern part of the UK and in Scotland, and the passengers travelling on those services, are in many cases much more dependent on those services because there are so few alternative services and options if there is disruption on the trains, so he makes a very important point.
As I said, I will move on from the railways and talk a bit about the importance of roads to rural areas and the wider economy. More than 60% of visitors to Scotland from the rest of the United Kingdom arrived by car in 2023, showing how vital our roads are to tourism and the Scottish economy. Fixing the roads should be high on the agenda of both this Labour Government and the SNP Government in Holyrood.
For many years, however, the SNP has failed to invest in local roads. The state of the roads in the Scottish Borders, sadly, has declined substantially on the nationalists’ watch. The dire state of our roads is putting public safety at risk and increasing the cost of driving as more cars need to be repaired after hitting potholes. Although it always tries to deflect blame, it is on the SNP to step up and give councils the cash they need to fix our roads. Councils across Scotland cannot fix their roads because the SNP Government keep cutting their funding.
Unfortunately it looks as though Labour is following a very similar approach to the SNP. Last year, we heard the devastating news that Labour has decided to scrap plans to dual the A1 in Northumberland, after many years of campaigning by me, other MPs and many local people and businesses who rely on that vital road and are desperate to see it improved. This road connects the Scottish Borders to England. It is vital for our economy, and it supports jobs and helps to promote trade. That is yet another terrible decision in Labour’s Budget that will have damaging consequences for workers, families and businesses across the Borders.
Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)
The hon. Gentleman is doing a fantastic job of representing his constituents. How would he fund that project—the Labour Government have said that the money is not there just now—or the feasibility study of extending the Borders railway to Carlisle? Where will the funding come from for those projects?
John Lamont
The funding for the Borders railways feasibility study is part of a legally binding agreement: the Borderlands growth deal between the United Kingdom Government and the Scottish Government. That money was allocated by my right hon. Friend the Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell), who is sitting behind me, when he was the Secretary of State for Scotland. The money has been allocated within UK Government budgets for that feasibility study. The Scottish Government committed to that money on the back of the UK Government’s commitment, and similarly the UK Government committed to it on the back of the Scottish Government’s commitment. The money is undoubtedly there; it just needs to be unlocked. That is my frustration, and the frustration of my local authority, the Scottish Borders council.
In relation to the A1 dualling, there is a cross-party campaign to get that road improved. That is why, in response to the Labour Government’s decision to scrap that dualling, the hon. Member for North Northumberland (David Smith), described it as deeply disappointing, I think—he shares my concern and we have the same view on this.
We need to see investment in infrastructure so that our constituents in rural areas, such as the Borders or North Northumberland, can benefit from the same type of investment in transport as the constituents of the hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur) enjoy in Edinburgh. Labour Members have a metropolitan outlook in terms of ensuring that only cities get good transport, but they should not forget the rural communities, such as those in the Borders. I suspect, looking at the representation on the Labour Benches, that we will get a very skewed central-belt view of transport and connectivity.
I fear that the Labour Government’s previous decisions give us no hope that other essential roads will see the improvements that they need, such as the A68, which runs from Darlington up to near Edinburgh, or the A7, which stretches from Carlisle to Edinburgh. Those roads barely seem to register on either Labour’s or the SNP’s list of priorities. I will keep campaigning for better roads across the Borders, despite Labour and the SNP refusing to make the improvements that motorists need. We need to see much more ambition from the Government here at Westminster, and at Holyrood, to advance Scotland’s infrastructure.
Railways, roads and other transport routes between Scotland and England are vital, not just for people to get around, but to maintain and enhance the connections between our people; to allow families to visit each other and go on holidays across the UK; to help aspirational business owners to engage with customers and clients in other parts of the country; and to allow people to easily work and socialise wherever they live in Scotland or the rest of the UK. Beyond the direct and immediate impact on people, better transport routes will improve our economy, raise productivity, and help to contribute more to tax revenues and improve public services.
At a time when we desperately need to raise levels of economic growth, investing in infrastructure is an ideal way to do that. Better transport routes would also help to protect our environment by helping us to reach net zero faster by encouraging more people to use public transport and by reducing emissions. There are a whole host of benefits that could be achieved by improving transport links across our United Kingdom. That is what we should aspire to: a more connected country where people can travel freely between Scotland and the rest of the UK for work, to visit family, or to spend time with friends, wherever they are on these islands.
John Lamont
If I may say so on behalf of all Members, you have done a spectacular job as Chair, Mrs Lewell-Buck. I am grateful to all hon. and right hon. Members for contributing to the debate. We have Members here from across Scotland and also from Ulster, and I am grateful for the important points they made about the connections between their part of the world, Scotland and the rest of the UK. I am also grateful to the Minister for her response, and I look forward to hearing from her further on the Borders railway. On the feasibility study, we have heard about the importance of transport links not just to our respective constituencies, but in linking to all parts of the United Kingdom. They have a strategic and symbolic importance in preserving our Union.
There is a shared frustration among hon. Members across the House—perhaps with the exception of one hon. Member—about the failures of the Scottish Government and the SNP in terms of their responsibility to deliver good transport links for our constituents. There is certainly a shared frustration on the Opposition Benches with some of the decisions that the new UK Labour Government have made in funding projects into Scotland. As we heard earlier, the A1 improvements have been a bit of a disappointment for my constituents and those in North Northumberland, so we hope the UK Government will continue with the commitments made by the previous Government on investment in our transport network in Scotland, despite the devolved responsibilities of the Scottish Government.
I conclude by responding to the hon. Member for Edinburgh East and Musselburgh (Chris Murray) and his helpful description of the name of Waverley station. I fully admit to being a daft laddie from the Borders countryside, but I was fully aware of the origins of the name of Waverley station. It was named after the Waverley route, which was the railway line that went from Edinburgh down through the Borders to Carlisle, so I am very familiar with that. Of course, that was named after the novels written by Sir Walter Scott, who is a fine son of the Borders. I think that is a good place to conclude the debate.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered transport links between Scotland and the rest of the UK.
Oral Answers to Questions
John Lamont Excerpts(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Kirsty McNeill)
May I first pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman, my predecessor? I know that he will continue to represent his constituents assiduously from the Back Benches. Both the Secretary of State and I will be working closely with the Department for Transport and the Scottish Government to ensure that cross-border connectivity remains a top priority for this Government.
John Lamont
Extending the Borders railway line to Hawick and Newcastleton and then on to Carlisle will boost jobs, help the local economy and improve social mobility. The funding for the feasibility study was agreed by the last Conservative Government with the SNP Administration in Edinburgh, but the new Labour Government seem to have pushed this into the railway sidings. Will the Minister ensure that the funding for the feasibility study is released as soon as possible?
Kirsty McNeill
The UK Government are fully committed to the Borderlands growth deal. It will deliver economic growth for the south of Scotland and beyond, which is one of our key missions. The Scotland Office continues to work with the Department for Transport, the Scottish Government and Borderlands partners on the next stage of business case development for the Tweedbank-Carlisle corridor, and on feasibility options for the extension of the Borders railway line. Unfortunately, it is ultimately up to Transport Scotland and the Scottish Government to follow through on the delivery of this important project.
Oral Answers to Questions
John Lamont Excerpts(2 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
The trade union Unite has issued a joint letter from political leaders across the United Kingdom’s nations and regions opposing Labour’s cut to the winter fuel payment. That letter has been signed by every party at Stormont and by parties in Wales, and the Scottish Conservative leader Russell Findlay also signed it. Was the winter fuel payment even discussed at the Council of Nations and Regions?
Ian Murray
I thought that, with a full House, the shadow Secretary of State would have taken the opportunity to apologise for his Government not only crashing the economy, but leaving a £22 billion black hole. That is something this Government are determined to clean up. [Interruption.]
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
The Secretary of State said at the weekend that the Labour Budget
“will herald an era of growth for Scotland”,
but what is going to grow? Is it the tax burden on hard-working Scots, the number of pensioners choosing between heating and eating because they have not got their winter fuel payments, or the number of Labour broken promises? Or will we get all three this afternoon?
Ian Murray
The hon. Gentleman had a second opportunity to apologise for the Conservative party crashing the economy, and the dreadful £22-billion black hole that we inherited, which was hidden from the Office for Budget Responsibility. I ask the shadow Secretary of State to reflect on that before he asks his questions. Of course, he will not have long to wait to find out, as the Chancellor will be here shortly.
John Lamont
There were no answers in that response. Not so long ago, the Secretary of State said that a national insurance rise would have “an enormous impact” on businesses. He also said that
“under Labour, National Insurance wouldn’t go up”.
Tax rises, economic damage and broken promises—are this Labour Government not just the same as the SNP?
Points of Order
John Lamont Excerpts(3 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Scotland (Ian Murray)
Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I know that colleagues from across the House will join me today in expressing our shock and sadness at the sudden passing of the right honourable Alex Salmond. He was a Member of this House for 25 years and of the Scottish Parliament for 11 years, and he was of course First Minister of Scotland for seven years. His impact wherever he served was profound.
My thoughts and sympathies are first and foremost with his family and friends and especially his wife Moira, who has already been mentioned. Members might not be aware that the Scotland Office brought Moira and Alex together; they met first as colleagues in that Department before marrying in 1981. My thoughts are also with those whose relationships with him had broken down in recent years and those who are finding this time difficult as they deal with a range of emotions.
It is no secret that some of his happiest periods as a politician were spent in this place, where he made alliances that may to some have seemed surprising. My thoughts today are particularly with the right hon. Member for Goole and Pocklington (Sir David Davis), who I know has lost a close friend, and with Alex’s SNP colleagues.
In the short period during which our careers in this place overlapped, I was always impressed with Alex’s formidable oratory and debating style. No Member from any part of this House was given an easy ride. He sat on the third Bench—where the leader of the SNP, the right hon. Member for Aberdeen South (Stephen Flynn) is today—during the passage of the Scotland Act 2016, chuntering and bantering in my ear every time I stood at the Opposition Dispatch Box. His love of lively discussion extended beyond this Chamber, and I was always keen to keep the topic on our shared passion for Heart of Midlothian football club, rather than constitutional matters.
It is impossible to overstate the impact that Alex had on Scotland and our politics. After half a century of involvement, from student activist to First Minister, whether you agreed or disagreed with his political objectives, there is no denying the rigour and commitment with which he pursued his goals. That commitment saw Alex lead the Scottish National party for a total of 20 years, taking it from a small political movement to the party of government in Scotland. In doing so, he secured a referendum on Scottish independence in 2014, an achievement that would surely have been scarcely believable for a student activist who joined the SNP in the early 1970s and perhaps even for the Alex Salmond who first led the party in the early 1990s.
As someone firmly on the opposite side of that debate, I know that the result of the referendum was a source of huge disappointment to Alex. It was testament to his conviction in the cause that he continued to campaign for Scottish independence with the same passion in Parliament, in the SNP, in the Alba party and in communities across Scotland throughout the past decade. He has left an indelible mark on Scottish politics and public life. I know that many in the independence movement and beyond will miss him. I once again send the deepest sympathies on behalf of the UK Government to all his family and friends at this difficult time.
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
Further to those points of order, Mr Speaker. On behalf of the Opposition, I would also like to pay my tribute to the right honourable Alex Salmond. As others have said, despite political differences, we were all shocked and saddened to hear the news on Saturday of Alex Salmond’s sudden passing. He and I were both elected to the Scottish Parliament in 2007, and although we disagreed on many of the big issues of the day, not least the question of independence for Scotland, we all respect his dedication to public service as a Member of the Scottish Parliament, a Member of Parliament and as First Minister of Scotland. He was passionate, formidable, impressive and hugely charismatic. Alex Salmond was undoubtedly a giant in Scottish and United Kingdom politics. My sincere sympathies go to his wife Moira and to his wider family, in particular his sister Gail, who lives in Hawick in my constituency in the Scottish Borders. My thoughts and prayers are with them all.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
Further to those points of order, Mr Speaker. Alex Salmond was not just a parliamentary colleague of mine; for a number of years, when we lived in Aberdeenshire, he was also my own Member of Parliament. I confess that I never actually voted for him, but that did allow me to see, and hear from all those who dealt with him in the north-east of Scotland, that he was genuinely a byword for energy and commitment in representing the interests of his Banff and Buchan constituents.
It was not until I was elected here in 2001 that I got to know Alex personally. He and I both represented constituencies heavily dependent on the fishing industry, which was then facing an existential crisis, as cod stocks in the North sea collapsed. At that time, we all had to be experts in the spawning stock biomass of North sea cod, and Alex, with his natural head for figures, could sometimes leave everyone in the room breathless as he interrogated the so-called experts about the statistical basis of what they were proposing to do. The survival of a Scottish whitefish industry today is in no small part as a result of his efforts then.
It was also in that first Parliament that I met and got to know Alex’s wife Moira. I do not think it is speaking ill to say that Alex could divide a room; Moira, on the other hand, is someone about whom I have never heard anyone say a bad word. She has always been unfailingly warm and friendly. Her devotion to Alex was total and obvious to me from the first moment I met her. So it is to Moira Salmond today that my thoughts turn. I can hardly imagine the sense of loss that she must be feeling. To Moira and the rest of Alex’s family I send my condolences and those of my party as we mourn the passing of Alex Salmond—a man whose like we may never see again.
Draft Social Security (Scotland) Act 2018 (Disability Assistance) (Consequential Modifications) Order 2024
John Lamont Excerpts(3 months, 2 weeks ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Efford.
As we have heard, the main purpose of the order is to make consequential amendments to UK legislation to ensure that recipients of the pension age disability payment—the Scottish Government’s devolved benefit that will replace attendance allowance—are treated in the same way as those in receipt of attendance allowance in respect of reserved benefits and for tax purposes. For example, receipt of pension age disability payment will passport a person to an additional amount in pension credit in the same way as attendance allowance does.
As proposed by the Scottish Government, the pension age disability payment will operate in a broadly similar way to attendance allowance. I am pleased that the Scottish Government and the UK Government have worked together to deliver the pension age disability payment. I know a little bit about the work to prepare this from my time in the Scotland Office, and I pay tribute to the officials in the room today who have done a huge amount of work behind the scenes to get us to this point. The credit for the hard work that has been done to deliver the order should rest with the officials, I would suggest, rather than any politician in this room.
I am happy to confirm that the Opposition will support the order today. However, although it is uncontroversial, there are questions about how the pension age disability payment might interact with reserved matters should the rules diverge from those for attendance allowance in the future. As with other devolved benefits, the Scottish Government have ruled out significant changes to the pension age disability payment eligibility rules until the process of moving attendance allowance claimants in Scotland over to the new benefit is complete. This is known as case transfer. I welcome it, and the Scottish Government intend to complete case transfer to pension age disability payment by the end of 2025. However, once case transfer is complete, it is possible that the eligibility criteria for the pension age disability payment could diverge from those for attendance allowance.
That point was highlighted at a recent meeting of the Scottish Parliament’s Social Justice and Social Security Committee. There was a discussion about the risk of divergence in terms of continued access to reserved passported benefits for pension age disability payment recipients. The DWP told the Committee that it would find a way to ensure that people receive their entitlements to reserved benefits. The Scottish Government’s Cabinet Secretary raised the possibility in future of making substantial changes to any of the disability benefits that would greatly increase the number of people who were eligible in Scotland who would not be eligible in the rest of the United Kingdom. In these circumstances, the Scottish Government would be asking the DWP to pay out benefits that would not be paid to people in a similar situation in England.
It would be for the UK Government and DWP to decide what to do. Has this been considered by the Minister and his DWP colleagues? Would extra capacity at DWP be required to handle such claims? Would there be another application form or type of assessment required to make a determination for such applicants? These are legitimate questions about how the two systems will match, so I would be grateful if the Minister could deal with them. I welcome the order and am happy to confirm the Conservative party’s support for it.
Oral Answers to Questions
John Lamont Excerpts(4 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
I, too, start by congratulating both Ministers on their appointment to the Scotland Office. I loved my time at the Scotland Office, and I know they will be very well supported by the Department’s excellent team of officials, some of whom are in the Box today.
Labour plans to end the winter fuel payment, taking money away from elderly people who have worked all their days. Age Scotland has said:
“At minimum, a quarter of a million pensioners in Scotland on the lowest incomes or living in fuel poverty will no longer receive this vital financial support over the winter months, while hundreds of thousands more on modest incomes are going to struggle”.
Labour has cut the winter fuel payment across the UK, and the SNP is doing Labour’s dirty work in Scotland. What does the Minister have to say to the 250,000 elderly Scots who are in poverty and struggling with the decisions of Labour and the SNP?
Ian Murray
I welcome the shadow Secretary of State to his new post.
During the inheritance statement a few weeks ago, the Chancellor set out how the current Government are fixing the foundations and trying to clear up the dreadful legacy left by the Government of which the hon. Gentleman was a member. The Chancellor did not want or expect to make these decisions, but they had to be made to try to get the finances in balance and to make sure that we can fix the foundations to deliver on our manifesto. That is the legacy of the previous Government and, as I said in my previous answer, the SNP has made a mess of the public finances over the last 17 years. As we saw in the Scottish Parliament yesterday, the SNP has one hell of a mess to clear up, and it is Scottish pensioners and the Scottish people who will pay the price.
John Lamont
Labour is taking a leaf from the SNP playbook by refusing to take responsibility for its own actions. This is happening because of choices made by this Labour Government that have been passed on by the SNP in Edinburgh. Labour’s election slogan was all about change and, under this Labour Government, pensioners do not seem to have any change to spare. A woman called Lesley told Age Scotland that the winter fuel payment
“is literally a life saver for us.”
Another person, Brian, told Age Scotland:
“I would freeze without it, or go hungry.”
Is this the change that Labour meant—taking money away from struggling pensioners?
Ian Murray
There seems to be no recognition or apology from the shadow Secretary of State for the legacy his party has left this Government to try to clear up. We knew about the massive overspend in public services by the previous Government, and the audit the Chancellor did in her first weekend in office revealed the £22 billion black hole. These things have to be fixed. We did not expect or want to make such tough decisions, but we have had to make them to fix the foundations of our economy.
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
The Rosebank oilfield will provide more than £6 billion of investment in UK-based businesses. The Jackdaw oilfield will cater for the energy needs of 1.4 million UK households. This Labour Government are jeopardising all that investment, energy and jobs by dropping the UK Government’s opposition to the judicial review, which aims to block these vital energy projects. Can the Secretary of State seriously tell the 90,000 people whose jobs rely on oil and gas in Scotland that the future of this crucial industry is secure under Labour, when it is his Government’s policy to oppose all new developments?
Ian Murray
I thank the shadow Secretary of State for his question, but he should stop scaremongering, given the 90,000-strong workforce in the North sea. Oil and gas will be with us for decades to come. The Finch decision, to which he refers, was something that this Government had to consider very carefully. The Secretary of State has started a consultation on consenting, which will affect Jackdaw and, indeed, Rosebank, and that should conclude within the next six months.