Devolution in Scotland

John Lamont Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered devolution in Scotland.

I am jolly glad I came to the Chamber when I did. [Laughter.]

I thank the Backbench Business Committee for making time available for this debate and for recognising that it is a debate that holds great significance for the whole House. I thank those Members who supported my application to the Committee for the debate. In particular, I thank the hon. Member for Glasgow West (Patricia Ferguson), who chairs the Scottish Affairs Committee and who has been a personal friend of mine since our time together in the Scottish Parliament.

I begin by making no secret of the fact that I lead this debate as someone who believes in the strength of our family of nations and that we can make people’s lives better through co-operation and partnership by pooling and sharing resources. I believe that my credentials as one of the first of my party’s Members of the Scottish Parliament and now as a Scottish Member of the UK Parliament make it clear that I am a devolutionist to my core, one who will always believe in the value of the Scottish Parliament and its potential to work best for the people of Scotland when it works constructively alongside Westminster. I will not have it said here today, or anywhere or ever, that I am against devolution—I am not. I truly believe in it and also know that the Scottish Parliament is comparatively young, hence why I am here today, initiating what I hope will be a civil and valuable discussion into the successes and failures so far of our system of what one might term “multi-level governance”.

I am proud to have been a founding member of the Scottish Constitutional Convention responsible for the establishment of the Scottish Parliament in 1999. I am proud to say in my own way that my name is on the historic claim of right for Scotland—I do not think that any other Member of this place can say that. Of course, I was then elected to the Scottish Parliament in the first elections in 1999, and I witnessed the way that it developed over the next 12 years. Crucially, during those first years, I became a member of the Holyrood progress group, which oversaw the building of the Parliament. People like me and others saw the Scottish Parliament as, to quote the late, great John Smith, the

“settled will of the Scottish people”.

I say that to reassure the House that my thoughts come from a place, I believe, of true experience.

Let us remember that the scheme for the devolved Parliament, as enshrined in the Scotland Act 1998, was about the concept of there being no need for a second Chamber in Edinburgh because the Committees of the Scottish Parliament were intended to fill the role of holding the Executive to account. That could have entailed, where necessary, amending or initiating legislation in a fashion similar to the House of Lords today. As an example, I highlight the role of the education Committee in the first Parliament, of which I was a member, in tweaking and amending the then Scottish Government’s first education Act. Was that a reflection of the consensual attitude that many MSPs displayed during the first term of the Scottish Parliament? Very possibly—perhaps the hon. Member could comment on that.

A few initial thoughts come to mind. Although the Committees did largely fulfil some of that function during the first 12 years of the Parliament, I am bound to add that the advent of the SNP Government in 2011, which controlled not only the Chamber but all the Committees, changed that dynamic. I would argue that, after that year, the failure of some Committees to show any real teeth meant that some bad legislation came to be. I need only quote one example, and that is the ill-fated deposit return scheme—I rest my case.

[John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)]

The hon. Member is making a very good speech. As a fellow Member of the Scottish Parliament for 10 years, I concur completely with his comments regarding the Committee structure. There are many faults about the other place, but it is significantly better at scrutinising Government, holding Government to account and improving legislation than the Committees in the Scottish Parliament, so I agree with him.

[Jamie Stone]

I thank the hon. Member, who, like me, was an MSP all those years ago. Why, to take up his point, is the Scottish Parliament not working the way it is intended to? I think part of the answer lies in the fact that making someone the Chair of a Committee in the Scottish Parliament is in the gift of the party leaders. That can lead to Committee Chairs, particularly those in the Government party, feeling somewhat beholden to their party’s leadership and being, I would suggest, sometimes rather less than willing to say boo to a goose when it comes to challenging or amending legislation.

In Westminster, Committee Chairs are chosen via a secret ballot of the whole House. I would say that the independent-mindedness of Committees and those who lead them is very much a strength. In that respect, we have in Westminster a certain safeguard against the risk of passing completely unworkable legislation. My purpose in making this assessment is not in any way to enlarge on the proposals for a second Chamber in Scotland; the Scotland Act 1998 was very clear that the Scottish Parliament would be unicameral.

Similarly, we can see that there are grounds for Westminster to learn lessons from Edinburgh. I have had the honour, as I said, of being a Member of both the Scottish and UK Parliaments. When people ask me, as they often do, how the two compare, I often say that we MPs are deeply envious of the access to Ministers that MSPs enjoy. The direct and frequent communication between the Scottish Government and their opposition strikes me as a very positive facet of Scottish democracy.

Furthermore, the fact that there are only 129 Members of the Scottish Parliament means that the Members all know each other—or at least know each other an awful lot better than would be normal here. There is recognition of the strengths and weaknesses of those 129 individuals. How should I put this, Madam Deputy Speaker? That is not necessarily something that we can perceive in Westminster, where we have a great number of Members. In fact, I am afraid we can all think—no names, no pack-drill—of Members who somehow slip under the radar; let us just put it that way. I do not intend to be one of them.

The Scottish Parliament has become much more powerful than it was when I was there—just look at the tax and social security powers—but as an MP from the far north of Scotland, I am constantly reminded of just how centralised Scotland has become. Decisions are too often not taken close to the communities that they affect. There has been devolution from Westminster to Holyrood, but practically nothing from Holyrood down to councils or communities. In fact, when it comes to police and fire services, power has simply been grabbed by Edinburgh.

One of the most interesting academics to comment on the matter, and one of the first to scrutinise devolution, James G. Kellas, emphasised that merely establishing new institutions such as the Scottish Parliament cannot fundamentally alter the efficiency of decision-making norms. Instead, he said, we must respect the interplay between respective institutions and their political behaviours. That is what he prescribed to modernisers like me, who hoped that devolution would bring longer-term stability to British politics and give it a new lease of life. In recent years, however, we have seen just the opposite: a breakdown of constructive intergovernmental relations and a move towards polarisation that has pitted the Scottish Government against the UK Government as rivals, rather than partners. That has been clear on multiple occasions over the past decade. Scotland needs Governments in Edinburgh and London that are capable of working together, and of ironing out differences of opinion, where they exist, maturely, within proper frameworks, and without always resorting to legal action and court battles.

That leads me to the elephant in the Chamber, if I can get away with that expression. Most significantly, and perhaps least surprisingly, the chasm in our system of governance was most strongly pronounced during the Scottish independence referendum in 2014. The subsequent repeated calls for a second referendum have coloured the relationship between our two Parliaments ever since. I am a proud Scot—I always have been and I always will be—so for me these have, alas, been dark times, with too much grievance, too much aggression and too much resentment. On top of that, I humbly suggest that the people of Scotland are tired and frustrated—and they have a case. They see their household bills soaring. They have long waits to see their GP, they have the ferry fiasco, and they have a Scottish education that we all know simply is not what it used to be. Scotland deserves better, and the Scottish Parliament needs to show people that it can respond to the challenge at hand and change people’s lives for the better.

I think back to what my party, when it was in coalition, delivered in its first terms in government, including free personal care, eye tests, dental checks, bus passes, the smoking ban and fair votes for local government. Indeed, it was the signature of my then party leader Jim Wallace that broke the ground on freedom of information. We collectively cared about getting the basics right, and were determined to show that devolution could deliver the change that people wanted to see. I do not suggest that that was just the attitude of the governing parties in the coalition; there was co-operation with the Scottish National party and the Conservatives, from time to time.

I touched earlier on the works of James G. Kellas, and I return to his predictions in 2001. He warned that observers of devolution might develop an “expectations gap”, as Scots could develop resentment, feeling that the potential of the Scottish Parliament was unfulfilled, or limited by a system of multi-level governance. There could be truth in that, but we still have a chance to rectify it. With last year’s change of government in Westminster and the Holyrood elections next year, this is surely the perfect time to revise our approach to our system of multi-level governance in the UK in order to engage with those feelings of discontent and negotiate a better way forward—together, not apart.

No legislation is forever, including our beloved Scotland Act. All legislation is from time to time re-examined and amended; that is how we do things in the UK. That is surely one of the foundation stones of British democracy. To put it simply, we can come together to better understand how to make our Union more workable and acknowledge what needs to change. Governmental co-operation and multi-level governance can improve, and I strongly believe that the vision of the founding members of our devolved Governments can and does endure. There is still hope that our Parliaments can build a stronger relationship for the future, in the face of increasing uncertainty and threats from beyond the seas.

I conclude with one simple request. The UK Supreme Court ruled in 2022 that the Scottish Parliament cannot legislate for an independence referendum without Westminster consent. I touch on that issue in the hope that this debate will not be wasted, and co-opted into a debate revising and exhausting the legality of that decision. Instead, I invite all Members from every corner of the House to engage in a constructive debate about how we can improve what we do. That is essential, particularly in the face of increasing uncertainty and—let us be honest—threats from across the seas to the way in which we do things in our precious democracy.

--- Later in debate ---

[Patricia Ferguson]

My recollection of the system is that it worked very well indeed. I do not know whether standards have slipped since the days when I and other hon. Members present were Members of the Scottish Parliament. What the hon. Lady describes did happen—I admit that—but very rarely. I was for some time in the Chair, announcing those decisions, and I genuinely do not remember that happening very often at all.

[John Lamont]

I think the recollection that the hon. Lady and I will have of our time in the Scottish Parliament was of voting physically, albeit electronically, together in the Scottish Parliament Chamber. The difference now, of course, is that some Members of the Scottish Parliament are voting in the Chamber, while others are voting at home, sitting at their kitchen table, by pressing a button. That is where the connectivity issues mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Gordon and Buchan (Harriet Cross) arise, and that is why it is important that we maintain physical voting in this place.

[Patricia Ferguson]

I absolutely agree with the hon. Member. I am not in favour of voting remotely either, except perhaps in very rare and exceptional circumstances. However, please believe me that electronic voting is the way forward. Members would not have to spend some 20 minutes walking through the Lobby. Votes would be cast, and a result declared, within roughly one minute. That is definitely a better use of Members’ time, and a much more efficient way to do things.

Oral Answers to Questions

John Lamont Excerpts

Wednesday 4th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Kirsty McNeill]

First, I am truly sorry to hear about the experiences of my hon. Friend’s constituent. Support services and accommodation across the UK must reflect the needs of all our veterans, including women. That includes the provision of safe, suitable and appropriate housing. If she writes to me, I shall ask the Minister for Veterans and People to get in touch with her.

[John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)]

The previous Conservative Government had a dedicated Minister of State for veterans sitting at the Cabinet table, but that job was taken away by the new Administration. How are the interests of veterans in Scotland being raised in Cabinet under the new Government?

[Kirsty McNeill]

The Minister for Veterans and People is doing sterling work. His advocacy has helped to ensure that Labour will improve 3,000 forces family homes. We are making a £1.5 billion investment across the whole UK. I am sure that when the strategic defence review was launched, in Scotland and then in this Chamber, the hon. Member was full of admiration for what the Minister is doing for veterans and those who currently serve us with such distinction.

Scotland: Transport Links

John Lamont Excerpts

Wednesday 8th January 2025 Westminster Hall

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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

Wednesday 4th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)]

5. What steps he is taking to improve transport connectivity between Scotland and England.

[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

Wednesday 30th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[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.]

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[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

Monday 14th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[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

Wednesday 9th October 2024 General Committees

[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

Wednesday 4th September 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[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.

Constitutional Law

John Lamont Excerpts

Tuesday 21st May 2024 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (John Lamont)]

I beg to move,

That the draft Scotland Act 1998 (Increase of Borrowing Limits) Order 2024, which was laid before this House on 17 April, be approved.

I am grateful for the opportunity to debate this order, which is the result of collaborative working between the two Governments in Scotland and upholds the 2023 fiscal framework agreement. This order will increase the Scottish Government’s cumulative capital and resource borrowing limits to reflect inflation. The order is made under sections 67 and 67A of the Scotland Act 1998, which set out the amounts that can be borrowed under section 66. We are making this order with the Treasury’s consent, as required in those sections.

Scotland Act orders are a demonstration of devolution in action, and I am pleased to say that the Scotland Office has taken through more than 250 orders since devolution began. The 2023 agreement set out that the annual limits for capital and resource borrowing will increase in line with the Office for Budget Responsibility’s GDP deflator forecast at the time of the Scottish Government’s draft budget. The United Kingdom Government agreed, in the 2023 agreement, to amend the Scotland Act to increase these limits as necessary.

[Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (Ind)]

What are the spending limits on the UK Government? Is it not the case that the UK Government have balanced their books in only 11 years since 1945, and have paid back only about 1.7% to 2% of the debt accrued, if that? It is entirely erroneous to try to put shackles on the Scottish Government and what the Minister often calls the most powerful devolved Parliament in the world. Scotland should be going in the same direction as any normal country, and towards independence.

[John Lamont]

This Conservative Government have prudently managed this country’s finances, unlike the Scottish Government, who continue to slash frontline public services across Scotland, despite a record-breaking block grant from the UK Government. Those spending choices were, of course, made by the SNP, rather than the UK Government. This order will increase the resource-borrowing limit by £29 million, from £1.75 billion to £1.78 billion, and the capital-borrowing limit by £50 million, from £3 billion to £3.05 billion. The exact figures are set out in the order we are considering. The timing of this order gives the Scottish Government certainty over the cumulative borrowing limits for the 2024-25 financial year. It is important to note, however, that the Scottish Government still remain accountable to the Scottish Parliament and the people of Scotland in how they choose to use these increased borrowing powers.

[Angus Brendan MacNeil]

Is it not a fact that had the recent blood scandal happened only in Scotland, the Scottish Government would not have had the means to do anything that might be asked of them, because of all these spending restrictions and the handcuffs put on them by Westminster? Are these real-world events not another reason that the Scottish Government should not be a hostage of the UK Government, as they or any Scottish Government are under the devolved set-up?

[John Lamont]

The hon. Member and his hon. Friends on the nationalist Benches continue to obsess about independence, but he seems to forget that the people of Scotland had their say back in 2014 and voted in record numbers to remain part of a strong United Kingdom. I suggest that SNP Members focus on delivering for frontline services in Scotland by supporting our NHS, schools and transport networks and get on with the day job of governing Scotland, rather than talking perpetually about referendums and independence.

In summary, the order amends UK legislation to increase the cumulative borrowing limits of the Scottish Government ahead of the next financial year. In doing so, the UK Government uphold their commitment to the 2023 agreement and deliver for the people of Scotland. It is positive to see both Governments working together. On that note, I commend the order to the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Lamont]

I am grateful to hon. Members for their important contributions to the debate. A number of Members expressed surprise that we are having this debate. I am surprised by their shyness and reluctance to come to the mother of Parliaments to debate this important matter. We are here on behalf of our constituents to talk about how additional resource will be allocated to people in Scotland. We should all welcome that rather than being slightly uncertain about it. I am certainly relishing the opportunity to talk from the Dispatch Box about the additional resource that the people of Scotland, including those in my constituency, will get.

[Alison Thewliss]

The Minister is talking about additional resource, but he cannot deny that there has been massive inflation in construction costs as a result of Brexit, covid and his previous Prime Minister. In that spirit, will he address the problems that have been caused by his Government, and will he commit to the extra £25 million needed for Windmillcroft Quay, the Citizens Theatre and the Govanhill baths in Glasgow, which have all seen huge inflation in construction costs?

[John Lamont]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for making that point, and I will come to some of the allegations made about Scotland’s budget shortly.

The hon. Member for Glasgow South made a number—[Hon. Members: “Edinburgh South!”] My apologies. The hon. Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray) made a number of points about how annual limits are calculated. Annual limits are calculated in accordance with the 2023 agreement and are based on the OBR’s GDP deflator forecast at the time of the Scottish Government’s draft budget. I can confirm that the GDP deflator used to calculate the new limits for this order was 1.677%.

Let me respond to the other questions asked by the hon. Member for Edinburgh South. Some £1.76 billion of the national loans fund long-term loan remains outstanding and counts against the £3 billion statutory limit, including the £300 million borrowed in March 2024. I will write to him on his other points. He made a general point about the levels of Government debt, but we should not forget that the reason we have such significant debt is the huge interventions that the Government made to support jobs and communities during the pandemic. Had we not made those interventions to support jobs, including in the hon. Member’s constituency of Edinburgh South, many people would be out of work and many more businesses would have struggled to survive the pandemic. If he and Labour Members are now saying they were opposed to those interventions, I think our constituents would want an explanation of why they would not want a Government to make those types of interventions to help during a pandemic. From my experience of my own constituency, I know that the furlough scheme, for example, and the huge amount of additional support that went in to support businesses were very much welcomed, but Labour Members now seem to be opposed to those things.

The hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Tommy Sheppard) suggested that this agreement has in some way been imposed on the Scottish Government. That is just not the case: it is a great example of both Governments working together, both at an official level and at a ministerial level. Again, the two Governments in Scotland working collaboratively to deliver for the betterment of our country is something that all of our constituents would expect to see, and would very much welcome.

[Tommy Sheppard]

All I am trying to establish is whether the UK Government are telling us that the quantum of these borrowing limits is to be agreed between the UK Government and the Scottish Government, or whether in law, that figure is determined by the UK Treasury. Which is it?

--- Later in debate ---

[John Lamont]

I could not be clearer that this is an example of both Governments working together to agree what is in the best interests of Scotland. It is now for the Scottish Government to decide how they use those additional spending and borrowing powers.

A number of hon. Members have suggested, both in speeches and in interventions, that the UK Government have in some way cut the capital budget for Scotland. The SNP has cut its own budgets by wasting so much taxpayers’ money on failed projects in Scotland. [Interruption.] Hon. Members scoff from a sedentary position, but the SNP spent more on trying and failing to build two ferries than it claims it would cost to set up a whole new state when it is proposing an independent Scotland. They have also suggested that the UK Government have cut Scotland’s overall budget, but Scotland’s block grant is at a record high. However, the SNP Scottish Government have hugely cut local government funding, which is impacting frontline services the length and breadth of Scotland—that is the cut that SNP Members should be talking about. A spokesman for the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities said that the SNP’s last budget was

“not a good budget for Scottish local government”.

I could happily put SNP Members in touch with that spokesperson, but I suspect that they are already in touch with that person, given that those were the words of an SNP councillor. Even their own side are complaining about the level of funding that the SNP is giving to local councils across Scotland.

To conclude, this order demonstrates the continued commitment of this United Kingdom Government to work with the Scottish Government to deliver for the people of Scotland and maintain a functioning settlement for Scotland. On that basis, I commend it to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That the draft Scotland Act 1998 (Increase of Borrowing Limits) Order 2024, which was laid before this House on 17 April, be approved.

Business of the House (Today)

Ordered,

That at this day’s sitting, the Speaker shall put the Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on the Motion in the name of Secretary Mark Harper relating to the High Speed Rail (Crewe - Manchester) Bill: Instruction (No. 3) not later than 90 minutes after the commencement of proceedings on the Motion for this Order; such Questions shall include the Questions on any Amendments selected by the Speaker which may then be moved; proceedings on that Motion may continue, though opposed, after the moment of interruption; and Standing Order No. 41A (Deferred divisions) shall not apply.—(Penny Mordaunt.)

Oral Answers to Questions

John Lamont Excerpts

Wednesday 1st May 2024 Commons Chamber

[Richard Thomson (Gordon) (SNP)]

9. What recent discussions he has had with Cabinet colleagues on the potential impact of the European Commission’s proposal for a youth mobility scheme on young people in Scotland.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (John Lamont)]

I am in touch with Home Office Ministers regularly to discuss immigration matters that affect Scotland. This Government have youth mobility schemes agreed with 13 countries and we remain open to new arrangements with our international partners, including individual EU member states.

[Alyn Smith]

I have to say that I am bemused by that answer. I will never shake in my view that Brexit was an act of gross harm against the next generation, particularly in Scotland, where we rejected it. But we are where we are, and the EU has offered the UK a comprehensive youth mobility scheme up to the age of 30 for four years. That strikes me as a fantastic deal. Scotland wants to do it, so why is the Minister so keen to hold Scotland back? But my actual question is: is he as delighted as I think he must be that the Labour party completely agrees with him?

[John Lamont]

The hon. Member and the SNP continue to obsess about Brexit and the decision of the United Kingdom to leave the European Union. This Government are absolutely committed to offering young people opportunities to travel around the world during their education, as demonstrated through our association with the Horizon scheme and through the Government’s Turing scheme.

[Anne McLaughlin]

The youth mobility scheme would allow young people in my constituency of Glasgow North East and across Scotland to participate in youth exchanges, work, study and travel across Europe. The Minister got to do that. Is his message to my constituents that this freedom was for the likes of him, but not for the likes of them?

[John Lamont]

The UK Government currently operate 13 successful bilateral youth mobility schemes with international parties. The countries with which we already have arrangements include Andorra, Australia, Canada, Hong Kong, Iceland, India, Japan, Monaco, New Zealand, San Marino, South Korea, Taiwan and Uruguay. [Interruption.] SNP Members may scoff at these countries, but these countries are offering unique opportunities for Scots to travel internationally and to learn, as many of us did as well.

[Richard Thomson]

Anyone in Scotland watching this will be incredibly disappointed with the responses that we have had from the Minister to date. In March 2021, the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie) said on BBC Scotland that young people were not reaping the benefits of Brexit. I do not often agree with my constituency neighbour in the south, but he was absolutely right then and he is still absolutely right now, is he not?

[John Lamont]

The biggest obstacle to opportunities for young people in Scotland is the SNP Government. By restricting the number of places for Scottish students at Scottish universities so heavily, the Scottish Government seem intent on driving young people out of our country.

[Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)]

Having been involved in running a number of our youth mobility schemes, I am fairly familiar with the concepts that they involve, such as capped numbers; reciprocity—the idea that we do not have a large flow one way without it happening the other way; limited terms; no access to the welfare system; and the fact that people cannot take dependants with them given their temporary status. Will the Minister assure me that we will maintain the position that we had under the former Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, that we will do this where it is in the UK’s economic interest and where we know that the main drivers of issues such as immigration abuse do not exist? That is why we have the schemes that we do with Australia, Canada and New Zealand, and why we should maintain that open approach.

[John Lamont]

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for his work in this area and his continued interest in it. The Government have made it absolutely clear that we have no plans to agree an EU-wide youth mobility scheme for the reason that he has highlighted, but we are open to negotiating with individual member states individual arrangements that suit the United Kingdom and Scotland.

[Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab)]

4. What recent discussions he has had with Cabinet colleagues on the cost of living in Scotland.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (John Lamont)]

This Government have demonstrated their commitment to supporting households across the United Kingdom and in Scotland with the cost of living, with a £108 billion package of support—one of the largest in Europe. Inflation is now at 3.2%, which is less than half its recent peak, and is expected to fall to its 2% target one year earlier than expected.

[Liz Twist]

According to the Scottish Parliament’s own research as well as the Fraser of Allander Institute, the Scottish Government’s child poverty targets for 2023-24 are not set to be met. Given the dereliction of their net zero targets and the widening attainment gap, does the Minister agree that the Scottish Government have given up on governing and given up on the future of Scottish children?

[John Lamont]

I agree with the hon. Member: the SNP gave up governing in Scotland a long time ago thanks to its continued obsession with independence and referendums. The UK Government remain committed to supporting households across Scotland, demonstrated through our 6.7% increase in working age benefits, our maintaining the triple lock for 12 million pensioners and our cut to national insurance.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Michael Shanks (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Lab)]

I wish Humza Yousaf well for the future, but after his year in office, nobody in Scotland is better off, and that is coupled with our having a Prime Minister who is clinging on to power. Child poverty is up. Life expectancy is falling. NHS waiting lists are up. Drug deaths are up. Homelessness is up. Economic growth has flatlined. Is it not the inescapable truth that Scots have been failed by two Governments for far too long? Does the Minister agree that what Scotland needs now is to be rid of both these distracted, incompetent and hopelessly out-of-touch Governments?

[John Lamont]

I certainly agree that the SNP Government have not been focused on the day job. They have been neglecting Scotland’s schools, NHS and transport network. They have not been getting on with the day job, but the harsh reality is that whoever is elected to replace Humza Yousaf as First Minister will still have the same obsession with independence and referendums.

[John Stevenson (Carlisle) (Con)]

6. What recent assessment he has made of the impact of the UK internal market on the Scottish economy.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (John Lamont)]

The Government’s assessment is that our internal market is the essential basis on which businesses are able to trade freely across the United Kingdom, minimising red tape and maximising opportunities. In Scotland, 60% of outgoing trade is with the rest of the United Kingdom—more than with the rest of the world combined.

[John Stevenson]

The internal market is beneficial for all parts of the United Kingdom. It is, however, more important to those areas where there is a border. Does the Minister therefore agree that the internal market should be very helpful in maintaining and developing economic activity in the borderlands area, and will he consider a second borderlands growth deal, which would certainly help the area on both sides of the border?

[John Lamont]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right: the UK’s internal market is essential to promoting economic activity, ensuring that businesses in the borders—in my constituency, in Carlisle and beyond—benefit from frictionless trade with the rest of the United Kingdom. The borderlands growth deal, which includes a £265 million investment from the UK Government, was signed in July 2021, and is developing a range of projects to further boost economic growth.

[Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (Ind)]

When the BBC has the headline on its webpage, “Why has Ireland got so much surplus cash?” is it not clear that the reality is that independent Ireland is more successful in the European and world markets than Scotland, trapped in the UK? Ireland has a surplus of £8.6 billion to spend on its society. The UK has a deficit and cuts, which are hurting people. Will the Minister remind us of the size of the UK deficit?

[John Lamont]

I am very clear that Scotland is better served by being at the heart of a strong United Kingdom. The spending figures of the Scottish Government are very clear, in terms of their dependency on Scotland being part of the UK to support vital public services like the NHS, schools and the transport network.

[Mr Speaker]

I call Stewart Malcolm McDonald—not here.

[Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)]

10. What discussions he has had with the Scottish Government on the biodiversity of Scotland’s rivers and streams.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (John Lamont)]

Water quality policy is devolved in Scotland. The Scottish Government are responsible for biodiversity in rivers and streams in Scotland, not the United Kingdom Government. It is for the Scottish Government to take action in this vital area.

[Mr Sheerman]

Is it not the truth that Scottish waters, streams and rivers are purer and cleaner because the Scottish people rejected the privatisation of water and, led by Scottish Labour, made sure that we had Scottish water in the public realm and delivered clean water for everyone?

[John Lamont]

The hon. Member is absolutely wrong. According to a recent report, untreated sewage has been released into Scottish waters and seas more than 58,000 times over the past five years, but only 4% of sewage overflows in Scotland are required to be monitored, unlike in England and Wales, where nearly 100% are monitored, thanks to the efforts of this Government. Unlike this Government, the Scottish Government and Scottish Water are failing to take tough action to monitor sewage overflows and protect our very important waterways.

[Jerome Mayhew (Broadland) (Con)]

11. What recent discussions he has had with the Scottish Government on the protection of free speech in Scotland.