Oral Answers to Questions

Lindsay Roy Excerpts

Wednesday 19th March 2014 Commons Chamber

[David Mundell]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. Since the coalition Government came to office, 2.2 million people in Scotland have seen their income tax bills reduced.

[Lindsay Roy (Glenrothes) (Lab)]

Will the Minister confirm what impact the imposition of the bedroom tax has had on child poverty in Scotland?

[David Mundell]

On the spare room subsidy, the hon. Gentleman is aware that the Government have introduced significant contributions in relation to discretionary housing payment. He knows as well that the Scottish Government have significant powers to contribute to any mitigation that they think is necessary.

Scotland’s Place in the UK

Lindsay Roy Excerpts

Thursday 6th February 2014 Commons Chamber

[Graeme Morrice]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. On day one of independence, were Scots to vote for it, the rest of the United Kingdom would remain within the European Union but Scotland would not, so it clearly would not benefit from the EU single market, to the great detriment of Scottish business and Scotland overall.

Mr Deputy Speaker—[Interruption.] Welcome, Madam Deputy Speaker; it is great to see a Scot in the Chair this afternoon. [Interruption.] And a woman, my hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (Fiona O'Donnell) reminds me.

In addition to the shared opportunities, the pooling of resources across the UK allows risk as well as reward to be spread, as seen most notably in the bail-out of the Scottish-based banks during the financial crisis, when the UK, led by a Scot, injected an amount of capital into the banks well in excess of the Scottish Government’s total budget. The pooling of resources also allows for distribution on the basis of social need across the welfare state. Were Scotland outwith the UK, that would place a major question mark over its ability to continue to fund benefits at current levels and to meet state and public sector pension commitments.

Of course, Scotland has its own devolved Parliament, with significantly more powers to come as a result of the Calman commission and the Scotland Act 2012. It can therefore be argued that Scotland has the best of both worlds: local decision making, but under the financial umbrella of the UK Barnett formula, giving Scots more funding per capita than anywhere else in the UK.

[Lindsay Roy (Glenrothes) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend for giving way and for making a very positive case. Will he remind the House why the Barnett formula was introduced and why the additional funding per capita goes to Scots in what is a relatively small country?

[Graeme Morrice]

Scotland benefits disproportionately from the Barnett formula to the tune of £1,400 per capita because of rurality, super sparsity and Scotland’s particular needs, so my hon. Friend’s point is well made.

Since 2011 we have been told that the answer to every question the Scottish people have ever asked about independence would be in the Scottish Government’s White Paper. Given Alex Salmond’s recent statements, I was half expecting next week’s lottery numbers to appear in its pages, too. The Scottish people were promised the New Testament but instead had to settle for the SNP’s next election manifesto. The truth is that Alex Salmond simply cannot guarantee many of the White Paper’s promises and has completely failed to answer many of the legitimate questions that have been asked of the yes campaign. The Scottish Government could deliver more with the powers they already have, but they choose partisan dividing lines, rather than improving the lives of the Scottish people.

On 18 September the Scottish people will have a choice: either to support the continuation of Scotland within the UK, and all the advantages and benefits that involves, with a further strengthening of devolution; or to take a leap into the unknown, never to return.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lindsay Roy Excerpts

Wednesday 5th February 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Carmichael]

I wish the hon. Lady and her colleagues could find it within themselves to recognise the substantial progress we are making with the improving employment situation in Scotland. There is significant progress, which makes a real difference for her constituents and mine. Wage levels will doubtless need some improvement to catch up; that is an inevitable consequence of the steps we had to take to clear up the mess that she made.

[Lindsay Roy (Glenrothes) (Lab)]

7. What assessment he has made of the Scottish Government’s White Paper entitled “Scotland’s Future”; and if he will make a statement.

[The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr Alistair Carmichael)]

The Scottish Government’s White Paper shows that the case for independence is unravelling. They promised answers, but failed to address key referendum issues such as currency, costings and EU membership.

[Lindsay Roy]

I thank the Secretary of State for his candid answer. Can he explain why there would be issues with the funding of pensions if Scotland were to become a separate state?

[Mr Carmichael]

In that regard, the most pertinent intervention came from the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland—not a political party or a body that has an axe to grind, but people who know what they are talking about. They told us what we already know: there are substantial questions on pensions and other areas, and the Scottish Government have still failed to answer them.

Constitutional Law

Lindsay Roy Excerpts

Tuesday 15th January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Michael Moore]

I am absolutely confident that Scotland will vote to stay in the United Kingdom. I am committed to doing what is in the best interests of Scotland, regardless of the outcome, as I said on the radio yesterday morning.

Scotland’s future within the UK will be the most important decision that we as Scots take in our lifetime. Facilitating a legal, fair and decisive referendum is critical. That is why we consulted on this issue, why both Governments have spent many hours discussing and negotiating the process, and why we seek the support of the House today to approve this order.

Debating this order in the House today marks an important step as we move from discussions on process to the substance of the great debate. It is now essential that the referendum decision is focused on determining whether Scotland chooses to remain an integral part of the most successful partnership of nations the world has ever seen; to remain part of a family of nations that works in the interests of all; or whether it wishes to leave and go it alone. That decision should not be taken lightly; it should be taken after examining all the facts.

[Lindsay Roy (Glenrothes) (Lab)]

Does the Secretary of State think it fair that the Scottish Government can be both the referee and a player in a referendum?

[Michael Moore]

The hon. Gentleman and his fellow Committee members have written important reports on this subject and highlighted the dangers in the process. As I made clear in my earlier remarks—and this, I think, is the tenor of the contributions we may anticipate this afternoon—the Scottish Government will act in setting the rules and pushing them through Parliament on behalf of all Scots and both sides of the argument. It is important that they do so in a way that is not fair to one side and unfair to the other.

I strongly believe that, with the support of colleagues across the House, across Scotland and across the whole of the United Kingdom, fellow Scots will join me in the autumn of 2014 in choosing to remain part of the United Kingdom. We are indeed better together. In the meantime, I commend the order to the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Davidson]

The experts were absolutely clear that no self-respecting polling organisation would use such a biased formulation. To be fair—we have to be fair—they also argued, with some justification, that by the time of the referendum, people will generally know what it is that they are voting for. They will generally know what the question stands for and will be able to make a choice. However, if there is a marginal gain to be made, it should be removed. To come back to the mantra of British Cycling, which is about the aggregation of marginal gains, this is yet another example of the SNP seeking to make even the slightest advantage balance towards itself rather than the other side. This will not sway 50%, but it might sway 0.1% or a fraction of that. However, mony a mickle makes a muckle, as we are well aware, so in these circumstances each example that seeks partisan advantage is to be deplored.

The Committee says that

“the only deduction which can be made is that it”—

that is, the SNP and the Scottish Government—

“wishes to retain the capacity to amend the question so as to affect the result.”

That is the only conclusion that we can reasonably draw.

I have already covered the role of the Electoral Commission in most areas, but I want to touch on spending limits in particular. The Committee drew in a great deal of evidence on this, and we were convinced by that evidence that the ideal pattern would be for the two parties to agree and, failing that, for the Electoral Commission to decide. The Electoral Commission has come out with a view that is at variance with that of the Scottish Government. Notwithstanding that, the Committee and I still take the view that the spending that the commission would allow is too small.

[Lindsay Roy]

Can my hon. Friend confirm that the amount of spending to be allowed for the referendum is not hugely dissimilar from the amount permitted for the devolution referendum in the 1990s?

[Mr Davidson]

Yes. The amount that the Electoral Commission is proposing is similar to the cash amount that was allowed in the 1997 referendum, but as a result of inflation, its real value has halved. Our belief is that, for a regulated period of 16 weeks, the spending limits should be bigger. As I understand it, £750,000 works out at 1p per voter per week of the campaign period, and I genuinely believe that that is insufficient. The Scottish Government are suggesting that the figure should be even lower.

This is a good example of how those of us who are active in Scottish politics are free to disagree with the Electoral Commission’s initial proposals. We can campaign for it to change its mind, but, at the end of the day, everyone involved should say that they would commit themselves to accepting the commission’s decision if it does not change its mind. The Scottish Government are unwilling to do that, however. They have reserved unto themselves the right to impose their view—which is presumably what suits them best—on top of, or instead of, the Electoral Commission’s view.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lindsay Roy Excerpts

Wednesday 9th January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Brian H. Donohoe (Central Ayrshire) (Lab)]

5. How many people in Scotland have used food banks in the last 12 months.

[Lindsay Roy (Glenrothes) (Lab)]

12. How many people in Scotland have used food banks in the last six months.

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

Jobcentre Plus operates a food bank referral service. However, the Government do not hold information on the number of people seeking assistance from food banks.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Mundell]

Although I share the hon. Gentleman’s concern about the use of food banks and the fact that there are vulnerable people in crisis situations, I do not accept the pretence that food banks have come into existence since this Government came to power. That is simply not true. There were food banks under Labour; it is simply that they were not advertised in jobcentres.

[Lindsay Roy]

What message does the Minister have for the increasing number of people in my constituency who are being forced to go to food banks to feed their families? What will he do to alleviate that situation?

[David Mundell]

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

Food Banks (Scotland)

Lindsay Roy Excerpts

Wednesday 19th December 2012 Westminster Hall

[Lindsay Roy (Glenrothes) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts, as we debate what is fast becoming a national disgrace—I refer to the widespread growth of poverty in our society, and in Scotland in particular, and the consequent mushrooming of food banks throughout the country, both formally and informally, via charities, churches and voluntary organisations. As constituency MPs, we know what is happening on the ground. It is distressing to find that neither the UK Government nor the Scottish Government have been able to get any reliable statistics on the extent of food poverty in our country. I regard that as a gross dereliction of duty. They are what I call the “don’t know and don’t care” Governments. My plea is for them to establish the facts about food banks and food poverty, and to do so quickly.

This morning I want to focus on four related themes. First, I want to praise the many individuals and organisations stepping up to the mark to address this unprecedented food crisis. Throughout the country, groups are often overwhelmed by the extent of food poverty in their communities. Secondly, I shall highlight real-life constituency cases that hon. Members will find appalling. There are already food banks not on the official list that are operating informally. Thirdly, I shall present a picture of the food crisis in Scotland overall and identify some of the causes. Lastly, I want to emphasise the apparent complacency of two Governments who have abdicated their welfare responsibilities to those in desperate poverty and exhort them to think again about their priorities. In particular, I want to focus on the legitimate needs of the increasing number of constituents who are marginalised in society, many of whom keep a low profile due to the perceived stigma and the shame of seeking handouts. [Interruption.] While I locate this mobile phone—it is lovely to see somebody on call—I will give way.

[Mr Brian H. Donohoe (Central Ayrshire) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend for giving way and congratulate him on securing the debate.

[Mr Donohoe]

Thank you, Mr Betts. I am sorry. Will my hon. Friend confirm that he is saying that in this age—in 2012—there is a necessity for food banks? Is that not an abrogation of all Governments’ responsibilities?

[Lindsay Roy]

Absolutely. I could not agree more. The only organisation or government I know of that is beginning to take a significant interest in this is Labour-controlled Fife council, for whose area I am MP.

In particular, I want to focus on the legitimate needs of the increasing number of constituents who are marginalised in society, many of whom keep a low profile due to the perceived stigma and the shame of seeking handouts, when they once had a pride in catering for their own and their family’s needs.

I commend the many charities, trusts, churches and voluntary organisations, such as the Trussell Trust, FareShare and the plethora of local groups, that have set up food banks in our communities—and they are not only for Christmas.

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

I am going to a Select Committee meeting shortly, so I apologise that I will not be able to stay for the full session. My hon. Friend refers to the many local groups undertaking such work. Does he agree that there are probably dozens of organisations in each constituency? We will not know about some of them, which is why it is important to get some idea of the extent of such activity. In my constituency, besides FareShare, we have Edinburgh City Mission, Bethany Christian Trust, the Missionaries of Charity and the Salvation Army, as well as local community groups and many other organisations. We need Government recognition of the extent of the problem.

[Lindsay Roy]

I agree wholeheartedly with my hon. Friend. I will cite examples from my constituency.

I commend highly the initiative, moral purpose, compassion and tenacity of those doing voluntary work in the face of adversity. I warmly welcome, too, the work of Citizens Advice Scotland, supermarkets such as Sainsbury’s, Waitrose and Tesco and the local authorities who are intervening to help. Collectively, they are trying valiantly to meet the desperate needs of many people who face genuine poverty—working families, those on benefit, pensioners and young people.

Charity and voluntary work is highly demanding, and usually rewarding when needs are met, but sometimes recently it has become a soul-destroying venture, because needs cannot be met even with all the resources in the local community and the good will it provides. Such volunteers are, in every respect, local heroes who contribute above and beyond the call of duty to address hunger and poverty that is sadly increasingly rife in our society. I pay tribute to those outstanding individuals and groups, who put service before self and make real differences to the lives of those in despair through poverty.

What a sad indictment of the Governments at Westminster and Holyrood that so many Scots are dependent on handouts and nobody has bothered even to gather statistics. I shall illustrate that later with a response from the Department for Work and Pensions.

[Anas Sarwar (Glasgow Central) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate. On Friday, I and the shadow Secretary of State for Scotland visited a food bank in my constituency. We were told sad stories of people, even working people, who have to go to food banks for food parcels. At the weekend, that same organisation—Elim Pentecostal Church, working in partnership with the Trussell Trust—was working with the messy church in Toryglen on Saturday on a toy bank, because many families cannot afford to buy their children toys at Christmas. Local people give toys—another demonstration of how Scotland is coming together to help people in vulnerable communities. We now need our Governments to come together to help such communities too.

[Lindsay Roy]

I welcome my hon. Friend’s intervention, which stressed the situation I have been highlighting.

The Governments are strong on rhetoric, but short on action in dealing with the human tragedy that is seeping through our communities, where payday loan sharks capitalise on fuel, clothing and food poverty. We are told again and again that we have caring and compassionate Governments and we are all in this together, and yet there is an explosion of food and fuel poverty. It is an outrage. Our good track record in responding to human tragedy and emergencies abroad must be matched here. Welfare begins at home.

The hallmark of a civilised society is how we treat the poor and vulnerable, and we are falling well short for those who are disadvantaged and disabled. The Tory-led and SNP Governments have shown a callous disregard for the increasing number of citizens on the breadline. They should hang their heads in shame.

I want to give hon. Members a flavour of the nature and extent of the food crisis that faces people in my constituency. We affectionately refer to the YMCA and the YWCA as the Y. To their eternal credit they have run food banks and homeless shelters for 20 years. They inaugurated a food bank long before the term was commonly used and recognised. Numbers were small and their success was impressive. Mary Hill and her team do a fantastic job, way beyond realistic expectations. I visited the Y on Monday and, as I was leaving, I met a former pupil, now in his mid 20s. He had been a model student, worked hard and got an apprenticeship, but had lost his job. He was unsure how to react when he saw me—hon. Members might say that too—but seriously, tears welled up in his eyes as he told the staff that he had no food until his next benefit payment on Friday. He had 7p in his pocket. He clearly felt ashamed and uncomfortable, and I reassured him that the Y would do all that they could to help him in his crisis. That visit was his first, and it symbolises the recent upsurge in demand of more than 50%. The Y cannot cope on their own, so they are outsourcing food bank pick-ups from local churches and other voluntary organisations.

Rationing is occurring in the Y. The senior caseworker recently told me that they have been opening bags of rice and rationing the rice, giving people just enough to see them through one day. She says that some have been so undernourished that they can provide them only with soup, because their stomachs are not used to food and cannot handle a full meal; and they are not drug addicts. What a sad indictment. Understandably, victims do not want their names publicised, because of the stigma, low self-esteem and lack of hope associated with their plight. In a very real sense, they are the hidden hungry and, as I will illustrate later, they do not come into the statistics at all.

Two examples of the callous and inhumane treatment by Government agencies, particularly the Department for Work and Pensions, are worthy of note. The first concerns a young man who was badly beaten up; the perpetrator was jailed for two years. The young man’s employment and support allowance was stopped after he failed an Atos assessment. Despite the best efforts of my constituency staff and his doctor, who had sound medical evidence, his appeal was rejected. He now has no income for two months—his appeal will be held at the end of January—and is totally dependent on the good will of his friends in the Y and associated organisations.

The other example concerns a father whose wife was giving birth to their third child. He was instructed to visit a company 9 miles away, but it was snowing and he had two children at home, so he did not attend to pick up a leaflet. As a result, despite the explanation given both by me and other folk in the constituency, his appeal was turned down and he is now on hardship benefits. There was no flexibility, no human understanding. I do not blame the DWP personnel, because that is what they are told to do. It is disgraceful; what an outrageous indictment of life in Fife, Scotland and the UK in the 21st century. The only Government agency that is planning to help is Labour-controlled Fife council, and we will take that forward at a meeting on Monday.

The Y plans to join the Trussell Trust link of officially recognised food banks, but the franchise fee is £1,500, which is an additional sum of money for it to find. The caseworker’s assessment is stark:

“The working poor and benefit recipients are being manoeuvred into a long-term famine”.

She also warns that

“the eye of the storm has yet to hit as April looms, when the bedroom tax for many will further reduce income”.

According to the Trussell Trust, there are 21 official food banks in Scotland and, since April, almost 6,200 people throughout Scotland have received emergency food parcels, including almost 2,000 children. About 6,000 people in Scotland benefit daily from FareShare services, but I submit that that is only the tip of a much larger Scottish poverty iceberg, as local food banks are emerging throughout Scotland. With minimal research, I have discovered that there are 10 in my constituency, which has about 65,000 to 70,000 people. According to Save the Children, one in seven of Scotland’s poorest children do not get enough to eat. I am sure that others speakers will elaborate and give more information from their experience, as hon. Friends have already done.

Scots are trapped between two Governments who have their priorities wrong. The Scottish National party could intervene now, and it has the power to do so. According to my information, the Scottish Government have found thousands of pounds for political saltires, and have spent £500,000 on the First Minister’s visit to the Ryder cup, £400,000 on the rental of Scotland house during the Olympics and £30 million on communications and ministerial support—much of it no doubt fixated on the referendum—at the expense of the real needs of the poor in Scotland. I understand that the last time food banks and food poverty was mentioned in the Holyrood Chamber by the First Minister was in September—so much for the commitment to protect Scots from the worst excesses of the coalition Government. We hear regular promises of a land of milk and honey on separation, but the SNP commitment to the poor hungry seems shallow to say the least. Indeed, it suits the SNP to sit back and blame the coalition Government, rather than, in its quest for separation, take the initiative.

The number in poverty is dramatically increasing, with gas and electricity prices rising between 8% and 14%. In part, the food crisis is exacerbated by the increase in fuel poverty, which the SNP said that it would eliminate by 2016.

[Dr Eilidh Whiteford (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)]

I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman is letting his prejudices against the SNP cloud his judgment about the real drivers of the increase in food banks in Scotland, which is to do with income poverty. Does he accept that support aimed at tackling fuel poverty in Scotland is now 15% higher, in cash terms, than it was when Labour left office?

[Lindsay Roy]

It is certainly higher, but the SNP Government promised to eliminate fuel poverty by 2016, and we are not aware of what they have done.

Most recipients of food from food banks are working strivers, as well as people on benefits. They have had their pay cut or their hours reduced, while others have had their benefits slashed or delayed, which has placed tremendous pressure on families. Others face the same kind of personal challenge that many face when buying a new fridge or something else that compounds the difficulty of managing their expenses. Some have resorted to payday loans and are literally destitute.

Finally, I want to focus on the autumn statement. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had a golden opportunity to address the humanitarian issues that are bringing such hardship and despair to so many citizens throughout the UK. His statement marks a watershed in our welfare system, fracturing the long-standing link between benefits and earnings or prices, which is a hammer blow to the thousands of low-income families struggling to make ends meet.

In the face of overwhelming austerity, the Chancellor would have done well to heed the commitment made in the last century by the Liberal Prime Minister, David Lloyd George, who said:

“This…is a War Budget. It is for raising money to wage implacable warfare against poverty...I cannot help hoping and believing that before this generation has passed away we shall have advanced a great step towards that good time when poverty and wretchedness and human degradation which always follow in its camp will be as remote to the people of this country as the wolves which once infested its forests.”—[Official Report, 29 April 1909; Vol. 4, c. 548.]

Regrettably, the wolves are back, with that characteristic ruthlessness and insensitivity towards the vulnerable in our society. I am not surprised in the slightest that few coalition Members are here. How on earth could they come along to try to defend the indefensible?

Further evidence of a “Don’t know, don’t care” Government is the response to my written question to the DWP about the number of food banks in operation and the extent of food poverty. It stated:

“DWP/Jobcentre Plus do not collate or hold numbers of people signposted to food banks or the reasons why individuals are referred. Jobcentre Plus is not the only route way for individuals to be signposted to a food bank.”—[Official Report, 27 November 2012; Vol. 554, c. 321W.]

What a clinical, insensitive and uncaring response.

The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has stated:

“There is no official estimate of the level of food poverty in the UK.”—[Official Report, 17 October 2012; Vol. 551, c. 298W.]

Surely, with the scale of the crisis and the growth of the hidden hungry, responsible Governments should desperately want to know. Or are they happy to abdicate responsibility to the many voluntary organisations—they do such tremendous work and depend on donations—that act as substitutes for the welfare state? In the light of the evidence, would a responsible and caring Government not want to abandon the tax cut for millionaires, robustly pursue tax avoidance and evasion and consider windfall taxes on the vast profits of energy companies to enhance benefits and tax credits by more than 1%?

John Dickie of the Child Poverty Action Group in Scotland summed up the Opposition’s position. He said:

“We would be deeply concerned if it was ever seen that charities and food banks would in any way be a kind of replacement for a tax and benefit policy that ensures all our families have adequate income for the task of bringing up their children.”

I urge the Government to assess robustly the nature and scale of the food crisis faced by the poor and vulnerable in our society and, more importantly, to do something about it.

A letter published in The Observer newspaper, signed by 59 leading charities and civic society groups, sums up my position well:

“As we mark the 70th anniversary of the Beveridge Report, which laid the foundations of the welfare state, we risk losing that very safety net he intended, it is a punitive, unfair policy and must not happen.”

The “Don’t know, don’t care” Government will forever be castigated for their inhumane and callous approach to the hidden hungry. They have completely abdicated their responsibility. It is not too late to change tack, Minister. I hope that he will as a decent man, through his office, pursue this matter and oppose what is happening in Cabinet. I implore him to break ranks with the out-of-touch Cabinet, which is, whether consciously or unwittingly, wrecking the lives of Scots through its complacency and inaction. Scotland’s poor deserve his unequivocal support.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Mundell]

I am afraid that I am not going to take any lessons from the hon. Lady, who had the temerity to quote “The Grapes of Wrath” in this Chamber but takes absolutely no responsibility for bringing this country to the brink of bankruptcy and creating the backdrop for the situation in which people now find themselves in so much difficulty. The Labour spokesman for Scotland, the hon. Member for Glasgow North East (Mr Bain), was as lucid as the shadow Chancellor in setting out exactly how Labour would deal with the issues. It comes back to the same things: more borrowing, more spending and more debt. That is exactly what got us into this difficulty and why we are in such difficult times.

[Lindsay Roy]

Can the Minister tell us what lessons he has learned from this debate?

[David Mundell]

The principal lesson that I have learned is that Labour has learned nothing from its time in office and has nothing to suggest other than soundbites. Of course it is a serious problem that people in Scotland have insufficient income for food. I take it as a very serious problem, but I do not believe that there is some miracle solution. Opposition Members suggest the return of a Labour Government, but they would simply pursue the same policies that brought us to the situation that we are in.

In the limited time available, I will deal with one or two of the specific points raised. All Members with individual constituents facing difficulties with the DWP or other parts of Government, such as the constituent mentioned by the hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway (Mr Brown), should refer them to Ministers in this Government, or to me and the Secretary of State. We are happy to take forward those proposals. I am sure that the hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway and others were not suggesting that there should be no system of sanctions for those who do not operate within DWP rules and guidelines.

The hon. Member for East Lothian (Fiona O’Donnell) mentioned benefit delays. That is an issue of concern, but from April 2013, DWP will replace the current interim payments—crisis loan alignment payments, for those who cannot wait until their benefit is due—with an improved system of short-term benefit and universal credit advances. Those advances of benefit, unlike the current social fund, will not be budget-capped. We heard, as we did in last week’s debate, about the transfer of the social fund to the Scottish Government. We highlighted in that debate that the funds being transferred to the Scottish Government are not ring-fenced. I take it from what the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Dr Whiteford) said about the Scottish Government’s approach that those funds might be ring-fenced when the Scottish Government receive them, and I certainly hope that they will work with local authorities to bring decision making on the social fund closer to the people who need it most.

Contrary to what we sometimes hear in debates like this, there is good news. Some 300,000 people in Scotland will be better off under the transfer to universal credit, and 3,100 fewer people are claiming jobseeker’s allowance than a year ago. That does not hide the fact that there are serious difficulties and that these are hard times. Particularly at this time of year, all our thoughts should be with the people who are suffering in these hard times. As I did at the outset of my remarks, I commend all the charitable and voluntary organisations that work closely with people in the most vulnerable situations to support them not just at this time of year but throughout the year. This is an important debate, and I again congratulate the hon. Member for Glenrothes on securing it. On that basis, I conclude my remarks.

Unemployment in Scotland

Lindsay Roy Excerpts

Wednesday 5th December 2012 Westminster Hall

[Graeme Morrice (Livingston) (Lab)]

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

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

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

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

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

[Lindsay Roy (Glenrothes) (Lab)]

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

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

[Graeme Morrice]

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

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

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

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

Scotland and the Union

Lindsay Roy Excerpts

Thursday 29th November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Graeme Morrice]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Lindsay Roy (Glenrothes) (Lab)]

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

[Graeme Morrice]

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Lindsay Roy (Glenrothes) (Lab)]

It is a great privilege to contribute to the debate after so many fine contributions from right hon. and hon. Members. I echo the sentiments of those on both sides of the House who have said that they are intensely proud to be Scottish or to have Scottish ancestry, but also to be British and to be citizens of the United Kingdom. I, too, fervently hold those joint allegiances. I would also say to the Scottish National party that it does not have a monopoly on care, passion and wisdom when it comes to the future of Scotland, and I do not believe its assertions about the land of milk and honey that it plans to create.

[Mr MacNeil]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Lindsay Roy]

No, I am sorry; I want to make progress.

Like most in this Chamber, I am ambitious for Scotland and for the United Kingdom. I agree that, with a strong Scottish Parliament within the UK, we have the best of both worlds. I have always believed that there is a better choice for the future than divorce, secession and separation. I want to illustrate that through an aspect of Scottish life that is dear to our hearts—namely, sporting activity.

As an avid football fan, I have supported the Scottish team for many years, although I do not go back 140 years to the 0-0 draw. I would like to remind the House, however, of the 3-2 victory at Wembley in 1967. Just after England’s famous victory in the World cup, we beat them and, as a result, claimed our share of the Jules Rimet trophy. I have also suffered the trials and tribulations of a 5-1 defeat at Wembley, and vividly remember on the way back home the sign on the back of the bus on the M6 saying, “You couldnae make it 6”!

In football and rugby, we have a strong tradition of Scottish teams representing us on the world stage. Times are tough, and I dearly wish that our football and rugby performances were better at the present time, but we support our teams passionately through thick and thin. However, is it not ironic that many of the players exhibiting such passion for their national team, who live outwith Scotland but give their all for their chosen country, will not be able to vote in the forthcoming referendum. They are good enough to play for their chosen country, but are not allowed to vote on Scotland’s future. That applies to many people who support Scotland vigorously, too.

While in some sports we have full decision-making powers to select our own national teams on the world scene in football and rugby, in others we have Scottish representatives who make selections for UK teams. Nowhere was that more visible than the recent UK-held Olympics, and indeed the Paralympics, where we pooled our human resources and facilities to produce the best UK performance ever, with 55 out of 542 participants from Scotland taking part in 21 out of the 26 Olympic sports.

Did we not do well together and did not the Scots make an outstanding contribution to that success? There were individual golds for Sir Chris Hoy and Andy Murray, and an individual silver to Michael Jamieson— three individual highlights in a glittering array of success stories. Overall, team UK collectively won 65 individual awards at gold, silver and bronze. The sum total of medals for Scotland, however, was not three, but 14, as Scots teamed up with colleagues across the UK to achieve outstanding results, taking on the best that the world could offer—and winning!

What more apposite illustration could we have to sum up Better Together? Without the combined resources across the UK, 11 Scots would not have won these coveted Olympic medals. Scots were integral parts of team UK, and there was a collective passion and team spirit to work together, sharing training and coaching as well as facilities to produce the best Olympic results ever.

Some of our SNP colleagues have jumped on the bandwagon of UK success. The hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart), where I was brought up, proudly stated:

“Britishness is one of our many identities and one that will be forever cherished in an independent Scotland.”

Yet the same hon. Gentleman has been recorded as saying:

“I do not even know what Britishness is”.—[Official Report, 12 November 2008; Vol. 482, c. 307WH.]

Well, we do, and the Scots know of the many benefits that accrue from being British. This has been well illustrated so far in this debate across all aspects of British life. I am confident that on referendum day, the Scots will continue to see that things are best when we pull together and work with our neighbours, so we can spread the risks and share the rewards. I believe that Scots will see, as in our sports development, that we can still have the best of both worlds—teams representing Scotland, but participation in UK teams, too.

[Pamela Nash (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is not acceptable that our heroes from Scotland and Team GB, who had to train throughout the UK because we did not have the facilities and support ready in Scotland, not only cannot live in Scotland, but will not have a vote in this important referendum in 2014?

[Lindsay Roy]

I agree wholeheartedly, as that was exactly the point I made earlier.

To conclude, we remain stronger and better together, sometimes as rivals but always, I trust, in the spirit of partnership and fair play.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lindsay Roy Excerpts

Wednesday 21st November 2012 Commons Chamber

The Secretary of State was asked—

[Lindsay Roy (Glenrothes) (Lab)]

1. What assessment he has made of the potential effects on jobs in Scotland of Scottish independence.

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

The UK Government firmly believe that Scotland is, and always will be, better off in the UK. The UK Government are undertaking a programme of analysis to evaluate how Scotland contributes to, and benefits from, being part of the UK.

[Lindsay Roy]

I thank the Minister for that answer. Will he explain why there is so much concern among those working in the defence and supply chain industries in Scotland over the future of their jobs?

[David Mundell]

I can advise the hon. Gentleman that, as of April, there were 15,880 regular armed forces and Ministry of Defence civilian personnel based in Scotland, and an additional 40,000 people employed in defence-related industries in around 800 companies. Not one of those people could guarantee their job under an independent Scotland.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lindsay Roy Excerpts

Wednesday 12th September 2012 Commons Chamber

The Secretary of State was asked—

[Lindsay Roy (Glenrothes) (Lab)]

1. What discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Defence on the effect on Scottish-based defence jobs if Scotland becomes an independent country.

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

I have regular discussions with ministerial colleagues on defence matters relating to Scotland. There is no doubt that there would be far-reaching implications for all sectors of the economy, including the defence industry, should Scotland become independent.

[Lindsay Roy]

I thank the Minister for his answer. I am very proud of the immense defence work that has been undertaken in Fife—for example, at Raytheon in my constituency. The contribution to national security has been immense. According to the Ministry of Defence, the new Type 26 frigate that is about to be commissioned will be the backbone of the Royal Navy for decades to come. Can the Minister advise how likely it is, in the light of possible separation, that the frigates will be built in Scotland?

[Michael Moore]

I pay tribute to the hundreds of skilled workers in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency who contribute so much to United Kingdom and, indeed, international defence through the work that they do at Raytheon and elsewhere, and I agree that this is not the time to be putting that at risk. On the specifics of the Type 26, it is clear that if Scotland were an independent country, the rest of the UK would be applying European Union procurement rules, which basically keep such contracts for the domestic market. We would therefore be locking ourselves out of the potential for millions of pounds-worth of work involving hundreds of jobs in Scotland, and that is not acceptable.