Bedroom Tax (Scotland)

Debate between Lindsay Roy and Ian Davidson

Thursday 8th May 2014 Westminster Hall

[Mr Davidson]

That is absolutely correct. I notice that there are numerous other Members here who will undoubtedly want to speak. I did not intend to spend most of my time on the iniquities of the bedroom tax, because that is common ground for the vast majority of us here; I wanted to discuss what is to be done and what should be done. For those reasons, I will turn to the campaigns that have been run and that have sent witnesses to us, which have exerted enormous pressure on public representatives to do something about this.

I regret that from a very early stage, the Scottish Government refused to use the full range of powers available to them to mitigate the effects of the bedroom tax. The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, who is the appropriate Scotland Office Minister, said that the Scottish Government had powers beyond DHPs; the Chief Secretary to the Treasury said exactly the same thing. We understand from both Ministers that the Scottish Government never made the least effort to contact them to find out what, in their view, might be legally available alternative methods of mitigating the bedroom tax.

[Lindsay Roy (Glenrothes) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. Can he offer an explanation why?

[Mr Davidson]

There is an explanation; it was given to us by John Swinney himself, no less, when he said that he did not want to let Westminster off the hook. Of course, it was not actually Westminster that was hanging on the hook; it was people in Scotland who were finding themselves in tremendous financial difficulty as a result of the introduction of the bedroom tax.

There has been progress. We have to recognise that the Scottish Government were forced by Labour and other parties in the Scottish Parliament, as well as by outside campaigns, to make available in their budget the full amount of money necessary to mitigate the effect of the bedroom tax. They said that they could not spend it because they could address difficulties only through the DHP mechanism, but I believe, and I note that Ministers and campaigning groups also believe, that that is not true.

The Scottish Government said that the only way they could address the bedroom tax is by DHPs, and I think we have to accept that that is not true, but they chose to rest their case on that position. Why? I think it is because they want a clash between the UK Government and the Scottish Government over the question of powers, and they are quite prepared to see some of the people of Scotland become casualties of that conflict in the hope that they will be able to make a political point about the lack of powers held by the Scottish Parliament, rather than seek ways to mitigate the effect of the bedroom tax on the people of Scotland.

[Lindsay Roy]

What other options might be available to the Scottish Government?

[Mr Davidson]

The information that we have from relatively brief discussions is that the Scottish Government may give money to social housing providers to allow them to write off debts. They could do that at any stage, so the debts built up under the bedroom tax could simply be written off.

Postal Services in Scotland after 2014

Debate between Lindsay Roy and Ian Davidson

Wednesday 10th July 2013 Westminster Hall

[Mr Davidson]

Goodness me! That is a surprise. I look forward to hearing from SNP Members, who are campaigning very strongly with us to oppose the privatisation of Royal Mail, as to why the Scottish Government, which they control, have been giving such contracts to the private sector. Goodness me, there must be some mistake, surely. [Interruption.] Are we going to get a correction? No, we are not. I can remember elections in which certain people sent mail through private companies, but those were just mistakes. Such things happen.

Let us be clear that a privately owned Royal Mail will undoubtedly apply downward pressure on the universal service obligation. We have seen that happen in Holland, for example, where the privately owned universal service is now likely to be reduced from six days a week to five days a week, with services being dropped on Mondays. We must recognise the alternative that lies in the private sector by looking at what private sector operators undertake at the moment. TNT, for example, operates on a principle of zero-hours contracts, whereby people who deliver for TNT are employed for zero hours. TNT constantly invites more people to the workplace than it needs on any given day so that it can guarantee itself enough numbers. That means, of course, as we used to see in the docks when they had the casual labour scheme, people are being turned away, potentially day after day, by privatisers who are treating workers simply as commodities, leaving those workers with zero hours on many occasions, which means they are unable to feed their family during the week. We can have little faith in the system of regulation, because nobody who understands the way in which the privatised industries have been operating has any confidence in the way in which they have been controlling those companies to date.

Finally—as you have previously indicated to me, Mr Hood, when a Member of Parliament says “finally” it usually means that he or she is about 40% of the way through their speech but simply wants to give their audience hope—I will address the question of the alternative future. As I indicated earlier, William Hill has odds of 9:1 on on there not being a no vote—sorry, I mean on there being a no vote. That is a bit like the confusion of Royal Mail and the Post Office.

The alternative future of separation calls into question the future of postal services in Scotland, and I understand that the SNP—rather than the yes campaign, because it has been marginalised, as we all know—has indicated that it intends to ensure a universal service obligation. My understanding is that the SNP has also indicated that there would be one price throughout Scotland, but it has not specified whether that one price would be the same price that applies in the rest of the United Kingdom, and I think it would be helpful if the SNP did specify that at some point. As we approach the referendum, there is an obligation for the SNP to clarify how it intends to fill the gap in financing Royal Mail in Scotland after separation, because that gap is presently filled by cross-subsidy from the rest of the United Kingdom. Operating a national service clearly involves cross-subsidy for rural areas, of which Scotland has a disproportionate number.

[Lindsay Roy (Glenrothes) (Lab)]

Is not Royal Mail an excellent example of the dividends of sharing and pooling resources to promote fairness within a strong UK?

[Mr Davidson]

Absolutely. Royal Mail provides a service, particularly throughout the highlands and islands and the most scattered rural communities in Scotland, in a way that the private sector does not. It is noticeable that when the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs investigated the provision of postal services to rural communities, which was quite some time ago—when the SNP was still on the Committee, before it took the huff and walked off—it was clear that the private sector was not delivering to those rural communities; it was refusing to deliver to a variety of postcodes where the costs were much higher than elsewhere. Royal Mail was the only one that would deliver to those communities at the standard and universal price, and it is the cross-subsidy system that makes that viable.

Those who would break Scotland away from the rest of the United Kingdom have an obligation, as we approach the referendum, to spell out exactly how much they anticipate would be required from Scottish taxpayers to meet the costs of the universal service obligation. They cannot say that they want European or continental standards of service while at the same time being unwilling to pay for them because they want to reduce taxation levels, particularly on business. That simply does not add up. People in Scotland deserve to know the truth.

I can remember when the arc of prosperity was being floated a while ago. That was in the days when the SNP was actually against being in NATO. But we have had two changes since then, if I remember correctly: the first was that membership would be automatic, and now Keith Brown has conceded that it would not be automatic. Things change.

None the less, the Scandinavians were held out as an example to Scotland. Are hon. Members aware that in Norway, a first-class stamp costs the equivalent of 103.9p? That is the Scandinavian model. Is that what Scotland will have after separation? I think that we deserve to be told. What will the price of first-class stamps be in a separate Scotland? Will posting mail to other parts of the United Kingdom cost the same as at the moment? It is far more expensive to post mail from Northern Ireland to the Irish Republic than to other parts of the United Kingdom. In those circumstances, the Irish Republic is a foreign country, as Scotland will be to the rest of the United Kingdom.

Scottish Referendum (Trident)

Debate between Lindsay Roy and Ian Davidson

Thursday 7th March 2013 Westminster Hall

[Mr Davidson]

Neither I should. The shop stewards said to us this morning that they have 50 years of security from the United Kingdom for those employed at Faslane and Coulport. They outlined to us that they understand that they might get answers from those seeking separation in November, after the publication of a White Paper, or maybe earlier, but they have not been promised any clear, categorical assurances before that time.

[Lindsay Roy (Glenrothes) (Lab)]

Is it not the case that it is about the security not just of existing jobs but of additional jobs over the next few years, as the new submarines are based there?

[Mr Davidson]

Indeed. That is a very valuable point. At the moment, 6,700 jobs are based at Faslane and Coulport. Under the existing United Kingdom Government proposals, which I understand are supported by all parties, that number would rise to 8,200 in the fairly near future. We have the opportunity to balance 50 years of security of employment and job growth with the United Kingdom on one hand and the great unknown of separation on the other.

Constitutional Law

Debate between Lindsay Roy and Ian Davidson

Tuesday 15th January 2013 Commons Chamber

[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.