Draft Scotland Clauses

Mark Lazarowicz Excerpts

Thursday 22nd January 2015 Commons Chamber

[David Mundell]

I will certainly speak to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to look at the position of the correspondence he entered into with the hon. Lady.

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

The Government are currently rolling out the personal independence payment benefit throughout the UK, but PIP benefits will, of course, be devolved to the Scottish Parliament under these proposals. Given that we all know that the PIP system is already causing chaos and misery to many of our constituents, do the Government propose that the PIP benefits should continue to be rolled out in Scotland when, in a year or so, the matter will be devolved to the Scottish Parliament, which might want to do something different?

[David Mundell]

I have two points in response. First, that issue will be discussed at the first meeting of the joint ministerial group. Secondly, whatever happens to the current PIP regime, as we move forward on benefits, we need to have a clear idea of what the Scottish Government are proposing. The transition will be affected by what we are transitioning to, so on the devolution of benefits, it is very important for the Scottish Government to come forward with their proposals. None of us wants to see a UK system being switched off without a Scottish system in place.

Oral Answers to Questions

Mark Lazarowicz Excerpts

Wednesday 14th January 2015 Commons Chamber

[David Mundell]

I think the hon. Lady was not listening to my previous answer. I undertook, on behalf of the hon. Member for Angus (Mr Weir), to investigate what has been said previously about the rail link north of Edinburgh, and I will also take up her point.

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

It is important that the train services that are meant to run actually do so. The Minister will know that services on the east coast main line were severely disrupted on 27 December and two days later as well. Will he meet colleagues to try to ensure that when there are disruptions on the line—they were no fault of East Coast, by the way—they are dealt with more effectively, passengers are given real alternative information, and the system is made more resilient to such disruption?

[David Mundell]

As a Member who represents a significant stop on the west coast main line at Lockerbie, I share the hon. Gentleman’s concerns about such disruption. I would be happy to meet him and any other colleagues who share those concerns.

Scotland and North-east England Post-2014

Mark Lazarowicz Excerpts

Tuesday 4th March 2014 Westminster Hall

[Sir Alan Beith]

The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. In my limited time, I will address another issue that affects border controls—fiscal policy in Scotland. An independent country might wish to have different VAT rates from those that apply in England. That raises the other issue of Scotland’s relationship with the EU, which has already been covered so I will not say any more. If different taxation rates applied, there would be issues at the border and a need to control goods coming across the border. That would further impair trade and cause further difficulties for people whose everyday life means constantly crossing the border. Those things are not impossible to address—they are dealt with in many countries—but they add to the difficulties of areas that have enough economic problems as it is and certainly do not need such artificial pressures.

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

The right hon. Gentleman has got to the crux of the matter. Those who support independence for Scotland tell us that they want to see open borders and no change whatsoever from the current arrangements. If Scotland was to become independent, I am sure that most of us, so far as we would have a role in the matter, would want to see as open a border as possible. The fact is, however, that we can only guarantee open borders and the present arrangements by being part of the same state, and that could change with independence. People can debate how real that is and how far they would change, but we can only guarantee the open border by maintaining the same state arrangements.

[Sir Alan Beith]

The hon. Gentleman puts the argument very well indeed. The Union is a guarantee of free passage across the border, unimpeded by either immigration or customs controls, and that is well worth having. We are much better together because of that.

There is another kind of problem—we get it even under the existing system, although it would be significantly worse if Scotland became independent—which is the administrative difficulties people face if they want to access public services across the border. If I ring up a plumber, he does not say, “I am sorry, but I cannot help you because I am on the wrong side of the border.” When public services are involved, however, those difficulties start to arise. We have managed to minimise them in health, for example, where many people on the Scottish side of the border go to GPs in England and vice versa. Many people from my constituency use the Borders general hospital. There are, however, always problems just around the corner, and I spend a lot of time fighting to ensure that new barriers are not erected. They would be much more likely to be erected in the event of independence, and that is a real danger.

Scotland’s Place in the UK

Mark Lazarowicz Excerpts

Thursday 6th February 2014 Commons Chamber

[Gregg McClymont]

The hon. Gentleman should allow me to develop my argument a little further.

The SNP wants the political Union to end, but the social and economic union to continue. In those circumstances, the referendum will be about the best form of Government across these islands. That point was eloquently made by the hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart). If economic and social union is to endure, as shown by the SNP’s White Paper, the question becomes one about how Scotland’s political interests are to be represented. The answer that Scots came up with 300, 400 or even 500 years ago was a Union. With John Mair of Haddington in the lead, they came up, in diabolically clever Scottish fashion, with a way to create a partnership between two countries of very unequal size. When we celebrate Robert the Bruce and William Wallace, we are saying that because Scotland entered the Union freely, we created a partnership and were not subordinated.

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

Will not the Scottish Government’s proposals lead to an incredible democratic deficit? At the moment, if people in Scotland do not like what the UK Government do, they can have their say through their MPs. In the new arrangement proposed by the SNP, any negotiations would be intergovernmental, and it would not be up to the people of Scotland but to the Scottish Government to see what could be extracted from negotiations with the UK Government.

[Gregg McClymont]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. There is a very Scottish way of putting it: the nationalists want us to have our cake and eat it, but that is very difficult. When Alex Salmond claims that by Scotland leaving the political union, England would lose a surly lodger and gain a good neighbour—that is important, because it illuminates the nationalists’ view of the world—my response is very straightforward: how can you be a lodger in your own house? We built this house together, and it is ours as much as anyone else’s. That house has of course been refurbished; it is not unchanging. The biggest constitutional change in this country in 300 years was the creation of the Scottish Parliament. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar does not like to be faced with facts—his speech was a fact-free zone—but the fact is that this is our house as well as that of the other peoples of the United Kingdom.

That is the basis on which this debate must proceed: how can one continue an economic and social union—the ties that bind us are accepted even by the nationalists—without political representation in the place where such social and economic decisions are made? The debate about the currency, interest rates and continuing social ties must proceed on that basis.

Oral Answers to Questions

Mark Lazarowicz Excerpts

Wednesday 26th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[Michael Moore]

My hon. Friend, whose distinguished track record in these matters is well known to people across the House, makes a very important point. This week, the report of the Scotland Institute—an independent body—has put real and serious questions to the SNP and the yes campaign that they cannot answer.

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

3. Which Department is responsible for promoting in Scotland the UK Government’s policies on supporting home buyers; and if he will make a statement.

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

The Government are providing wide-ranging support to help people buy their homes. That support includes the UK-wide Help to Buy mortgage guarantee scheme, which is led by the Treasury and opens in January 2014. The Treasury has also worked with the Bank of England to implement the funding for lending scheme.

[Mark Lazarowicz]

Next year, home buyers in Scotland will have the opportunity to access the Scottish Government’s shared equity scheme, the Scottish Government’s mortgage guarantee scheme and the UK Government’s mortgage guarantee scheme. That may sound like a surfeit of riches, but it is leading to confusion, even now, about the best way to access these schemes. Why do the Government not take more action to ensure that there is a close relationship between what the Scottish Government are doing and what the UK Government are doing to make sure that the benefits of these schemes do not go to second home buyers, buying houses of up to £600,000 a year, as the people who need them are first home buyers and people on modest incomes?

Constitutional Law

Mark Lazarowicz Excerpts

Tuesday 15th January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Margaret Curran]

I thank my hon. Friend for that effective intervention. I will make reference to why some are urging that there should be a second question as I progress.

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

If I can take my hon. Friend back to the intervention by the hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards) from Plaid Cymru, is the situation not entirely the reverse of what he suggests? If people vote no in the referendum—against separation—there will be opportunities to develop devolution and the Scottish Parliament, but if people vote yes to independence, then that is it. There will be no second thoughts—that will be once and for all and final. There should be no doubt whatsoever of the consequence of such a vote.

[Margaret Curran]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. May I be absolutely crystal clear? The way to stop devolution in Scotland, in its current form and in any further developments, is to vote for separation. That is the way to end devolution. If people want to continue devolution and have a strong element of devolution in the partnership that is the United Kingdom, they should vote against nationalist wishes in the referendum.

The referendum offers us the opportunity to settle the question decisively, once and for all. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Mrs McGuire) said, this is a fault line in Scottish politics—people either support partnership with the United Kingdom or they support separation. We need to settle this once and for all, and then move away from the issue that keeps Alex Salmond awake at night to the concerns that keep our constituents awake at night.

Let me turn to the order. As the Secretary of State has outlined, article 3 removes the reservation of the power to hold a referendum on the independence of Scotland from the rest of the UK, and stipulates conditions relating to the date of the poll and the nature of the question. On this side of the House, we have argued consistently for a poll that would come earlier than 2014, as has been indicated. As business leaders, civil society and others have said, a vote conducted more than 18 months from now while the country continues to face some of the most testing economic circumstances in a generation, adds, at the very minimum, to the uncertainty faced by the Scottish people.

We would have sought an earlier poll. However, we understand the challenges faced by Government, the issues around the legislative timeline and the need to provide a full debate. As such, we hope that the period between now and the referendum itself will be used to full advantage. If I can make reference to a comment made by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North (Ann McKechin, I hope that that timeline—the amount of time involved—will ensure that the Scottish Parliament has the maximum time to debate and process this issue. It should also be used to ensure that Scots are provided with a robust and informed debate. So far, Scots are not getting the information to which they are reasonably entitled, even at this stage, by the party proposing separation. There is still much more information to be given by those who are proposing separation. As the protagonists, it is reasonable to expect them to do that.

Article 3 provides the clarity that the referendum will consist of a single question, as I made reference to in response to my right hon. Friend the Member for Stirling. For a decision of this magnitude, we have always believed that this is the only way to provide absolute clarity for the Scottish people. A multi-question referendum, as some on the nationalist Benches have argued for, would not only have led to confusion but, as the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs has previously pointed out, would have been out of step with international precedents. It would also have been detrimental had we included a question for which there was no clear offering, in terms of powers to the Scottish Parliament, and no group able to make the case where there was no distinct proposal and no clarity about the details of what was being proposed.

Although the issue concerning the number of questions has been resolved, the order gives the Scottish Parliament the power to set the wording of the question. In this area, we still have several concerns. First, we are not confident that the question proposed by the Scottish Government provides those voting in the referendum with sufficient clarity. Secondly, in the light of that, we are concerned that the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister have not committed themselves to following the recommendations of the independent, objective Electoral Commission.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Davidson]

We certainly have to trust the Scottish people. They are sensible enough to recognise that the SNP is unwilling to engage in debate. It is worth pointing out that at the establishment of the Scottish Affairs Committee, two SNP Members who had previously been on the Committee refused to participate because they found themselves being ridiculed and their arguments destroyed at every turn. They had had enough so they decided that they did not want to come back any more. That is understandable. Nobody likes being defeated in arguments, but it is rather petty and juvenile for them to take their ball and go home.

[Mark Lazarowicz]

It is surely also fair to suggest that the total absence of SNP Members from this debate, which has been attended by Members from all other parties in the House, indicates that we are entitled to question how far the SNP will indeed listen to our view in the debate about the order when it goes to the Scottish Parliament. Does my hon. Friend agree that it would be good if the SNP Members returned to the Chamber?

[Mr Davidson]

That is correct. How can they claim that they are willing to take all points of view into account if they are not willing to hear them? They withdraw from the Select Committee and from the Chamber when views are expressed that they do not like. I hope my colleagues will in future see it as a badge of honour if their remarks result in the SNP departing from the Chamber. They are obviously raising points that SNP Members feel cannot be refuted.

Let me make progress. We do not want to spend our time obsessing about the SNP truanting when there are important topics to be discussed. The Committee raised the issue of 16 and 17-year-olds and the difficulties of making sure that they are on the register. The Scottish Government and the SNP have had a long time to work through the procedures for that but have not done so adequately. In our view it will not be sufficient for only attainers to be given the vote in the Scottish referendum—those who will attain majority during the period of the register. It will be necessary to make sure, as promised, that everyone who is 16 or 17 years old is on the register.

I return to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee West (Jim McGovern), who serves with distinction on the Scottish Affairs Committee. It is true that not only will Terry Butcher be able to vote and Alex Ferguson will not, but according to the Team GB information that we have, of the 11 Scottish Olympic medallists, only one is reported to be resident in Scotland. If people are good enough to represent Scotland at the Olympics and win medals on Scotland’s behalf, one would have thought that the rules would be sufficiently flexible to allow them to participate in the referendum, and similarly with respect to members of the Scottish rugby team and members of the Scottish football team. We can understand why those people might not want to be publicly known, given the recent results, but none the less, if they are selected to represent the country, one would have thought that they would at least be given the opportunity to vote on whether or not it should be independent.

All that has to be tackled by the Scottish Parliament. In particular, we want the Scottish Parliament to look at the position of Scottish servicemen. Someone who signs up for the services has no control over where they are sent. There are three groups of service personnel—the valuable point was made earlier that this also applies to their families—who have no control over where they are sent.

The first group consists of those who are posted in Scotland. There will be no difficulty in them having a vote, because they will be registered in Scotland. Secondly, there are those who are sent to Germany or furth of—outside—the UK. Under the normal rules, they will be expected to have a postal vote or an absentee vote to allow them to participate in the referendum. Thirdly, those who are posted to England, Wales or Northern Ireland would usually be expected to register where they are based, so they would not be on the local government register in Scotland and, therefore, would not be entitled to vote.

I understand that all those who are in the UK armed services at present will, in future, be given the opportunity to transfer and join the Scottish defence forces, whether they be the army, the air force or the navy. If they transfer, they might be asked to lay down their lives for Scotland. In such circumstances, it seems appropriate that they be given the opportunity to vote on whether or not a separate Scotland should be established. That is perhaps the most clear example of the anomalies resulting from using the local government electoral register. We believe that the Scottish Government have a responsibility to address those issues.

[Mark Lazarowicz]

My hon. Friend was asked earlier about the position of Sir Alex Ferguson, who, as far as I know, has made his home on a permanent basis, at least for some years, in the Manchester area. Most Scottish troops who are posted abroad or elsewhere in the UK, however, are posted for only a few years. Most of them intend to come back to and reside in Scotland. Is not the key point that, for the most part, people are not leaving Scotland permanently but intend to return to the UK in due course? Someone who works for the European Union in Brussels can still register as a Scottish citizen and as an overseas voter for up to 15 years, but a Scottish soldier living in England cannot do so.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Laing]

Absolutely. The right hon. Gentleman makes a good point. Let us hope that they train just as well as they did last time and bring in as many medals, as it was wonderful to see and to support. He is absolutely right, so why wait?

Looking at it from the other point of view, however, I was annoyed at first that we were not just getting on with this and having the referendum, but now I discover that the more that one goes into the consequences of Scotland separating from the United Kingdom and the more time we have to examine the consequences in every area of life—every area of government, every area of the economy and every area geographically—the more obvious it becomes that we are “Better Together”. I am now glad that we have many months ahead of us to make the argument, because I am confident that the people of Scotland will see the truth as it emerges and as we examine what the real consequences of separation would be.

I turn next to the question. There is no point asking a question along the lines of: “Do you agree that Scotland should be an independent country?” That is what the First Minister and the Scottish Government have so far proposed. It is such a biased question that even I would answer yes—of course, Scotland should be, is and always has been an independent country. It is a non-question. There is no point going through the rigmarole of a referendum, spending hundreds of millions of pounds, to ask a meaningless question. If even I would answer yes, the facts speak for themselves: the question is enormously biased.

It is only worth asking a question, if it illuminates the real issue at stake, and the real issue is not about whether someone is proud to be Scottish and proud of their country; it is not about the word “independence” or Scotland being its own country; it is not even about nationhood, rising to be a nation again and all of that; the question is about separation. The difference between Scotland—indeed, the whole of the United Kingdom—before and after a referendum will turn only on the issue of separation. Nationhood will go on; the country will go on; and pride in one’s country will go on, as it always has done and always will do—those things will not change.

The change will be that, if the Scottish people vote for what the First Minister asks them to vote for, Scotland will separate. The key word, then, is “separate”. We must put aside all those other words and ensure that the word “separate” is in the question, because that is what the referendum is really about. Research from MORI and other well-thought-of opinion pollsters shows that, by the time we get to voting day in a campaign as long as this, people pretty well know whether they are on this side or that, but the House should make it clear that we believe that the issue is separation and that therefore the word “separation” must be in the question.

I come next to concerns about the franchise. It appears that the First Minister wants to make the franchise as wide as possible, as long as those who are enfranchised are those he thinks are likely to vote on his side of the argument. Basically, that is what it is all about. Let us consider the fairness, or otherwise, of the franchise. First, various Members have expressed their concerns about 16 and 17-year-olds voting. The hon. Member for Glasgow South West put to us the findings of his Select Committee report in that respect, and I hope that the House will take note of that.

One of my main concerns about 16 and 17-year-olds being able to vote is that, in order to make that happen, 14-year-olds have to appear on the register. It means including the names, addresses and ages of those aged 14 and 15, who are children, not adults. The names, ages and addresses of those children aged 14 and 15 will be available on a public document. That is simply not right, but it is one of the consequences of the crazy, scattergun effect of saying, “Let’s pull everyone into this; let’s let everybody vote; make the franchise as wide as possible”—as long, of course, as it means people who agree with the First Minister.

[Mark Lazarowicz]

Although there are certain issues about giving 16 and 17-year-olds the vote, there is a quite simple solution to the point raised by the hon. Lady. The names of under-16s should not be made available on a published register or on any register until a few weeks before the referendum period. There are ways of getting round the difficulty.

[Mrs Laing]

I hear what the hon. Gentleman says, but I am not confident about that point. It greatly concerns me that the names, addresses and ages of 14-year-olds would be made public in order to allow them to vote by the time they are 16. At the moment, the name of someone who is yet to be 18 will be on the register more than a year before they are 18. I can cope with that for 17-year-olds, but not for 14-year-olds who are children. I repeat that that is simply not right.

Moving on to other aspects of the franchise, it would appear that some members of the armed forces will be allowed to vote in the referendum, but what about their families or their dependants? What if someone serving in Germany lives with his wife, teenage children and perhaps mother-in-law? The person in the armed forces might be given a vote, but those others would not. That is not fair.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Laing]

Yes, that is the worst anomaly of all. People who are out of the United Kingdom are treated differently from people who are in the United Kingdom. I was just coming on to that point, and I am glad that the hon. Lady will agree with what I am about to say. The question is this: why is the franchise for this referendum being based on the franchise for local government elections? This is not a question of local government; it is completely different. Local government elections are about electing people, for four years or so, who look after truly local matters such as roads, pavements, lighting and village halls. I accept that people who are not living in the area and paying council tax should not take part in a local government election, because it concerns local matters. I also accept that people from EU countries, Commonwealth countries, Ireland and so on, who are living in a particular area and paying local taxes, should have a vote in a local government election at that time. Their vote will last for four years—I have no problem with that. But why has the franchise for this historic referendum been based on the franchise for local government elections? [Interruption.] I was hoping that the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire might answer the question. He indicates that he will come to it in due course. That is excellent. We really need an answer to the question. This is not about local government, or local matters, but a huge, historic referendum that affects all Scots and the whole United Kingdom.

[Mark Lazarowicz]

The answer is simple: the franchise is the same for local and Scottish parliamentary elections. Any choice of franchise will have anomalies, but is it not sensible to make the franchise for the referendum the same as for Scottish parliamentary elections?

[Mrs Laing]

No, it is not. The hon. Gentleman has answered the question in a factual way—the franchise for a Scottish Parliament election was based on the franchise for a local government election. I know that, but my argument is that basing a franchise on local government elections is not suitable for a historic referendum that will affect Scotland and the whole United Kingdom for a long time to come.

If the franchise had been based on the UK parliamentary elections, British nationals who have been living outside Britain for less than 15 years would have a vote. That would be much fairer, and would cover the point made by the hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Pamela Nash), because someone serving in the armed forces in, say, Germany, who has their entire family living with them—who would presumably have been out of Scotland for less than 15 years—would have a vote in the constituency in which they were last based in Scotland. It would make far more sense to base the franchise for the referendum on UK parliamentary elections, because that would allow far more people who are Scottish and who want to have a say in the future of their country to do so.

There is a far more difficult point. Hundreds of thousands of Scots living in parts of the United Kingdom other than Scotland do not feel in travelling the few miles to Carlisle or the few hundred miles to London that they have left their country. Their attitude—I know because I am one of them—is that they are living in a different part of their country from that in which they happen to have been born. That does not mean that they have in any way given up their nationality or their pride in their part of our United Kingdom. It is utterly scandalous that the Scottish Government’s current plans will disfranchise hundreds of thousands of people who were born in Scotland but live in other parts of the United Kingdom. The First Minister of Scotland has said that people from Commonwealth countries can vote on Scotland’s future, citizens of the Irish Republic who live in Scotland can vote on Scotland’s future, and anyone who is a citizen of any part of the enormous European Union who happens to be living in Scotland for a matter of months can have a say in the future of Scotland, but hundreds of thousands of Scots living in England, Wales and Northern Ireland will not have that say.

--- Later in debate ---

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

It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray). It makes me the third Edinburgh Member to take part in the debate—the other two have been around the Chamber, so we might make it a full house by the end of the evening, depending on the time available.

I welcome the fact that the agreement between the UK and Scottish Governments on the section 30 order was reached relatively speedily, because it would have soured the debate in Scotland, if there had been continuing disagreement—or, worse still, dispute, leading to legal challenge—over the terms of the referendum. It is right and necessary that the referendum proceeds on the basis of agreement between the two Governments and Parliaments.

It is certainly true, of course, that the Scottish Government were elected with a clear mandate to hold a referendum on independence. If we add together the minority parties, almost a majority of the electorate voted that way. I recognise that, but equally, as one of my hon. Friends said earlier, we in this House have a mandate from the people of Scotland—a mandate achieved just one year before the Scottish Parliament elections. All the parties put to the Scottish people their own constitutional programmes as part of their general election manifestos. At that point, the results were somewhat different. It is right that there should be agreement—not just between Governments, but across parties—and I welcome how that was achieved quite speedily through negotiations. I pay tribute to all those involved in that achievement.

It is good that an agreement should be reached on an all-party basis. I accept that all parties here—at the end of the day, all Members from Scotland—want to do what is best for Scotland. We obviously have different interpretations and opinions of what that means, but I accept that this is the overriding intention from all sides. Whatever our different views in the constitutional debate, it is essential, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Mrs McGuire) said, to conduct these debates in as mature and inclusive fashion as we can, while recognising the strongly held emotions and views on both sides of the debate.

That is because we need to recognise one important fact—whatever happens in the referendum, the next morning we will all get up in the same country, with the same people facing the same issues and the same problems, with the same strengths and weaknesses and probably the same weather, perhaps regrettably, as we had before the referendum. Depending on the result of referendum, of course, hundreds of thousands or millions of people in Scotland will either be delighted or shocked by the result. If the vote for separation wins—the indication is that it will not, but nothing is certain—those who are strongly committed to the UK will be bitterly disappointed. If the people of Scotland vote to stay in the UK, many who have campaigned for independence, in some cases for all their lives, will be equally bitterly disappointed.

The worst outcome for Scotland and rest of UK would be if the referendum were to be followed by a period of rancour and division rather than one where all in Scotland tried to make the outcome, whatever it was, work as well as it could for both Scotland and the UK. If the result is a win for independence, it would, as the Secretary of State pointed out earlier, be the duty of Scottish politicians who were against separation to make sure that the new arrangements between Scotland, the rest of UK and the EU work as well as possible. Equally, if independence is rejected, as I think it will be, those politicians who have campaigned for independence should accept the result, urge all their supporters to do so as well, and make it clear that the result is, if not for all time—I understand that people will not want to say for ever—at least valid for a generation, as has been said in the past. I hope that they will accept the result and not seek to overturn it at the first opportunity.

The tone of that post-referendum debate—and, indeed, the tone before it—will be significantly affected by how the participants and voters on both sides feel about the way the pre-referendum debate was conducted. If there is a feeling that the rules of the campaign have been bent or twisted to benefit one side or the other, there will be a much higher chance of the debate, both before and after the referendum, being diverted into issues of process and becoming bitter and negative, rather than being one on the fundamental issues. That is why I share the hope that the Scottish Government will approach the use of the powers devolved to them in as consensual a manner as possible, given the obvious differences between all concerned on the fundamental issues. I believe that the SNP needs to make greater progress and to show a greater commitment to consensus on that issue.

The ground rules need to be clearer in a number of respects, so let me spend a couple of minutes explaining them. First, I strongly agree with colleagues about the importance of the Electoral Commission’s supervision of the electoral rules, and I believe agreement on the question is essential. I can understand why the SNP leader here will not give a blanket commitment to accept the Electoral Commission’s recommendations whatever it says and in whatever circumstances, but a much stronger indication of a willingness to accept those recommendations would certainly have been welcome today. I hope that the SNP will reflect on that and recognise that, as the right hon. Member for Gordon (Sir Malcolm Bruce) said, flouting those recommendations might jeopardise their own case in the referendum as well as the nature of the debate.

Certainly, fair rules are needed on spending limits; I will not go over the points that have been made on that. Fair rules are also needed on how the civil service is used, and I endorse the comments that have been made on that.

On votes for 16 and 17-year-olds, I believe that some of the practical difficulties can be overcome, but I do not have time to go into those in detail. If there are to be such votes, however, every effort should be made to give all 16 and 17-year-olds the ability to vote. At one stage in the process, there was a suggestion that they could opt in—apply to have a vote—but that would be a recipe for an undemocratic outcome and a lower participation rate. They should be added to the register either through the normal process in October, or through a special canvass directed specifically at 16 and 17-year-olds to ensure that all of them, not just a select handful, can vote.

The franchise issue has been raised by colleagues on both sides of the House. Although I understand some of the questions raised about the agreement between the parties and the two Parliaments, ultimately the most consistent and logical way forward is to base the voting qualification for the referendum on that for Scottish Parliament elections. Any choice of franchise has anomalies, but that is the simplest solution. I understand the point expressed by those who asked why Scots living outside Scotland should not be allowed to vote in the referendum, but it does not stand up to much examination once we consider some of the practical difficulties. It sounds a good idea in theory for Scottish Olympic champions and medal winners living outside Scotland to be able to vote, but why stick to those who won medals in 2012? Why not include those who won medals in 2008 or 2004? Why not include Commonwealth games champions from 2014 or 2010? The list goes on.

The issue of well known, leading Scottish football managers outside Scotland was raised. I suspect that there might be Scottish football managers quite a long way down the English football divisions and beyond. Where do we draw the line on who is allowed to vote? The suggestion was made—in all seriousness, I think—that people who were born but were no longer living in Scotland should be allowed to vote. Again, that would involve anomalies that could not be overcome: someone who had been born in Germany to Scottish service personnel and their families, who came back to Scotland for 40 years and then left Scotland, would not be allowed to vote, while somebody who had been born in Scotland and whose parents left three days later would be allowed to do so.

There is also an issue of wider principle. If we move away from the idea that voters in the referendum are those who have chosen to or, by birth, live and work in Scotland and have made or are making a continuing commitment in Scotland, we inevitably move to a different basis for the franchise and a definition based on ethnicity, racial origins or something of that nature. Once we do that, we can unleash, although I am sure that no Member intends that, all sorts of emotions and dark forces. In Quebec, for example, when the last referendum vote was very close, some of those who supported Quebec independence objected to the fact that English Canadians took part in the vote. The SNP has, as a party—all credit to it—accepted that its nationalism is based on a civic nationalism of those who live and work in Scotland. That has contributed to the fact that, for the most part, we have escaped some of the excesses that have existed in other countries when there have been nationalism debates. We want to keep it that way.

I accept that there are issues about people who have temporarily left Scotland for work—above all, the question of the forces—which I hope the Scottish Parliament will address in its decisions.

Finally, I want to say something about whether we can trust the SNP in relation to its commitment to the Edinburgh agreement. While I am as ready as any of my colleagues to wonder about the extent of its commitment to the spirit as well as the letter of the agreement, I strongly agree with the right hon. Member for Gordon and others who have pointed out that in the event of any blatant misuse of the powers devolved by the order, the SNP—which supports independence for Scotland—would lose out in the referendum process and the referendum debate. We should bear it in mind that we are devolving secondary-legislation powers to the Scottish Parliament, and that if those powers were blatantly misused, the issue would arise of whether they were being used consistently with the powers devolved to it under the Scotland Act. In that context, there could, in the last resort, be a legal challenge.

I would rather the referendum had taken place by now, and I would certainly rather it took place before October 2014, but that date is not so far away now. I am confident that, just as in 1997 the people of Scotland made a mature decision to back the establishment of a devolved Scottish Parliament, they will decide on this occasion to stand by the Union that has served Scotland well for more than 300 years. I look forward to their having the opportunity to express their views in the referendum, and then to build firmly on the success that devolution has proved to be since it was established in 1999.

Food Banks (Scotland)

Mark Lazarowicz Excerpts

Wednesday 19th December 2012 Westminster Hall

[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.

Unemployment in Scotland

Mark Lazarowicz Excerpts

Wednesday 5th December 2012 Westminster Hall

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

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for West Dunbartonshire (Gemma Doyle) for giving Members an opportunity to discuss an issue of such great importance. Like other colleagues, I will concentrate on issues that relate to my constituency. Edinburgh North and Leith does not have the extreme levels of high unemployment that are suffered by some other constituencies. It normally comes somewhere in the middle of the UK figures. As unemployment goes up in the UK, so, too, does it in my constituency, and it stays roughly in the middle range. However, as with all our constituencies, and indeed the country as a whole, the broad picture does not always accurately reflect the position on the ground. It would not surprise many Members in the Chamber to hear that my constituency has areas that are among the richest in not just Scotland but the UK as a whole, and also areas that come near the top of the deprivation and unemployment rates in Edinburgh and, in some cases, in Scotland as a whole.

Youth unemployment has risen sharply in my constituency. A year or so ago, we found that we had the highest rate in Scotland of 16 to 17-year-olds not in education or employment. My constituency has certainly suffered from recent events in line with the rest of the UK. I suspect that we are also experiencing the phenomenon to which my hon. Friend the Member for West Dunbartonshire referred of unemployment not really showing up in the figures. That is perhaps more true in my constituency than in any other. I strongly suspect that underemployment is a major factor, with people who want to work full time finding themselves working part time because there is no alternative.

I am aware that many people in my constituency are self-employed. There are those who were on contracts to work in the financial services sector or who were in some ways linked to it. They are still self-employed, but the amount of work they are getting has dropped dramatically, as has their income. Although this is difficult to work out from the figures, I suspect that that is a particularly severe problem in my constituency.

The house building figures are also low, showing a dramatic lack of activity in my constituency. House building is always a sign of activity in the economy as a whole, and the latest figures from the National House-Building Council show that the number of new home starts in my constituency over the last quarter was just eight, and that is in a constituency and a city where the population is still growing. The population of Edinburgh is now almost half a million; it has grown by almost 20% over the past 10 years and it is projected to grow still further. We certainly would not expect such a low number of new home starts if the economy was going well, and it clearly is not.

We have heard from colleagues about the lack of success of the Work programme. For me, people getting into a job at the end of it is a pretty good indicator of whether the scheme is working. Again, the number of people in my constituency who have found work is not as low as elsewhere—my hon. Friend the Member for West Dunbartonshire referred to a figure of 2%. In my constituency, it is 3% of those over 25. It seems that people who go on the programme are getting work at a lower rate than those who do not, which does not sound like a recipe for success.

[Jim McGovern]

My own daughter, Jillian McGovern, is one of my hon. Friend’s constituents, and she was made redundant earlier this year. Thankfully, she has managed to find a new job, with no assistance whatever from the Department for Work and Pensions. Does my hon. Friend agree that the DWP Work programme seems to be drastically unsuccessful?

[Mark Lazarowicz]

The figures clearly speak for themselves. I am glad that my hon. Friend’s daughter has found employment. Of course, one of the tragedies is that many staff in the DWP are working hard to try to make the scheme work, but are unable to do so. We all know that when there is a general backdrop of high unemployment and low economic activity, there is only so much that can be done.

Some things are being done by various levels of Government. I am pleased to say that the Edinburgh city council, through the Edinburgh Guarantee scheme, has been active not just in itself as an authority but in the private sector, encouraging the provision of real jobs and opportunities for young people. In the current year, Edinburgh city council is offering 50 new apprenticeships, 18 new training places and 50 further opportunities with council contractors. It has been encouraging private sector employers to take up that approach as well, with some success. Of course Edinburgh has a Labour-led council, which may have something to do with the success, but it certainly shows what can be done by local government, at city or district level, to respond to the current difficulties.

Clearly, a local authority can only do so much, so what we need is a change in the national picture and the national direction. We need a change of course, such as the one that my hon. Friend the Member for West Dunbartonshire referred to in her opening contribution. We also need action at Scottish level.

One of the ways in which we can provide real jobs and use the current economic downturn to provide a way out and a way forward for the future is, of course, to invest in infrastructure projects. Both the UK Government and the Scottish Government have been slow off the mark in coming up with new infrastructure projects to meet the needs of the time. I have lost count of the number of times that this Government—the UK Government—have announced new infrastructure schemes and projects, and processes and mechanisms to try to bring jobs into the sector. I accept that things are slowly happening. However, it is two and a half years in now, and we have seen hardly any new projects and hardly any new jobs on the ground as a result of the UK Government’s limited measures to promote infrastructure investment.

I also have to say that the Scottish Government have been slow off the mark. Of course, their powers are not as wide as some of their members would like, but there is a lot that they could do with their existing taxation powers and spending programmes to boost jobs and infrastructure in Scotland.

I am pleased that the Scottish Government’s Cabinet Secretary has recently presented the UK Government with a list of “shovel-ready” projects, as he described them. I think that he could have been preparing that list a bit earlier on in the scheme of things, but nevertheless it has now come forward. I know that one of the major schemes on that list is for investment of more than £100 million to develop the port of Leith in my constituency, which will be important not only for Leith—obviously—but for the whole Scottish economy. That is certainly good, and I hope that in his response to the debate the Minister will tell us that he and his colleagues in the Scotland Office—or rather, his colleague, the Secretary of State—are lobbying actively to ensure that Scotland gets its fair share of the infrastructure investments that come forward, and that those investments are put into effect as soon as possible.

That is the key point—we need action now. We do not need promises of infrastructure investment or activity two, three, four years down the line. We do not want people to be promised training places with no jobs to go into at the end of the training period. We need a change of course, and we need the measures that the Government have promised, particularly on infrastructure, to be put into effect as soon as possible, so that we see some urgency from the Government in a way that, frankly, we have not seen in the past two and a half years.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Mundell]

The forum will meet for the first time early in the new year, and its prime focus will be to co-ordinate the different interests and to ensure that there is a seamless programme of support for people looking for work, thereby ensuring that they are neither passed around nor a victim of conflicting agendas. The forum has an important role to play, because it is quite clear that we have to bring together more close working.

I am concerned about a couple of issues that were raised.

[Mark Lazarowicz]

Will the Minister give way?

Scotland and the Union

Mark Lazarowicz Excerpts

Thursday 29th November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Margaret Curran (Glasgow East) (Lab)]

Let me begin by paying tribute to the members of the Backbench Business Committee, and thanking them for enabling us to debate this important matter. We have had an excellent debate. I particularly appreciated the speech of the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs Laing), which demonstrated the warmth that Scots encounter throughout the rest of the United Kingdom, and the powerful speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Graeme Morrice), who advanced clear economic arguments to demonstrate why Scotland works well when partnered with other nations in the UK.

On the eve of St Andrew’s day, it is important for us to bear in mind that the UK Parliament is Scotland’s Parliament too. We have an opportunity to recognise the best that we have in Scotland and celebrate it, to pay tribute to our public sector service workers, and to appreciate the industry and effort that make Scotland so great in the cities of Glasgow, Edinburgh, Dundee, Aberdeen and, of course, many other places.

We should also be pleased that Scotland is performing so significantly in the arts, in which I have a particular interest. As Vicky Featherstone leaves the great National Theatre of Scotland that she did so much to establish and goes to the Royal Court theatre, we mourn her loss and remember the contribution that she has made, but we are very proud that she is doing so well in England.

What has been said today has clearly demonstrated the national pride that so many of us have in the great country of Scotland, but it also makes an important point that I hope will be remembered as we continue the debate on the referendum, namely that pride and patriotism in Scotland do not belong to a single political party. The national flag and our other symbols belong to us all. They do not belong to one person, or to one party. I hope that just because some of us disagree with the idea of separation, we will not be attacked for being anti-Scottish, and that such remarks are a thing of the past.

Madam Deputy Presiding Officer—sorry, wrong Parliament! Many apologies, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am about to pay tribute to the work of the Scottish Parliament, which may be why I made that mistake.

Let me begin by paying tribute to the late Member of Parliament for Glasgow, Anniesland, Donald Dewar, the first of Scotland’s First Ministers, who, in his inaugural address to the Parliament, spoke of

“a new voice in the land”,

the voice of a democratic Parliament. Many of us were honoured to serve in that Parliament, which has proved to be very effective and strongly supported by the Scottish people.

However, my argument, and the argument of the Labour party, has been and always will be that we are a party of devolution and believe in the great strength of devolution, but we are not a party of separation. We did not undertake our long, hard fight for devolution because we were obsessed with one constitutional arrangement over another; it was born out of a desire to see our system of government work in a way that would enhance the lives of people in the communities that we served. We saw the areas of life in which a Scottish Parliament could achieve more, but we also understood that, in the tradition of trade unionists and social reformers, the needs of the people could sometimes be met by our working together. A strong Scotland benefits the whole United Kingdom: that is the central theme of today’s debate. We can achieve more together than we can apart.

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

The benefits of our remaining together are also demonstrated in the field of research in some of the world-class universities in Scotland. My own constituency contains universities that receive massive amounts of UK funding. That would clearly not be possible if we were separated. The academic sector provides another example of how well we can work together, and how much we would lose through separation.

[Margaret Curran]

I thank my hon. Friend for making that point. I shall say more about that subject later. I think that many of the institutions that we share would lose a great deal if they were broken up, and academics are now beginning to flag up that concern themselves.

The motion that we are discussing draws attention to the great contribution that Scotland has made to the development of the Union. We can be both proudly Scottish and British. As many Members have pointed out, that was demonstrated during the Olympic and Paralympic games in the summer. We saw clear evidence of a modern, multicultural Britain that forward-looking Scottish people can be part of and proud of. As a small island made up of distinctive nations, we can and should work together to ensure that opportunity is given to everyone.

The institutions we have built up throughout the UK bear testimony to the work that we have undertaken in these islands together. As we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow Central (Anas Sarwar), the NHS was established by a Welshman, to the benefit of the whole UK. The welfare state was devised and implemented by an Englishman, to the benefit of the whole UK. The Labour party itself was established by a Scotsman working in an English, and then a Welsh, constituency, again—in my view—to the benefit of the whole UK.

There is another form of union that operates throughout Britain and has grown out of shared British experience: the trade union movement of the United Kingdom, which symbolises the act of working together to improve and enhance the rights of working people. On the eve of St Andrew’s day, we should acknowledge all the work of the trade unions in Scotland—along with their friends in Wales and England—to improve the conditions of working people throughout our countries. I would not want to put that at risk as we move towards separation.

Together, we created throughout Britain the institutions that were needed to meet the challenges of the time, from the trade unions to the welfare state to the Scottish Parliament and, indeed, the Welsh and Irish national Assemblies. Now we must again look to the challenges of the modern time, and look at the paths that lie before us. Do we continue with devolution, as a strong Scotland in partnership with the United Kingdom, or do we opt for separation—for pulling away from our allies? The threats posed by the latter option have been described in detail during the debate.

The debate about the future of Scotland is now well under way. If the past few months are anything to go by, it will certainly be a lively debate: the Scottish people will expect nothing less. As things stand, however, we face a raft of unanswered questions about the prospect of separation. I am told that Dundee university called its academic study of independence “Five Million Questions”. Let me focus on just one or two of those questions.

Before a decision is made on the future of Scotland, the Scots making that decision require more detail in the debate. What will separation mean for Scottish mortgages or Scottish interest rates? What will happen to our pensions, and what about our family tax credits? How can we avoid a race to the bottom when it comes to levels of tax, wages and financial support? Those are the real questions that will determine the outcome of the referendum, and which really concern citizens, families, trade unions and businesses. However, I have to say that the SNP has so far failed to confront and failed to answer them.

Scotland has a better future. We are only beginning to see the promise of devolution which Labour Members put into practice, and which we want to see continue and flourish in Scotland. Scotland can be a strong partner, working within a strong United Kingdom. That is the case that we will continue to argue—and make no mistake: if Scots vote for separation, it will be the end of devolution. We will make the case for Britain with passion and energy.

This debate has highlighted the great strength of Scotland and the great strength of the Union, and what has been achieved by that. We have heard the history of how we have shared the risks and rewards, the resources and the opportunities. We must continue to do so in the future. This is not just about the successes of the past; it is about our prospects for the future. A time of increasing interdependence in the world is not a time for narrow nationalism, but a time for us to work better together for a stronger Scotland and a stronger Union.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Mundell]

I do not find that surprising. On several recent occasions the First Minister has been brought before the Scottish Parliament to explain things he has said that have been found to be untrue.

By putting together the various aspects of the debate—the economics, the international influence question, the fact that we Scots helped to make this United Kingdom —we get a compelling case for Scotland remaining in the UK, and many Members have made that case today. The UK Government are looking forward to making the positive case for Scotland within the United Kingdom. Today we have shown why twice as many Scots want to remain in the UK than support independence. They are people who know the difference between patriotism and nationalism; people who know, as the hon. Member for Glasgow East (Margaret Curran) said, that the saltire is a symbol of our nation, not of nationalism; people who know that being Scottish and British is not a contradiction but is the best of both worlds, whereas the SNP wants to take our Britishness away from us; people who know that Scotland helps put the “Great” into Great Britain and make our Kingdom united—

[Mark Lazarowicz]

rose—

[David Mundell]

People such as the hon. Gentleman, who I am sure will contribute positively to the debate.

[Mark Lazarowicz]

Yesterday I had the privilege to attend the launch of the green investment bank in Edinburgh. It is supported by all parties, including the SNP, and it is a wonderful example of the UK working together. It is the UK green investment bank, and it is hard to see how it could have been headquartered in Edinburgh if Edinburgh had been in a separate state.

Referendum (Scotland)

Mark Lazarowicz Excerpts

Monday 15th October 2012 Commons Chamber

[David Mundell]

I do not agree with the hon. Lady’s proposition. The Government’s position approaching the discussions on the agreement was that the referendum should be made in Scotland and that the necessary powers should be devolved to the Scottish Parliament. The Scottish Government would encounter significant political difficulties, were they to become the first Government in the history of the UK to ignore the views of the Electoral Commission.

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

Why would it not be possible for the voter registration form in 2013 to ask for the details of anyone who would be over 16 on the date of the referendum? Is that too obvious, or is it a simple solution?

[David Mundell]

That power has not been devolved to the Scottish Parliament in terms of the order agreed today.