Oral Answers to Questions

Mike Weir Excerpts

Wednesday 18th April 2012 Commons Chamber

[David Mundell]

I represent a large rural constituency in the Scottish borders, so I certainly share my hon. Friend’s concerns, although I understand that in his constituency there are some innovative initiatives whereby communities are coming together to purchase heating oil and are therefore able to negotiate better prices with suppliers.

[Mr Mike Weir (Angus) (SNP)]

As well as pressing the Office of Fair Trading, will the Minister press his own Cabinet colleagues to look at providing practical help, for example by bringing forward the pensioners’ winter fuel allowance for off-grid consumers to allow them to fill up their tanks before winter hits, when prices tend to be lower?

[David Mundell]

The off-grid issue is of concern in rural Scotland, as elsewhere, and I would be happy to meet the hon. Gentleman to discuss his concerns.

Oral Answers to Questions

Mike Weir Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd February 2012 Commons Chamber

[Michael Moore]

My hon. Friend goes to the central issue, which is when this debate will take place. We should get on and make this fundamental decision about Scotland’s place in the United Kingdom sooner rather than later. I cannot for the life of me understand why we should have to wait the best part of three years, with all the economic uncertainly that will generate, until reaching that decision.

[Mr Mike Weir (Angus) (SNP)]

Does the Secretary of State not understand that it is not the credit rating score that matters, but the cost of servicing Government debt? Japan, which has a much higher net debt and a double A minus credit rating, pays less interest on Government bonds than the UK. The truth is that it is the yield that counts, not the triple A rating or lack thereof. Will he now stop this ridiculous scaremongering about ratings?

[Michael Moore]

Is the hon. Gentleman seriously suggesting that the triple A status has no bearing on the interest rates we pay? He really needs to wake up and, with his colleagues, answer some of the fundamental questions at the heart of the debate, which so far they have ducked.

Scotland’s Constitutional Future

Mike Weir Excerpts

Tuesday 10th January 2012 Commons Chamber

[Michael Moore]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend.

[Mr Mike Weir (Angus) (SNP)]

In answer to an earlier question, the Secretary of State again went on about the uncertainty caused by the lack of a referendum, but when the Prime Minister’s spokesman was asked about this this morning, the only thing he could refer to was a Citigroup report, the same one that the Secretary of State referred to, which is specifically on renewables. But if he looks at it he will know that Gamesa, SG, Doosan Babcock, Mitsubishi, Aquamarine Power, EDP Renewables and Repsol—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

Order. The statement has been going on a long time already and Members still wish to speak. The hon. Gentleman knows very well that he should be brief.

Public Sector Pensions

Mike Weir Excerpts

Thursday 8th December 2011 Commons Chamber

[Hywel Williams]

My hon. Friend has made a good point. If Government Members are concerned about the private sector, they should be concerned about the large number of people who have no pensions at all. That is what concerns me, and concerns my colleagues.

[Mr Mike Weir (Angus) (SNP)]

Certain members of the Government are suggesting, as one of their “public against private” arguments, that public sector schemes are gold-plated. In fact, the average public sector pension is about £5,000 a year, and local government pensions can be as low as £3,000 a year, or £80 a week.

[Hywel Williams]

My hon. Friend has anticipated a point that I was going to make, which will doubtless be made again by other nationalist party members. Anyone reading the popular press would imagine that public sector workers were driving around in this year’s model of car and enjoying two or three foreign holidays a year, but that is not, of course, the case.

We say “Let us have negotiations”, but is the 3.2% imposition itself negotiable? What the Government have announced today will merely shift the burden from one group of workers to another. They are trying to squeeze out some sort of deal, but we utterly reject that way of going about things.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Weir]

Does my hon. Friend agree that what was said by the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr Reid) was completely wrong? The Chief Secretary to the Treasury has specifically said that if the Scottish Government do not implement the UK Government’s proposals, their budget will be cut. Barnett consequentials emanating from elsewhere are irrelevant, and besides, the Liberals in Scotland have already called for the money to be spent on numerous things.

[Hywel Williams]

My hon. Friend has put it much better than I could have done. It is not surprising that the Liberals are, as usual, trying to spend other people’s money.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Weir]

Will the Minister confirm that the Chief Secretary specifically said that if the Scottish Government did not accept these changes, he would fine them £8 million per month, which amounts to £100 million a year and half a billion pounds over the spending period? How are the Scottish Government supposed, effectively, to pay for this twice, and thereby pay £1 billion?

[David Mundell]

What I can make clear to the House is that as a result of last week’s autumn statement the Scottish Government will receive approximately £69 million extra in resource departmental expenditure limit funds, that as a result of the Budget they received an extra £112 million, and that between the Budget and the autumn statement they received an extra £90 million, which they had not budgeted for.

[Mr Weir]

However, will the Minister please explain what difference that makes, as we are still going to lose half a billion pounds over this spending period? There is still going to be a massive cut if the Scottish Government do not follow what this Government are imposing upon them.

[David Mundell]

The difference it makes is that the SNP will have the option to back up its words with deeds, but instead it fails to do so. Its argument is entirely based on blaming the Westminster Government. It has funds available to make these choices, yet it prefers to deceive public service workers in Scotland by suggesting that everything is entirely at the behest of the Westminster Government.

[Mr Weir]

Will the Minister therefore go to the Chief Secretary and say, “Take away this threat and allow the Scottish Government to do what they want to do for Scottish public sector workers”? Is the Minister happy that there will be this cut of half a billion pounds over the spending period?

[David Mundell]

I know the hon. Gentleman does not want Scotland to remain in the United Kingdom—that is his policy—but he and his Government have the ability to make this choice, as the hon. Member for Dundee West (Jim McGovern) set out, yet they have chosen not to do so.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Mundell]

My understanding is that my colleague the Secretary of State for Health is meeting NHS unions as this debate is going on. There are significant ministerial discussions.

We have set out that the budgets of the devolved Administrations, who have these powers, would not be adjusted accordingly if they chose not to implement the reforms, because they have received higher settlements that reflect the proposed changes. If the devolved Administrations do not implement our public sector pensions reforms, Barnett consequentials will be reduced.

The Treasury wrote to tell the Scottish Government they had to apply the 3.2% increase in contributions or make up the shortfall and presented them with a choice. They could have chosen not to apply the increased contributions and make up the difference to the Treasury, but they followed a now familiar pattern: they failed to take any sort of decision and blamed Westminster at every turn. Their manufactured outrage is a smokescreen designed to cover the fact that they have no answers for the people of Scotland on how they would fund public sector pensions, never mind the wider state pension. We have asked them often enough—

[Mr Weir]

rose—

[David Mundell]

And perhaps the hon. Gentleman will answer us.

[Mr Weir]

The Minister is talking absolute nonsense. Will he not accept that if the Scottish Government did that, they would lose £1 billion from a budget that is already being cut by making the payment then losing money through a clawback from the Treasury?

[David Mundell]

I have already set out all the additional money that the Scottish Government have received since the budget settlement last year from which they could have made these choices. Sometimes, choices are difficult, but the Scottish Government prefer to pretend to people that they are on their side while not being willing to take difficult decisions.

--- Later in debate ---

[Iain Stewart]

If the hon. Gentleman forgives me, I was using shorthand. I am well aware that there are different schemes for different professions within the public sector, but in a UK context they are broadly similar between Scotland and England.

Paragraph 5.26 of the Hutton report reads:

“There has been scope for some variations in terms to meet local circumstances, but the resulting pension schemes have essentially been the same as those established by the UK Government. That has, for example, helped to prevent pension terms becoming an obstacle to transfers of staff and skills within a sector of the public service. It seems reasonable to continue with this approach.”

Paragraph 5.27 reads:

“The key design features should be part of a UK-wide policy framework that extends to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, with limited adaptations of other features to meet local circumstances.”

I agree with that but it would be hugely disruptive to try to break apart what has been a unified system up until now.

[Mr Weir]

How does the hon. Gentleman square that with the Minister’s accusation about the Scottish Government not making changes to the pension scheme?

[Iain Stewart]

As I said, in quoting from the Hutton report, local variations can be provided for, and that is exactly what my right hon. Friend the Minister said. There is no inconsistency at all.

Most public sector pension schemes—with the exception, I think, of the local government one—are pay-as-you-go schemes. There is not a separate fund, a pot of money or assets that are invested and then pay out. The current pensions are paid for from current receipts and underwritten more widely by the Government, with the expectation that tomorrow’s pensions will be paid for largely by tomorrow’s contributions. With fiscal autonomy or full separation, however, how would all that be disaggregated? It would lead to an enormous muddle over who was liable to pay for what and over who would be liable for the shortfall in future pension payments accrued under the current system? Were we to move down that road, I would wish to train as an actuary, because a lot of them would make a lot of money from disentangling everything. [Interruption.] Indeed, they earn a good money as it is. But they would earn even more.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Mike Weir (Angus) (SNP)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Livingston (Graeme Morrice), as it takes a special kind of brass neck to attack the SNP attitude to strikes when his own party leader condemned the strikes and the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues were quite happy to sit here and debate them on the day.

We in the SNP are committed to public sector pensions that are affordable, sustainable and fair, but we believe the coalition Government are wrong in their policy. It is blatantly unfair to increase public sector workers’ contributions to their pensions schemes at this time and in this way. Frankly, it is nothing more than a naked cash grab to reduce the deficit and it does nothing to address the sustainability of pensions over the longer term. It is especially wrong to impose an additional 3p tax on already hard-pressed households that are facing pay freezes—it will get worse over the next two years, as the 1% increase announced by the Chancellor last week is highly unlikely to keep pace with the rate of inflation—significant increases in national insurance contributions, higher VAT , rising inflation and rocketing costs for fuel and energy.

Indeed, it has been calculated that the impact of pay freezes and pay restraint over three years is costing public sector workers 15% of the value of their income, while the change from RPI to CPI, which I am glad my hon. Friends voted against, could worsen benefits by a similar amount. That is a dramatic reduction in living standards both for those working in the public sector and for pensioners.

Throughout this pensions debate, many Government supporters have consistently referred to gold-plated pensions in the public sector and, frankly, given the impression that anyone retiring from the public sector receives a substantial pension. That is utter rubbish: many public sector workers are in low-paid jobs and their pension entitlement is in line with what they earn and pay into the schemes, so the amount they get paid as pensions is correspondingly modest. Most public sector pension payments amount to less than £5,600 a year, and in local government the figure falls to £3,000, while 50% of women pensioners receive less than £4,000 a year, or £80 a week. That is hardly a fortune, especially in comparison with the grotesque amounts paid to the disgraced ex-bankers who caused the economic mess in the first place.

[Brandon Lewis (Great Yarmouth) (Con)]

Does the hon. Gentleman not think that there is at least some fairness in a system that puts several thousand pounds more into the pension pot of the lower-paid workers whom he mentioned, who will no longer pay for the largest pensions in the public sector under the new scheme?

[Mr Weir]

But the lower paid are being hit in every other way. They are being hit by higher VAT, the higher fuel price and everything else. Their living standards are falling.

Lord Hutton’s report also firmly rejected the claim that public sector pensions were gold-plated. It seems to me that the answer is not to attack public sector pensions, but to take action to try to help private sector pensioners. Unfortunately, however, previous attempts by Government to persuade people to opt out of state pensions, and the state second pension, into private pensions, and the mis-selling that went on, have undermined confidence in private pensions, especially among those on lower incomes. If the Government really want to do something about pensions, they should think about how they can encourage people in private occupations to save for their pensions.

For many years, we have been debating the future of pensions and how to encourage people to save more, but increasing contributions by such a large amount at a time when family budgets are under so much strain may well reduce the number of people who save for the future. There is a real chance that many will feel unable to make the larger contributions and will fall out of pension schemes, which could be a disaster for both the future of the schemes and the public purse. My hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards) cited the results of an FBU survey, which suggested that 27% of people could fall out of their schemes. In his autumn statement, the Chancellor threw petrol on the flames of public sector discontent by casually introducing the idea of regional pay, which, if implemented, would have a serious impact on Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and the north of England.

[Ian Murray]

I have a tremendous amount of respect for the hon. Gentleman, but will he tell us what were the SNP’s proposals to the Hutton review, so that we can make an objective assessment of its position in relation to that of the coalition Government?

[Mr Weir]

I was about to deal with the position of the Scottish Government. They have taken positive action to help to protect household budgets by, for example, freezing council tax for the rest of the parliamentary term, increasing the Scottish living wage to £7.20 an hour for all staff for whom they are responsible, and committing themselves to imposing no compulsory redundancies. In contrast to the Westminster Government, the Scottish Government have sought to focus on protecting Scottish household budgets.

The amendment tabled by the Labour party referred to the devolved Administration. In Scotland—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

Order. The amendment was not selected. As the hon. Gentleman knows, he cannot refer to an amendment that has not been selected, and I am sure that he is not going to do so.

[Mr Weir]

Much of the debate has concerned public pensions in Scotland, Madam Deputy Speaker. I mentioned the amendment merely in passing, but I apologise for doing so.

There are five public sector schemes in Scotland—for NHS workers, teachers, the police, firefighters and local government—all of which are subject to constraints. Formal approval is required from the Treasury for legislative changes to the NHS and teachers’ schemes. It controls the purse strings. Scottish Ministers can determine the design of the police and firefighters’ schemes, although to date they have been negotiated on a UK-wide basis, a position supported by the Labour party. Scottish Ministers can decide on the funded local government scheme as long as the scheme regulations comply with primary legislation.

The Scottish Government sought to protect public sector workers in Scotland from the measures proposed by the UK Government, but the Chief Secretary to the Treasury made it absolutely clear that he would reduce the Scottish budget if they did so. In a letter to the Finance Secretary, John Swinney, on 5 September, he stated:

“If you decide not to take forward these changes, the Treasury will need to make corresponding adjustments to your budget. I would have to reduce the Scottish Government’s budget by £8.4million for every month's delay.”

The Scottish Public Pensions Agency issued a document putting forward options. Its contents were not Scottish Government policy, nor were they SNP policy, and at no time have the SNP and the Scottish Government made such suggestions. The document simply set out options and factual information. It is ludicrous for the two main parties to have a duopoly of despair and to attack the public sector based on the document—the SNP has done much more for public sector workers in Scotland than either of them has done in this Chamber.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Jones]

Of course, that is indeed the case, as it was under the proposals that the Labour Government put forward. The fact of the matter is that it will not be the case that 27% will leave pension schemes. In fact, the independent Office—

[Mr Weir]

That is not what I said. I quoted a survey of FBU members which said that 27% may leave that scheme.

[Mr Jones]

I can do no better than refer the hon. Gentleman to the Office for Budget Responsibility, which indicated that 1% would opt out.

There is no doubt that this debate has raised passions, and that is understandable, but the Government’s aim is clear. We will do our best to ensure that public sector workers will continue to have access to pension schemes that are guaranteed, index-linked and inflation-proofed. In the current economic climate, there are many other workers who would be only too grateful to have a similar benefit. Most public sector workers will see no reduction in the pension that they receive, and some indeed will receive larger pension income on retirement than they would otherwise—

Oral Answers to Questions

Mike Weir Excerpts

Wednesday 9th November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Michael Moore]

My colleagues in the Department for Energy and Climate Change will meet to discuss this in the next few weeks. My hon. Friend is right to highlight the issue, and I look forward to picking it up with him at some time in the near future.

[Mr Mike Weir (Angus) (SNP)]

Yesterday the Secretary of State for DECC sent a letter to all MPs promoting the Government’s policy of check, switch and insulate, but how does the Secretary of State suggest that off-grid customers can check or switch when in many areas there is a virtual monopoly on home fuel oil? [Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Far too many private conversations are taking place in the Chamber. We need to hear the Secretary of State.

Oral Answers to Questions

Mike Weir Excerpts

Wednesday 14th September 2011 Commons Chamber

[Michael Moore]

We are keen to ensure that consumers have as much choice as possible, whether through extending the transmission networks for all different kinds of energy or through looking at ways of enhancing competitiveness in the market by increasing transparency and improving smart meters. All those measures need to be looked at, and I will certainly put the right hon. Gentleman’s point to the energy companies the next time we talk.

[Mr Mike Weir (Angus) (SNP)]

In those discussions about off-grid gas consumers, did the Secretary of State talk about the escalating price and the need to avoid a repeat of the difficulty in ensuring supplies during the severe weather last winter?

Oral Answers to Questions

Mike Weir Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd June 2011 Commons Chamber

[David Mundell]

As the hon. Gentleman knows, the former Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Mr Darling), said that he would have done exactly the same in relation to VAT, and a cut in VAT would do nothing to reverse global commodity price rises. It would, however, do a lot to reverse the Government’s hard-won credibility for getting the deficit down. Of course, credibility on economic matters does not seem to be important to the Opposition.

[Mr Mike Weir (Angus) (SNP)]

In answer to my written parliamentary question, the Office for National Statistics confirms that, in four of the past five years, the rise in domestic gas prices far outstripped the rate of inflation—this is before the latest rise—while family incomes are at best static. What steps can the Government take to protect already hard-pressed families from these escalating costs in the coming winter?

Oral Answers to Questions

Mike Weir Excerpts

Wednesday 4th May 2011 Commons Chamber

[David Mundell]

This Government do have a plan for growth—unlike our predecessor. We have set out ambitious objectives to create the most competitive tax system in the G20, to make the UK the best place in Europe to do business, to encourage investment and exports, and to create the most flexible and educated work force in Britain.

I am sure the hon. Lady is good at figures. She will know that her party started the Scottish elections with a 10-point lead, and that today it has an 18-point deficit. That is good work with figures.

[Mr Mike Weir (Angus) (SNP)]

Can the Minister tell us what part of the plan for growth is behind the bright idea of his colleague the Chief Secretary to the Treasury to impose a massive increase in taxation on the oil and gas industry, jeopardising investment and up to 50,000 jobs?

[David Mundell]

The hon. Gentleman would have some credibility in asking that question had he not repeatedly raised in the Chamber the issue of the costs of petrol and fuel oil in his constituency. It is clear that the Chancellor and the Chief Secretary got the balance right in the Budget between the taxation of the oil industry and the taxation of the motorist. If the hon. Gentleman wants to tell his constituents that they should be paying 6p a litre more on their fuel, he is welcome to do so.

Scotland Bill

Mike Weir Excerpts

Tuesday 15th March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Donohoe]

The Minister has made my point very well in relation to making savings, which is the next point that I want to make progress on, if I may.

[Mr Mike Weir (Angus) (SNP)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Donohoe]

Of course I give way to the hon. Gentleman.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Weir]

Will the hon. Gentleman clarify whether he is talking about Westminster Parliament constituencies or Scottish Parliament constituencies, because the numbers are different? There are 59 Scottish Parliament constituencies, but once the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill has been passed there will be only 52 Scottish constituencies for the Westminster Parliament.

[Mr Donohoe]

That is common sense, if I may say so. When I made the calculation to put together my submission to Calman, we did not have this nonsense of reducing the number of MPs in this place. That idea is patently stupid in Scotland. The hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (John Thurso), who is present, will know that the area he represents will become even more enormous under these calculations than it is. Perhaps the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority should visit him to check out what his expenses should be in those circumstances. However, I digress somewhat.

I shall return to the issue of savings and first past the post. It is clear from this debate that there is a case to be made for this idea. It is clear from the number of public representatives on the London assembly that there can be adequate government for a population double the size of Scotland’s with some 30 members. Given the responsibilities in London, one would presume that it was possible to run the Scottish Government with the numbers that I propose.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Reid]

If the SNP wants to call itself Alex Salmond for First Minister, it is perfectly entitled to do so. What it cannot do is confuse the electorate by having two names. One minute it is called the Scottish National party; the next minute it is called Alex Salmond for First Minister. If only SNP members would make up their minds on what they want their party to be called.

[Mr Weir]

What the hon. Gentleman is saying is very interesting. I seem to recall that his party registered the name “Ming Campbell’s Liberal Democrats”, but, surprisingly, did not use it at the general election.

[Mr Reid]

I think that the law was changed.

I understand that the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire chairs the all-party parliamentary group for the promotion of first past the post. He has continually extolled the virtues of the first-past-the-post system, but that is not my understanding of what his new clause actually means. I think that it would be more accurately described as promoting “first two past the post”.

--- Later in debate ---

[Pete Wishart]

The point was well made. The voting mechanism was not designed by the SNP, but we still won, which was remarkable. We hear Labour Members of Parliament down here disparage and knock the current arrangements. Those are their arrangements. When the Liberals were arguing in the Scottish Constitutional Convention—hon. Members may correct me if I am wrong—they would probably have been arguing for STV. That would be the preferred option. AMS was Labour’s system, which the Liberals agreed with in order to ensure proportionality. For Labour Members to make such a fuss about AMS now is a bit rich, given that it is their system. Our preferred system, if the hon. Lady wants to know, is full single transferable vote. That is what we want for Scotland.

[Mr Weir]

Does my hon. Friend notice a pattern? I understand that the Labour Front-Bench team is in favour of AV for this place, but many Labour Back Benchers are not.

[Pete Wishart]

I am sure that Mr Hoyle would not allow me to be tempted into discussing AV, but the mess that Labour Members get into when dealing with voting arrangements dumbfounds me. They seem to be for and against AV, just as they seem to be for and against proportionality in the Scottish Parliament. They are split from top to bottom on both issues, and they will be found out when they are questioned on the subject in the next few weeks.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Davidson]

Let me come on to that. At the moment, I am identifying particular difficulties. My hon. Friend perhaps misunderstands my point about the allegiance of people on the list. He is absolutely right that, certainly in the Labour party, it is the membership who determine someone’s place on the list. However, it is often the party hierarchy who determine whether that person enters the ballot to decide whether they are placed on the list, so it is about how that is handled. Increasingly, party managers have had a tendency to try to control who is on that list.

[Mr Weir]

I am interested in what the hon. Gentleman is saying. Will he clarify how someone in the Labour party can get to the stage of being able to stand for any seat whatsoever? Surely he would have to be approved by the party in some way before he is allowed to go forward for a seat. I am struggling to see the difference.

[Mr Davidson]

The hon. Gentleman is obviously struggling to see the difference because he is unaware of the extent to which the Labour party’s internal democratic mechanisms are a wonder to behold. I do not necessarily see why I should share in private grief.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Davidson]

I accept that decision, although I regret it because this is an important point. Its relevance is that, if there were a vacancy in the Scottish Parliament, under the existing system there would be a by-election, as in Barnsley, if it was a first-past-the-post seat, but not one if it was a list seat. The electorate in a constituency that I will not name had a way of telling the country what they thought of the Liberals. I think that that was important. We are much better and wiser for knowing that. I will not say the position in which the Liberals came, and I will not say what would have happened if the Democratic Unionist party, the Scottish National party or the Welsh nationalists had stood. [Interruption.] They would have come ninth if they were lucky, and that is assuming that the Social Democratic and Labour party did not stand. I understand that they might well have been beaten by the 1st Barnsley Girl Guides and the Bonzo Dog Doo-Dah Band had their candidates stood, but I must move on. The point is that by-elections allow people to express a view as progress is made throughout the term of a Government. The existing system does not allow that.

It is important in a democracy that the electorate can get rid of people. I have a list here of people whom I would quite like to get rid of. However, it will be impossible to get rid of Nicola Sturgeon, for example, at the forthcoming election. She is standing in her constituency as the first-past-the-post candidate and she is at the top of the SNP list. Unless the party gets no votes at all, she will be returned. She does not need to turn up, because she is going to be elected. That seems fundamentally unfair and unreasonable.

[Mr Weir]

On that basis, will the hon. Gentleman call on Sarah Boyack in Edinburgh Central or David Stewart in Inverness and Nairn to stand down, because they are in exactly the same position?

[Mr Davidson]

I am perfectly happy to say that I want the system to change so that no party can do that. The hon. Gentleman’s question is a bit like asking somebody whether they are in favour of electricity being privatised, and if they say no, asking why they do not use candles. We operate in the world that exists. Although one might not have wanted a change to happen, one must accommodate the new position once it has. It is therefore perfectly reasonable for Labour candidates to stand in whichever way is appropriate. That does not stop us saying that the system ought to be changed.

The question is whether the solution that is proposed is right. It has some merits, such as establishing a clear link between individual voters and the people who are elected in their constituency. I have some reservations about having two Members per constituency. I can see how that proposal has come forward for administrative convenience. I can see the merit of splitting each Westminster constituency either north to south or east to west, so that each person is represented by only one MSP and one MP.

I can also see the merit—I am disappointed that this has not come up before—of seeking gender balance, by having two votes for each Westminster constituency, with one for a man and one for a woman. The Scottish Parliament lacks the gender balance that is desirable. In the first selection of candidates for the Scottish Parliament, the Labour party chose to twin the first-past-the-post constituencies so that one man and one woman would be selected. In the list, men and women were put alternately. With individual reselections and so on, that practice has lapsed a bit. However, I think that we were the only party to do something like that. The lack of women representatives in the other parties is a major deficiency. Changing the system would be advantageous in that regard.

My hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr Donohoe) mentioned voter confusion. The system of having two Members per constituency, however they were provided, would avoid the situation of 25 or 28 MSPs turning up to meet the health board. That is an absurdity. It is grossly inefficient and simply serves to muddy the waters. We should therefore consider changes and a better way.

It is often argued that proportional representation encourages more people to vote. In fact, the UK voting system that is most proportional is for elections to the European Parliament, which have the lowest turnout. The next most proportional is the local authority system, which has the second lowest turnout. Then come the Scottish elections, for which there is an element of first past the post, which have the second highest turnout. The highest turnout is for elections to Westminster, which are the least proportional, so there is a clear correlation between first past the post and electoral turnout.

--- Later in debate ---

[Michael Connarty]

I would not want to accuse the hon. Gentleman of trying to distort my words; I just think he might not be swift enough to understand them. I said that people resent it. They know that they did not choose the Member who lost under first past the post, and they are not happy that that person then turns up as a list Member. They believe it is important that when they make a choice under first past the post, they choose between candidate A and candidate B. I take the point made earlier that every party does it, but it is wrong because it distorts the will of the electorate.

[Mr Weir]

The hon. Gentleman is making the point that several of his colleagues have made about people who lose under first past the post and come back on the list. However, does he not accept that it is a different electorate? Regional seats have seven or eight first-past-the-post seats in it, so they are not being elected by the same electorate. I do not understand his objection.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Mundell]

I fully take on board what the hon. Gentleman says, and I praise his consistency on this issue, but others who have been critical of the regional list system now want to use it to save their political careers, and I regard that as hypocrisy.

[Mr Weir]

I count six Labour MSPs now standing for the list who are currently first-past-the-post Members, which says something about their confidence in the result of the coming election.

[David Mundell]

As has been said, there has been a change from the view that Members should not stand on both the list and in constituencies to a position where that should be done when it is in someone’s self-interest.

--- Later in debate ---

[Thomas Docherty]

I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s question, which lets me clarify that this is purely about the franchise because the functions of Network Rail are already devolved to the Scottish Parliament. That is part of the absurdity of the situation. Scottish Ministers have responsibility for everything except, rightly, health and safety, because that needs to be regulated in a different way, and the franchise model itself. The funding, letting and monitoring of the franchise are carried out by the Scottish Parliament, but it does not set its own model. I look forward to the Minister’s well-chosen words of response to my case.

[Mr Weir]

Much to my surprise, I support what the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty) has said. He made a good case, as it would be sensible to devolve this function to Scotland, although he ruined it a bit by making a totally unnecessary attack on the Scottish Government, who have supported the railway industry throughout Scotland and put a great deal of money into upgrading it and opening new lines and stations.

[Mr Frank Roy (Motherwell and Wishaw) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Weir]

No, thank you.

The hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife talked about the Glasgow airport rail link. I would be interested to see whether that proposal appears in Labour’s manifesto with full details of how it is to be funded, and what Labour is going to cut in order to do so, given the cuts that are coming in the Scottish budget because of Labour’s economic mismanagement and the incompetence of the current UK Government.

[Mr Roy]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Weir]

No, thank you.

Scotland has a good record on rail and will continue to invest in rail and build up the rail system. This proposal would give the Scottish Government the opportunity to get a different franchise arrangement should they wish to do so. It would be up to them to decide on the franchise, but it would provide flexibility. We support the new clause, notwithstanding the totally unnecessary attacks on the Scottish Government by the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife.

[Tom Greatrex (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Lab/Co-op)]

I do not intend to detain the Committee because there are other new clauses we wish to debate.

The new clause deals with an issue that was probably neglected in the transfer of powers to the Scottish Parliament in relation to rail, and it is appropriate and sensible that we use the opportunity of this Bill to resolve that. On that basis, we intend to support it and assume, given that it is a sensible proposal on a technical issue, that the Government will not have too much of a problem with it.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Mundell]

Indeed. As my hon. Friend will know, the coalition Government are committed to high-speed rail services throughout the United Kingdom. On Thursday, there will be an event in Glasgow, attended by a Transport Minister, about a consultation on the ongoing developments in high-speed rail. The first part of the high-speed rail service from London to Birmingham is vital for its further development into Scotland.

[Mr Weir]

I am listening closely to the Minister, but I am slightly confused. He is talking about the development of high-speed rail, which will be very good if it comes to Scotland—we will see whether the Government ever get it there—but that service does not begin and end in Scotland, and neither do the Virgin or east coast services. I do not understand his point. The new clause refers to services that begin and end in Scotland—basically, the ScotRail franchise as it operates at the moment.

[David Mundell]

My point, which I am sure that the hon. Gentleman does not recognise for dogmatic reasons, is that there are important rail services in Scotland that cross the border, and that those services remain important.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)]

I am sorry not to be able to support the new clause moved by the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil), who is in many ways a walking advertisement for the Union. It would be a great loss to this Parliament if he were not here and were prevented from coming here by a division between our two great countries. I am deeply concerned about his new clause. It is partly creeping republicanism, partly an attack on property and partly a subsidy to Scotland from the poor, hard-done-by English taxpayer, who has had enough of this and wants a little bit of money to creep back south of the border from time to time.

Let me start with that sad day in March 1603, when our beloved sovereign of blessed memory, Elizabeth, died. When she died, James VI was hailed as James I of England, and we saw a mystical union of the Crowns: a mystical union that has remained true through not only world wars but civil wars, and has brought our people together. We have come together as peoples in the Crown, and as a result of a further development in the Act of Union 1707, we have come together as a Crown in Parliament. Anything that attacks the Crown, that undermines the Crown, is something about which we, representing one part of the Crown in Parliament—one part of the great system of government that we have—should always be careful.

[Mr Weir]

The hon. Gentleman’s history lesson is very interesting, but I am not sure why he sees the new clause as an attack on the Crown. The Crown Estate’s money does not go to the Crown; it goes to the Treasury. It was signed over to the Treasury many years ago in exchange for the civil list. The new clause attacks not the Crown but the way in which the money is used, and is intended to secure a better deal for our coastal communities.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for an extremely helpful intervention. It missed a key point. Indeed, the hon. Gentleman may wish his hon. Friend the Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar to withdraw his new clause.

The Crown Estate’s income was not given away in perpetuity in exchange for the civil list; it is given reign by reign. That started in the time of George III, who was a bit hard up at the time. He needed the money. Parliament had, and of course still has, tax-raising powers. In exchange for the Crown Estate’s income, George III accepted the civil list. That continued during the reigns of George IV, William IV, Queen Victoria, Edward VII and George V, the brief reign of Edward VIII and the reign of George VI, and it continues during the reign of our present most glorious sovereign. However, it is not a permanent settlement.

Any step that undermines or changes the Crown Estate should be taken with the greatest caution. I hope that the day never comes, but if we were to have another sovereign, that sovereign would be entitled to claim the Crown Estate for himself. If we had introduced measures that took it away, we would have broken the bargain that was made in the reign of George III and has been renewed in subsequent reigns. We should be extremely wary of interfering with a system that has worked so well.

I also want to deal with the attack on property rights, which are the fundamental basis of a free society and the rule of law. I know that some hon. Members like me to dwell on history occasionally. We know that rights of property have been established in this country since 1189—

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Weir]

I take it, then, that the hon. Gentleman’s friend would be terrified of taking the Eurostar to France.

[Iain Stewart]

The devolution of tax powers to Normandy or Brittany is slightly outwith the scope of this Bill, so I will not risk the ire of Mr Benton by going down that route.

If there were a different time zone and England were an hour behind Scotland, my friend could board the train in Glasgow before midnight and arrive in England before midnight, so goodness knows what tax status he would incur for that journey. We often hear of the Bermuda triangle, but I do not want to introduce a Beattock triangle.

--- Later in debate ---

[Thomas Docherty]

I think that the hon. Gentleman’s time is up.

Alternatively, my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries and Galloway (Mr Brown) could leave his house, travel the 12 miles to Carlisle train station, and find that he is catching a train an hour earlier than he left his house. That is ludicrous.

[Mr Weir]

I am puzzled by this obsession with train times. Does the hon. Gentleman recall that for many years Switzerland, in the centre of Europe, had a different time zone from all the countries round about, and had trains going through on both sides? They did not vanish into thin air—they went in one end and came out the other. There is no problem about measuring time; this is utter nonsense.

[Thomas Docherty]

The hon. Gentleman takes me back to our debate on the railways. It might be helpful to certain Members to know that the railways are the reason we have a unified time zone across the United Kingdom. Up until the Victorian era, which certain Members clearly wish to drag us back to, there were different time zones in the west country, for example, from those in East Anglia. That was a ludicrous way to run a transport system, and that is why this is a mad idea from a fairly mad individual.

The other logistical issue touches on the point made earlier about Barnsley. In a general election, there could not be any exit polls or opening of ballot boxes until every area’s voting had closed at 10 o’clock. The people of Scotland would have voted from 7 am until 10 pm, according to their time, but in England it would have taken place from 6 am until 9 pm, so we would have to wait another hour before the opening of the ballot boxes, which brings us back to the debate about telling on the following day.

That goes to the heart of the fact that this is a nonsensical argument from a party that is trying to get independence. All SNP Members’ arguments about other countries arise from the fact that they cannot win the debate at the ballot box. They are going to be beaten in May harder than certain people were beaten in Barnsley last month, and this is another of their back-door efforts that should be rejected out of hand.

Scotland Bill

Mike Weir Excerpts

Monday 7th March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr MacNeil]

rose—

[Mr Mike Weir (Angus) (SNP)]

rose—

[Thomas Docherty]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Reid]

I was giving way to the hon. Member for Angus (Mr Weir).

[Mr Weir]

I am listening closely to the hon. Gentleman. Do we not already reciprocally recognise qualifications within the EU, and is it not the case that doctors can come from other parts of the EU to practise in the UK? Therefore, what is the problem with the recognition of Scottish qualifications and Scottish regulation?