DRAFT FORESTRY AND LAND MANAGEMENT (SCOTLAND) ACT 2018 (CONSEQUENTIAL PROVISIONS AND MODIFICATIONS) ORDER 2019

Debate between Paul Sweeney and Martin Whitfield

Tuesday 5th March 2019 General Committees

[Mr Paul Sweeney (Glasgow North East) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Robertson. The order in front of us today makes provisions in consequence of the Forestry and Land Management (Scotland) Act 2018, and essentially follows on from section 81 of that Act. Section 81 provides that the functions of the forestry commissioners, which are exercisable in or as regards Scotland immediately before the date on which that section comes into force, are no longer exercisable in or as regards Scotland. It would be helpful for the Committee if I give a brief overview of the order before seeking clarity on some issues within it.

First, articles 3 and 4 relate to cross-border arrangements. Article 3 makes provisions for cross-border arrangements between Scottish Ministers and other bodies. Article 4 makes provision for cross-border arrangements between the forestry commissioners and Scottish Ministers for the purposes of carrying out the former’s functions as set out in article 4(2).

Secondly, article 5 makes provision to allow Scottish Ministers to construct renewable energy installations and generate, transmit, distribute, supply and ultimately use the electricity produced from these sources for the purposes of carrying out the Scottish Ministers’ functions, as detailed in article 5(2). Finally, article 6 and the schedule make necessary consequential modifications to primary and secondary legislation as a result of the 2018 Act.

The order is fairly non-contentious and is, as I have detailed, necessary to make consequential provisions as a result of the 2018 Act. However, I would appreciate it if the Minister could clarify some areas where I have concerns.

Article 3 seems to contain a fair amount of scope for cross-border arrangements between Scottish Ministers and other persons or bodies, and Welsh Ministers are included in that list of other persons. Is there a particular reason for specifying only Welsh Ministers here, and not Ministers of the Crown in different Government Departments, for example?

As far as I can tell, regulation making is also not devolved as part of this statutory instrument. What mechanisms are in place to ensure that regulations are not being made elsewhere that would hamper the ability of Scottish Ministers to carry out their newly devolved functions?

Article 5 makes provisions for Scottish Ministers to develop, construct and operate installations for the generation, transmission, distribution and supply of electricity produced from renewable sources. I would be interested to hear the Minister's thoughts on how this works in conjunction with schedule 5, head D of the Scotland Act 1998. Head D deems that the generation, transmission, distribution and supply of electricity shall remain reserved. I understand that the difference here is about generation as part of a renewable energy programme and that these powers are already held by the forestry commissioners, but given that we live in particularly turbulent political times, what processes have been put in place to ensure that Scottish and UK Ministers are aware of the respective boundaries of their powers and do not inadvertently stray into one another's territory? There is a risk of this issue becoming politicised and ultimately confused, as the nuance is rather technical, so demarcation could be better defined.

Finally, I have more of a general query for the Minister. As a consequence of this order, a few changes are made to primary and secondary legislation covering a couple of different policy areas. How does the Minister see these changes fitting into the common UK frameworks agreed between the UK Government and the Scottish Government?

[Martin Whitfield]

My hon. Friend raises the issue highlighted in part 2 of the schedule—on modifications of subordinate legislation—and indeed the frameworks. I draw the Committee’s attention to paragraph 66, which discusses the Plant Health (Wood Packaging Material Marking) (Forestry) Order 2006. A significant amount of the palleting used in the United Kingdom to export goods into the European Union fails to meet EU regulations, which means that it cannot be used in the case of a no-deal Brexit. Does my hon. Friend therefore agree that the order may be a missed opportunity to deal with bioprotection with regard to wood offcuts, particularly dry kiln heating wood to make sure it is safe?

[Mr Sweeney]

I thank my hon. Friend for his typically forensic analysis of the detail and for making that pertinent point. Perhaps the Minister can offer a more interesting analysis of that impact. My understanding is that there is to be no divergence from current regulations in the event of a withdrawal agreement being ratified by the House of Commons, but I am not entirely clear on what happens if there is no deal and we crash out of the EU on Word Trade Organisation terms. Does the Minister see this order as having an impact on that arrangement, regardless of whether there is a deal?

Claim of Right for Scotland

Debate between Paul Sweeney and Martin Whitfield

Wednesday 4th July 2018 Commons Chamber

[Martin Whitfield (East Lothian) (Lab)]

It is a great pleasure to discuss this matter and to contribute to this debate. The concept of the claim of right dates back to the Claim of Right Act 1689, which referred then to the right of appeal to the sovereign and the monarch against perceived judicial injustice. The 1689 Act gave access to the then Parliament of Scotland where the monarch in Parliament sat. The Act of Union 1707 led to the abolition of the Parliament of Scotland and the right then transferred to the House of Lords, which is now, of course, the United Kingdom Supreme Court. The concept of that right was taken by the Scottish Constitutional Convention in 1989 to grant the sovereign right of the Scottish people to determine the form of government best suited to their needs. The idea itself dates back to the thinking of my predecessor, J. P. Mackintosh, an honourable Member of this House who died far too young, 40 years ago this month.

The claim of right draws on the principle of empowering communities, and it is a criticism only of Governments that they appear far too happy to accept new powers, but are very reluctant to pass them on downwards to their communities, to the local authorities and even lower.

The claim of right has developed into the devolution debate that we have heard today. Again, my predecessor, J. P. Mackintosh, shared with his great friend, Donald Dewar, a passionate commitment to the cause of Scottish devolution. As Donald Dewar said, articulating Mackintosh’s view, devolution is, at its core, about democratic control. It is the empowering of people; it is not for the nationalistic glorification of the nation state. He said:

“It was never Scotland right or wrong…it is about good government, an equitable democracy that borrows, elevates and creates opportunity for the citizen.”

It is the idea of a union state made stronger by the diversity of its communities and constituent parts rather than creeping uniformity. The shouts of, “Conform! Conform!”, implying that it should all be put in a meat mincer so that it all looks the same, should be battled against.

[Mr Paul Sweeney (Glasgow North East) (Lab/Co-op)]

I thank my hon. Friend for giving way on that very important point. Is not the reality in practice that this Parliament, far from being at odds with the principles of the claim of right, has actually energised and activated the claim of right by repeatedly using the practice of devolving powers down through numerous examples over the past 50 years from the European economic area to the devolution referendums of recent years?

[Martin Whitfield]

I am grateful for that intervention. It is right to say that powers have gone down, but, too often, powers stick in one place instead of being handed down. We can look at the crisis in our local authorities in Scotland where they have had powers taken back into centralised government.

We stand here today between a party whose sole aim is a nationalistic independence of flag waving and shouting and a party which, with all respect, failed to see the true potential of devolution. I am talking about the goal of a stronger, kinder Union, a fairer Union in which our communities have a stake not just in the results of a decision but also in the decision-making power. We live in a time of world challenges. A choice was made to stand differently from Europe. It is a decision that saddens me, but it is one that I respect. None the less, we must still stand as part of Europe. The claim of right does not underpin a set type of governance; it is a reality that the form of governance should be influenced by and borrowed from, and it should elevate and create opportunities for the citizens who sign up to it. These words by J. P. Mackintosh stand in testament to the fluid ideas that underpin the demands of a citizen:

“It is not beyond the wit of man to devise institutions to meet these demands.”

Banks and Communities

Debate between Paul Sweeney and Martin Whitfield

Thursday 11th January 2018 Westminster Hall

[Martin Whitfield]

Hear, hear.

Physical money is the most symbolic representation of trust, but there is strong evidence that banks want to move as quickly as possible away from the physical movement of cash on to online and electronic transfer. Any transition from face-to-face banking to online services must take place at a similar rate to a drive to remove cash from society. Significant numbers of our constituents rely on cash to facilitate their budgeting, and those who do must not be abandoned in the rush by banks to change.

Last year it was suggested that 10,000 free-to-use cashpoint machines are at risk of closure. Some 2.7 million people in the UK still rely entirely on cash. The free-to-withdraw cashpoints will vanish first from communities where the individuals who rely most on cash for budgeting are based. Additionally, among the small and medium-sized businesses that make up our high streets, the challenge of banking cash is increasing. I have examples of constituents in Prestonpans who now have to travel, sometimes by public transport, with their daily take to the nearest bank where they queue for up to 30 minutes to pay the money in.

Insurance and safety issues prevent them from storing cash on their premises, and the cost of contracting the deposit to security companies is prohibitively high. When the issue was raised with the banks, they said, “The money can be paid in at the post office,” but the post office will not take larger sums of money because it does not want to have the problem of transporting the cash either. In the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mrs Moon), where tourism is a major industry, she has a business that banks more than £2 million a year but, following a bank closure, it has the responsibility for taking the cash elsewhere.

The closure of cash machines and the continued closure of high street branches are alienating business owners and older customers, fracturing still further their trust.

[Mr Paul Sweeney (Glasgow North East) (Lab/Co-op)]

I thank my hon. Friend for giving way in his compelling and comprehensive speech on a critical issue for society. Does he also recognise that the programme of closures seems to target disproportionately the poorest communities in our society? In my constituency, where unemployment is twice the national average, we have seen RBS closures in Possilpark, one of the poorest communities in Glasgow, and in Dennistoun, as well as the Clydesdale Bank in Springburn. But in one of the wealthiest parts of the city—for example, Byres Road—those banks are fully represented on the high street. What is going on there? Is that not a problem?

[Martin Whitfield]

Absolutely. I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. There is a serious question to be asked about which communities the banks are changing their model of banking for. Is it for the most vulnerable? Is it those who are stuck on the wrong side of the digital divide? Certainly the evidence shows that bank closures have hit hardest in communities that have below average incomes.

Banks are and should be a trustworthy pillar of any community. They should stand proudly on our high streets as responsible hubs, along with post offices, GP and dental surgeries and the high street shops that draw constituents into their community. Recent figures from Unite have shown that the proposed closures of 62 branches will lead to 165 job losses. That is devastating for small communities, but we hear that the losses will be offset by the shifting of jobs to head office and call centres. However, the people losing their jobs are of course predominantly women responsible for families, who are unable to make long journeys to different areas. Are they being asked to move out of their communities? The change in banking models affects vulnerable customers most, with 90% of closures taking place in communities where the income is below the national average.

Members will recognise that the model being advocated by the banks is one in which few industries operate. They are founded on so little face-to-face contact, with such limited real-time relationship between consumers and the organisation, that they represent something more like social media network platforms. I wonder whether in fact the banking industry seeks to move to the Twitter and Facebook models. The relationship of trust that once existed between the bank manager and the individual is in serious danger of being lost to an algorithmic financial model.

I hope that my speech will not lead Members to think I am being luddite about digital reform. I embrace it, and what I am saying is as much as anything friendly advice to the banks, but I cannot envisage, with so many still not using online services, that we should continue dogmatically to push through changes to people’s accounts, affecting such large groups of people. Social media platforms had their users come to them; banks seek to migrate their customers onto their digital platforms. The trust that the banks have had and have treasured so much throughout their and their community’s history is at risk.

As I have made clear, the purpose of today’s debate is not just for the people I serve to hear the Government condemn bank closures. They want to hear how the Government can keep banks at the heart of communities and facilitate genuine discussion so that banking institutions can rediscover the value of the close link that they have had throughout their history with the communities that entrust them with their money—which, indeed, the banks used to invest elsewhere. Very recently the banks looked to those communities to save them and the financial engine, and communities stepped up. Communities are now looking to the banks to save the high streets and the bond of trust that is the cornerstone of the relationship. We need a social responsibility clause so that members of the communities to which our banks belong can have an integral and valued role, and trust can once again be established.