Currency in Scotland after 2014

Pete Wishart Excerpts

Wednesday 12th February 2014 Westminster Hall

[Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)]

On a point of order, Mrs Riordan. Is it entirely fair that, in a debate as important as this one, 95% of the time is given to one side and we are now restricted to five minutes? How could that possibly be fair? Can you look into that so that we get more time to put the other side of the case so that the people who are watching this get the opportunity to hear it?

[Mrs Linda Riordan (in the Chair)]

The Member in charge of the debate gets as long as they want for their first speech, and then the time allotted is down to the number of Members who wish to speak. Rather a lot of Members wish to speak in this debate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Katy Clark]

Thank you, Mrs Riordan. As I say, I agree with the hon. Member for Dundee East (Stewart Hosie): I would have liked a longer, more detailed debate. I hope that this is just one of a series of debates in this House on these kinds of issues.

[Pete Wishart]

The hon. Lady is a fair and reasonable woman, and she has accepted that we have very little time to address the other side of the argument. This really important debate must, of course, be heard in the House of Commons; will she work with us to try to ensure that when we debate these issues in future, we get a more equitable division of the time, so that both cases are made?

[Katy Clark]

I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that perhaps the first step would be for his colleagues to put in requests to speak.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Sajid Javid)]

I welcome you to the Chair, Mrs Riordan. It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, and it is good to see my right hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland here today. I congratulate the hon. Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray) on securing this debate, on his excellent, thoughtful speech and on giving all hon. Members an opportunity to discuss this important issue. The debate has been lively and passionate. Indeed, it has been the liveliest and most passionate Westminster Hall debate that I have yet seen, which shows how important the issue is not just to the people of Scotland but to the people of the entire United Kingdom.

It is no exaggeration to say that the currency that we use affects everyone every day, whether they are individuals buying food or paying off loans, businesses paying their employees or trading across borders or banks protecting savings or providing mortgages. Currency is one of the most important issues in the Scottish referendum debate. Members may be aware that last April the UK Government issued a comprehensive paper exploring an independent Scotland’s possible currency options. Members will be aware—many hon. Members have referred to this today—that just last week the Governor of the Bank of England, Mark Carney, set out his views on currency unions in measured and, as he describes it, technocratic terms. Members may also have read that the Chancellor plans to give a speech on the matter later this week.

[Pete Wishart]

In the past few days, the Prime Minister and the Chancellor have been playing good toff, bad toff with Scotland. The Prime Minister is love-bombing us from London, and the Chancellor will be threatening us on currency in his speech in Scotland in the next two days. Which one does the Minister support—the good toff or the bad toff?

[Sajid Javid]

That goes to show that the SNP is not interested in a serious debate on one of the most important issues facing the Scottish and British people. That speaks for itself.

The Government have consistently stated throughout the debate that the current economic arrangement—one currency in one United Kingdom—is in the best interest of everyone. We have also consistently stated that it is highly unlikely that a currency union between an independent Scotland and a continuing UK could be made to work. I will use the remaining time to remind hon. Members of our analysis, which explains why that is the case.

First, the lessons of the eurozone crisis are there for us to see. Currency unions do not work without close political and fiscal integration. As a result of the crisis, those countries that use the euro are moving towards ever greater integration to address the challenges that they face. Scottish independence, though, is all about disintegration and would inevitably mean that the continuing UK and Scotland move further apart. The Scottish Government’s proposal for a currency union without fiscal or political integration lacks any credibility and makes one wonder whether the Scottish Government actually understand what the word “independence” means.

Secondly, we know that the economies of an independent Scotland and a continuing UK would be very different and would diverge over time as a result of different laws, different regulations and different industries. One industry that we know would be important for Scotland is North sea oil. A significant portion of an independent Scotland’s economy would depend on oil revenues. Were a change in oil price to affect the two countries differently, a one-size monetary policy with one currency for two separate nations would simply not be suitable.

Thirdly, despite the Scottish Government’s claim, we do not believe that a currency union would be in the interest of an independent Scotland. Such a union would inevitably constrain Scotland’s own economic policies because the remaining UK, to manage the risks of the union, would need to set interest rates and maintain oversight of an independent Scotland’s tax and spending plans. Indeed, a currency union would also be likely to undermine an independent Scotland’s economic resilience and credibility. If, for example, the financial markets sensed that the Bank of England’s monetary policy did not suit Scottish circumstances, they might doubt Scotland’s commitment to the currency union, which would, in turn, lead to financial market speculation. In such circumstances, if markets were not calmed, there would be a very real possibility that Scotland would be forced to adopt its own currency in a time of crisis. One is reminded of the recent situation in Cyprus when there was plenty of talk of the country potentially leaving the euro. Members will know that that was prevented only after a huge bail out from other eurozone members, which came at a significant cost to Cypriots, many of whom lost up to 40% of their deposits in domestic banks.

Fourthly, just as a currency union is not in Scotland’s interest, it is hard to see how it could be in the interest of the remaining United Kingdom. Such a union would involve the remaining United Kingdom giving up an element of its economic sovereignty, as we have heard from many hon. Members today. The public would feel very strongly about that. It would increase the risk of having to bail out Scottish banks, and the idea of putting the remaining United Kingdom’s economy at risk because of another country’s banks just as we are getting our own banks in order would make no sense.

Before I come to an end, I will address some of the questions that have been raised. I listened carefully to the speech of the hon. Member for Dundee East (Stewart Hosie) and what he has to say on this issue is very important. I agree with the shadow Minister that he is an intelligent person who makes valuable contributions in the House, but from what I have heard today, he does not seem to want facts to get in the way of a good argument.

The hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members mentioned the banking bail outs of 2008. I remind him that the cost of recapitalising the Royal Bank of Scotland was £45 billion, which is the largest banking bail out the world has ever seen, plus an additional £275 billion of state support through guarantee and funding commitments. That sum is more than 200% of an independent Scotland’s GDP.

Fairness and Inequality

Pete Wishart Excerpts

Tuesday 11th February 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr MacNeil]

We voted against its abolition. It would not have gone—we would have the 50p tax rate right now—if the hon. Lady and many others had joined us in the Lobby. The question is: why did she and her colleagues not go through the Lobby to vote against the cut? Where were Labour Members that night? There was no sign of them. Would anybody from the Labour party care to tell me why they did not vote against the cut to the 50p tax rate? I would be very pleased to hear why not. Will one of the about 20 Members on the Labour Benches please stand and explain why Labour did not oppose the cut to the 50p tax rate? Going once, going twice, gone: Labour has refused to explain.

[Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)]

I remember that evening very well. To call Labour Members headless chickens would be an affront to headless chickenry, given the way they were running around. Does my hon. Friend agree that perhaps it was a principled abstention that the Labour party pursued that evening on the 50p tax rate?

[Mr MacNeil]

Well, a principled abstention by the Labour party is news to me, but I take on board what my hon. Friend says.

I was talking about hunter-gathering. I was not so much hunting Labour Members as asking why they did not go through the Lobby on the 50p tax rate. I was discussing why people have certain outlooks in life. I think that when people view the fruits of their success as being the result of a hunt that involved a great deal of good fortune and support, they might have a tendency to be slightly more left wing, whereas those who think the fruits are the result of their own individual hard graft might have a tendency to be more right wing and view their gains as a gather. I will make no further judgment on that idea—I just want to put it out there and let people chew it over—but I think there is something deep-seated in our own personal biases as to why we arrive at certain points of view.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr MacNeil]

My hon. Friend is absolutely correct. We can see that again in the philosophy behind the bedroom tax, which is not one that I subscribe to in any way. Last night, I stumbled across a Channel 4 programme on Walsall and Glasgow housing authorities. It talked about having to demolish houses in Walsall, due to their being left empty: people cannot stay in them because of their cost and what people have lost in welfare. Glasgow housing authority has demand for 1,500 more one-bedroom properties—people want them so that they will not be penalised—but it does not have them. It is, inefficiently, trying to build them so that people can avoid the bedroom tax, but the costs are colossal.

[Pete Wishart]

I am loth to interrupt my hon. Friend’s fantastic speech, but perhaps I can help him a little. We know a bit about what the Labour party proposes to do with the Scottish budget because of the cuts commission. It intends to do away with universal benefits and it does not like free bus passes and free prescriptions. That is what it would do if it gets control of the levers of power in the Scottish Parliament. We know exactly where it is going with its cuts commission.

[Mr MacNeil]

My hon. Friend is absolutely correct. Johann Lamont has a cuts commission. [Interruption.] I hear from the Labour Front Bench that she does not have a cuts commission, which is another example of how Labour Scottish Members say one thing while Labour in Scotland says another. If Labour Front Benchers want to tell us what Johann Lamont is doing—if she has told them—they are more than welcome to intervene.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Brown]

I am saying that a rosy picture is being painted. Some will say, “It is happening in London and the south-east”, but the Minister represents a Welsh constituency, which is rural, just as mine is. People in rural constituencies and in some urban constituencies are finding things really difficult indeed. The situation is still pretty tough and they do not recognise this rosy picture that is often painted.

Also in the other place yesterday, Lord Lawson stated that

“it is far more important to focus on making the poor richer than on making the rich poorer”.

I have to agree with that, but the Minister replied:

“we want to make sure that everybody makes a fair contribution to society and that all those in work get a fair wage for their labour. Obviously, there comes a point when taking too much tax from those right at the top becomes counterproductive.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 10 February 2014; Vol. 752, c. 408-09.]

I would have to argue with that; those comments by the Minister tell us an awful lot about what those on the Government Benches are thinking.

Where we disagree with the text of the motion is on the words

“successive governments of all political hues have presided over an underlying trend of rising income inequality since the early 1980s”.

There can be no doubt that over the past 30 years or so there have been some particularly difficult and distressing times for many families, but during the early years after the change of government in 1997 rapid improvements were made right across the country. [Interruption.] I am not about to rewrite history; I am about to tell the Chamber what actually happened, because we tend to forget. This relates to a point made by the hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards), because he said that if Labour were to win the next election we would be carrying out the current Government’s spending plans. When Labour came to power in 1997 we held by the tight budgetary constraints, but as a party coming from opposition to government we decided that we would spend the money in a wholly different manner. What did we do with the chance that came our way? We created employment opportunities for young unemployed and long-term unemployed people, the disabled and lone parents through the new deal, and those very chances that were given to so many people brought about a marked change when coupled with the introduction of the national minimum wage and working tax credits. It was not the answer to every woe that people had suffered under the previous Government, but it was a major step forward. For many individuals, especially women, it meant that they no longer had to try to hold down two or three jobs to make ends meet.

The motion makes reference to inequality between men and women, but fails to recognise the gains made by women under the Labour Government from 1997 to 2010. I am talking about not just the minimum wage and tax credits but extensions to child care, which allowed more women to participate in the labour market, and extensions to maternity leave, which meant that women no longer had to choose between work and family life soon after having a child.

Let me now mention one or two things that have been raised this afternoon, including the issue of food banks. Over the past 12 months, there has been a 170% increase in the number of people using food banks. Between 2010 and 2011—some two years ago—61,468 people were using food banks, compared with more than 346,000 now. Those are only the Trussell Trust figures. There are other ad hoc, less regulated, food bank systems.

The Minister mentioned welfare reform. Let me tell him, in case it has slipped his mind, that the previous Labour Government introduced three welfare reform Bills, and we maintained that those who could work should work and should be given help and support into work.

[Pete Wishart]

Where does the hon. Gentleman stand on the great “more powers” debate in the Labour party? Is he one of the boycotters, or is he an enthusiast of more powers? Would he give welfare powers to the Scottish Parliament, so that it is under Scottish people’s democratic control, or does he want to keep it with the Westminster Tories?

[Mr Brown]

I will come to that in just a moment. It is not that I need time to think. [Interruption.] Let me tell the hon. Gentleman that I am a solid believer in devolution.

We put three welfare reform Bills through the House. They were designed to ensure that those with the greatest need received benefits not just to exist but to live. We were able to recover that money by getting others into work. We were making progress on that when the banking crisis hit and turned the world upside down.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Weir]

I cannot believe what I am hearing from the hon. Lady. What I said is that the Scottish Government have taken action on and invested money in those matters. We have not claimed that we have solved every problem under the sun—we cannot possibly do that—but what we have said is that we have done all we can with the powers we have and that with the powers of independence we will be able to do so much more.

[Pete Wishart]

My hon. Friend is making a very powerful speech. Does he share my great concerns about the cuts commission? Labour has said that everything is on the table and has set out a whole list of things, including tuition fees, free bus passes, prescription charges and free personal care. Is my hon. Friend as worried as I am that if Labour gets its hands on the levers of power, those things will be under threat?

[Mr Weir]

I do indeed have great fears about what will happen to our country if we do not get a yes vote in September, because either this lot will continue in power with the cuts already promised by the Chancellor, or we will have the Labour cuts commission and heaven knows what it might come up with.

We have a different vision for our country. We will be able to do many things with independence that we cannot do under devolution. The problem of child care, for example, is not just about improving the early education of our children and helping families, important as those things are; it is also an important economic policy. If we can raise female participation in the labour market to the levels achieved in, for example, Sweden, we will not only boost general economic performance, but raise an extra £700 million a year in tax revenue.

Under devolution, the Scottish Parliament has been able to increase the amount of child care available and it has recently announced a further extension, but with independence we could go beyond that and deliver our ambitious plan for the provision of free universal child care for all children aged one to five—a policy that, when fully implemented, would save families up to £4,600 per child per year.

Why do we need independence to deliver that? Because at the moment, as I have said, Scotland receives a fixed budget from Westminster. We would not receive the increased tax revenues resulting from having more women in the workforce unless Westminster decided that we should, so under devolution the costs of providing increased child care would have to be met from within a fixed budget, which would inevitably mean cuts in other services. Those who are making that argument need to tell us where they want to see the cuts. That social and economic transformation can be achieved only when we have access to all of Scotland’s resources, and that is why we need independence delivered to the full.

We could also take action to ensure that most people are treated fairly and that work is genuinely a route out of poverty. We should not accept this as a given, but the fact is that many women work in low-paid jobs, so what we do with the minimum wage really matters to the living standards of women and their children. With independence, we will able to guarantee that the minimum wage will rise at least in line with inflation every year and not leave it to the whim of the Government of the day.

It is interesting to note that, if the minimum wage had increased in line with inflation over the past five years, the lowest paid would be £600 a year better off than they are now. That has been the cost to the lowest paid of not being able to take such decisions ourselves and of not being able to make the impact we want on the inequality that stalks our nation.

With independence, we and not Westminster will be responsible for implementing the Equal Pay Act 1970, closing the scandalous 32% gap that still exists between the pay of men and women. Why is it that 44 years after that Act was passed there is still such a huge gap between their pay?

Decisions being made down here about the retirement age are also a problem. Just a few years ago, women could expect to retire at 60. By 2020 the retirement age for women will be 66—an increase of six years in just a decade. As things stand, young women entering the work force today will probably have to work until they are about 70. Of course, we all have to accept that people are living longer and that things cannot stand absolutely still—we accepted the first rise in the retirement age—but the rapid increases being imposed by Westminster are not right for Scotland, because we have different demographics. We have serious problems in some of our communities and we are working hard to deal with them. The fact is that life expectancy is often much lower in some of those communities than in the general population. It is, therefore, surely better that decisions about the retirement age are taken in Scotland, where such distinctive circumstances will be properly taken into account.

I have often spoken in the House on energy, and it will be no surprise that I want to say a few words about it. In its recent campaign, Energy Bill Revolution made the point that fuel poverty has increased across the UK by 13%, but one gain from devolution is that that is not the case in Scotland. Under the latest Scottish house condition survey, which was revealed at the end of last year, the number of those in fuel poverty in Scotland has decreased by 3.4% at a time when energy prices are rocketing. That is a tremendous achievement by successive Scottish Administrations, who have made real efforts to tackle fuel poverty. However, there is so much more we could do.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Crabb]

With the leave of the House, I start by thanking the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Dr Whiteford) for summarising the debate in her usual intelligent way, and all right hon. and hon. Members who have participated in this wide-ranging and interesting debate on subjects of huge importance to Members on both sides of the House—fairness and inequality.

I will meet head on some of the criticism that has been levelled at the Government by saying that no Government Member is painting a rosy picture about the challenges that many households and families still face. None of us is complacent about the issues that we have been debating. As the country is still recovering from the economic trauma that it was subjected to between 2008 and 2010, much progress remains to be made in seeing wages increase, seeing the emerging economic recovery spread to all parts of the country, and ensuring that people from all walks of life in all parts of the UK can share in that emerging economic recovery.

We are not painting a rosy picture about that recovery, but neither do we subscribe to the view that has been put consistently today by Opposition Members that the growth is somehow not real; that it is somehow patchy and fuelled by London and the south-east and what is happening in the housing market. If they take time to look at what the statistics tell them, they will see that the emerging recovery is broadly balanced across all the sectors of the economy—manufacturing, construction, tourism, services and exports. Progress must still be made to ensure that the recovery reaches all parts of the UK, but just as three years ago they were deficit deniers, as we come to the end of this Parliament they have become growth deniers. They deny that the growth and the recovery are taking place.

This evening I will be urging hon. Members to reject the motion, because at its heart is the biggest risk of all to the emerging economic recovery, which is a return to the failed economics of more spending, more borrowing and more debt. Just as so many Government Members this afternoon have asked where the equity is in saddling our children and grandchildren with yet more debt, the fair, compassionate, progressive thing to do is to meet that challenge head on and see the deficit come down.

In the minutes that remain I will refer to a number of the speeches made by hon. Members. I pay tribute to the opening speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards), who spoke with typical passion and made a plea for fairness. However I take issue with his description of Wales as a colonial economy. I absolutely reject that term. Wales is not a colonial economy. The economy of Wales is highly integrated with the rest of the United Kingdom. One reason why support for separatism is so low in the Principality is that real people out there understand how integrated the Welsh economy is with the rest of the United Kingdom. They reject the separatism of Plaid Cymru and the Opposition.

We had a long and interesting speech from the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil). He started by introducing the philosophical challenge of what to do with a box of chocolates among children. I disagreed with a lot of his economic analysis, but I strongly agreed with him when he said that behind all the economic statistics that we are talking about are real lives. Members on both sides of the House should not lose sight of the fact that when we talk about record numbers of people returning to work and unemployment falling in our constituencies, those are real lives. People are making their way back into the jobs market, upping their skills and getting new confidence, which will make a powerful difference in our communities.

The hon. Gentleman also made an important point about the decline of social mobility. I put on record that both his nation of Scotland and mine of Wales at one time were beacons of social mobility. There was a time in Wales and Scotland when increasingly it did not matter who one’s mum and dad were, what street one grew up in or what jobs one’s parents did. There was a progressive trend of social mobility. We have gone into reverse on that, and that is one of the great tragedies of what has happened in the economy in recent decades.

My hon. Friend the Member for Aberconwy (Guto Bebb) made what I think was the speech of the day. He spoke with expertise and experience about small businesses being the engines of job creation, not only in Wales but across the UK. Members on both sides of the House should pay tribute to him for the work he has done, particularly on interest rate swaps and on challenging the banks on the way in which they have treated small businesses in recent years. He spoke powerfully and passionately about the ethical and moral underpinning of our welfare reforms and what we are trying to achieve. It is not just about deficit reduction, and it is not about attacking the poor or anything so absurd; it is about seeing lives changed and communities that were blighted by worklessness unlock their potential so that they can increasingly share in the emerging economic growth.

The hon. Member for Angus (Mr Weir) drew on his expertise on fuel poverty and energy markets. I promise to write to him, or to ensure that one of my ministerial colleagues does, on the specific point he raised. He mentioned pensioner poverty, as did other Members, so let us remind ourselves of the figures. In 2011-12, 1.6 million pensioners were in relative poverty, which is close to the lowest rate recorded. Pensioners are less likely to be in relative low income than the population as a whole. The Government want all pensioners to have a decent and secure income in retirement.

The hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway (Mr Brown) seemed a little confused and uncertain about what is happening to income inequality, so let us put on the record what the statistics show: income inequality is falling under this Government, having reached record levels under the previous Labour Government. I very much agree with his comment that young people are not only our future—they are more important than that—but our today. That is why we are making efforts to see youth unemployment fall, just as unemployment is falling right across the country. We take seriously the opportunities facing our young people and are in no way complacent about the challenges that today’s generation of young people will face. However, let me remind Opposition Members that if we are serious about the kind of future young people will face, we absolutely must reject the terms of the motion, which calls for a return to more borrowing, more spending, more deficit and more debt.

My hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) made a characteristically entertaining speech in which he made some extremely important points about business being the generator of growth and the creator of jobs in the economy. He used the analogy of a rising tide carrying all boats, but it is business and private sector growth that makes that tide rise. We absolutely agree.

The hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams) drew on her expertise in health inequality and made a characteristically well-judged speech. I just remind her that in the nations of Wales and Scotland, which we have focused on today, many of the policy levers that relate to health inequality—housing, health and education, for example—lie with the devolved Governments. I encourage her to look at what is happening in Wales. If she studies that in detail, she might have some serious and difficult questions for her Labour colleagues in Cardiff.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Richard Fuller) made an excellent speech reinforcing the point that if we are serious about fairness, we must take seriously the issue of what kind of future our young people and their children will face. That is why we remain absolutely committed to reducing the deficit and restoring stability, discipline and order to our national finances.

The hon. Member for Llanelli (Nia Griffith) spoke about zero-hours contracts, which she clearly regards as a negative thing. The number of zero-hours contracts in the economy was the same in 2013 as it was in 2000, so the idea that there has been some kind of explosion in the number is just not correct. If she really regards them as such a bad thing, she should speak to her colleagues running Carmarthenshire—

[Pete Wishart]

claimed to move the closure (Standing Order No. 36).

Question put forthwith, That the Question be now put.

Question agreed to.

Main Question accordingly put.

Economic Growth

Pete Wishart Excerpts

Wednesday 15th May 2013 Commons Chamber

[Ed Balls]

I will read our amendment to the hon. Gentleman so that he knows exactly what we will vote for. We say

“that the priority for the Government now should be growth and jobs and that we need reform of the European Union, not four years of economic uncertainty which legislating now for an in/out referendum in 2017 would create”.

Let me quote to the hon. Gentleman the press release issued this morning by the Engineering Employers Federation, which knows about manufacturing investment in the long term. It says:

“EEF, the manufacturers’ organisation believes the current debate is ‘letting British business down’ with politicians making claims that the EU isn’t working for Britain rather than focussing on how to work to make it better”.

Let me set out further our position on this reform agenda, which has been set out in recent weeks and months by the Leader of the Opposition, the shadow Foreign Secretary, the shadow Home Secretary and me. Instead of four years of uncertainty, our Labour amendment says that the priority now should not be walking out of meetings or being entirely ignored but arguing with influence to get the reforms agreed. These include reform of the common agricultural policy, tough new budget discipline in the European budget with stronger independent audit—[Interruption.] Conservative Members should listen, as I would have thought they agreed with many of these things. The priorities include reform of family-related payments to EU migrants, greater national flexibility in transitional arrangements, a balanced growth plan and a new growth commissioner, an end to the wasteful Strasbourg Parliament and more powers for national Parliaments.

Let us reflect for a moment on what the president of the CBI said just a few weeks ago:

“UK membership of the EU encourages large company capital investments within the UK, creating jobs and wealth that trickle down to medium and small company suppliers”—

the kind of trickle down we quite like. He continued:

“Departure would be bad for employment and growth across a broad business spectrum.”

This is what Sir Richard Branson wrote in January:

“An exit would be very bad for British business and the economy as a whole...The EU is the UK’s biggest trading partner, its combined market dwarfs the US and China. For that reason alone the UK must stay in to help rebuild the EU.”

He was right.

Let this sink in: Conservative Back Benchers, with the blessing of many Conservative Front Benchers, are proposing today an amendment that aims to break our ties with our main trading partner, blight inward investment into the UK and put at risk upwards of 3 million jobs. Let it sink in, too, that the leader of the Conservative party, the Prime Minister of our country is not just too weak to do anything about it—he is caving in, day by day, to their demands.

[Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)]

I agree with the shadow Chancellor almost entirely on Europe, but will he pledge today that he will not support an in/out referendum that might take the UK out of Europe?

[Ed Balls]

I want us to stay in the European Union; I am absolutely clear about that. Our amendment is absolutely clear, too, about the effect of an in/out referendum announced now. I am going to quote someone, which might go down well with the hon. Gentleman but perhaps not so well with some Conservative Members. Lord Heseltine said:

“To commit to a referendum about a negotiation that hasn’t begun, on a timescale you cannot predict, on an outcome that’s unknown, where Britain’s appeal as an inward investment market would be the centre of the debate, seems to me like an unnecessary gamble”.

My answer to the question of the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) is that we will not take that unnecessary gamble now. It would be the wrong thing to do. This is exactly the same position as the one the Prime Minister and the Chancellor joined us in the Lobby to vote against in October 2011. How things change!

Let us remind ourselves of what the Prime Minister told the Conservative party conference in 2006; it is worth reading the whole quote so we can understand its full impact:

“For too long, we were having a different conversation. Instead of talking about the things that most people care about, we talked about what we cared about most. While parents worried about childcare, getting the kids to school, balancing work and family life—we were banging on about Europe.”

His party has certainly been banging on about Europe day after day over the last week—banging the nails in the coffin of Tory modernisation and in the coffin of this Prime Minister’s prime ministership, too.

We should not forget that this is the Prime Minister who last summer rejected calls for an in/out referendum. Then, just three months ago in his much-heralded Europe speech, the Prime Minister pulled his referendum stunt—a Europe speech to wrong-foot Labour and UKIP and unite the Conservative party. This is how The Independent reported Downing street’s gleeful boasting back in January.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Osborne]

I will give way to the Scottish nationalists in a moment.

It was not this Chancellor but the German Chancellor who said the other day:

“If Europe today accounts for just over 7% of the world’s population, produces around 25% of global GDP and has to finance 50% of global social spending, then it’s obvious that it will have to work very hard to maintain its prosperity and way of life.”

That was the leader of Germany speaking. I believe that there are out there other people who also seek change, but above all, for the United Kingdom, because of the changes happening in the eurozone, we need a new settlement and I am confident that the Prime Minister will deliver it.

[Pete Wishart]

The Chancellor of the Exchequer and I know that the UK is halfway out of the European Union. Does he agree that the best way for the Scottish people to remain within the European Union is to vote yes in the referendum next year?

[Mr Osborne]

As our Scotland analysis papers show, Scotland would have to apply to join the European Union as it became a new state. I am glad the Scottish National party is taking part in this debate on economic policy. Perhaps we will get a clearer view from SNP Members, after the shambles of the past three weeks, of what their policy is on the currency that Scotland would use, should Scotland vote to leave the Union. We have not had a clear answer. Some members of the SNP have said that Scotland should have its own currency, others have said that Scotland should join the euro, and still others have said that they would negotiate a monetary union with all of us in order to keep the pound. There is complete confusion in the SNP ranks and until they have a clear answer to that, they will not be listened to on much else.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Rutley (Macclesfield) (Con)]

The Queen’s Speech sets out a positive agenda—one that shows that Government Members are supporting hard-working people who want to get on in life and working to boost our national competitiveness to build the foundations for much needed sustainable economic growth.

The draft deregulation Bill rightly focuses on reducing the bureaucratic burden faced by all too many businesses. It is a subject on which I have campaigned long and hard during my time as a Member of Parliament. The Institute of Directors has calculated that the cost of regulation on business in this country is £110 billion a year. That is clearly too high. This Bill will make a difference by exempting from health and safety law the self-employed whose activities pose no potential risk to others. It will also give non-economic regulators a new duty—to have regard to the impact of their actions on growth. These are positive steps for businesses in Macclesfield and across the country.

Our ability to innovate has always been critical to our competitiveness. That is why it is indeed time to introduce the Intellectual Property Bill. I welcome the fact that the Federation of Small Businesses has said:

“Streamlining the patent system…will make it more cost effective for small businesses to protect their inventions.”

The Bill goes further by improving design protection, too. That is good news for this vital part of the UK economy, which accounts for more than 1% of gross domestic product.

As competitiveness improves, businesses will be better placed to create more jobs, and the national insurance contributions Bill clearly demonstrates the Government’s commitment to this vital task. The new £2,000 employment allowance will encourage in particular small businesses looking to take on more staff, and it will build on the Government’s proven track record of job creation, with over 1.2 million jobs created in the private sector since the election. I am pleased that we have the ambition to go further.

The Queen’s Speech sets out an important agenda that will improve our national competitiveness, but that ambition does not stop at the English channel—much to the disappointment of my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Charlie Elphicke), who is no longer in his place. There is more work to be done within the EU and in wider international markets. As the UK’s competitiveness improves, we need British businesses exporting more. Britain needs to fall in love again with enterprise, entrepreneurs and exporting. Equally, businesses need to be more curious about exploiting opportunities overseas and follow the example of successful SME exporters such as J Tape in Macclesfield.

Trade associations and chambers of commerce should help raise awareness of the sources of support available to SMEs and they need to make sure that they are out there representing British businesses in vital growth markets such as Brazil and South Africa, where I suspect they are currently under-represented. British businesses should seize the day and make exports our business once again.

There have been reports in recent days of a real and growing appetite among my Conservative colleagues to address our relationship with the European Union. I can categorically confirm that those reports are true. It is increasingly clear that the public want the issue to be addressed as well. They understand that it is not just about sovereignty, but poses a clear and present danger to our real economy. I am pleased that the Conservative party, alone in the House, recognises that, and will offer an in/out referendum.

[Pete Wishart]

We have just learnt from The Spectator that the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Nadine Dorries) is talking about a UKIP-Conservative candidacy at the next general election. How many other Conservative Members are considering that, and does it constitute a new realignment of the right?

[David Rutley]

Whatever the hon. Gentleman may have read in the paper, and whatever blog may be in existence, there is no plan for any such coalition.

[Pete Wishart]

Are you sure?

[David Rutley]

Absolutely. We are categorical about that. We have a very clear plan. We are the only party in the House that is presenting proposals for an in/out referendum, and things will stay that way. On the back of that, I am confident that we can secure an outright Conservative victory.

--- Later in debate ---

[Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)]

In the few minutes available to me, I want to confine my remarks to amendment (b). When the history books are written and we come to the chapter that describes and explains the UK’s exit from the EU, this week will go down as an important and significant week. After this week, the UK’s departure from the EU becomes almost unstoppable.

The UK, already a surly, sulky, semi-detached member of the EU, always available to offer some withering criticism to one of its few remaining allies within the EU, already halfway out of the exit door, is like some sort of staggering drunk looking for the oblivion of last orders, on its way out chanting, “We are the famous United Kingdom. No one likes us. We don’t care.” That is the reality of the UK within the EU. Its exasperated, declining number of allies in the EU do not know whether to boo, cheer or sing hasta la vista, such is the state and condition of the UK’s membership of EU.

It is clear that the UK is on its way out. It will either be out on the basis of the salami-slicing favoured by the Prime Minister—let us renegotiate a new terms of entry, which will obviously be rejected by most of its European allies—or, more likely, it will be wrenched out following the yes/no referendum plan by the Government, in a sort of in-your-face Barroso gesture from the UK electorate. What we actually have is an irresistible momentum for the UK to be taken out of the EU.

Of course, the EU was not even mentioned in the Queen’s Speech—that now appears to be an unfortunate oversight—but it is centre stage, because we are entering a new Session of Parliament, the UKIP session. It is the age of Farageism, a desperate creed characterised by an obsession with departure from the EU and with immigrants. It is an unpleasant, intolerant, neo-liberal creed with a disdain and hearty contempt for minorities. That is what will underpin this Session of Parliament, because the Government know that UKIP will win the next European election.

That is not my country and I do not want it. I want my country out of all that. My country is very different. The reason UKIP does not do well in Scotland, and the reason there is the lone panda of one Conservative Member in the Scottish Parliament, is that that agenda simply does not chime with the collectivism and the social attitudes and values of Scotland. That is why UKIP got less than 1% of the vote in the most recent Scottish parliamentary elections. I am proud that my country is so different from the one we observe south of the border. I hope that England and the rest of the United Kingdom do not go down that road, but they are entitled to have the Government they vote for, just as my nation is entitled to the Government we vote for.

There is now the real prospect of a party whose members the Prime Minister refers to as fruitcakes, loonies and closet racists having a share in the running of the United Kingdom. What will the Government do to ensure that does not happen? They have tried to name-call and disparage, but that has not really worked, given UKIP’s success in the local elections. They could try to buy UKIP off, but that would not work either. They are absolutely stuffed. My advice to the Government is that they had been doing all right and should have stuck with the hoodie-hugging and huskie-mushing new Conservatism. They simply could never out-UKIP UKIP, which is the master of European obsession and grievance. They should stick to their guns and ensure that they are different from UKIP.

It used to be said that Scottish independence would lead to Scotland being taken out of the European Union. Not many people are saying that now.

[Henry Smith]

Does the hon. Gentleman think that an independent Scotland would have to join the euro, or does he want to keep the British pound?

[Pete Wishart]

The hon. Gentleman is not on particularly steady ground when it comes to the debate on Scottish membership of the European Union. To answer his question, we will not be joining the euro but instead will follow Sweden’s example.

The Scottish people are observing two futures. In one future they remain shackled to the United Kingdom, which will become increasingly shackled to an intolerant, right-wing agenda. The hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Nadine Dorries) has already said that she will have a joint UKIP-Conservative candidacy at the next election. I do not know how many more Conservative Members will adopt that stance. What we are seeing is a realignment of the right. All I have heard from the 1922 committee, which has not been very pleasant recently, with all the disagreements about Europe, is that there is a faultline running through the Government. The Scottish people have a choice: they could have that future, or they could have their own future, determined by them and based on their values.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

The hon. Gentleman is making the case that Euroscepticism is an entirely right-wing view. In fact, across Europe the majority of Euroscepticism is on the left, among socialists, trade unionists and working-class people.

[Pete Wishart]

That might be true, but that is not how it is being demonstrated politically.

What we have observed is a total realignment. There are two different countries, and one is emerging south of the border with increasing UKIP results. It is absolutely certain that UKIP will win the next European election, and Conservative Members should be very careful about all that. They are right to be wary, because it could deprive them of office. I do not know what will happen, but Scotland has a choice—thank goodness—to do something different. We can remain shackled to an increasingly right-wing United Kingdom, almost relaxed about its continuing decline, or we can decide to have a future of our own, a future determined by the Scottish people, based on our social values and the type of community we want to develop and grow. We can choose to be a consensual and helpful friend in Europe, rather than one that likes to criticise, is semi-detached, does not really enjoy being there and is on its way out. Thank goodness we have that choice.

I know the type of future that my fellow countrymen and women will choose. They will opt to ensure that their future is in their hands. They will determine the type of Scotland they want: a Scotland standing proud in a coalition of nations around the world. That is the country I want and I am absolutely certain that that is what my fellow Scots will choose next year.

Finance (No. 2) Bill

Pete Wishart Excerpts

Thursday 18th April 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr MacNeil]

I do not dispute that it has a great effect on everyone in the United Kingdom, but Scotland is currently in the United Kingdom and it therefore affects Scotland. I look forward to hearing the hon. Gentleman’s speech. I am sure that the points he raises will be very welcome.

[Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)]

My hon. Friend referred to numbers, and I am sure that he, like me, will have noted that the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr Donohoe) is the only Scottish Labour Member who has bothered to turn up for this debate, such is their concern about the issue we are addressing.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr MacNeil]

The hon. Gentleman is right about that to an extent. For some flights, however, APD is paid on one of the legs going into the islands, so he is not entirely correct, and the flights that are exempt are those capable of carrying under 20 passengers with a take-off load of less than 10 tonnes. He should know the details of what he is talking about.

May I ask the UK Government a simple question? Why are they not devolving APD to Scotland? Is it because the UK Government do not want to see Scotland doing better? Is it because the UK Government care only about collecting revenues from Scotland? Or is it that they think that once one tax goes, all taxes will go—and that the often peddled myth that Scotland receives extra money from the indebted UK will be seen for the lie it is? Is there a fear of APD today, oil revenue tomorrow, so the mantra is that it is better to keep taxes together at Westminster?

The Government refuse to listen to sensible voices in Scotland. Robert Kerr, the chairman of French Duncan and the Scottish accountant of the year, said:

“More helpful would be a reduction in the rate of air passenger duty (instead, the Chancellor announced in his Budget that it would increase at the highest level of inflation for two years)”.

He continued:

“Scotland is preparing to welcome the world in 2014, when it hosts the second Year of Homecoming, the Commonwealth Games and the Ryder Cup. If we are to maximise the economic opportunities such events present, then we need more help from our governments rather than hindrance.”

I would add that when the referendum is won, Scotland will be in the world’s focus and many more people will want to travel to it. We do not want them to be penalised by the outgoing UK Government in Scotland.

APD should clearly be devolved. The UK Government have had enough time to think about the matter. Even the Calman commission, which was set up by the Tory-Labour tag team and their Liberal friends, recommended the devolution of APD. The UK Government’s response was to refuse to devolve it on the grounds that they were exploring whether to replace it with a per-plane tax. That decision has been made and the per-plane tax has been rejected, so what is the excuse now? I say that looking at the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr Reid). We look forward—if that is the right expression—to hearing the latest excuse from the Government.

[Pete Wishart]

My hon. Friend is correct that the Calman commission recommended the devolution of APD, but so does the jam-tomorrow Labour commission. At its conference in Inverness this weekend, Scottish Labour will be discussing the devolution of APD. I would be interested to hear whether the two Scottish Labour Members present will boycott that conference.

[Mr MacNeil]

I am sure that the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire will be on his feet presently to confirm his attendance in Inverness.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jonathan Edwards]

The hon. Gentleman makes a powerful point. That is especially the case in Wales, as the Welsh Government own our national airport.

It is clear that the Bill is the appropriate legislative vehicle to move this issue forward. There is a clear precedent and, as I said, I believe the Treasury should accept the amendment, as it includes all the minor taxes recommended by Silk.

The Labour Welsh Government have recently acquired Cardiff airport, and the ability to attract long-haul flights to Cardiff would significantly improve the airport’s competitiveness. Cardiff airport has 1.5 million people in its catchment area and long-haul flights could attract people from even further afield. The development of Cardiff airport could act as a spur to growth in the south Wales economy, bringing in greater foreign direct investment through better business links, in turn bringing jobs and growth.

Quite frankly, I am amazed that the Labour party has not tabled its own amendment. That goes to show that the First Minister has absolutely no influence over his bosses down here. On Tuesday of this week, he stood in the National Assembly telling the Members and the people of Wales that

“the most important thing is to ensure that Silk part 1 is progressed”.

I would expect Labour MPs to file through the Aye Lobby when we vote, or his authority will be fatally undermined—but as the Labour Whips have sent them home, that will not be the case.

The fact that the Treasury has not used the Finance Bill to implement Silk also shows once again that Wales is an afterthought in the machinations of the British state. Those powers should be devolved, yet there is delay even though it is apparent that there is broad consensus among the main parties who represent Welsh constituencies, as evidenced in the Grand Committee debate and despite the fact that the commission received representations from all parties. Each month that passes by without these powers being devolved, the Welsh economy further deteriorates with job and economic prospects diminished, hopes and dreams shattered and lives ruined.

Over Easter, I attended a major forum meeting organised by Carmarthenshire county council to move the proposed Llandeilo bypass project forward. Despite being high up the Welsh Government’s priority list as a transport infrastructure project, it is being held up as a result of the savage cuts to capital budgets in Wales. If the amendment is successful, it will enable the Welsh Government to access borrowing powers to move the scheme and many others like it forward. In Carmarthenshire there is cross-party support for the project, and I would like to close by kindly informing my political opponents that should they fail to support the amendment their grandstanding in supporting projects such as the Llandeilo bypass will be exposed and there will be a heavy political price to pay in my constituency—a constituency I believe the Labour party view as a target seat come the next Westminster election.

[Pete Wishart]

No chance, not with you there.

[Jonathan Edwards]

Well, I am grateful for that comment.

Plaid Cymru has made jobs and the economy its absolute priority. That is why we have tabled this amendment on air passenger duty. We want to create a modern and prosperous Wales, and unlike our political opponents we have little faith in London Governments of whatever colour achieving that ambition. That is why we want the tools to get on with the job ourselves without delay.

--- Later in debate ---

[Cathy Jamieson]

Thank you, Mr Evans.

I have no concern about whether what is on the Order Paper is in order; of course, if the Clerks have accepted it, it is indeed in order. I recall some of the Members who are bickering and heckling from the Back Benches making similar remarks about perfectly legitimate amendments that Labour Members have tabled in the past, and perhaps making similar suggestions. I am criticising not what is on the Order Paper but the fact that hon. Members apparently wish to widen this debate to the whole question of breaking off certain parts of the United Kingdom instead of focusing on the specific issue.

This is a very serious matter, as was highlighted during the Back-Bench debate that we had back in November. At that time, we as a House came to an agreement that the issue should be looked at in more detail. I would be interested to hear from the Minister what action has been taken. Prior to the election, the Conservatives gave a commitment to look at the per-plane duty. The resulting report was not taken forward for very good reasons; certainly, the industry did not support it. Following all the representations that have been made and the Back-Bench debate that took place, is the Minister now in a position to respond to some of the issues that have been raised today and to say whether a further report is necessary?

[Pete Wishart]

We do not have a clue what the Liberal position on APD is, and the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr Reid) does not have a clue himself. We have the “jam tomorrow” commission looking at this, but what is the view of the hon. Lady and the Labour party on APD?

[Cathy Jamieson]

Our view is that we will not support the new clause because we do not believe it is the correct way forward. The Labour party’s position, as already outlined by the leader of the Scottish Labour party, is to put forward some points for consultation. That is the right and proper thing to do. It is of course for the Liberal Democrats to answer for themselves rather than for Labour to do it for them.

Economic Policy

Pete Wishart Excerpts

Monday 25th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Osborne]

We have further difficult decisions on spending to take this year to set the spending round for 2015-16. I know that my hon. Friend has always been consistent in supporting all the difficult spending decisions, so I look forward to that consistent support in the years ahead.

[Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)]

Over the weekend, the Labour and Tory Better Together no campaign was giving out leaflets to the effect that an independent Scotland would never, ever secure the triple A rating of the UK, just as the UK was losing that triple A rating. Does the Chancellor agree that his nonsensical economic scaremongering about an independent Scotland has totally failed, and that his credibility and that of the no campaign is nothing other than a treble Z?

[Mr Osborne]

If the SNP is to persuade the Scottish people to vote for independence, it must address fundamental economic questions that it has been unable to answer about the currency it would use and the fiscal agreement it would seek should it want to use the pound with the rest of the United Kingdom. There are also fundamental questions about the financial services industry based in Scotland. I remind the hon. Gentleman that the Royal Bank of Scotland is headquartered in Scotland. The SNP is simply unable to answer those questions at the moment, and as a result I think people doubt the case it is making for independence.

Fuel Duty

Pete Wishart Excerpts

Monday 12th November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Albert Owen]

I will in a moment, but given the time limit I do want to make some progress.

I want to raise three issues, the first of which is the impact of fuel duty on businesses, especially those in peripheral areas of the United Kingdom. The Government also chose to impose a VAT increase, despite the Prime Minister having told the country before the election that they had no intention of doing so. Every time constituents throughout the country put petrol or diesel in their cars they pay an extra 3p per litre because of the tax introduced by this Chancellor of the Exchequer.

[Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)]

I am genuinely confused. What is the difference between a Labour fuel tax hike and a Conservative one?

[Albert Owen]

Scottish National party Members always use that line on fuel duty, and I am not going to waste my time on it—[Interruption.] If the hon. Gentleman had checked the record, he would know that I have been consistent on fuel duty. I have followed SNP Members through the Lobby on that. Previous Labour Chancellors froze the duty following pressure from people. That is on the record. We can play games about previous Governments, but the serious issue is the cost—

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Bain]

If the hon. Gentleman has the courage of the convictions he has just expressed, he should join us in the Lobby tonight. That will be the evidence his constituents will be looking for tomorrow morning.

On incomes, millions of ordinary people are under huge pressure because of the collapse in real wages, which has hit particularly hard since the onset of the current recession.

[Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Bain]

I am running out of time, and I am sure the hon. Gentleman will have a chance to make his own speech.

Since 2007, real wages have declined by about 4% for the vast majority of ordinary people, damaging their spending power and weakening prospects for a consumer-led economic recovery. In my constituency, almost three in 10 workers, including half of all the 10,000 part-time workers, earn less than the living wage of £7.45 an hour. The increases in fuel duty have hit them especially hard. As the Resolution Foundation’s recent Commission on Living Standards report established, just 12p in every £1 of growth generated in Britain finds its way into the pay packets of workers in the lower half of the income scale. They need help on fuel costs tonight.

Britain stands at a crossroads. Without a change in policy, people will be no better off in 2020 than they were in 2001, but with the right kind of reforms on pay, tax and benefits, that can be reversed and we can see the gap between rich and poor falling once again. Tonight we can make our contribution to supporting growth and improving the living standards of our constituents over the next few months, by rejecting the Government amendment and boosting much needed job creation by cutting fuel duty.

--- Later in debate ---

[Pete Wishart]

Does the hon. Lady think that Scottish Labour’s cuts commission’s plans to do away with free personal care and free bus passes for the elderly, and to introduce tuition fees, would lower the cost of living for Scottish people, who are suffering in the very conditions that she describes?

[Sheila Gilmore]

I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has made those comments in an intervention, because I heard him say that earlier from a sedentary position.

Cuts have been made in Scotland—the hon. Gentleman should be absolutely clear about that. They have been made to social care in Scotland, partly because of the council tax freeze. I heard the Economic Secretary boast about that freeze, but it is an extremely regressive policy. For people who do not pay council tax because they receive council tax benefit, that policy has not benefited them by one penny. In Scotland, those people have not benefited for five years. Indeed, it gives a far greater benefit to people who pay the highest level of tax.

As a result of the council tax freeze, councils in Scotland have suffered a great deal, as councils in England are now suffering. A service that has suffered is social care. I will not take lessons from the hon. Gentleman, because cuts have already been made in Scotland as a result of his Government’s policies. Those things will happen in England too. I would not be as proud as the Economic Secretary of the council tax freeze, because it has a severe downside for many people who depend heavily on the services that councils provide, which are important for their living standards. We must not forget that.

As my hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (Fiona O'Donnell) mentioned, people who work in social care are not only on low wages but they are told by their employers, who often have outsourced contracts from councils that are trying desperately to make savings, to use their own car to travel to do the job. They are not usually paid for travel time, and they are not refunded if they have to park somewhere and pay parking charges. They are on the lowest income levels, they are working hard in a hugely important service, and they deserve much more attention from us. They are suffering from the increases in fuel tax.

The Minister said yet again all this stuff about all the jobs that the Government claim have been created. As I have said before, if we say that there have been 1 million new jobs since the election and that that is a huge improvement, we should remember that, at the beginning of 2011, only eight months after the Government came to power, they said that they had created 500,000 jobs. I contend that those jobs were created as a result of the economic stimulus from the previous Government. In the following 22 months, another 500,000 jobs were created at a slower rate of growth. Many of those jobs are part time, which has increased spending on welfare benefits, thus increasing the problems that the Government face in trying to balance their financial books. People with part-time jobs claim housing benefit—98% of new housing benefit claimants are people in employment—and they claim more tax credits, because their hours of work have decreased. That is not a stable basis on which to proceed. If the Government want to scrap the proposed fuel increase in January, perhaps they should simply tell the nation that today.

Scottish Football (Tax Liabilities)

Pete Wishart Excerpts

Wednesday 29th February 2012 Westminster Hall

[Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty) on securing this important debate. He will know that I have spent many a fine afternoon on the terraces of East End Park as a native of Dunfermline, supporting the mighty Pars. My affections have now transferred to the mighty Saintees of McDiarmid Park in Perth. I know that it is very much to the hon. Gentleman’s disappointment that almost the entire length of the Scottish premier league separates Dunfermline from St Johnstone just now.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned two other clubs in his contribution. It was a bit remiss of him, when talking about Cowdenbeath, not to give their nickname, which I am sure that you, Mr Betts, are bursting to know. They are known as the Blue Brazil, a nickname that could never be more deserved. I remember when my grandfather used to take me to watch the cup games against Cowdenbeath, being a native and resident of West Fife, where the league support was for Dunfermline. I went to Central Park to watch the cup games when Cowdenbeath were competing. That was a forlorn activity back in the 1970s, because on only a couple of occasions did Cowdenbeath manage to get past the second round. He also mentioned Brechin City, which used to be in my constituency, in north Tayside. What is notable and significant about Brechin City is that it is the only professional football ground with a beech hedge as its border. A lot of Scottish football fans liked to go along. There were the bridies at Forfar Athletic and the beech hedge at Brechin City.

Enough of my tour around the football grounds of Scotland; let us get on to business. I think that everybody here is a football fan, but where on earth are the rest of my Scottish colleagues? There is only the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife. We get so few opportunities to discuss Scottish issues, particularly important Scottish issues about football. We are all proud that we represent football clubs in our constituencies. I have St Johnstone, a fantastic team doing well in the premier league, but where are my Scottish colleagues this afternoon? It is not as if they get loads and loads of Scottish business in this House. Not one of them could be bothered to turn up today to discuss the biggest crisis that is facing our national game. That is a disgrace, which says a lot about my Scottish colleagues when it comes to debating these important issues.

We have never had a crisis like this one. It is totally unprecedented and how it will end is anyone’s guess, but the nature and the face of Scottish football will probably change dynamically because of what is going on.

[Thomas Docherty]

First, some colleagues have been detained at Select Committees this afternoon. Secondly, does he agree that many colleagues are nervous about discussing what has happened with Rangers, because it is difficult to have a rational, sensible debate about the Scottish game without many of our constituents taking umbrage at us?

[Pete Wishart]

I do not know that that is true. I know that there is a bit of interest in this debate: one only has to look across the corridor from here. That does not excuse anything, however. This is important and it is unfortunate that there are not more Scottish colleagues here to debate what is probably the biggest crisis that we have seen in our game. This deserves and requires proper debate and it is unfortunate that we will not have that today, because this crisis deserves to be dealt with as sensitively as possible.

I listened carefully and closely to the remarks of the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife. Where I can go along some way with him is that there is a real desire for a solution to this problem. There has to be a solution, because it is almost inconceivable to imagine Scottish football without Glasgow Rangers. They have 130 years of history and tradition. They have huge support—some 50,000 home fans go to watch Glasgow Rangers at a home game every second week in the city of Glasgow. To have that taken out of our game would have a significant and deep impact on the ability of the SPL to continue to produce a platform that will engage and encourage people and ensure their support.

It is not just about ticket receipts. When Rangers come to St Johnstone, it is the biggest weekend that we have in Perth. It is not just the inflated gate that we get by playing one of the old firm; it is also some of the activity spin-offs for Perth. It is not just about the pubs on match day. Glasgow Rangers supporters may choose to take a day either side of the game—the Friday night or the Saturday evening—so our hotels and restaurants are busy. There are also the other activities that go on within the city. To lose that would be to lose a significant amount of income and economic activity, which would be very much missed.

There is also the issue of television rights. As the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife said, they involve a fraction of the sums for television rights in England, but they represent a massive income for the Scottish game. If there were no Rangers, what impact would that have on the television rights sold to ESPN, Sky and the BBC, which play a massive part in the incomes of so many other Scottish football clubs? We would also miss the drama and spectacle of old firm games, which are enjoyed and appreciated not only in Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom, but throughout the world.

[Thomas Docherty]

Just for the sake of clarity, it might help to reiterate that if either half of the old firm is not in the SPL, the contract with the TV companies falls. It is therefore in the SPL’s interests to treat Rangers as a special case because of those knock-on effects.

[Pete Wishart]

I am glad the hon. Gentleman mentioned that. He is absolutely right that that is one possible consequence of losing Rangers. That is why we should do all we can to ensure the ongoing survival of Glasgow Rangers football club.

[Damian Collins]

Glasgow Rangers is too big to fail, and they will find a way of restructuring their debts and coming back, but does the hon. Gentleman share my concern that the real long-term losers will be small businesses and other football clubs?

[Pete Wishart]

The hon. Gentleman is spot on. There is, of course, talk and speculation about what happens if Rangers are unable to come out of administration. Indeed, the Scottish press, particularly the sporting press, have a fascination with the old firm, and we read about it almost every day. However, the hon. Gentleman is right that some of the small businesses that are expecting payment from the administrators will suffer a massive loss. That is a real issue, and I am grateful to him for bringing it up.

Football is our national game. All our football clubs play an enormous part in our economic activity and make a real contribution to our communities and constituencies. The Fraser of Allander Institute estimates that the old firm’s economic importance to Glasgow and the rest of the Scottish economy amounts to £190 million. More than 3,000 full-time jobs depend on SPL football, and £200 million is spent on related commercial activities in Glasgow alone. According to the Rangers annual report, the direct economic activity generated by the club is in the region of £56 million.

Most importantly, there is also the issue of what happens to the 331 people directly employed by Rangers. They must be absolutely paramount in our considerations, and I hope some solution is found so that they can continue to serve in their jobs.

This is not, however, just about clubs’ contribution to our economy, important and significant though it is. There is also the value professional clubs have for our communities, and the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife mentioned that. We can all see the infrastructure that exists and the clubs our young people are encouraged to participate in. We know that our football clubs make an immense contribution to our communities. According to the SPL’s 2011 community report, 20,000 people participate in community projects weekly, and SPL clubs spent £8 million on community activity, which is no small sum.

There are also the fans in Scotland. I know the audience for SPL football has diminished, but 3.2 million people still attend SPL games each season, and a further 76 million watch them on ESPN, the BBC or Sky. Football is therefore a big business, which contributes much to our economy and our communities, and we must ensure that we respond to the current crisis with the sensitivity it deserves and requires. Scottish football is in a precarious state, and it remains a fragile product, so it can ill afford to lose one of its major protagonists.

Of course, this is not just about Rangers. Several of our clubs are teetering on the brink of financial collapse and ruin. I just wish they could all be like St Johnstone, which is run so perfectly and effectively by Geoff Brown, its chair. It never gets into debt, it always ensures it looks after its liabilities and it never has a problem with HMRC, but that is not the case with many of the clubs in the SPL. I am thinking not just about Rangers, but I will not mention the other clubs, because we all know which ones are experiencing real difficulties and pressures.

We have seen what happens when clubs cannot meet their responsibilities and liabilities. Dundee and Livingston went into administration. We have also seen one SPL club—Gretna—go to the wall in the past 10 years. It was not a particularly great example, and I doubt whether other clubs would like to replicate its business model.

These are tough times, and gates are falling. We have heard from the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Damian Collins) about the pressure of football wage inflation and how it must be brought under control. The hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife was of course right to mention that SPL football is totally different from the English premier league or first division, and only the wages in the old firm are similar. However, some clubs have tried to replicate what we have seen elsewhere and to buy success by buying expensive players. They have tried to compete with the old firm and they have got into all sorts of difficulties. That is probably one of the reasons why Dundee football club, in particular, experienced the difficulties that led to its going into administration. There is a demand all the time to buy more expensive players, because that is what the market dictates, and clubs are encouraged to fork out money. However, gates are falling, and there is any amount of competition from other activities for the time of constituents, who might otherwise go to watch football games.

We all accept that our football clubs must meet their financial obligations. Everybody in every business must pay their tax—it is as simple as that. They must pay it on time and they must ensure that any business plan is totally predicated on meeting their tax liabilities. However, I am sure I am not the only Member in the Chamber who will have put the case for businesses and individuals in his constituency who have got into trouble over their tax liabilities. I do not know how many letters I have sent to HMRC on behalf of small businesses and people who have got themselves into difficulties. It is absolutely right that people also make representations on behalf of Glasgow Rangers because of its significance to Scottish football and the number of jobs that depend on it, as well as its history and tradition, its success and its value to the SPL.

The club is in a mess. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the current regime, which has been a total disaster—we cannot call it anything other than that. Once Craig Whyte took over its debts, something was always going to happen. He did not have the money to ensure the club could get out of its difficulties. What he did with Ticketus was appalling, and there will now be an SFA investigation into the Ticketus deal. There will also be an investigation to see whether Craig Whyte is a fit and proper person to run a football club, and we will have to see the details. Again, it is the fans who suffer, and the people who work in the club have been the major recipients of all the bad news and all the doom and the gloom.

Right now, the administrator is responsible for running the club. In the next few days, Duff and Phelps expect to announce the first round of job losses, which will first impact on the playing staff. There are outstanding issues of payments to other clubs, and I have heard the representations from Dunfermline football club that it should be paid. The hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife is right that money should be paid to clubs that are owed it, and Rangers have no right whatever to retain it. However, the job losses show the real impact that going into administration has on people’s careers and jobs.

The hon. Gentleman talked about the Scottish Government’s role, and they stand ready to offer assistance to anyone affected by job losses. They have said they will do all they can to keep in contact with the administrator and to be available to provide support and assistance if there are job losses. In addition, there is the PACE—partnership action for continuing employment—programme in Glasgow, which has offered to provide any assistance it can if there are job losses. PACE has offered Duff and Phelps assistance almost daily to take things forward, and there have been several conversations to that effect. This is a developing and emerging situation, and Scottish Ministers and PACE are keeping their eye on it.

[Thomas Docherty]

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman can provide some clarity, because he speaks on sport for the Scottish National party. He will be aware of reports in this morning’s newspapers that the Scottish Government are apparently offering all the assistance they can to the Scottish open, and the assumption is that financial assistance may be forthcoming. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that if the Scottish Government are going to put money into the Scottish open, they should also see what financial assistance they can provide to the SPL?

[Pete Wishart]

The hon. Gentleman is right, and I am grateful for that assistance for the Scottish open. I am sure that he will be the first to recognise that the input that the Scottish Government have made to Scottish football is significant—the £25 million that was announced towards the national performance centre, for example, the £8 million through CashBack for Communities and the £4 million going into the refreshed youth action plan for the next four years. That shows the Scottish Government’s support for Scottish football and their commitment to ensuring that it will continue to develop in the next few years. That will be welcomed in football throughout Scotland.

I want to mention a couple of initiatives. Unfortunately there was some appalling behaviour two weeks ago at Glasgow Rangers, in the home game against Kilmarnock, which shows that there is still a massive problem with sectarian chanting. I am delighted that for the first time the Scottish Government have put in place legislation to tackle that effectively. It was not supported by the rest of the parties in the Scottish Parliament, but at last something will be done to try to get rid of that curse from the national game.

[Thomas Docherty]

I regret the fact that at the end of a good speech the hon. Gentleman is trying to bring in party politics. I went to the Dunfermline and Rangers game as a guest of the police, early in the season; the procurator fiscal was there. The PF, the clubs and the police were clear about the fact that that legislation, which no one else in the Scottish Parliament supported, was unnecessary, and unworkable.

[Pete Wishart]

It is the police who have been telling the Scottish Government that the legislation is required. We have had that debate in the Scottish Parliament, and thank goodness that behaviour will at last be challenged effectively. I welcome the fact that the SNP Scottish Government are deciding to take on the issue head on, and trying to get that appalling scourge out of the Scottish game.

There are other issues in Scottish football, but the one that we are debating is the big one—the thing that we need to get tackled and sorted out. I hope that HMRC will work sensitively with the administrator, and that we will get a solution that will ensure that it will be paid what it is owed. The main thing is that HMRC should secure the outstanding liabilities that Glasgow Rangers has towards it. Let us hope that we get a solution that will allow Glasgow Rangers to come out of administration—a solution that will mean that as much as possible will be done to retain the staff who work on its behalf; that we will have a Scottish premier league worthy of that title and enjoyed by its supporters; and that we can go on ensuring that that product can be developed, and made entertaining and exciting for people not just in Scotland but worldwide.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Gauke]

I will deal with the hon. Gentleman’s second point first, which he is absolutely right to raise. From April 2012, HMRC will be able to seek securities where PAYE is at risk. That mirrors existing powers for VAT, which are already in place. If a taxpayer does not pay the security, they will commit a criminal offence. There are, of course, safeguards to ensure that the power is not abused by HMRC—it is not to be used widely—but where there is concern about repeated failure, that is an additional tool available to HMRC. That, in itself, will have a deterrent effect, which I hope will be helpful in such circumstances.

[Pete Wishart]

The Minister has mentioned some of the sticks available to HMRC to secure its liabilities, but what about the carrots? What about incentivising the clubs that meet HMRC requirements on time? I mentioned the example of my football club, St Johnstone, which has never gone into the red. Does HMRC want clubs to behave and be able to balance their books on that basis?

Scotland Bill

Pete Wishart Excerpts

Tuesday 21st June 2011 Commons Chamber

[Ann McKechin]

If the First Minister had anything sensible to say, I would, but as yet, I have not heard it. It is a bit like the corporation tax issue—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil) needs to calm himself and not get over-excited. The Scottish Government have had many weeks to produce detailed analysis. They have complained that things have been rushed and that we have not had figures from the UK Government on a variety of issues throughout the passage of this Bill, yet they cannot produce the detailed evidence and analysis that would allow people in Scotland to judge whether their calls have validity.

The hon. Member for Dundee East was given five opportunities this evening to explain what the impact would be on Scottish public expenditure if there was a cut in corporation tax. He said in Committee:

“I would like it cut over a number of years”.—[Official Report, 14 March 2011; Vol. 525, c. 70.]

Members may be interested to hear that that has not always been the Scottish National party’s policy on corporation tax. In 1988, a certain Alex Salmond was suspended as an MP from the House of Commons for attacking the Tory Government’s reduction in corporation tax.

[Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for the history lesson. Is this what we are going to get from the Labour party for the next few years? I want to encourage her, because the negativity and can’t-do attitude that has permeated the Labour party is partly responsible for the overwhelming defeat that it suffered at the Scottish elections. Please carry on.

[Ann McKechin]

If that is the level of intellectual debate that we can anticipate from the Scottish Government and their colleagues at Westminster over the next five years, I think Scotland will be in a pretty poor state. Of course, we now have a hierarchy in the Scottish Government depending on whether one is a good Scot or a bad Scot. That is a level of debate that extends even up to judges in the Supreme Court.

If corporation tax was cut in Scotland, public spending would have to be cut in line with it, as we have heard today. The hon. Member for Dundee East suggested that the Scottish Government would take the power, but apply the same rate. That suggests that the power would not provide any benefit or disbenefit, except that they would have to administer the tax at a cost. At some point in the future, they would then apply the tax.

There are questions to which people in Scotland want answers. By how much would the Scottish Government cut corporation tax? The hon. Gentleman spent 42 minutes talking this evening and did not confirm that figure once. What would be the time scale for the cut in corporation tax? Would it be done over two years, three years or four years? We do not know. That is despite the fact that the Treasury, in its evidence to the Scotland Bill Committee in Holyrood in March, stated:

“A 10% cut in corporation tax in Scotland might cost about £600 million per year for an indeterminate period.”

That is understandable given the maturity of the Scottish economy and, as the Exchequer Secretary mentioned tonight, the many large plcs that already have their registered offices in Scotland. Even Northern Ireland’s First Minister, Peter Robinson, believes that Northern Ireland is a special case and has warned Alex Salmond that Scotland could lose up to £1.5 billion if it follows through the bid to set its own corporation tax. Anyone would need answers to the questions I have asked if they are to decide that that is a good idea.

The SNP is reluctant to say whether it thinks Scotland should be a high-tax nation or a low-tax nation. Does it believe in high-quality, good value public services, or does it want a lower public expenditure base, which would mean fewer nurses, doctors and police? There are consequences to that. Does it want an increase in income tax? [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar chunters about scaremongering, but he has failed to answer any of those questions. He should feel free to educate us about the detail of the SNP proposals.

--- Later in debate ---

In particular, I fear for the electoral standing of my party if it continues to feel, as many do now, that the Scottish Labour party tail wags the English Labour party dog. We stand in danger of being marked indelibly as a party in England that is not prepared to protect or to promote the English question. My new clause 8, which I know others wish to support, makes a plea: that we should move as quickly as we can to a position from which those on the Treasury Bench can spell out what the basis of the allocation of the main grants between the constituent parts of the United Kingdom should be, and, if there are differences, how we can defend them to our constituents on the basis of fairness—something that they feel in their guts—which is not possible at present. If we cannot do that, we should not envisage shortly—because these Parliaments move amazingly quickly towards their close—going into a referendum debate in Scotland about independence, or not until we have spelt out those differences and the logical basis for them, and can defend them to our English constituents.

[Pete Wishart]

The right hon. Gentleman is making a thoughtful speech and a fine contribution, but I am sure that when he talks to his constituents he will want to ensure that they have the correct facts about this argument. Will he at least acknowledge that there is a debate about relative spending between the rest of the United Kingdom and Scotland? Oxford Economics, for example, found that when unidentified spending is factored in, London and Northern Ireland receive more money than Scotland. Will he at least accept that there is an argument?

[Mr Field]

I might accept that there is an argument; my plea is that the information should be set out clearly for us, so that we can understand if there are differences and, if there are, establish a basis on which they can be defended. If I manage to conclude fairly quickly, I know that there are Members on the Government Benches who have written and spoken about the need for us to move expeditiously to a needs-based formula, although we all understand that if we did that the period in which we phased in the new formula would be crucial. I am not in favour of doing things that rough people up unnecessarily; timing is important.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ann McKechin]

As we made clear on Second Reading and in Committee, Labour welcomes the Scotland Bill because we believe that it will enhance the devolution settlement. As the Secretary of State mentioned, the Bill was the consequence of a lengthy, evidence-based, serious consultative process that sought cross-party consensus from the very beginning. It reflects many of the recommendations made by the Calman commission, which was established by the then Labour Government following the direct call from the Scottish Parliament for such a group to be set up. Important issues of constitutional change should not be marked by megaphone diplomacy and a never-ending series of demands. Constitutional change must always be based on hard evidence, consensus and consultation, and it should be clearly shown how it will improve the devolution settlement. It is not, for us, a marker on the route to separation.

Labour’s position is that it is not in Scotland’s best interests for the Scottish Government to play constitutional games and demand powers. It is time to start using those they already have, and to knuckle down to the hard task of getting the Scottish economy back on track, lowering record unemployment and generally making Scotland better. Although it is all too easy in the political game to focus on process rather than on policy, the important parts of the Bill are, first, to improve legitimacy and accountability to the Scottish electorate, and, secondly, to use these powers, along with the extensive range of powers granted in the Scotland Act 1998, for Scotland’s benefit.

I would like to spend a little time discussing the Supreme Court new clauses, which unfortunately we did not have time to discuss this evening, and which were not available in Committee. We welcome the fact that the Government did, as we requested, table the new clauses before the Commons stages were completed, and obviously we will want to discuss them in more detail when they reach the House of Lords, but I would like to put on the record what principles should be followed in referring cases to the Supreme Court. Labour fully agrees that the UK Supreme Court should retain a role in determining human rights and European law issues. The UK Supreme Court enables Scots to access justice without the expense and delay of having to go to Strasbourg, and without having to wait for years to have their cases heard. We believe that no one living in Scotland should have less access to the enforcement of their human rights than any other citizen living elsewhere in the UK.

Why would the Scottish Government want to make it more difficult for individuals in Scotland to access justice? Let us recall that it was a famous Scottish case to the Strasbourg Court in the 1980s that brought about the abolition of the belt in schools across the UK when the Court found in favour of two Scottish mothers, Grace Campbell and Jane Cosans. In those days, before the Human Rights Act 1998, cases took years to be heard, and in the meantime tens of thousands of children in Scotland and across the UK were belted right around the place in schools. The Human Rights Act is not about protecting bad people or about an easy escape route from jail; it is about protecting everyone from prejudice and harm.

[Pete Wishart]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her history lesson, but she will know, as the Secretary of State does, that the amendments concerning the Supreme Court are totally unacceptable to the Scottish Government, and will be unacceptable to the Scottish Parliament too. May I suggest to her and the Secretary of State that the expert group under Lord McCluskey should be allowed to do its work before anything further is done regarding the Supreme Court in this House?

[Ann McKechin]

What I would say to the hon. Gentleman is that we are aware that the McCluskey review is ongoing, and we will wish to consider its conclusions carefully when it reports. We will return to further analysis of the report in the Lords, which I hope will be available by the time this Bill reaches the other place.

We cannot continue this evening without mentioning the extraordinary attack that the First Minister and his Secretary for Justice made on both the Supreme Court and individual Scottish judges who sit in it, when they stated that the UK courts should have no jurisdiction in Scottish criminal cases. Let us be clear: no one is attacking the right for Scotland to retain its unique criminal legal system—I declare an interest, as a non-practising member of the Law Society of Scotland. However, on the other hand, those attacks smack of a political establishment that is too ready to attack anyone who dares to contradict its mantra, rather than one that is prepared robustly to tackle institutional complacency. It is entirely demeaning to Scotland’s international reputation when Scotland’s leading politician uses the language of the playground bully when describing the key relationship between the Executive and the judiciary. Mr MacAskill has referred to the UK Supreme Court as an “ambulance-chasing court”, despite it hearing on average only one Scottish case a year since devolution, and he has ignored the fact—or perhaps he was totally ignorant of it—that his own Scottish Crown Office is making referrals to the very same court.

--- Later in debate ---

[Pete Wishart]

We said on Second Reading that we would seek to strengthen and improve the Bill, offer real scrutiny and support any measures that brought significant and substantial new powers to Scotland. We are pleased that, in a number of areas, this is a better Bill today than the one presented on Second Reading.

I would also like to pay tribute to many Members who participated in the debates, particularly to those who participated in the Calman commission, and to thank people for all the hard work that was done in the Scottish Parliament Bill Committee. Although we did not necessarily agree with everything that was said, I appreciated the conscientious and diligent approach to the work.

Is this the Bill that Scotland urgently requires? I have to say that, unfortunately, the answer is no. Although we have managed to secure some more job-creating powers, this Bill falls way short of the ambitions of the Scottish people as directly expressed only a few short weeks ago, and it still lacks the measures that could have helped to develop our economy and make it grow.

Some of the new provisions are, of course, welcome. We welcome the acceptance of the amendments on borrowing as well as the devolution measures on airguns, speed limits and drink-driving, which will make Scotland a safer place. However, the Unionist parties seem almost incapable of preventing themselves from making re-reservations, which are a million miles away from where the Scottish people are in questions about their constitutional future.

[Mr Russell Brown]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way; he obviously has some time left. I hope that in the next few minutes he will explain what Bill the people of Scotland are looking for.

[Pete Wishart]

I think that we had something a few weeks ago that was called an election, and manifestos were presented for it. One manifesto had plans for including job-creating powers in the Scotland Bill and the other manifesto was produced by the Calman commission parties. I think that the Scottish people made clear which direction of travel they support.

[Mr Brown]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Pete Wishart]

I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman again.

We know what the Scottish people want when it comes to such matters. I was disappointed to hear what was almost a rant from the hon. Member for Glasgow North (Ann McKechin). Members’ personal attacks on the First Minister suggest that they have learnt absolutely nothing. Negativity does not win elections, but we hear continued, incessant negativity.

[Sir Robert Smith (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Pete Wishart]

I do not have time to give way.

I can only ask Members to continue down that route so that we can continue to secure victories such as the one we secured only a few short weeks ago.

[Sir Robert Smith]

rose—

[Pete Wishart]

I have only 10 minutes left.

The Bill contains unpalatable measures that are totally unacceptable to the Scottish Government, and which were aired a moment ago, concerning the Supreme Court.

[Sir Robert Smith]

rose—

[Pete Wishart]

I will give way, for the very last time.

[Sir Robert Smith]

The hon. Gentleman spoke of a personal attack on his leader from the Opposition Front Bench. Does he not think that the head of a Government in a proper, modern, functioning democracy should show respect for the courts, which protect the individual citizen from abuse of power by the state?

[Pete Wishart]

I am almost grateful to the hon. Gentleman, because he has referred to a measure I want to deal with. The measure relating to the Supreme Court that was passed today is totally unacceptable to the Scottish Government, and will be unacceptable to the Scottish Parliament as well. When the last Scottish Parliament Bill Committee considered the Government’s proposals, even that Unionist-led Committee did not see fit to pass them. I do not think that a new Scottish Parliament Bill Committee will be any better disposed towards them.

Had I been given an opportunity to debate the issue, I would have suggested a sunset clause, so that nothing could be done until the expert group in the Scottish Parliament finishes its work under Lord McCluskey. That is the time for us to discuss how to resolve what is a real issue.

[Sir Menzies Campbell]

rose—

[Pete Wishart]

I have said that I will not give way again, and I will not, even to the right hon. and learned Gentleman. Others wish to speak.

There are real difficulties, but the solution offered by the Secretary of State will not be acceptable to the Scottish Parliament. The most critical aspect of the Bill, however, involves not the unpalatable measures that we have discussed today, but the measures that the Bill omits: measures for which the Scottish people voted when the Bill was last considered by the Scottish Parliament. What they want are job-creating powers and control over the Crown Estates so that we can further the renewables revolution in Scotland.

Given our mandate, the Scottish National party will revisit those issues in the future. On balance, however, we accept that the Bill contains substantial new powers, and we will not oppose its Third Reading.

I suppose that we can look at the Bill in two stages—pre and post its testing by the Scottish people. The Calman parties stood on their record and presented it as a major constitutional issue when they fought the election, while the Scottish National party stood on a programme involving the creation of new jobs and powers for the Scottish Parliament. The Scottish people gave the Scottish National party an overwhelming mandate to pursue that agenda, and we will continue to present the case for real job-creating powers. We will not be satisfied until we have those powers in the Scottish Parliament.

The Bill will now go to the House of Lords before it is returned to the Scottish Parliament for a further legislative consent motion. I say to the Secretary of State and the Government—

[Jim Sheridan]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Pete Wishart]

I will not give way again. I say to the Secretary of State—

[Jim Sheridan]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Pete Wishart]

I am not going to give way to the hon. Gentleman. Must I say that a third time?

I say to the Secretary of State that he should not use the fact that there are no Scottish National party members in the House of Lords to introduce any further unpalatable measures, because that would be totally unacceptable. It is democratically elected Members who should decide the fate of our nation, not unelected appointees, donors and cronies.

[Jim Sheridan]

rose—

[Pete Wishart]

I am not going to give way to the hon. Gentleman. As he is standing right next to me, I do not know why he cannot hear me.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Jim Sheridan) must resume his seat.

[Pete Wishart]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. It takes a long time for Members to understand that I am not going to give way.

Once the Bill has completed its passage in the House of Lords it will return to the Scottish Parliament, and a further legislative consent motion will be required because of the many amendments passed by the House of Commons. I know that colleagues in all parties in the Scottish Parliament will want to look closely at a number of those amendments, and I know that the Secretary of State and the House will respect the views of the Scottish Parliament. I know they will accept that the Scottish Government have a massive mandate.

Many Members have talked about this being part of the devolution story, and it is. This is the second major Bill on devolution to have come before the House. The devolution story will continue to unfold, and we will continue to go down that road, but a new story is now also starting to emerge. It is about a new journey that Scotland is about to embark upon, because at some point over the next few years we will have a proper referendum on the future of Scotland—a proper, constitutional referendum that will be about independence, and I am absolutely sure that the Scottish people will make the right choice and that Scotland will once again join the nations of the world.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

Scotland Bill

Pete Wishart Excerpts

Monday 14th March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Iain Stewart (Milton Keynes South) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Evans. I shall address the Scottish National party Members’ amendments in a moment, but first let me make an observation about this part of the Bill, particularly clause 24. I strongly support the proposal to devolve substantial tax powers to the Scottish Parliament, making it responsible for raising approximately a third of its revenue. I shall not repeat the arguments I made on Second Reading, but the principle of the Scottish Parliament raising a good part of its revenue is vital. If that does not happen, the threat to the Union will be very real. To underline that point, let me quote from an e-mail that I received last night from a constituent, Mr Haig. It is worth repeating a couple of the points he expressed.

[Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)]

He’s bored and is going to resign.

--- Later in debate ---

[Fiona O'Donnell]

My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North has answered that question. If the hon. Gentleman was not listening, or if he was not able to follow it, I am afraid I cannot take responsibility for that.

I will press on and talk about the SNP’s corporation tax proposals.

[Pete Wishart]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Fiona O'Donnell]

No, I would like to make some progress and actually talk about the amendments. [Hon. Members: “Come on!”] Oh, alright then. Don’t say I’m not kind.

[Pete Wishart]

I am trying to understand Labour’s position on our amendments. They are what the Scottish Bill Committee and Calman agreed on, and we are providing an opportunity to put them to the vote today. Is she honestly saying that she will not take the opportunity to support her own case?

[Fiona O'Donnell]

This may not be something that the hon. Gentleman is used to hearing, but I am going to tell him, “Not yet”. As my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North said, until we have a ruling and clarification, there is a risk to the Scottish Government. That does not mean withholding those powers for ever, but it is about protecting Scotland and looking out for its interests.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Mr David Gauke)]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Walker, and to respond to the debate on the proposed amendments to clause 24.

[Pete Wishart]

Just before the Minister starts, can he explain why a Treasury Minister is replying to the debate when the Bill was presented by the Scotland Office? I know there are plans to do away with the useless Scotland Office, with which the SNP agrees, but does this situation just add flames to that particular fire?

[Mr Gauke]

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman has read the Command Paper, which was signed off by both the Secretary of State for Scotland and I. The debate relates to taxation, so it seems perfectly appropriate for a Treasury Minister to respond. Indeed, I warmly welcome the kind response I got from the hon. Gentleman’s colleague, the hon. Member for Dundee East (Stewart Hosie). It is very unusual for me to be described as a “big gun” but I am none the less grateful for those words. The Scotland Office and the Treasury have worked closely on the Bill, and in particular on the provisions that we are debating, and I am pleased to continue that co-ordination.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Gauke]

It would be fair to point out that the Calman commission took into account some of those issues, because—to take the examples of corporation tax or fuel duty—there could be significant issues with full devolution, and we will of course take into account the interests of all parts of the country.

[Pete Wishart]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Gauke]

I am hoping to wind up soon, but I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman.

[Pete Wishart]

Perhaps the Minister could answer the question—a question that the hon. Member for Glasgow North (Ann McKechin) also raised—about the process in which we are now involved. When are we likely to see amendments that reflect the will of the Scottish Parliament’s Committee? Will they be introduced in the House of Lords? Like the hon. Lady, I would find that unacceptable: such amendments have to be debated in this place. When will we be able to debate them in this House?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Donohoe]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I will develop that argument in my speech.

[Pete Wishart]

I am interested to know the view of the Labour party on this issue. The names of the hon. Gentleman and five of his hon. Friends are listed as supporters of the amendment. What is the view of those on the Labour Front Bench on Westminster controlling what happens with Members of the Scottish Parliament? What is the view of Labour Members of the Scottish Parliament on that?

[Mr Donohoe]

I am sure the hon. Gentleman knows that there are varying views on the subject, as there are on many subjects. As far as my constituents are concerned, however, there is no doubt: to a person, they support the argument that I am making tonight that there should be a fundamental change to how we elect our MSPs. There was immense resistance to the fact that the person who came fourth under first past the post was eventually elected to the Scottish Parliament. That seems to me to be wrong.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Donohoe]

The hon. Gentleman makes my point. Nobody actually knows their list Members. I could not name the ones in my constituency because there are 24 of them.

[Pete Wishart]

Does the hon. Gentleman know how many people in Scotland recognise Iain Gray? What would he make of these proceedings?

[Mr Donohoe]

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman’s smile will be on the other side of his face come the end of May. There is absolutely no doubt that Iain Gray will become as well known as anyone in Scotland as a result of becoming First Minister after 3 May this year. That was a great intervention—I would be happy to take similar ones all night.

Cabinet Office

Pete Wishart Excerpts

Tuesday 21st December 2010 Commons Chamber

[Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to speak in the all-new, super-duper, pre-recess Christmas Adjournment debate. I wish to discuss the plans for a city status competition in Her Majesty the Queen’s diamond jubilee year and the arrangements for that contest. If I get the opportunity to do so, I might just make the compelling, excellent and fantastic case for the beautiful city of Perth.

We in Perth were delighted when it was announced that there was to be a city competition in 2012 and we look forward to putting our compelling, excellent and fantastic case, alongside like-minded towns and cities throughout the United Kingdom. We naturally presumed that, once again, the Cabinet Office and the relevant Minister would attempt to ensure that a wide range of cities from throughout the United Kingdom would be rewarded with official city status, in recognition of the different civic traditions, arrangements and cultures in our diverse component parts of the United Kingdom. We therefore cannot begin to say how disappointed we were with the plans that we saw and how puny they were. Instead of encouraging a good competition, one that would match the commitment, energy, enthusiasm and ambitions of a range of candidate towns and cities across the United Kingdom, this time the Government have, for some reason, sought to award this status to only one city throughout the United Kingdom. After the efforts that we have made in our city, that has come as a crushing disappointment to Perth, as I am sure it has to other small applicant towns and cities the length and breadth of the United Kingdom.

Perth first approached the Ministry of Justice a couple of years ago to see whether it could secure official city status in advance of its 800-year anniversary: it is 800 years since Perth was awarded a city charter and became a royal burgh. We were encouraged to drop that plan and bid in the 2012 competition, which is what we have decided to do. Perth sees itself as a different aspirant city because it was an official city; it had its lord provostship. That goes back to what I was saying about the differences in tradition and culture between Scotland and the rest of the UK. We do not have mayors; we have provosts. It is bizarre to ask us to compete with towns and cities that have mayors, given that we have provosts. I look forward to the Minister’s response on that.

Perth was an official city—in fact, it was the capital of Scotland and was where the Kings of Scotland were crowned. Until the 1970s, when the town was so callously stripped of its official city status, it was considered to be the second city of Scotland. So for us this campaign is not about securing city status; it is about restoring that status and it is a matter of justice. Even in 2010, Perth is still very much considered a city: it is the “Fair City” of Sir Walter Scott’s book; it is the gateway to the highlands; it is the legal, administrative, commercial and educational centre of one of the largest areas in the United Kingdom, with one of the fastest growing populations in the country; and it even has a far-reaching international footprint, as we see when watching the English cricket team struggling to preserve the Ashes out in Western Australia.

When considering this competition, we must ask how we have done it before. In 2002, we had the Rolls-Royce version of a city status competition, when each of the nations of the UK had its own internal competition. That year, the city of Stirling was lucky enough to be awarded official city status. The millennium competition was not quite the same—with different competitions throughout the UK—but the equivalent of the Ministry of Justice at the time put real effort and energy into awarding this status to a range of cities from across the United Kingdom. Brighton and Hove, Wolverhampton and Inverness all won, so there was one winner from the south of England, one from the midlands of England and one representing the rest of the nations of the UK. That was a fantastic example of how a city competition throughout the UK could be organised and it was far more generous than what is on offer the next time around.

Such is the concern that, in a rare gesture of political unity, all the political leaders in the Scottish Parliament have come together to express their concern that Scotland will be overlooked. We in Perth are confident that we can see off all comers, because we believe that our case is fantastic, excellent and compelling, and that the beautiful city of Perth will be a real contender. However, what we presume will happen, given that there is to be only one winner, is that this competition will be lazy and sloppy. We presume that it will tend to favour the largest and those with greater access to the centre of power and—dare I say this?—it may favour applicant towns with one Conservative Member of Parliament or with several Conservative MPs.

We know that 11 towns from England are bidding to be official cities this time around, the smallest of which is twice the size of Perth and the largest of which is five times as populous, so they will have greater resources to deploy. If I were representing an English applicant town, I would expect to win this one. I would not expect the winner to be from the Celtic fringe. Given that England is the largest constituent part of the UK, I would expect one of its towns to win. All I am asking the Whip to pass on to the Minister is a request to review slightly what the Government have in mind for this city status competition and to do what was done last time around. The Government should reward a series of applicant cities from across the UK and make this fair. Let like compete with like. The Minister can still do that, because the plans can still be altered. Let us have a proper, genuine city competition that can meet and match the ambitions of communities the length and breadth of the United Kingdom.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Crabb]

I am grateful for your generosity and clarification, Mr Speaker. All previous competitions up to 2002 had been organised on a UK-wide basis. The golden jubilee competition was the only time when separate competitions were held for the devolved nations and for England. We regard the bestowing of city status as a signal honour and a rare mark of distinction. Something special will be lost if too many places are granted city status. The Government’s expectation is that only one new city will be created as a result of the diamond jubilee competition and, similarly, that only one existing city will be granted a lord mayoralty or lord provostship.

[Pete Wishart]

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that it is very difficult for Scottish cities to compete with English cities, given our different civic traditions and cultures? Does he also accept that if we are trying to ensure that a range of places across the United Kingdom are involved, there has to be more than one winner? Surely, if there is to be only one winner, the largest will naturally be the favourite.

[Stephen Crabb]

I am not sure that I accept the hon. Gentleman’s analysis at all on that. Every bid will be judged fairly on its merits. There are some strict criteria in place, the details of which are available on the Department for Culture, Media and Sport website. I hope that those criteria will allay some of his concerns.

I am sure that the tradition of referring to Perth as the fair city will continue, whatever the outcome of the competition. However, there is only one way to become recognised as a city in the UK: by having the honour conferred by the sovereign. That is the prize that awaits the successful entrant to the competition. I wish all potential entrants, including the fair city of Perth, the very best of luck.