Oral Answers to Questions

Russell Brown Excerpts

Wednesday 9th January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Russell Brown (Dumfries and Galloway) (Lab)]

Although I recognise the important role that the Scottish Government play in the provision of broadband in rural areas—[Interruption.] I thought those cheers were for me. The Minister is fully aware that in areas such as his and mine, small and medium-sized enterprises depend upon good connectivity. What is his Department doing to ensure that the Scottish Government are delivering?

[David Mundell]

I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we will hold the Scottish Government to account for that investment. Although the UK Government have funded investment in the cities—in Edinburgh, Aberdeen and Perth—we want the Scottish Government to deliver for Dumfries and Galloway and equivalent rural areas throughout Scotland. [Interruption.]

Food Banks (Scotland)

Russell Brown Excerpts

Wednesday 19th December 2012 Westminster Hall

[Dr Whiteford]

I do not doubt that the hon. Gentleman will have a higher quality of intervention, but I will not give way at this point, simply because I am conscious of time. Clearly, I have some things to say in this debate and I want to get through them in the time allotted.

The other 50% of the increase in demand for food parcels is from people whose benefits have been delayed or who are having problems with the administration of the benefit system. There is no doubt that the dramatic increase in the demand for emergency support is a consequence of the recession, and the increased numbers of people who face sudden unemployment, or cuts in their working hours or real-terms cuts in their wages. However, demand has also been increased by the austerity measures—the response to the recession by the Government—and the disproportionate hit that people on low incomes, particularly those who wholly or partially depend on benefits to keep them above the breadline, have had to bear in the raft of financial cuts that we have seen during the last two years.

The changes to the benefit system have placed greater restrictions on people, and the stringent time limits on some benefits—such as employment and support allowance, and housing benefit—will only make that problem worse. Experts are warning that the real bite of these measures is still to come.

Aberdeenshire was part of the pilot scheme for the work capability assessment. I am already seeing people at my surgeries who have been assessed as fit to work who are simply not fit for work, and whose precarious health has been further jeopardised and damaged by very difficult engagement with the benefit system. Those left without entitlement are increasingly falling back on financial support from their unpaid family carers, who themselves are often in very tight financial circumstances. These are families who are finding themselves having to rely on emergency support.

The other emergency support in our social protection system, which I debated with the Minister a week ago, is the social fund. As I am sure Members are aware, the social fund currently provides crisis loans and community care grants; it is very much the last safety net of the social protection system. It will be abolished next year, with responsibility for its functions being devolved to Scotland. However, it is important to acknowledge that the Department for Work and Pensions has been managing back the social fund to its 2005-06 level, despite the increasing demands on it, and the money being devolved next year will represent a cut of about 50% on the 2009-10 level.

[Mr Russell Brown (Dumfries and Galloway) (Lab)]

rose—

[Dr Whiteford]

I would be delighted to take an intervention from the hon. Gentleman, but I will not take any more interventions after this one.

[Mr Brown]

I will do my best to be brief, Mr Betts.

I say to the hon. Lady that the social fund that is now finding its way into the hands of local authorities has not been ring-fenced. Does she share my view that what we may find is some local authorities to a certain extent misusing that money, rather than targeting it at the areas where it is most needed? She should keep in mind that local government is under pressure under her party’s Government.

[Dr Whiteford]

I am aware that the social fund has not been ring-fenced across the UK. There is a strong argument for ring-fencing it. I am not aware of the details of the welfare fund that the Scottish Government are putting in place, but I know that it will be a national fund. I expect that that fund probably will be ring-fenced, but that is a question that needs to be addressed to Scottish Ministers.

I am pleased that the Scottish Government have committed extra money to make up the shortfall in the social fund once it is devolved, after the cuts that have been made to it, and that there will be an opportunity for that to happen. That is one concrete way in which protection can be put in place.

I will be very quick, as I do not want to test your patience, Mr Betts. One of the assertions that has been made in the debate is that there is a lack of research in this area. When I was doing my research in preparation for the debate, I was very much informed by the low-income diet and nutrition survey, which was commissioned by the Food Standards Agency. It gave a very clear picture, and a wealth of useful information, about diet and nutrition in Scotland, and it makes it very clear that they are associated with income poverty. The most deprived 15% of the population are likely to be eating about half the recommended level of fruit and vegetables, and well above the maximum recommended level of sugar.

Health inequalities and their consequences are not the subject of this debate, but it is important that we look at the issue of food banks holistically and on the basis of the evidence, and that we understand that changes to the benefit system are having an impact across these islands. We need to put in place emergency provision, but at the same time we need to tackle the long-term drivers of income poverty and poor nutrition in our society.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Russell Brown (Dumfries and Galloway) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (Fiona O'Donnell). I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Glenrothes (Lindsay Roy) on securing the debate.

It is only a week since we last had a debate in Westminster Hall on food poverty. I want quickly to mention one or two things that were raised then, and to discuss a local organisation in my area. We all know of the good work of the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, and we heard in the debate last week that its latest report shows that 13.2 million people in this country live in poverty. There is also the recent shocking report by Save the Children. There is no doubt that Save the Children, along with the Children’s Society and Barnardo’s, does tremendous work the length and breadth of the country. That Save the Children report, which was released in September, states that well over half of parents in poverty—some 61%—say they have cut back on food, and more than a quarter—26%—say they have skipped meals. That comes back to the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Cathy Jamieson) made about mothers all too often saying, “I’ll get something later.” Those words resonate with me because I come from a large family, and on numerous occasions my mother said that, without my realising what she was really saying. We would be having a meal as a family of five children, and mother was going to get something later—that probably never happened.

I want to raise again today a point I raised in last week’s debate, because it is important that we understand just how desperate things get for people. In the Save the Children report, a parent is quoted as saying:

“A year or so ago, we literally relied on any money we raised at car boot sales to pay for food for the week. Some weeks weren’t too bad, others were dire. The British weather decided how we lived that week (when it rained, the turnout at car boot sales fell).”

It is terrible to think that people have to go to such lengths to have money for food.

I want quickly to mention the First Base Agency in Dumfriesshire, organised by a guy called Mark Frankland. Mark is real local worthy. He initially set up the agency to help and support individuals with drug and alcohol problems, and from the success of that he went on to work with veterans, providing them with support through a gardening scheme. They managed to produce some fresh vegetables, and I suspect he must have also had some kind of livestock, because he ended up producing eggs as well.

Mark is a well-known guy who does a lot of work, and the scheme for veterans was therapeutic work, to get some guys back on the road. He has developed a local charity into a business, and that business provides a factoring service for a local registered social landlord, thereby creating a number of jobs that are given over to veterans. Mark has also, very much under the radar, provided food parcels. He is not a recognised food bank of the kind that colleagues have described this morning and in other debates, but he has provided food parcels for a number of years to some of the most vulnerable individuals and families in the local area. Support through churches and local charities has enabled it all to happen. I spoke to Mark yesterday, and he told me that between November last year and November this year the demand for food parcels trebled. One of the parcels that he manages to provide lasts a family for about three days.

From a wider perspective, all too often we hear comparisons in the House between the UK’s deficit and debt and those of Greece and Spain, with people saying that we are in the same ball park. The fact is that about 2.5% of the population in Greece and Spain is supported by voluntary sector handouts, and that equates to 10 times the support we are experiencing in the UK through food banks and other charities. I absolutely balk, therefore, at the idea that we should be compared with those countries, and I am pleased that we are not there along with them because I wonder what some families, households and communities would be experiencing if the situation was as bad as that.

Colleagues have mentioned the Department for Work and Pensions, and I want to give an example similar to the one that my hon. Friend the Member for Glenrothes gave. A single father with three children fell foul of the DWP—the Department, not the staff; the staff are only delivering the systems and policies that are dictated to them. The unfortunate gentleman fell foul of the DWP when he missed an appointment, an appointment of which he said he definitely never received notification. Sanctions were imposed, including a two-month suspension. A father and three children had to simply get by—on what? Fresh air? People must have some kind of support. Frustratingly, the guy was unemployed. He had spare time on his hands, so he went along to the First Base Agency and helped Mark Frankland. He saw it as a duty to do a bit of voluntary work for someone who had helped him in the past.

[Fiona O'Donnell]

Does my hon. Friend share my concern that the Government are not just dividing rich against poor, but the deserving poor against the undeserving poor?

[Mr Brown]

Absolutely. I could not put it better myself.

So with a two-month suspension and no money, how could the family cope? What kind of lesson or way of existing is that? What kind of environment is that in which to bring up children? Let us not forget the point that my hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian made about the need for children to be fed properly, to enable them to develop at a young age. It is life experiences in the early years that have the most impact on children.

We have talked about the SNP Government, and I appreciate that that is not an issue for the Minister to respond to, unless he finds that he has the same train of thought as I do on it. Local government is, however, under real pressure, and what Mark Frankland at the First Base Agency has been experiencing for a long time is social services referring families to him for food parcels. I have spoken to Mark in the past 24 hours and he has told me that social workers will arrive at his office today to pick up food parcels to deliver to some of their clients. A little extra money into social services from the Scottish Government would go a long way.

[Dr Whiteford]

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the cuts to local government in Scotland have been at a lower level than in other parts of the UK, and that the Scottish Government have worked closely with Convention of Scottish Local Authorities to mitigate the impact on low-income families, through, for example, work to secure council tax benefit where it has been abolished?

[Mr Brown]

I identify where the hon. Lady’s loyalty lies, but a question that she and her colleagues in the Scottish Government need to answer is: why were we seeing cuts to local government in Scotland three years before the block grant was cut? There was no need for that whatever. I know that the money was not as great as she might have expected, but we saw cuts three years before the block grant was reduced.

In conclusion, the dilemma that families face—some of which I hope we share—will only be compounded as we move through the next 12 months. There will be universal credit for those in receipt of benefits, and it will be delivered directly to them, so housing benefit and council tax credit will be delivered to the person applying, rather than going directly to where it should be going. Families will get the money, and then the dilemma for them will be: will they pay their rent, or their council tax?

[Cathy Jamieson]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the bedroom tax is already having an impact, and that it will also be a major feature?

[Mr Brown]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We will compound the problem when people have to make choices. Is it a meal on the table, a pair of shoes for the son or daughter, or paying the rent? I, thankfully, do not have to make those choices, but I am there with people who have to make such difficult decisions.

Unemployment in Scotland

Russell Brown Excerpts

Wednesday 5th December 2012 Westminster Hall

[Mr Russell Brown (Dumfries and Galloway) (Lab)]

Thank you very much, Ms Dorries. It is a pleasure to serve under you this morning.

I begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for West Dunbartonshire (Gemma Doyle) on securing this debate. I think that many of us had suspected that we would have seen the full ranks of the Scottish National party here in Westminster Hall this morning. Instead, they sent the normal token gesture in—the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil)—and he has fled the scene of the crime already. That is no help whatsoever.

All too often we hear from the SNP about “shovel-ready” projects; indeed, they have been mentioned again in Westminster Hall this morning. I can tell everyone here today that there are hundreds of young people in my constituency who would desperately love to get on the end of a shovel and be gainfully employed, because that is the thing that they really want to do and the inability do it causes deep depression in households and communities, which is something that, as a nation, we can ill afford. When I say “a nation”, I do not just mean Scotland; I mean the entire UK. Young people desperately want to be out there being gainfully employed.

In about three hours’ time, we will have heard the bulk of what the Chancellor has had to say today. I do not hold out many hopes, but I am open to persuasion and I am ready to be surprised as he makes his autumn statement. However, my area is a rural area. I will mention figures this morning and I apologise to the Minister before I start mentioning them, because those figures are for Dumfries and Galloway; they are figures not only for my constituency and my backyard but for part of his backyard as well. The reality is that although the unemployment figures in our area are desperately high, he and I both know that our local economy is based around small and medium-sized enterprises, and there are enough SMEs that if all of them took on one extra person we would just about wipe out unemployment in my local area.

The difficulty is that our two largest employers are the local authority and the local health board, and the impact of the cuts that we have seen in the last few years, both under the coalition Government in Westminster and under the SNP Government in Edinburgh, is really breathtaking. It is not a surprise to those of us here in Westminster Hall today, but it may well be to those outwith here, that we actually saw cuts happening in Scotland in our local area in the public sector at least two years before there was any cut in block grant to the Scottish Government. So it was all happening under the guise of this great nationalist Government, and quite frankly it was destroying the base for jobs and any sort of growth in my local area.

In October 2010, there were 2,691 jobseeker’s allowance claimants in Dumfries and Galloway; in October 2011, there were 3,042; and in October 2012 the figure had grown to 3,205. As for the long-term unemployed, there are now just over 900 people who are long-term unemployed in Dumfries and Galloway, which is the highest level since 1999. Those long-term unemployed people, many of whom are young people aged between 18 and 25, find themselves in a desperate plight.

Again, it is unfortunate that the sole SNP Member who was present earlier—the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar—has now left, because we even had a situation earlier in the year when one of our local regional list MSPs, a lady by the name of Joan McAlpine, decided to have a jobs summit. [Interruption.] A sharp intake of breath—no further comments please. She decided to hold a jobs summit and she introduced to the local community the Minister responsible for youth unemployment, a lady called Angela Constance. We have heard nothing since. That “summit” was a talking shop and I regret to say that I had to force my way in to see what was actually going on. It was all window dressing, with nothing to show for it.

I know that colleagues have already mentioned the future jobs fund and how some people have said that it was not working. In fact, the Prime Minister himself said that it was

“expensive, badly targeted and did not work.”—[Official Report, 19 January 2011; Vol. 521, c. 832.]

So, at a very early stage of this coalition Government, the decision was made to scrap the future jobs fund. That left many of us somewhat bewildered and confused, because not that many months beforehand officials in the Department for Work and Pensions were saying that it was a good programme and it was working.

I apologise to colleagues if I am about to divulge information that they are already aware of, but only last month the DWP published a document entitled, “Impacts and Costs and Benefits of the Future Jobs Fund”. It said:

“Under the baseline assumptions, the FJF programme is estimated to result in a net benefit to participants.”

That was estimated at approximately £4,000 per participant. In addition, the net benefit to employers was estimated at approximately £6,850 per participant; the net cost to the Exchequer was estimated at approximately £3,100 per participant; and the net benefit to society was estimated at approximately £7,750 per participant. I am no economist—quite frankly, I am not an expert in anything—but I would have thought that those figures showed some sign of a good return for the investment that was being put in.

I visited a number of young people who were working on a future jobs fund programme, along with my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North (Ann McKechin) who is sitting beside me now and who was a Minister at the time. We jointly visited a group of young people and they were delighted at the opportunity that they were being given to work. Suddenly, however, the new Government deemed that the future jobs fund was a failure.

I could go on at length, but I will not because I know that there is another colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Inverclyde (Mr McKenzie), who wants to speak. However, we have seen the cuts in the numbers of nurses and midwives in our areas, and the cut in police support staff in our areas, and quite frankly that is down to a combination of the coalition Government and the SNP. So, if we are talking about crime, they are partners in crime in what has happened in my area.

It is not that Labour does not have an answer. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Outwood (Ed Balls), the shadow Chancellor, will make his point this morning, and it is about the 4G mobile spectrum and the £3 billion that can come from that, and it is also about tax on bankers’ bonuses. Those are not just warm words: this money can be used constructively, to do something for our country and for the unemployed. On the back of some of that, we could have 100,000 jobs for young people and bring forward investment.

The country has been here before. When the Labour party came to power in 1997, we gave a commitment to the people of this country that we would use a windfall levy on the privatised utilities to create the new deal; we carried that commitment through, and it worked for the benefit of unemployed people. I just hope the Chancellor will listen a little today to the shadow Chancellor and to some of the views expressed in this debate.

[Mr Iain McKenzie (Inverclyde) (Lab)]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Dorries. You are certainly the Member of Parliament my constituents most often ask me about, and I am sure they will be delighted to learn that you have chaired the debate today.

I congratulate the hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire (Gemma Doyle) on securing this important debate. Based on what has been said I feel that there might be little that we agree on, but I do agree on the importance of having a debate such as this here at Westminster, to focus on issues that are the responsibility of the UK Government, and also on the importance of Members from Scotland holding the Government to account for their policies and actions in Scotland.

I find it disappointing that the Scottish National party has not sought to contribute to this debate, other than through a few random interventions. I do not want to be in the position that the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Cathy Jamieson) spoke about, of blaming the other Government—the Government in Scotland—for everything that is going wrong, which would be to adopt the reality of Alex Salmond’s “plan McB”: to claim credit for everything that is good and to blame the Westminster Government for everything that is bad.

Opposition Members, other than the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun, to be fair, chose to use their contributions to blame both Governments for everything that is happening. As usual—I had no expectation otherwise—they took no responsibility whatever for the catastrophic state in which they left the UK economy when they left office in 2010. Indeed, we may hear once and for all an apology from the shadow Chancellor today for the state of the economy at that time, which would be good.

[Mr Russell Brown]

I recognise that the Minister and his colleagues are very good at talking about the mess that they were left, but will he share with the Chamber what the black hole was? What was that debt? If we remove from that debt what was provided to support the banks and the UK economy, how big really was that black hole?

[David Mundell]

There was a black hole because, for a significant period of time, the previous Government were spending more than they brought in. That is the reality, and the hon. Gentleman cannot pretend otherwise. Today we have heard various versions of the plan Labour now has to turn the economy around, but the core of that plan remains more spending, more borrowing and more debt—exactly the same prescription that brought the country to its current state.

Scotland and the Union

Russell Brown Excerpts

Thursday 29th November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Russell Brown (Dumfries and Galloway) (Lab)]

I begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs Laing) and my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Graeme Morrice) on managing to secure the debate.

The hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) often paints a bleak picture of my homeland in this place. It took him nine minutes to get to that point today, but I simply do not recognise what he is talking about when he speaks of a downtrodden nation seeking freedom. As a shadow Defence Minister, let me concentrate on defence and the defence of the nation as a whole.

We are right in saying that Scots are rightly proud of our brave servicemen and women and the work they do across the world to keep us all safe. The British armed forces are the best and bravest in the world, and Scotland and the Scottish people are an integral part of that.

The decision facing all Scots in the 2014 referendum is, in fact, a stark one: to continue to be part of the British Army, the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force and benefit from that safety and security, or to leave these services and go out on our own. After all we have been through together as a nation, why would we now want to go our separate ways and break away from the British armed forces?

As well as the pride we feel in our armed forces and services, there are huge economic and employment benefits that Scotland’s leaving the UK would put at significant risk. There are 18,000 people employed in Scotland as either service personnel or Ministry of Defence civilian staff, with thousands more employed in the private sector as contractors and partners throughout Scotland.

[Mr MacNeil]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Brown]

I am not giving way.

Scotland’s largest work place is Her Majesty’s naval base on the Clyde, employing 6,500 people, and there is a work force 4,500 strong at the shipyards in Glasgow and Rosyth. Our shipbuilding industry and the jobs Scots have had in these yards for generations rely on the MOD for work. Scotland has a world-class defence industry and it is best protected by Scotland remaining in the UK. A separate Scotland would not be able to take advantage of UK contracts. About 40% of those UK defence contracts are non-competitively tendered within the UK; this means that they could not be extended to an independent Scotland. There would be no incentive for the remaining parts of the UK to outsource defence contracts to Scotland. For example, the Type 26 global combat ship is due to go into construction the year after the referendum, and the MOD has made it absolutely clear—a Defence Minister has said it twice here—that this contract will be open only to UK-based companies. We benefit from an MOD budget of £35 billion a year—the fourth largest in the world. The SNP has stated that an independent Scottish Government would commit to an annual defence budget of around £2.5 billion. This means that if a separate Scotland became part of NATO, it would have one of the lowest defence spends of any NATO country, at exactly the same time as our country would face massive transitional and new set-up costs.

Professor Malcolm Chalmers, research director of the Royal United Services Institute, has said that the size of the Scottish defence procurement budget would be “pretty limited”, and he warns that much of Scotland’s defence industry would migrate southwards.

The defence of our nation is of paramount importance, and it is hard to comprehend why the SNP, a political party predicated on separating Scotland from the UK, cannot answer some of the most basic questions about what defence policy in an independent Scotland would look like. [Interruption.] If there had been enough time and we did not have two votes ahead of us, perhaps SNP Members could have assisted us today by painting a picture of what the military might of a separate Scotland would look like. For the Army, how many regulars would there be, and how many reservists? Keeping in mind the fact that Scotland is surrounded by water on three sides, are we correct in assuming that Scotland would have a navy, and what would its strength be? Could we afford an air force? Would our military be in place to defend our borders, or would we be an expeditionary force?

[Mr MacNeil]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Brown]

I am not giving way, because I am coming to my conclusion before we hear the winding-up speeches.

There is a positive case for Scotland to remain part of the United Kingdom. No one doubts that our country is capable of being independent, but why should we want to lose all those advantages? At a time of immense and fast-evolving challenges throughout the world, with a plethora of security threats on the horizon, why on earth should we want to devote time and money to dividing our resources north and south of the border? We should be working together, throughout Britain, to remain vigilant against the constant threat of terrorism, combat the growing risk of cyber-crime, and prepare for the long-term security risks posed by climate change. Focusing on the defence of our nation, rather than plunging our country into uncertainty by splitting from the rest of the UK, is in Scotland’s national interest.

Like so many other issues, defence highlights the strength of a Britain that works in co-operation. We are stronger, safer, and better together.

Referendum (Scotland)

Russell Brown Excerpts

Monday 15th October 2012 Commons Chamber

[David Mundell]

First, I refer the hon. Gentleman to polling in Scotland, which indicates that 16 and 17-year-olds do not support independence, and secondly I urge him to take his argument to Scotland—to the Scottish Parliament and his MSP colleagues there—to make that robust case.

[Mr Russell Brown (Dumfries and Galloway) (Lab)]

The Minister has heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North (Ann McKechin), my right hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Mrs McGuire) and my hon. Friends the Members for Central Ayrshire (Mr Donohoe) and for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock (Sandra Osborne) about the issue of some 16 and 17-year-olds being disfranchised as a result of not being on the register. I am positive that, during the discussions that he and his colleagues have had, someone somewhere might have raised the issue of a legal challenge. Does he have any idea how much of a delay there might be, if there is a legal challenge?

[David Mundell]

First, my experience of the Labour party in Dumfries and Galloway is that it is very good at getting people on to the electoral register—and I am sure it will be so again in getting 16 and 17-year-olds registered. The Scottish Government will have to come forward with legally watertight proposals; otherwise, they will be subject to challenge. As we have heard, they could conduct the referendum on the basis of so-called attainers, by which is meant people who will turn 18 within the cycle of the electoral register. It is clear that that could be done legally, but the downside, from the Scottish Government’s point of view, is that not all 16 and 17-year-olds would be able to vote as not all of them would be on the register, because of that age limitation. The other option for them is to create their own register. But were they to do that they would have to be sure that it was legally watertight.

Scotland Bill

Russell Brown Excerpts

Thursday 26th April 2012 Commons Chamber

[David Mundell]

It will obviously be for the Scottish Government to advise on changes to signage, among other things, that they make. Changes that are specific to Scotland can be included in the Highway Code, and we currently have differential traffic regulations in different parts of the United Kingdom. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman, like me, will have constituents who have fallen foul of the congestion charge that applies in London but nowhere else in the United Kingdom. There are differential traffic regulations in place at the moment, and these are well advertised.

[Mr Russell Brown (Dumfries and Galloway) (Lab)]

What discussions were held when it was decided that it would be the right thing to devolve the power that would allow the Scottish Government to determine what traffic should be flowing and at what speed? Was there any sense behind the decision that, for example, heavy goods vehicles should be allowed to travel at 60 mph on single track roads?

[David Mundell]

I share the hon. Gentlemen’s concerns about traffic speeds in our part of Scotland, Dumfries and Galloway, particularly on the A75. I hope that these powers will allow the Scottish Government for once to focus on Dumfries and Galloway and address such issues. They will have the powers and it will be for them to make the decisions. I commend my noble Friend Lord Forsyth for achieving this significant amendment to the Bill. It is the only amendment made during the passage of the Bill that will ensure that the powers of the Scottish Parliament are increased, and I do not think that the irony of that was lost on him.

Oral Answers to Questions

Russell Brown Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd February 2012 Commons Chamber

[Michael Moore]

My right hon. and learned Friend highlights some very important central issues in the debate about independence. I believe Scotland is stronger as part of the United Kingdom, and the United Kingdom is stronger because Scotland is part of it. On financial issues, our place in the world and the strength of our defences, there are huge numbers of unanswered questions for the SNP that it must now get on and address.

[Mr Russell Brown (Dumfries and Galloway) (Lab)]

2. How many young people aged between 16 and 24 are not in employment, education or training in Scotland; and if he will make a statement.

[The Secretary of State for Scotland (Michael Moore)]

According to the latest figures published in the annual population survey, the number of 16 to 19-year-olds estimated to be not in education, employment or training in Scotland in 2010 was 36,000.

[Mr Brown]

There is another important element to the question that I asked, which refers to young people up to 24 years old. They are the hardest-hit young people and we do not want to see that generation lost. In rural localities such as the right hon. Gentleman’s and mine, policies to get young people back into work will depend, as far as the private sector is concerned, on small and medium-sized enterprises. These businesses are suffering severely and the pressure on them is not enabling them to create jobs. Does the Secretary of State understand that we need a taskforce mentality to deal with young people’s unemployment?

[Michael Moore]

My officials are working on the statistics for up to 24-year-olds. They are not currently published but I look forward to getting the data for the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members.

On the fundamentals of the economy, I absolutely agree that we need small and medium-sized businesses to be given the ability to grow. That is why we are putting pressure on the banks to lend to them and ensuring that we support the young people we are dealing with. The youth contract is fundamental—£1 billion to help people get more places on work experience and to help employers to take people on. It is that kind of action that will help people get into the jobs market.

Scotland’s Constitutional Future

Russell Brown Excerpts

Tuesday 10th January 2012 Commons Chamber

[Michael Moore]

I am absolutely committed to Scotland remaining part of the United Kingdom. When we can get on to that debate, I will be clear in arguing the case on that, day in and day out. At the moment we have to get to that debate, and today we have offered a reasonable and straightforward way that we might do that.

[Mr Russell Brown (Dumfries and Galloway) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend the Member for Dundee West (Jim McGovern) is exactly right. The SNP manifesto last year made no reference whatsoever to the second half of the Parliament, but does the Secretary of State feel that if the legal powers are transferred and the SNP has a good showing in May’s local government elections, the First Minister might just take a gamble, ignore the second half of the Parliament and go for a snap referendum?

Oral Answers to Questions

Russell Brown Excerpts

Wednesday 9th November 2011 Commons Chamber

The Secretary of State was asked—

[Mr Russell Brown (Dumfries and Galloway) (Lab)]

1. What steps the Government are taking to stimulate demand in the construction sector in Scotland.

[Jim Sheridan (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (Lab)]

7. What recent discussions he has had with the First Minister on the construction industry in Scotland.

[The Secretary of State for Scotland (Michael Moore)]

I recognise the vital role that the construction industry plays in the Scottish and UK economy. The plan for growth includes a wide range of measures to support the industry across the UK. I have regular discussions with Scottish Ministers on these and other matters of importance to the Scottish economy.

[Mr Brown]

May I say to the Secretary of State that his Under-Secretary and I have one thing in common? We still have construction workers who remain unemployed after R & D Construction went into administration earlier this year. Does the Secretary of State fully recognise that throughout the UK, and especially in Scotland, there are far too many unemployed construction workers, who desperately want to get back to work? He needs to encourage the Scottish Government to stimulate that sector.

[Michael Moore]

I agree that we must take all appropriate measures to get the economy on the right footing. As he will appreciate, we have a big challenge clearing up the mess left by the previous Government and the challenging situation in the eurozone, but we are determined, through our credible deficit plan and with a strong economy, to get construction and other sectors in the right place.

Scotland Bill

Russell Brown Excerpts

Tuesday 15th March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr MacNeil]

I hope that the trade unions would act in the best interests of their members’ employment and the coastguard service throughout Scotland and try to maintain coastguard stations in Scotland. I am quite sure that if the Scottish Government—regardless of their party—were in charge of this matter, the savage cuts would not be happening.

Scotland has an estimated 60% of all the coastline in the UK, so the Scottish Parliament and Government should surely be the primary body that decides the future of the force that protects mariners and the community. We have already seen the beginning of the process with the passing of the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009, and we must continue that through these proposals, which would ensure that the Maritime and Coastguard Agency in Scotland enforced Scots law on environmental matters. We seek to have the MCA fall in line with the local operation of the police, health service and other devolved agencies.

According to the Maritime and Coastguard Agency, the seas and coastlines are getting more congested, ships are getting larger and the weather is getting worse. With that information in mind, it surely makes sense to implement a division of labour and allow the MCA in England to focus on Southampton and London and leave Scottish waters to Scotland.

Our new clause removes the restrictions in the Scotland Act that prevent the Scots Government from running the coastguard. Once we place it in the category of a cross-border public authority, we will remove nearly £5 million of coastguard co-ordination centre operating costs from the Department for Transport’s budgets alone. That would give us the opportunity in Scotland to secure a proper coastguard service for Scotland. In the past year, we have heard that contracts to provide life-saving helicopters have been bungled completely. Our tugboat services have been cut to save money, in line, we are told, with these austere times, but that unfortunately exposes Scotland to severe gaps in coastline coverage. On a side note, we want to know what will happen to our tugs when these front-line services come up for contract renewal in September.

If Members look closely at the proposals, they will see that we are not attempting to change international agreements or safety legislation. We are simply seeking to ensure that decisions regarding the Scottish coastline are taken in the best interests of Scotland. In short, they move power from Westminster to the most democratic institution representing Scotland—the Scots Parliament.

[Mr Russell Brown (Dumfries and Galloway) (Lab)]

If the hon. Gentleman’s new clause were successful, would he envisage more than one full-time station in Aberdeen, or would one suffice in his view?

[Mr MacNeil]

I would envisage far more than one full-time station in Aberdeen.

This will not be the first time that the House of Commons has heard of the concept of change and of control moving away from the MCA. In 1989, the Isle of Man formed its own coastguard after the UK unilaterally decided to shut down the coastguard co-ordination centre in Ramsey. The Manx Government—perhaps this shows what happens when there is more local control—rightly decided that they should no longer depend on the United Kingdom to protect their coastline and therefore created their own coastguard. That coastguard has five stations open around the Isle of Man and has retained close ties with the Liverpool maritime rescue co-ordination centre, which I would like to remain open.

The Government of the Isle of Man took the right decisions at the right time to ensure that their coast was secure. Surely, it cannot be the will of the Committee to deny Scotland that same inalienable right. This is not the first time that a potential coastguard authority move has been presented. In its illustrious 189-year history, the coastguard has been under the Board of Trade between 1923 and 1939, the Ministry of Shipping from 1939 to 1940, the Admiralty from 1940 to 1945, the Ministry of War and then the Ministry of Transport from 1945 to 1964, the Department of Trade from 1964 to 1983, the Department of Transport from 1983 to 1997 and finally, the Department for Transport from 2002 to this date. All we seek to do is move that one step further and ensure that the Scots coastguard reports directly to Scotland.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr MacNeil]

I say to the hon. Gentleman, tongue in cheek, that it is “Maybe surrender” from the DUP.

The point is not about using that power, but about the authority that comes from having it. It is about having that club in the golf bag or in the locker. That speaks to a wider problem with devolution: the UK Parliament can potentially take damaging action against a nation of the Union, but that nation’s Parliament or Assembly has, in the main, no redress and must accept the action. This might sound a bit drastic, but the way the Scotland Act is designed ensures that the UK Government, for better or worse, have unilateral power to make substantial decisions for the entire UK, regardless of what another part of the UK thinks.

Of course, Members should be reminded that “UK Government” does not mean this Parliament, as we saw with the Scottish Adjacent Waters Boundaries Order 1999, which affected 6,000 square miles of Scottish waters, as was mentioned earlier. I understand that the current Government are not committed to changing the clocks, but I would sleep much better at night if we could ensure that a clock change would have to be agreed by the Scots Parliament and that we had that power in Scotland before it took effect. It speaks volumes that the opposition to independence, and even to full fiscal autonomy or control over time, is full of the politics of fear.

[Mr Russell Brown]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr MacNeil]

No, you’re fine.

If the Government and the Unionist parties truly believe that this is an economic arrangement that is in the best interests of the people who live in the islands, they have nothing to fear by giving Scotland control over clocks, coastguards, elections and fiscal autonomy—the whole gamut. There is usually nothing but dogma blocking good sense.

--- Later in debate ---

[Iain Stewart]

I am grateful for that information. Unfortunately I ceased to study physics after higher grade, so I am not qualified to go down that route.

The example I cite is perhaps slightly silly but there is a sensible point. It illustrates the practical difficulties that would arise if we had different time zones in a small geographical area. Although I am at one with the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar in opposing the introduction of central European time or any other Europeanisation of our time in this country, I must reluctantly oppose the new clause. I urge him and other Opposition Members to continue to oppose any moves in this place to introduce such a time zone in Scotland or anywhere else in the United Kingdom.

[Mr Russell Brown]

I will be brief. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South West (Mr Davidson) mentioned something that is not a pastime of every Scot, despite what some people might think. It relates to drinking hours and what would happen if we operated in two different time zones.

I think back to many years ago when the pubs in Scotland used to close at 10 pm, whereas in Carlisle and in Cumbria, on the border, they closed at 11. We saw people walking down the road at 10 o’clock closing in Scotland and heading for the first hotel to partake of their pastime in Cumbria, so the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil) needs to be very careful.

[Mr MacNeil]

My new clause does not call for two time zones. Having lived in Gretna, I should like to know how long it would take me to walk from there to Carlisle for a pint. I suggest that it would be more than an hour, and that the bars would be closed by the time I got there.

[Mr Brown]

I must tell the hon. Gentleman that we have moved on: we now have trains, buses and taxis, so people would not necessarily walk.

I want to get back to the debate on the hon. Gentleman’s new clause, because I want the House to have time to debate new clause 19 as well. The hon. Member for Milton Keynes South (Iain Stewart) said that the hon. Gentleman’s proposal was ludicrous; I would go further and say that it is sheer lunacy. In January 2007, the Energy Saving (Daylight) Bill was introduced by the hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr Yeo). Many Members might have considered supporting it, but for the fact that it contained a nasty clause that gave the devolved Administrations the opportunity to opt out. I ask the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar and others who support his proposal to consider how the drivers in a small haulage business based in two locations—let us say Carlisle and Dumfries—would manage the tachograph when moving from one side of the border to the other.

The new clause makes no sense whatever. I hope that, rather than dividing the Committee on the proposal, the hon. Gentleman will see sense. His proposal would make it more likely that we would end up with two different time zones. I urge him to withdraw the new clause.

[Fiona O’Donnell]

I will make my contribution brief as well, although I shall not speak at quite the same speed as the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil). He reminded me of a child who needed to go to the toilet as he delivered his speech so terribly quickly. The hon. Member for Milton Keynes South (Iain Stewart) said that he had risen to speak with a heavy heart. I am rising with a sore head, and that is not just about the sleep deprivation that I mentioned earlier. It is because I honestly cannot understand what possessed the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar to table this new clause. He cannot bring a proposal before the Committee and then not want us to discuss its possible implications. He cannot tell us what any Scottish Government, even his own, might choose to do with such powers, given that he voted against the sell-off of the forests in England while his Government tried to sell off the forests in Scotland. It is essential that we scrutinise the implications of the new clause. It exposes the fact that the SNP is good at minority reports and at gesture politics, but not good at government.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Davidson]

I will start with a question. If the new clause is passed and the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil) goes to the other place, will that make him a time Lord? I hope that he presses the matter to a vote, because I can think of nothing that characterises the SNP more than this proposal for separate time zones.

As far as I can see, there are only two ways in which this new clause can operate. If the United Kingdom Parliament decides to change the time, it would give the Scottish Parliament the opportunity not to do so, in which case there would be separate time zones. Alternatively, the Scottish Parliament could decide to change the time on its own without the United Kingdom Parliament doing so, in which case there would be separate time zones. I see no logic for giving this power to the Scottish Parliament, except if one wants separate time zones. It is ludicrous.

The comments of the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith) are key in this argument. The new clause would make it much more likely that this Parliament, with an overwhelming majority of English Members, would vote for what suited it and leave the Scots to either follow or not. That would undermine the position of Scottish MPs in representing their constituents’ interests in this place. The proposal is absolutely and utterly absurd.

We must also take into account what I consider to be the al-Megrahi argument. Part of the reason for the release of al-Megrahi was simply to show that the Scottish Parliament could do it. It had a power and wanted to show that it could use it, so it did. Giving the Scottish Parliament the power to change the clocks would present it with a strong temptation to do it just to show that it could, and to drive as big a wedge as possible between Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom. That is a very real danger.

We should consider what sort of time difference the SNP would want. I think that it would probably go for something like—

[Mr Russell Brown]

A century.

[Mr Davidson]

Perhaps it would be a century, but I think that it would be just under an hour and a quarter. In that way, when it was noon by Greenwich mean time, it would be about 13.14 in Scotland. Scotland would constantly be on Bannockburn time. I think that the concept of Bannockburn time is what the nationalists are after: “Here’s tae us, wha’s like us. A lot of them are deid now right enough, but we do actually remember them.” This proposal is simply about seeking division for its own sake.

The hon. Member for Milton Keynes South (Iain Stewart) was very helpful in reminding us that schedule 5 to the Scotland Act 1998 covers more matters than just time. It also covers the calendar. I am sure that the idea of a public holiday on Alex Salmond’s birthday will be a recommendation from the SNP. We have had the Julian calendar and a variety of different calendars. A nationalist calendar is the logical consequence. Why should an independent country be stuck with the same calendar as England? There are logical arguments for that, but the SNP is not the party of logical arguments; it is the party of passion, of Bannockburn and of “Here’s tae us, let’s be separate.”

I think that there is a real difficulty in all of this. I very much hope that the SNP does not chicken out here. I hope that it puts the new clause to the vote so that we can see just how ludicrous its proposals are, and the extent to which it is treating the Scotland Bill as nothing more than a joke. We are trying to improve the governance of Scotland; the SNP is trying to create divisions. The proposal to have separate time zones is absurd.