Stephen Gethins
Main Page: Stephen Gethins (Scottish National Party - Arbroath and Broughty Ferry)Department Debates - View all Stephen Gethins's debates with the Scotland Office
(2 days, 18 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John. I congratulate the hon. Member for Dunfermline and Dollar (Graeme Downie) on a thorough and well thought-out speech.
Before I go any further, I should state my credentials as a devolutionist. My name is on the claim of right for Scotland, signed all those years ago in Edinburgh. I was a founding member of the Scottish Parliament and served on the Scottish Constitutional Convention before that. I believe in devolution and had the honour to serve as a Member of the Scottish Parliament for much of my present constituency for some 12 years. Looking back on those days—my goodness me—what would we have done with £9.1 billion? It would have been an absolute godsend.
What my constituents have great trouble understanding is how the money seems to go in one end of the pipe but not come out the other. I have probably bored this place endlessly about maternity services in the far north of Scotland but, for old times’ sake, I am going to do it again. We used to enjoy a consultant-led maternity service based in Wick, in Caithness, and mums could give birth locally. It was then proposed, during my time in the Scottish Parliament, that that would be taken away and done from Inverness. We saw that one off, however; the then Labour-Liberal Scottish Executive changed their mind and left the service local.
As everyone knows, because I have said it so many times, more recently that change has come to pass and we no longer have a maternity service based in Caithness, in the north of Scotland. Mothers have to take a more than 200-mile round trip to give birth, even in the middle of winter, when the A9 blocks at the Ord of Caithness. You have to be joking! In one harrowing case a mother bearing twins was on her way from Caithness to Inverness and gave birth to the first child in Golspie and the second in Inverness.
During my time in the Scottish Parliament, we made the argument to Ministers and there was a change of heart. No matter what I and the people of Caithness say now, we cannot get the Scottish Government to change their mind, yet we see all the money going in. As soon as I heard about the £9.1 billion, I said on the record that I sincerely hoped some of the money would go in the direction it ought to, to give mums and babies the same rights as in other parts of Scotland.
Another grouse is that Highlands and Islands Enterprise, the successor body to the Highlands and Islands Development Board, which was set up by Harold Wilson’s Government in the 1960s, is financially a shadow of what it was. At the end of the day, that body, notwithstanding its change of name, is about securing investment and high-quality employment in some of the more remote parts of Scotland. In its day it was highly successful and helped not just halt but reverse depopulation—the new highland clearances—which has been the curse of the highlands for far too long. Again, we see the £9.1 billion coming in and ask where it is going.
I also want to make a wider point. I remind colleagues that I am a convinced devolutionist. However, I suggest that where there is a failure to understand where the money goes or a belief that it is not being delivered fairly, that is corrosive to that cherished notion of devolution. That is a dangerous path to tread.
Stephen Gethins (Arbroath and Broughty Ferry) (SNP)
The hon. Member, as usual, makes a powerful case for his constituency, but I am surprised that he is repeating the Labour figure of £9.1 billion, which has already been heavily criticised by the Fraser of Allander Institute. Did Labour get it wrong or did the Fraser of Allander Institute get it wrong? I just want clarification on that point of fact. I would hate for the hon. Member to be using dodgy Labour figures.
Jamie Stone
I would hate to mislead hon. Members, but nevertheless, the perception remains that lots of money is going in one end and not coming out the other in different parts of Scotland. That is a dangerous perception, to say the least.
The hon. Member for Arbroath and Broughty Ferry (Stephen Gethins) is known to be fair-minded. I hope that he will take back to Holyrood what I think will be the nature of this debate and reflect it there in an honourable and fair way. These are genuine worries. I did not sign the claim of right for Scotland on a whim; I signed it because I believed it back then. I really do want to see the Scottish Parliament and Scottish Government thrive, and I hope that in years to come we will see things being done rather differently.
Stephen Gethins (Arbroath and Broughty Ferry) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to be with you this morning, Sir John. I congratulate the hon. Member for Dunfermline and Dollar (Graeme Downie) on securing the debate and on making the points that he made.
The hon. Member, like other Labour Members, in particular, seems to like talking about the Scottish Government, who are not answerable to this place, rather than the UK Government, who are. To be fair, I am not surprised. We saw after last night’s debacle that they would rather talk about anything but the Labour Government, who have delivered very little over the past year apart from chaos and a continuation of failed Conservative policies—not much change there.
The fact is that this place still has a profound impact on the Scottish Parliament. It is where the majority of its budget comes from and it has a huge impact on the policies that can be pursued in the Scottish Parliament, as the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) will be well aware as a founding member of that institution, which he rightly highlighted. Scotland is still hampered by migration policies and the hostile environment, as we have witnessed recently at the University of Dundee, whose losses are overwhelmingly attributable to the drop in international students as a direct result of those policies.
Harriet Cross
I thank the hon. Member so much for giving way so gladly. I have visited universities recently, too, and they also point to the real-terms cut in funding from the Scottish Government having a real impact on their budgets. In the interests of fairness, will he reflect on that too?
Stephen Gethins
I will gladly reflect on that, but I make the point to the hon. Lady—let us take universities as an example—that at the University of Dundee, the difference between Scottish and English fee income would not even have covered the national insurance increase, and that increase was further dwarfed by the reduction in international student income. Under the Conservative Government, universities had been encouraged to go out and recruit internationally, and they were joined in that venture by Ministers before the Conservatives changed their mind.
I am sure that we will all agree that the internationalisation of our universities has been a positive thing. I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests: it has been a privilege to work at the University of St Andrews, where internationalisation enhances both the learning process and the research, making us all better off in the process. However, the changes to migration policy had so great an impact—I am sure that the hon. Member for Gordon and Buchan (Harriet Cross) will agree with me about this—that I asked the Home Secretary to come to Dundee and visit the institution, just to see and learn. She refused. Perhaps the Minister could encourage another Home Office Minister to visit.
I touched earlier on national insurance increases, which are hobbling businesses and therefore growth. Those have a particular impact on small businesses, which cannot expand or recruit. That has been raised not just by me and my SNP colleagues, but by other colleagues in the House. Even though Labour MPs want to do anything but talk about a Labour Government —that is quite telling in its own right—the increases have an impact, and the Labour Government deserve to be held to account.
Alison Taylor (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (Lab)
I used to run a small business. Does the hon. Member acknowledge that interest rates and inflation also have a huge impact on small businesses?
Stephen Gethins
I absolutely acknowledge the impact that inflation and interest rates have had, and the Liz Truss Budget had a huge impact on small businesses as well as mortgage holders—again, a direct consequence of policies that were made here. I would have thought, and the hon. Lady would surely concede, that one would therefore abandon Conservative spending rules, but we have yet to see that.
Another huge consequence of Conservative rule that Labour has taken over, and that is having a huge impact on small businesses, is leaving the European Union. I want to tackle this head on. I was surprised to hear the hon. Member for Dunfermline and Dollar talk about foreign embassies, when he knows fine well that the Welsh, the Northern Irish and the Scots have overseas representative offices. I was astonished to hear him seek to embrace the insularity that I associate with the Conservative party and Reform. Scotland has one of the highest rates of foreign direct investment anywhere in the UK, and we can all encourage and be happy about that.
I agree with the hon. Member about ferry connections, and he was right to highlight the work done on that by his predecessor, Douglas Chapman. Surely, we should encourage connectivity with the rest of the European Union, but Labour continues to follow the Conservatives’ mantra of a hard Brexit.
Stephen Gethins
Labour Mayor Sadiq Khan says that Brexit is costing the Exchequer £40 billion, so before I bring the hon. Member in—I will do so, because he was very fair—I want to ask the Minister this: if it is costing the Exchequer £40 billion, what impact is it having on the devolution settlement?
Graeme Downie
Just to clarify, there was a ferry from Rosyth to Europe when the SNP was in power. The SNP failed to support it previously, and has taken no action to investigate the legal issues around border control, which are believed by many to be a problem that the Scottish Government could solve. Once again, they have been content to blame the UK Government, without even investigating the problem themselves, when in fact they could have worked constructively either with the previous Conservative Government or with this Government to overcome it.
Stephen Gethins
The hon. Member talks about border control. Obviously, I am not in the Scottish Government.
Stephen Gethins
The hon. Member is very kind in apparently conceding next year’s election already. I am quite surprised by that; he may have given up on it, but I think we should all be competing.
The hon. Member talks about the Scottish border. The border is obviously devolved to Westminster, so because we are holding Westminster to account, I ask the Minister to tackle the border issue as well. We are right to have greater connectivity and to be bringing down barriers with our European partners, so why on earth are we not going back into the single market and the customs union? After all, that was the compromise that Scottish Labour itself backed in the Scottish Parliament in the aftermath of the Brexit referendum. What on earth has gone so right that Labour has abandoned that policy and embraced the Conservative policy? I would be astonished to find out, and I wonder whether the Minister can tell us. Some thought and analysis would be helpful.
The real-terms increase in the budget looks like 0.8%—lower than the UK departmental average of 1.5%. That does not sound like much but would mean £1.1 billion less to spend by 2028-29. As I have mentioned to the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross, the Fraser of Allendar Institute has called out Labour MPs’ claims as “neither transparent nor helpful”.
This place matters. As I said, we know that the Scottish Government have a national insurance shortfall as a consequence of the policies being brought in by Westminster, and we have not even got round to last night’s welfare changes, which left the Scottish Labour party high and dry. With the honourable exception of the hon. Member for Glenrothes and Mid Fife (Richard Baker), who, as I understand it, signed the original motion but did not follow through in the debate, Scottish Labour was marched up to the top of the hill by the Prime Minister to be left high and dry.
We were told that the welfare reforms proposed before all the changes yesterday would push 150,000 more people into poverty. A Labour Government pushing more people into poverty—astonishing. Although there have been changes, because of the profound impact on the job of the Scottish Government, whose Scottish child payment is helping to reduce poverty, they are still hampered by what goes on here. If the Minister prioritises nothing else that I have said, I ask her to prioritise this: where are we with the welfare changes and how many people does she now expect to be pushed into poverty?
Richard Baker
I might say that Labour Members have had rather more impact on Government policy than SNP Members. The hon. Gentleman makes important points about welfare and the importance of having the right system to get people back into work. Why, then, did his Government in Holyrood, of which he aspires to be a member, cut investment in employability funding?
Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)
Order. This debate is not really about welfare in Scotland; it is about the spending review. [Interruption.] I take the point, but I would like the remarks to be tailored to the subject at hand.
Stephen Gethins
You are quite right, Sir John. It surprises me that the Labour party does not want to talk about a Labour Government, but then the fact that they lost, or nearly lost, that kind of vote after less than a year gives us some idea of the impact of what has happened over the past year.
This is my appeal to the Labour party: why not do some of the things it actually believes in and try to bring about real change, be that on Brexit or the fiscal rules, rather than just being a continuation of the Conservative party? The Government cannot continue to ask the Scottish Government to offset the damage done by Westminster on Women Against State Pension Inequality, as was called for, winter fuel, the two-child cap, the bedroom tax and so on. The Scottish Labour leader said that he would not bring in any of last night’s welfare changes, once again expecting Scotland to offset the damage that has been done here.
Whether I like it or not, this place still matters to what goes on in Scotland. I ask the Minister to look at these areas. Can she give us answers on the Acorn project, which I will chuck in as well—we know how much money is going south of the border, so does she know how much will go north of the border, and in particular on the welfare changes, given the significant impact on the Scottish Government’s budget?
Alison Taylor (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline and Dollar (Graeme Downie) for bringing us such a worthwhile debate.
The spending review confirmed what we in Scottish Labour have known for a long time—the UK Government can be a positive force for good in Scotland. Soon after the general election, the Labour Government provided the largest real-terms block grant in the history of devolution to the Government in Scotland. The spring statement built on that by increasing direct funding to the Scottish Government and providing a substantial direct investment amounting to more than £9 billion extra for public services over the next three years. In my constituency, the Glasgow city region will see substantial investment in Renfrewshire, and in particular in the innovation district around Glasgow airport. I regularly meet innovative companies in my constituency, and they are ready to make use of that investment to create jobs and opportunities across the city region.
Hard on the heels of the spring statement came the publication of the Government’s industrial strategy, which identifies a key growth opportunity for UK aerospace in securing a British engine position on the next generation of single-aisle aircraft. The Rolls-Royce factory in my constituency is set to play an important role in manufacturing the components for the engines, and that will secure high-value skills and jobs. The spending review delivered on the Government’s commitment to economic growth by tackling the long-term effects of low pay and low growth that have stymied Scotland’s ambitions for far too long. Is it too much to hope that the national Government in Edinburgh will take the opportunity of their final year in power to wake up to the opportunity that lies ahead?
Stephen Gethins
The hon. Member mentioned low growth. We know that growth has been hampered by our being outside the single market and the customs union—that is not just my analysis but that of most economists—so can she tell me why Scottish Labour has abandoned the policy it adopted after the Brexit referendum of rejoining the single market and the customs union?
Alison Taylor
I completely disagree with the hon. Gentleman. In my view, low growth in Scotland has been related to the threat of a second independence referendum, and I would put the blame for the low growth firmly in the hon. Gentleman’s hands.
I sincerely hope that the Scottish National party will wake up to that opportunity in its last year in government, but the last 18 years have offered little evidence that it will. A former Member of this House and a former First Minister, the right hon. Alex Salmond, was very fond of repeating these lines of Burns, although Members will excuse me if I do not deliver them as well as he did:
“But facts are chiels that winna ding,
An’ downa be disputed”
These are the facts: 10,000 children live in temporary accommodation in Scotland; one in six Scots is on NHS waiting lists; Scottish GDP is trailing behind the rest of the UK by nearly £3,000 per person; and the SNP Scottish Government have overseen an unacceptable fall in educational attainment. In fact, their report card is a fail.
The spending review puts an end to the excuses. With my apologies to John F Kennedy, the nationalists need to stop asking, “What can my country do for me?” and start asking, “What can I do for my country?” They need to stop asking, “How can we blame someone else?” and start asking, “How can we build a better life for the people of Scotland?” They need to stop calculating what they think will be best for the cause of separation, and start calculating how to use the opportunity of the spending review to get people the jobs they need and the future they deserve.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
It is an honour to serve with you in the chair, Sir John. I congratulate the hon. Member for Dunfermline and Dollar (Graeme Downie) on securing this debate. I apologise to you, Sir John, because I appreciate that it is frustrating that every debate about Scotland, and about this or the previous Government’s spending in Scotland, comes back to the Scottish Government. The debate is rarely about the Scottish people—about my constituents in Edinburgh West, or our constituents across Scotland. It always comes back to the Scottish Government. That is not necessarily the fault of the Labour party, the Conservative party or the SNP, but it does not seem to matter how much money the UK Government invest in Scotland, what projects they undertake, what the spending review promises or how much money there is in Barnett consequentials—it gets squandered. As my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) said, it never seems to reach the people of Scotland. It never seems to do anything about our crumbling NHS, our schools, which are in trouble, and the housing crisis that we face.
Although the specific subject under discussion is the spending review announced by the Labour Government, for us in Scotland the debate is about the frustration that we may not get the benefit that any UK Government intend for Scotland, with any policy, because it gets blocked in Holyrood. I hate to mention that again, but £9.1 billion, however one might contest it—it might not be quite £9.1 billion—is a lot of money for the SNP Government to squander, because squander it they will. We have only to look at the evidence of the infamous and now even later ferries, which seem to fail at every turn. The money wasted by the SNP on that fiasco could have paid for around 11,000 nurses or 3,000 GPs in our NHS. That is why we are so frustrated, and why we turn again and again to the Scottish Government, and their failure to use the resources given them by Westminster.
The hon. Member for Arbroath and Broughty Ferry (Stephen Gethins) says that this place continues to have a huge impact—so it should, but that impact is undermined at every turn by the Scottish Government.
Stephen Gethins
Given that we sit in the UK Parliament, does the hon. Member concede that the numbers she mentions are absolutely dwarfed by the billions on Brexit, the hundreds of millions on Rwanda, and the billions blown by the Truss Budget, all of which will have had a material impact on the amount of money that the UK Government have to give up to Scotland? Furthermore, does she agree that the Scottish Government offsetting welfare cuts, the bedroom tax, and child poverty, as they have done—and I believe the Liberal Democrats backed that—was a good use of money?
Christine Jardine
No, I do not, actually. I agree fundamentally that the UK Government, whether Conservative or Labour, have not got everything right. But the Scottish Government have done nothing to mitigate any of the, if you like, failings of Westminster. They have done nothing to mitigate them, and have exacerbated every problem in Scotland. There is not a single area of the Scottish economy, or of Scottish education, health, or public services that one can look at, over the past two decades, and say, “Wow, didn’t the Scottish Government make a good job of that? Didn’t they spend the money well?” Just ask the constituents who I spoke to on Sunday night in Edinburgh West, who told me that they are sick to the back teeth of the SNP wasting their money—two decades they have had of it.
Christine Jardine
No, sorry. I am running out of time.
It would be churlish of me not to recognise that there have been benefits from the spending review for my constituents. I welcome the £750 million investment in the exascale supercomputer, because a lot of my constituents work at the University of Edinburgh. The investment in defence spending will help my constituents who work in the defence industries in Edinburgh. I hope that the £9.1 billion—or however much—that will be invested in Scotland over the next few years helps by investing in the projects that the Liberal Democrats in Scotland have managed to get into the budget for the coming years. The investment in the Princess Alexandra eye pavilion in Edinburgh is one that is particularly close to my heart, because my constituents have suffered from the SNP’s lack of investment there.
In brief, we welcome a lot of the aspects of the spending review in Scotland. We welcome the extra funding, but we view with frustration and some trepidation how the Scottish Government might waste it.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Kirsty McNeill)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline and Dollar (Graeme Downie) on securing this debate on the impact of the spending review on Scotland, on all his advocacy on behalf of his constituents and on gifting us his deep experience, expertise and commitment to defence and national security.
This was, indeed, a historic spending review for Scotland. The UK has faced a decade and a half of poor productivity, weak economic growth and deteriorating outcomes in public services. The first job of this Government was to stabilise the British economy and clear up the public finances. The decisions this Government have taken since taking office have been tough but have been proven to be the right ones. Now that the economy is on a more stable footing, the task of the Government is to ensure that the British economy delivers for working people once again, and the spending review continues this renewal.
The Chancellor has unleashed a new era of growth for Scotland. Our economy is integral to unlocking growth across the whole UK, with Scotland’s economy already worth £204 billion per year. The spending review announced targeted investment in Scotland’s most promising sectors to grow the economy and put more money in working people’s pockets.
In the first instance, I will focus on the areas that Members have asked direct questions about today. The hon. Member for Arbroath and Broughty Ferry (Stephen Gethins) asked whether we can bring a Home Office Minister to Scotland to hear directly from higher education. Newsflash: we already have. The immigration Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra), came earlier this year at my invitation and met Universities Scotland and representatives of our farming communities, which led very quickly to changes in the seasonal agricultural workers visa. That is what happens when Scottish Labour MPs are at the beating heart of Government and are able to issue invitations to a Government who are entirely committed to delivering for Scotland.
Stephen Gethins
I know the Minister was asked a lot of questions, and I thank her for that answer, but what I asked was whether she would come to the University of Dundee to see for herself the profound impact of these policies. There has been a good Scottish bail-out from the Scottish Government, which is welcome, but will a Home Office Minister come to Dundee?
Kirsty McNeill
I would be delighted to come to Dundee and hear from people directly, but I say gently to the hon. Gentleman that problems at the University of Dundee are a function of the decision making of a number of people, not least the university itself and the Scottish Government. I would of course be delighted to be in ongoing dialogue with it.
The hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie) is a welcome new convert to the trade union cause. I would be delighted to pass on his best wishes to Sharon Graham and my fellow members of Unite, and I look forward to his backing for the new deal for working people. As he knows, the job of trade unionists and all those who are pro-trade union in the Government is to make sure the economy delivers for working people. That is exactly what we intend to do.
The hon. Gentleman acknowledged that we live in challenging times. The Prime Minister has said that we will up our game on defence, and the Chancellor reaffirmed the Government’s commitment to increase defence spending to 2.6% of GDP by April 2027. We are backing our armed forces, creating British jobs in British industries and prioritising the security of Britain when it is most needed.
Scotland is playing a leading role at the beating heart of the UK defence policy. The long-term future of the Clyde has been secured through an initial £250 million investment over three years, which will begin a multi-decade, multi-billion-pound redevelopment of HM Naval Base Clyde through the Clyde 2070 programme. HM Naval Base Clyde will play a crucial role for decades to come as we restore Britain’s readiness, deter our adversaries and help drive economic growth across the UK, including in Scotland, as part of our plan for change. As Members know, Scotland is already a centre of excellence for shipbuilding. The increased defence spending will see investment in UK sovereign capability, including in shipbuilding and naval technology. Further details will be set out in the defence investment plan later in the year.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline and Dollar made an important point about a defence growth deal. The forthcoming defence sector plan will outline how we will reform, grow and innovate to build our defence industrial base, scale small and medium-sized companies and create industrial leaders. The Secretary of State and I are of course working closely with colleagues across Government and in the Cabinet to maximise the benefits for Scotland.
I received a number of questions and representations about local growth. I assure hon. Members that the UK Government intend to ensure that every single part of Scotland benefits from the spending review. We are investing £1.7 billion in local communities over 10 years. The Government are investing £160 million over 10 years in investment zones in the north-east of Scotland and the Glasgow city region. At the spending review, the Chancellor confirmed £452 million over four years for city region and growth deals across Scotland, including a £100 million joint investment for the Falkirk and Grangemouth growth deal with the Scottish Government —£50 million from the UK Government and £50 million from the Scottish Government. That demonstrates the UK Government’s continued commitment to the Grangemouth industrial area.
The growth deal for Argyll and Bute was signed on 10 March, which means that every part of Scotland is now benefiting from our city, region and growth deal programme. A new local growth fund and investments in up to 350 deprived communities across the UK will maintain the same cash levels as in 2025-26, under the shared prosperity fund.
The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government and the Scotland Office will work with local partners and the Scottish Government to ensure that money goes to projects that matter to local people. That investment will help drive growth and improve communities across Scotland. I am delighted that the spending review also confirmed in-flight commitments, including for Drumchapel town centre regeneration, and as well as funding for the Tour de France and Tour de France Femmes in 2027, when the Grand Départ will take place in Scotland.
The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) asked whether we will ensure that areas that have been historically underinvested in will get their fair share. I assure him that we are looking at both need and potential in allocations. I also repeat an undertaking that I gave on the Floor of the House: we are looking at increasing trade between Scotland and Northern Ireland, and I am delighted to be looking at that in the coming weeks.
My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North (Martin Rhodes) asked what is to be done about devolution not to Scotland, but inside Scotland. I say to him that devolution is a habit of mind—one that the Scottish Government never acquired. They have been a hugely centralising Government, to the detriment of the Scottish people. I am delighted to reconfirm Scottish Labour’s commitment to further devolution inside Scotland today.
This spending review delivers support for Scottish businesses. The National Wealth Fund is trialling a strategic partnership with Glasgow city region, providing enhanced, hands-on support to help it develop and finance long-term investment opportunities. I was delighted to hear from my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Alison Taylor) about how people are taking advantage of that in her constituency.
The settlement for investment in the spending review allocated £750,000 each year to champion Brand Scotland trade missions to make sure that we are getting inward investment and exporting. Last year, the Secretary of State for Scotland made successful trips to Norway and south-east Asia; in April, he travelled to Washington DC and New York. In the United States, he met with business leaders and investors, promoted our world-class culture and took part in Tartan Week with members of the Scottish diaspora. In May, the Secretary of State launched the Brand Scotland fund, offering the UK’s international network grants of up to £20,000 for innovative and creative activities to market Scotland overseas.
It was my privilege to be in Spain at the start of June with 16 Scottish female entrepreneurs to maximise the benefits of the recent UK-EU deal, tackle the Scottish gender export gap, promote Brand Scotland’s iconic goods and services, and encourage Spanish investment into Scotland. The Scotland Office director also recently supported a Glasgow chamber of commerce trade mission to Shanghai and over the next financial year will deliver a number of overseas trade missions and collaborations with the Scottish Chambers of Commerce and other key industry stakeholders.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline and Dollar asked about US immigration pre-clearance at Edinburgh airport. The Scotland Office is aware of that issue and has supported Edinburgh airport in discussions with the Home Office, Department for Business and Trade and US authorities. We have also engaged directly with the US Government officials on this issue. Although I agree it would be a welcome development for Edinburgh airport, it is not currently US policy to extend pre-clearance arrangements in this way—but we will continue to engage with them going forward.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline and Dollar also raised Rosyth and Dunkirk shipping routes. My officials are in touch with the company behind the new proposed route and relevant Scottish Government and Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs officials. They are looking to arrange a meeting as early as next week to look at possible solutions that would allow the project to go ahead. Scotland is playing a key role as part of our industrial strategy. We have demonstrable strength in eight of the key sectors. The accompanying industrial strategy sector plans will promote Scotland’s wide-ranging strength to investors.
I turn to energy. Working people from across Scotland will benefit from significant investments in clean energy and innovation, creating thousands of highly skilled jobs and strengthening Scotland’s position as the home of the United Kingdom’s clean energy revolution. As my hon. Friend the Member for Glenrothes and Mid Fife (Richard Baker) pointed out, the UK Government have confirmed £8.3 billion in funding for GB Energy in Aberdeen. That is alongside an increased commitment to the Acorn carbon capture usage and storage project, which—I am pleased to confirm for the hon. Member for Arbroath and Broughty Ferry—will receive £200 million in development funding, and the wider funding will be announced in due course. We believe that carbon capture and storage is critical for the UK’s future energy security and industrial ambitions, and recognise the importance of the role that it can play in securing growth and our clean power future.
My hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Gregor Poynton) and the hon. Member for Gordon and Buchan (Harriet Cross) asked about the future of oil and gas. This Government have been clear that that will be part of the mix for decades to come, but that we have to invest in the transition so that people can get renewable jobs of the future. That is why I was pleased earlier this year to launch the energy skills passport when I was in Aberdeen.
The spending review also allocated significant investment in Scotland’s trailblazing innovation, research and development sectors, including—say it with me— £750 million for the supercomputing facility at Edinburgh University. To clear up any confusion for the record, what happened last year was not that this UK Labour Government cancelled the project; they put it on pause, because the previous Conservative Government had announced the project and not allocated a single penny to its realisation. Taking the responsible course, we took a year to make sure that it could be funded in full, and I believe Edinburgh University is delighted that we have now secured that funding.
Like the hon. Members for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) and for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine), I am a committed devolutionist, and I share their despair that the Scottish Government are absolutely addicted to wasting money. That notwithstanding, this Government are responsibly committed to resetting the relationship, so that we can make representations to ensure the best results for the people of Scotland.
Stephen Gethins
I thank the Minister for giving way; she is being generous with her time. She talks about resetting the relationship, but I have one thing in particular to ask. I am sure that she and her colleagues think that last night was a triumph with the welfare reforms, but they will have a direct impact on the Scottish Government by pushing people into poverty. What assessment has the Minister made of last night’s vote and its impact on the devolution settlement?
Kirsty McNeill
We are in ongoing conversation with the Scottish Government on all manner of policies where there is an interplay between reserved and devolved matters. The Scottish Government have been offered all manner of briefings, including—I repeat my disappointment about this—a briefing for the First Minister on the strategic defence review, which he refused because he wanted to go campaigning in Hamilton—and a fat lot of good that did him.
The UK Government’s plan for change has delivered a record settlement for the Scottish Government. There is more money than ever before for them to invest in Scottish public services such as our NHS, police, housing and schools. The Scottish Government will continue to get more than 20% more funding per head than the equivalent UK Government spending in the rest of the UK. The hon. Member for Arbroath and Broughty Ferry cited a phrase from the Fraser of Allander Institute, but I note that he did not cite it saying that “you’d be hard pressed” to say that Scotland has been short-changed compared with
“UK Government departments with comparable responsibilities”.
The Fraser of Allander Institute recognises a record settlement when it sees one.
While I am responding to the hon. Member, I almost felt that there was a dare when he said that we do not want to talk about Labour’s record. I would be delighted to do that. As we approach the first anniversary of this Labour Government, I am proud of the new deal for working people, GB Energy, three trade deals, four interest rate cuts, record investment in Scotland’s devolution era into the Scottish Government and the protection of jobs for which this Government have been responsible, including at the behest of our colleagues in Arnish and Methil. I am proud that this is a Government with Scotland at its beating heart.
In conclusion, the UK Government are delivering for people and communities in Scotland. This is a truly historic spending review for Scotland, choosing investment over decline and delivering on the promise that there would be no return to austerity with Labour. It puts Scotland at the heart of our growth missions, creates huge opportunities for us in the industries of the future and helps us to rebuild Britain. It invests in Britain’s renewal and prioritises the UK’s security, health and economic growth. This spending review delivered investment in Scotland’s communities and industries that the Conservatives never would, and the SNP never could.