Debate on the Address

Debate between Lord Bruce of Bennachie and Angus Brendan MacNeil

Wednesday 4th June 2014 Commons Chamber

[Sir Malcolm Bruce]

I do agree. I would not say “full” in this context, because in a quasi-federal system each tier in Government needs to have access to its own tax base, but I agree that if the Scottish Parliament could have accessed most of its own revenue and resources, that would, indeed, have been the case. I think it would also have led to a more adult debate in Scotland about how priorities are determined. It is very easy for MPs in the Scottish Parliament to attack the difficult decisions involved in dealing with the deficit, as they have no responsibility for making those decisions.

[Mr MacNeil]

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that one of the most important reasons for the Scottish Parliament having full control over its tax revenues through, hopefully, independence is that that will enable it to grow the economy? The laudable aims of making Parliament more transparent and politicians more responsible is all well and good, but the most important thing for people in the street is that the economy grows, and we can do that through independence.

[Sir Malcolm Bruce]

The hon. Gentleman will know that I am not going to go down the route to independence. I believe the Scottish Parliament has got substantial powers and, frankly, I believe that the Scottish Government would have served the Scottish people better if they had spent more time using those powers and less time promoting the case for independence. They even let their current tax-raising powers lapse: they did not want to use them as it might have been a bit unpopular or they might have been accountable for that. I do not accept the hon. Gentleman’s argument because what independence does, of course, is raise barriers to the very means of growing the economy. My argument is, yes, we should have access to taxes that help fund the Scottish Parliament, but that we should contribute to, and share in, the whole of the United Kingdom.

If I may, I will pay tribute to someone. Just in the past week, a great champion of Scotland’s role in the UK, Maitland Mackie, died—I am going to his funeral on Friday. People might have heard of him, as he was famous for Mackie’s ice cream and was a great pillar of the Scottish agricultural community. One of his uncles was a Liberal Democrat MP and another was a Labour MP. Maitland Mackie was committed to the view that Scotland would thrive provided it had control over its own affairs domestically but shared in the full benefits of the Union; as he pointed out, 80% of his ice cream is sold south of the border, and he did not wish to undermine that. I pay tribute to him, because he was a very fine example of Scottish enterprise and success—

[Sir Malcolm Bruce]

He was a former chairman of Grampian Enterprise Ltd, but he recognised that that enterprising Scottish business flourished better inside the UK.

[Mr MacNeil]

The right hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point about selling ice cream; he is trying to give the impression that if Scotland were independent it would sell less ice cream outwith its borders. I ask him this: where is most Guinness sold? It is not sold in the Republic of Ireland; it is sold worldwide. The idea that borders would stop that trade is nonsense, and he knows it.

[Sir Malcolm Bruce]

I do not know that, because I do not know what the currency transactions would be—because we have not got an answer on that from the Scottish Government. The problem is that all the uncertainties—the potential barriers and the potential changes—will have an effect. Like Maitland Mackie, many others in the food industry who are doing business in England daily are overwhelmingly concerned that independence will damage their market and are privately saying that they do not want to see Scotland vote yes in September.

[Sir Malcolm Bruce]

It is a simple statement as far as I am concerned and the better way to put it is that if the United Kingdom breaks up, we are all diminished: Scotland is diminished; Wales, Northern Ireland and England are diminished; and everything we stand for together is diminished. It is as simple as that. When all the ins and outs—the costs and the figures—are taken into account, the reality cannot be measured just in money. We will all be diminished, and our influence and standing in the world will be diminished.

[Mr MacNeil]

On that point—

[Sir Malcolm Bruce]

No, I am not going to accept another intervention. I say to the hon. Gentleman that on the doorsteps—this is not about slogans—people are increasingly telling me, in very simple terms, “You know what, we are better together.” I believe that will be the prevailing argument.

In my role as Chairman of the International Development Committee, I wish to say that I share pride in our achievement of 0.7% of gross national income being spent on official development assistance. When I say “our achievement” I mean the achievement of this Parliament, across parties; it could only have been achieved because all parties supported it. I welcome the fact that we have achieved it and that the Queen’s Speech specifically sets out a commitment to improve the humanitarian situation in Syria. On the information that my Committee and I have—we will be publishing a report in a few weeks’ time—UK support has been crucial to being able to provide access and support to people in distress which other countries have not stepped up to the plate to deliver. We should recognise that this country has every reason to be proud of that.

I also welcome the explicit commitment in the Queen’s Speech to preventing sexual violence in conflict worldwide. We have all seen too many horrors recently, in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Nigeria, Pakistan, India and Afghanistan to name but a few, of the appalling ways in which women are treated: how they are valued—how they are undervalued; how they are denied access to education; how they are abducted; and how they are murdered. This is an intolerable situation. The UK alone cannot prevent those things from happening, but as the world’s second largest bilateral donor and an internationally acknowledged force for good we can provide leadership that can make a difference. I welcome the fact that that is explicitly set out in the Queen’s Speech, and I hope that Members on both sides of the House can unite behind that.

I conclude by saying that I believe that, for the last Session of this Parliament, with only 10 months to run, this is an excellent Queen’s Speech containing a lot of very substantial and worthwhile measures. It is substantially a Liberal Democrat Queen’s Speech and for that reason I am very happy to commend it to the House.

Syria and the Use of Chemical Weapons

Debate between Lord Bruce of Bennachie and Angus Brendan MacNeil

Thursday 29th August 2013 Commons Chamber

[Sir Malcolm Bruce (Gordon) (LD)]

In this kind of debate, there comes a point when people say, “Everything’s been said, but not everybody’s said it”, but I hope that all of us who speak in the second half of the debate will help to reinforce the key arguments and still manage to draw out some particular aspects that have not yet been addressed.

Had we been debating the motion we expected earlier in the week, I would not have been able to support it. I still have grave reservations, however, and if I support the Government tonight, that will not give them any right to expect me to support them in a subsequent vote. It is important that that is understood. As is agreed on both sides of the House, that does not mean that there is not a case to be made; at the moment, however, it has not yet been made.

I understand the passion expressed, people’s abhorrence and the desire that something be done, but it is very dangerous if we do not decide that that something will work rather than make the situation worse. My concern is that we do not know what the response will be. The argument is that there would be a highly forensic, targeted attack to eliminate the regime’s capability to continue with such acts. Apart from the fact that we cannot ensure that there will not be collateral damage, there is the added problem that if it does not take out the regime, the regime and its allies will still have some capacity to act and might act in ways that escalate the situation.

Speaking as Chairman of the International Development Committee, which is responsible for holding to account the Government’s aid programme, I welcome the contribution from the former Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell), who addressed with deep knowledge and passion the commitment we are making. Of course the United Kingdom should be using humanitarian assistance to help the people distressed in this conflict, but so far £345 million of our aid programme has been diverted to supporting refugees in this conflict zone, an area of the world where we would otherwise not be spending any of our aid money, because it is not a poor region. By definition, that money has been taken away from poor people in Africa and south Asia because of a conflict. We must not do anything that makes that conflict worse and results in even more displaced persons and refugees, whom we will inevitably want to help.

[Mr MacNeil]

The right hon. Gentleman raises some substantial doubts. The Prime Minister earlier spoke about this being a matter of judgment. Surely anyone with such doubts in the Prime Minister’s judgment could not support him tonight.

[Sir Malcolm Bruce]

I think it is a matter of judgment. I am giving my judgment and the Prime Minister has given his.

The point that the motion and the amendment have in common—that is the result of the progress made in the past few days—is that we should allow the UN process to continue to the point where, we hope, it can be a determinant, and that this House will have an opportunity to decide before any military action takes place. Those are two important facts, which I would not want to vote against. If neither the motion nor the amendment is carried, the Government presumably could say that they had a mandate to do something immediately. We have to be careful what we vote out, as well as what we vote in.

Constitutional Law

Debate between Lord Bruce of Bennachie and Angus Brendan MacNeil

Tuesday 15th January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Sir Malcolm Bruce]

I am sure that the House will have the opportunity to debate it and that the hon. Gentleman will ensure that we do. Of course, we will not have the opportunity to amend or determine the Bill on the referendum, which will be decided by the Scottish Parliament. The hon. Gentleman’s intervention is relevant, as it is important that we recognise that the deal struck in the Edinburgh agreement involved compromise from the UK Government and the Scottish Government. The UK Government have agreed to pass substantial power to the Scottish Parliament to legislate for the referendum, but they have an agreement that it will be on a single, stand-alone question and that the Electoral Commission will at least be involved in the process. Those are all crucial issues and I reiterate my view that the Scottish Government discount the Electoral Commission at their peril. They would be wise to take that point on board. We recognise that it is a compromise, but one made in the spirit of ensuring that we have a democratic vote that we can all accept and support.

This morning, my office took a call from a number of Canadian parliamentarians who are anxious to meet me to discuss the implications from their experience. I have to point out that they are not in favour of breaking up Canada, but are warning of the dangers of a sustained threat to the continued existence of the United Kingdom rather than one that can be resolved by 2014.

[Mr MacNeil]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Sir Malcolm Bruce]

Reluctantly.

[Mr MacNeil]

Does the right hon. Gentleman think Canadian independence has been a success?

[Sir Malcolm Bruce]

I think the hon. Gentleman is disingenuous, and knows perfectly well that the issue—

Finance (No. 3) Bill

Debate between Lord Bruce of Bennachie and Angus Brendan MacNeil

Tuesday 3rd May 2011 Commons Chamber

[Malcolm Bruce]

Before I do, I want to point out that today I received the Oil and Gas UK index of confidence in the industry, which is to be published tomorrow. It is not surprising to note that the index reveals a very sharp fall in confidence within the industry in the first quarter since the Budget. For example, exploration and production companies’ confidence has fallen from an index level of 71 in the fourth quarter of 2010 to 46 in the first quarter of 2011. Even the confidence of supply chain companies has fallen, albeit less so, from 61 to 54, and when asked why the fall was less sharp, they said it was because their business was now much more international and they expected to pick up business elsewhere that they would otherwise have lost in the North sea. That gives a clear indication that the industry is facing a loss of confidence as a result of these changes.

[Mr Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)]

Is the right hon. Gentleman happy with what his Government are doing in the North sea?

[Malcolm Bruce]

The fact that I am moving the amendment makes fairly clear what I think and what I am trying to do. What I am saying to the Government—[Interruption.] I accept that the Government have introduced a Budget that has made these changes. What I am trying to do is to get Ministers to understand that the industry is complex and that Government decisions might lead it to a review of investment, which could lose production, jobs and export opportunities. It is possible to retrieve the situation, however, if we have an active process of negotiation. Previous Governments have made the same mistake and realised the need to engage with the industry.

--- Later in debate ---

[Malcolm Bruce]

I think the answer is that I want to hear what the Minister has to say.

[Mr MacNeil]

Answer the question!

[Malcolm Bruce]

Hang on a minute. We have had a series of debates tonight, and have heard a number of lengthy speeches, not all of which have contributed much to the argument. We are now engaged in a very material debate about the most important industry that we have, and in a serious attempt to persuade the Government to engage, piece by piece, with the industry and rebuild the trust which, as was rightly pointed out by the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Dr Whiteford), has been damaged and needs to be repaired The industry was very pleased that the Economic Secretary engaged with it soon after her appointment and went offshore. It is important for her not to lose that good will, and to demonstrate that she has that degree of understanding. I am sure that she will do so, because I think that she has learned a great deal from her experience.

--- Later in debate ---

[Malcolm Bruce]

Time will tell—that is all I can say to the hon. Gentleman. My hon. Friend the Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine and I together probably represent more oil and gas jobs than any other Member, except perhaps for the hon. Members for Aberdeen South (Dame Anne Begg) and for Aberdeen North (Mr Doran). It is important to point out that our areas account for only about a quarter of the oil jobs in the UK, as many of the jobs are in London, the north-east and elsewhere—

[Mr Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)]

Tell us more.

[Malcolm Bruce]

Indeed, some are even in Stornoway. It is important that this is seen to be a national industry.

I have debated oil and gas in this House for 28 years. I have seen every Government make the same mistake and I am disappointed that the present Government have done so, but I have also seen every Government engage and reach an understanding because they have learnt the complexities of the industry. All I am asking is that this Government engage in the same constructive way and that we reach a position where we get the balance right. The amendments seek at least to provide a framework for the sort of conversations that should take place between the Government and the industry.

Daylight Saving Bill

Debate between Lord Bruce of Bennachie and Angus Brendan MacNeil

Friday 3rd December 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr MacNeil]

I am tempted to say that perhaps people should get up an hour earlier if they are that motivated. Let us assume for a second that the hon. Gentleman has an argument and that he is right—why not go for the compromise of five weeks either side? Without inconveniencing people in Scotland and perhaps in other areas, such as Chester, we could reduce the “winter” period by 10 weeks. That would help us on to a more secure stepping stone than the present suggestion.

[Malcolm Bruce]

Although I would support that move, does the hon. Gentleman not realise that one reason it would be resisted by other members of the European Union is that France, Spain and the Benelux countries are in the wrong time zone and could not tolerate the dark mornings being extended further back?

Tuition Fees

Debate between Lord Bruce of Bennachie and Angus Brendan MacNeil

Tuesday 30th November 2010 Commons Chamber

[Malcolm Bruce (Gordon) (LD)]

I do not deny for a minute the passion of the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart), but as was pointed out in an intervention, his party promised it would abolish student debt. There was no coalition; there was a minority Government. Yet within a week they said, “We only promised this because we didn’t think we’d win the election. We couldn’t afford it; it was uncosted and it was undeliverable.”

[Mr MacNeil]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Malcolm Bruce]

No, I will not give way.

I also want to make it clear that, interestingly, the abolition of tuition fees in Scotland was delivered by the Liberal Democrats and Labour working together, and the abolition of the graduate contribution was delivered by the Scottish National party and the Liberal Democrats working together. We are not at all a party that comes to this issue embracing the principle of tuition fees; we are a party that has engaged with genuine integrity in a coalition, which has led to our being faced with deep and difficult decisions that none of us finds easy or comfortable, and we are not pretending that we do.

I also want to make it clear that as a result of devolution and the Calman reforms that are coming, the Scottish Parliament and Scottish politicians can decide to have free university education in Scotland for as long as we can prioritise that within the budget. There is not an obligation upon the Scottish Parliament to follow suit. As the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire rightly said, it is equally true that we will have to ensure that we can maintain our universities to world-class standards and fund them, as is also the case for the universities in England and Wales. The difficult question to be faced is that we must consider not only how we can fund them today, but how we can fund them in five, 10 and 15 years’ time. I completely accept that we can take a decision to do this for free, but if we do I doubt whether we will be able to maintain our universities’ world-class status, or 40%, 50% or 60% participation. Most importantly, if the Liberal Democrats were to disengage from this process I doubt that the students would welcome the consequences of our not having been there.

--- Later in debate ---

[Malcolm Bruce]

I am not going to give way. The repayments are entirely related to what people earn.

[Mr MacNeil]

You pay your fees.

[Malcolm Bruce]

I can tell the hon. Gentleman that I had the privilege of going to a privately funded school and university, but I did not get the opportunity to go to Oxford or Cambridge because my father was not prepared to pay further fees for me to do the entrance exam, to delay further and then to pay for me through one of those universities. I have no regrets about going to the very good Scottish universities from which I have graduated, but the point is that if I was in that situation today, I could decide for myself that I could go to Oxford or Cambridge because I could get the funding and I would pay it back when I had got the benefit of that education.

This is simply a matter of calculating that an education is a benefit to the entire state—the state should therefore facilitate it, support it and maintain its quality—but it is also a benefit to the individual. Some individuals will use that benefit in ways that are less commercial—they will do things that do not earn them a great deal money—but they will therefore not pay anything like the whole of that investment back; they will not be required to do so. They would be if there was a graduate tax—

Overseas Voluntary Sector

Debate between Lord Bruce of Bennachie and Angus Brendan MacNeil

Wednesday 24th November 2010 Westminster Hall

[Mr MacNeil]

The hon. Gentleman anticipates me. He raises the concerns of many. I hope to demonstrate that such fears can be allayed, so perhaps the Gentleman will bear with me. If I do not answer his concern, I would welcome another intervention.

[Malcolm Bruce (Gordon) (LD)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this important debate. I apologise because I will not be able to stay to the end.

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the partnership between DFID and VSO is hugely valuable and that millions of people benefit from it? It is not an unreasonable proposition for its funding to be limited to 40%, but it might be unreasonable for that to be done in too short a time. VSO recognises that, if it has to accommodate that within three years, its programme could be halved. Does he agree that the Government should be prepared to negotiate to ensure that VSO’s services are not cut and that it gets the money, and that business, for example, should support this valuable work?

[Mr MacNeil]

Again, my remarks have been anticipated. I welcome the right hon. Gentleman’s comments. It is important that money is spent properly and that, if changes are made, there is a managed transition, not a breakneck-speed shift overnight.

VSO has also helped in one of the most important government activities, without which there would no health care, no education and no spending. It has helped the Governments of Bangladesh and Sierra Leone specifically to collect taxes from their people. Perhaps Ministers’ eyes will light up at this point—perhaps not—but that is a sign that people are getting round to trusting their Governments. Perhaps some hon. Members would like VSO to go into the City of London to ensure that every penny of tax is paid. But I digress. VSO’s work in that regard shows that corruption abroad can be tackled, that the high-value components we take for granted in our civic lives can be established and that normal society can start to be built.

VSO specialises in capacity building. It takes nationals from various countries—mainly the United Kingdom—and places them mainly in less fortunate countries. The value of the professionalism of volunteers, if they were to be paid what the market paid them before they joined VSO, would be some £18 million. Hon. Members might want to think about that. Volunteers forgo £18 million in wages annually, presumably based on a 40-hour week, but on top of that they move abroad. However, it is not quite the abroad that we know or as we like to imagine it—it is the other abroad of malaria and dengue fever. I met a volunteer in Phnom Penh who was getting over a rather nasty dose of dengue fever. Of course, volunteers are often abroad in a village with no electricity and, perhaps, no running water—for not just 40 hours a week, but 168 hours a week and 24/7.

Volunteers build capacity in education and health. They build capacity wherever it is needed. They are ordinary men and women and I would argue, perhaps controversially in the current surroundings, that they have a greater sense of service than politicians, although, in fairness, most politicians get into politics to serve society. However, these people seem to get into volunteering to serve humanity.

These examples are just the tip of the iceberg and I am sure—I know—that other organisations do good work as well. However, this is threatened by what could happen to just 1% of the DFID budget. My colleague from Northern Ireland, the hon. Member for Upper Bann (David Simpson), raised the following matter in his intervention. VSO received 51% of its funding last year—less than a third of 1% of DFID’s budget in that period—from DFID. Almost a decade ago, VSO received 90% of its funding from that source, but this year it is projected to fall to 48% and in five years it will be less than 40%.

The problem stems from that rainy afternoon, where I read in point 2 of the FAQs titled, “Proposal and Logical Framework information”:

“Successful applicants cannot receive a PPA which is more than 40% of their annual income, averaged over the previous three years.”

That would be immediate from next April.

I know and hope that the Government’s heart—like that of every hon. and right hon. Member in this Chamber—is in the right place, but do they realise what a sudden swing of the axe could do? It could equate to a reduction of volunteers by 50% and reduce the number of beneficiaries—the 26 million who are affected, reached and touched by VSO programmes—to 12 million. In short, the cuts will not hurt VSO as much as they will hurt those who benefit from the help and aid.

Organisations such as One World Action and Progressio will be pushed to cut where it is administratively quickest and easiest. Cuts will be too quick and too deep; transitional arrangements will be hard to make, if indeed they can be made at all. However, DFID is receiving an increase in funding. It is one of four Whitehall Departments to receive an increase, and one of two Departments, together with the Cabinet Office, to receive a double-digit increase in funding. According to the comprehensive spending review, the Cabinet Office budget has risen by 28% and that of DFID by 37%. On the surface, that seems to bode well for all organisations that use DFID funds. However, an increase in the departmental administration budget seems not to guarantee the safety of funds that go to the overseas voluntary sector.