Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Alister Jack and Lindsay Hoyle

Wednesday 6th March 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Jack]

I agree with my hon. Friend, and I add further that the Scottish Government’s six tax bands, as opposed to the UK Government’s three tax bands, are really holding Scotland back.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Michael Shanks (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Lab)]

While the SNP and the Tories argue about the financial settlement between the two Governments, they do agree on two things: first, that working people should pay the price of this economic mess, by raising tax to sky-high levels; and secondly, at least until today, that oil and gas giants earning record profits should not face a proper windfall tax, although it now seems as if the SNP might be the only people holding out on that position. Who does the Secretary of State support—the Scottish Tory leader who is standing up in Holyrood today attacking an extension of the windfall tax, or the Chancellor who we understand is about to announce exactly that?

[Mr Jack]

My position has always been clear: I believe that the energy profits levy on the excess profits caused by Putin’s illegal war in Ukraine was the right thing for the Government to do, to give support to people in the cost of living crisis.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the SNP spokesperson.

[Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)]

It started so well, and I agree with the Secretary of State about the Calcutta cup—I was there to witness an historic occasion—and about the World Athletics Indoor Championships in Glasgow. I played rugby with Jemma Reekie’s cousin for many years, and I send my congratulations to them. However, everything from that point on, from both sides of the House, has been absolute nonsense.

At a time when many Scots are struggling to pay their energy or shopping bills due to the rapid inflation that the Secretary of State’s Government have presided over, and with inflation in the public sector running even higher, his Government have cut the Scottish Government’s funding in real terms again. Commons Library research shows that the Scottish block grant will be at its lowest level of UK Government spending since the start of devolution. As the Secretary of State counts down the weeks to his departure, is he proud of his legacy?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Jack]

My hon. Friend is a great champion of the fishing industry, and I completely agree with him.

[Mr Speaker]

We now come to Prime Minister’s questions. We are joined today in the Gallery by the Speaker of the Supreme Council of the Kyrgyz Republic.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Alister Jack and Lindsay Hoyle

Wednesday 29th November 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Jack]

My hon. Friend is right. Everyone forgets that the Scottish Government get up every day and go to work to destroy devolution and the United Kingdom. The defenders of devolution and the strengtheners of the United Kingdom are this Government.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)]

Let me take this opportunity to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Michael Shanks) not only on his vast—and fast—promotion to the shadow Front Bench but on the 20.4% swing from the SNP that brought him the by-election victory.

The announcement of the closure of the refinery at Grangemouth is a hammer blow. Too many communities are still living with the devastation of being left behind after coalmine closures in the 1980s. That must not be allowed to happen again. Grangemouth’s owner is buying football clubs and investing in plants elsewhere, while the workers lose out. The Prime Minister has decided that a culture war on the environment trumps getting the UK into the global green energy race by backing Labour’s green energy superpower plans. The devolution settlement demands that both Governments work together, but they certainly do not. What discussions is the Secretary of State having with the Scottish Government to protect jobs at Grangemouth? What impact will the closure have on the Acorn carbon capture and storage project?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Jack]

As the hon. Gentleman will know, the Director of Public Prosecutions in England is appointed by a panel, which removes the risk of perceived interference by Government. Many learned friends have expressed their concerns to me about the structure in Scotland and the closeness between the judiciary and the Government, and I find their concerns understandable. It is vital that the public perception is that the prosecution service is very independent from Government.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Scottish Affairs Committee.

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

I am sure the Secretary of State will agree that his mission to constrain and bypass the Scottish Parliament has been an absolute disaster for devolution. Relationships across the UK have never been as such a low level. Will he acknowledge that his version of aggressive Unionism has utterly failed? As he is leaving his office, will he pledge to abandon it entirely?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Jack]

Absolutely. We are one United Kingdom. We have no physical border. It is important that we treat immigration equally across the whole United Kingdom and give everyone equal opportunity.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the SNP spokesperson.

[Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)]

Let me be clear: we are talking about the administration of work permits for people from overseas who wish to work in Scotland on a temporary basis. Just about everyone thinks it would be better administered in Scotland, but the Secretary of State insists that it should be centralised by his Government in Westminster. His argument would be plausible if the UK demonstrated that it is managing the migration service well but, given the catastrophe that is the UK immigration system, when will he wake up and realise this would be better done in Scotland, by the people who live there?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Jack]

First, I thank my hon. Friend for his service as a trade envoy, and tell him that last month I had the pleasure of travelling to Vietnam to boost Scotland’s trade interests and celebrate diplomatic links. Vietnam already offers huge opportunities for Scottish businesses and in the light of the UK’s recent joining of the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership—that is easy for you to say, Mr Speaker— I am keen to highlight further trading opportunities for Scottish businesses in the Indo-Pacific region.

[Mr Speaker]

For the final question, I call Patrick Grady.

[Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)]

Will the Secretary of State clarify what he was saying earlier and whether he thinks it is legitimate for Scottish Government Ministers to be able to travel overseas to promote the work of the Scottish Government?

[Mr Jack]

I have always been very clear that Scottish Government Ministers can go overseas to promote areas that are devolved, but the reserved areas, such as the constitution and foreign affairs, are a matter for the UK Government and those Ministers should not be using our embassies and consulates to promote their plans for separation, or their different views on the middle east or anything else.

[Mr Speaker]

Before we come to Prime Minister’s questions, let me remind Members of an important courtesy that we should all observe: giving notice to colleagues if we are visiting their constituencies on official business. Colleagues in Lancashire ought to think about that when they are going to others’ constituencies and let people know when they are doing so—I believe that did not happen on this occasion. I have heard of a number of examples in other areas of this discourteous way of behaving towards colleagues, which is not acceptable. I would rather we did not have to deal with such matters by points of order, so please try to give notice before visiting each other’s constituencies.

I also say to everybody that temperate and moderate language is what I want in this Chamber. Let us now move on to PMQs.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Alister Jack and Lindsay Hoyle

Wednesday 13th September 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Jack]

Absolutely. My right hon. Friend is right: the CPTPP is the fastest-growing trade zone in the world, and with the UK included it is worth circa £12 trillion. To that end, we are working with the devolved Administrations. We have also put in a huge network of support centres across the UK, not least in Queen Elizabeth House in Edinburgh.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Scottish Affairs Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Jack]

Labour Members always seem to cheer me at this moment in Scottish questions. They are very generous.

My hon. Friend makes a very good point. Drug deaths in Scotland are three times higher than the UK average, despite the laws being the same across the UK. I do not believe drug consumption rooms are the panacea to those problems, but we absolutely must have drugs laws that work across the whole United Kingdom because it is a UK-wide problem.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the SNP spokesperson.

[Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)]

I think we should be clear: the Lord Advocate’s statement on Monday is a game changer. It removes one of the major obstacles to a pilot drug consumption facility, which is designed to prevent overdoses. The Secretary of State has been equivocal in his responses so far, so let me give him another chance to get on the right side of history. Will he actually say that he will support and work with the Scottish Government to see this pilot project through?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Jack]

They always say independence will sort the problems. Scotland is not building hospitals on the islands because the Scottish Government are squandering the most generous settlement they have had since devolution began.

[Mr Speaker]

Before we come to Prime Minister’s questions, I wish to welcome a special guest who is observing our proceedings today—the Speaker of the Jordanian House of Representatives. Mr Speaker, you are most welcome.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Alister Jack and Lindsay Hoyle

Wednesday 28th June 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Jack]

I agree. That is exactly why this Government introduced the United Kingdom Internal Market Act (2020): to protect frictionless trade across the UK. On maximising opportunities on whichever side of the border, it is a matter of some regret that Scotland is the highest taxed part of the United Kingdom.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Scottish Affairs Committee.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Alister Jack and Lindsay Hoyle

Wednesday 17th May 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Jack]

I certainly do.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Scottish Affairs Committee.

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

The Secretary of State will know that the Scottish Affairs Committee is currently conducting an inquiry into how Scotland is promoted internationally, and all we have heard is just how well the UK and the Scottish Government work together, and about the added value that the Scottish Government mission brings to that promotion. Why is he determined to pick a fight unnecessarily and get in the way of that business?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Alister Jack and Lindsay Hoyle

Wednesday 22nd February 2023 Commons Chamber

[The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr Alister Jack)]

I realise that many colleagues on the Benches diagonally opposite are somewhat preoccupied with the contest to become the leader of the Scottish National party and Scotland’s First Minister. In my view, this is a real opportunity for a new First Minister to reset the relationship with the United Kingdom Government, to work constructively with us and to make life better for the people of Scotland. We need a First Minister who puts Scotland’s interests above the nationalists’ interests. My offer to all those running in the contest is this: the United Kingdom Government stand ready to work with you, and that will be the real win for improving the lives of people in Scotland.

My assessment is that retained EU law reform will have a positive impact on Scotland by boosting the competitiveness of the economy while respecting devolution and maintaining high standards. Reform will ensure that regulations meet the needs of the United Kingdom, and will provide the opportunity for us to become the best regulated economy in the world, encouraging prosperity, business innovation and—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. May I just say to the Secretary of State that Scottish questions are short enough without his taking up all the time?

[Martin Docherty-Hughes]

I thank the governor-general for that long-winded response.

According to a report by the Economics for the Environment Consultancy, lower standards just in chemical regulation, water pollution, air quality and the protection of habitats will cost the British Government £83 billion over the next three decades. Does the Secretary of State believe it is right for Scotland to face yet another billion-pound price tag for a Brexit that it did not vote for?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Jack]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I know that he was in the Scotland Office when those powers were devolved in 2016. Some of them will not come into operation until 2026. That is because, while we want to work with the Scottish Government—we are working with them—and we hope we will deliver those programmes at the Scottish Government’s pace, the pace could be moved up if they spent more time focusing on the day job and less time on their obsession with separation.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Scottish National party spokesperson.

[Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP)]

The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs alone has identified more than 1,700 pieces of retained EU law, with the majority in devolved areas such as agriculture, forestry and fishing. What happens if the Scottish Government want to maintain some of the EU standards that the Secretary of State’s party wants to ditch? Does he think it would be right for UK Ministers to change regulations in devolved matters without consent? How does that respect devolution?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Jack]

Absolutely.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Select Committee.

Points of Order

Debate between Alister Jack and Lindsay Hoyle

Tuesday 17th January 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

The Secretary of State is with us, so perhaps he would like to inform the House.

[The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr Alister Jack)]

We laid the order at 12.34 pm, with the statement of reasons. The House authorities have to clear it before they publish it, and they will not do that until 5 pm. However, Mr Speaker has given me dispensation to publish the statement of reasons on the gov.uk website. We are doing that now. It is also being emailed to the hon. Members for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray), for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine) and for Aberdeen South (Stephen Flynn).

Scotland Act 1998: Section 35 Power

Debate between Alister Jack and Lindsay Hoyle

Tuesday 17th January 2023 Commons Chamber

[The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr Alister Jack)]

Today I will make an order under section 35 of the Scotland Act 1998 preventing the Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill from proceeding to Royal Assent. This order will mean that the Presiding Officer of the Scottish Parliament will not submit the Bill for Royal Assent. This Government believe, however, that trans- gender people deserve our respect, our support and our understanding.

My decision is centred on the consequences of the legislation for the operation of reserved matters, including equality legislation across Scotland, England and Wales. The Scottish Government’s Bill would introduce a new process of applying for legal gender recognition in Scotland. The changes include reducing the minimum age at which a person can apply for a gender recognition certificate from 18 to 16, and removing the need for a medical diagnosis and evidence of having lived for two years in their acquired gender. The Bill would amend the Gender Recognition Act 2004, which legislated for a single gender recognition system across the United Kingdom, and which received a legislative consent motion from the Scottish Parliament.

The approach taken in the Scottish Government’s Bill was the subject of intense debate in the Scottish Parliament. A number of significant amendments were tabled right up until the end of the Bill’s passage, and the Minister for Women and Equalities, my right hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Kemi Badenoch), corresponded with and met the Cabinet Secretary, Shona Robison, to discuss the UK Government’s concerns before the Bill had reached its final stage.

I have not taken this decision lightly. The Government have looked closely at the potential impact of the Bill, and I have considered all relevant policy and operational implications, together with the Minister for Women and Equalities. It is our assessment that the Bill would have a serious adverse impact on, among other things, the operation of the Equality Act 2010. Those adverse effects include impacts on the operation of single-sex clubs, associations and schools, and on protections such as equal pay. The Government share the concerns of many members of the public and civic society groups about the potential impact of the Bill on women and girls.

The Bill also risks creating significant complications through the existence of two different gender recognition regimes in the UK, and allowing more fraudulent or bad- faith applications. The Government are today publishing a full statement of reasons alongside the order, which will set out in full the adverse effects that they are concerned about.

Let me now address the claims put forward by those who would seek to politicise this decision and claim that it is some kind of constitutional outrage—[Interruption.] And you can hear them, Mr Speaker; you can hear them. The section 35 power was included in the Scotland Act, which established the Scottish Parliament. This is the first time the power has been exercised, and I acknowledge that it is a significant decision, but the powers in section 35 are not new, and the Government have not created them; they have existed for as long as devolution itself.

We should be clear about the fact that the section 35 power was included in the Act by the architect of that devolution for a reason. Donald Dewar himself noted that the power struck an important balance. It provides a sensible measure to ensure that devolved legislation does not have adverse impacts on reserved matters, including equalities legislation such as the Equality Act 2010. This is not about preventing the Scottish Parliament from legislating in devolved matters, but about ensuring that we do not have legal frameworks in one part of the United Kingdom which have adverse effects on reserved matters.

We should also be clear about the fact that this is absolutely not about the United Kingdom Government’s being able to veto Scottish Parliament legislation whenever they choose, as some have implied. The power can be exercised only on specific grounds, and the fact that this is the first time it has been necessary to exercise it in almost 25 years of devolution emphasises that it is not a power to be used lightly.

I have concluded that the Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill would have serious effects on the operation of the Equality Act, and, as I set out in my correspondence with the First Minister yesterday, I would prefer not to be in this situation. We in the United Kingdom Government do all that we can to respect the devolution settlement and to resolve disputes. It is open to the Scottish Government to bring back an amended Bill for reconsideration in the Scottish Parliament. I have made clear to the Scottish Government my hope that—should they choose to do so—we can work together to find a constructive way forward that respects both devolution and the operation of the United Kingdom Parliament’s legislation. I commend this statement to the House.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Shadow Secretary of State.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Jack]

Yes, and fortunately that addresses one of the points that the shadow Secretary of State for Scotland raised. I can address it here. I have written to the First Minister and suggested that we meet to resolve these issues. It is the case that the Scottish Government’s Bill has adverse effects on those two pieces of legislation. We can see that in the statement of reasons that has been produced by our legal advisers. What is missing are sufficient protections and safeguards for women and children that are reflected in existing Westminster legislation, and that is why I have had to lay this order.

[Mr Speaker]

We now come to the SNP spokesperson.

[Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP)]

The vetoing of this legislation is an unprecedented attack on the Scottish Parliament, which passed the Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill by 86 votes to 39, including MSPs from every party. Gender recognition is a devolved policy area and this does not change the Equality Act 2010 or give any additional rights to those with a certificate. It shortens and simplifies the process and, particularly, ends the requirement for a psychological diagnosis of gender dysphoria. This is in keeping with the guidance from the World Health Organisation and from the United Nations, which recommends change to a legal statutory process based on self-identification. This change has already been made by many countries over the last decade, including neighbours such as Ireland, Belgium and Denmark. This Government are threatening to end UK acceptance of international certificates. I find this bizarre, considering that the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), suggested a similar proposal in 2017.

Will the Secretary of State explain exactly which parts of the Equality Act are changed by the Bill? Why did he not raise specific concerns during the two consultations carried out by the Scottish Parliament or in response to the Cabinet Secretary’s letter in October, rather than in a response that came three days before the final debate on the Bill? What modifications to the Bill is he suggesting that would not include a return to the outmoded medicalised process? Why is he using one of the most marginalised groups in society to pick a fight with the Scottish Parliament? Is he seriously, after 300 years of different marriage ages and voting ages, suggesting that there can no longer be legal or age differences north and south of the border? And does he recognise that vetoing the Bill simply highlights the hollow reality of devolution?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Jack]

Absolutely.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Scottish Affairs Committee.

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

This is the single biggest attack on Scottish devolution and Scottish democracy since the establishment of the Scottish Parliament in 1999. A move to strike down a piece of legislation that is supported by every single party in the Parliament is as provocative as it is anti-democratic. When the Scotland Act went through Parliament back in 1997 and ’98, the Conservatives called section 35 the “colonial general rule”. Is the Secretary of State now the real-life colonial general imposing his view on a reluctant Scottish Parliament in the name of his and his party’s culture wars?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Alister Jack and Lindsay Hoyle

Wednesday 16th November 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Jack]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point. Scotland is the best-funded part of Great Britain, and there is a Union dividend there of £2,000 per man, woman and child.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State, or should I say Lord Jack-elect, was blindingly loyal to the former former Prime Minister, the former former Chancellor, the former Prime Minister and the former Chancellor over the summer. They crashed the British economy on the back of handing out tax cuts to the richest. The economic crisis was created around the Cabinet table in Downing Street by the people the Secretary of State sits beside, and it will be paid for by working Scots. What price does the Secretary of State think Scottish public services and Scottish working people should pay for his Government crashing the economy?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Jack]

I do understand how concerned people are about their mortgages. Obviously, a number of factors are influencing interest rates, but we are doing all we can to limit those factors and to support the people who need support most at this difficult time.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Scottish National party spokesperson, Mhairi Black.

[Mhairi Black (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (SNP)]

It is very concerning to hear the Secretary of State dispute the figures from the House of Commons Library. Let me emphasise that Scotland’s block grant is being cut, our services are being eroded by Tory cuts, the economy is being undermined by Brexit and Scotland, as part of the UK, is facing the deepest recession in Europe. This Government’s response is more austerity, despite Scotland’s rejecting that premise for more than 50 years. Will the Secretary of State and the rest of his disaster capitalist Tories get out of Scotland’s way, stop denying democracy, and allow Scotland to choose its own path out of this nightmare?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Jack]

I completely agree with my hon. Friend: our nuclear deterrent plays a key role in protecting every United Kingdom citizen from the most extreme threats and to abandon it would put us all at greater risk.

[Mr Speaker]

Before we come to questions to the Deputy Prime Minister, I would like to point out that the British Sign Language interpretation of proceedings is available to watch on parliamentlive.tv.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Alister Jack and Lindsay Hoyle

Wednesday 12th October 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Jack]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. Levelling-up measures are all about delivering local priorities and pride in place, which go hand in hand towards creating a sustainable tourist economy. The £150 million community ownership fund is allowing us to put cultural and heritage assets back in the hands of local people across the whole United Kingdom.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Scottish Affairs Committee.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Alister Jack and Lindsay Hoyle

Wednesday 18th May 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Jack]

I seek to correct the hon. Lady: the funding is tapered with UK structural funds. EU structural funds and UK structural funds are tapered. We paid into EU funds, and the EU is still paying into Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom, but the advantage of Brexit is that we now have control over that money and can decide how we spend it. The amount of money in total has not been reduced in any way.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister, Liz Twist.

[Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab)]

For years, Ministers have assured organisations in receipt of EU structural funding that the UK shared prosperity fund would maintain that funding after Brexit. Finally, the Government published the details of their shared prosperity fund and, for organisations such as the world-leading European Marine Energy Centre based in Orkney, it was a brutal blow. The Government broke their promise. As a result, EMEC, a site that has tested more marine energy devices than any other in the world, now faces closure. What is the Secretary of State doing to ensure that his Cabinet colleagues keep their promise of matching the funding for EMEC and other Interreg projects in Scotland?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Alister Jack and Lindsay Hoyle

Wednesday 16th March 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Jack]

My hon. Friend will be delighted to know that I absolutely agree.

[Mr Speaker]

We come now to SNP spokesperson Pete Wishart.

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

Is it not the truth that Scotland has never experienced such sustained attacks on our democracy and our democratic institutions? As we have heard, legislative consent is now almost dead and buried, a feature of history, with Westminster now legislating in devolved areas. What is next in the Secretary of State’s sights?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Alister Jack and Lindsay Hoyle

Wednesday 2nd February 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Jack]

Mr Speaker, you will not be surprised to hear that I completely agree with my hon. Friend. The UK’s independent nuclear deterrent, which is Trident, based at the HM Naval Base Clyde, exists to deter the most extreme threats not only to the United Kingdom but to our NATO allies. Our nuclear deterrent is the ultimate assurance against current and future threats and remains essential for as long as the global security situation demands.

[Mr Speaker]

I call Alyn Smith for the final question.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Alister Jack and Lindsay Hoyle

Wednesday 15th December 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mhairi Black]

I am sorry for the floundering social life of the Secretary of State, but if I could, I will move on to the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Steven Bonnar) made. We talk about the Prime Minister’s vision, but does that vision not go against what the majority of people in Scotland voted for, given that they are against Brexit, the majority are against the Prime Minister and they are against the Conservatives? So is it not the case that the best chance this Prime Minister has of saving the Union and rebuilding trust in our covid response is by resigning?

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I am going to allow that, but we really need to be within the scope of the question. It is party politics, and I do not want us to get into that, but it is Christmas, so I am sure the Secretary of State will want to answer.

[Mr Jack]

You are right, Mr Speaker. I would say again to the hon. Lady, if we are talking about majorities, that the First Minister failed to get a majority in May. Let us be clear that less than a third of Scots voted for her in May. Our focus, and the Prime Minister’s focus, is on fighting this pandemic and then recovery from this pandemic, and on bringing forward great things for Scotland, such as the Union connectivity review, freeports and investing directly with local authorities structural funds.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Alister Jack and Lindsay Hoyle

Wednesday 3rd November 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Jack]

I simply do not recognise what the hon. Gentleman says. We have been through the pandemic and it is far too early to say what any impacts are to make predictions, but what we do know is that our economy is growing. We are doing fantastic trade deals around the world, which will benefit the Scottish economy, and Scottish food and drink. He just needs to get positive about that: stop talking down Scotland’s businesses, stop talking down Scotland, and start to get optimistic about the opportunities we face.

[Mr Speaker]

May I just gently say to Ministers that they are meant to speak through the Chair? That was becoming a very personal battle and I am trying to not allow that.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Alister Jack and Lindsay Hoyle

Wednesday 28th April 2021 Commons Chamber

[John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con) [V]]

There has been much reckless chat from Scottish National party politicians about creating a hard border between Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom. My constituents in the Scottish Borders want to see the threat of a border—and the threat of another referendum—removed. Does the Minister agree that the voters of Scotland have an opportunity to remove that threat next week in the Scottish elections by depriving the SNP of a majority and that the best way of doing that is by voting Scottish Conservative?

[Mr Speaker]

Bit of a toughie.

[Mr Jack]

You will not be surprised to hear, Mr Speaker, that I do agree with my hon. Friend. I note with astonishment the comments of the South Scotland MSP Emma Harper that a border would be a good way of creating jobs, despite the fact that 60% of our trade is with the rest of the UK. All I would say is that if the SNP thinks that a border is such a good idea for jobs, I am surprised it does not want to go the whole hog and propose building a wall.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Alister Jack and Lindsay Hoyle

Wednesday 10th March 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Jack]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely correct and, more importantly, the majority of people in Scotland agree with him. Not only did they emphatically reject independence in 2014, but the most recent opinion polls show that they have realised that neither the Scottish National party nor its leader can be trusted, and that independence would make everyone in Scotland significantly worse off.

[Mr Speaker]

We now come to the shadow Secretary of State for the first of two questions.

[Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)]

I am sure that the Secretary of State would like to join me—I am sure he accidentally omitted it—in congratulating Anas Sarwar on becoming leader of the Scottish Labour party, the very first ethnic minority leader of any UK political party. I am sure that his positivity and optimism will transform Scotland when compared with what we have at the moment.

Business covid support in Scotland has been sporadic at best, and I hope that the Government will tell us how we will get a full transparent audit from the Scottish Government, following the Audit Scotland report last week that estimated that £2.7 billion was unspent, not including the £1.2 billion from last week’s Budget. Every penny needs to be spent now.

This Government talk a lot, as we have heard already, about a post-covid levelling-up green agenda, yet they are pursuing a policy in offshore renewables that benefits its business solely in the south-east of England. The Government’s fourth contracts for difference auction at the end of this year actively disadvantages viable Scottish offshore renewable projects, as the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy includes out-of-date and expensive transmission charges in auction bids. What is the Secretary of State doing to ensure that the Government ditch this unfair renewables policy that advantages south-east England at the expense and detriment of perfectly viable offshore renewables projects off our Scottish coasts?

--- Later in debate ---

[Rob Roberts]

As connectivity and transport infrastructure are of vital importance not only for business but for the UK’s tourism industry, does my right hon. Friend agree that taking steps such as electrifying the north Wales coast line and improving links with north-west England will not only enable my constituents in Delyn to enjoy the delights of Scotland more easily but allow our Scottish cousins to have greater access to the beauties and wonders of our fantastic north Wales area?

[Mr Speaker]

That’s imagination for you!

[Mr Jack]

Mr Speaker, why should I not just completely agree? Improving connectivity across the entire United Kingdom, including through the north-west of England, will boost tourism opportunities for both Scotland and Wales.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Alister Jack and Lindsay Hoyle

Wednesday 27th January 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Jack]

Scotland receives over £1,600 more in support per man, woman and child than the UK average—that is incredibly important. Added to that is the £8.6 billion of extra coronavirus support, and on top of that, the furlough support. An independent Scotland would have the largest deficit in the European Union, and it would break member state rules. I remind the hon. Lady of what the SNP’s own economic adviser, Andrew Wilson, said: that an independent Scotland would face austerity like it had never been seen before, with increases in taxation and cuts in public spending. I believe that as we focus on coming out of the pandemic, all being in the rowing boat together and pulling on the oars in these choppy waters is the best place for Scotland and for the United Kingdom.

[Mr Speaker]

On his birthday, let us go to Douglas Ross, who will be having a virtual cake for us.

[Douglas Ross (Moray) (Con) [V]]

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker; I will share it with you when we come back to Westminster.

As we have just heard from the SNP spokesperson, the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Mhairi Black), the SNP would rather obsess over another independence referendum than focus on Scotland’s recovery from covid-19. Does the Secretary of State agree that this once again demonstrates that the nationalists’ priorities are all wrong, because right now, people want us to focus on vaccine roll-out, defeating covid-19 and rebuilding our economy?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Alister Jack and Lindsay Hoyle

Wednesday 9th December 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Jack]

There is nothing disastrous about a United Kingdom Internal Market Bill that has mutual recognition and non-discrimination at its base, and that protects jobs in Scotland and people’s livelihoods, when 60% of Scotland’s trade is to the rest of the United Kingdom, worth over £50 billion and, as the Fraser of Allander Institute said only last week, providing 554,000 jobs.

[Mr Speaker]

As Mark Fletcher is not here, would the Minister like to give the answer to his substantive question? Then I can bring in shadow Minister Elmore.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Alister Jack and Lindsay Hoyle

Wednesday 11th November 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

This question, No. 16, has been withdrawn, so the substantive question will be from David Mundell. Secretary of State to answer.

[The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr Alister Jack)]

Am I answering David Mundell’s question?

[Mr Speaker]

You are answering the substantive question: No. 16.

[Mr Jack]

I did not bring that with me, sorry.

[Mr Speaker]

Let us carry on then. If the Secretary of State does not have the answer, it is easy—I call David Mundell.

[David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con) [V]]

There are many different ways that the Government can provide economic support to Scottish businesses during covid-19. For the Scotch whisky industry, the biggest help in retaining jobs and supporting its businesses would be for the Government to resolve the US tariffs dispute, rather than escalate it by applying further retaliatory tariffs. Can my right hon. Friend update the House on progress on this vital issue for Scottish businesses and jobs?

[Mr Jack]

From memory, question 16—it has been withdrawn altogether from the papers I was given this morning—was about transport, and I will say on that—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Secretary of State, the question is on the Order Paper, and I can assure him it is not about transport. Answer the question from David Mundell.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Alister Jack and Lindsay Hoyle

Wednesday 9th September 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Jack]

First, I congratulate the hon. Gentleman and his partner on the birth of their baby daughter, Zola, which is why he is currently on paternity leave.

I hope that I face even questions such as that from the hon. Gentleman for some time to come, because he is honourable, which is a lot more than can be said for many in his party—the hard left of his party—who have sought to smear and undermine him in recent days. In answer to his question, we absolutely do want a deal. We are in serious negotiations again this week because we want to get a deal, and that is our intention, but the withdrawal agreement was written on the basis that subsequent agreements could be reached through the Joint Committee, and that Joint Committee process is ongoing and we are committed to it. None the less, in the event that it cannot deal with any adverse implications for the Good Friday agreement, it is important that we have a position that creates a safety net to uphold our commitments to the members of Northern Ireland.

[Mr Speaker]

We do need to speed up.

[Ian Murray]

I am very grateful to the Secretary of State for his kind words about Zola, and if his Government could legislate for a minimum of six hours’ sleep for new parents, I certainly would be the first person in the Aye Lobby to support them.

The Secretary of State’s Conservative colleague and prominent constitutional expert, Adam Tomkins MSP, his own—now resigned—most senior Government lawyer and many on his own Back Benches disagree with him. He must surely realise that the UK Government’s recklessness only benefits those who want to break up the UK and the consequences of breaking up the UK would be dire for all of our constituents. As has already been mentioned, the Scottish Government’s own figures last week showed that the UK dividend to Scotland is an extra £15 billion a year—the entire budget of the Scottish NHS. Does the Secretary of State agree with me that the focus of both the Scottish and UK Governments must be to protect public health, invest in our economy, and secure jobs and not to continue with this endless paralysing constitutional division?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Alister Jack and Lindsay Hoyle

Wednesday 1st July 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Jack]

The Scottish Finance Minister, Kate Forbes, has questioned the Barnett formula and has raised full fiscal autonomy as a preference. I would say to the people of Scotland that, for £100 of spending per head in England, the Barnett formula guarantees £125 per head of spending in Scotland. The Barnett formula has produced the extra £3.8 billion of covid support. Last year, the Barnett formula plugged a £12.6 billion deficit in Scotland’s spending. Along with the furlough scheme, these things would not have been possible under full fiscal autonomy. In fact, had the Scottish Government imposed that on the Scottish people, I would call it full furlough absence.

[Mr Speaker]

We now go to the SNP spokesperson—[Interruption.] Order. Who is clapping? We do not clap. We want to hear the SNP spokesperson, Mhairi Black.

[Mhairi Black (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (SNP) [V]]

I would like to echo the remarks of the Secretary of State with regard to the events in Glasgow. Our thoughts are with all those affected.

The Secretary of State says that the Chancellor will be updating the House with regard to the furloughing scheme, so I will note that with interest, but could he tell us specifically what recommendations and requests he has made to the Treasury with regard to Scotland?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Alister Jack and Lindsay Hoyle

Wednesday 20th May 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Jack]

I have already given the answer on the first point. On the messaging, the messaging in Scotland is different to that in England, which is fine, but the “stay alert” message in England is that people should stay at home and work from home if they can work from home, but if they cannot, they can go to work. That is very clear. In going to work, they stay alert, wash their hands and socially distance themselves—they do all those things. If Scottish Members of Parliament do not want to come back to be scrutinised or to scrutinise Ministers, that will be a matter for them, but at some point we will have to move to a stage where Parliament is operating on a virtual and covid-safe basis, and that is exactly as it should be.

[Mr Speaker]

I welcome the shadow Secretary of State for the first of his two questions from the Front Bench.

[Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)]

That is very kind of you, Mr Speaker; thank you very much indeed.

The Secretary of State will be aware of the February outbreak of covid-19 at an international Nike conference in central Edinburgh. In a catastrophic error of judgment, the Scottish Government decided that the Scottish public would not be informed, despite that being contrary to Scottish public health legislation. The public could have helped with the tracing and used their own common sense, as the Prime Minister has said, to make choices about attending large events and gatherings. A BBC documentary reported that a lockdown then could have saved 2,000 Scottish lives. Will the Secretary of State tell the House whether the UK Government were informed; why the public were not told, given the subsequent disinfecting and closure of Nike outlets all over the UK; and how many UK lives could have been saved as a result?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Jack]

I thank my hon. Friend for his question. The Department for Education has been engaging closely with ministerial and official colleagues in Scotland to discuss a range of higher education areas that are affected by covid-19. I am also pleased to say that the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, my hon. Friend the Member for Moray (Douglas Ross), is meeting Universities Scotland’s funding policy group later this week.

[Mr Speaker]

We now come to Chris Elmore in his new role on the Front Bench.

[Chris Elmore (Ogmore) (Lab)]

Scotland’s 19 universities are not immune to the financial hardship caused by the pandemic. They currently face immediate in-year losses of £72 million, and Universities Scotland anticipates that 18 of Scotland’s 19 universities will go on to report deficits in this financial year. May I press the Secretary of State further on what work he will do as part of a UK Government working with the Scottish Government to ensure that any detrimental impact to universities across Scotland is dealt with and that universities are supported and helped in relation to the pandemic?

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr James Davies [V]]

Does the Secretary of State agree with Adam Marshall, director general of the British Chambers of Commerce, has said:

“We need to see the whole of the UK moving together—the alternative for business is additional confusion and cost. Avoiding divergence for the sake of politics is important.”

Does the Secretary of State agree?

[Mr Speaker]

I do not know if the Secretary of State could hear that—if not, we will move on.

[Mr Jack]

I think my hon. Friend said, “avoiding divergence for the sake of politics”, or something, towards the end. If that is indeed what he said, I completely agree with him.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Alister Jack and Lindsay Hoyle

Wednesday 25th March 2020 Commons Chamber

[Wendy Chamberlain]

I add my thanks to the people of Scotland for the effort they are making, particularly those who are already volunteering and providing vital services to those in their communities who are vulnerable.

In the past 24 hours, I have been contacted by several different local businesses in the self-catered accommodation industry. They thought they would be eligible for covid-19 grants for small and medium-sized businesses in retail, leisure and hospitality, but yesterday they discovered that they had explicitly been listed by the Scottish Government as not being eligible. Anyone who operates a chalet, a caravan or a B&B is eligible, but self-catering accommodation is specifically excluded, alongside ATM sites, jetties and pigeon lofts, among others.

If my constituents operated elsewhere in the UK, they would be supported. The message from them is clear: without these grants, the self-catering accommodation industry in Scotland is in peril. We cannot let this happen. I appreciate that this is a really difficult and challenging time for Governments, but will the Secretary of State make representations to the Scottish Government to reconsider their exclusions, in order to ensure consistency of support and the future of this industry?

[Mr Speaker]

We are asking questions, not making speeches.

[Mr Jack]

I thank the hon. Lady for raising that really important point. The self-catering industry, including self-catering cottages, is a massive issue for rural Scotland, and not just in her beautiful constituency but in my more beautiful constituency. An emergency package of measures will be announced next week. Our colleagues in the Scottish Parliament are discussing that today. The Scotland Office has already raised the issue and we are very keen to see a support package for those rural businesses, particularly self-catering businesses and others, including caravan parks. If they only have residential caravan stayers, we want them all to be supported in whatever way necessary. As the Chancellor has said, we will do whatever it takes.