Finance (No. 2) Bill

Debate between Cathy Jamieson and Alan Reid

Thursday 18th April 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Reid]

I gave way to the hon. Gentleman on the assumption that he would answer my question, rather than coming up with another one himself. I think that we have exhausted this debate. In conclusion, the SNP and Plaid Cymru have not made the case today, so I will not be following them into the Lobby.

[Cathy Jamieson]

It is always entertaining to hear the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil), who moved new clause 3 on behalf of the SNP. I have shared a few flights with him, both short-haul and long-haul, and know how passionately he speaks on these matters. I hope to take a flight to Inverness in the not-too-distant future—[Interruption.] It is great to hear that SNP Members are so keen for me to get to the Labour conference, along with the other Scottish Labour MPs who will be playing a full part in proceedings.

--- Later in debate ---

[Cathy Jamieson]

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

[Mr Reid]

Let me put it on record that I will not support the new clause because, as I said, the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil) did not make the case for it. There has been no proper impact assessment. There are mechanisms by which the case could be made, but SNP Members have not done so today.

[Cathy Jamieson]

I thank the hon. Gentleman. He has put his position firmly on the record in exactly the way I would anticipate, because I know from the work that he has done on the Scottish Affairs Committee and elsewhere that he takes this issue extremely seriously and is not slow to make points that are often not entirely in line with his Government colleagues if he feels that that is the right thing to do. His comments are very important.

I want to finish by probing the Minister further to see where the Government intend to go with this. Although representations have been made, the Government have not committed to anything other than looking at the rates for this year and the year ahead. It is unclear whether they intend to address any anomalies and conduct further work—perhaps building on various independent reports and the work of the Transport Committee—in order to consider the issue in more detail.

Those who tabled the amendments will not be surprised to hear—I suspect they expected me to say this—that we will not support them. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say about how we might usefully take this issue forward, not just for the benefit of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, which are very important, but for the benefit of the various regions and areas of England where hon. Members are making a case on behalf of their constituents.

Fuel Duty

Debate between Cathy Jamieson and Alan Reid

Monday 12th November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Cathy Jamieson]

May I make a bit more progress, as we want to hear what the Government are doing? Their own figures tell us that the price of petrol is now more than 136p a litre. In my constituency, prices at a rural petrol station at the weekend were 139.9p a litre for petrol, and 144.9p for diesel. Only this morning, I heard a price of 160p a litre in the Scottish highlands.

[Mr Alan Reid (Argyll and Bute) (LD)]

When Labour was in power, other island MPs and I consistently went to see Labour Ministers to ask for an island fuel duty discount. It was refused. Within a year, this Government introduced that policy. Will the hon. Lady tell us what the Labour party’s policy is on a rural fuel discount?

[Cathy Jamieson]

I hope that when he goes back to his area, the hon. Gentleman is able to explain to his constituents why he has not backed the motion tonight.

Finance Bill

Debate between Cathy Jamieson and Alan Reid

Monday 2nd July 2012 Commons Chamber

[Cathy Jamieson]

I was not sure whether the fuel duty debate or the intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East (Sheila Gilmore) had exercised the power of persuasion that led the hon. Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon) to cross the Floor and spend some time on the Opposition Benches, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I shall now return to the subject of the amendments, which are fairly simple and straightforward.

Amendments 1 and 2 would remove the cut in the top tax rate for people earning more than £150,000 a year, and amendment 23 would prevent the abolition of the age-related allowance that would increase the tax on millions of older people—the so-called granny tax. As we said in the earlier debate, the amendments are based on the straightforward principle that when times are tough and there is less money around, we must ensure that the burden of deficit reduction is fairly shared. That theme of fairness will be a feature of the contributions of Labour Members this evening.

As I said at the outset, however, the Government have chosen to cut taxes for the richest 1% of the population, and that tax cut is worth £40,000 to those who earn more than £1 million a year. At the same time, they are raising the taxes of 4.4 million pensioners by, in some instances, hundreds of pounds a year. Most of those pensioners are living on less than the average taxpayer.

[Mr Reid]

Did not the Budget also raise the personal allowance for income tax by a record amount, thus cutting the tax for many people and taking many out of it altogether?

[Cathy Jamieson]

I hear what the hon. Gentleman says, but many people will be about £511 a year worse off. Many, particularly those on the lowest incomes, will not benefit from the rise in the income tax threshold, and a large proportion will be part-time workers who cannot work for the extra hours that they have been told will enable them to continue to qualify for tax credits.

Post Office Card Account

Debate between Cathy Jamieson and Alan Reid

Tuesday 24th May 2011 Westminster Hall

[Mr Reid]

My hon. Friend makes an important point that customers who use the green giros must be given the option of using POCA and must be encouraged to do so. I hope that this Government’s attitude towards POCA will be very different from that of the previous Government. Those of us who were MPs in the 2001 Parliament were inundated with complaints from constituents who were badgered and bullied by the Department for Work and Pensions call centre to move away from POCA to the banks. As I say, I hope that this Government will have a completely different attitude to POCA and that its use will be marketed positively rather than actively discouraged, as was the case under the previous Government.

There is a lack of PayPoint outlets in the rural parts of north Argyll, and there are several islands in my constituency that do not have a PayPoint outlet. Every time I mention PayPoint in a debate, I am conscious of the fact that a few days later a letter comes in from PayPoint saying what a wonderful service it provides. I say now to the person from PayPoint who will read the Hansard report of this debate that PayPoint still does not have outlets in rural north Argyll or on several of the islands in my constituency.

As we are discussing green giros, it is important to remember that many people who use them are people who were unable to use POCA for disability reasons. When my hon. Friend the Minister responds to the debate, I hope that he can tell us what facilities will be made available to people with disabilities who were previously deemed unable to use POCA to make it easier for them to access POCA. For example, if they live on a small island without a PayPoint outlet, what are they to do?

One of the lessons to be learned from the green giro contract is the importance of Government consultation before contracts go out to tender. When some of my hon. Friends and I attempted to lobby Ministers to give the green giro contract to the Post Office network, we were told the standard line that all Ministers in any Government use—that once a contract is out to tender and a legal process is under way, Ministers cannot engage in discussions about it. It is therefore important that we consult before contracts are put out to tender rather than, as was the case with the green giro contract, only finding out after the contracts have been put out to tender.

Of course, my hon. Friend the Minister has a responsibility to run his Department as efficiently as possible and to save as much money as possible. However, any savings that are made should not be at the cost of making the problems of financial exclusion worse. I understand that one of his remits is to be the Minister with responsibility for financial inclusion. If the only place in a rural community where people can access cash is a village post office and that post office closes, we will see real financial exclusion. Although pensioners may have bus passes that allow them free bus travel, in a rural community in the highlands there are not that many buses. Even on the days on which the buses run, it is often the case that there is only one bus from a village to a town at 9 am and there is only one bus back at 5 pm. What is a pensioner on a low income to do if they go into a town on the 9 am bus to collect their pension from the post office and they have to wait until 5 pm for the bus back?

[Cathy Jamieson]

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that for many people, particularly elderly people, the fact that they are able to conduct their business at a post office gives them some particular comfort? There are circumstances in which they simply do not want people to know their business if they have to conduct transactions in a very public place such as another shop.

[Mr Reid]

Yes. The hon. Lady makes a very important point, because the post office has a certain privacy that, say, a PayPoint outlet—I might as well say “PayPoint”, because I will get a letter about it anyway—in a filling station rarely has. Also, the staff who work at the checkout in a supermarket or filling station do not have the training that the post office staff have. That is another very important point.

Constitutional Law

Debate between Cathy Jamieson and Alan Reid

Wednesday 24th November 2010 Commons Chamber

[Cathy Jamieson (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab/Co-op)]

I shall be brief as I know that some of my colleagues hope to get into the debate. At the start of it, we could have been forgiven for wondering why a document that should be an uncontroversial order dealing with the rules relating to elections caused so much grief and so many exchanges across the Chamber. Amid the political knockabout that went on, there is a serious point about the manner, the timing and the way in which the order has been brought before the House, which causes serious concerns about parliamentary process.

[Mr Reid]

The hon. Lady has obviously studied the order. Can she tell us what changes to the order she would like to see?

[Cathy Jamieson]

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will allow me to make some progress. It is important to recognise that the order contained some drafting deficiencies, which the Minister was good enough to highlight. The reason that there has been so much discussion of the order tonight is that there is unfinished business from some of the other debates that have gone on, particularly about the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill.

Government Members may shake their heads, but the issue concerns not only the Members present this evening. It is a serious matter for the Members of the Scottish Parliament who voted the way they did because they did not believe that it was right to have the referendum and the Scottish Parliament election on the same day. That was made very clear by the Scottish Parliament’s Local Government and Communities Committee, including, as I understand it, by a member of the same party as the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr Reid) who also believes that it was the wrong decision.

The problem is that such an approach has left the people of Scotland, particularly parliamentarians in Scotland, feeling that no matter what they say or do, their votes and views do not count in this place. That is a particular problem because the Government initially set out to talk about and highlight the new respect agenda. That simply has not come to pass, and it has been highlighted once again by the delay in bringing what should have been a relatively uncontroversial order to this Chamber for debate. Perhaps an expert on the constitution and the workings of the House will tell me I am wrong, but I find it odd that we should have discussed the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill, which refers to the order, in advance of the order itself. That seems highly unusual, and I hope that the Minister refers to that in his winding-up comments.

People keep raising concerns about holding the referendum and Scottish Parliament elections on the same day, because we have bitter experience of things going badly wrong. We understand that mistakes were made last time, and we want to ensure that they do not happen again, so I find it difficult to listen to the Minister selectively quoting Mr Ron Gould. If we are serious about ensuring that we do not repeat the same problems, we should take account of everything that the Gould report says.

On several occasions I have pressed Ministers to tell me whether they will listen to the views of the Scottish Parliament. I have heard warm words but seen absolutely no action.