Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between David Mundell and Frank Roy(9 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
David Mundell
I fully acknowledge that the hon. Gentleman has been a fervent campaigner on this issue—and, indeed, on employment—in his constituency, but I am sure that he welcomes the fact that over the past five years, under this Government, the number of jobseeker’s allowance claimants in his constituency has gone down by 842—some 27%.
Mr Frank Roy (Motherwell and Wishaw) (Lab)
9. Unemployment in the Motherwell, Wishaw and Bellshill area rose again last month, with more than 500 young people now unemployed. Why has the Tory Work programme failed them?
David Mundell
I absolutely dispute the claim that the Work programme has failed them. The Work programme looks to help the most vulnerable people into work, and people have moved into work over the past five years in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency, where the JSA claimant count has come down by 1,403—some 39%. I am sure that even he welcomes that.
Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between David Mundell and Frank Roy(9 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
David Mundell
I certainly hope that it is now clear that the decisive result of the referendum is respected and that we move forward on behalf of all of Scotland to deliver the new devolved Scotland that everyone wants to see.
Mr Frank Roy (Motherwell and Wishaw) (Lab)
The Minister may be aware that in the past hour or so Tata Steel has announced its intention to sell the long products division—more or less, the plate mills in Scunthorpe, Workington, Teesside, Cambuslang and Motherwell—of its company. Throughout the United Kingdom, workers will be affected by this potential sale. Will the Minister ensure that he and other Ministers in both Governments intervene in this national issue for the sake of the workers and for the sake of the construction and manufacturing industry and the infrastructure of the United Kingdom?
David Mundell
This is a serious issue for both Governments. In the past it has been demonstrated that the Scottish Government and the UK Government can work together on serious issues that affect employment in Scotland, such as Grangemouth. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we will follow exactly the same approach. The Secretary of State and I will raise this issue with ministerial colleagues and do everything we can to work with the Scottish Government, North Lanarkshire council and other interested parties.
Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between David Mundell and Frank Roy(10 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
David Mundell
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend, and I hope that Opposition Members will welcome today’s announcement that employment is up and unemployment is down in Scotland. We are not complacent, but we are on the right track.
Mr Frank Roy (Motherwell and Wishaw) (Lab)
12. Low pay is a scourge that is now affecting thousands of families throughout Scotland. Would those families best be helped by giving them a decent living wage or by introducing a tax cut for millionaires?
David Mundell
The Government support the concept of the living wage, where employers can afford to pay it and where it is not introduced at the cost of jobs. It is something to be encouraged.
Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between David Mundell and Frank Roy(10 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
David Mundell
What I am concentrating on is the real concerns of local authorities in Scotland. That is why the Secretary of State and I have met every single local authority in Scotland to discuss the specific concerns they have in relation to welfare reform, and we will meet the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities at the end of July to discuss the outcome of those discussions.
Mr Frank Roy (Motherwell and Wishaw) (Lab)
7. What recent assessment he has made of the performance of the economy in Scotland.
Referendum (Scotland)
Debate between David Mundell and Frank Roy(11 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
David Mundell
My hon. Friend does the SNP extra credit by suggesting that its members have views on the issues she has set out. In recent weeks and months it has become apparent that despite campaigning for independence over many years—indeed decades—the SNP has no clear idea what an independent Scotland would look like. Now that the process issues are out of the way, it will be incumbent on the SNP to come forward with specific proposals for what an independent Scotland would look like.
Mr Frank Roy (Motherwell and Wishaw) (Lab)
Will the Minister ensure that Scottish members of the armed forces and their families who find themselves based outwith Scotland during the referendum will be entitled to vote?
David Mundell
Scottish members of the armed forces and their families will be entitled to vote under the normal rules that apply to members of the armed forces.
Scotland Bill
Debate between David Mundell and Frank Roy(12 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
David Mundell
The amendment changes the title. If the hon. Gentleman is alluding to whether the Scottish Government, in their discussions on the Bill, put forward a requirement for further devolution of the Crown Estate, I can tell him that they did not. It was not a red line for the Scottish Government.
Mr Frank Roy (Motherwell and Wishaw) (Lab)
Are any costs associated with the name change?
David Mundell
As far as I am aware, no costs are associated with changing the name from that proposed in the original Bill to the revised one.
David Mundell
As I have already explained, on 21 March the Government announced a package of measures in the Bill, and supporting non-legislative arrangements, to ensure that the Bill would operate in a fair and sustainable way to benefit Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom. That announcement followed productive discussions with the Scottish Government.
I hope that it does not prove career-limiting for him if I pay tribute to Bruce Crawford MSP, the Cabinet Secretary for Parliamentary Business and Government Strategy in the Scottish Government, who has worked closely with me and with the Secretary of State on the dialogue that has been taking place about the Bill. Mr Crawford and his officials have always engaged constructively in discussions on the Bill, and, even on occasions when we have not agreed, we have always conducted those discussions in an orderly and proper fashion. I am most grateful to Mr Crawford for the way in which he dealt with the legislative consent motion in the Scottish Parliament, securing a unanimous outcome. There was no dissent from any member of the Scottish National party.
Following the agreement announced on 21 March, changes were made to both the finance and non-finance provisions in the Bill. Since its introduction in November 2010, it has been subjected to detailed scrutiny in the United Kingdom and Scottish Parliaments. In Westminster, it has passed successfully through its Commons and Lords stages, and has returned to the Commons today for further consideration. In Holyrood, not one but two Scotland Bill Committees have taken evidence and reported to the Scottish Parliament. I pay tribute to my colleague David McLetchie MSP, who experienced the pleasure of serving on both those Committees. I think that his expertise could rightly be said to be beyond that of Members of this House and the other place, in that he has a true understanding of the Bill and all its ramifications. I also pay tribute to the other MSPs who served on both Committees for their work in dealing with the reports, and subsequently passing the legislative consent motion tabled by the Scottish Government in favour of the Bill.
We have gone further than ever before in working with parties in Scotland and across the United Kingdom to deliver a Bill built on cross-party consensus. We have carefully considered and, when appropriate—that is, when a case based on evidence has been properly made—taken on board the views of the Scottish Government and the Scottish Parliament. We are pleased that we have reached agreement and can make progress with the Bill.
The package of measures announced on 21 March meets the tests that the Government set for changes in the Bill package. They are based on evidence, maintain the cross-party consensus that supports the Bill, and will benefit Scotland without detriment to the rest of the United Kingdom. The amendments in this group are part of those changes. Lords amendments 2, 5, 6, 17 and 26 would remove clause 7, clause 12, schedule 2, clause 13 and clause 26.
Lords amendment 2 would remove clause 7. As it stands, section 33 of the Scotland Act 1998 allows for only a Bill, rather than a single provision of a Bill, in the Scottish Parliament to be referred to the Supreme Court in its entirety on questions of legislative competence. That means that implementation of the whole Bill would be delayed if the matter were referred to the Supreme Court pending a decision of that court. The Government’s intention in pursuing the limited reference procedure contained in clause 7 was to prevent unnecessary delays on Bills the majority of whose provisions were considered to be within the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament.
The Scottish Government expressed the fear that the clause could have the potential to introduce unintended consequences and delay to the enactment of legislation in the Scottish Parliament. As a result of our discussions with the Scottish Government, we agreed that the clause could be removed. The Scottish Government accept that that will mean that in future, as at present, only a full Act of the Scottish Parliament can be referred to the Supreme Court, even if only a single provision raises competence issues. I should make clear that the provision in the original Bill was intended to be helpful to the Scottish Government. However, they decided that they did not want that helpful measure to be included, and as a result we agreed to remove it.
Lords amendments 5 and 26 would remove the clause on insolvency and the related provision in schedule 2. Clause 12 would return exclusive legislative competence to the UK Parliament in relation to all aspects of the winding up of business associations. It is intended to ensure that the rules on corporate insolvency are consistent on both sides of the border. The UK Government continue to believe that it is important to take into account the view of stakeholders that, when appropriate, Scottish insolvency procedures should be in step with those in the rest of the UK. Our discussions with the Scottish Government have provided us with assurances that we can address those concerns without amending the devolution settlement in this respect.
Let me make clear to Scottish National party Members that the UK Government have removed the clause on the understanding that the Scottish Government will consider the modernisation measures for the devolved areas of winding up in Scotland that were introduced into the reserved insolvency procedures in 2009 and 2010, and have provided assurances that future changes made by the UK Parliament or Ministers in that area will be considered in a timely fashion by the Scottish Government in their area of competence.
Lords amendment 6 seeks to remove clause 13. The clause deals with the regulation of health professionals, to which the right hon. Member for Stirling (Mrs McGuire) has already alluded. Since Royal Assent to the Scotland Act 1998, the regulation of any health professionals not regulated by the legislation listed in schedule 5 has fallen within the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament, but although the Scottish Parliament has had the power to introduce separate legislation in respect of the regulation of health professionals, it has chosen not to do so.
During our discussions with the Scottish Government, they raised some concerns about the clause. They pointed out that the delivery of health care is, on the whole, devolved to Scotland. However, they gave us clear assurances that they would work closely with us to ensure that consistent regulatory regimes apply to all health professionals. I assure the right hon. Member for Stirling that it is on the basis of those assurances that the UK Government are content to continue to develop policy in relation to the regulation of health professionals with the Scottish Government.
Mr Frank Roy
Does this not prove that some things should be done on a UK-wide basis rather than on the basis of a separate Scotland?
David Mundell
During consideration of the Bill in the House of Commons and by the Committees of the Scottish Parliament, I was not aware of a single piece of evidence suggesting that the regulation of health professionals would benefit from not being carried out on a UK-wide basis. In fact, it has been pointed out that health professionals are a relatively mobile group who may want to move to and from jobs in Scotland and England, and who would therefore not benefit from separate regulation.
David Mundell
As I said earlier, the Scottish Government have given assurances that although there will not be a relevant clause in the Bill, they will work with the UK Government to ensure that there is a uniform approach to the regulation of health professionals. I think that those remarks are consistent with the First Minister’s statement yesterday that he intended to align taxes in Scotland with those in the rest of the United Kingdom if Scotland became independent. In fact, if Scotland became independent, there would be no difference on virtually any matter.
Lords amendment 17 would remove clause 27. The Government included that clause to provide UK Ministers, concurrently with Scottish Ministers, with a power to implement international obligations in devolved areas. That would have allowed UK Ministers to implement international obligations on a UK basis, where it would be more convenient to do so. Both Governments acknowledge the importance of ensuring that all of the UK’s international obligations are fully implemented across the UK in a timely fashion. The UK Government are willing to remove this clause on the understanding that Scottish Ministers will ensure that any international obligations that fall within their responsibility are implemented on time. We have made clear to Scottish Ministers that the Government would be prepared to use their existing powers of direction under section 58(2) of the Scotland Act 1998 if we were to have concerns about the implementation of international obligations within the remit of Scottish Ministers.
Let me make it absolutely clear that the Government have not conceded on the principle of re-reservation, as the Scottish National party suggested during our earlier debates on this Bill. The Bill does not make devolution a one-way street. Clause 14 re-reserves the regulation of activities in Antarctica.
Constitutional Law
Debate between David Mundell and Frank Roy(13 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Frank Roy (Motherwell and Wishaw) (Lab)
Will the Minister tell the House—or put the information in the Library—how many people have contacted him who support this particular proposal?
David Mundell
I presume that the hon. Gentleman is referring to the Scottish Parliament (Elections etc.) Order 2010. I was not aware that there was a dispute over the order, which will regulate next year’s elections. The provisions of the order have been widely consulted on—by the Electoral Commission, the Scotland Office and the Scottish Affairs Committee—and they have received support even from the Labour party in the form of the EMB representation.
David Mundell
The public had confidence that the political parties in Scotland and the professionals who serve on the EMB were taking forward measures that had agreement across the political spectrum. However, if the hon. Gentleman has any specific concerns about the content of the order, which is essentially the same as the one promoted by his Government, I would be delighted to address them.
The order applies the recommendations of Gould and the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs, which were accepted by the previous Government, to next year’s election. It is a large order, and I want to focus on the main changes since 2007.
David Mundell
No, I want to make some progress. I also want to leave time for the many Members from Scotland to make their contributions to the debate.
I want to comment on the four points about the draft order that were raised by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. First, article 2 of the order defines the term “European parliamentary election” without that term being used in the text of the order. Secondly, rule 20(3)(a) in schedule 2 includes among the minor errors that returning officers can correct in nomination papers
“errors as to a person’s electoral number”.
However, unlike the nomination papers for election to this House, the nomination papers for Scottish parliamentary elections do not contain proposers’ electoral numbers, thus rendering the reference unnecessary. Both those errors, while regrettable, have no effect on the operation of the order. My officials will ensure that returning officers are aware that the reference to electoral numbers can safely be ignored and that the unnecessary provisions will be removed at the first suitable opportunity to amend the order.
Thirdly, the Committee also highlighted article 3(1), which deals with the disregarding of late alterations to the register of electors, and, fourthly, article 4(5), which deals with the effect of alterations to the register where there has been an appeal against a registration officer’s decision. Those provisions have been set out in a substantially similar form in previous versions of the order since 2002, and so far as I know, they have not prejudiced voters or the effective administrations of previous elections. On reviewing those articles in light of the Committee’s comments, we are of the view that there is an overlap with the provisions of the Representation of the People Act 1983 that renders those provisions unnecessary. Those points were not raised until after the draft order had been considered by the Electoral Commission and had been laid. We propose proceeding with the order in its current form, and we will revisit those provisions once we have the benefit of consulting with the Electoral Commission and other interested parties. As the equivalent provisions in previous orders have apparently not caused difficulty for voters or electoral administrators at previous elections, we do not anticipate any difficulty with those provisions as drafted.
Mr Frank Roy
Is not the fact that there are so many mistakes that have to be rectified evidence that the order is being pushed through the House far too early?
David Mundell
I do not think that it is evidence of that at all. The hon. Gentleman will know from his long service in government that from time to time there will inevitably be small errors in such large documents, and particularly ones that have been carried over from documents and orders passed by the previous Administration.
Moving on to the substance of the order, we have consolidated legislation on the conduct of Scottish Parliament elections so that the majority of rules governing them are now in one document, making them easier for electoral administrators and political parties to use.
The order sets out that for the 2011 elections we will return to a manual count of ballot papers for both the Scottish Parliament constituency and regional elections.
David Mundell
This is a stand-alone order, which regulates the conduct of Scottish Parliament elections.
Mr Frank Roy
We have heard that some ballot papers could go into the wrong ballot boxes. Is the Minister saying that all ballot boxes will be opened to be verified, regardless of the election?
David Mundell
The hon. Gentleman is a very experienced election campaigner, and he knows that in 1999 and 2003, when the Scottish Parliament and local government elections were held on the same day, that is exactly what happened. Whatever safeguards we put in place, it is not impossible for a member of the public to put the wrong ballot paper into the wrong ballot box.