Draft Scotland Clauses

Debate between David Mundell and Ian Davidson

Thursday 22nd January 2015 Commons Chamber

[David Mundell]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend, and I think that most people in Scotland would agree with his sentiments. However, it is always important to make it clear in such discussions in this Parliament, in case they are misrepresented, that this is a stand-alone package of measures that will be implemented regardless of where the debate in England, Wales and Northern Ireland goes.

[Mr Ian Davidson (Glasgow South West) (Lab/Co-op)]

May I ask the Minister about pensions and benefits? Will he confirm that, under the Smith commission’s proposals, although the pensions system is being reserved, which will provide a floor level for pensioner income in Scotland, things like the winter fuel payment are being devolved, which will effectively allow the Scottish Parliament to double pensioner incomes in Scotland, if it is willing to pay for it? Similarly, will he confirm that the Scottish Parliament will be able to increase every welfare benefit in Scotland through the use of discretion, should it wish to do so, because some benefits are being devolved entirely and those that are not being devolved will have a floor level set by the United Kingdom, meaning that it will be entirely up to the Scottish Government whether they wish to make the money available to double, treble or quadruple any of those benefit levels?

[David Mundell]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman. If he refers to pages 50 and 49 of the Command Paper, he will find a good summary of the benefits for which full responsibility will be devolved to the Scottish Parliament, and of the measures related to universal credit. Although universal credit will remain reserved, as was agreed by all five parties to the Smith commission, the housing element will be subject to Scottish Government engagement.

The hon. Gentleman is right that with their new powers, the Scottish Government will now have a responsibility and will need to explain whatever decisions they take to the people of Scotland.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between David Mundell and Ian Davidson

Wednesday 2nd July 2014 Commons Chamber

[David Mundell]

I will most certainly take on board what the right hon. Gentleman says on his behalf and that of his colleagues. I am sure that everybody would welcome the opportunity to fly over the sea to Skye.

[Mr Ian Davidson (Glasgow South West) (Lab/Co-op)]

Does the Minister agree that those who are using that fund to fly from London to Dundee later this week in order to see the launch of the aircraft carrier will be able in two different ways to see the strength of the United Kingdom?

[David Mundell]

Absolutely. The hon. Gentleman will have heard the Secretary of State highlight the importance of the flotation of the aircraft carrier on Friday, which will be a very important moment not only for Scotland, but for our whole United Kingdom.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between David Mundell and Ian Davidson

Wednesday 7th May 2014 Commons Chamber

[David Mundell]

I certainly do not live in the universe that the SNP inhabits. It has not given us a single detail of how a welfare system would operate in Scotland. Indeed, in the 670 pages of the Scottish Government’s White Paper, there is just one reference to the establishment of such a system. The SNP set up a commission, but we have heard nothing from it, so I am afraid that I shall take no lessons from the hon. Lady.

[Mr Ian Davidson (Glasgow South West) (Lab/Co-op)]

Does the Minister accept that, now that the Scottish Government have been given the powers for which they asked in relation to discretionary housing payments, there is no reason why they should not first cancel all the bedroom tax for this year, and then write off all the debts that were incurred last year? In order to ensure that no moral hazard is involved, should they not do as the Scottish Affairs Committee has asked, and refund the money that Scottish people paid last year in bedroom tax?

[David Mundell]

I understand that a statement is to be made about the matter in the Scottish Parliament today, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman’s colleagues will raise those very points with the Scottish Government.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between David Mundell and Ian Davidson

Wednesday 5th February 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Ian Davidson (Glasgow South West) (Lab/Co-op)]

5. How many cases of non-payment of the minimum wage have been detected in Scotland since 2010; how many such cases have been prosecuted; and how many employers have been named and shamed for non-payment.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (David Mundell)]

While there have been no prosecutions or naming and shaming of businesses for non-payment of the minimum wage in Scotland since at least 2007, a revised scheme came into effect on 1 October 2013 making it simpler to name and shame such employers. I urge anyone with information about such an employer to use that scheme.

[Mr Davidson]

I note that the Minister did not tell us how many instances of non-payment had been detected. At a time of economic difficulty, it is a scandal that people are being exploited by being paid less than the national minimum wage. The policing of the Act ought to be much strengthened, then there ought to be vigorous prosecutions and harsh punishments, and there certainly ought to be naming and shaming. Will the Government agree to co-operate with any investigation that the Scottish Affairs Committee—with its full complement of members, I hope—conducts into this matter?

[David Mundell]

I recognise that the Committee has done much valuable work in this area, and of course we will continue to work with it. In Scotland, prosecutions are a matter for the Lord Advocate, but I am sure he will have heard the hon. Gentleman’s contribution this morning.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between David Mundell and Ian Davidson

Wednesday 24th April 2013 Commons Chamber

[David Mundell]

The right hon. and learned Gentleman is rightly always keen to promote his constituency interests, but he will be aware that that was one of the many projects that the Scottish National party said in opposition it would deliver—yet it does not seem to be on the agenda any more.

[Mr Ian Davidson (Glasgow South West) (Lab/Co-op)]

Does the Minister accept that the Caledonian sleeper is a vital link between the Ministry of Defence in London and the shipyards on the Clyde? Does he accept that trade on the Caledonian sleeper will drastically reduce in the event that we have separation and the Clyde shipyards close?

[David Mundell]

What I accept is that if we were to have separation, there would be a great deal of uncertainty, and not just for the operators of the Caledonian sleeper service. As we saw yesterday, for example, those promoting independence have no idea what currency would be used in an independent Scotland, which will be a significant factor in creating additional uncertainty.

Referendum (Scotland)

Debate between David Mundell and Ian Davidson

Monday 15th October 2012 Commons Chamber

[David Mundell]

I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s daughter’s support for Scotland remaining part of the United Kingdom. She reflects the views of many 16, 17 and, indeed, 18-year-olds, as demonstrated by the polls in Scotland. As the process continues, it will be important that we take forward the issues and debates in the Scottish Parliament and that the people of Scotland are engaged.

[Mr Ian Davidson (Glasgow South West) (Lab/Co-op)]

I welcome the fact that an agreement has been reached and that I will have the opportunity finally to vote against separation, but why do we have to wait so long? Why the delay, why the dither? Is it not because the coalition Ministers on the one hand and the SNP on the other have been meeting in secret and not taking account of the views of the vast majority of the Scottish people? Our consultation here at Westminster said that we wanted the referendum to be soon, and the Scottish Government’s consultation said—well, we do not know what it said, because they have not published it. The deal has been reached before the consultation has been published. What scrutiny will there be of the detail of the arrangement? For example, will tax exiles have the right to vote? Are we going to have foreign money coming in? Will there be an opportunity to amend not the broad sweep but the detail of these proposals? And what sanctions will there be if somebody breaks an agreement that was reached in good faith?

[Mr Speaker]

The Chairman of the Scottish Affairs Committee has posed at least four questions, but I know that the ingenuity of the Minister will enable him to reply with a single response.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between David Mundell and Ian Davidson

Wednesday 12th September 2012 Commons Chamber

[David Mundell]

I could not agree more. The success of Team GB at both the Olympics and the Paralympics has been celebrated as much in Scotland as in any other part of the United Kingdom.

[Mr Ian Davidson (Glasgow South West) (Lab/Co-op)]

Does the Minister agree that one of the great successes of the Olympic games was the role played by London’s Mayor? I wonder what will happen to him in the future. Does the Minister also agree that when we come to the games in Glasgow, it is essential that they are run by the city of Glasgow and that we do not have nationalist politicians trying to muscle in?

[David Mundell]

The hon. Gentleman will know that the Mayor of London is a great supporter of Scotland and the Commonwealth games, and of ensuring that the legacy from the Olympics is carried into the Commonwealth games in Glasgow.

Scotland Bill

Debate between David Mundell and Ian Davidson

Thursday 26th April 2012 Commons Chamber

[David Mundell]

I absolutely agree with my right hon. and learned Friend. The remarks made by the First Minister about members of the Supreme Court were beneath him; they demeaned his office and were wholly inappropriate.

[Mr Davidson]

Just for clarification, were the First Minister’s comments successful, in that his criticisms resulted in these amendments? If so, we would obviously take note of that. If not, that deserves to be spelt out.

[David Mundell]

I am happy to make it clear to the hon. Gentleman that views expressed by the First Minister about the Supreme Court played no part in these amendments or the completion of the Scotland Bill. Indeed, in dialogue involving the Scottish Government and Lord Advocate a much more moderate and sensible tone was adopted in relation to these matters, hence the ability to agree on what I would regard as a sensible and fair set of provisions that deal with the matters at hand.

[Mr Davidson]

Leaving aside the vehemence of the language used by the First Minister, was the substance of his comments the cause of the changes being introduced?

[David Mundell]

No. The changes being introduced today are a result of a process that was instigated by the Advocate-General for Scotland.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Mundell]

Clause 25 allowed the Scottish Ministers to determine the national speed limit on roads in Scotland and to make regulations to specify traffic signs to indicate that limit. Clause 25 limited these powers to cars, motorcycles and vans under 3.5 tonnes.

We listened carefully to the arguments presented by noble Lords, together with the case made by the Scottish Parliament and Scottish Government for the Bill to provide for the devolution of powers to set different speed limits for different classes of vehicles—for example, cars towing caravans or goods vehicles. Lords amendments 12 to 16 would give the Scottish Ministers the power to make regulations regulating the speed of all classes of vehicle on roads in Scotland.

[Mr Davidson]

Will there be any restrictions under the Bill on the speed with which Scottish Government Ministers can change policy on issues such as income tax for a separate Scotland?

[David Mundell]

As the hon. Gentleman knows, in the devolution of powers such as speed limits, which are devolved in the clauses to which the amendments relate, it is entirely a matter for the Scottish Parliament and Scottish Government to determine how they use those powers and whether they apply them to themselves as they would to others.

[David Mundell]

I am responsible for many things, but I am not responsible for the Scottish Government acting in a sensible manner. We are seeking to devolve these powers, which apply not just to the setting of limits, but to the signage. I am a Member of Parliament for a border constituency, as is the Secretary of State. We want to ensure that appropriate measures are in place so that people know what the law is on both sides of the border. As my hon. Friend pointed out on Second Reading, there are numerous legal differences between Scotland and England, which our respective constituents have managed to cope with over many years, not least the licensing laws.

[Mr Davidson]

Is it not the case that the Scottish Government want these powers in order to keep the speed limits the same? Just as with the monarchy, tax, the currency and NATO membership, they want the power to decide themselves that there will be no change.

[David Mundell]

I do not disagree with the hon. Gentleman. I took part in a radio programme with a member of the Scottish National party to debate the currency, and her principal argument was not over which currency Scotland should have, but about the fact that she should have the right to choose which currency; she suggested the Chinese renminbi, but I did not think that that would go down too well with the Politburo.

Lords amendments 12 to 16 would give Scottish Ministers the power to make regulations regulating the speed of all classes of vehicle on roads in Scotland and some consequential amendments. Together with the existing provisions in clause 25, that would enable them to set a national speed limit that is different for different classes of vehicle and the power to make regulations to specify traffic signs that indicate that limit. We think that that is a sensible addition to the Bill and, as right hon. and hon. Members might know, it was promoted in the House of Lords by my noble Friend Lord Forsyth, no less.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Mundell]

I share the hon. Gentlemen’s concerns about traffic speeds in our part of Scotland, Dumfries and Galloway, particularly on the A75. I hope that these powers will allow the Scottish Government for once to focus on Dumfries and Galloway and address such issues. They will have the powers and it will be for them to make the decisions. I commend my noble Friend Lord Forsyth for achieving this significant amendment to the Bill. It is the only amendment made during the passage of the Bill that will ensure that the powers of the Scottish Parliament are increased, and I do not think that the irony of that was lost on him.

[Mr Davidson]

Given that speed is a product of both distance and time, has there been any further submission from the nationalists on their ambition to have Scotland in a separate time zone, because it is obvious that if it was in a separate time zone—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

Order. Three strikes and you’re out.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between David Mundell and Ian Davidson

Wednesday 9th November 2011 Commons Chamber

[David Mundell]

I agree with my hon. Friend. The SNP Government had no complaint about the Electoral Commission’s involvement in the Scottish Parliament elections and the alternative vote referendum but, at great cost to the taxpayer, they intend to set up their own commission to oversee the referendum. No wonder so many people are speculating that that is an attempt to rig the referendum.

[Mr Ian Davidson (Glasgow South West) (Lab/Co-op)]

Will the Minister meet the Electoral Commission in Scotland on 30 November, or will he, like me, be supporting the public sector strike against Tory cuts in pensions?

[David Mundell]

I welcome the fact that the hon. Gentleman, as convenor of the Scottish Affairs Committee, brought the Electoral Commission before his Committee. That will provide valuable evidence in the debate on the role that it should play in any referendum.

Constitutional Status (Scotland)

Debate between David Mundell and Ian Davidson

Tuesday 25th October 2011 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (David Mundell)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Glasgow South (Mr Harris) on securing this debate on what is an important issue, and I thank all hon. Members for their presence at it. I note the hon. Gentleman’s participation in the contest for the leadership of the Scottish Labour party. I would wish him well, but I know that that would damage his chances. There is also a contest for the deputy leadership of the Scottish Labour party. As I have already made clear, when a newspaper headline read, “Mundell Backs Davidson”, it did not refer to the hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Mr Davidson), so that should help his chances.

The Government have been clear that they are totally opposed to the break-up of the United Kingdom. The Prime Minister has committed to working constructively with the devolved Administrations on the basis of mutual respect. There are many issues on which the Government have worked successfully with the Scottish Government. However, we do not agree with the Scottish Government in their pursuit of separatism. On that issue, we will give them no succour. Whatever factors played a part in May’s election result, a rise in support for Scottish separatism was not one of them.

However, let me be clear that we are not complacent about the Scottish Government’s call for a referendum on the breaking up of the United Kingdom. We are challenging them. They must answer the substantive questions, to which the hon. Member for Glasgow South referred, about what they mean by “independence”. They have been uncharacteristically shy in setting out exactly what independence would involve and what it would cost.

After repeated questioning, the Scottish Government have now told me that the 2009 White Paper “Your Scotland, Your Voice” and the 2010 draft Referendum (Scotland) Bill hold all the answers. As hon. Members would expect, we are scrutinising those papers thoroughly. However, so far they appear simply to raise more questions than answers. We now also have another glossy SNP pamphlet entitled “Your Scotland, Your Future”, in which, as usual, dozens of promises are set out but there are no facts and no evidence.

The hon. Gentleman raised valuable points about the Scottish Government’s proposed referendum. First, the date of the referendum is crucial. Not only is the current situation unsettling, but many people’s patience is being tested by the lack of detail coming from the Scottish Government on what independence would actually mean. Business leaders are now beginning to say that they are worried about the uncertainty that that is creating about Scotland’s future, which is damaging to Scotland and to the United Kingdom. We are trying to get more detail out of the Scottish Government. At present, all that we have to go on is the vague time line of

“the second half of the parliamentary term”

and no other detail. We do not have to accept that that is satisfactory. As the hon. Gentleman said, that time scale was never a manifesto commitment. In fact, the First Minister revealed the notion only a week before the elections took place. If the case for separatism is so strong, why wait to hold the referendum?

Secondly, the hon. Gentleman mentioned the referendum question. The First Minister has raised the prospect of “devolution-max”, also known as “independence-lite”, or possibly “full fiscal autonomy”, and is dangling it as a supposed third way. That is a fallacy. There is no third way. The only choice is between separatism and remaining in the United Kingdom.

We can review and update the devolution settlement, as Calman did and as the Scotland Bill is currently doing. The Calman commission, formed through cross-party consensus, recognised the strength and benefits of the economic and social union between Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom. Its recommendations are now being implemented through the Scotland Bill, which represents a radical, historic and significant change to the financing of public services in Scotland. We can allow the settlement to evolve, but selling the Scottish people the undefined SNP construct of “devo-max” is selling the Scottish public a pig in a poke. Any referendum question needs to be clear—yes or no to separatism. As the hon. Gentleman said, anything else would simply be jiggery-pokery.

Thirdly, the hon. Gentleman mentioned the franchise. The Scottish Government have indicated that 16 and 17-year-olds should be given the right to vote in any referendum. Many people are already suspicious that the SNP is trying to rig the electorate to get the result it wants. Is it appropriate to experiment with changes to the franchise on a matter of such importance as the future of Scotland?

Finally, the hon. Gentleman discussed the role of the Electoral Commission. It is an independent body, respected for ensuring transparency in polls across the United Kingdom. In their 2010 draft referendum Bill and consultation paper, the Scottish Government stated that they intended to create their own electoral commission for any referendum. Questions have to be asked about that course of action. What is wrong with the current Electoral Commission, which has delivered so much in Scotland to date? What is the motive behind the Scottish Government creating their own commission? How many extra costs would that create for the taxpayer?

The hon. Gentleman also made a valid point about the Canadian Clarity Act, and it is worthy of further consideration. Hon. Members will be aware that the Scottish Affairs Committee is holding two inquiries into questions relating to a referendum and what the break-up of the United Kingdom would mean for Scotland and the rest of the UK. I have no doubt that academics and experts called before the Committee will be keen to explore the Canadian Clarity Act and its parallels with Scotland.

[Mr Ian Davidson (Glasgow South West) (Lab/Co-op)]

The Minister correctly identifies that the Scottish Affairs Committee is looking at aspects of a separation referendum. Will he make the resources of government, particularly civil servants, available to provide information to the Committee? That would help us to clarify some of the questions that we identify in our current trawl. Those issues will require settlement before any referendum is held, so that the Scottish public can be well informed.

[David Mundell]

I can give the Committee Chairman that assurance. The Government will do everything we can to support the Committee’s work, because we believe that the people should be well informed before any referendum takes place. We sincerely hope that the Scottish Government will follow our example and be forthcoming with the same level of information, which is required not just by the Committee, but by the people of Scotland if they are to make a decision on this important matter.

Scotland Bill

Debate between David Mundell and Ian Davidson

Tuesday 15th March 2011 Commons Chamber

[David Mundell]

I recognise the hon. Gentleman’s consistency on this issue, but I was confused by one of the contributions from the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Cathy Jamieson), who was part of a Labour-led Scottish Government who introduced the single transferable vote into local government in Scotland. Much of the argument that I have heard today did not provide evidence that that was done on the basis of support from within the Labour party. As one Member on the Opposition Benches pointed out, it was also done without consulting people across Scotland. On the point that the hon. Lady did raise, may I say, for information purposes, that when a council by-election is required, the STV system used does not guarantee ongoing proportionality? One of the problems with STV systems is that by-elections are difficult and complex matters.

[Mr Davidson]

A moment ago, Mr Kettle accused members of the Labour party of coming to a position based on self-interest. Given that he is in an alliance with another bad lot to promote an alternative vote referendum, despite neither party preferring AV as an electoral system, it can hardly be said that other people are pursuing their self-interest in this matter. Might I add that, to be fair, the Liberals welcome AV, because they predict that they will have a better result than they achieved in Barnsley and will at least come second in the referendum?

[The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Dawn Primarolo)]

Order. May I add that I would like the Minister to return to discussing the new clause?

--- Later in debate ---

[David Mundell]

The date of the next Scottish Parliament election has changed as a result of the Fixed-term Parliaments Bill, and the Government have indicated that a review of the implications for the Scottish Parliament will be required. A review of the voting system for the Scottish Parliament elections could form part of a wider review of issues relating to the Scottish Parliament.

[Mr Davidson]

May I just clarify a point? The Minister said that the proposal put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr Donohoe) is not clear on the question of what would happen in respect of people having two votes. May I refer him to the wording? New clause 1 states:

“each elector to cast one or two votes of equal value, with no more than one vote to be given to any one candidate, in constituencies returning two members”.

It continues:

“the two candidates with the most valid votes to be elected in such constituencies.”

So I understand that the reference to people having “two votes” applies only to the constituencies that are not the three identified.

[David Mundell]

I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s analysis, but I do not think it stands up to legal scrutiny in that regard.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Davidson]

Perhaps it would be a century, but I think that it would be just under an hour and a quarter. In that way, when it was noon by Greenwich mean time, it would be about 13.14 in Scotland. Scotland would constantly be on Bannockburn time. I think that the concept of Bannockburn time is what the nationalists are after: “Here’s tae us, wha’s like us. A lot of them are deid now right enough, but we do actually remember them.” This proposal is simply about seeking division for its own sake.

The hon. Member for Milton Keynes South (Iain Stewart) was very helpful in reminding us that schedule 5 to the Scotland Act 1998 covers more matters than just time. It also covers the calendar. I am sure that the idea of a public holiday on Alex Salmond’s birthday will be a recommendation from the SNP. We have had the Julian calendar and a variety of different calendars. A nationalist calendar is the logical consequence. Why should an independent country be stuck with the same calendar as England? There are logical arguments for that, but the SNP is not the party of logical arguments; it is the party of passion, of Bannockburn and of “Here’s tae us, let’s be separate.”

I think that there is a real difficulty in all of this. I very much hope that the SNP does not chicken out here. I hope that it puts the new clause to the vote so that we can see just how ludicrous its proposals are, and the extent to which it is treating the Scotland Bill as nothing more than a joke. We are trying to improve the governance of Scotland; the SNP is trying to create divisions. The proposal to have separate time zones is absurd.

[David Mundell]

I am starting to be very concerned about the extent to which I agree with the hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Mr Davidson). Indeed, the hon. Member for the Western Isles has done something remarkable this evening—he has led me to agree 100% with the hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway (Mr Brown), which is a very rare occurrence. I could not have put it better—the new clause is sheer lunacy, and Members on both sides of the Chamber have set out why.

It is important to reflect on the findings of the Calman commission, which highlighted the importance of cross-border institutions and functions of the UK Government that bind the people of Scotland and the rest of the UK in a “social union”. It stated its view that a consistent British isles time zone was an important aspect of that. Of course, the SNP wants to destroy that social union. As has been said in the debate, having two separate time zones in the UK is one way in which it would seek to do so.

I think it was the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Mark Lazarowicz) who pointed out the contradiction in the position of the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil), who has spoken passionately against any proposal to change the time, but who has now tabled a new clause that makes the change that he says he opposes much more likely.

From the outset, this Government have said that they would not consider adopting single/double summertime, central European time or any variation on them without the agreement of all nations of the UK. The Prime Minister has been unequivocal in stating that having different times operating concurrently in the UK is not an option. On Second Reading of the Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Rebecca Harris), the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr Davey), made clear the Government’s opposition to the Bill. Additionally, as the hon. Member for the Western Isles will be aware, at the time of the publication of the UK Government’s tourism strategy on 4 March, the Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport, my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (John Penrose), reiterated the Government’s commitment that no change to current policy would happen without the approval of the whole UK.

Were the new clause to be accepted, Scotland would have the power to determine its own time zone. As the hon. Member for Glasgow South West pointed out, that would give the Scottish Parliament the capacity to make a change just for the sake of being different. The contribution to the debate that I thought was most illustrative was the one from Northern Ireland, from the hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson). He indicated that although the power in question was available there, nobody would wish to use it. That brings us back to the dogma of the SNP in making proposals, as I have said before, either because it sees them as a way of breaking up the UK or simply for the sake of having power.

If Scotland were to have a different time zone from the rest of the home nations, daily transactions between Scotland and the rest of the British Isles would take on an unwanted added complexity. Importantly, it could put Scotland at an economic disadvantage. It could certainly disadvantage my constituents, and those of the hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway and the Secretary of State for Scotland, which should not be countenanced.

The new clause would be detrimental to the Union between the people of Scotland and those of the rest of the UK, which is clearly why it was tabled. It runs contrary to the spirit and effect of the Bill and the views of the Calman commission, which put at the heart of its work the retention of the United Kingdom. Anyone who has a commitment to retaining the UK should oppose the new clause.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Mundell]

I welcome this opportunity to discuss a substantive issue in relation to the Calman commission report and the subsequent Scotland Bill. It compares favourably with some of the discussions and superfluous issues that have been raised by the SNP during the course of the evening.

Hon. Members will know that the Calman commission made a recommendation on food content and labelling which, as the hon. Gentleman has pointed out, is not included in the Bill. I shall set out the Government’s reasons for deciding not to include it, as was made clear in the Command Paper. Although the recommendation seems sensible on paper, it presents a wide range of difficulties in practice, and I shall set those out. As he has said, the Scottish Parliament’s report on the Scotland Bill also sought a fuller explanation for the Government’s position. The commission made the following recommendation:

“The Scottish Parliament should not have the power to legislate on food content and labelling in so far as that legislation would cause a breach of the single market in the UK by placing a burden on the manufacturing, distribution and supply of foodstuffs to consumers, and Schedule 5 to the Scotland Act should be amended accordingly.”

The commission also recommended that the Scottish Parliament’s and Scottish Government’s abilities to deal with public health issues should remain, so the recommendation does not cover this aspect, and the Government fully support that.

Importantly, and rightly, Calman recognised that food content and labelling are almost exclusively regulated at European Union level, so any scope for national flexibility at member state level when implementing this European law is extremely narrow. Hon. Members will know that general and nutritional labelling is currently being recast in a proposed European regulation. The resulting legislation will be directly applicable across the whole of the United Kingdom. A number of other labelling and food standards matters are governed by European directives.

Even where no specific food-related legislation has been adopted at European Union level, free movement principles mean that any food which can be lawfully sold in any member state must be able to be sold throughout the United Kingdom, and vice versa. Significantly, single market rules seeking to avoid barriers to trade being erected apply equally to rules applied in just one part of a member state. Any national measure would need to be notified at member state level, and clearance would need to be obtained from the European Commission before adoption. Before seeking such clearance, consideration would always need to be given to the potential for any disruptive impact within the United Kingdom.

I emphasise to right hon. and hon. Members that the Scottish Parliament is already in a position where it cannot legislate to set particular Scottish standards for food content in cases where that would breach the single European market or supplement existing European regulations. The Scotland Act prohibits the Scottish Parliament from legislating in a way that is incompatible with Community law, and Scottish Ministers have no power to carry out any executive act which is incompatible with that law—to do so would be ultra vires and any such act would have no effect.

It is relevant to the Calman commission’s recommendation that member states may restrict the free movement of goods in exceptional and limited cases. One example where that might be possible is if the Scottish Parliament were to need to take action for the purposes of public health. Again, however, Calman did not suggest any restrictions in this area. The Government are aware of only two instances where Scottish food legislation imposes different requirements from those that apply in England. First, the sale of raw milk or cream for direct human consumption is banned in Scotland but permitted, subject to certain restrictions, in England—European legislation specifically allows that. Secondly, the rules regarding food storage temperature control requirements are much more detailed in England than in Scotland. Both those differences predate Scotland’s ability to make its own legislation and both relate to food safety, not general food labelling or standards. That suggests to the Government that there is not a substantial problem to be addressed. There is therefore no need, in our view, to amend the Scotland Act.

Amending schedule 5 to the Act poses a number of possibly insurmountable problems, at the root of which is the fact that the Calman commission’s recommendation seeks to address a particular effect of legislation—that is, the breach of a single market. The purpose test that applies to the reserved matters in schedule 5 to the Act requires both the purpose and the effect of a provision to be taken into account. It is therefore possible for a provision to have an effect on a reserved matter and yet not relate to it when the purpose test is applied. Simply including a matter in schedule 5 does not guarantee that it can never be affected by legislation that is in the competence of the Scottish Parliament.

There is no precedent for enabling the Scottish Parliament to legislate on a matter provided that its legislation only has certain effects. Even if it were possible to create a new type of reserved matter, there would still be problems. Indeed, any such measure would depend on a definition of what is meant by the United Kingdom single market, which is a concept at the heart of Calman’s recommendation. Furthermore, any amendment of the Scotland Act would create a divergence between the different countries of the United Kingdom as the devolved institutions in Northern Ireland and Wales are not subject to equivalent restrictions.

To summarise, although Scottish Parliament legislation of the type that Calman’s recommendation is designed to prevent is theoretically possible, it is highly unlikely. The likelihood of the Scottish Parliament’s legislating on food content and labelling in a field where exemptions can be found from single market legislation and where any applicable European regulations can be simultaneously disapplied is very limited. The likelihood of its doing so for purposes that are not related to legitimate actions in the field of public health is extremely low.

Finally, any national measures on labelling or content where a member state may be able to act would need to be notified to the European Commission at member state level.

[Mr Davidson]

May I seek guidance from the Minister? If we have a vote on this matter, will all Unionist Members be voting at 10 o’clock and the nationalist Members be voting on the 13.14 principle at quarter past 11?

[David Mundell]

That is a very good point. One thing that always interests me about those who promote the time change is that they rarely seek to refer to it as central European time and the imposition of time from Europe on the rest of the—

Scotland Bill

Debate between David Mundell and Ian Davidson

Monday 7th March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Davidson]

We have to ask ourselves a fairly simple question about when the count is held: for whose convenience are elections run? There is a view, very strongly held, that elections are run for the convenience of returning officers. I do not take that view; I tend to think that people generally want elections run for their convenience. A tradition has developed over a long period, whereby those who do not follow an election overnight wake up in the morning and hear the result, and I see no good reason why we should not make that stipulation. Of course professionals and those who are competent at, and have experience in, running elections should have a say in how polls are carried out, but they should not be the tail that wags the dog.

That is one of the issues, however, because if we have an election management board, with the role of the Electoral Commission being brought into question, it must be under democratic control; it must not be self-employed and able to set its own rules according to its own convenience, because its view of what is best will often be determined by self-interest.

I understand, however, that the Government are about to announce a change in the rules about the announcement of by-elections, so that when the Government, particularly the minority governing party, have a successful result along the lines of that in Barnsley, it will be announced some two days after hell freezes over. That does not seem to be an appropriate outcome. Not only did the junior partner in the coalition—this cuts coalition—come sixth; it has been suggested that it came sixth only because the Scottish National party was not standing, and that support for the SNP in Barnsley would have been far greater than that for the Liberals. I can understand that.

I was interested to see that the UK Independence party—basically the British National party with suits—beat the Conservatives, which again tells us something significant. People do find that quite exciting and stimulating. I want to ensure, however, that the Government’s position is that two ballots should not be conducted at the same time, because, unless the Government change their mind, the Scottish Parliament elections and the AV referendum will be held on the same day. I hope that we can secure the commitment that they will be counted separately, because most of us want to see the Liberals get a kicking twice, and it would greatly spoil our enjoyment if the results came out at the same time. People in Scotland want to be able to say no to separation, no to cuts, no to the coalition and no to AV, and they need the announcements to be clearly separated.

Finally on the issue of delay, I am old enough to have read about John F. Kennedy’s presidential election. The result turned on Illinois, and in Illinois the result turned on Chicago. Chicago, despite being an urban area, was about the last area to announce its vote, because the Democrats held the results back until they found out how many votes they needed to win that state and, hence, the American presidential election. Thankfully, we have always been free of any such suggestion in this country, but it will be considered a possibility if there is any undue delay. It is therefore important to proceed with the count as quickly as possible.

I would like to remind people of the excitement that they, too, felt when they heard the result of the Barnsley by-election. I do not know whether I have mentioned this, but the junior partner in the coalition did not come anywhere close; in fact, it was sixth. I do not have the figures with me, but I suspect that it was only the votes of a couple of households, and the fact that the SNP did not stand, that stopped it coming 10th out of nine candidates.

[David Mundell]

I welcome you to the Chair, Mr Evans. It is always a pleasure to follow the Chairman of the Scottish Affairs Committee. I thank the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Tom Greatrex) for his good advice, which, as he said, he garnered during his sentence at the Scotland Office.

While Ms Primarolo was in the Chair, Mr Evans, I tried to seek some guidance on the SNP position in respect of this Bill, because, as those of us who were present during its Second Reading will know, the SNP declared it to be unacceptable. However, I am afraid that that clarity was not forthcoming.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Davidson]

Does the Minister believe that it is right that elected Members of Parliament should have to lobby an unelected bureaucrat about the way in which the elections should be conducted? I appreciate that the change in the rule will not apply to this year’s elections, but it is unfortunate that we have got ourselves into a position whereby the best that the Minister can suggest is that we go along and lobby a bureaucrat, no matter how worthy.

[David Mundell]

The hon. Gentleman will recognise that since it was first suggested that few overnight counts would take place in Scotland for the election of 5 May, the number has grown significantly, partly because of the expression of public opinion. Today’s debate and some of the eloquent contributions that we have heard will further reinforce that. Passing the amendment this evening will not move the matter forward because it will have no impact on the count.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between David Mundell and Ian Davidson

Wednesday 1st December 2010 Commons Chamber

[David Mundell]

Indeed, I am happy to meet the hon. Lady and any colleagues. It is important to say, though, that many military personnel are treated extremely well in non-military hospitals in Scotland, where they are closer to their friends and family.

[Mr Ian Davidson (Glasgow South West) (Lab/Co-op)]

11. What recent assessment he has made of trends in the level of employment in Scotland; and if he will make a statement.

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Debate between David Mundell and Ian Davidson

Tuesday 12th October 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Davidson]

We were never promising it on the same day.

Let me deal with the question of contamination. Many previous speakers have indicated the way in which they believe the debate will be contaminated in Scotland because of the spill-over. As time goes on, the main focus of debate will not be on the minutiae of the AV referendum; it will be on the impact when the AV referendum is lost by the Liberals. Will the coalition split? What price will they then demand as a reward, because what they got as a reward before will have come to naught? That will be a matter of immense focus, certainly in Scotland, and I am sure elsewhere. The collapse of the coalition only a year into a Government will be of considerable significance, not only in Scotland, but in Britain and across the world. That will be the main focus of attention and will overwhelm the coverage of the Scottish election.

Some of my colleagues, particularly the Alliance Member, the hon. Member for Belfast East (Naomi Long), spoke about the difficulties of joint campaigning on the referendum. While MPs never usually take the fact that something has been said already as an excuse not to repeat it, on this occasion she has said it perfectly adequately so I will refrain from doing so. But there will also be—a point that she did not touch on particularly—confusion about costs. There will be two elections in Scotland, one for the first-past-the-post seats and one for the list seats, and then there will be referendum. People involved in both those elections will be campaigning on behalf of their parties in both elections and on the yes and no side, and there will be cross-cutting cleavages. The process of allocating expenditure will be almost impossible, I should have thought.

Many of us in Scotland are aware—I am glad to see in his place the right hon. Member for Ettrick, Lauderdale and Tweeddale—is it?

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

indicated dissent.

[Mr Davidson]

Ettrick, Tweeddale and Lauderdale? No? Well, whatever seat he has, it is quite a big and complicated seat to describe, which is perhaps an excuse for why he was unable to fill in his expenses properly. One can imagine how difficult it will be in that constituency when not only are they filling in the expenses for the first-past-the-post seat and the list seat, but the referendum as well. I wish him well in resolving his difficulties, but one can imagine the problems there being replicated all over the country, with the scope for legal actions and threats. They are enormous. On those grounds alone, if there were not so many other grounds to do so, we should be supporting the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin) and opposing the idea of having these elections on the same day.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between David Mundell and Ian Davidson

Wednesday 16th June 2010 Commons Chamber

[David Mundell]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his warm welcome. He will already know that the Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport has set out his clear objective of turning Britain into a digital economy. The hon. Gentleman specified with clarity the needs of rural areas, for which the Secretary of State and I will continue to fight within Government.

[Mr Ian Davidson (Glasgow South West) (Lab/Co-op)]

I congratulate the new Ministers on taking office. However, I draw to the House’s attention the fact that they are huddled together in one section of the country; I hope that they will, at times, travel out to look at other parts of the country, including my own constituency.

What actions have been taken so far to ensure that any expenditure reduction does not result in a cut or a delay in the aircraft carriers upon which so much of the economy of the west of Scotland, and Scotland as a whole, depends?

[David Mundell]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his elevation to the chairmanship of the Scottish Affairs Committee, on which I was pleased to serve with him. I am sure that he will bring his own distinct style to the Committee’s proceedings.

As the hon. Gentleman will know, this Government’s position on the aircraft carriers is, despite attempts to suggest otherwise, no different from that of the previous Government. There is to be a strategic defence review. The nuclear deterrent is excluded from that review, and it would be wrong to prejudge the review in any other way, other than to say that sea-borne defence is obviously very important to this country.