Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between David Mundell and Jim McGovern

Wednesday 25th February 2015 Commons Chamber

[David Mundell]

I do not think that the 32,620 people who have found work through the Work programme would agree with the hon. Lady’s assessment. It is now time for her party to come forward with its proposals for an alternative to the Work programme, rather than just criticising the Government and calling for more powers. This Government have given a commitment to effect a transition to such a programme, but first we need to know what it will be.

[Jim McGovern (Dundee West) (Lab)]

11. The Work programme is obviously failing in my constituency and in the city of Dundee as a whole, where only one in seven participants actually get a job. What will the Minister do to address that problem?

[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%.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between David Mundell and Jim McGovern

Wednesday 26th November 2014 Commons Chamber

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

The Government support businesses that choose to pay the living wage, where it is affordable and does not cost jobs. Decisions on what wages to set, above the national minimum wage, are for employers and workers. However, we encourage employers to pay the living wage where possible.

[Jim McGovern]

Last week, Glasgow Celtic, the football club that I support—indeed, I am a season ticket holder—announced that anyone working there who was not on the living wage would be put on to it. That will mean a major increase for many of the club’s employees. Where Celtic leads, many others follow. We have only to look back to 1967 when Celtic became the first British club to win the European cup. They were followed, famously, by Manchester United in 1968—

[Jim McGovern]

What can the Minister do to ensure that more organisations and major employers in Scotland pay the living wage?

[David Mundell]

On this occasion, I share the hon. Gentleman’s view that where Celtic football club has led, others should follow. We want to encourage all employers who are in a position to do so to pay the living wage.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between David Mundell and Jim McGovern

Wednesday 2nd July 2014 Commons Chamber

[Jim McGovern (Dundee West) (Lab)]

4. What assessment his Department has made of the effect of the regional air connectivity fund on Scotland.

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

The regional air connectivity fund was announced by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury last year and was doubled to £20 million in the Budget. It has already been successful in securing the air link between Dundee and London, a vital support for economic growth in the hon. Gentleman’s great city.

[Jim McGovern]

I thank the Minister for that answer. Some £2.8 million came from the UK Government to retain the air link between London and Dundee. Is that not just one more example, albeit a crucial one for Dundee, of why Scotland is stronger as part of the UK?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between David Mundell and Jim McGovern

Wednesday 11th September 2013 Commons Chamber

[Jim McGovern (Dundee West) (Lab)]

5. What discussions he has had with Ministers of the Scottish Government on the use of zero-hours contracts in Scotland.

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

There is no single legal definition of zero-hours contracts and it is not possible to get reliable estimates. The issue was discussed at the Scottish employability forum last week by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, the Scottish Cabinet Secretary for Finance, Employment and Sustainable Growth and a range of Scottish stakeholders.

[David Mundell]

It is important that our work force remain flexible, but it is also important that they are treated fairly. Officials from the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills have undertaken work over the summer better to understand how the contract works in practice, with a view to taking action if widespread abuse is found.

[Jim McGovern]

In June, the Scottish Trades Union Congress and the Scottish Government published, following an analysis, a report saying that more than 250,000 people in Scotland are underemployed. Many of them are on zero-hours contracts and the overwhelming majority of them do not want to be. What are the Government doing to address this scandal? As an afterthought, perhaps the Minister could tell us how many people in his Department are on zero-hours contracts.

[David Mundell]

The hon. Gentleman will know that the Scotland Office does not directly employ any members of the Department, as I have already confirmed in response to a parliamentary question about zero-hours contracts. As I have just indicated to the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Gregg McClymont), we take this issue seriously. That is why BIS officials have been reviewing the operation of the contracts, and I very much welcome the Scottish Affairs Committee inquiry, which will perhaps provide greater illumination on the specific situation in Scotland.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between David Mundell and Jim McGovern

Wednesday 26th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[Jim McGovern (Dundee West) (Lab)]

1. What recent discussions he has had with Ministers in the Scottish Government on blacklisting in Scotland.

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

I regularly meet Scottish Government Ministers to discuss a wide range of issues. I commend the work of the Scottish Affairs Committee on investigating the deplorable activity of blacklisting. The Committee’s final report will be given careful consideration by the Government when it is published.

[Jim McGovern]

I thank the Minister for his response. Perhaps the most ridiculous case of blacklisting that I am aware of is that of the late great Dundonian, Mr Syd Scroggie. He lost a leg and the sight in both his eyes serving his country during the second world war. He found himself on a blacklist. What was his crime? He had written to The Scotsman newspaper to commend the then Dundee district council for buying a portrait of Nelson Mandela. Will the Minister liaise with the Scottish Government to ensure that the odious practice of blacklisting is wiped out?

[David Mundell]

When the Scottish Affairs Committee report is published, I will undertake to discuss its recommendations with the appropriate Scottish Government Ministers.

Unemployment in Scotland

Debate between David Mundell and Jim McGovern

Wednesday 5th December 2012 Westminster Hall

[David Mundell]

No, I want to deal with the issue of Jillian McGovern and address the concerns raised by the hon. Member for Dundee West (Jim McGovern) about the Department for Work and Pensions. I would be pleased to hear more about what did not happen in that regard, because I have a high regard for the DWP’s work in Scotland. Every single day in Scotland, the DWP deals with an average of 1,500 new job vacancies; conducts some 7,000 jobcentre adviser interviews; receives more than 82,000 searches for Jobcentre Plus job vacancies; and helps an average of more than 1,000 people move into work. The DWP is playing an important role, and if any Member has examples of that not working for their constituents, we want to know about them.

I have asked for a report on why Dundee city council appears at the very bottom of the report on the Work programme, and it is important to understand that, but I want to try to dispel two myths. The shadow Minister sought to perpetuate the myth that, somehow, the youth unemployment issues are a direct result of this Government’s policies. Youth unemployment is a serious issue about which we should all be concerned. As the right hon. Member for South Shields (David Miliband) has said, youth unemployment started to become a problem in this country in 2004; it is not a product of the current Government. We all have to do more to work with employers to encourage them to take on young people.

[Jim McGovern]

Will the Minister give way?

[David Mundell]

No, I want to conclude this point, because it is very important. Youth unemployment is a scourge, and we all have a part to play in dealing with it. There is a serious attitudinal problem among employers about taking on young people. They think that if they take on a young person—this is particularly the case with small and medium-sized businesses—that will create hassle and difficulty for them. We have to feed back to them that taking on a young person is a positive thing. We have to encourage employers to take a more positive attitude to bringing young people into work.

Referendum (Scotland)

Debate between David Mundell and Jim McGovern

Monday 15th October 2012 Commons Chamber

[David Mundell]

The hon. Lady’s colleagues in the Scottish Parliament will have the opportunity to highlight that point, and of course if any proposals are not in accordance with the legislative framework for other issues, they cannot stand.

[Jim McGovern (Dundee West) (Lab)]

Given the responses to at least three of my hon. Friends’ questions about the question, it would appear that the measures outlined in the memorandum of understanding lead the UK Government to believe that a fair and clear question will be presented to the people of Scotland, but obviously some of us on the Opposition Benches have our doubts. If a dubious question is put, will it be open to legal challenge?

Public Sector Pensions

Debate between David Mundell and Jim McGovern

Thursday 8th December 2011 Commons Chamber

[David Mundell]

I do realise that—and that may be the only point on which I agree with the hon. Lady.

I thank the hon. Member for Arfon (Hywel Williams) for opening the debate. He spoke for about 20 minutes, and in that time he at least said exactly the same about Scottish National party policy on this issue as was revealed in a two-and-a-half-hour debate in the Scottish Parliament last week, which was precisely nothing. I will return to that subject.

As the hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Sheila Gilmore) has already mentioned, no Member would disagree with the following sentiments in the motion:

“That this House recognises and appreciates the valuable work done by public sector workers”

and

“believes that they should receive pensions which are affordable, sustainable and fair”.

Indeed, those sentiments form the foundations of our reform of public service pensions. Our objective is to put in place new schemes that are affordable, sustainable and fair both to taxpayers and public service workers. Let us be clear: public service pension reform is needed. The costs have increased by a third in the last 10 years, to £32 billion, and the Office for Budget Responsibility forecasts that, without reform, spending on pensions will rise by almost £7 billion over the next five years.

Understandably, this is a contentious issue, but fairness remains the cornerstone of our approach. We believe that public service workers deserve a good pension in retirement, as a fair reward for a lifetime spent serving the public. We recognise the vital contributions made by teachers, nurses, council employees and civil servants to the well-being of our society now and in the future.

That is why in June 2010 my right hon. Friend the Chancellor commissioned Lord Hutton, a Work and Pensions Secretary in the previous Government, to take an unbiased and clear-headed look at public service pensions and make proposals for reform. His landmark report has set the parameters of the debate, and it has been rightly lauded for its depth and vision.

Lord Hutton set out an overwhelming case for reform. He said that

“the status quo is not tenable”,

that

“future costs are inherently uncertain”,

and that at present the public

“cannot be sure that schemes will remain sustainable in the future.”

In his interim report, he found that there was a clear justification, based on the past cost increases borne by the taxpayer, to increase contributions in the short term to ensure a fairer distribution of costs between taxpayers and members. We accepted that recommendation, and increases in member contributions will take place, starting next year. However, next year’s increase merely reflects the increase already planned by the previous Government. We remain committed to securing in full the overall savings of £2.3 billion in 2013-14 and £2.8 billion in 2014-15 that we announced at the 2010 spending review.

In his final report, Lord Hutton produced a blueprint for a new landscape of public service pensions. It is based on retaining defined-benefit schemes but moving to a fairer career-average basis, and increasing the retirement age in line with the state pension age to protect the taxpayer against future increases in life expectancy.

[Jim McGovern (Dundee West) (Lab)]

Presumably the Minister is talking about UK public sector pension schemes, whereas the motion seems to be specifically about devolved pension schemes. Does he agree that if there is a solution, it will be that the separatists in Edinburgh just say, “We won’t apply any changes”? Does he also agree that their excuse of continually saying, “The big bad boy in London did it” and then running away is wearing thin?

[David Mundell]

On that point, I can agree with the hon. Gentleman. The Scottish Government have considerable flexibility to make their own choices, but they have chosen not to do so.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between David Mundell and Jim McGovern

Wednesday 14th September 2011 Commons Chamber

[Jim McGovern (Dundee West) (Lab)]

1. What recent discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions on Remploy’s operations in Scotland.

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

The Government are totally committed to supporting disabled people into employment, and the amount of money going into that is being protected. A consultation event on the future strategy of Remploy is taking place in Glasgow today, and Remploy staff have been invited to attend.

[Jim McGovern]

As job losses continue to increase in my constituency, can the Minister say whether he intends to engage with the Department for Work and Pensions to ensure that the Remploy jobs in Dundee are protected?

[David Mundell]

I can assure the hon. Gentleman, who is a doughty fighter for Remploy, that no decisions have been made. I understand that he attended a meeting in the Scottish Parliament organised by Helen Eadie MSP that undertook to submit a response to the consultation on Remploy, and that response will be welcome.

Scotland Bill

Debate between David Mundell and Jim McGovern

Monday 7th March 2011 Commons Chamber

[David Mundell]

I think the returning officer has some option, but the hon. Gentleman raises an important and relevant point about the multiple electoral systems operated in Scotland. I had just mentioned that Scottish council by-elections, which are another example of polls that could be held on the same day as the AV referendum, take place under a form of the alternative vote rather than the single transferable vote.

[Jim McGovern]

Is it not the case that we are effectively putting a price on democracy by saying that it is simply cheaper to have all the polls on the same day?

[David Mundell]

I do not believe that is an accurate summation of the position. The clause allows for the combining of polls and the amendment suggests that they should not be combined. However, I do not accept that the amendment is successful in that regard.

If new clause 7 is designed to avoid having a poll at a scheduled Scottish Parliament election following on or close to the date of the poll for an early parliamentary election held under clause 2 of the Fixed-term Parliaments Bill, it does not work, as I have said. By its very nature, an early parliamentary general election held under clause 2 will take place at short notice following either a motion of the House that there should be such an election, or at the end of the 14-day period after a motion of no confidence.

In the unlikely event that a Prime Minister were to decide on a campaign period of at least six weeks before the date of poll at the early parliamentary general election, which would be the minimum to ensure that the Scottish Parliament had not already dissolved, the parties taking part in the Scottish parliamentary general election would have already gone to significant expense in preparing campaign literature and making other arrangements, as would returning officers. All that would be wasted if the Scottish Parliament then decided to change the date of poll. Returning officers might also have started the nomination processes and, depending on timing, might have already entered into contracts for printing and accommodation, the costs of which would, again, be wasted.

Constitutional Law

Debate between David Mundell and Jim McGovern

Wednesday 24th November 2010 Commons Chamber

[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.

[Jim McGovern (Dundee West) (Lab)]

I am a member of the Scottish Affairs Committee, as the Minister is aware, and I cannot remember us saying that we recommended that the referendum and the Scottish elections should take place on the same day. I am quite sure that the Committee would have been against that. Notwithstanding that, on the subject of the alternative vote, is he prepared to say how he personally might vote?

[David Mundell]

I am very clear that I will be voting no in the AV referendum.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between David Mundell and Jim McGovern

Wednesday 21st July 2010 Commons Chamber

[Jim McGovern (Dundee West) (Lab)]

8. What discussions he has had with the Chancellor of the Exchequer on tax relief for the computer games industry in Scotland; and if he will make a statement.

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

My right hon. Friend is meeting the hon. Gentleman and representatives from the industry next week to discuss how best to stimulate further growth and expansion in this important sector.

[Jim McGovern]

We are actually meeting tomorrow, not next week. How can the Government justify a £110 million tax break for the film industry, but not allow a £50 million tax break for Dundee and the games industry?

[David Mundell]

I am glad that the Government are dealing with the issues that the hon. Gentleman raises with even more urgency. As he knows, the major package of reforms to business taxation in the Budget is designed to make the UK the most competitive tax regime in the G20 and that will substantially help the video games industry.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between David Mundell and Jim McGovern

Wednesday 16th June 2010 Commons Chamber

[David Mundell]

I am sure that trade unions in Scotland will share the Chancellor’s view that we are all in this together.

[Jim McGovern (Dundee West) (Lab)]

May I, too, welcome the Secretary of State to his new post? I am sure he is aware that his predecessor in the previous Government visited my constituency on a number of occasions to see at first hand the importance of the computer games industry in Dundee. The former Chancellor gave a commitment in his Budget to tax breaks for that industry. Can the Minister guarantee that the Government of whom he is now a member will honour that commitment?

[Mr Speaker]

Order. If the Minister could hear that, he has very good hearing. May I make an appeal to the House? I know that it is in a state of eager anticipation of Prime Minister’s questions, but it is very unfair to the Member on his or her feet, and to the Minister. Let us have a bit of order. That is what the public expect.