Scotland Bill
Eilidh Whiteford Excerpts(8 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dr Eilidh Whiteford (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
I rise to speak to the amendments tabled by my hon. Friends and I, and I am just sorry that we do not have more time to debate them more fully this evening. Like the Secretary of State, I have a sense of déjà vu, because many of the amendments tabled today are very similar to those we debated in Committee. So far, the Government have accepted only one Opposition amendment to the Bill, but we have at last seen Government amendments being tabled in the last few days that will take us a wee bit closer to what was originally pledged.
I welcome the Government’s tacit admission that the Bill as it stood failed to meet the letter or the spirit of the Smith recommendations. I welcome many of the belated amendments, including the lead new clause and the amendment on abortion that we debated earlier, because they address some of the Bill’s most obvious shortcomings. However, the SNP’s amendments in this group—there are more than quite a few of them—seek to equip the Scottish Parliament with the powers it needs to build a fairer society, strengthen employment prospects, improve governance and create a better future for our people.
No issue encapsulates why we need home rule better than that of tax credits. That is why we have tabled new clause 18, which would amend schedule 5 to the Scotland Act 1998 to devolve to the Scottish Parliament the power to make provision for child tax credit and working tax credit—
Dr Whiteford
Perhaps a bit later.
I intend to test the will of the House on the new clause later. More than any other in recent times, the issue of tax credits highlights the contrast between a UK Government who are willing to put low-income families with children on the frontline in their ideological war of austerity and a Scottish Government determined to tackle inequality and to give those children a decent start in life.
John Stevenson (Carlisle) (Con)
If the SNP ever had control of tax credits, would it increase income tax to pay for them?
Dr Whiteford
I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has asked that question so early. Had he been listening to events in the Scottish Parliament last week he would know that Nicola Sturgeon has made clear commitments to mitigate the impact—
Dr Whiteford
Let me answer this question.
Nicola Sturgeon has made a clear commitment to mitigate the impact of the tax credit changes, but—like the Prime Minister—she is in the dark about the exact proposals. George seems to be still writing them on the back of an envelope. We are clear that it will not be possible to quantify them for two and a half weeks yet.
Dr Whiteford
I will not give way at the moment as I want to make some progress, but I will come back to this and take more interventions.
The changes announced by the Chancellor have the power to cut the incomes of 4.5 million families across the UK. The SNP has been resolute and consistent in its opposition to those cuts. I wish the same could be said of other parties in this House.
Melanie Onn
I thank the hon. Lady for her sorority in giving way. The Scottish Government have accepted that the Bill gives them the power to restore the money lost from the Tories’ tax credit cuts. Will she commit the Scottish Government to restoring in full the money lost from tax credit cuts?
Dr Whiteford
The hon. Lady really needs to stop reading her briefing sheet and listen to the debate. It is simply wrong to ask those in the lowest paid jobs, bringing up their children on very tight budgets, to pay the lion’s share of the price for the economic failures of successive UK Governments.
As the UK Government’s tax credit proposals stand, 250,000 working households in Scotland will lose on average £1,500 a year each from April. In the longer term, once all the tax credit changes have been fully implemented—including the restrictions under the two-child policy—many of those families will lose up to £3,000 a year each. That is not pocket money: it represents an enormous proportion of household income and will cause real deprivation and hardship.
Ian Murray
I am delighted that the hon. Lady has given way, but she did not quite answer the question put to her by my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Melanie Onn). Is the hon. Lady committing tonight to restore all the losses from the pernicious tax credit cuts by this Tory Government? Her party voted against that in the Scottish Parliament last week.
Dr Whiteford
I really wish that the shadow Secretary of State had voted against the tax credit proposals when they came before this House on 20 July, because that would have killed them dead. Labour Members did not, however, and that is why we are back where we are. Nicola Sturgeon has made it crystal clear that she intends to bring forward costed, credible plans once the autumn statement has been made.
For low-paid working families, tax credits are an essential source of income. They put food on the table and shoes on the feet of children. They heat homes during winter. By the end of this Parliament, the Government’s proposed tax credit cuts would take £3.2 billion out of the Scottish economy from the pockets of the poorest families. That will undermine economic recovery. The austerity measures already enacted are set to push 100,000 more children in Scotland into poverty by 2020. Under the tax credit measures, 350,000 Scottish youngsters are set to lose out further. No wonder the Tories have abandoned any attempt at measuring child poverty.
There is a broad consensus in Scotland that cutting tax credits is the wrong thing to do. Even the leader of the Tory party in Scotland has called for a rethink and said that it is wrong for low-paid workers to lose out. It is recognised that the proposals will disincentivise work, hit children who are already disadvantaged and punish those in lower paid jobs.
The House of Lords put a proper spanner in the works of the proposals the other week, when it forced the Government back to the drawing board on their tax credit plans. Like millions of families across the UK who are facing uncertainty, we are all in a degree of limbo at the moment. We will have to wait until the autumn statement to learn what the Government intend to bring forward to make their plans more palatable to their own Back Benchers, who seem rather thin on the ground tonight.
We in the SNP have been very consistent in our opposition to tax credit changes. We have made the case at every single opportunity for alternatives to regressive austerity cuts. We will continue to fight tax credits tooth and nail in this House to force the Government into a climbdown. I hope we can rely on the support of other Opposition parties to stand firm, too. Labour abstained on 20 July, when we debated the general principles of the Welfare Reform and Work Bill that ushered in these proposals. The Government’s new clause 34, tabled last Wednesday, represents some progress. I am grateful for that, because it acknowledges that there was a veto and it manages to deal with that to some extent. New clause 34 would partially mitigate the impact of the tax credit cuts, but our new clause 18 is much stronger. It would fully devolve control of our tax credits to the Scottish Parliament, including eligibility thresholds and tapers. Government new clause 34 will give the Scottish Parliament the power to top up benefits. That is fine as far as it goes, but it will be no help whatever to those people who have lost their tax credits entirely as a consequence of the changes. If someone is not in receipt of a benefit, it cannot be topped up.
Patrick Grady
Is my hon. Friend aware that in Committee the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions refused to give a guarantee that, if the Scottish Government did top up benefits, especially tax credits, that money would not be taken away as if it was extra earned income?
Dr Whiteford
My hon. Friend makes a critical point. We have not had clarity from the Government that they will not means-test the top-ups. I am looking forward to clarification from the Secretary of State for Scotland tonight. [Interruption.] I am glad he is nodding and confirming that that is the case.
About 80,000 families in Scotland are going to lose entitlement altogether under the existing proposals. That is roughly the same number as were affected by the bedroom tax in Scotland. The Scottish Parliament may have the power to create a new benefit, but that seems an inordinately complex way to go about things. It is theoretically possible but, like the bedroom tax mitigation, the money would have to be found from other devolved budgets. It would be an admission from the Government that their proposals have not worked.
As I have said, Nicola Sturgeon has made it absolutely clear that she will bring forward proposals. Labour Members need to be clear tonight: will they back our new clause 18? Will they once again cosy up with the Tories, or will they sit on their hands in the face of crushing austerity cuts coming down the line?
Several hon. Members rose—
Dr Whiteford
I am very conscious of time and I need to move on.
The bottom line is that we would rather not be at the mercy of the UK Government. I would rather that we had the powers in Scotland not simply to mitigate the worst side effects of Tory policies, but to develop better alternatives.
With the very limited welfare powers in the Bill, the Scottish Government have already made a range of commitments about how they will use them and develop ways forward. They have committed to ensuring that carer’s allowance matches jobseeker’s allowance; to abolishing the bedroom tax; to replacing the Work programme, which is just not working; and to using the flexibilities in universal credit to offer people more choice about how they manage the money, and they have consulted more than 70 stakeholders about how the new powers can best be used in the interests of our people.
Our new clause 19 would devolve control over employment rights and industrial relations, including trade union law—another area where the Bill falls far short of the Smith commission recommendations. Once again, the new clause is extremely topical, given that tomorrow we will conclude our consideration of the Trade Union Bill. Last week, I met trade union members from my constituency who left me in no doubt about the harm the Bill could do to industrial relations in Scotland and throughout the UK. By contrast, the new clause would allow the Scottish Government to take a different approach and maintain the benefits of the largely stable and constructive relations we have in Scotland.
Chris Stephens
Will my hon. Friend confirm that Scotland’s workers’ parliament, the STUC general council, supports the devolution of employment law and industrial relations? One reason for that is so that we can do more work with the Scottish fair work convention and stop the scandalous situation of 46,540 cases of unfair treatment in the workplace?
Dr Whiteford
My hon. Friend makes a pertinent and important point. In calling for the transfer of powers of employment law, health and safety, trade union law and the minimum wage, the STUC has noted the appetite in Scotland for reducing income inequality and the desire to forge a more positive relationship with trade unions.
Dr Whiteford
I will not give way because I am conscious of time and we have a lot of amendments to get through.
It is inevitable that Governments will face tough negotiations with employee representatives from time to time, and there will sometimes be disagreements, but we should not lose sight of the enormously beneficial role that trade unions have played in the past and the present day in encouraging fair work and wages, good employment practices and improved working environments.
Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)
What happened to the great trade union saying, “Workers of the world unite”?
Dr Whiteford
The hon. Gentleman should address that question to the STUC, because it is the one calling for the devolution of these powers.
Dr Whiteford
I will not because I just gave way.
The Scottish Government see trade unions as key social partners and an important part of civil society. It is not okay for the UK Government to restrict trade unions’ ability to represent their members effectively, so I will oppose the Bill tomorrow, but we also need those powers devolved. Tonight, we have an opportunity to do that.
I have tabled several new clauses and amendments on employment and social security, not all of which I have adequate time to talk about fully tonight, but our new clause 22 would devolve employment support programmes to the Scottish Parliament and would complement existing provisions in the Bill. At present, there are significant restrictions on employment support in the Bill, particularly regarding programmes that last at least 12 months, and their full devolution would enable the Scottish Government to take more coherent, stronger and earlier action to support people into work.
Our new clause 23 would devolve all the working-age benefits to be replaced by universal credit and any benefit introduced to replace universal credit. Civic Scotland has overwhelmingly said that social security powers should be in the hands of the Scottish Parliament, to allow us to tailor policies in line with our own priorities and values and to enable us to protect children and low-income families under attack by the UK Government. The full devolution of universal credit would allow us to establish a much fairer social security system for Scotland.
Our new clause 24 would broaden the powers of administrative flexibilities over universal credit and devolve power over the conditionality and sanctions regime. The SNP has consistently highlighted the shortcomings of the sanctions regime and its manifest failure to protect some of the most vulnerable people in our communities —we have all witnessed the unacceptable explosion in the number of food banks in the last couple of years, which is its most obvious symptom. The Government know perfectly well that the system is not working, which is why they have announced changes, including the new pilot scheme, in recent days, but they are tinkering around the edges of a punitive, bureaucratic and inhumane sanctions regime that is driving sick and vulnerable people to destitution and despair.
The Scotland Bill is our opportunity to take these powers into Scotland’s hands. All progressive forces should join the growing calls from the third sector to deliver a more effective approach. Leaving powers on sanctions and conditionality in the hands of the Tories is simply not good enough.
Our new clause 27 would amend schedule 5 to the Scotland Act 1998 and give the Scottish Parliament competence for equal opportunities in their entirety. Taken with the SNP’s other amendments on gender quotas and equality—amendments 169, 171, 157 and 172 to 175—the new clause would give the Scottish Parliament the powers to improve equality provisions in Scotland, including through legislation and regulation.
Angela Crawley
Does my hon. Friend agree with me and the Equality and Human Rights Commission that devolving power over all equalities to the Scottish Parliament will enable it to legislate to give people an ability to do things that they have never had before?
Dr Whiteford
My hon. Friend makes her point well. I note that in the previous debate we talked quite a bit about the Human Rights Act and the role that it, too, plays in securing equalities.
Jo Stevens
Can the hon. Lady explain to the House how devolving employment law will work? How will trade union recognition work in practice where there are cross-border bargaining units or collective redundancies spanning both jurisdictions?
Dr Whiteford
The hon. Lady needs to remember that a great deal of the public sector is already devolved and these issues have been worked out. We already have devolution of a whole range of public services, with some issues negotiated at a national level and some at a UK-wide level, so her point seems rather redundant, frankly.
The Scottish Parliament has a good track record of advancing progressive equality measures, and our proposals would enable further progress in gender, disability, LGBTI and race equality—for instance, by improving protections from discrimination and by ensuring a more balanced representation of women in public life and on boards. It is worth pointing out that the full devolution of equality and equal opportunities has been supported by leading equality organisations such as Engender, Inclusion Scotland, the Equality Network and the Coalition for Racial Equality and Rights, whose executive director, Jatin Haria, said:
“Devolution brings power closer to people—and this is particularly important for marginalised and discriminated groups. In addition, many areas which intersect with equality law are already devolved and different in Scotland (e.g. policing or health) and further devolution of equality legislation would better allow the Scottish Parliament to push for specific outcomes which could lead to real improvements in the life chances and experiences for all people living in Scotland.”
New clause 28 and amendment 168 relate to the vexed and long-standing question of the Crown Estate. Amendment 168 would leave out clause 31 and new clause 28 would replace it. Clause 31 is not true to the spirit of the Smith commission, which recommended the full devolution of responsibility for the management of the Crown Estate’s economic assets in Scotland, including the Crown Estate’s seabed, and mineral and fishing rights, and the revenue generated from these assets. Clause 31 is also overly complicated and excludes certain Crown Estate assets, such as Fort Kinnaird, over which my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East (Tommy Sheppard) has raised concerns.
Tommy Sheppard
One of the largest investments of the Crown Estate in Scotland is in the Fort Kinnaird retail park in Edinburgh East. I have been pressing the Secretary of State on why it is excluded from the transfer. Does my hon. Friend agree that his explanation so far is not very convincing? He says that it cannot be transferred because it is part of a commercial arrangement, but we are only talking about the transfer of the Government’s responsibilities and the Government component in the relationship.
Dr Whiteford
I agree with my hon. Friend, who makes his point well.
As someone who represents coastal communities that have for many decades been held back by the shortcomings of the way that the Crown Estate has operated in Scotland, I for one cannot wait to see those public assets brought under proper democratic accountability and working for the good of those communities. New clause 28 would reduce complexity by removing the reservation relating to the management of the Crown Estate and provide the Scottish Parliament with full legislative competence in relation to the management of the Crown Estate in Scotland. It would also transfer any functions of the Crown Estate Commissioners in relation to rights to the continental shelf beyond the 200 nautical mile-limit adjacent to Scotland. Up to now, Parliament has not made a good job of scrutinising the activities of the Crown Estate. We have an opportunity today to put that right by opening the Crown Estate to better public accountability and putting its assets at the service of our communities.
There are a number of amendment on a miscellaneous range of subjects, all of which would strengthen the Bill, and I want to touch on those before concluding. New clause 29 would give the Scottish Parliament control over the regulation of party political broadcasts for local elections and Scottish elections as well as any referendums held in Scotland in devolved competences, as per the Smith commission recommendation at paragraph 23. That seems to have been missed out of the legislation to date.
New clause 30 devolves broadcasting by amending schedule 5 to the Scotland Act 1998. This would not impact directly on the delivery of the Smith commission proposals on the BBC and Ofcom, both of which are being delivered through memorandums of understanding. Rather, if passed, it would provide for a wider role for the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government in broadcasting policy in future.
Amendments 182 and 183 relate to gaming machines and licensed betting premises, and replace the reference to “betting premises” with the more general reference to “gambling premises”, giving full effect to the Smith commission recommendation in paragraph 74.
New clause 31 would give the Scottish Parliament general legislative competence over agriculture, aquaculture and fisheries levies. For me, this reform cannot come soon enough. It would bring to an end the absurd and unacceptable situation whereby Scottish fishermen are paying levies that are used to promote their Norwegian competitors’ fish instead of being used to promote Scottish seafood and to develop new products and markets. For instance, the UK Sea Fish Industry Authority currently organises the UK fish and chip shop awards, which is used by the Norwegian Seafood Council to promote frozen Norwegian fish into the UK market. The finalists of the 2016 awards are even being taken to Norway to learn about the supply of fish from Norway to the UK.
I have no problem at all with fair competition, but I have a massive problem with fishermen in my constituency being forced to pay levies that are then used by a publicly funded body to undermine their own businesses. It needs to end. That is just one reason why the Scottish Seafood Association and others support the devolution of these levies, which could be much better used to promote our locally sourced top-quality produce.
New clause 32 would give Scottish Ministers full powers and the flexibility to decide who would run rail services, in line with paragraph 65 of the Smith commission recommendations, and would allow public sector operators to bid for rail franchises.
Amendments 184 to 188 all relate to fuel poverty support schemes in clause 50, and would provide scope to reshape fuel poverty programmes in Scotland, while amendment 189 removes restrictions on the consultation process with the Scottish Government and Scottish Parliament in relation to the renewables incentive scheme. Again, this would bring the Bill into line with the Smith commission recommendation for a formal consultative role and enable the development of the intergovernmental concordat that we believe is necessary.
Lastly, new clause 33 would enact a formal consultative role for the Scottish Government and the Scottish Parliament in setting the strategic priorities of the Civil Aviation Authority, which I know is a very important issue for my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Hannah Bardell).
Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)
Does my hon. Friend agree that the time for debating and voting today is woefully inadequate, given the magnitude and importance of the issues and the number of amendments —more than 100 from the Government? Does she agree that new clause 33, enabling the Scottish Parliament and Government to have power over the Civil Aviation Authority, is very important, particularly to my constituents in Uphall, Broxburn and many other areas of Livingston who have been affected by the first new flight path in 40 years in Scotland—yet the Scottish Government and Parliament have no power over how the CAA operates in that regard?
Dr Whiteford
My hon. Friend makes an important point, and that new clause would make a huge difference to her constituents. She highlights the current lack of democratic accountability in respect of some of these decisions.
We have heard a lot of grandiose language about the Scotland Bill today—that it represents an historic departure and creates a powerhouse Parliament. I welcome the changes that the Government are belatedly introducing, but all the flowery rhetoric in the world will not hide the fact that the Scotland Bill still falls some way short of the Smith commission proposals. More than that, it falls a long way short of the promises made to the people of Scotland.
The SNP amendments would significantly strengthen the Bill and bring it closer to the expectations and aspirations of the people who voted in unprecedented numbers for real powers and meaningful change. As things stand, it will be those on low and average incomes, especially families with children, who will pay the price of these missed opportunities as they continue to suffer under Tory austerity. Big claims have been made for the very modest proposals in this Scotland Bill. Hon. Members could beef it up immeasurably by backing the amendments that I have tabled. I ask them to stand with us tonight in the interests of the Scottish people.
Yvette Cooper
I want to comment briefly on the proposal to devolve abortion law to the Scottish Parliament.
Since 1967, a framework has allowed women to make personal decisions with their doctors. Those decisions are often very difficult, but they should rightly be made by women. I fear that new clause 15, which is being rushed through without proper consultation, will allow the existence of different frameworks in Scotland and in England and Wales. We know that when similar arrangements have operated in Ireland, and also in parts of the United States, many women who may be very vulnerable have often had to travel in order to gain access to the abortion services, advice or healthcare that they need. We do not think it right for women in those circumstances to have to travel far from home and family to secure the services and support that they need, but new clause 15 would allow that to happen.
The new clause also opens the door for deliberate campaigning against a fragmented system. In the United States, anti-abortion campaigners have deliberately targeted individual states and legislatures, and, having failed to change abortion law at federal level, have been able to do so at state level. In fact, they have introduced 200 changes and restrictions on women’s access to abortion over just three years.
Yvette Cooper
I think that, sadly, the hon. Lady is missing the point completely. The issue is whether there are to be different frameworks, and whether women will be expected to travel because the jurisdictions are different.
We know that there is a significant chance that the anti-abortion campaigners will campaign in this instance, because we know that they already want to do so.
Yvette Cooper
I have no time.
The new clause was not initially tabled by the SNP or the Scottish Secretary. It was initially tabled by Members of Parliament who, for a long time, have campaigned for much greater restrictions on abortion. I think the whole House should consider the fact that anti-abortion campaigners want the opportunity—
Scotland Bill
Eilidh Whiteford Excerpts(8 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
David Mundell
I do not quite get the hon. Lady’s multiple metaphors. I am sure that there are some SNP Members who are sweet, and there are certainly some who are sour.
The central aim of the Smith commission was to address a flaw that had existed in the devolution settlement from the outset by making the Scottish Parliament more accountable for raising the taxpayers’ money that it spends. The significance of that point should not be overlooked, and we have alluded to it already: before fully implementing the Scotland Act 2012, the Scottish Parliament controlled almost 60% of public expenditure in Scotland, yet it was responsible for raising only about 10% of the funding. I did not believe that that was sustainable, and neither did the people of Scotland. For Holyrood to be the powerhouse Parliament that it rightly aspires to be and that this Government want it to be, it must be accountable to the people of Scotland for raising more of the money that it spends. The Bill is about ensuring that that missing link is fixed.
A second key aim of the Smith commission was to ensure that more decisions about welfare policy can be taken in the Scottish Parliament, so that specifically Scottish circumstances can be taken into account. The timetable set for the talks was that an agreement should be reached by St Andrew’s day. It was a challenging deadline, but it was met with a few days to spare—another commitment delivered to the people of Scotland on time.
I pay tribute to the 10 members of the Smith commission who represented their parties with skill and tenacity and worked constructively and co-operatively throughout the duration of the commission. They should be proud of what they have achieved for the people of Scotland. Again, I pay particular tribute to Lord Smith of Kelvin, who chaired the talks. He brought to the task his characteristic blend of good humour, insight and hard work. Of course, the occasional bout of strong-arming was also needed, but he says such bouts were mercifully rare.
Key to the success and the credibility of the talks was the fact that Lord Smith made sure that the voice of civic Scotland was heard loud and clear as the negotiations progressed. More than 18,000 people made submissions to the commission on what powers should be devolved to Scotland, and more than 400 individual organisations the length and breadth of Scotland submitted their views on the way forward.
Dr Eilidh Whiteford (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
I am sure it will not have escaped the Secretary of State’s notice that the five parties that signed up to the Smith commission are the same ones that are involved in the Scottish Parliament’s Devolution (Further Powers) Committee, which has stated that the Government’s Bill does not live up to either the substance or the spirit of the Smith commission. Why will he not now go back to the drawing board and listen to what was said by the Smith commission, as well as by the 60 organisations that have called for welfare powers to be devolved, and actually deliver it?
Oral Answers to Questions
Eilidh Whiteford Excerpts(9 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
David Mundell
Absolutely. Some 32,620 people in Scotland have found work through the Work programme, which means they can bring home a wage, support their family and play a part in their wider community.
Dr Eilidh Whiteford (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
By any measure the Work programme has been a failure. It has wasted public money and let down the people depending on it. When will the Government listen to not only the Smith commission, but the dozens of civil society organisations in Scotland that have called for employment support to be devolved so that we can develop an integrated system in Scotland that actually works?
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.
North Sea Oil and Gas (Employment)
Eilidh Whiteford Excerpts(9 years, 3 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Doran
That is the sole point that I planned to make in this speech. [Interruption.] No, the right hon. Gentleman is right to raise the issue. It is important that Government and industry work together to try to tackle the problems that we have all identified.
In addition to labour costs, there are real issues about the way in which equipment is purchased by companies operating in the North sea. In Norway, for example, there is standardisation of equipment. The state is a more engaged regulator and Statoil, the state-owned company, has by far the largest stake in the industry, with a share of around 60% of production. Its purchasing powers are enormous and most companies will buy the standardised equipment developed or ordered by Statoil at much cheaper prices than bespoke equipment. Our largest operator in the UK has only 10% of production. There is no company that can lead standardisation in the way that Statoil can in Norway, so everyone purchases to their own requirements.
One example I heard about recently was the purchase of light switches. That may be an odd place to start, but it is relevant. In Norway, the norm is standardised plain light switches. In the UK, company insignia or another unique requirement is demanded by many operators, usually at double or more of the cost. Scale that up through the requirements of offshore operators, from light switches to drilling rigs, and you have very expensive processes that I think are holding the industry back. Of course, this has an impact on Government, too. Every bespoke item has a higher cost than a standardised one, which reduces profits, which reduces taxes paid.
The sooner the Wood review recommendations are fully implemented, the better. I do not think that that will affect the price of light switches, but I hope it sends a clear message. I know that the industry is developing a strategy at the moment, but it will take time to put that in place. Cutting costs that are incurred at present is a must if any progress is to be made.
Probably the major issue for the industry is the tax system. Every Government since oil was first discovered in the North sea have treated the industry as a cash cow. Tax increases, occasionally unannounced, are the norm. The tax system is complex and expensive. The Government are anxious to protect their income from the industry, but that will become more and more difficult if current problems persist. Profits have to be made for taxes to be paid. I understand that in the last financial year the overall performance of the industry was negative—this year might be even worse.
Dr Eilidh Whiteford (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing today’s debate, which is on an issue of deep concern to all of us from the north-east of Scotland, where so many jobs are dependent on the oil and gas sector. I want to add to his point about taxation. Does he agree that we need those tax changes now? I have no doubt that we will see more announcements of job losses in the coming weeks. We need changes to the fiscal regime now, not a couple of months down the line.
Mr Doran
I think there is a case for what the hon. Lady says, but I disagree with her. We will have a Budget in two months’ time, and announcements will be made then. In the meantime, we know that the Treasury is working on the position. As she will see from the rest of my contribution, I am more concerned about how the tax cuts are made, rather than that tax cuts are made. I want focused and targeted tax cuts, not just a chop off the supplementary charge that was introduced in 2011.
It is important to look at the responses that should be made to the current situation. In the 1980s, there was virtually no Government response. There may have been one behind the scenes, but it was not visible to those of us who were involved at that time and were concerned about what was happening in the industry. We have the opportunity to mitigate substantially the impact of the collapse in the oil price. Members would expect me to say this, but I was pleased when Councillor Jenny Laing, the leader of Aberdeen city council, announced in December her plan to host a summit in Aberdeen to consider the challenges facing the industry. That summit will be held on 2 February. It is supported by Oil & Gas UK and will be attended by the UK and Scottish Governments, as well as by industry experts. That announcement caused the various other bodies with an interest to consider their reaction. Since then, Government Ministers and MPs have been queuing up to visit Aberdeen. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow East (Margaret Curran) has made her trip there. The Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change was there last week. The issue is being taken much more seriously than it was in the 1980s.
To go back to the question from the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Dr Whiteford), tax reliefs are back on the table. The Chancellor has made it clear that they are being considered, which suits the oil industry, because it has been asking for them. Since the collapse in the oil price, industry representatives and others have insisted that there needs to be a tax cut. Oil companies are still angry about the increase in the supplementary charge made in the 2011 Budget, and they would like to see it removed completely. The Chancellor has met them a small part of the way by introducing tax reliefs for brownfield sites and for high-temperature and high-pressure fields, and after his much hailed tax review last year the mouse of a 2% reduction in supplementary charge was announced.
Regardless of the 2011 increases, both field reliefs are important and have resulted in extra activity from the industry, even in these difficult times. The lesson from that is that it is in the interest of the industry and the taxpayer that any tax reliefs that are given should be focused and not random. There are many areas where more targeted and focused tax reliefs would create a win-win situation for all sides. For example, an investment allowance would encourage more activity and create more income and thus more tax revenues. Investment in research and development has slowed significantly in the industry, yet that is crucial in the search to find and produce oil and gas, whether by enhanced recovery techniques, better infrastructure to improve recovery or whatever other area that could improve the industry. The Government should also consider targeted reliefs to protect jobs and skills. Health and safety is a major issue for me. For many years, I have been heavily involved in that issue offshore. It must remain a priority. The Government should consider a specific targeted relief to support the continuing maintenance of infrastructure and the improvement of health and safety systems and equipment.
The consequences of the 1980s downturn were not only job losses. All projects that were in progress were stopped. The platforms that were producing oil and gas carried on producing, but many costs were cut to the bone. In particular, areas vital to safety, such as fire safety equipment, deluge systems and others, received little or no maintenance. The consequences of that approach were not immediately apparent, but on the night of 6 July 1988 they were there for the whole world to see. The Piper Alpha platform exploded with 167 deaths. It is still the most serious loss of life from any incident anywhere in the offshore oil and gas industry. If there is slippage in maintenance through the downturn, the dangers for offshore workers will increase significantly.
John Robertson (Glasgow North West) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Sir Robert Smith). I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen North (Mr Doran) on securing this debate. It is perhaps a sign of the times that we have decent turnouts in debates only when a disaster or something bad has happened. I congratulate my hon. Friend on the work he is doing in his constituency, along with his fellow Members of Parliament in the area, and I thank the shadow Chancellor, who, along with the new leader of the Scottish Labour party, is in Aberdeen today to help to fight for jobs. I do not want to make a political point about it, but it would be a lot better if the Secretary of State for Scotland and the First Minister and various others were with them, putting up a political united front to help the industry and jobs.
According to Oil & Gas UK, about 450,000 jobs are associated with the oil and gas industry. The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Dr Whiteford) asked about jobs and the number of people who have been hit in the north-east, but only 202,000 of the jobs are actually in Scotland; the rest are outside Scotland. With 130,000 jobs in the Aberdeen area and all these other jobs, the whole country is suffering. It is not just one small area.
Dr Whiteford
I fully accept that many jobs throughout the UK depend on the oil and gas sector. The difference in the north-east of Scotland is the concentration of jobs. It is not just the direct oil jobs that depend on the oil and gas sector; it is not even just the jobs in the wider supply chain. It is the small shops, our retailers, our service providers, our construction companies—our whole economy is heavily dependent on oil and gas, so the ramifications of this go far further than simply just jobs in the oil and gas sector.
John Robertson
The hon. Lady is absolutely right, but a small company in my constituency that makes goods that are used up in Aberdeen also uses local shops and local people. If the jobs of 450,000 people in the United Kingdom are in danger, we can multiply that by goodness knows how many, but it would probably be millions of people who could be affected.
We know from previous times in the North sea that there will be losses. It has happened before and, sad to say, it will probably happen again, but the fact of the matter is that the North sea is in a particularly unusual position now. It is not what it was back in the ’80s, when we were getting oil and gas into the country. We are still getting oil and gas, but we are getting it from other places. We are not self-sufficient any more in these commodities; we now rely on other areas, so we have to fight to keep these jobs.
At a time when America has been diversifying into shale and is now the biggest seller of oil in the world, rather than the middle east, we have to look at where we are going in the future, but as the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan and my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen North said, we also have to look at skill shortages and how to increase our knowledge of how to work in these areas. Some of the experts I have talked to tell me that this depression in oil and gas will go on for at least two years. If it lasts that long, that might be fair enough and we could recover, but I have a horrible feeling it may last a lot longer than that. The price of oil is now down to less than $50 a barrel and the middle east countries are talking about continuing to supply oil and gas at the same rate, to ensure that the price remains low. That will have a knock-on effect for the North sea.
As my hon. Friend—we are on the same Select Committee—the Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine said, oil and gas jobs have a knock-on effect for everyone. The rigs and everything else out in the North sea grow old and rust; they have to be maintained, but there will be no point in maintaining them if they do not get used. We have to find something like £40 billion over the next 30 or 40 years to clean up the North sea. That is not so bad if it is still in operation, but if the North sea is not in operation, we have to find that money from somewhere else.
My point is that we are talking about only the North sea at the moment. Some jobs in various companies have been lost already, but if we, the politicians of this nation, do not get our act together and do not work together to preserve jobs, not only will Aberdeen and the areas where the other 200,000-odd people are working suffer, but the whole nation will suffer. All the parties should get together and we should all fight for those jobs.
Margaret Curran (Glasgow East) (Lab)
Mr Streeter, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairpersonship—I do not know whether I am permitted to use that word, or whether that is a precedent, but I have done it now, so so be it. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen North (Mr Doran), whose contribution demonstrated his depth of knowledge of the industry and his enduring commitment to it and the people who work in it, which is greatly respected in this House and throughout the country.
The entire debate has demonstrated the magnitude of recent events and the sweeping impact of such a significant decline in oil prices. As we speak, oil is currently trading at below $50 a barrel. In July 2008, the price stood at $145 a barrel, and as is well known in Scotland the White Paper that was used by the Scottish National party during the recent referendum was based on financial planning with an oil price of $110 a barrel. This debate is therefore a significant one.
It may not have been said today but it will certainly be said in other forums that although the price might offer some relief to Scotland’s motorists it has significant impacts on the oil and gas industry. Many Members have referred to the key facts and figures, which I will emphasise once more. The production of oil and gas contributed £30 billion to the UK balance of payments; the supply chain, which has been a focus of the debate and is of great importance throughout the country, generated over £20 billion in the past year and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North West (John Robertson) said, the industry supports 450,000 jobs across the United Kingdom.
It is an industry of international importance that is vital to the UK and iconic for Scotland, and has particular significance for Aberdeen and the north-east of Scotland—the effects of the fall in oil price will be felt throughout the country, but most deeply there. We heard about the loss of 300 jobs announced by BP but know that there are more to come.
Dr Whiteford
In the past half an hour or so, while we have been having this debate, a further 300 job losses have been announced by Talisman. I have stressed the importance of urgency and am worried that there will be further similar announcements between now and March. The Government need to give confidence to the industry that they will cut taxes. Does the hon. Lady share that view and will she urge the Government to act with more haste rather than waiting for announcements of yet more job losses in the North sea industry?
Margaret Curran
I will indeed emphasise that very point when I come to it later. I will begin by addressing the hon. Lady’s primary point about job losses. We are deeply concerned about them. As my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen North made clear, operators and trade unions are warning about job losses and their impact. Of the 30,000 jobs directly linked to the industry, 23,400 are in Aberdeen itself. One can only imagine the conversations taking place not only in companies but around kitchen tables in Aberdeen and the north-east. Jake Molloy of the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers drew parallels with 1986, when the fall in oil prices led to long-term job losses and a very significant impact on the industry. We certainly do not want that to happen again, and need to take action. Sir Ian Wood, who has featured in many contributions this afternoon, indicated that there could be between 30,000 and 40,000 job losses. It would not be surprising if that were the long-term impact.
The Scottish Parliament information service said that 15,750 jobs could be lost in Scotland as a result of what is happening. The core question we must ask ourselves is, can we be assured that the Government and the Scottish Government get the magnitude of what is happening and what needs to be done? The trade unions have said that it would be the largest loss of jobs since the Ravenscraig steel works closed its doors 23 years ago in Scotland—23 years later, we still remember the impact of Ravenscraig. Let us take action now to ensure that does not happen again. The message of this debate must be that we have to work together on a cross-party basis to properly challenge the Government when they are not doing enough. The oil and gas industry is a strategic industry of critical importance, and it needs a long-term, predictable context in which to operate.
I congratulate, as one Member did, Jenny Laing, the leader of Aberdeen city council, who took immediate action, called for an oil summit and managed to get all the key players together. That was the right thing to do, and I expect that it will be successful, but the UK and Scottish Governments must take decisive action.
The UK Government’s 2011 tax reforms created difficulties and undermined confidence—I hope the Minister will acknowledge that. In the autumn statement, the Chancellor indicated the difficulties that it caused, and he hinted that there must be a new strategy for oil and gas. I concur with the hon. Members who said that we need action now. I hope the Minister will indicate that the Government will take action and respond to the industry’s call for support.
I ask the Minister to use his good offices to put pressure on the Scottish Government to publish the oil and gas bulletin as soon as possible. Scottish National party Members have said that they are looking for a range of actions, but we are asking the Scottish Government to provide the evidence on which they based their recommendations. They previously published a number of oil and gas bulletins and figures showing the impact that the industry will have on their revenues. I hope they will publish another one as soon as possible so our approach can be evidence-led, and so we know the basis on which we can take action.
My right hon. Friend the Member for East Renfrewshire (Mr Murphy) called for a resilience fund to help strategic industries and to enable us to address local needs, including issues affecting local companies, local industries and the devastating impact the downturn will have on local communities. He has also talked about reducing business rates to help people through the downturn. As my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen North said, my right hon. Friend is in Aberdeen this afternoon with my right hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Outwood (Ed Balls). They are calling for profound, strategic action to address these issues. We need a road map—a strategic plan—for the industry that is not about short-term changes but comes to terms with the profound shifts that we are seeing. It must create certainty so the industry can be sure about the tax rates over a Parliament and firms can invest in the long term. It must be about sustainability, and it must put oil revenues in a UK public finances framework so we can protect ourselves against oil price volatility. It must not create high levels of risk that could jeopardise Scotland and our public finances.
We must ensure transparency. We must not make short-term, ill-thought-out tax changes, but consult with the industry to ensure a transparent regime. We must have the flexibly to meet immediate challenges. As many hon. Members have said, we must implement the Wood review. Will the Minister tell us when the new Oil and Gas Authority will be established? That demand is coming straightforwardly from the industry.
This has been a very good debate, and we have covered a lot of ground. Hon. Members have demonstrated a great depth of knowledge about the industry’s demands. We need to tell people—not only those in the north-east, but those in Scotland and elsewhere in the United Kingdom—that we understand the scale of the job losses that may be imminent, and that we can take action to address that. We must let them understand that, as we gather here together, we will challenge the Government, who must stand up and do more. That is what the industry is asking the UK and the Scottish Governments. We are prepared to work together to support our iconic oil and gas industry, of which we are so proud in Scotland, through this challenge to prevent job losses and to ensure that it has a healthy, sustainable future. We do that best when we recognise the true depth of what is happening and do not try to duck it. Government action can have results, but we need to see it now.
Oral Answers to Questions
Eilidh Whiteford Excerpts(10 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
David Mundell
I do agree with my hon. Friend. She will be aware that since 2010 the Scottish Government have had an additional £1.3 billion in funding that they could have used to provide affordable housing in Scotland. We used to hear constantly in the Chamber about the number of shovel-ready projects in Scotland, but we have not seen much shovelling.
Dr Eilidh Whiteford (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
The bedroom tax has been a costly fiasco in Scotland. It should never have happened, but I am glad that the Government have at long last agreed to allow the Scottish Government to mitigate its worst impacts. However, the Secretary of State recently boasted that we have a “fantastic” benefits system. Does the Minister think that he was talking about the bedroom tax, or is he also living in a parallel universe?
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.
Oral Answers to Questions
Eilidh Whiteford Excerpts(10 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
David Mundell
It does not surprise me that the hon. Lady does not draw attention to the fact that, on the basis of statistics announced today, employment in Scotland increased by 15,000 over the quarter, and has increased by 79,000 over the year. The Scottish employment rate rose by 0.3%. The way out of poverty is work, and this Government are delivering jobs.
Dr Eilidh Whiteford (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
3. What assessment he has made of the effect of the Government’s welfare reforms on levels of child poverty in Scotland.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (David Mundell)
The Scottish Government child poverty strategy report was published in September 2013 and states that child poverty in Scotland is at its lowest level since 1994. Welfare reform will be subject to the normal policy review process in due course.
Dr Whiteford
I am appalled by the Minister’s complacency. He should be aware that more than half the children in poverty in Scotland have working parents, and that the Child Poverty Action Group estimates that 100,000 more children will be pushed into poverty as a consequence of welfare reform. Why do his Government think that it is okay to make children pay the price of austerity, and does he think that it is a price worth paying?
Oral Answers to Questions
Eilidh Whiteford Excerpts(10 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Carmichael
I agree with the hon. Lady on that point in the very strongest terms. She knows as well as I do that the incidents she highlights are by no means isolated—we hear them anecdotally all the time. I encourage anyone who is bullied or intimidated in that way to follow the example of Chris Whatley, an academic from Dundee university who appeared at a Better Together event before Christmas, following which a Scottish Government Minister was on the phone to his employers saying he should be silenced. That is deplorable and no way in which to conduct the debate on Scotland’s future.
Dr Eilidh Whiteford (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
2. What recent discussions he has had with Scottish local authorities on changes to housing benefit.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (David Mundell)
In recent months, I have met every local authority in Scotland, and most of them twice, as part of an ongoing dialogue with local authorities and other stakeholders in Scotland on what the impact of welfare reforms and the challenges of implementation have been for them, their services and their tenants.
Dr Whiteford
The Minister will therefore know that 80% of the households in Scotland affected by the bedroom tax are the home of someone with a disability. He knows that there is a mismatch between the available housing stock and the needs of tenants, and he knows that Scottish MPs, including Government Back Benchers, voted overwhelmingly against this policy. Will the Government now lift the legal restrictions on discretionary housing payments to allow the Scottish Government to mitigate the impact of this nonsense of a policy?
David Mundell
What I do know is that the hon. Lady has a brass neck. She is a member of the Scottish Affairs Committee, but fails to take up her place. This issue was debated in detail yesterday and if she had been present she would know that the Scottish Government already have the powers to take measures if they genuinely believe there are concerns with welfare policies.
Oral Answers to Questions
Eilidh Whiteford Excerpts(10 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Carmichael
I know from my constituency experience that the small inshore fleet is of great importance to the communities represented by me and my right hon. and learned Friend. His point is well made, and it is important that we do what we can to sustain the fleet in those small ports.
Dr Eilidh Whiteford (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
The Secretary of State knows that the postponement of the negotiations with Norway over shared North sea stocks means that the fishing fleet faces an uncertain new year. Will he support the Scottish Government’s calls for an increase in the North sea cod quota next year, in line with the scientific advice?
Mr Carmichael
As the hon. Lady knows, that is a subject to be determined at the EU-Norway talks in January. They have been held over, and although such an increase would be desirable—it is certainly what the industry is looking for—that is not entirely within our gift, as it is an EU negotiation.
Oral Answers to Questions
Eilidh Whiteford Excerpts(10 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Michael Moore
Obviously I defer to the hon. Lady’s expertise in this area, but as one who represents what I believe is the longest section of the land border between Scotland and England, I am well aware of the issues that she has raised. What the Secretary of State has been negotiating in Luxembourg is an arrangement that introduces regionalisation for the whole United Kingdom, and allows us to design a common agricultural policy that is fit for local circumstances and fair to farmers throughout the UK.
Dr Eilidh Whiteford (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
I am disappointed that the United Kingdom Government are set to negotiate a CAP deal that will leave Scotland with the lowest rural development budget not just in the UK, but anywhere in Europe. Had Scotland been negotiating on its own behalf, it would have benefited from the rule that no member state should receive less than €196 per hectare by 2020. Does the Secretary of State accept that being tied to the UK in these negotiations will cost Scottish farming £300 million a year for the next seven years?
Michael Moore
I am disappointed by the churlish tone adopted by the hon. Lady. I hoped that she might just have studied the tweets from the Scottish agriculture Minister, which have welcomed the major breakthroughs that we have achieved. We have done that as member of the United Kingdom, sitting at the top table and with the clout to deliver a regionalised CAP. It is now for Richard Lochhead and others to get on with designing a common agricultural policy that suits Scotland’s needs, and Mr Lochhead has the ability to do that.
Oral Answers to Questions
Eilidh Whiteford Excerpts(11 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Michael Moore
Through energy market reform, we are underpinning the renewables sector for a very long time to come. What I do not understand is how the Scottish National party can propose independence, when Scottish Renewables would end up losing the biggest source of consumers who underpin the economics of that very important sector.
Dr Eilidh Whiteford (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
2. What estimate he has made of the number of households in Scotland affected by the under-occupancy penalty.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (David Mundell)
In its impact assessment, published on 28 June 2012, the Department for Work and Pensions estimates that 80,000 claimants of housing benefit in the social rented sector in Scotland will be affected by the under-occupation measure.
Dr Whiteford
The Minister knows as well as I do that thousands of people in low-income households in Scotland who are going to lose out because of the bedroom tax have no realistic prospect of moving to a smaller house. According to that impact assessment, claimants in Scotland will be disproportionately hit because of the mismatch between the available housing stock and the needs of tenants, so will the right hon. Gentleman take this opportunity to distance himself from the shameful attempt of this Government to stigmatise and penalise people who live in council houses and need help with their rent?
David Mundell
What is shameful is the way that the Scottish National party plays party politics with vulnerable people, pretending that there can be no welfare changes, yet putting forward nothing in their place and not indicating how welfare would be paid for in an independent Scotland.