05/02/2014 Scottish Questions

Hello and a very warm welcome to Westminster for February 's Scottish

Questions. We may still be seven months away from the independence

referendum, but as far as Scottish politics is concerned, everything is

being put through a referendum prism. Proceedings here began with a

question related to independence. Thank you. I speak to businesses

from across Scotland regularly and frequently. We highlight the

importance of the decision the Scottish people will make on the

18th of September and encourage them to get involved in this important

debate. As my right honourable friend the

Secretary of State seen the recent intervention of Bob Dudley, the

chief executive of British Petroleum which has a major stake in Scotland

and whose view should be taken seriously. Does he agree that other

business leaders with a big interest in Scotland's future should follow

his example and set out clearly the implications and consequences of

independence for their employees, shareholders and suppliers?

Thank you. I have, indeed, seen and studied the intervention from Bob

Dudley yesterday. The terms of that intervention do not surprise me.

It's very much reflects the concerns I hear expressed to me when I speak

to businessmen and businesswomen across Scotland in representing

businesses of all sizes. They tell me the same thing. They see

independence as being bad for business. It brings -- brings

uncertainty and that is risk and bad for their business in the future.

As the Secretary of State had any meetings with Sir Tom Hunter who has

been pretty vocal on the whole question? If not, will he have?

I recently met Sir Tom Hunter at a business breakfast organised by the

Prime Minister in ten Downing St. The honourable gentleman will have

seen the recent initiative taken by Sir Tom which is an invaluable part

and it sits very well with the efforts of Her Majesty 's government

in ensuing there is a solid piece of information to inform the electorate

in relation to the decision they are being asked to take.

Can the Secretary of State assure the house he is aware of business

concerns about the uncertainty posed by an independent Scotland, not only

in terms of cut this -- currency, but that borrowing costs and

interest rates can be set outside of Scotland?

The honourable lady makes the point that was made very eloquently and in

a very measured way, I thought, by the Governor of the Bank of England

last week in Edinburgh. He made the point that a currency union such as

that proposed inevitably involves ceding some degree of national

sovereignty. The very opposite of what independence is supposed to be

about. You wonder why any nationalist would, in all sincerity,

genuinely want one. This week, the Financial Times

reported that an independent Scotland should have healthier state

finances than the rest of the UK. So far, more than 1200 business owners

and directors have declared their support for a yes vote by joining

the pro-independence business group. Does the Secretary of State

recognise their role in the Scottish economy and welcome their

contribution to the referendum debate?

I speak to businessmen and businesswomen of all views at any

time. The difficulty is, however, that the recent polling exercise

taken in the polling -- business community shows that three quarters

of people were intending to vote no and that is because they know

independence would be bad for their business.

All the evidence in recent weeks show there has been a substantial

swing to" yes". The polls also show that the public by a majority of 4-1

wish to see a debate between the Prime Minister and the First

Minister Alex Salmond. How long can the Prime Minister continue

supporting everyone else becoming part of the debate but ran away from

one himself? Make no mistake, we know exactly why

the Nationalists want to see this debate between Alex Salmond and

David Cameron and it is because they are trying to set the decision up as

being one of a contest between Scotland and England, which it

absolutely is not. It is about Scotland's constitutional future and

it is to be decided by Scots in Scotland.

If my right honourable friend aware that the First Minister dismissed Mr

Dudley 's remarks as being a personal opinion? In the light of

that, maybe take it that all of those who apparently have subscribed

to independence on the business sector can have their opinion

dismissed in the same way? I would dismiss nobody 's opinion

and I would engage with people of all shades of opinion across this

debate. The fact is that Bob Dudley is not a lone voice. He is part of a

growing corn -- chorus in the business community in Scotland who

highlight the dangers of independence and they say the same

thing. It is the risk that comes from the uncertainty regarding the

future. Also currency position and membership of the EU. On those two

key issues, the Nationalists have got no comfort for business.

It is, indeed, welcome as this Secretary of State has said that the

chief executive of BP and the outgoing chief executive of

Sainsbury's have spelt out concerns about independence. Does the

Secretary of State agree that what ever side of the debate you are on,

all businesses, voluntary organisations and trade unions have

a right to be heard without insult, intimidation or fear of the

consequences? I do, absolutely. In that regard, I

would commend the efforts of the Scottish Daily Mail who, in recent

days and weeks, have sought to highlight the poison that is coming

into this debate from some of these cyber interventions. Others in this

House have also raised this issue. The truth is, whatever the outcome,

we all will have to work together in Scotland for the best future of

Scotland and that is not going to be possible if we allow the well to be

poisoned in the way that some seem determined to do.

Perhaps I will press him further. In fact, business leaders have told me

of intimidating the tactics used in an attempt to stop them intervening

in the independence debate. One leader of a Footsie company told

Robert Preston of the BBC that the Scottish Government, " became very

aggressive" when he tried to raise concerns regarding independence. But

Dudley of BP was dismissed yesterday by the yes campaign as "a British

nationalist" is. Will the Secretary of State join with me in condemning

this pattern of behaviour we are beginning to see in Scotland and say

in the strongest possible terms that it has no place for us Scots as we

debate our future? I can, indeed, agree with that in

the strongest terms. She knows as well as I do that these incidents

are by no means isolated and we hear them and it totally all the time. I

would encourage anybody who finds themselves bullied or intimidated in

that way to follow the example of an academic from Dundee University who

appeared at a Better Together event and found a Scottish minister on the

phone to his employers saying he should be silenced. That is no way

to conduct this debate on Scotland's future and it is deplorable.

In recent months I met with every local authority in Scotland as part

of an ongoing dialogue with local authorities and other stakeholders

in Scotland on what the impact of welfare reforms have for them, their

services and their tenants. The Minister will know that 80% of

households in Scotland affected by the bedroom tax in a home with

someone with a bid -- disability, he will know of the mismatch. People

voted overwhelmingly against this policy, including his own

backbenchers. Will his own government now live legal

restrictions on discretionary housing payments to allow the

Scottish Government to mitigate the impact of this nonsense of a policy?

The honourable lady has a brass neck. She is a member of the

Scottish affairs select committee yet fails to take up her place. This

issue was debated in detailed yesterday and if she had been

present she would know the Scottish Government already have the power to

take measures if they genuinely believe there are concerns with

welfare policies. I believe the government listens

when I point out problems over the withdrawal of the spare room subsidy

and what it would cause for tenants. I'm delighted the

government has given over for thousand pounds to one council to

help affected tenants -- 400,000 pounds.

I can commend the honourable gentleman in pointing out the

specific issues made on island issues and rural issues. That is why

we have come forward with a discretionary housing payment for

rural areas. We are in regular dialogue with

institutions with regard to funding for Scotland. People are living

longer and we all need to save for retirement. Councils are struggling

to protect local services because the SNP government is not funding

Council Cats fees. Will the Minister stand up for Scottish councils and

make representations to met -- relevant ministries to protect

councils from this budgetary problem? I note what the honourable

lady says. I will ensure her comments on the agenda for our

forthcoming meeting. It would be useful if the minister

in those discussions would push forward statutory overrides which

would help companies manage to a single tier pension because it will

have an effect when they are not able to opt out of Serps. The

honourable lady is chairman of the relevant select committee and we

take her comments very seriously and I will ensure they are part of that

discussion. Rising energy bills are a serious

concerns for consumers in Scotland and across the rest of the UK. We

are sustaining vitals financial support for the most vulnerable

consumers and reforms are opening up the market to competition. We are

working to ensure suppliers put customers on the cheapest tariff

possible. Energy prices have risen

dramatically since the coalition came to power and, in rule and

island communities, people pay a greater proportion of their income

on fuel prices. There was a sevenfold increase last year in

people approaching them for advice about mis-selling in the energy

sector. Is it now time for manic -- a radical reform of the energy

sector and a price freeze until we put the reforming place?

I know the honourable lady has taken a long term interest in this and has

a notable record on it. The phenomenon of energy price increases

is not something that just started in 2010. It was a feature of the

years of the Labour government as well and it was a consequence of the

reduction of the number of companies operating in the market. That would

be a problem that was recreated if we were to undertake her policy of a

price freeze. We have already seen the number of energy companies rise

from six to 14 but a price freeze would be a real threat to that.

We have two governments choosing to side with energy companies. Is it

now clear that the only families across the UK can see some relief in

their cost of living is a freezing of their bills and a break up of the

monopoly of the six energy companies and to vote no in the referendum. I

agree with the first part of the prescription. A no vote in September

is important. I have to remind him, there was one year in the Labour

years where there was an increase of 20% in energy prices and there was

no suggestion of a price freeze then. When they were in government

they knew the reality. A price freeze would see prices going up

before the freeze on going up again afterwards. We are delivering help

to vulnerable people in the here and now.

Whatever the headline of the average increase, it hides a multitude of

sins. A constituent approached me this week who is a low electricity

user and is facing a 50% increase in his unit cost. Others find they are

being handed by high standing charges -- hammered. Isn't it about

time these practices were stopped? These are real reasons why it is

important that there is transparency within the market and the range of

tariffs is improved. That is a result of the action we have been

taking. Under the last government, there were 400 different tariffs

available and there was no surprise that people were getting confused.

Simplicity is the way ahead and that is something that the government

works on -- with the regulator. We know that energy bills have

rocketed, and as my right honourable friend said this morning, one third

of Jewish investment in renewables comes to Scotland but Scots

contribute less than a 10th of this. -- British investment. Does the

Secretary of State agree that the best future for renewables in

Scotland and the best way to keep costs down. Lund is by Scotland

saying part of the UK? That is absolutely the case. Scotland has a

tremendous opportunity to contribute to the growth of renewable energy as

part of the UK. That is going to take subsidies that come from

consumers bills. That is a cost which is spread across the whole

nation, not simply the household of an independent Scotland. It would

emerge is for the renewable energy industry to support independence for

Scotland in the future. Question five, but the minimum wage and the

nonpayment of it. They have been no persecutions or naming and shaming

since at least 2007. A revised scheme came into place

which makes it simpler to name and shame any such employers. I would

urge anyone with information about such an employer to use that scheme.

I know he cannot tell us of any instances, but it is a scandal at a

time of economic difficulty that people are being exploited by being

paid less than the national minimum wage. The policing of this act or to

be strengthened, then there ought to be vigorous persecutions and they're

certainly ought to be a question of naming and shaming. Will the

government can't write with any investigation of the Scottish

affairs committee, conducted into this matter? Are recognised the

Scottish affairs committee has done much valuable work on this area, and

of course we will continue to work with them. In Scotland, prosecutions

are a matter for the Lord Advocate and I'm sure he will have heard the

honourable member's contribution. What representations has the

Scottish office made to the Chancellor of the Exchequer but

increasing the national minimum wage disempowered an hour and what effect

does he think they would be on living standards in Scotland would

that come about? I can say that I agree with the Chancellor Willy said

that I believe England can afford and above inflation increase in the

minimum wage, so to restore its real value and make sure that work always

pays. The Conservative MP for Central Devon, the. Near-record

highs of least 2.5 million. These figures reflect how well

Scotland is doing as part of the UK under the government's long-term

economic plan I thank him for that positive

response. Would he agree with me that the biggest threat to Scottish

job is the promise of the SNP and its plan to remove Scotland from the

UK labour market? That is indeed the case. We talk about business people

having concerned, that means there is a threat, not just to business,

but jobs as a result. The UK is now the fastest growing economy in the

G7 and unemployment in Scotland is at 6.4%, significantly lower than

the average across the UK, which is 7.1%. That is something we have

achieved because we are part of the UK, not despite it. It is a result

of Scotland, with our own Parliament, being represented here,

having the best of both worlds. Unfortunately within my own

constituency, unemployment levels appear to have stagnated. Does the

Secretary of State agree with me that the Scottish Government needs

to be doing more for people even living in the capital city of

Scotland, who are still without jobs? There remains a great deal

still to do. I share, I suspect, many concerned she would have about

the continuing high level of youth unemployment, the number of people

who have been unemployed for a longer period of time. I see

encouraging signs of growth in these areas but they are by no means to be

taken for granted. There are tremendous opportunities for the two

governments in Scotland, along with councils in Edinburgh, Aberdeen and

elsewhere, to work together to get the best possible arrangements for

the unemployed. When the Secretary of State visits the Highlands at the

end of the week and addresses people in Inverness, I'm sure he will be

hearing a lot from those present about one of the most exciting

potential job prospect is for the Highlands and the Scotland as a

whole, which is the potential of a site in my own constituency for

offshore wind development. Can I courage him and his colleagues to

continue to work with Edinburgh to promote the interests of this

exciting project, and I wanted to get my plug in now because due to a

previous long-standing engagement, I won't be there on Friday night

myself! I shall in fact be carrying out other engagement although I do

understand that gets for that supper are still available and are

reasonably priced! -- tickets. The honourable gentleman raises an

important local concerns his constituents, he has a long and

proud record of doing so, I would suggest to him that this is sorted

development we're now seeing growing across the whole of the UK,

particularly in Scotland, and it is happening because our plan worked.

He may think that everything is rosy but isn't it the fact that we are

seeing the most sustained fall in real wages since records began 50

years ago? Isn't it the fact that the jobs market is not working for

ordinary Scots and both governments are failing the people we represent?

I really wish that they could find it within themselves to recognise

the substantial progress we are making in relation to the improving

employment situation in Scotland. There is significant progress and

that makes a real difference for her constituents and mine. Wage levels

will doubtless need to see some improvement to catch up, that as a

consequence of the steps we had to take clear up the mess she made.

Questionable seven. The White Paper shows that the case

for independence is unravelling. They promised answers but fail to

key -- address key issues such as currency and the EU membership.

Can the Secretary of State explain why there are issues about the

funding of pensions in Scotland? Indeed, the most pertinent

intervention was that which came from the Institute of chartered

accountants of Scotland. Not a political party, not a body that has

any axe to grind, the people who know what they are talking about,

and they told us what we already know, that our substantial questions

on pensions and other areas have not been answered. Surely one of the

great weaknesses of the White Paper is when it comes to the future of

the pound in Scotland. Surely the simplest way the people of Scotland

can be guaranteed to keep the pound is to vote no in the referendum.

That is indeed the case and I'm confident they will do so because

the people of Scotland value having the ? their currency. They value

having the Bank of England as a lender of last resort and the value

that the risks and opportunities are spread across the whole UK. The

Tories and Labour are worried but still the Prime Minister is afraid

to debate with Alex Salmond, the First Minister. In this week the FT

tells us an independent Scotland could expect to start with healthier

state finances than the rest of the UK, our GDP per head is higher than

France and Italy. Will he make sure that people know these facts and

stop people making the best decision for Scotland? Indeed I will, these

are all things we have achieved as part of the United Kingdom, it

ultimate streets what is possible for Scotland as part of the United

Kingdom. As for any question of debate, we have dealt with that

already. Isn't it remarkable that when they could be answering

questions, all they want to do is have a debate about the debate? A

question about pensions. Despite publishing a paper

specifically on pensions in September and a much vaunted White

Paper in November, the Scottish Government has left many questions

on pensions unanswered. The honourable member will be aware that

the UK and Scottish governments have agreed there will be no pay

negotiation ahead of the independence referendum in

September. The Institute of chartered

accountants in Scotland published a report for the White Paper and we

are told by the SNP that the answers would be in the White Paper. This

week the Institute of chartered accountants gave their response,

there are not the answers in the White Paper to give Scots certainty

about their pensions. This is the Secretary of State aware of any

intention to answer the crucial questions on Scottish pensions? I am

pretty certain that any answers that would come from the Nationalists

would be ones that would not find favour with the people of Scotland,

so I am pretty sure we will not be hearing much by way of answers in

the future. The people of Scotland will hear what the Institute of

chartered accountants have to say, they will want to hear from the

Scottish Government but their answer is.

That is all we have time for. The next Scottish Questions will be on

Wednesday 19th of March, which also happens to be a get day down here at

Westminster. -- I get a. Join us then if you can. From all of us,

goodbye.