07/05/2014 Scottish Questions

Hello and a warm welcome to Westminster for a's edition of

Scottish Questions. We start off with a note for your diaries. We are

one year away from the next UK general election. It will take place

on the 7th of May, 2015. It is another date which is occupying the

thoughts of Scottish politicians, the 18th of September, 2014. People

of Scotland will be going to the polls for the independence

referendum. Everything at the moment in Scottish politics is being seen

through that prism. Scottish Questions is no exception. Order,

order, questions to the Secretary of State for Scotland. As a United

Kingdom we all have better job opportunities. Every day 30,000

people travel between Scotland and England between work. If Scotland

were to leave the United Kingdom, our border constituencies would be

the first to feel the effects of a creation of an international

border. Would the Secretary of State agree that one of the challenges of

separation would be that our focus would be lost, our energy would be

dissipated, looking at the details of administration and borders rather

than all the opportunities in the world from Brazil to Venice? That is

one of the many downsides that a vote for independence would bring

and it would be an unnecessary distraction would which would move

our focus from the opportunities of being part of the United Kingdom

give us to develop our business by looking overseas. On the question of

this separation, surely it is understood that divorce can be messy

and in this case would be messy? Given what I have been told by

businessmen in my area, they say they will move out of Scotland as a

result of separation taking place. What matters to business is the

bottom line and the profit and loss account and the balance sheet. If

they felt that independence was something that was going to be good

for them, businesses would be lining up to support it. Since the turn of

the New Year we have had the steady chorus from the business community

all coming out, all underlining the real risks and uncertainties that

would come from independence. These are voices that the honourable

members may wish to drown out with their incessant chatter, but they

may not do it. Anybody who pauses at the top of the hill in the Carter

bar on the A68 is able to reflect on one of the most beautiful views of

Scotland and England and reflect on the fact that these two countries

have so much in common and have shared experiences. Does my right

honourable friend share my hope that will always be the case rather than

marking the border point? I always think of the United Kingdom as being

like a family of nations. Like all families we have moments when we

have disagreements and we want to do things in a slightly different way.

But as a family it is the ties that bind us that are so much greater

than the differences that bind us. That is why I believe Scotland will

choose to remain part of that family of UK nations. But the people of the

Borders and the rest of Scotland are being subjected by this self-styled

project fear campaign, described by its own supporters as negative,

nasty, threatening, and that the Prime Minister is toxic in Scotland.

Why are even his own colleagues saying this? Mr Speaker, I have to

say it is a bit rich to hear the honourable gentleman talking about

Project fear, when we had the First Minister on Saint Georges Day go to

Carlisle and deliver a lecture that I could only describe as Project

ridiculous. There is no escaping this for the Nationalists. For

people living in the border constituencies on either side of the

border there are real benefits of being part of the United Kingdom.

They want us to walk away from them. Leading members of his own campaign

have told people in the Borders that they will have to show a passport at

the border, drive on the right-hand side of the road, worry about their

pensions when in this place are being told they will be saved, they

will not be able to use their own currency. Why do his colleagues

think the people of the Borders and the rest of Scotland will fall for

this demeaning, insulting nonsense? On the question of borders it

highlights perfectly how the Scottish Nationalists want to have

their cake and eat it. They tell us we could have a Common travel area

which works very well with the Republic of Ireland at present, but

at the same time they tell us we will have a widely diverging

immigration policy, which the Republic of Ireland does not happen.

You can have one thing or the other, you cannot have them both. Their

prospectus is flawed. In places such as Carlisle there are many

businesses with branches and offices on both sides of the border. With

the Minister agree, that if Scotland votes yes, businesses will have an

additional burden to them that will affect jobs and economic prosperity

on both sides of the border? An independent Scotland would have a

different taxation system, different national insurers and different

economic regulations. That would be an extra cost for business. You have

already seen the financial services sector, which supports 200,000 jobs

in Scotland, giving very serious warnings about what would happen to

their business. I will answer questions two and nine together. I

have had regular discussions with ministerial colleagues on the

application of discretionary housing payments to those affected by the

removal of the spare room subsidy. An announcement on Friday was the

offsetting of the limits on such payments could become the

responsibility of the Scottish Government. Much of the money has

not got through to tenants as yet. Given there has now been an

announcement in relation to the discretionary cap, with the Minister

agree that the Scottish Government could have acted before now, but now

this announcement has been made will he do everything in his power to

make sure there is co-operation between Westminster and the Scottish

Government to make sure the money gets to the people who need it? I

agree with the honourable lady. The Scottish Government already had

powers which they could have used to take other steps for the mitigation

they said was necessary. They chose not to do so. The Scottish

Parliament forced additional funding to be provided and we will not stand

in the way of that money being spent. I have a meeting tomorrow and

I will convey the honourable Lady's comets. Does the Minister agree with

proposals from the demolition commission, does he agree it would

be a logical and practical step which would enhance revolution and

help the ability to meet Scottish housing needs? The proposal to

devolve the setting of the cap is a positive step forward. I welcome the

fact the Labour Party has come forward with proposals. The Scottish

Conservative Party will come forward with proposals at the end of May. An

important part of looking at housing benefit is ensuring there is

sufficient, affordable housing. Does my right honourable friend agree

that a lack of suitable housing is the result and responsibility of

successive Scottish governments. I agree with the honourable lady and

she will be aware that since 2010 the Scottish Government have added

an additional ?1.3 billion in relation to funding which they could

have used for affordable housing in Scotland. We used to hear constantly

there were so many shovel ready projects, in Scotland, but we have

not seen much shovelling. The bedroom tax has been a costly fiasco

in Scotland. I am glad the Government at long last has agreed

to let the Scottish Government mitigate the worst impact. However,

the Secretary of State boasted we have a fantastic benefits system.

Does the Minister think he was talking about the bedroom tax or is

he also living on a parallel universe? I certainly do not live in

the universe that the SNP in habit. They have not set out a single

detail of how a welfare system would operate in Scotland. In the 670

pages of the White Paper there is one reference to setting up a

welfare system. They set up a commission and we have heard nothing

from it and I am not taking any lessons from the honourable lady.

Does the Minister accept that now the Scottish Government have been

given the powers they asked for there is no reason why they should

not, firstly, it cancelled the bedroom tax for this year and,

secondly, right of all the debts that were incurred last year and to

make sure there is no moral hazard involved refund the money that was

paid by Scottish people for the bedroom tax last year? There will be

a statement in the Scottish Parliament on this matter today and

I am sure the honourable gentleman's colleagues will raise

those points. Mr Speaker, rising energy bills are a serious concern

for consumers in Scotland and the UK. Increasing competition and

working to ensure suppliers put customers on the cheapest tariffs is

what we are doing. Does he agree that with the closing of coal

powered fire stations, the adoption of nuclear power stations north of

the border that under independence with the reliance on renewables and

energy costs must increase in independence? I agree with the

honourable gentleman in relation to the serious loss to the Scottish

economy of closing the door on the nuclear industry that has brought so

much benefit to Scotland. I pay tribute to him for being such a

champion of that cause. Energy costs will go up in an independent

Scotland is set up in the Government's analysis on energy. In

Northumberland and Scotland people I setting up or ill buying clubs to

deal with the problem of off grid energy. Does the Minister agree the

best way to combat energy problems and price rises is to copy this good

measure and spread it out across the country? I think oil clubs are

developing in Scotland and it is something the Government is keen to

promote and support and I commend him on highlighting it today. If the

Minister is genuinely concerned about rising costs of energy in

Scotland, why is it that Ofgem have yet again delayed the implementation

of a project which would tackle the discriminatory and expensive

transmission charges? Will he pressed his colleagues to implement

it immediately? The programme is one thing I am in agreement with with

the honourable gentleman. It is disappointing that it has taken some

time, but in the Scotland Office we are determined to work toward

getting the right answer and I urge him and his colleagues to press

Ofgem as well. Can the Minister explain why when the Prime Minister

said consumers in Scotland would be ?50 better off after cuts to the

green levies hundreds of thousands of Scottish consumers have only seen

their bills increase by ?12? There is no reason why consumers in

Scotland should not be seeing this ?50 benefits and the Government will

continue to do or it can to make sure they do. That is the definition

of an in adequate answer and goes some way to explain why Labour's

policy has widespread support across Scotland. Opposing the energy

freeze, the Tory led Government have had the full support of our surprise

friend in the Scottish Nationalist party. Standing up for the energy

companies, failing to take action on the living wage, proposing tax cuts

for those at the top, doesn't the Minister agree that Scotland

deserves better than this? What I believe is we do not take any

lectures from Labour on energy issues. Gas bills more than doubled

under Labour, electricity bills went up 50%. The leader of the Labour

Party was responsible for ?179 of additional levies on gas bills and

fuel duty went up 12 times. I am proud of this Government's record on

energy and Scotland is doing well under it. As he had any discussions

on the potential role of the Bank of England? If people are voting to

leave the UK VI are voting to leave UK organisations which support it.

The majority of my constituents hope that Scotland will stay in the

union. Can you confirm that in the event of yes vote there are no

circumstances which will affect the borrowing plans whatever currency

they use? I would like to thank him for his support for the continuation

of Scotland with the United Kingdom. The position on any currency union

or central banking arrangements has been made very clear by the

Chancellor and the chief secretary and by the Shadow Chancellor. There

will be no such arrangements. Will the Bank of England monetary policy

committee take their instructions from the United Kingdom Treasury

from the Scottish Government? From the United Kingdom Treasury and that

would not change. If Scotland separates from the United Kingdom,

how would the United Kingdom's foreign-exchange reserves be

deposited? That would be a matter to be determined in the matter of

Scotland voting to leave the United Kingdom. I very much hope that will

not come to pass. The Bank of England ready rather sensibly in

gays in technical discussions with the Scottish Government and as each

day passes and a yes vote becomes a more likely, is it not time that the

government engaged with the Scottish Government to find how these matters

might be resolved? In the Edinburgh agreement both governments agreed

and I am astonished at the honourable gentleman wishes to walk

away from it. Do we agree that it is an extraordinary kind of

independence that wants to hand over control of your fiscal and monetary

policy to a foreign bank? He puts it perfectly, the difference between an

asset and an institution is not a difficult one to understand but the

Scottish Nationalists do seem to struggle with it. I have not had any

discussions with the Scottish Government about the prospect of a

currency union. The only way to keep the United Kingdom pound is to stay

in the United Kingdom. I thank the Minister for that reply. Having read

the report of the fiscal commission, it is clear that they took the

advice I have been giving Scottish Nationalist colleagues that they

would be destroyed if they went into the Eurozone so if they have no

currency union with the United Kingdom, what prospects are there

for the 8% deficit that Scotland is running at the moment? The position

is clearly laid out and the difficulties which would be created

via the currency union would be difficulties for the whole of the

United Kingdom that particularly for the people of Scotland. If we are to

be independent, we need to be independent with all that that

means. Is he aware that if Scotland where to gain its independence, the

credit waiting -- rating would be lowered. ? That would mean more

expensive store cards and overdrafts and mortgages. We are cheaper as

part of the United Kingdom. Does the Secretary of State agree that all of

the currency options that have been foot forward -- put forward by the

Scottish Nationalists is inferior to what we currently have? Yes, that is

the truth that they do not want to hear that from which there is no

such escaping and the people of Scotland know that. The number of

people claiming unemployment benefit in Argyll and Bute has been reduced

by 490 over the last year. Does he agree that the best way to keep the

sustained economic growth is to stay within the United Kingdom? Indeed.

He gives me the opportunity to remind the House that the United

Kingdom has the fastest-growing economy in the G7 group of nations

and that Scotland is a second wealthiest parts of that second

fastest-growing -- fastest-growing economy. On what date, if Scotland

chooses to separate, will Scotland have to start printing its own money

or use the pound is a foreign currency? He invites me to look into

the future and predict, which is never an easy prospect for anyone

and that is an unwise enterprise. The truth of the matter is that all

these things are uncertain and bring many risks. What could be more

demeaning and insulting than to read the Scottish people to believe there

are no risks in independence and that a currency union is a foregone

conclusion? The only foregone conclusion about a currency union is

that it will not happen. It will not happen because that is the advice

that has been given by the permanent secretary to the Chancellor of each

and that advice and the outcome of that advice will not change. --

Chancellor of the Exchequer. Can the Secretary of State tell us what has

happened to the gentleman that told the truth? It is amazing that he

chooses to ignore the advice given by the permanent secretary to the

Chancellor of the exchequer. Why does he want something that would be

bad for something? For Scotland?. We are fed that 85% of the British

Chambers and against independence and nearly half identify currency

concerns as their most important issue. What we assurance is can the

Secretary of State give in respect of currency for businesses on both

side of the border? If people in Scotland votes know they will

continue to enjoy the use of the pound and will continue to have the

Bank of England as a lender of last resort. Beyond that, everything else

is uncertain. Scotland has a place in the United Kingdom that means we

have a truly single domestic market with no barriers to employment and

trade. Independence would fundamentally change that and

disrupt trade and free movement of workers. My constituency is home to

a large number of logistics and distribution companies. Is he aware

of the growing concern in that sector is separation would make some

cross-border routes less attractive as they become international rather

than domestic? I hear the same message from a whole range of

different business interests. The financial services industry say that

independence would bring extra costs of different taxation and

legislation. The supermarkets have been very clear that extra costs

would fall to Scottish consumers if they were independent. According to

the Commons library, trade between the two of the United Kingdom and

Ireland has never been higher. Of recently independence nations of the

European Union foreign investment has risen dramatically. What scares

the Tories? The white paper presents a prospectus where there would be

barriers and where the mere existence of border would be an

extra cost. If he wants to know the truth of the matter, he need look no

further than the situation between Canada and the United States. He

might not like it but that is the truth. What discussions has the

Secretary of State had regarding the possibility of border controls

between an independent Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom? And

as separate immigration policy? It is an inescapable fact that if, as

the Scottish Nationalist tell us in the White Paper, Scotland had a

widely diverging to immigration policy which is necessary for the

economic plans that they had been prepared to tell us about, the

operation of a Common travel area of the sort that works well currently

with the Republic of Ireland simply would not operate. You cannot have

your cake and eat it. Given the threat by the first minister to

blockade at Scottish fishing grounds if he does not get his own way, what

an analysis does the Secretary of State have the impact of employment

on the fishing industry? It would be a serious impact on some of the most

economically fragile communities Scotland has on our coastal and

island communities. The conversation about blockading Scottish waters

went beyond the ridiculous and makes me wonder why he seems so desperate

to cosy up to Vladimir Putin. Normally I would give you the date

for the next edition of our programme but the parliamentary

authorities at Westminster have not finalised the programme yet. From

Oliver Seer, goodbye.