18/04/2012 Scottish Questions

Hello and a warm welcome to eight damp and drizzly Westminster. Don't

be fooled by the brief interlude of sunshine. Whoever coined the phrase,

April showers, it knew what they were talking about. The

constitutional debate continues to occupied MPs on the debate -- day

that Holyrood passes its verdict on the day that gives it more powers.

What was contained in the Scotland Bill was the subject on the very

first question here. He order. Questions to the

Mr Speaker, on 21st March, I tabled a statement to confirm agreement

had been reached with the Scottish government on the Scotland Bill.

The Scottish government has tabled a memorandum recommending the

support of the bill and members of the Scottish Parliament will vote

to Labour -- later today. The news got him bail has indicated that it

will pass significant powers to the Scottish Parliament. I'll wonder

whether the recommendations he has received, whether he received any

from the first minister to work jointly with the Secretary of State

to highlight and promote the powers to show we can maximise devolution

by eight -- whilst maintaining the integrity and strength and

partnership with the UK. I have not had that particular representation

but I agree that it is the most significant piece of legislation

and transfer of financial powers from London to Edinburgh since 17

07. Very quickly after the bell cm and I hope we will get on with

implementation in the right way and show that devolution works well for

Scotland. The Scottish government and the majority of members of the

Scottish Parliament believe that this will be an improvement and it

will have job-creating powers but it has not happened. Will the

Secretary of State take the opportunity to confirm that the UK

government has agreed to safeguards which ensures the Scottish

Parliament will need to be satisfied that funding arrangements

will not be detrimental? Can I say that I have a very different view

of the future of Scotland from the honourable gentleman? I want to see

Scotland continues strongly to be part of the UK. On the specifics, I

am pleased that the Scottish government has accepted the

Scotland Bill and we have worked carefully together to ensure we

have the right measures in place to it ensure we will implement it

carefully for all the people of Scotland. Does the Secretary of

State acknowledge that, in the wake of the historic SNP victory last

year, every single political party miraculously is now in favour of

more powers than are currently contained in the Scotland Bill?

Which further powers does the Secretary of State want is the

exercised in Scotland? A fantastic diversionary tactic from the

honourable gentleman. He never talks about independence. Why?

Because they cannot answer the fundamental questions about

independence. I am delighted he wants to work with this. About

devolution, it has always worked on the basis that we promote ideas,

come to consensus and the debate on devolution will continue but we

must resolve the issue of independence. Why does he not want

to get on with that debate? Mr Speaker, I have regular meetings

with senior Cabinet ministers, including the Chancellor of the

Exchequer where a right -- wide range of issues are discussed. This

includes the period in the run-up to the Budget. I have my doubts

whether he had any meetings. Anyway, there are more families using tax

credits in Glasgow and more pensioners hit with a "granny tax"

in Glasgow than they Iraq millionaires receiving the mansion

tax in the whole of Great Britain. Is that what he calls them look --

Liberal Democrats speeding up for Scotland? He just cannot get the

Labour Party off the hook of the mess they left the economy in at

the end of the last Parliament. We have to sort the biggest deficit in

peacetime history and get as on the pass -- path to sustainable growth.

We have had to take daft decisions but I am proud that because of the

measures in his Budget, more tax will be -- Scots will be taken out

of income tax on and pensioners can forget the insult of the 75p

increase. Did my right honourable friend or the Chancellor received

Budget recommendations from the Scottish government about the

financial consequences of Scotland being separated from NATO?

Did he make a case for re profiling direct capital investment for

funding shovel ready projects? That is the most effective thing we can

do for GDP growth. Or did he roll over and accept a tax break for

millionaires? Honestly, the honourable gentleman should reflect

carefully. Perhaps in a rare moment of generosity, he would welcome

that since the spending review we have announced a further billion

pounds of spending for to the Scottish government. We are

continuing to maintain conditions for growth and in then de their

enterprise zones that have under the cent capital allowances.

Because of the high price of fuel, there is damage being done to

businesses and people's incomes because of the long distance people

in my constituency have to travel. Will the have a word with the

Chancellor? My honourable friend is a consistent campaigner on this

issue. I am always happy to have discussions about that. I would

hope he would recognise the fact that as a result of the measures we

have taken, we have provided a cut relative to what Labour proposed

and we have provided support for remote rural communities in

Scotland as well. Does the Secretary of State at all can he

tell us the last time he ate a hot Bridie and did he discuss what the

chancellor the impact of the tax on these? I would have lobby

honourable gentleman was above such personal attacks. My own preference

is for fish and chips and he will know There are plenty of places

where you can get a very fine fish supper. We have had to take tough

decisions to make sure everything is there on that front. Does my

right honourable friend agree that in difficult economic times it is

important that the government helps people on low incomes by cutting

taxes and taking their lowest paid out of tax and that is in stark

contrast to the last Labour government to doubled the 10 pence

tax rate. My honourable friend is right. Our priority has to be to

give help to people on low and middle incomes. There is people

need the most support and 160,000 Scots will be out of income tax

altogether because of us. That is the right way to approach this.

I begin with a quote. "he do simple equation as that we think the

priority is to help those on the lowest incomes". That will have to

be paid for and we think it is fair that those who have the broadest

shoulders should be the ones to contribute to that. Can the

Secretary of State tell the House which member of the Cabinet said

that about the recent budget? Important point is that in the

economic circumstances, we fix the deficit, get the economy on the

right track and, in doing so, make decisions which help the lowest

paid and middle income earners and that is what we are doing by taking

people out of tax and ensuring we reduce the tax burden on others.

didn't even recognise in his own quote. He should know that there is

a foundation which confirms that cut to tax credits will dwarf any

gains of an increased to personal tax allowances so he needs to stop

using that argument. Can he tell us why he has changed his position

since he last back to the Evening Standard when, over 400,000

Scottish pensioners will be hit by the "granny tax", Beauvais 84,000

families in Scotland will have lost all their tax credits and, at the

same time, the budget has given 16,000 of the richest Scots a

massive tax cut. Will he finally admit that this was a Budget that

has hit start -- Scotland hard, has done more for millionaires than it

has for hard-working families and when will the Secretary of State

stop being a Tory front man and stand up for people in Scotland?

The last Labour Secretary of State said that Labour had to be credible

on the economy on the financial regime but they are not being

credible with proposals they are putting forward at the moment. I

stand by the comments I made. My intention and my colleagues

intention is to ensure we provide support to the lowest and middle

income earners in this country and that those on the highest earnings

pay their way. We will ensure they Changes to the block grant a cut

lated by the Barnet formula. Due to the unprecedented deficit we

inherited, our immediate priority is to reduce the deficit and we

have no plans to change the arrangements before the

stabilisation of public finances. thank the Minister for that answer.

Given the government has no plans to replace the formula with a

formula based on need and given the need for there to be clarity for

the people of Scotland before they vote to know what proportion of the

national debt they inherit, will he agree that the Barnet multiplier

will be a good method of doing that? What I believe is that we

need to move on from the discussion on issues of process in relation to

the referendum and have the substantive debate on issues that

will if affect Scotland if it were to become independent. The SNP,

having campaigned relentlessly for independence, now appear to want to

put those issues of for as long as possible. Does the Minister agree

that the high price of fuel is creating major problems in Scotland

and, at a stroke, if he were to cut the a key - might VAT, that would

help Scottish families who are suffering greatly. The funding

formula for Scotland. It is of course calculated by a basket of

taxes raised by the UK government. Scots would be much worse off in

relation to fuel duty had fuel duty been 10 pence higher as it would be

if Labour were in power. Would he agree that it is important to

maintain the Union in the interests of England and Scotland but that

the funding formula should be fair to both countries? I absolutely

agree with the honourable gentleman's sentiments but he is

aware that this government inherited the worst deficit in

peacetime history and that stabilising our nation's finances

has to be the focus of the Government's efforts.

relationship to the last question and answer, will the Minister not

agree the Scotland Bill will increase the amount of revenue

gathered in Scotland to about a third of its spend and therefore

decrease the dependency on a block grant? I agree that the Scotland

Bill represents a radical historic and significant change to the

financing of Scotland - more than one-third of spending in Scotland

by the parliament will be determined by funding from taxes

that they raise an determined. It is a major step forward in

devolution and accountability and should be welcomed by all members

The consultation responses gave strong endorsement for a referendum

with a single clear question on independence overseen by the

Electoral Commission using the same franchise as that used to elect

members of Parliament and hell sooner rather than later.

grateful. Does he agree with the consensus of responses that say

that people do not want to wait 1000 days in order to have a

referendum? This is an important decision, the most important we

Ascot will take in our lifetimes and it is causing uncertainty the

longer it is delayed. The sooner we Could I ask my Rt Hon friend for

his responses to the consultation, that Richard other simple yes or no

to any referendum in order to have a decisive outcome? We must not

muddle the issue of independence up with a separate issue of devolution.

We mark another important milestone with the development of the

Scotland Bill. Assuming we get their Lordships support, what we

want is a clear decision on the future Robert country and that it

should stay within United Kingdom. -- the future of up and it. Will

the Secretary of State's fact the Labour Party for providing is a

meagre consultation with over a quarter of this responses, I

suppose it adds new meaning to the idea of a Labour blog board, but

can he tell us how many responses he got from the Labour website,

which slightly amended the text? And why is the Labour Party doing

all the work on the ground for the story-let consultation? It should

have the be a surprise that political parties want to take part

in consultations. It is an intensely political process, but

even this morning, on the SNP website there was a free prepared

script for people to respond to the SNP consultation. So they have to

be careful with the argument they are trying to make. 70% of

respondents to the UK consultation felt that 2014 was too long to wait

for Scotland's constitutional future. Businesses and financial

institutions in my constituency feel that this state of limbo is

damaging the economy of Scotland. Has the Secretary of State received

similar representations? honourable lady is entirely right

to draw attention to this issue and to highlight, not just in her

constituency but across Scotland and the UK, businesses, like

individuals, want answers. We need to respond to this issue sooner or

later so that we do not lose out on investment and jobs and pass a

future within the UK. -- and our future. 367,000... That was a

question about the so-called granny tax. Isn't this an attack on people

putting away money for their retirement? It is also an attack on

people are losing income when they are single because of the bedroom

packs, so if you are elderly, you cannot be a single, and if you are

poor, you cannot be hungry, because of the tax on fish and chips.

one a surprise the honourable member that I do not accept his

analysis. What he and other scaremongers on this issue of bail

to point out is that over half of those over 65 in Scotland will not

pay any tax at all. Is the minister not ashamed of his Government's

decision to reduce tax for the wealthiest Scots whilst at the same

time penalising pensioners with a tax grab which will see pensioners

all losing up to �22 per annum. know that the honourable gentleman

was not a member of this Parliament for most of the 13 years of the

Labour Government, but most of his colleagues from Scotland were and I

did not hear any of them calling for an increase in higher income

tax and a higher rate of income tax. He is quite wrong to say that there

will be losers in relation to the age-related allowances. There will

be no cash losers. But this is about fairness and simplification

then why has it been delayed until the full �10,000 personal allowance

was announced before this tax on bedrooms? I acknowledge the

honourable lady, known for speaking up on the issue of the minimum wage,

and that is why I that have thought she did a welcome the fact that

this Government is raising the personal allowance to �10,000

during the course of this Parliament. The air are a lot of

noisy private conversation sticking place. I would like to hear the

questions and the answers. Or does it say about the imposing of a

granny tax on 367,000 Scots, was giving a tax cut to the wealthiest

14,000 scores? What the honourable gentleman and his colleagues do not

acknowledge is that this Government has delivered the largest pension

rise in the last 30 years against the Government of which his party,

which took forward a pension rise of 75p. We are not going to take

any lectures on the treatment of pensioners in Scotland. Just how

out of touch is this Government to think that it is right off their

that nearly 400,000 Scottish pensioners should pay on average et

the town's more they're year and tax, just so that's 16,000 top rate

taxpayers should receive a tax cut of �10,000 a year, on average?

People retiring next April both face an annual tax rise of �322

that year because of the granny tax, on top of higher VAT and cuts in

winter fuel allowance, introduced by this Chancellor. With a wrecker

of in government like this, it will be no surprise to the minister that

Tony election strategists are or gloomy about winning NEC's at all

in Scotland in the next election. What I think is there is that half

of pensioners over 65 in Scotland will not pay any tax at all. Those

earning under �10,000 by the end of this Government will be subject to

a personal allowance of �10,000. What I think is there is that this

Government has delivered the largest increase in the state

pension of �270, compared to 75p, or fraud by the previous Government.

-- offered by. Those living on modest pension incomes have already

paid a very high price for the financial crisis and have lost the

value of their savings and investments and base inflation and

extremely low interest rates. How can the Minister justify this tax

Brabourne pensioners, whilst cutting taxes for millionaires? --

this tax grab on pensioners. I will not accept any lectures from the

honourable lady. She offers pensioners the prospect of breaking

up the United Kingdom, and no certainty of were pension funding

would come from. We're confident that people in Scotland will

continue to support the United Kingdom in any referendum. It is

the Scottish government that is proposing independence and they

must answer for the implications of their proposals, including on

currency matters. This question is about whether the power and would

continue in an independent Scotland. The could be an independent state

and would be obliged to join the Euro. He SNP are changing their

position on what currency they wish to adopt and how they would go

about it. The SNP needs to answer some Berry had questions about this

about what it would look like a Scotland were Independent. Whiting

Scotland is better off, in the UK. Does this not sure the incoherence

of the SNP economic policy? honourable gentleman is entirely

right that the SNP do not resolve what monetary union with the rest

of the UK might look like, how they would deal with fiscal rules and

whether the Bank of England would be the lender of last resort. I

think in Scotland we deserve some answers to those points. The then

independent Scotland was to use power in Stirling, would this not

require conditions that cannot be known now, and this is one of a

growing number of issues that power unknown, as to how uncertain

Scotland's future would be, if it left the United Kingdom? My right

Hon and will friend is right. The SNP ducks the answers to all of

these hard questions, because they do not have the answers. This is a

question about what can be done to tackle fuel poverty in Scotland.

Bringing together the heads of the Big Six energy companies and

Scottish consumer groups, this led to a supply of vital information to

improve the application of key policies such as the Worm home

discount scheme. I am continuing meetings, to review progress. --

warm home. Do provision of heating oil in the Scottish borders region

needs reviewing urgently. represent a large, rural

constituency in the borders, so I share his concerns, but I

understand that in his own constituency there is some

innovative initiatives from communities coming together to

produce heating oil, who are therefore able to negotiate better

prices with suppliers. Will the Minister press his own Cabinet

colleagues to look at practical help, for example, by bringing

forward the pensioners'' winter fuel allowance to allow them to

fill up their tanks before winter hits, when prices tend to be Laura?

It is an issue of concern in rural Scotland, as elsewhere, and I would

be happy to meet the honourable gentleman to discuss his concerns.

This is a question about what would transfer to Scotland under so-

called Devo-Max would the Secretary of State agree with me that devo-

max is a wonderful idea for Scotland and we T discuss extending

this to the regions and localities of England? -- would he. There is a

lively debate to be had, but the important thing is that we

acknowledge the important next steps in Scotland, a real proposals

in the Scotland Bill, due to be getting the consent of the Scottish

Parliament and their Lordships, next week, giving us the biggest

development in devolution since 1998. That is all we have time for