| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Robertson: If that happens, that may well be the case. I have probably presented only one half of the equation because I am only a quarter of the way through my speech. Who will pay? The hon. Lady makes a good point. Will Scottish Enterprise be self-financing? What returns can we expect from the new companies that are created which otherwise would not have been created? That has to be the question. What will they contribute in terms of corporation tax, job creation and jobs retained--which is important--and in terms of inward investment attracted? In other words, is this money well spent?
I wish to put the amount into context. My hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset mentioned the number of nurses who could be employed by the extra money. The £4 billion over the period in question would run the health service for quite a few weeks. The health service employs about 1 million people. In that context, the figures quoted this afternoon are not impressive.
Mr. Alasdair Morgan:
Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the Bill will not increase the sum available to the Scottish Parliament because that is clearly laid down by the Scotland Act 1998 and the Barnett formula? If the Scottish Parliament finds that money, it will be at the expense of other items of expenditure. The hon. Gentleman appears to want the House to supervise the Scottish budget in total.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst):
Order. It is not in order to go down that track. We must
Mr. Robertson:
Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for rescuing me from going down a complicated path.
May I put the £4 billion in another context? I was saying how many people it could help and how long it could run the health service, for example, which employs 1 million people; but given that the entire population of Scotland over the age of 16 numbers just over 4 million and the economically active population is only 2.5 million, it seems an extraordinarily large sum to spend on such a small work force. That is not to undervalue that work force; my argument is whether it is money well spent. The money might be better spent elsewhere, as the hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Morgan) might have been suggesting, or perhaps left in the pocket of the taxpayer, who knows how to spend it better than Governments.
A number of differing figures have been quoted this afternoon. They also differ from the figures that I shall give. In an earlier intervention I quoted the chief executive of Scottish Enterprise. I shall do so again for the benefit of hon. Members who were not in the Chamber then. He claimed in the annual report that Scottish Enterprise has helped to attract inward investment of £1 billion, and created or retained 18,000 jobs and 36,000 training places. Yet he says:
Mr. Moore:
Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that economic development is not a valid purpose for Government expenditure, or is he contending, by contrast, that Scottish Enterprise is particularly inefficient in terms of economic development? If it is the latter, what benchmark is he using to make that suggestion?
Mr. Robertson:
I have used a number of benchmarks, the best of which is the fact that the chairman of Scottish Enterprise, Sir Ian Wood, says that it has added £600 million to Scotland's GDP. However, if one averages out what the agency has cost since its creation, that £600 million is not impressive. One must ask how much of it would have existed had the money not been spent in the first place.
Mr. Dominic Grieve (Beaconsfield):
I shall try to keep my remarks brief. Whenever I have participated in Scottish debates in the past and told the House that I would be brief, I have usually succeeded in keeping to that undertaking.
It is a great pleasure to participate in this debate and to have listened to it. During the long passage of the devolution Bill, when I spent many long hours on the Benches, I realised how much one learns about issues concerning places other than one's own constituency when one bothers to attend debates in this Chamber.
I hope that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will allow me to go slightly beyond the Bill, because I want to refer to the necessity for Members of Parliament to be kept informed of what goes on nationwide. I am satisfied that the Bill should commend itself to the House, and I accept that Scottish Enterprise has been beneficial in Scotland, so I have no objection to raising the limits.
However, the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) about the lack of past scrutiny of the activities of Scottish Enterprise are perfectly valid. The House has previously discussed the problem of our ability to scrutinise every aspect of Government activity. I suspect that the Scottish Parliament may also have that problem, especially if every day it packs up at 5 o'clock in the afternoon--it is now a quarter past six. Bills should not be allowed to be nodded through. They require explanation, and I hope that the Minister will deal with my hon. Friend's points, if only briefly, when he winds up the debate.
Some issues go beyond the Bill, which I am told is the last we shall consider before the Scottish Parliament comes into being. Finance is at the root of what makes a unified nation state. We all have concerns about one another's finances. During the devolution debate, and even this evening, I heard enough compelling speeches, such as that of the hon. Member for Ayr (Ms Osborne) about the particular needs of her constituency, to know that there is competition nationally for the allocation of funds. If any issue is to cause problems and dissent when the Scottish Parliament is established, it will be finance.
I listen to Government Members who represent English constituencies, particularly in the north-west. It is clear that, even though this money may come from the block grant, the block grant itself will be up for consideration far more frequently once the Scottish Parliament is established. Therefore, those of us who believe in the Union--that applies across the Benches--argue that continuing, adequate information should be provided to hon. Members about how money is spent north of the border after the Scottish Parliament comes into being. If it is not provided, that will be a fertile area of misunderstanding. New mechanisms will have to be established in this Parliament so that we can be given that information.
Mr. Dalyell:
What mechanisms would the hon. Gentleman like to see? This is a serious point.
Mr. Grieve:
We shall have to look beyond the existing Select Committee system to provide mechanisms for frequent contact between Members of the House and Members of the Scottish Parliament in Edinburgh, for the exchange of information, if not on a statutory basis then according to growing conventions, and for relevant Ministers to explain to hon. Members whether they are satisfied with the way in which expenditure is being handled north of the border. I do not see that as unwarranted interference, because Members of the Scottish Parliament should be entitled to obtain answers on those aspects through representatives at Westminster on issues that concern England alone.
Mr. Macdonald:
With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Despite its technical start, the debate has been interesting. I think that the point on which the debate concluded is the point that began it, but I shall deal with that later, when I respond to what was said by the hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin).
The hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson) asked why we could not delay the whole business until the Scottish Parliament was up and running. The purpose of the Bill, however, is to enable Scottish Enterprise to continue its operations until the Parliament is up and running. If it is not presented and passed, Scottish Enterprise cannot do that. I think we all agree that it is important for Scottish Enterprise to continue its work. We have extended the limit for a minimal period, so that the Parliament can decide on future arrangements when it has been established.
The hon. Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) mentioned reductions in support for training. Under the new deal, an extra £300 million is being spent in Scotland over the lifetime of this Parliament--much more than was available to Scottish Enterprise before. Indeed, this is the biggest training programme in peacetime history.
The hon. Gentleman also made a plea for balance in terms of efforts to attract inward investment. Scottish Enterprise tries to maintain that balance. It may interest the hon. Gentleman to learn that less than 10 per cent. of Scottish Enterprise's operational expenditure is devoted to inward investment and the attraction of such investment; the rest is devoted to companies that are already operating in Scotland.
My hon. Friends the Members for Dumfries (Mr. Brown) and for Ayr (Ms Osborne) made a number of important points, especially in regard to the difficulties and challenges that exist in their constituencies. Those points will be drawn to the attention of my noble Friend the Minister for Business and Industry, who will note them with interest. As both my hon. Friends will know, my noble Friend recently met representatives from Dumfries and Galloway, and expects to meet representatives again in the next month or so. Many of the points that have been raised can be pursued then. The Scottish Office has now joined the Ayrshire economic forum. My noble Friend attended the forum's last meeting before the end of last year, and will attend the next on 25 January.
The hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Moore) welcomed the action plan drawn up for the borders, and I welcome his positive comments.
He suggested that the plan could provide a model or template for the future, and I agree that there are lessons to be drawn from the necessary speed with which Scottish Enterprise responded to the crisis in the borders. I certainly think that the way in which the action plan was put together by the working party provides a model from which we can learn lessons for the future.
The hon. Gentleman also emphasised the importance of infrastructure to economic development. Infrastructure is important for the borders, and also for my part of Scotland. It is taken into account in the current roads review, and the hon. Gentleman can be assured that officials from the Department that deals with transport, who are working on that review, try to consider the economic impact and the benefits of the various roads proposals. They are always grateful for the advice and information that they receive from Scottish Enterprise and from officials in the Department of Trade and Industry, so the communication that he was looking for is there.
The hon. Member for West Dorset raised a number of issues. Essentially, he asked questions about the value for money achieved through expenditure on Scottish Enterprise. He had particular queries and points in that respect, but he also couched the matter in a larger question about scrutiny of Scottish Enterprise post devolution.
"Scotland . . . still lags behind the rest of the UK in the number of businesses emerging".
The chairman of Scottish Enterprise, Sir Ian Wood, says that Scottish Enterprise has
"added £600 million to Scotland's GDP."
Those figures may sound impressive, but compared with what Scottish Enterprise has cost, they are not impressive at all. The agency has not moved Scotland on very far. Will the Minister assure us that the money will be well spent and will result in gains to Scotland that are proportionate to the cost of the schemes?
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |