The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (David Cairns): The Government have no plans to replace or review the Barnett formula, which has delivered fair, stable and transparent settlements for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland under successive Administrations for almost 30 years.
Mr. Bone: Public expenditure in Scotland is £8,414 per head, yet in the east midlands it is a quarter less, at £6,334. In Wellingborough, a secondary school has been demolished, there have been cuts in the police force and we do not have a local hospital. Why should the population of Wellingborough and the rest of the east midlands subsidise the population of Scotland by the massive amount of £2,080 a year? What is the justification for that huge difference in public expenditure?
David Cairns: In every constituency, in every part of every region and nation of this country, there has been a massive increase in public services: more schools, more doctors, more nurses. As it happens, investment in public spending in Scotland has increased in the past five years by 18 per cent., but in England it increased by 21 per cent., so there are higher rates of increase in England. As the hon. Gentleman has brought it up, I should point out that in his area there are 420 more teachers than in 1998, 163 more police officers and 62 police community support officers. In his NHS area, there are 6,886 more nurses, 725 more consultants, 353 more GPs and 548 more dentistsall on account of strong economic management by the Government
Mr. Tom Clarke (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (Lab):
Recently, I had the privilege of chairing an
all-party review of services for disabled children. The Treasurys response was to target £340 million for England and £34 million for Scotland. May I have my hon. Friends assurance that nothing in the Barnett formula will prevent us from continuing to negotiate with the Executive to ensure that funding is indeed targeted at disabled children and the needs we identified?
David Cairns: It is only right to point out that my right hon. Friend has done more to advance the cause of disabled children than almost any other Member of the House, and much tribute is due to him. He is right to point out that as part of the comprehensive spending review settlement for the Department for Education and Skills in England money additional to that agreed with the Barnett consequentials at the time has been made available. His point underlines the fact that, because of the strong economic performance of the United Kingdom over the past 10 years, significant sums of additional money are going to education and health in Scotland, as they are throughout the rest of the UK. Obviously, it is for each of the devolved Administrations to decide how to spend the money made available to them, but my right hon. Friend makes an excellent case that additional resources should be spent on services for disabled children, and I look forward to that happening.
John Thurso (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD): When the Minister next has discussions with the Chancellor, will he also raise the issue of moneys not contained in the Barnett formula, particularly Nuclear Decommissioning Authority funding for decommissioning at Dounreay? He will be aware that earlier this year there was a severe threat to Dounreay caused by problems outside Scotland. Will he ensure that his right hon. Friend is aware of that so that such threats do not reoccur in future years?
David Cairns: I am happy to have that conversation and to inform the hon. Gentleman that I shall be visiting Dounreay next Friday, where I will be able to hold discussions with local management. If the hon. Gentleman wants to come along [ Interruption. ] I am telling him now. Dont start with the no phone calls and no lettersI am telling the hon. Gentleman now that I shall be there next Friday, so why do he and I not sit down with local management at Dounreay and discuss all those issues?
The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Douglas Alexander): If I may, Mr. Speaker, I shall begin my answer by placing on the record condolences on behalf of the whole House on the passing of the noble Lord Ewing who served the House and Scotland with great distinction.
Mr. Alexander: I certainly find myself in agreement with my hon. Friend. Last week, I had the opportunity to visit China, where I met a range of British businesses, including Scottish businesses, which are investing in that expanding economy. When one has the opportunity to meet such business people and discuss with them the challenges facing Scottish business in the global economy, it is perfectly obvious that the economic stability of the past 10 years has provided strong foundations on which to seek new markets, new prosperity and new jobs for Scotland.
Has the Secretary of State read the newly published survey of success by the Federation of Small Businesses that sadly shows Scotland lagging as the worst-performing country in western Europe? I know that the Labour party has just lost political hegemony after 50 years in Scotland, but what responsibility does it accept for this woeful state of affairs? How long will it take for the only party in Scottish politics that as yet holds out against more powers for the Scottish Parliamentthe Labour partyto reassess that, join the rest of us and give the Scottish Parliament the powers to improve the economy and society of Scotland?
Mr. Alexander: Notwithstanding that characteristically gracious question, may I pass on my congratulations to the hon. Gentleman on assuming the leadership of the Westminster group of his party? I fear, however, that he will continue to articulate a case of Scotland the Victim rather than Scotland the Brave. If one actually takes the opportunity to consider the FSB index of success report, one will recognise that Scotland is above Switzerland, Sweden, Ireland, Iceland, Denmark and Norway in terms of educational attainment. Scotland ranks seventh out of 32 for employment, representing equality of opportunity and how that comes about.
Of course, it is right to recognise that we face a very considerable challenge in terms of life expectancy and public health. Those areas of responsibility touch on the issue of poverty, for which both this House and the Scottish Parliament have responsibility, but I fail to see from the hon. Gentlemans argument how additional powers would help the Scottish Parliament, given that it has responsibility for health policy in Scotland. If he is concerned about health inequalities in Scotland, he will be better discussing them with the First Minister.
Mr. Ian Davidson (Glasgow, South-West) (Lab/Co-op): May I associate myself with the Secretary of States remarks about the sad passing of Harry Ewing, who contributed an enormous amount to my election in 1992 when I defeated Jim Sillars of the SNPa fact greatly welcomed by all concerned?
Is the Secretary of State aware that unemployment in my constituency has come down by more than 50 per cent. since 1997, but is he also aware that I am still not
satisfied? Can he therefore tell us when he will be arranging for there to be an announcement about the orders for the two aircraft carriers?
Mr. Alexander: I know of long standing that my hon. Friend is always proud but not satisfied in relation to employment in his constituency. His constituency is just one of the many constituenciesnot just in Glasgow or west central Scotland but across the whole of Scotlandthat has seen unemployment tumble in recent years as a direct consequence of the economic stability of which I was just speaking. Of course, much further work needs to be done in Glasgow, and it is the case that Ministry of Defence orders to British shipyards in Scotland have contributed significantly to the employment success that has been achieved in recent years. However, this Government recognise that more needs to be done.
Malcolm Bruce (Gordon) (LD): I echo the tributes to Lord Ewing and, in particular, pay tribute to his role as joint chair, along with Lord Steel, of the Scottish Constitutional Convention that delivered many of the changes that Scotland benefits from today.
May I concur with the Secretary of State that many parts of Scotland are performing well and have the potential to develop more strongly? However, for that to happen in places such as the north-east, we need continual investment in infrastructurefor example, the western peripheral route and a commuter rail service between Inverurie and Stonehavenand a regime for oil, gas and energy that encourages long-term development and investment. For businesses in my constituency, being part of a strong Scotland within a strong United Kingdom is an overwhelming priority.
Mr. Alexander: Somewhat unusually, I find myself broadly agreeing with the sentiments expressed by the right hon. Gentleman. It is of course the case that we want to see continued investment on the UK continental shelf in the North sea. Although the primary responsibility is with the Scottish Executive, it is also the case that we want to ensure that there is an infrastructure to support sustained economic growth. It is also the case that that has taken place not just on the platform of economic stability but as part of a significant global economy. That is why Scotland has enjoyed such economic success in recent years.
The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Douglas Alexander): A range of activities has been planned to celebrate the Act of Union, some of which have taken place already. As you are aware, Mr. Speaker, you and the Lord Speaker earlier today opened an exhibition in the Royal Gallery in the other place displaying some of the historic documents associated with the treaty of Union. That exhibition is due to travel to the Scottish Parliament later in the year.
Philip Davies: Does the Secretary of State share my concern that what is undermining the Act of Union celebrations is not just the SNP victory in the Scottish parliamentary elections, but the fact that there is growing resentment in England about the unfairness of the constitutional settlement since devolution? Does he agree that the only way to ensure that we can celebrate the Act of Union in the long termand, indeed, to save the Union in the long termis to ensure that Scottish MPs in this House do not vote on matters that apply only to England?
Mr. Alexander: I am not convinced by the case that the hon. Gentleman outlines. Opportunism is vying with principle on the Conservative Benches, as the Conservatives try to frame a policy on the United Kingdom. I am somewhat more optimistic than he is about the future of the Union, given thatnotwithstanding the election of the First Minister a few weeks agoat the elections the Scottish people overwhelmingly rejected the party that sought separatism. Two out of three votes cast were clearly in favour of the Union.
Mr. Jim McGovern (Dundee, West) (Lab): Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Union of Scotland with other parts of the UK does far more for each and every part of the UK than narrow nationalism ever will?
Mr. Alexander: I find myself in agreement with my hon. Friend, and not simply for the historic reasons relating to the strength that the Union brings to Scotland and Englandthe shared history, the common geography and the trading links that we have enjoyed in recent centuries. Looking to the future, the ability to balance the strength that we draw from each other with a recognition of diversity is a powerful message to send to the whole world. What a dismal message it would send to the world if, on the 300th anniversary, people were to judge that, instead of working together, we should split apart.
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP): The Secretary of State and the Scotland Office have played an absolute blinder on this one. Look what we have secured in this anniversary year: we have a brand-new shiny £2 coin and a brand-new shiny SNP Government in Edinburgh. Will he pledge to continue to do what he has done so well and reflect the publics enthusiasm for this celebration by continuing to do not very much at all?
Mr. Alexander: What powerful eloquence from the hon. Gentleman. The fact is that Scottish people recognise that there is something useful about having a £2 coinin clear distinction to an SNP-led Administration.
Mr. Ian Austin (Dudley, North) (Lab): Surely the best way of celebrating this magnificent anniversary would be to reject once and for all the idea that some Members of the House should be prevented from voting on some matters before it. That is an undemocratic, anti-British proposal that would create a de facto English Parliament and lead inexorably to the break-up of Britain.
I know that my hon. Friend is tireless in his advocacy not just of his part of the west midlands, but of the case for the United Kingdom. A
United Kingdom needs a united Parliament. The argument that Members on the Opposition Benches sometimes articulatethat somehow there is a great oppression of England by Scottish MPsignores the fact that more than 80 per cent. of the House is not composed of Scottish MPs. The House reflects the geography and the population shares of the respective nations of the United Kingdom. I am convinced that there is a strong case for having a single class of MPs who are able to legislate on the matters that come before the House. That has served us well in the past, and I believe that it will serve us well in the future.
I am sure that the Secretary of State will agree that one aspect of the Act of Union to be particularly celebrated is the retention of Scotlands distinct legal system. So like me and Jack McConnell, was he appalled by the Prime Ministers apparent willingness to ride roughshod not just over the Scottish legal system but over the whole devolution settlement in seeking to agree a prisoner exchange deal with Libya? What hope can we have for the continuation of the Act of the Union if the First Minister and the Prime Minister do not even communicate?
Mr. Alexander: I have something of an advantage over the hon. Gentlemannot only by being educated and trained in Scots law, but by having practised as a Scottish solicitor. Greater familiarity with the tenets of constitutional law, including the Scotland Act 1998, might allow him to recognise the error of his statement. The memorandum of understanding states:
The UK Government will seek to obtain the agreement of all three jurisdictions within the United Kingdom in each case.
David Mundell: What is not consistent with the devolution settlement is the discourtesy that was shown to the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Executive by the Prime Minister in failing to raise this issue before he began the discussions. Does the Secretary of State agree that the best way to celebrate the Union is to demonstrate our commitment to it in all our actions? Surely that means that when a memorandum of understanding is signed between the United Kingdom Government and the devolved Administrations it should be adhered to; that when a joint ministerial committee is set up, it meets; that when Scotland elects a First Minister, the Prime Minister speaks to him; and that if the intergovernmental relations as previously envisaged are not fit for purpose, they are revised. Is it not about time that the Secretary of Scotland showed his commitment to the Union in deeds, not words?
Forgive me, but I have some difficulty taking seriously the hon. Gentlemans assertions of his commitment to the Scottish Parliament. This is a man who was, in one of his own memorandums, somewhat scathing in his views of his colleagues in the Scottish Parliament. On the integrity of the United Kingdom constitutional settlement in light of the memorandum
of understanding, there is nothing in the memorandum of understanding that is prejudicial either to the interests of the jurisdiction that rightly continues to be the province of Scots law, and indeed of the Scottish Parliament, or to the right of the UK Prime Minister to negotiate on foreign affairs on behalf of the United Kingdom.
|Next Section||Index||Home Page|