here - United Kingdom Parliament

805 Oral Answers
1 DECEMBER 2010
Oral Answers
806
Mr Speaker: Order. I apologise for interrupting the
Secretary of State. I do not know what the hon. Member
for Blyth Valley (Mr Campbell) had for breakfast this
morning, but I am not sure that it has had the desired
effect. [Interruption.] Order. The hon. Gentleman must
not rant at the Government Chief Whip or anybody
else. He must calm himself—it is better for his health if
he does.
Michael Moore: If I can repeat what I was saying
before your intervention, Mr Speaker, I listen carefully
to a range of opinion from across business and different
sectors of Scottish society. The business community
was well represented in the Calman commission, which
produced and supported the proposal. We will continue
to listen to a range of opinion, but we have no intention
of devolving powers over corporation tax.
Mr Alan Reid (Argyll and Bute) (LD): In 1997, the
Scottish people voted to give the Scottish Parliament
tax-varying powers, but in a disgraceful and secret
decision, the SNP Government gave up those powers. I
welcome the Scotland Bill. Will the Secretary of State
assure us that those tax-varying powers will remain
with the Scottish Parliament and that the Bill will be
phrased in such a way that, were the SNP ever elected
again, it would not be able to give up those powers in a
secret decision?
Michael Moore: As my hon. Friend knows, the
consequences of the Scottish Government’s decision
not to maintain the Scottish variable rate have been
debated in the Scottish Parliament in recent days. The
fundamental difference between the existing arrangements
and what will follow if the Bill is enacted is that the Bill
will create a Scottish income tax that sits alongside
United Kingdom income tax, and there will be a
requirement to set that rate every year. That is a fundamental
change, and it will bring the accountability and
empowerment that I discussed earlier, which will be a
good thing for Scotland.
Ann McKechin (Glasgow North) (Lab): It is shocking
that both the UK and Scottish Administrations are
failing to prioritise job growth. While there was a slight
fall in UK-wide unemployment last month, the jobless
total for Scotland continued to increase. The latest
figures show that in Campbeltown an astonishing
13 claimants are chasing every available job. Our youngest
people are suffering the most, and if Labour wins in
2011, we are committed to continuing the future jobs
fund to help them into work. Why is the Secretary of
State set on removing that vital support, while at the
same time supporting tax cuts for our biggest banks,
which are at the root of our economic problems?
Michael Moore: That was an interesting insight into
the Opposition’s economic policy, although I realise
that Opposition Front Benchers are divided on exactly
what it should be. I remind the hon. Lady that we are
dealing with the consequences of the largest deficit in
peacetime history—£155,000 million. We took urgent
action to deal with that, which has drawn us back from
the danger zone. We will announce proposals in due
course on the Work programme which will replace the
future jobs fund. We are dedicated to ensuring that we
create the conditions for growth and for a private sector-led
recovery to deal with the problems that we inherited.
Ann McKechin: Unfortunately, yet again Scotland’s
youth are not the Secretary of State’s priority. His party
does not think twice about dancing on the head of a
pin. In its autumn edition of “Scottish News Extra”,
which is turning out to be one of Scotland’s better
reads, his colleague, the Business Secretary, is described as
“launching a scathing attack on the previous government’s unfair
tuition fees which still have to be paid by Scottish students
studying elsewhere in the UK. He likened tuition fees to the
infamous poll tax.”
Now that his colleague has said that he may abstain on
the forthcoming vote to increase tuition fees in England
to £9,000, will the Secretary of State confirm whether
he will support the increase, whether he will vote against
it in support of the 3,000-plus Scottish students who are
directly affected, or whether he will be absent again
from the vote?
Mr Speaker: Order. In replying, the Secretary of
State must bear in mind that we are referring to economic
policy rather than higher education policy.
Michael Moore: It is interesting that the hon. Lady
interpreted the question by seeking to get away from
anything that might focus attention on Labour’s record
on the economy and on our determination to create the
conditions that will get us back to sustainable growth
for Scotland and the United Kingdom.
Scotch Whisky
6. Mr Adam Holloway (Gravesham) (Con): What
recent discussions he has had with representatives of
the Scotch whisky industry; and if he will make a
statement. [26712]
The Secretary of State for Scotland (Michael Moore):
I regularly have exchanges with the industry and will be
meeting the Scotch Whisky Association in the near
future.
Mr Holloway: The Prime Minister’s recent trade
delegation to China succeeded in securing geographical
indication of origin status for Scotch whisky. How
much will that be worth to the UK trade balance?
Michael Moore: The importance of the Scotch whisky
industry, not just to Scotland but to the United Kingdom,
is shown by the fact that it contributes roughly £4 billion
to our economy, £3 billion of which is represented by
exports. At the moment our exports to China are very
small in comparison with those to the rest of the world.
This important new concession—this agreement with
the Chinese—which we very much welcome, will ensure
that we can grow our exports in China as we have done
in the rest of the world.
Mr Brian H. Donohoe (Central Ayrshire) (Lab): I
declare an interest as secretary of the all-party group on
Scotch whisky and spirits. What representations has the
Secretary of State made to the Treasury in connection
with the imbalance in the tax on whisky?
Michael Moore: As the hon. Gentleman will know
from his distinguished position, the industry is well
represented in discussions with the Treasury at all times
throughout the year, as it was under the previous
Administration. I continue to have discussions with my
Treasury colleagues on this very important issue, and
will continue to do so in the months ahead.