Scotland
What assessment he has made with Cabinet colleagues of the higher education challenges in Scotland.
The Secretary of State was asked—
I know Members across the House will join me in paying our respects to His Holiness Pope Francis. I offer my sincere condolences to Scotland’s Catholic community who have this Easter lost a much loved and compassionate leader.
Just before the Easter recess, I had the privilege of leading the UK Government delegation to Washington DC, then on to Tartan Week in New York. The trip was a key part of my drive to promote brand Scotland around the world, to boost economic growth and to create jobs here at home.
Finally, Mr Speaker, to you, to Members across the House and to Scotland’s closest and most important neighbours, happy St George’s day.
I call Dr Scott Arthur.
Before you do so, Mr Speaker, I had better answer his question. [Laughter.] Too excited about St George’s day so I am, Mr Speaker.
We should all be proud of Scotland’s universities, the contribution they make to Scotland’s public life and their reputation as the best in the world, but 18 years of the Scottish National party have left some of those proud institutions in dire straits. Job cuts and course closures are the inevitable product of the SNP’s decision to deliver a 22% real terms cut to Scottish student funding since 2013. Scotland’s universities, their staff and their students all need a Scottish Government with a proper plan to turn this crisis around; they need a new direction with Scottish Labour.
I thank the Secretary for State for his answer and for his comments about the Pope. I make my response within the context of my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and I note my membership of the University and College Union.
The university sector in Scotland has never been in a worse state. It is in a state of crisis, with job losses, both compulsory and voluntary, being contemplated across the whole sector in Scotland. It is young Scots who are paying the price. To balance the books, the Scottish Government are limiting the number of young Scots who can go to university, forcing universities to rely more and more on the recruitment of students from overseas. To be clear, that means that Scots are often sitting at home unable to access a place because students from overseas with lower qualifications are getting those places. Does the Secretary of State agree that Scotland’s young people must be supported and the university sector must be fully funded in Scotland?
I thank my hon. Friend for his question and for what he does to support higher education in Scotland. Thanks to the SNP’s higher education financial crisis, as my hon. Friend says, too many Scottish students are missing out on places. Labour has committed to ensuring that Scottish students from all backgrounds can access university, and that can only be achieved with a new funding settlement that both protects our world leading universities and gives any Scottish student who wants to pursue university the opportunity to do so. I am proud to have made it from Wester Hailes education centre, in the Wester Hailes scheme, to the University of Edinburgh, but that story is becoming all too rare under the SNP Government. It is time for a new direction for Scottish universities.
I call the shadow Secretary of State.
I associate myself with the Secretary of State’s remarks about the passing of His Holiness Pope Francis. I also wish all those not fortunate enough to have been born north of Hadrian’s wall a very happy St George’s day.
While he is not a graduate of the University of Aberdeen, like me the Secretary of State is a beneficiary of a Scottish university education. Scotland has some of the finest and most respected higher education establishments in the world, but as we saw last week at the University of Aberdeen, in warnings from the University of Edinburgh and, most starkly, at the University of Dundee, where over 600 jobs are being shed to make emergency savings, the current funding model, overseen by the SNP, is failing our institutions and our young people. I know we agree on that, but will the Secretary of State also acknowledge the devastating impact on Scottish university budgets of his own Government’s national insurance increase, adding £45 million to their salary bills, or will he continue to defend that job killing, anti growth tax on workers?
The shadow Secretary of State is defending the SNP’s dreadful record on higher education in Scotland. It is clear from the principal of the University of Edinburgh, Sir Peter Mathieson, that the problems the university is having to deal with are caused by the underfunding of students from Scotland, which has meant the books have had to be balanced with an ever increasing number of international students. The number of international students at the University of Edinburgh, for example, is still going up, although not as high as projected, and that is the major cause of the financial problems at Scottish universities. The Conservatives would do well not to hide behind the SNP and support it in that process.
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
I associate myself with the Secretary of State’s comments about the death of Pope Francis.
In a rare consensus, I agree with much of what has been said by both the Secretary of State and the shadow Secretary of State. Many universities are extremely concerned about the funding situation. Many of my constituents who are employees of universities or who have children at Scottish universities are concerned, particularly following the news of the 600 job cuts at the University of Dundee. I have spoken to the principal of the University of Edinburgh and he is also concerned about the funding model in Scotland, which is failing everyone. Will the Secretary of State discuss with the Scottish Government how they can make changes and put pressure on them to do so? The national insurance changes are not helpful, so it would help Scottish education if we had some changes there as well.
The hon. Lady’s question is slightly contradictory. On the one hand, she does not like the national insurance contribution increase, which has given the Scottish Government a £4.9 billion boost—the highest settlement in the history of devolution. That money should be going to the frontline of higher education, but it is not. On the other hand, she talks about a more generous funding settlement for universities. She cannot have it both ways. The funding model must change, and the Scotland Office is in touch with all our universities’ principals to see how we can work through this issue. This is a problem with the funding of higher education as a result of SNP policies and the Scottish Government.
I associate myself with the comments about the devastating loss of Pope Francis and the compassion that he showed to the most vulnerable in our society. On a happier note, I wish all friends and family a very happy St George’s day. I also note my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests in relation to higher education.
The Secretary of State will know that the biggest financial impacts on higher education in Scotland have been Westminster policies, which is why the sector in the UK faces some challenges. We have the national insurance increase, Brexit, which I know he passionately opposed—or used to, anyway—and the hostile environment. Labour found common ground with Michael Gove on sticking him into the House of Lords, but it also found common ground with him on his commitment to decentralising migration. That has had a particular impact on the higher education sector, not least in Dundee, which has had the biggest financial hit. Will the Secretary of State let us know what progress he has made on that commitment by Scottish Labour?
May I give the hon. Gentleman and all his SNP colleagues our deepest condolences on the loss of Christina McKelvie? I think this is the first time that we have had Scottish questions since then.
I say again that the hon. Gentleman and his SNP colleagues voted against the Budget, which delivered an extra £4.9 billion for public services in Scotland. Some of that should have gone to frontline services, including to ensuring that our higher education sector was funded properly in the Scottish context. The SNP is very good at blaming everybody else for powers that do not belong to it, but what it should actually do is get a mirror. In the last seven days, the only increase it has made in using the budget given to it is £20,000 on the salaries of Scottish Government Ministers, who have all singularly failed.
I thank the Secretary of State for his kind remarks about the sad loss of Christina McKelvie. I also note the kind remarks made by the Prime Minister; the whole party is grateful for them.
Since the Labour Government do not want to talk about their commitments, let me help them out a little. We have time this Friday to discuss Scotland’s migration needs, with a Bill backed by the care, hospitality and tourism sectors. Internationalisation in education and research is crucial, so in a spirit of collegiality, instead of pandering to Reform as Scottish Labour too often does on migration and our relationship with the EU, will the Secretary of State work with us ahead of the Bill on Friday so that we can find some common cause to help the higher education sector?
There is complete denial about the problems in the higher education sector, which is devolved to the Scottish Government. We have made it clear that the immigration system we inherited from the previous Government is not working, that net migration is too high and that the interaction between migration and skills in the labour market is broken, so confidence in the whole system needs to be rebuilt.
Work is under way in government to link the work of Skills England and its equivalents, the Migration Advisory Committee, the Industrial Strategy Council and the Department for Work and Pensions to form a new framework to identify sectors that either do or do not have the adequate workforce, as well as skills strategies for the future workforce. There has been an overreliance on international recruitment. Lots of young people in Scotland—nearly one in six—are not in education, employment or training. That is a shambles. It should be Scotland’s shame, and we need to do something about it.
I commend the hon. Member for the consistent attention he has paid to this issue since he was elected last year and for educating us on it. Cancer remains Scotland’s biggest killer, with Cancer Research UK reporting that Scots are receiving worse cancer treatment than their neighbours in other parts of the UK. The national cancer plan for England will save lives that would otherwise be lost to cancer and deliver improved care and patient experience. Last year, a UK Labour Budget delivered the biggest settlement for Scottish public services in the history of devolution. It is time for the Scottish Government to step up and get serious about cancer.
I thank the Minister for her reply and very kind remarks. As in Wales and England, not a single NHS board in Scotland is meeting the 62-day cancer waiting time standard. That is a legacy of under investment from the SNP in Scotland, from Labour in Wales, and from the Conservatives in England. To develop change and save lives, we need proper funding for cancer services. How will the Secretary of State for Scotland ensure that his colleagues at the Department of Health and Social Care understand the importance of fully funding cancer strategies to avoid disasters like that devised by the SNP?
I assure the hon. Member that this is a priority for the Government, but as healthcare is a devolved matter, the Scottish Government are responsible for their own cancer strategies, including diagnostic services in Scotland. In England, improving early diagnosis of cancer—including breast cancer—is a priority for the UK Government, who are committed to transforming diagnostic services and will support the NHS to meet the demand for diagnostic services through investment in new capacity, including MRI and CT scanners.
My constituent Stephen found out that he had prostate cancer almost by accident when he was treated for something else. Thankfully, it was diagnosed early and he is on his way to a good outcome. Despite prostate cancer being the most common cancer for men in Scotland, it is not one of the tumour types that has been promoted for early diagnosis in the current Scottish Government cancer strategy. Will the Minister encourage the Scottish Government to make specific reference to prostate cancer when promoting early diagnosis?
I commend my hon. Friend for her commitment to her constituents, and pass on the best wishes of the whole House to Stephen in his recovery. Her constituents, like mine, are constantly on the receiving end of late diagnoses because of the underfunding of cancer services that the hon. Member for Wokingham (Clive Jones) has mentioned. We will, of course, continue to raise this issue with the Scottish Government as part of our ongoing commitment to deal with Scotland’s biggest killer, which is cancer.
Thanks to the Barnett formula, a Labour Chancellor and 37 Scottish Labour MPs, Scotland’s public services have received the biggest ever financial settlement from the UK Government, but how has the SNP spent it? Well, despite the best efforts of our extraordinary NHS staff, every week, thousands of Scots will wait more than eight hours in A&E, and more than 100,000 Scots have been stuck on an NHS waiting list for over a year. Doctors, nurses and—most of all—Scottish patients have been failed by 18 years of SNP mismanagement. We desperately need a new direction.
There has been a noticeable increase in the number of people contacting my office about accessing GP services, and about long waiting times for hospital appointments and operations. Those who live in the Isle of Arran and actually get an appointment often cannot get to it, because they cannot get a ferry there and back on the same day. That is a different point, but as a former manager in the NHS, I have seen the consequences of the shortage of GPs in Scotland. There has been a recent successful recruitment campaign in different parts of England; does the Minister agree that it is time for the Scottish Government to utilise the Barnett consequentials in order to improve access to NHS services in Scotland through robust workforce planning, and to follow the example of the NHS in England and get GPs successfully recruited?
I thank my hon. Friend, not just for her service to her constituents but her previous service in the NHS. As she has noted, thanks to Labour, NHS waiting lists in England have fallen month on month, because this Government have a plan and we have invested. Sadly, it is a completely different story in Scotland, as she has pointed out. Like mine, her constituents see a situation in which almost one in six people are now stuck on a waiting list. John Swinney has announced this SNP Government’s fifth NHS recovery plan in less than four years, but patients and staff know that it is not good enough, and we need a new direction.
The Minister is right to speak of the wonderful NHS staff that we have, but she also speaks of a new direction that is required. Let me give the House a clue as to what new direction she might be speaking of. The Good Law Project revealed this month that more than 60% of donations to Labour’s Health Secretary, totalling £372,000, came from individuals and companies linked to the private healthcare sector. As the same Labour Health Secretary is so fond of saying, all roads lead to Westminster, including on NHS funding. With cuts to public services coming down the line, is the Secretary of State—or the Minister—worried about the influence of private health donors on Cabinet colleagues?
The hon. Gentleman says that there have been cuts to public services. Let me put on record once again that this Labour Government pledged to end austerity, and we have, with a record settlement for Scotland’s public services. That money has been squandered by the SNP Government, such that we are still in a situation where nearly one in six Scots are on a waiting list. South of the border, waiting lists have fallen for the fifth month in a row. That is the difference made by a Labour Government with a plan and a willingness to fund it.
I am proud of the enormous contribution North sea workers have made to our country. Oil and gas will be an important part of our energy mix for decades to come. We have a workforce who lead the world, and we are determined to secure their long term future in the energy industry, including oil and gas. The UK Government will soon respond to our recent consultation on supporting the energy transition in the North sea, and I am in the north east tomorrow, turning on a wind farm and also meeting leaders in the oil and gas sector.
If the UK achieves net zero in 2050, we will still consume about 14 billion barrels of oil and gas a year. We are currently on track to produce 4 billion barrels a year. Will the Secretary of State explain why he prefers to import our energy, rather than produce it ourselves?
The national mission of this Labour Government is to get to clean power by 2030, but that means three things: renewable power, nuclear power, and oil and gas. As I have said already, oil and gas will be with us in the Scottish and UK context for decades to come.
A recent report by Offshore Energies UK showed that if the UK oil and gas basin continued to be used until 2050, it could produce half our oil and gas needs. That would do wonders for jobs in the north east of Scotland, the north east economy, our energy security and the energy transition, and it would also bring in £12 billion to the Treasury. On top of that, it would bring in £150 billion of economic growth to the UK, which I am sure everyone in this House and the Government would welcome. Will the Secretary of State please have a word with the Energy Secretary and ask him to stop his policies, which are continuing to ruin our oil and gas sector, and for once back north east Scotland?
On the oil and gas sector in 2050, I have already mentioned at the Dispatch Box, as has the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, that oil and gas will be with us for decades to come, including to 2050.
Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is an opportunity for significant economic growth in Scotland from getting right a just transition from oil and gas to clean power? In my constituency, the landing space at the port of Leith previously used by the oil and gas sector has been transformed by investment from Forth Ports into the largest renewable hub in Scotland. Will he join me in welcoming this investment in Leith, and will he outline how his Department will help secure every job possible in the transition from oil and gas?
I commend my hon. Friend on the work she is doing, particularly in the port of Leith, to ensure that we can have the transition and have it well. She highlights the important thing about this issue and debate: the energy mix requires us to have renewable power and clean energy by 2030, but it also requires us to have nuclear power and oil and gas. The energy mix means that we do it all; it is not either/or.
The Secretary of State rightly outlines how important the oil and gas sector is to Scotland, and to the workers and businesses that rely on it, but if we are to have a truly just transition, we need to invest in new technologies such as hydrogen. Will he, therefore, join me in welcoming the shortlisting of the Selms Muir hydrogen project in Livingston for UK Government support, and outline how that will benefit my constituency?
On 7 April, the UK Government announced that eight Scottish projects had been shortlisted for the next stage of the hydrogen allocation round 2 process. My ministerial colleagues and I look forward to working with industry to deliver our vision for a thriving low carbon, hydrogen economy in the UK. I commend my hon. Friend on the work he has done in pushing forward the project in his constituency.
I call the shadow Secretary of State.
Does the Secretary of State agree with the Scottish Labour leader, who says there is no question but that there has to be new oil and gas, or does he agree with his colleague the Energy Secretary, who has banned new licences in the North sea and is overseeing the accelerating decline of the UK’s oil and gas basin?
The Energy Secretary and his Department are involved in a consultation on the just transition at the moment, but I go back to my earlier answers: if we are to get clean power by 2030 and to have an energy mix in this country, we require oil and gas, we require renewables and we require nuclear. It is a simple process.
I think we all heard that, and I am sure Anas Sarwar did. The Secretary of State was unable to agree with his own leader in Scotland, and is so in hock to the UK Labour party that he cannot stand up for Scottish workers or the Scottish oil and gas industry. It has always been the party interest over the national interest for Labour, with no notice taken of the Scottish Labour party. Ten years ago, the Scottish Labour party was described by its own leader as being simply the “branch office”. Nothing has changed, has it?
The Government’s sole purpose initially, in their first few months in office, was to clear up the mess that the hon. Gentleman’s party left in this country, including the £22 billion black hole. We will get on with delivering our missions, including clean power by 2030. That is what we are focused on, because that is what is good for jobs, good for bills and good for the environment.
Under the Windsor framework arrangements, the Northern Ireland plant health label allows growers and traders to move plants and seeds for planting from Great Britain to Northern Ireland without a phytosanitary certificate, and Scottish businesses have benefited from that. For example, more than 1,500 tonnes of previously prohibited seed potatoes, mostly from Scottish traders, were moved to Northern Ireland from Great Britain last year.
As the Minister will know, according to McIntyre Fruit in Scotland, which also sells plants, it is easier to supply Japan than to send plants to Coleman’s garden centre in my constituency, and the same company is now seeing orders cancelled in Northern Ireland. At the weekend, Ewing’s Seafoods, Northern Ireland’s oldest fishmonger, had a 40-foot container filled with hundreds of thousands of pounds of fresh fish returned from Belfast to Scotland owing to administrative paperwork errors on seven boxes. Will the Minister, or the Secretary of State, meet me and representatives of those companies to discuss what can be done to ease the bureaucratic burden on both Northern Ireland and Scottish business?
I would be delighted to meet the hon. Gentleman, but let me reassure him: the horticultural working group, co chaired by senior officials from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Cabinet Office, was set up specifically to tackle issues involving the movement of seeds to consumers in Northern Ireland as a first priority. The hon. Gentleman has also mentioned other topics, and I should be happy to meet him to discuss them, too. The working group meets regularly to address such issues, and includes representatives of the Ulster Farmers Union, the National Farmers Union and the Horticultural Trades Association, as well as business leaders and representatives of a small number of other horticultural businesses.
Scotland produces world class potatoes, which are supplied to our iconic fish and chip shops, such as the Real Food Café and the Green Welly Stop in Tyndrum, Vincenzo’s Fish and Chips in Stirling—its fish supper won an award last year—and Corrieri’s in Causewayhead; Robert and Peter Corrieri will retire this year after decades of service. Will the Minister recognise their value to our local economies, and assure me that more can be done to support the supply chains linking Scottish growers with these much loved businesses?
As my hon. Friend knows, potatoes are a staple of our national dish, haggis, neeps and tatties. They are also a staple of my favourite breakfast, the dry potato scone. I am delighted to join my hon. Friend in recognising all the fish and chip shops in his constituency, and I would be delighted to accept invitations to a tour of fish and chip shops from any colleague on either side of the House who recognises their vital contribution.
We know that this will be a concerning time for businesses in Scotland. In 2024, 12.3% of goods exported from Scotland were exported to the United States. That is why the UK Government are focused on negotiating an economic deal with the US. As the Business and Trade Secretary made clear in his statement to the House on 3 April, the Government are resolute in our support for industries throughout the United Kingdom, and Ministers and officials will continue to engage with businesses to understand the impact that these tariffs may have.
May I associate myself with the comments about Pope Francis and Christina McKelvie, and wish you, Mr Speaker, a happy St George’s day? It is very important that we all celebrate our national identities but still come together as one United Kingdom. I hope that the Secretary of State and I were not too optimistic in our last exchange about trade with the US, in which we hoped that the Trump Administration would be a boost for Scottish business in the United States. What is he doing in the UK’s discussions with the United States to ensure that specific Scottish interests, such as those of the whisky industry, are part of the arrangements?
As I have said at the Dispatch Box before, it is vital that we do all we can to strengthen our diplomatic, cultural and business ties with the United States. I was in Washington and New York for Tartan Week in the week when tariffs were imposed on the rest of the world, and I made the case for Scotch whisky and Scottish businesses in particular. We are engaging with Scottish exporters and industry representatives to assess the potential impact of US tariffs, and remain in contact with US counterparts. Our pragmatic and calm approach has been overwhelmingly welcomed by businesses and industry. We will not address this important issue in a knee jerk way to get retweets, unlike some others in this House.
Will the Secretary of State join me in welcoming the pragmatic and calm approach of our Prime Minister to this issue? He is working in the clear interests of businesses and consumers, in contrast to Opposition Members, who seem interested only in social media and quick headlines.
I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. The pragmatic approach of the Prime Minister and this Government to this issue has been welcomed by industry and businesses right across the United Kingdom. That is in the national interests of the UK. We work very hard together to make sure that the impacts of US tariffs on the UK are not as bad as we thought they might be.