§ 13. Mr. Nicholas WintertonTo ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what proportion of public spending in Scotland is represented by taxation revenues for that country; and if he will make a statement. [30083]
§ Mr. Michael ForsythExcluding the revenues from North sea oil, the proportion of public spending in Scotland represented by taxation revenue from Scotland is 72 per cent.
§ Mr. WintertonAs an English Member of the United Kingdom Parliament, I am perfectly happy that the people of Scotland should receive from the United Kingdom Exchequer £8.1 billion more in spending than they contribute in taxation, because of the great benefits that the Union brings to all the people of the United Kingdom. If there were to be a separate Parliament in Scotland with tax-raising powers, is it not inevitable that the influence of Scottish Members of Parliament in this place would be devalued and reduced, and the benefit that Scotland and its people get from being a member of the United Kingdom would be undermined and dramatically reduced to their disadvantage?
§ Mr. ForsythI entirely agree with my hon. Friend. He is quite right to say that expenditure in Scotland is £8.1 billion greater than revenues. Even if we include all the proceeds from North sea oil, the deficit is £7 billion. The Union is greater than the sum of its parts. We welcome the resources that Scotland receives from the United Kingdom, just as we welcome the partnership that we have with my hon. Friend and his constituents.
It is incumbent upon the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) and the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) to work out their position on the matter. They must decide whether they agree with their Liberal Democrat partners in the Constitutional Convention, who say that there would have to be a reduction in the number of Scottish Members of Parliament. They must decide whether they agree with the Liberal Democrats' assertion that the office of Secretary of State and Scotland's place in Cabinet would go.
606 We need answers to those questions because, as my hon. Friend said, the ability to argue Scotland's case in Cabinet and in this Chamber is central to the provision of resources for vital services. That is what Parliament is about, and the hon. Member for Hamilton is putting those services at risk by his foolish proposal that is more to do with his party's advantage than his country's interests.
§ Mr. GrahamThe Secretary of State will be aware that people in Scotland pay taxes. Can I remind hon. Members that they are lounging on leather seats that were produced in my constituency by the Bridge of Weir leather tannery? The workers there make a tremendous contribution to this country through taxes, and they need support from the Government. They may lose their jobs because of the Government's mad, stupid and aggressive policies in Europe. It is time that the Government realised that some of the statements that they are now making could cost thousands of jobs throughout the country. It is time that they acted responsibly and did their business for the whole of Scotland.
§ Mr. ForsythI think that I got the gist of the hon. Gentleman's question. The leather makers in his constituency are in a competitive business, as he knows. If they were ever unfortunate enough to get a Labour Government who set up a Parliament with tax-raising powers, their costs would increase, their marketing would be more difficult and jobs would be destroyed in that industry and many others in Scotland.