The SNP
Members of the
Westminster
Parliament were
criticised for
lodging a lot of
questions; the
Labour Party said
this was to boost
their question
rate. An
examination of some
of the information
provided here shows
how tortuous the
obtaining of
information can be;
Labour, of course,
do not like
providing the
answers.
Thursday 29th
December
In the next
Parliamentary
session, the SNP
will make moves to
launch a Bill to
give the House of
Commons the final
say over any
expenditure on a new
nuclear missile for
the Clyde.
With
Tony Blair refusing
to rule out a new
generation of
nuclear weapons
after the current
Trident system
becomes redundant,
the SNP in
Westminster believe
Parliamentary
scrutiny and
approval for any new
system is essential.
Explaining the SNP's
move the party's
Defence spokesperson
Angus Robertson MP
said,
"It is ironic that
Tony Blair sent our
troops to war on
Iraq on the pretext
that Saddam had
Weapons of Mass
Destruction - WMD
which turned out to
be non-existent. Yet
at the same time he
bases the UK's
existing WMD in
Scotland and refuses
to rule out a new
generation of
nuclear weapon.
"Over the course of
this Parliamentary
term the SNP will be
highlighting the
contrast between the
billions Labour
wants to waste on a
new generation
nuclear missile for
the Clyde, alongside
the cuts which mean
no future for the
best infantry
regiments in the
world.
"Tony Blair would
prefer the empty
grandeur of a weapon
that is useless in
the struggle against
global terrorism
instead of the
forces who can
actually root out
terrorist groups.
"Over the course of
this term, the SNP
group will publish a
cross-party Bill
giving the Commons
the final say over
expenditure on any
new nuclear missile.
"If the choice is
between dedicated
Scottish soldiers
who can play a role
in peace keeping and
the war against
terror and the
posturing of a new
nuclear deterrent,
our decision is
clear. We will back
Scotland's soldiers
over Blair's weapons
of mass
destruction."
Friday 30th
December
DCMS doesn't spend a
penny on staff or
buildings in
Scotland
SNP Deputy Leader in
the House of
Commons, Angus
Robertson MP, has
condemned the
Department of
Culture Media and
Sport for an
unacceptable London
bias as
parliamentary
answers revealed:
-
the top 10 civil
servants
collectively earn
over £1m and are all
based in London
-
the total salary
bill for the
department is £16.7m
and it is all for
staff based in
London
-
the department pays
£4.5m in rent for
properties, all in
London
-
a further £952,000
in rates is paid to
City of Westminster
and Camden councils
The
DCMS is responsible
for what are
regarded as UK wide
issues including the
National Lottery,
the BBC, the London
Olympics, Visit
Britain and even the
Remembrance service.
Commenting Mr
Robertson said:
“These are shocking
figures which show
the appalling London
bias of the Culture
department. Every
single member of
staff is based in
London, working in
some of the most
expensive property
to be found anywhere
in the world.
“This department is
supposed to
represent the whole
of the UK, but it is
clearly
short-changing
Scotland, Wales,
Northern Ireland and
the regions of
England by spending
millions of pounds
of our money only in
London.
“The government is
quick to point out
the money that is
spent on public
services in
Scotland, but it
ignores all these
millions spent on
civil servants and
government
departments in
London. There is a
real and hidden
subsidy.
“The top 10 civil
servants in this
department earn over
£1 million between
them. That is money
paid for by Scottish
taxes and it is high
time Scotland got
its fair share.”
Note: the following
parliamentary
answers detail the
picture:
Mr.
Weir: To
ask the Secretary of
State for Culture,
Media and Sport how
much was paid by her
Department in
2004-05 in rent for
properties in (a)
total, (b)
each (i) region and
(ii) nation of the
UK and (c)
London. (12 Dec
2005 : Column
1638-39W
)
Mr. Lammy:
The Department for
Culture Media and
Sport paid rents for
properties in London
as follows in
2004-05 (this is the
net figure after
receipt of rental
income from private
sector tenants):
£4,499,755.
The Department
did not pay any rent
outside London in
2004-05.
Angus Robertson:
To ask the
Secretary of State
for Culture, Media
and Sport how much
was paid by her
Department in rates
to each local
authority in the UK
in 2004-05; and how
much was paid in
(a) each (i)
nation and (ii)
region of the UK and
(b) London.
Mr. Lammy:
The Department for
Culture, Media and
Sport paid rates as
follows in 2004-05:
City of Westminster, London—£716,655.07
London borough of
Camden—£167,354.93
The Royal Parks
Agency paid rates as
follows in 2004-05.
City of Westminster
council,
London—£68,400
The Department
did not pay any
rates outside London
in 2004-05.
Stewart Hosie:
To ask the
Secretary of State
for Culture, Media
and Sport how many
staff are employed
by her Department in
each (a)
region and (b)
nation of the UK;
and if she will make
a statement.
Mr. Lammy: As
at 1 December 2005
the Department for
Culture, Media and
Sport had 517
employees (502
full-time
equivalents), which
are all based in
Central London.
Stewart Hosie:
To ask the
Secretary of State
for Culture, Media
and Sport how many
and what proportion
of each civil
service grade in her
Department is
located in each
(a) region and
(b) nation of
the UK; what the
average salary is
for each grade; and
if she will make a
statement.
Mr. Lammy:
All 517 staff (502
full time
equivalents) in the
Department for
Culture, Media and
Sport are based in
central London. The
average salaries for
each grade at 1
December 2005 are
shown in the
following table.
|
Grade |
Civil
service
equivalent |
Head count |
Average
salary (£) |
|
SCS payband
2 and above |
— |
10 |
101,067 |
|
SCS payband
1 |
— |
20 |
63,794 |
|
A(U) |
Grade 6 |
21 |
54,150 |
|
A |
Grade 7 |
96 |
43,577 |
|
B |
HEO/SEO |
175 |
29,509 |
|
C |
EO |
128 |
21,490 |
|
D |
AA/AO |
67 |
17,524 |
Saturday 31st
December
SNP TOP OF THE POLLS
IN LOCAL
BY-ELECTIONS
The Scottish
National Party has
taken a clear lead
over Labour in local
by-election results
across Scotland
since the May
general election.
Taking all 10 local
by-elections the SNP
has:
-
achieved a swing of
almost 9% from
Labour
-
the largest
cumulative vote
-
gained 5 out of 10
by-elections held
and is the only
party to gain seats
-
taken two seats held
by Labour ex-Council
leaders
The cumulative
results show the SNP
is on course for
victory in 2007,
taking seats from
all the other
parties.
Commenting,
SNP Business
Convener, Bruce
Crawford said:
“These are excellent
results and show
that the SNP is on
track for success
across Scotland this
year and in 2007.
“Our community based
campaigns have
focused on
delivering better
public services and
making a difference.
We want a Scotland
that is wealthier,
communities that are
safer and families
with more
opportunity to
succeed. Where
Labour has let
Scotland down, the
SNP is determined to
put Scotland first.
“These next
elections are about
Scotland and only
the SNP can beat
Labour across the
country. We are the
alternative
government and as
Labour’s
unpopularity grows,
more and more people
are turning to the
SNP.
“These results show
a growing mood for
change in Scotland
after almost nine
years of Labour’s
low ambition. We
have an Executive
without vision and a
parliament without
power – it is time
to move on.“
Note – the following
shows a break down
of local results:
1. Cumulative vote
of all 10 council
by-elections* since
2005 election
|
PARTY
|
2005
Vote |
2003
Vote |
2005
% |
2003
% |
% Change |
Seats
Won |
Change
in Seats |
|
SNP |
4,514 |
4,057 |
31.05% |
22.38% |
+8.67% |
5 |
+5 |
|
Labour |
3,965 |
6,592 |
27.28% |
36.37% |
-9.09% |
3 |
0 |
|
Tory |
2,317 |
2,971 |
15.94% |
16.39% |
-0.45% |
2 |
0 |
|
LibDem |
1,840 |
1,763 |
12.66% |
9.73% |
+2.93% |
0 |
0 |
|
SSP |
271 |
705 |
1.86% |
3.89% |
-2.03% |
0 |
0 |
|
Ind |
1,547 |
2,038 |
10.64% |
11.24% |
-0.60% |
0 |
-5 |
|
Green |
66 |
0 |
0.45% |
0% |
+0.45% |
0 |
0 |
Note: The SNP gained
4 seats previously
held by Independents
and 1 from Labour.
2. Winning against
strong Labour
campaigns
In Loanhead the
Labour party’s
Ex-Council Leader
had previously held
the seat for 17
years until narrowly
losing it by 12
votes in 2003 to an
independent. He
stood in the 2005
by-election but was
beaten by the SNP
who increased their
vote by 29%.
In Auchtertool &
Burntisland East the
seat had been held
by John MacDougall
before he became MP
for Fife Central.
The SNP vote
increased by 22%.
In Herbertshire the
SNP took the seat in
a ward they had
never held before
and with a long
tradition of voting
Labour. The SNP vote
increased by
27%.
3.
On target to win
seats from all
parties in 2007
-
Cumbernauld &
Kilsyth would be
gained from
Labour
-
Galloway & Upper
Nithsdale would
be gained from
the Tories
-
Kilmarnock &
Loudoun would be
gained from
Labour
-
The SSP would
lose list seats
all over
Scotland to the
SNP
4. The 10 council
by-elections held
since 2005 election
SNP wins in bold.
Scottish Borders Council
Kilnknowe & Clovenfords
Held: 9 June 2005
Aberdeenshire Council
Huntly East
Held: 9 June 2005
North Lanarkshire Council
Kildrum & Park
Held: 16 June 2005
Falkirk Council
Herbertshire
Held: 11 August 2005
Fife Council
Auchtertool & Burntisland East
Held: 29 September 2005
Dumfries & Galloway Council
Lochside
Held: 13 October 2005
Glasgow City Council
Knightswood Park
Held: 10 November 2005
City Of Edinburgh Council
Murrayfield
Held: 10 November 2005
Midlothian Council
Loanhead
Held: 10 November 2005
North Lanarkshire Council
Kirkshaws
Held: 8 December 2005
Monday 2nd
January 2006
NOT A PENNNY SPENT ON
STAFF OR BUILDINGS IN
SCOTLAND
SNP Foreign Affairs
spokesperson, Angus
Robertson MP, has
accused the Foreign and
Commonwealth Office of
featherbedding London
and forgetting Scotland
and the rest of the UK
after parliamentary
answers revealed all of
the FCO’s UK operations
are based in London and
the South East.
Parliamentary answers
show:
-
the rates bill of
£3.48 million all paid
to English local
authorities, with £2.84
million paid to the City
of Westminster
-
rental of £1.54
million paid for
properties in the South
East including £1
million in London
-
£6 million in
London subsidies paid to
staff
-
all UK based FCO
staff in London or the
South East
Commenting
Mr Robertson said:
“The Foreign Office is
guilty of a huge London
bias. It spends millions
boosting the economy of
London and the South
East, using money raised
from Scottish tax
payers.
“Not a penny is spent on
staff or offices in
Scotland, and yet the
FCO claims to offer a
service for the whole of
the UK.
“They occupy some of the
most expensive real
estate in the world, and
surely it would make
sense to base more staff
in Scotland, Wales,
Northern Ireland and the
English regions.
“We live in an era of
instant communication
and there is absolutely
no reason the FCO can’t
join the modern world.
They need to stop
feather-bedding London
and start remembering
tax payers in the rest
of the UK.”
Note – the following
parliamentary answers
were received:
Angus Robertson:
To ask the Secretary of
State for Foreign and
Commonwealth Affairs how
much was paid by his
Department in rates to
each local authority in
the UK in 2004-05; and
how much was paid in
(a) each region of
the UK and (b)
London in that year. (13
Dec 2005 : Column
1955-56W)
Ian Pearson:
Rates were paid on
Foreign and Commonwealth
Office buildings to
local authorities in the
UK in 2004-05 as
follows:
|
|
|
£ |
|
Local authority |
Site |
Amount paid |
|
City of
Westminster |
Old Admiralty
Building |
718,980.14 |
|
City of
Westminster |
King Charles
Street |
2,120,400.00 |
|
City of
Westminster |
1
Carlton Gardens |
(63)1,089.00 |
|
City of
Westminster |
1
Carlton Gardens |
(64)446.40 |
|
London borough
of Lambeth |
89 Albert
Embankment |
67,233.55 |
|
Milton Keynes
council |
Hanslope Park |
567,720.00 |
(63)
Non-domestic rates for
apartment.
(64) Council tax
on house.
Stewart Hosie:
To ask the Secretary of
State for Foreign and
Commonwealth Affairs (1)
how many staff are
employed by his
Department in each
(a) region and
(b) nation of the
UK; and if he will make
a statement; [35899]
(3) what the value is of
(a) pay
supplements, (b)
bonuses and (c)
other incentive packages
that are payable in his
Department on the basis
of geographic location;
how many people are in
receipt of each payment;
and what the total cost
to his Department of
each payment was in
2004-05. [35901]
Ian Pearson:
The Foreign and
Commonwealth Office (FCO)
employs approximately
6,000 UK based staff. At
any one time,
approximately 2,000
staff work in the FCO's
buildings in London and
about 1,200 at Hanslope
Park, near Milton
Keynes. Until 31 March
2005 there were separate
sets of pay scales for
UK based staff working
in London and overseas
and for those in other
parts of the UK. There
were, however, no
incentive payments as
such. Since 1 April 2005
all staff have been on
the same pay scale but
there is a location
allowance of £3,000 for
staff working in London.
Mr.
Weir:
To ask the Secretary of
State for Foreign and
Commonwealth Affairs how
much was paid by his
Department in rent for
properties in (a)
total, (b) each (i)
region and (ii) nation
of the UK and (c)
London in 2004-05.
[35935]
Ian Pearson:
The Foreign and
Commonwealth Office (FCO)
paid a total of
£1,117,396 in rent for
properties in the UK in
the financial year
2004-05. All of these
properties are in
England. £94,000 was
paid in rent for Wiston
House, Steyning, Sussex
and £1,023,396 for
properties in London.
In addition, the FCO
occupies part of a Home
Office building in
Croydon where the annual
service charge in the
financial year 2004-05
includes a rental
element of £422,978, not
included in the figure
given above.
Tuesday 3rd
January 2006
SNP Defence
spokesperson, Angus
Robertson MP, has
written to new
Conservative leader,
David Cameron,
challenging him to
confirm whether he now
plans to change
Conservative policy and
withdraw support from
the campaign to save the
Scottish Regiments.
During the Conservative
leadership contest Mr
Cameron was quoted as
suggesting it may be too
late to restore the
historic regiments.
In
his letter Mr Robertson
wrote:
“Dear David, during the
Conservative leadership
contest you seemed to
cast doubt on the
Conservative Party’s
current support for the
campaign to save the
Scottish Regiments.
“You were reported as
saying: ‘four
years down the road it
may be impossible to
disinter the regiments
from what is being
proposed.’
“I would be grateful if
you would confirm your
position. Will restoring
Scotland’s historic
regiments continue as
Conservative policy and
be a commitment at the
next election?”
Commenting, Mr Robertson
said:
“When David Cameron made
his remarks about the
Scottish regiments,
there were many
Conservatives in
Scotland who rightly
questioned his
judgement.
“I hope that Mr Cameron
has had time to think
again and that he will
now firmly back the
campaign to save our
regimental tradition.
“With recruitment levels
plummeting, we need to
do everything we can to
protect the link between
the infantry and their
traditional recruiting
areas.
“Scrapping the regiments
destroys a relationship
that has seen sons
follow their fathers
into the local regiment
from communities across
Scotland.
“David Cameron has now
had a few weeks to get
on top of his brief and
get a better view and
understanding of the
issues. He must clarify
his previous remarks and
let us know once and for
all whether he backs
Scotland’s regiments.”
Wednesday 4th
January 2006
SCOTLAND ‘CHARGED’ FOR
ENGLISH TOURISM AND
INWARD INVESTMENT
SNP Treasury
spokesperson, Stewart
Hosie, has published
parliamentary answers,
which show that Scotland
has been attributed
English public spending
in “public order and
safety” and “enterprise
and economic
development, environment
protection, general
public services, science
and technology, and
agriculture, fisheries
and forestry”
Initial answers confirm
this has happened with
£120 million of spending
on tourism promotion and
inward investment.
The Treasury has
confirmed that spending
that cannot be broken
down by English region
is classified as
non-identifiable and
allocated to the UK,
while the same
programmes are classed
as identifiable in
Scotland. This means
that when ‘spending per
head’ calculations are
made, Scots are being
‘charged’ for Scottish
and English spending.
Commenting
Mr Hosie said:
“These parliamentary
answers totally
undermine the
credibility of
government’s claims
about spending per head
in different parts of
the UK.
“The whole system is
flawed. At the moment,
if spending in England
cannot be identified on
a regional basis, it is
counted as UK wide
spending, even though
the same spending is
devolved.
“This is a ridiculous
way of doing things and
as a result we now know
Scots are being
allocated Scottish and
English spending.
“As much as £5 billion
of English spending
could have been wrongly
identified, including
over £2 billion for the
English prison service
and areas such as
economic development,
the environment and
general public services.
“We have proof in these
answers that English
tourism promotion and
inward investment have
been charged to Scotland
– to a value of £120
million.
“The government needs to
get its act together and
sort out its phoney
figures.”
Note – the following
parliamentary answers
have been received:
Stewart Hosie:
To ask the Chancellor of
the Exchequer (1) what
assessment he has made
of the effectiveness of
the mechanism employed
in public expenditure
statistical analyses to
differentiate between
spending that can only
be identified on a
national basis between
Scotland and England and
expenditure that can
also be identified on a
regional basis within
England; and how this
mechanism affects the
allocation of
identifiable and
non-identifiable
expenditure between
Scotland and England;
(12
Dec 2005 : Column 1786W
)
Mr. Des Browne:
Public expenditure
statistical analyses (PESA)
shows figures for
expenditure that can be
identified as benefiting
a particular statistical
region of the UK.
Statistical regions
include Scotland, Wales
and Northern Ireland and
the English regions.
PESA also shows
expenditure that cannot
be identified as
benefiting a particular
statistical region of
the UK. This is
generally expenditure
that is deemed to be
non-identifiable across
the UK. But it also
includes some spending
in England or England
and Wales, where the
equivalent spending in
Scotland is devolved,
and is therefore
classified as
identifiable for the
benefit of Scotland.
This mainly affects
certain public order
and safety expenditure.
Other programmes of
expenditure similarly
affected but with small
effects on the
aggregates include
elements of
enterprise and economic
development, environment
protection, general
public services, science
and technology, and
agriculture, fisheries
and forestry.
The overall effect of
treating these spending
programmes as
non-identifiable is not
likely to be substantial
when comparing spending
per head in the
countries and regions of
the UK.
Stewart Hosie:
To ask the Secretary of
State for Culture, Media
and Sport what the value
was of grants paid to
the (a) English
Tourism Council, (b)
Greater London Authority
and (c) Scottish
Executive and
VisitScotland in each
year since 2001; and how
these were allocated in
terms of identifiable
and non-identifiable
expenditure in the
Public Expenditure
Statistical Analyses.
James Purnell:
Table 1 gives details of
the grants paid to the
English Tourism Council
(ETC) for the period
2001 to 2003 and Greater
London Authority (GLA)
for the period 2001 to
2005. My Department does
not hold data for the
Scottish Executive or
VisitScotland, this data
would be held by their
offices. (12 Dec 2005
: Column 1643W)
|
|
ETC |
GLA |
|
2001-02 |
14.591 |
1.9 |
|
2002-03 |
14.125 |
1.9 |
|
2003-04 |
merged with
VisitBritain |
1.9 |
|
2004-05 |
n/a |
1.9 |
In PESA 2005
expenditure on tourism
by VisitBritain (which
succeeded the British
Tourist Association and
the English Tourism
Council) is classified
as non-identifiable.
However, this is under
review.
Stewart Hosie:
To
ask the Secretary of
State for Trade and
Industry what the value
of inward investment
grants made to English
regional development
agencies was in each
year since 2001; and how
these grants are dealt
with in the allocation
of expenditure as
identifiable or
non-identifiable in his
Department's public
expenditure statistical
analyses.
Alun Michael:
The total value of
inward investment grants
made to the English
regional development
agencies by UK Trade and
Investment since 2001 is
detailed in the
following table: (12
Dec 2005 : Column 1668W)
|
Financial year |
Grant (£
million) |
|
2001-02 |
12.78 |
|
2002-03 |
12.93 |
|
2003-04 |
12.93 |
|
2004-05 |
13.23 |
|
2005-06 |
15.23 |
Notes:
1.
Grants to
individual regional
development agencies are
made via the single pot
formulaic distribution
method.
2.
The grants to
the regional development
agencies are classified
as non-identifiable in
the 2005 public
expenditure statistical
analyses.
Spanning forty-five years
and featuring a wide variety
of illustrations in colour
and black and white covering
all aspects of Scottish life
from Orkney to the Border
country. Thousands of
personality portraits.
Images for reproduction.
Prints for collectors.
Gordon
Wright’s Scottish Photo
Library
