Oral Answers to Questions

Deidre Brock Excerpts

Tuesday 9th April 2019 Commons Chamber

[Robert Jenrick]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Last month, in the spring statement, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor was able to add to those policies by announcing a scheme to help small and medium-sized enterprises to reduce their carbon footprint; a new marine zone around Ascension Island; support for the renewables sector; the new future homes standard, to ensure that from 2025 homes are built with low-carbon heating and high levels of energy efficiency; and many other policies.

[Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)]

Tidal energy projects are powering ahead in Scotland and show substantial export potential. The Scottish Government recently announced support funding of up to £10 million to assist in commercialising its use. What support will the UK Government give the industry?

[Robert Jenrick]

The UK Government are supporting tidal energy. We have looked at any schemes that have become available to us. We have to balance the interests of the ratepayer, the taxpayer, to ensure that the schemes that we do support are the right strategic technology and the right value for money for the UK.

Draft Food and Farming (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019

Deidre Brock Excerpts

Tuesday 26th March 2019 General Committees

[Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray. I have concerns about the geographical indications for spirits. To be honest, I have concerns about the Government’s generally cavalier attitude to protected products and about the adverse effects that it may have as we plunge down the Brexit cliff towards the waiting rocks.

Specifically, I have concerns about the explanation offered in the explanatory memorandum that spirit drink geographical indications for products from the EU27 nations will be gone after Brexit and that we will retain only the UK ones. Why would that be considered a good thing? It is better for consumers here to know that the drinks they are consuming—especially alcoholic drinks—are the genuine article. If someone in Leith fancies a Calvados after dinner, they should be confident that it is Calvados, just as they would be confident in a good Scotch.

That decision is especially strange alongside the decision to recognise spirits from the US and the stated intention to recognise two Mexican spirits when negotiations are complete. That seems so strange that there must be some intent behind it. Is there something that has not been made clear to us that would necessitate such a specific diminution of the relationship with EU spirits producers and such a specific improvement in the relationship with US producers?

The curiosity of that anomaly is not lessened by the notes on engagement at the end of the explanatory memorandum. Under the GMO bit, there is a fair deal of engagement with companies interested in developing GMOs, with “establishments”—a strange word to use—interested in researching them, with NGOs and with environmental campaign groups. On wine, the devolved Administrations were involved in the detailed drafting and the provisions in the regulations, and industry and producer stakeholders were kept informed. On direct payments, stakeholders in England were consulted. On spirit drinks, though, the full text says:

“Defra has engaged with industry throughout the development of the new replacement regulation for 110/2008, and although no formal consultation has taken place with industry or the Devolved Administrations, stakeholders have been kept informed of progress.”

Why was there no formal consultation? Why was there no involvement of the devolved Administrations in the detailed drafting? Scotland, after all, has the bulk of the distilling industry, including 70% of the gin distilled in the UK. I very much hope the Minister will offer us an explanation for this strangeness and some greater insight into why such an asymmetrical decision has been taken.

I also wonder what effect this approach will have on our own spirits that are sold in the EU27 after we leave. Is whisky’s protection going to be diminished? Will Plymouth gin lose its protection in the EU? There is also a huge list of spirits drinks—nine full pages of the list in the EU regulation—that will no longer be protected in the UK. Will we now be open to poor-quality imitations?

Much of this SI seems fairly straightforward, but this issue needs some serious explanation before we are asked to approve the regulations. What is the rationale behind what appears to be a very strange idea?

[David Rutley]

I thank hon. Members for their contributions. We have discussed some of these issues in similar Committees before.

In response to the hon. Member for Stroud, who made points about the view of the House of Lords sifting committee on this particular SI, it is worth noting that this SI was laid, as I said, under the negative procedure, and it was then recommended that it be laid under the affirmative procedure. That is what we have done and, clearly, we are debating it today.

Again, I just want to point out that the suite of legislation on geographical indications under the EU withdrawal Act confers new duties on the Secretary of State; that is in consequence of the Secretary of State taking on functions from the European Commission as a result of withdrawal. However, it is not the instrument that we are considering today that confers new legislative duties. For spirit drinks, for example, that was the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, which we debated earlier this month. This instrument confers only administrative functions on the Secretary of State from the EU Commission.

The hon. Gentleman asked about costs. As I said in my opening remarks, there are no legislative duties being imposed on the Secretary of State by this instrument. In terms of the administrative duties that result from this instrument, there are no costs associated with those duties.

The hon. Gentleman asked about scientific advice particularly around GMOs. At the moment, decisions on things such as commercial cultivation of GM crops and the marketing of GM products are taken at EU level, with each member state having a vote, and the European Food Safety Authority issues an opinion on the application. For the UK, that EFSA opinion is considered by the Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment, a statutory body of experts that provides Ministers with independent scientific advice that informs UK votes. If we are to leave, EFSA opinions are publicly available, so we will continue to have access to them. ACRE will continue to have a role in advising the UK Government on applications made to, for example, grow a GM crop in the UK. The final decision will be taken away from the EU and made in the UK.

The hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith made some important points, particularly on spirit drinks, and we have discussed some of them before. She asked about the consultation that has been going on. I assure her we have a very strong relationship with the industry, through the Scotch Whisky Association. I was fortunate to meet the SWA in Edinburgh last November. That visit was one of the first things I did when I was able to get time away from the estate. We have a close dialogue with the Scotch whisky industry.

We recognise the geographic indication of Scotch whisky is pivotal to the industry and vital for the UK economy and the Scottish economy as well. We have not yet announced a decision on how EU GIs will be treated if the UK leaves the EU without a withdrawal agreement in place. The UK is not obliged to protect EU GIs after exit. The Government look forward to negotiations on the UK’s future economic partnership with the EU, during which we will be able to discuss the relationship between the UK’s new GI schemes and the EU schemes. In addition, we will warmly welcome any application from member states of the EU27, as we would from producers in the UK or from other countries around the world.

[Deidre Brock]

Is the Minister saying that current protections for those spirit drinks from Europe, which we have recognised up to this point, are no longer guaranteed to continue, and that it is very much dependent on negotiations?

[David Rutley]

I will reiterate what I said, because these are important matters: the UK Government have not announced how EU GIs will be treated if the UK leaves the EU without a withdrawal agreement in place. I also said that we look forward to further negotiations on the UK’s future economic partnership with the EU. All these things will be considered in that round.

Draft Food and Drink, Veterinary Medicines AND RESIDUES (amendment ETC.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019

Deidre Brock Excerpts

Wednesday 20th March 2019 General Committees

[Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)]

Like you, I am sure, Mr Austin, I have sat on what feels like hundreds of these Committees where the purpose of the secondary legislation has, by and large, been writing back into UK legislation provisions that are being lost as a result of Brexit. This SI is an unfortunate exception, as it fails to maintain the provisions that protect our food and drink sector in trade deals around the world.

The EU’s protected geographical indicators have helped to protect the branding of our food and drink products. They have helped producers here to market their goods across the EU and wherever the EU has done trade deals, and they protect our overseas and domestic markets against cheap and inferior imitations. Cornish pasties cannot be made in Paris, Arbroath smokies cannot come from Budapest, Caerphilly cheese is always Welsh, and Comber new potatoes have to come across the sea from Northern Ireland. The same goes for Scottish salmon —both wild and farmed—Stornoway black pudding, Scotch beef, Scotch lamb, Orkney beef, North Ronaldsay sheep, Shetland lamb, native Shetland wool, Orkney cheddar, and of course whisky.

Scotland has one in six of the UK’s protected products, so Scotland, I am afraid, is once again being unfairly penalised by a Brexit we never voted for. Those protected products are also some of our most lucrative: our top food export is salmon, and our top drink export is whisky. Without the economic muscle and political might of the EU protecting those products around the world and across the EU, there is a real danger that their market share will slip and income from them will decline, with jobs and businesses at risk. All of that will be on top of losing the easy access to the EU market that we currently enjoy. The UK simply does not have the clout to protect those products in the way that the EU does.

There are also, I am afraid, examples of UK Government Ministers—it is difficult to tell whether they are still Ministers, but they are certainly Ministers who have served under the current Prime Minister—saying that some of those protections would be used as bargaining chips in trade negotiations. When giving evidence to a Holyrood committee in September, the then Minister for Trade Policy—he might still be Minister for Trade Policy; I am not sure—said:

“The GI issue is not…straightforward”

and that some countries see these protections as “barriers to trade”. That is why it is so worrying that this dubious piece of legislation gives up the protection of the EU system in favour of a system dreamed up by someone who has delusions of UK adequacy, but no grounding in what our food and drink sector will need to survive and thrive. I have absolutely no idea why anyone thinks it is a good idea to give up using the EU system, which we could have continued to participate in after Brexit, in order to try to build one of our own, which will at best be a pale and powerless shadow of the former.

We are lucky that the EU sees those trade protections as important, and will continue to respect UK indications after Brexit. The downside is, of course, that it will not enforce UK indications in third countries with which we have trade deals, and it will insist on the UK recognising EU protections. I quote a written answer given by President Juncker to a question lodged in the European Parliament:

“The European Union schemes for the protection of geographical indications…within the European Union territory apply, without discrimination, to European Union and non-European Union GIs.

After leaving the European Union, the United Kingdom…is expected to protect the GIs of EU-27 according to its domestic legal order and in compliance with its international obligations, including those of the World Trade Organisation (WTO). The same will apply in the European Union in respect of UK GIs.

It remains to be determined in the framework of negotiations whether any specific measures or agreement for the protection of GIs between the EU-27 and the UK would be appropriate following the United Kingdom's withdrawal.”

Admittedly, that was in September 2017, but attitudes in Brussels may no longer be as forgiving as they were, after the recent shambles.

We are walking away from a perfectly decent and fully functional set of protections to set up a whole new system for protections that cannot be as effective, will never be as powerful and will not have the reach or influence to do the job—it will not be as good but we will have our own system to do it. How ironic that those who complained the loudest about EU red tape are now setting up whole new bureaucracies in the name of taking back control. It is like a “Carry On” film. The SNP cannot support the regulations and I cannot allow them to pass unchallenged with anything like a clear conscience. I will be pressing them to the vote and voting against them.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Rutley]

I will get back formally to the hon. Gentleman on that point, but my understanding is that the court can appoint experts to help with particular issues. It is important to recognise that this SI also introduces additional appeals provisions as a result of the UK assuming the responsibility and functions previously belonging to the EU. In short, a person who thinks that the Secretary of State has got a decision or application wrong can go to this first tier tribunal to appeal against that decision. The appeal processes will cover all four regimes: agri-foods, wines, spirits and aromatised wines. The appeal provisions ensure that we comply with our obligations under the European convention on human rights. I will get back to the hon. Gentleman on his specific point.

A number of points were made about geographical indications. The hon. Gentleman asked when the three-year period would start. It will start from the day of exit. The whole point of having a three-year period is to enable time for the producers to adjust themselves and their packaging to the new situations. Protection of UK GIs in the EU will continue automatically after exit. They have been through the EU scrutiny process and they have earned the right to their place on the EU’s registers. To remove UK GIs from its registers, the EU would have to change its rules. If the UK GIs are removed from the EU registers, the Government will support UK GI holders in reapplying for EU GI recognition.

The key point here, certainly from the Government’s perspective, is that we should not lose sight of how important securing a deal is, for some of the very reasons we are talking about here, but we have processes in place should we find ourselves in a no-deal scenario.

[Deidre Brock]

Can the Minister give us a little more information about how long reapplying to the EU to be on that register would take, and what kind of support he will give businesses to do that? Businesses have told me they are worried about the length of time and the cost involved before they can be back on that register.

[David Rutley]

With the hon. Lady’s permission, I will return to that point in a minute. I am sure I will get some inspiration to answer those points specifically, and if not, I will write to her.

I have answered several questions on the situation that we find ourselves in. I think that the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith made an important point about Scotch whisky. When I was appointed to this role, one of the first things I did was to meet with the Scotch Whisky Association in Edinburgh, to understand its views on the matter. As she rightly said, it is vital for our export business, for the Scottish economy and, of course, for the UK economy as a whole. I respect the important work that it does.

As I said, the protection of UK GIs will continue in the EU, unless and until the EU decides to change its rules to remove UK GIs.

[Deidre Brock]

I made a point about third countries in future trade deals and how protections might be dealt with in those circumstances. I am thinking particularly of evidence that we received in the Scottish Affairs Committee from Dr Maria Garcia of the University of Bath. She used Scottish whisky as an example. She said:

“Recognition of Scottish whisky and protection of that GI in trade negotiations will be much more difficult for the UK acting alone. It will have much less success, probably, in getting its demands met, than it would as part of the EU.”

What assurances can the Minister offer Scottish whisky producers and all the other people who are part of the PGI system in the UK that they will be protected in those sorts of trade deals in the manner needed?

[David Rutley]

I understand the hon. Lady’s point. The Government are working with their global trading partners to transition EU free trade agreements and other sectoral agreements. That includes commitments on the recognition and protection of UK GIs. We are working to have bilateral agreements in place, ready for when we need them. If there is no deal, the Government will seek to bring into force bilateral agreements from exit day, or as soon as possible thereafter.

We have already signed a trade continuity agreement with Switzerland to continue trade worth £32.1 billion in 2017. We also signed a mutual recognition agreement for certain wines and spirits with the USA that will guarantee ongoing protection for Scotch whisky there. The UK has also signed trade continuity agreements with Chile, the Faroe Islands, Palestine, Israel and eastern and southern Africa states.

I can now answer the request for more information on the time and support available. An application could be made very quickly or old applications could be largely recycled. It is not possible to say how long the EU would take to consider an application but the UK would not charge any fees and nor does the EU. We would want to support businesses and work with them. I can talk to the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith afterwards about some of the details because she has raised some important points.

To conclude, the Government are committed to ensuring effective arrangements are in place to protect GIs in the UK after we leave the European Union, enabling new registration to take place. The instrument is essential to achieve that. There are no substantive policy changes and only minimal modifications from the current EU regime. It includes the UK assuming powers that had been undertaken by the European Commission.

The instrument ensures continued levels of protection for this collection of GIs and assures consumers that they will still be able to procure products that meet the high standards to which they are accustomed. For those reasons, I commend the legislation to the Committee.

Question put.

Leaving the EU: Economic Impact of Proposed Deal

Deidre Brock Excerpts

Wednesday 20th February 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mel Stride]

The analysis needs to model the future political declaration, upon which the negotiations will rest. Of course, that is a relatively broad document with a number of potential outcomes. The analysis has quite rightly taken a range of possible outcomes to make that assessment and most accurately reflect the range of outcomes of where the deal itself may land.

[Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)]

Unlike the EEA or single market model, the PM’s deal assumes that regulatory checks will be essential to the proper functioning of separate EU and UK markets. Does not the Minister agree that we need to understand the impact of such trade barriers now?

[Mel Stride]

That is precisely what the analysis is setting out—a series of potential outcomes and the economic impacts thereof. Some Members are suggesting that we should analyse where we are at the moment, but that would not be appropriate given that we are leaving the European Union. At the same time, it has to be recognised that we have not yet fully concluded the new trading relationship with the European Union—the EU27—and therefore the analysis sets out a range of possible landing points for those negotiations.

HMRC Estate Transformation

Deidre Brock Excerpts

Tuesday 29th January 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mel Stride]

If we look at all the metrics, we can see that HMRC is doing extremely well on customer service at the moment, including time taken to answer telephone calls. There is always more to do, and we will continue to work at this, but it has a good record to date.

[Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)]

HMRC’s New Waverley development in Edinburgh is being used for photo opportunities by Back-Bench Tory MPs even before it opens. We know that the office of the Secretary of State for Scotland and of the Advocate General for Scotland, the Office for Statistics Regulation, the Information Commissioner’s Office, the Government Actuary’s Department and Her Majesty’s Treasury are also moving in. Will the Minister tell us exactly how much this enormous white elephant is costing us, and to which other Departments HMRC will sub-let?

[Mel Stride]

The main thrust of the hon. Lady’s question seems to be to decry the fact that we are decanting more and more services into one location. There are many logical economic and business reasons why one would do exactly that. As for her charge that Conservative Back Benchers are going up to that location, I would suggest that that says they are very interested in these particular matters.

Scottish Economy

Deidre Brock Excerpts

Wednesday 27th June 2018 Westminster Hall

[Ged Killen]

Perhaps the hon. Lady will tell us in her remarks how her party intends to change employment law, if it is devolved to the Scottish Parliament.

Scotland suffers from under-investment. While the Scottish Government have produced many investment packages, they are often too small, too numerous and too unfocused to deliver the outcomes they are set up to achieve. Those are not my words but the conclusions of recent reports by the Fraser of Allander Institute and the Scottish Parliament’s Economy, Jobs and Fair Work Committee.

Under the current Scottish Government, we have had economic development plans governed by press release. Labour proposes real investment to correct the problems of stagnant labour productivity and GDP growth. We aim to stimulate investment more widely through a national plan that focuses long-term investment on local and national infrastructure, such as information, communication, services and production technologies, as well as in physical infrastructure, such as roads, buildings and town and city centres. That will not only correct the decade of under-investment that led to the productivity problem, but begin the vital future-proofing of the Scottish workforce against the challenges of automation and increasing digitalisation.

Furthermore, we plan to examine the possibility of public sector pension funds using their resources to establish a Scottish public provident fund, which could invest in local production and infrastructure, boost local supply chains and stimulate employment.

We will implement our industrial strategy and invest in Scotland’s economy. We will also encourage and incentivise firms in Scotland to raise the percentage of turnover invested in research and development. Scotland is only ninth in the UK in R&D spend per head, so such measures are sorely needed and will be vital in solving the productivity puzzle. Those kinds of investments will encourage the growth of new industries. An excellent example of that is CST Global in my constituency—a photonics manufacturer that I believe represents the future of jobs in Scotland.

CST Global has shown itself to be a significantly high-growth, high-skill business. It has sustained strong annual growth, with revenues increasing by 88% in a year to £6.7 million in 2017. It is a strong exporter, and the photonics industry is one of the UK’s most productive. On average, each employee in the sector contributes £62,000 to the economy in gross value per year—three times the UK average. These companies also have some of the highest export rates of any industry, exporting an average of 75% of their manufactured output.

Such companies are often city-based, and we would not typically expect them to be found in smaller towns, such as Blantyre in my constituency. However, CST Global has proven that that need not be the case; when conditions are right, those companies can not only do well but thrive in these places. CST Global is very welcome in Blantyre. Supporting such businesses is central to the investment-based economic model. If we want to see the future of the Scottish economy defined by high-skill, high-wage and high-tech jobs, we have to invest.

[Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)]

If the hon. Gentleman is genuinely interested in growing the Scottish economy, he should support the devolution of powers to set VAT and national insurance rates, and to collect fuel duties, capital gains tax, interest on dividends and export duties, as well as all the other powers that the Scottish Parliament does not possess and is therefore unable to use to grow our economy.

[Ged Killen]

It is nice to see that both the hon. Lady and her favourite pantomime villains have turned up to continue the set-to that we often see in the Chamber. I am here to make a speech on what I believe is right for the Scottish economy. She will clearly disagree on several areas, and she can set those out in her remarks. As always for SNP Members, independence is the answer, no matter the question. I am surprised to hear SNP Members now talk about devolution so much, given that they have always opposed it. [Interruption.]

--- Later in debate ---

[Luke Graham]

That is why we are having a debate in this place—because growth is the responsibility of the United Kingdom. The problem is the claims of the SNP Administration that they champion economic growth in Scotland. Scottish Enterprise is devolved. Much of the tourism is devolved. The scream for powers has meant that so many levers have been denied to this place and put into Edinburgh. Although I agree that accountability —[Interruption.] If you want to make an intervention, stand up and make one, madam.

[Deidre Brock]

I will.

[Luke Graham]

Come on then.

[Deidre Brock]

I am just going to repeat what I said before: the setting of VAT rates, national insurance, fuel duties, capital gains tax are not devolved to the Scottish Parliament and therefore can have no impact on the economic powers that the hon. Gentleman is talking about.

[Luke Graham]

The hon. Lady repeats the point, and it is as weak as it was the first time.

The Scottish economy is not forecast to grow by more than 1% at any stage over the next five years. As a result, the Scottish economy will be more than £18 billion smaller by 2022. It is not helped one iota by any devolved power, whereas in this place we have been trying to help the Scottish economy.

Windrush: 70th Anniversary

Deidre Brock Excerpts

Thursday 14th June 2018 Commons Chamber

[Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)]

It has been a real pleasure to sit here and listen to the many excellent contributions made today. I particularly commend the hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes) for securing this debate and for setting out very movingly some of the experiences of the Windrush generation and their descendants. I want to celebrate another outstanding speech by the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy), which was, yet again, brimming with humanity, compassion and, quite rightly, anger. In his typically eloquent speech, my hon. Friend the Member for Glenrothes (Peter Grant) challenged definitions of identity and reminded us that in the end we really are all Jock Tamson’s bairns.

The hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) made a very good contribution in which she pointed out that focusing on immigration statistics is dehumanising. We should be hearing the stories behind those statistics to truly understand the situation. We all have a responsibility as MPs to celebrate the enormous contributions made by immigrants to our society, and not to harass them constantly. I thank the hon. Member for Brent Central (Dawn Butler) for sharing with us the experiences of her father, illustrating better than any number of speeches what matters in this debate—the people behind the figures.

There is a real irony, as has been mentioned, in the fact that Windrush is such a poetic word and yet has now become the byword for a record of racism, intolerance, injustice and lack of compassion. People in general do not really want much. They want somewhere safe and comfortable to live, the means to put some food on the table and to keep the heating and lighting on, and the reassurance that they are not about to be lifted from their comfortable house and flung away to a country they have never known or have not lived in for decades. Arming them with a wee booklet that says, “Try to fit in; pretend you’re from there” is not exactly a substitute for assuring them of a right to live here. Denying people healthcare—that has been mentioned already—and the opportunity to secure a tenancy on a house, have access to education or the right to work, just because they or their parents did not keep their payslips going back 50 years, is simply repugnant. It is not good Government policy, it is not good social or economic policy, and it does not achieve anything other than turning people into outsiders in their own communities. It is xenophobic, racist and it should end.

I was born in a Commonwealth country, but I have had none of the problems that other people report in our surgeries or in emails and letters. Perhaps that is simply because I am white and Australian, or because my English father passes on his rights to me—a privilege not extended to some people who were born here because their families chose to move here. Whatever the reason, I do not get the hassle, and I do not suffer the prejudice that others receive on what often seems like a daily basis. Such prejudice is simply horrific and can easily be described as base mob thuggery, but the horrific part is that the Government are the gang leaders. I applaud the Government for the small steps they have taken to address the issues faced by the Windrush generation, but they do not go nearly far enough. I encourage Ministers to gather their courage and plough on with getting a fair deal for people who have built lives here and contributed to society and the economy, as well as to Government coffers.

For me, the line in the sand is this: the old Immigration Act 1971 should go. Its arbitrary cut-off point has no sense—January 1 1973 has become an immigration shibboleth, and a new totem for staying tough on immigration. It is ludicrous. I have constituents—I am sure we all do—who arrived here with the same ideas as the Windrush people. They came to build a life and contribute to the economy. They had families, paid taxes and made this country a better place. However, because they arrived after the magic date, they are now in limbo. Many of them will be buried in graveyards on these islands without ever having officially become a citizen. They have children who are now adults, and those adults now contribute to society, paying taxes, driving the economy, and making their contribution to the patchwork that is society. They were born and educated in the UK; they work and bring up families in the UK, but they are not citizens of the UK. They may tend the graves of their parents in the land their parents adopted—the only land they have ever known—but they have fewer rights of residence than their parents did when they first set foot in the UK. It is a strange and unusual policy.

Leaving aside the daft hoops and labyrinthine processes that the Government have invented for people who need to prove that they have lived here long enough to be regarded as “one of us”, the arbitrary date is nonsense and exists only because that is the day some outdated legislation came into force. It is the new pale, and those who are beyond it, through no fault of their own, are regarded as “other” by the machinery of state. They are regarded as a problem to be addressed, or as an annoying inconvenience by the state that should be protecting and nurturing them, and utilising their talents.

The response is always that there must be a cut-off point. I disagree, but I hear the argument, so let us have a cut-off point. Let us make it the same as that for EU citizens. If someone can show that they have been living here legally for five years, they can be a citizen. Let people show that they have contributed to society in some way—perhaps by bringing up a family, volunteering, paying taxes or keeping a home for someone else who does those things. There should not be a fee for someone to become part of their adopted country. While we are at it, let us get rid of the stupid tests that people are forced to go through as if they are appearing in a theatrical farce. It is time to step up and sort out this maelstrom of stupidity, so I urge the Minister: let us have a bonfire of these immigration vanities, and let us have some decency for people who are part of the fabric of our communities. Let Windrush stand for something other than prejudice and mistrust; let it stand for the time when sense prevailed and humanity became the underpinning element of immigration policy.

Social Mobility and the Economy

Deidre Brock Excerpts

Wednesday 28th March 2018 Westminster Hall

[Justine Greening]

I could not agree with my hon. Friend more. We face a simple but powerful problem: talent is spread evenly across the country, but opportunity is not. We need to ensure that we nurture that talent. I share his concern that educational attainment in Scotland looks like it is slipping backwards relative to the rest of the UK.

[Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)]

In response to the point made by the hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont), it is important to point out that the UCAS website says that

“in Scotland, around one third of admissions are not processed through UCAS, so this provides only part of the picture of entry to higher education”.

That should be placed on the record and hon. Members should keep it in mind. It is important not to do down Scottish education, because there are many positive things about it. A higher percentage of our students who attend university have been to further education courses first, which is not picked up by the UCAS stats either.

[Justine Greening]

A lot of hon. Members, particularly Conservative Members, would dispute those facts.

I recognise that there is an important debate to be had on higher education, but I want to focus my comments on business and the economy because business has a key role to play in improving social mobility in our country. Today, I am asking businesses large and small to commit to a universal social mobility pledge.

I hugely thank David Harrison and the Harrison Centre for Social Mobility for crucially supporting the work to enable us to launch the pledge today. The social mobility pledge is about three things: partnership between schools and businesses; businesses offering access to work experience or apprenticeships; and businesses having recruitment practices that are transparent and open, to promote a level playing field for talent.

First, partnering with schools is something that every single company, big or small, can do. It does not have to be hard. Some outstanding organisations are already providing a platform for action, and the resources needed for companies and businesses to make a start: Speakers for Schools; Inspiring the Future; the Careers and Enterprise Company; and the Prince’s Trust, which is setting up the e-mentor scheme, to name just a few. A lot of these organisations want to do more working through business, and they also want to do that in locations outside London and the south-east, where young people often have fewer opportunities. However, we need the fantastic employers in those areas to come forward to help make that happen.

Some great organisations are doing amazing work on access to work experience and apprenticeships, such as the Social Mobility Business Partnership, which can help. I also say a massive “thank you” to Barry Matthews, who set up the SMBP, for his help in working with me recently to help put together the social mobility pledge, so that companies large and small can get behind it. The Social Mobility Foundation does a huge amount of great work. Alongside that is the Sutton Trust, which I mentioned earlier and which has pioneered so many of the great initiatives that we have learned from and that companies can get involved in.

All companies can make a decision to open their doors and let young people who might not have any idea about that organisation come in and spend time learning about it, shadowing people and working on projects that give them a sense of what working in those careers is like.

--- Later in debate ---

[Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Davies. I commend the right hon. Member for Putney (Justine Greening) for holding this debate on an important topic. One thing she said that rang true with me was that when she started out, she was not asking for special treatment, she just wanted the same opportunities as everyone else. That is such an important point to make. She spoke of the significant gains to the economy from nurturing its talent and the part that businesses have to play in that. That is crucial as well. She also set out some interesting proposals that might address that, along with her pledge, and made some points about blind and contextual CVs. As she said, we all have our part to play. She spoke of a million-piece jigsaw puzzle, which is a good image for us to take away. We should all play our part in trying to make social mobility possible for our young people and others throughout society.

The hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) spoke of the importance of economic regeneration and the part that that plays in social mobility. She highlighted this Government’s cuts to school funding and talked of the gaps in productivity, and asked how training can be provided urgently to fill those gaps.

The hon. Member for Chichester (Gillian Keegan) shared her personal experiences with us. I always find such points very interesting. She spoke at length of the benefit of apprenticeships, but stressed the importance of them being high-value apprenticeships, which is another good point.

The hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) gave a passionate speech. She spoke of poor accommodation, poor schooling and the social systems that put children “far behind the starting line” before they even start. That is a very good point indeed. She spoke of the effect on young people’s confidence and feelings of security, and the longer term impact on them.

The right hon. Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (David Evennett) also spoke of personal experiences and how the opportunities he received helped him along his way. He called for everyone to receive the same opportunities. He made one point that really startled me: that only 6% of doctors come from working-class backgrounds. That is an extraordinary and sobering point.

The hon. Member for Barnsley East (Stephanie Peacock) pointed out that less than 10% of young people in her constituency will go on to university. She suggested that what was needed was an inclusive economy with secure employment that allows for future planning.

My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow East (David Linden), in a very fine speech, also talked about the importance of investing in apprenticeships and of fair pay for those apprenticeships, and about what he is doing personally as a politician with the internship scheme in his office. That is a great example to set. He also spoke of how social tourism can help in taking children away from their day-to-day environment and exposing them to different experiences.

In preparation for this debate, I turned to the “State of the Nation” report with interest, anticipating a thoroughly good read. The chapter on Scotland and Wales—neither nation got its own chapter, unfortunately— pointed out right at the start that the data available for Scotland does not measure social mobility, nor does the data for Wales. It seems that that is because successive Scottish Administrations have concentrated on alleviating poverty rather than measuring social mobility. Of course, alleviating poverty is not easy if the Government are hellbent on cutting social security payments and limiting the funds available to the most vulnerable members of society for ideological reasons. So we find ourselves discussing England and its problems again. The Social Mobility Commission’s “Time for change” report was clear that two decades of chasing higher social mobility have made no difference. Fervent ministerial announcements turn out not to deliver results—who would have thought it?

It is important to acknowledge that when the right hon. Member for Putney was in office she put in place a plan for addressing some educational inequalities, and it appears to have been well received. I admit that I have not read it because it concentrates on English education, but I was intrigued to see that it followed the Scottish Government down the path of addressing the attainment gap. That is a very good thing and is to be encouraged. I hope the Minister will indicate whether that plan will be implemented.

As many, many people tell us at great length, education is one of the great levellers. It is key to ensuring that talent rises and talented people are rewarded. How education is paid for is equally important. I was intrigued by the recent publication of evidence from Robert Plomin and Emily Smith-Woolley of King’s College, which showed that selective schools add next to no benefit to education. Funnily enough, the “Freakonomics” economist Steven Levitt found the same thing in Chicago.

The real inhibitor of social mobility in education comes when a young adult leaves tertiary education. The burden of student loans that graduates carry is substantial. I think I am correct in calculating that an English student studying in London for three years could leave with more than £60,000 of debt. For someone from a less affluent background who secures employment in a graduate entry-level job, that debt will stay with them for years.

[Luke Graham]

Setting aside the discourtesy of not being mentioned in the hon. Lady’s summation—I am a Scottish Conservative colleague, but that is fine—on tuition fees, perhaps she can advise her colleagues in Edinburgh truly to lead the way and not charge tuition fees to English, Welsh and Irish students, who are great friends in our one United Kingdom.

[Deidre Brock]

That point has been made many times by the hon. Gentleman’s colleagues, and he has heard the very good reasons why that is not happening. He wants me to mention his contribution, but I find it difficult to get past the fact that, once again, the Scottish Tories talked down the Scottish education system. It is a constant disappointment that every time they mention Scottish education in this place, they do nothing but complain about the work that is being done there. Some fantastic work is going on in Scottish education at the moment, and it would be lovely to hear the Scottish Tories occasionally acknowledge that.

[David Linden]

Does my hon. Friend share my bemusement about the fact that the Scottish Tories who are left in this debate—two thirds of them have left the Chamber—continue to harp on about investing in education, yet they rail against any increases in income tax for higher earners in Scotland? The options are either to increase income tax or to cut public spending, which would mean cuts to education. Does she agree that the position of the Conservative party in Scotland seems ridiculous?

[Deidre Brock]

Indeed. I agree with my hon. Friend. It is difficult to see exactly where the Scottish Tories are coming from on this—they are so confused.

For someone from a less affluent background who secures employment in a graduate entry-level job, that debt will stay with them for years. That is if they even manage to get what we once would have considered a graduate job. One in 20 graduates do not find any work at all, and the destinations of others is often less than optimal.

During the time that graduates carry that debt, they have less disposable income, their contribution to the economy is lessened, they find it more difficult to get on to the property ladder, decisions about starting a family are made more difficult, and their career decisions are limited. When they have children, that disadvantage is passed on, because they will not have advanced as far in life as they might have done if they did not have to carry that debt. It might be advisable for anyone who believes in improving social mobility to look at removing or alleviating that debt. Abolishing tuition fees would be a start.

To digress a little, I recommend that Members read the Joseph Rowntree Foundation’s paper on migration and social mobility from 2005, which suggests that immigration encourages social mobility in the UK. That is on top of what we know already.

[Siobhain McDonagh]

If I could take the hon. Lady to my constituency, I would take her to homes where there is not a stick of furniture. In those homes are Tamil and African families, whose children are the doctors, lawyers and engineers of tomorrow. Social mobility is an issue of class and ethnicity. That is difficult for us to talk about, but in London we certainly need to talk about it.

[Deidre Brock]

I thank the hon. Lady for that interesting point about her constituency. We already know that immigration is a driver of the economy, and I would recommend a dose of extra immigration to any nation that wants to forge ahead.

European Affairs

Deidre Brock Excerpts

Thursday 15th March 2018 Commons Chamber

[Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)]

Brexit—what a success it’s been, eh? The restoration of greatness is upon this sceptred isle. Except, it’s not. When we finally got some sight of what the Government thought might be the economic impact of Brexit, it was horrific. It was even more horrific given that the Government had exhibited some worrying signs of being massively optimistic about Brexit, when more sober heads could not see much reason to be optimistic at all.

Geographical analysis suggests that we are getting the rather unpleasant end of a sharp stick and sectoral analysis suggests that the stick is sharper than it should be. The Financial Times, as we have heard, estimated the cost as being about the same as the side of a red bus. We should not take a journalist’s word for it, though; the right hon. Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry) spoke of the OBR’s improved forecasts, but we should recognise that its growth forecasts for this year, next year and the year after are about a third down on the forecasts made in March 2016 for the same years.

The Scottish Affairs Committee has been taking evidence on the impact of Brexit on the immigration Scotland needs, so I will confine most of my remarks to that. There simply is not any organisation coming to the Committee and saying it thinks it is a good idea that we are leaving the EU or that there are fabulous opportunities waiting for us just around the corner. We are hearing from no one who thinks that our economy is going to be bolstered by losing access to the customs union and the single market and definitely no one who thinks that cutting immigration is a good thing.

CBI Scotland says that the Brexit referendum was the stepping-off point for its members putting the prospect of new immigration rules and the uncertainty that has surrounded the status of EU workers at the top of their concerns. The CBI also said that EU nationals make a vital contribution to the Scottish economy.

The same argument was made by the National Farmers Union of Scotland, which pointed to the thousands of agricultural workers from the rest of the EU who keep Scotland’s farms working. I assume that there are many similar stories to be told elsewhere. Jonnie Hall of the NFUS pointed out that our veterinary services in Scotland depend greatly on people who are trained in other EU countries, and that our haulage industry depends on drivers from elsewhere in Europe. Associated industries all rely on EU citizens coming here and working to make sure that our agricultural products get to market.

Skilled jobs need to be done, and we do not have enough skilled people in the UK to do them. It is not a case of employers importing cheap labour to undercut workers here, as the leader of the Labour party suggested in Dundee last week. It is a case of there not being the workers here to do the jobs that need doing. We have already heard stories of crops rotting in the fields because there were not the workers to pick them, as a result of EU citizens not coming to work the fields, and that is before the restrictions bite.

As Jonnie Hall pointed out, the damage is being done before the promised sunny uplands come into view. He said:

“We have experience of our members who have very, very high-value crops in the field that have simply rotted over the winter because there has not been the labour to pick the vegetables. We are always being told by Mr Gove that we will be driving an agricultural industry that is based on new technology. We are yet to discover the technology that can recognise and pick the right crop at the right time as effectively as a human being can.”

The food and drink industries are major players in Scotland’s economy, and this is the agriculture sector telling us that we need immigration to be easy to administer and freely available. Losing the freedom of movement of EU citizens is a disaster for agriculture, and farmers need a replacement quickly.

The NFUS has come up with a solution that might assist. Mr Hall told us that the NFUS has had conversations with the Scottish Government, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and other Departments, but the door it simply cannot open is the Home Office’s—the one door it really needs to open. That needs to be fixed, and I hope the Minister can at least give some assurance of assistance.

Our food prices are already being adversely affected by the weakness of the pound and increasing import costs. Families the length and breadth of these islands cannot afford price increases caused by scarcities because farmers cannot get their crops in from the fields. Our agricultural economy needs to be protected and nurtured, and that needs freedom of movement. I am reminded of a speech given by the then Environment Secretary, the current Leader of the House, in a speech in Paris in October 2016, when she said that we would address the economic chaos of Brexit by selling food around the world. Unless she meant that we would offer countries a pick-your-own deal, I am not sure we can sell food that stays in the fields.

The same story is coming through from other sectors. Academia, scientific research and financial services all rely heavily on EU citizens as well as the EU marketplace to make the economy work. Without freedom of movement, we have economic meltdown. Taking back control appears to be the equivalent of being a child sitting in the back of the car with a toy steering wheel—you have the impression of power, but it is just a plastic wheel spinning round and round.

There has been far too much overconfidence from the Government and not nearly enough hard work and proper dedication to the task. Brexit is a disaster and will continue to be the most costly and damaging political decision any Government have made in modern times unless we stop it. Let us end it. For pity’s sake and for the sake of the people we represent, let us find a proper accommodation in the EU.

Christmas Adjournment

Deidre Brock Excerpts

Thursday 21st December 2017 Commons Chamber

[Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)]

I am going to start by sounding a bit “Bah, humbug”—I will save my felicitations for the end—but I want to raise an important subject. It relates to the Delegated Legislation Committee that I was in on Tuesday, which was considering both the new date for disclosures about donations to the Northern Ireland parties and treating such donations in the same way as donations to other parties. It is a long-running issue that was first suggested a decade ago, but successive Ministers have kicked the issue down the road over the years.

The revelations about the large donation to the Democratic Unionist party for Brexit campaigning, made from Scotland through Northern Ireland, presumably to avoid the usual reporting restrictions, forced the hand of the current Government, and the secondary legislation that we were considering on Tuesday was presented. That donation was £435,000 from the Constitutional Research Council. The organisation is based in Scotland, but none of us in Scottish politics had heard of it before. However, I note that it has links to the Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker), who I believe received some thousands of pounds on behalf of the European Research Group—the Conservatives’ extreme Brexit wing.

During the proceedings on Tuesday, the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the hon. Member for Norwich North (Chloe Smith), told the Committee that she had consulted the Electoral Commission in Northern Ireland, as she was obliged to do, and she gave the impression that the commission was in agreement with the Government on the date of commencement. She said:

“I hope that the Committee has found that summary of the provisions helpful. As hon. Members know, the Electoral Commission will be responsible for implementing the arrangements set out in the draft order. The Government have fulfilled our statutory obligation to consult the commission about the draft order; I place on the record my thanks to the commission and its staff for their close co-operation and constructive input into the drafting process.”—[Official Report, Third Delegated Legislation Committee, 19 December 2017; c. 5.]

My office contacted the commission yesterday and was told that it remains of the opinion that the start date for open reporting should be 1 January 2014, rather than the new date of 1 July this year. That is important because the commission still wants the appropriate date to be the one that is in legislation passed by this Parliament. That legislation was intended to normalise the reporting of donations and loans to Northern Irish parties and to make it difficult to channel money secretly into politics.

We are all well aware of the need for transparency in politics and of the need to avoid corruption and to be seen to be avoiding corruption, and we trust the Electoral Commission to do its job and ensure that the rules are followed. Its staff are the experts in this field, and while I am aware that experts are not in favour in some parts of this House, we can surely agree that we should take the advice of the Electoral Commission on matters pertaining to donations and loans to political parties.

It is unfortunate that the Minister gave the impression on Tuesday that she had the commission’s agreement, when it is clear that she did not and does not. I hope that she will take the opportunity to clarify the situation to the House and for the record. Meanwhile, since it is clear that the commission remains opposed to the new date presented in secondary legislation and since the regulations have not yet been presented on the Floor of the House for approval, I wonder whether the Minister might reconsider her position and defer the introduction of these regulations until the Government have had sufficient time to consult properly on the most appropriate date for the proper and full reporting of donations and loans in Northern Ireland to start.

Reporting was originally supposed to start from 2007, and a Government consultation in 2010 showed that more than three quarters of respondents in Northern Ireland wanted it to go ahead, but I am afraid that it was fudged. It was deferred and put back on the shelf, and eventually new legislation, the Northern Ireland (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2014, set a new date of 1 January 2014. We should see that date honoured.

I hope that the Minister intends to address the wrongful impression given to the Committee that the commission agreed with the new date and that she will withdraw the regulations presented and take time to undertake a proper and full consultation on them, so that we get a date that satisfies the intent behind the legislation. We must avoid corruption and any danger of leaving the impression that there might be something to hide. It is vital that a debate on this issue be scheduled in the House in the new year.

On that rather sombre note, I would like to wish everyone in the House, all the officers, you, Mr Speaker, and the Deputy Speakers, who have been so helpful to us all throughout the year, “Nollaig chridheil agus bliadhna mhath ùr”, which is Scottish Gaelic for, “Merry Christmas and happy new year.” I particularly want to send my thoughts and best wishes to the Chairman of Ways and Means. I am fond of the gentleman and was very sad to hear of his difficulties. I wish him and his family all the best.

[Mr Speaker]

Thank you very much.