Points of Order

Debate between Baroness Laing of Elderslie and Alison Thewliss

Thursday 25th April 2024 Commons Chamber

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Now that you have indicated Royal Assent to the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Act 2024, have you been given any indication by the Government as to whether they will make a statement to the House on when they intend to send people to Rwanda, which people they intend to send to Rwanda, and what will happen to the tens of thousands of people whom they will be unable to send to Rwanda?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for her point of order—[Interruption.] Did I just call her a gentleman?

[Alison Thewliss]

That isn’t how I identify!

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Quite. Take two: I thank the hon. Lady for her point of order, and I understand why she makes it, but it is not one for the Chair. She knows that she and many others have debated these matters for many, many hours in recent weeks, and I have personally heard her speak for hours, cumulatively, on the subject. The Government have replied to her questions and those of other hon. Members in so far as they are able to do so to. I am sure that the Leader of the House will have heard the hon. Lady’s request for even more time for this business on the Floor of the House, but I should point out for the sake of clarity that many, many hours have been spent on that business in recent weeks.

Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill

Debate between Baroness Laing of Elderslie and Alison Thewliss

Consideration of Lords message
Wednesday 17th April 2024 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call the SNP spokesman.

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)]

I will start in order with Lords amendment 1D in the name of Lord Coaker. The Minister asked why the Government ought to have due regard for those particular pieces of legislation—why would we want to have due regard for international law and various Acts, including the Children Act 1989, the Human Rights Act 1998, and the Modern Slavery Act 2015? Well, the reason is found on the face of the Bill, which states, in the name of the Home Secretary:

“I am unable to make a statement that, in my view, the provisions of the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill are compatible with the Convention rights, but the Government nevertheless wishes the House to proceed with the Bill.”

The Government are setting out to undermine our international obligations, so it is quite right for the Lords to insist that we abide by them. That is the very least the Government should be doing. There are implications for children, for people who have been victims of slavery and trafficking, and for people whose human rights will be abused. The Government should be paying far more attention to that.

On Lords amendment 3E in the name of Lord Hope, there is significance in ensuring that the monitoring committee can do its job properly. It is not clear in what circumstances Rwanda can be declared not safe. The monitoring committee is supposed to produce an annual report that then goes up the chain to the Joint Committee, but there is no mechanism for the committee to blow the whistle should something happen. There is no mechanism for it to say, “Suddenly, something has happened and Rwanda is no longer safe.” What happens in that circumstance to those recommendations? How are they acted on, and what then happens to the people the UK wants to send to Rwanda?

There no such mechanism in this legislation—or, as far as I can see, in the treaty, which involves a three-month delay, and the agreement of both parties, before anything can be annulled. What happens should something untoward occur in Rwanda? I referred to the action of the M23 rebels in my remarks earlier this week, but the Minister did not respond to it in his summing up. What happens if something goes awry? We do not know; we are beholden to the Government’s assertion that Rwanda is safe in perpetuity. There is no mechanism to remove the perpetuity of Rwanda’s designation as “safe.”

I highlight the experience of the Irish author and journalist Sally Hayden, who wrote “My Fourth Time, We Drowned: Seeking Refuge on the World's Deadliest Migration Route”. She has raised concerns about the mechanisms of scrutiny in Rwanda itself, and about the treatment of refugees in Rwanda. She has visited the country on several occasions, but was denied entry last month as she went to cover the 30th anniversary of the Rwandan genocide. She has tried to resolve that with the Rwandan authorities, but believes that she was refused entry precisely because she has criticised them and their treatment of refugees. Should that not alarm us all when it comes to the scrutiny of the Bill both here and in Rwanda? She said:

“Proper scrutiny of the consequences of this policy are not possible because it’s not a country with freedom of media and freedom of speech”.

We should be deeply concerned about that. Without that independence and scrutiny, we cannot be certain that what is happening in Rwanda is what the UK Government intend or what the Rwandan Government are telling us. Press freedom is crucial for that level of scrutiny, beyond the supposedly independent monitoring committee. I support amendment 3E.

I also support amendment 6D, in the name of Baroness Chakrabarti, because it stands up for the right of our own authorities to make proper decisions. It empowers our decision makers and our courts, as they should be empowered, to look at the evidence before them and make proper decisions. The Government are asking the judiciary, immigration officers, tribunals and everybody in the system to engage in a legal fantasy—that they should ignore all the evidence before them and believe the Government when they say that Rwanda is safe in perpetuity. With reference to proposed new subsection 1(c), which deals with refoulement, I remind the House that Rwanda engaged in the refoulement of several persons during the negotiation of the treaty, never mind at any time. We should be worried about that.

Lords amendment 10D proposes the new clause, “Exemption for agents, allies and employees of the UK Overseas”. We had an urgent question earlier today about the people from Afghanistan who are being yeeted out of Pakistan. The Pakistani Government are apparently pleading by using Rwanda as some kind of justification for that behaviour. That really indicates the ripple effect of what the Government are doing: other countries are praying in aid this legislation when they look to do things that we also have concerns about.

Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill

Debate between Baroness Laing of Elderslie and Alison Thewliss

Consideration of Lords message
Monday 15th April 2024 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

I call the SNP spokesman.

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)]

Here we are again, debating this outrageous and unworkable Bill. We are no further forward, and the Government will fail to get any further forward, because the Bill is a complete waste of time and money. It is a ruse to get tabloid headlines, and at this stage I am not even sure whether the Government have any intention that this plan will work at all, given the incompetence they have shown so far. They are scrabbling around this week, trying to find airlines, because not one single responsible air carrier wants to be associated with the Government’s state-sponsored people trafficking plans. They have been trying to find other countries that they can try to send people to; Armenia, the Ivory Coast, Costa Rica and Botswana might be interested, but far more countries rather sensibly told the Government to go and get raffled.

I am not convinced that even Rwanda believes this plan will work or that people will be sent, because it has gone and sold off the housing that it built—that the former Home Secretary, the right hon. and learned Member for Fareham (Suella Braverman), so admired. If the Government do send people, there will not even be the facilities to put them in, unless they intend to stack them high as they often do in hotels in this country, treating people as human cargo that they can so easily dispose of. It is absolutely despicable.

So far, the Government have sent Home Secretaries and civil servants. Even the Joint Committee on Human Rights has gone to Rwanda, along with some hand-picked journalists, but no asylum seekers—nor is there much prospect of them going. While all this has been going on, dozens of Rwandans have submitted asylum claims here in the UK, and there is still concern about Rwanda’s sponsoring of the M23 rebels, who are engaged in conflict with their neighbours, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, last month wounding UN peacekeepers in the DRC; the group controls roads and mining sites in that country, and has displaced 1.7 million people. In The Guardian last week, Vava Tampa questioned international support for the Kagame regime, saying:

“The UN, Human Rights Watch and Amnesty are clear that without Rwanda’s backing, the M23 couldn’t have killed, raped, tortured and displaced as many as it has.”

I ask the Government why they want to pursue deals with such a regime—it is quite worrying.

I turn to the Lords amendments, which I will go through in turn. Lords amendment 1 asks that the Government have due regard for “domestic and international law”—that should be a basic element of any legislation that this House wishes to pass. The amendment slightly waters down the Lords’ previous amendment about

“maintaining full compliance with domestic and international law”,

but clearly, even having due regard for domestic and international law is too much for this Government. That includes obligations like the European convention on human rights, which is tied up with the Good Friday agreement and the devolution settlements in this country, and international laws such as the refugee convention, the UN convention against torture and the UN covenant on civil and political rights. Why would the Government not want to abide by those international agreements?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Baroness Laing of Elderslie and Alison Thewliss

Monday 27th November 2023 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call the SNP spokesman.

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)]

Last week, a woman and a man died while attempting to cross the channel in a small boat; others in their group were hospitalised for hypothermia. Despite the clear risks, over 400 people in nine boats were detected crossing the channel in the past seven days. They clearly felt there was no other choice. The lack of safe and legal routes is putting people at risk. Will the Immigration Minister consider a humanitarian visa, as the Red Cross has recommended?

Afghan Citizens Resettlement Scheme

Debate between Baroness Laing of Elderslie and Alison Thewliss

Thursday 6th January 2022 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

I appreciate that the Minister is giving very thorough answers, but from now on, people will have to be satisfied with quick answers. If they do not ask quick questions, not everyone will get in.

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)]

On 30 September, I received a letter from Lord Ahmad in response to the many cases of my constituents’ families stuck in Afghanistan. It listed all those cases and said whether they were with the Ministry of Defence or the Home Office. Can the Minister give me an update on the status of those people and what I can tell my constituents?

United Kingdom Internal Market Bill

Debate between Baroness Laing of Elderslie and Alison Thewliss

Wednesday 16th September 2020 Commons Chamber

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)]

I beg to move amendment 33, page 36, line 34, after “Crown” insert

“, after obtaining the agreement of the relevant devolved Minister,”.

This amendment is intended to ensure that Ministers of the Crown obtain the agreement of the relevant devolved minister before operating within devolved competencies..

[The Chairman]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 11, page 36, line 34, after “Parliament” insert

“upon the approval of the relevant devolved authorities”.

Amendment 19, page 37, line 3, at end insert—

“(1A) If provision to be made by a Minister of the Crown under subsection (1) would relate to any matter for which a relevant body has legislative competence, the provision may only be made after that body has approved a motion consenting to that provision.

(1B) In this section, a “relevant body” is—

(a) the Scottish Parliament,

(b) Senedd Cymru, or

(c) the Northern Ireland Assembly.

(1C) A matter is within the devolved competence of a relevant body if it would be within the legislative competence of that body if it were contained in an Act of that body.”

Amendment 20, page 37, line 4, at end insert—

‘(1A) Any financial assistance provided under this section must be consistent with the achievement of any climate and environmental goals and targets applicable in the relevant part or parts of the United Kingdom.”

The intention of this amendment is to ensure that financial assistance for economic development, etc under this Act is consistent with the achievement of applicable climate and environmental goals and targets.

Clause 46 stand part.

Amendment 23, in clause 47, page 37, line 23, leave out “take the form” and insert “be provided by way”.

This amendment, together with Amendment 24, would allow financial assistance under Clause 46 to take any form.

Amendment 24, page 37, line 23, after “indemnities” insert “or in any other form”.

This amendment, together with Amendment 23, would allow financial assistance under Clause 46 to take any form.

Amendment 25, page 37, line 25, after “interest” insert “or other return”.

This amendment would ensure that the Minister could provide financial assistance in a way that generates a return other than interest - which might be the case for investment in investment funds.

Amendment 26, page 37, line 26, at end insert—

“(d) may be provided to an investment fund for onward investment or administrative costs relating to onward investment.” 

This amendment would enable the Minister to provide financial assistance to investment funds for onward investment.

Amendment 12, page 37, line 26, at end insert—

“(1A) In Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, powers over the administration and management of financial assistance under section 46 shall be fully devolved to Senedd Cymru, the Scottish Parliament and the Northern Ireland Assembly respectively.

(1B) The total amounts made available for financial assistance under section 46 must be pre-allocated based on each nation’s relative wealth expressed as Gross Domestic Product (GDP) per capita.

(1C) The total amounts made available for financial assistance under section 46 must take the form of a multi-annual funding programme to allow long-term planning and funding security.”

This amendment is intended to ensure that the administration and management of funding for financial assistance shall be entirely devolved to the devolved legislatures, that funding levels shall be pre-allocated according to need, and that there shall be a multi-annual funding programme for funding financial assistance under this Act.

Amendment 14, page 37, line 29, at end, insert—

“(3A) Financial assistance under section 46 must be the subject of a framework agreement to be agreed by resolution of each House of Parliament.”

The intention of this amendment is to provide a policy framework for the allocation of financial assistance.

Amendment 15, page 37, line 29, at end, insert—

“(3B) The Treasury must include in the Estimates presented to the House of Commons proposals for funding each of the devolved administrations to provide financial assistance for the purposes set out in section 46 in relation to the areas of the United Kingdom covered by that devolved administration.”

The intention of this amendment is to ensure that devolved administrations in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are funded to provide financial assistance under this Act.

Amendment 16, page 37, line 29, at end, insert—

“(3C) Any financial assistance provided under section 46 in relation to areas of the United Kingdom covered by a devolved administration must be subject to allocation by the relevant devolved administration.”

The intention of this amendment is to ensure that devolved administrations in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland retain current powers over devolved matters.

Amendment 22, page 37, line 29, at end insert—

“(3) No enactment or rule of law prior to the passing of this Act prevents financial assistance being provided under section 46 to any person in Northern Ireland.”

This amendment is intended to ensure that Part 6 of the Act will apply to Northern Ireland in the same way as to the other parts of the United Kingdom.

Clause 47 stand part.

Protection of Jobs and Businesses

Debate between Baroness Laing of Elderslie and Alison Thewliss

Wednesday 9th September 2020 Commons Chamber

[Alison Thewliss]

It absolutely is not fair. The scheme is being abused by businesses, and that should not be allowed to happen. I commend to the Government my hon. Friend’s Bill on fire and rehire. If they wanted to do anything at all to help, they would take on the recommendations in his Bill, because they would make a huge difference to people. People should not be expected to do the same job on vastly reduced terms and conditions, under pain of losing their job altogether. It is exploitation pure and simple, and the Government should not accept it.

The Chief Secretary talked about new opportunities for those in industries that could not continue, but that fails to recognise the reality that there might not be enough jobs for those who are laid off to go into, and that what jobs there are might not be at the same wage level as the jobs they are in now. The cost will be met by the UK Government in one way or another—in employment benefits if not in extending furlough.

The end of furlough coincides with the end of the period for which people have been granted bill payment holidays. The Standard Life Foundation report, “Emerging from lockdown”, highlights that

“of the 3.7 million households across the UK granted a bill ‘payment holiday’, over 6 in 10 are already facing financial difficulties and will struggle to repay their debts when these arrangements end. For many, these payment holidays will cease on 31 October 2020—the same date the government’s job retention schemes end, leaving many facing job losses and crippling financial strain.”

The effect could be devastating: people laid off because their employers cannot afford to keep them on, with debt mounting, and all this among people who are already finding life difficult. The drop in income if people move on to universal credit—if, indeed, they are eligible, which many people are not—will push many families over the brink. I fear that the UK Government are not looking at the bigger picture in the choices they are making.

The kickstart scheme is not available easily to small employers, which could have a disproportionate impact on the rural economy in places where there are not enough employers to club together to make up the minimum 30 employees. To return to a theme I have spoken about before, there is a risk of young workers being exploited and not being paid a living wage. Nobody in this House would want to live on the wages that young people are expected to work for in this country. I ask the Chief Secretary to reconsider and to pay a real living wage to the young people on the scheme. They deserve nothing less.

I also raise caution about relating the scheme to universal credit, because many people are not able to access universal credit, as I have said. If the scheme runs only through universal credit, many young people who might otherwise have benefited from the scheme, such as it is, will not be eligible.

Where the Scottish Government have the power, they have acted. The Scottish Government have spent £4 billion on covid, with over £2.3 billion for businesses. That is above the Barnett consequentials allocated to us. The Scottish Government published their response to the recommendations of the Advisory Group on Economic Recovery on 5 August. They are acting to protect jobs by developing and delivering sector-led recovery plans, working with industry leadership groups, trade unions and others, starting with the construction sector, which is coming back from its furlough period. They are supporting jobs through the covid-19 transition training fund. Through the programme for government, they are supporting a national mission to create new jobs, good jobs and green jobs, which includes investing £60 million to support up to 20,000 young people into jobs. There is the £100-million green jobs fund, investment in decarbonisation and the Unlocking Ambition programme. They are also using the national performance framework to promote equality and to respect, protect and fulfil human rights.

The Scottish Government have made an extra £330 million of funding available this financial year specifically to support Scotland’s economic recovery. That includes £230 million of economic recovery stimulus to invest in capital projects and a £100 million package of funding focused on protecting jobs and supporting those who have been made redundant or whose jobs are at risk.

I would dearly love the Scottish Government to do more, given the scale of the crisis, but their hands are tied. The Fraser of Allander Institute is clear that

“the Scottish Government can borrow up to £450m per annum for capital investment (a cap of £3bn). On resource spending, they can borrow up to £600m per annum (a cap of £1.75bn), but only for ‘forecast error’ and ‘cash management’. They cannot borrow to fund discretionary resource spending.”

That is the crucial point. We urgently need more financial powers in Scotland. If the UK Government will not act on the things we have asked them to act on, they should not stand in Scotland’s way when we have a desire to support our people and businesses. Powers must be devolved to let the Scottish Government get on with the job.

All of this stands in the context of the looming threat of a no-deal, chaotic and damaging Brexit, with the UK Government gleefully breaking international agreements they themselves signed up to and the outrageous proposals today in clause 46 of the Tories’ United Kingdom Internal Market Bill. The UK Government’s power grab over economic development and infrastructure plans cannot be allowed to stand. The Tories speak of a power surge, but the last time I checked, a power surge was a dangerous thing that usually lasts only a few seconds, but that results in serious damage to valuable appliances. For once, the Tories might be telling the truth when they say that that is what is coming to Scotland under their plans.

Westminster and the Tories cannot be trusted with our economy. What we see today is not “whatever it takes”. Winding up the furlough scheme and allowing so many people to fall through the support net will cause lasting harm to so many people with businesses and to the wider economy. We must have the full powers of a normal independent country to meet the needs of our economy and, most importantly, of the people of Scotland.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

It will be obvious to anyone who has looked at today’s call list that 90 Back Benchers are hoping to participate. I have to intimate that it is unlikely everybody will be called; indeed, it is impossible. I will leave it up to individual Members to do their own arithmetic, but I am afraid that I will have to impose an immediate time limit on Back-Bench speeches of three minutes. I call Caroline Nokes.

Points of Order

Debate between Baroness Laing of Elderslie and Alison Thewliss

Monday 24th February 2020 Commons Chamber

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I tabled two named day questions on 9 January, but the Home Office is yet to respond, and I hope that you can help me in seeking a resolution, because the questions are important. One asked how many women and men have been granted settled status under the EU settled status scheme, and the other asked how many women and men have been granted pre-settled status under the scheme. I do not know whether the Government do not know the answer or do not have the figures, but I am sure you agree that they need to give me an answer at some point—whether they know it or not.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

I thank the hon. Lady for her point of order. She knows, as the House knows, that the Chair has no responsibility for Ministers nor authority to tell Ministers when they should answer questions, but Mr Speaker will be concerned that the hon. Lady put down a named day question and that no answer has been forthcoming after such a long time. I am sure that the hon. Lady’s purpose is to draw general attention to this matter, and I think she has successfully done so. I am sure that the Treasury Bench will note what she has asked.

Points of Order

Debate between Baroness Laing of Elderslie and Alison Thewliss

Wednesday 17th July 2019 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I thank the hon. Lady for her courtesy in giving me notice that she intended to raise that point of order. She raises a very important and serious matter about which the House has shown its concern on at least two occasions in the past few weeks—that I can recall—in the form of an urgent question and a debate. It is a matter of significant importance. I cannot give her any further advice from the Chair today, except to say that those on the Treasury Bench will have heard what she has said and I am quite sure that the appropriate Minister will be informed of her concerns. Of course, there are various ways in which the hon. Lady can bring this matter to the Floor of the House once again. If she cares to visit the Table Office, I am sure that she will be given the appropriate advice. I look forward to hearing her raise the matter with the Minister on the Floor of the House in due course.

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. You may be aware that yesterday the National Records of Scotland released the drug deaths figures for Scotland, which stand at a record high of 1,187 deaths—souls lost to drug addiction—in the past year. There is nothing to this effect on the Order Paper today, but have you been given any indication whether a Home Office Minister will come to the House and make a statement on this issue? Some of the responsibility lies with the Home Office, as these matters are considered to fall under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, so it may be helpful for a Minister to enlighten the House on what their part may be in dealing with this crisis.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I thank the hon. Lady for her point of order. The answer to the first part of her question is that, yes, I am aware of these very worrying and serious statistics, which I am sure all Members will take very seriously. On her second point, I am not aware that a Minister is at this moment planning to come to the House to make a statement. I will say to the hon. Lady what I said to the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson) just a moment or two ago, which is that there are various ways in which she can bring this matter to the attention of the House in a formal way, and if she cares to visit the Table Office, I am sure that she will be given advice on how to do so. I look forward to hearing her raise these matters with the appropriate Minister in due course, because I am sure that it is a matter about which the House would like to hear.

Transforming Care Programme

Debate between Baroness Laing of Elderslie and Alison Thewliss

Thursday 5th July 2018 Commons Chamber

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is there a means of putting it on record that the House’s business has finished just after 4 o’clock, collapsing an hour early, even though our important debate on baby leave in the House got pulled because of insufficient time? I understand that both this afternoon’s Westminster Hall debates also finished early. Do you agree that there ought to be a better way of organising business in the House so that important issues that need to be discussed have the time they need for discussion when other business falls short?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

I understand the hon. Lady’s point and her frustration that the debate on proxy voting, which we were all looking forward to, has not taken place, but she will understand that time had to be given in today’s proceedings for the Home Secretary to come to the House and address an urgent and important matter that arose only yesterday and which no one could have predicted. I am also aware that the timetabling of today’s business was so arranged, with a 2.30 pm cut-off for the first debate, because the Government were anxious to protect the time for the important matter we have just discussed in Back-Bench time. In saying that, I hope that those observing our proceedings will appreciate that the lack of Members in the Chamber did not reflect the importance the House attaches to this matter. It is extremely important; some of us have been debating these matters here for decades and are finally beginning to make progress. So while I take her point—it is well made—the fact is that sometimes the House has to adjust to events in the world outside, and that was why the Home Secretary needed time this afternoon.

Equality: Autumn Statement

Debate between Baroness Laing of Elderslie and Alison Thewliss

Wednesday 14th December 2016 Commons Chamber

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)]

I am grateful for the opportunity to take part in the debate, particularly as recent figures indicated that there have been 455 female MPs in the history of this House. That is the same as the number of male MPs present in the House today—although not on the Benches, as we can see. That is an important point in terms of the policies the House pursues, because those policies are not always in the interests of women, and women’s interests have not been well represented over the years. We did not always have the 195 women we have today, although those women we have here today have certainly made their voices and those of their constituents heard.

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion), who spoke very passionately and with great knowledge on this issue, and I absolutely support her calls for a gender audit because that would make a massive difference to the way Government policies are analysed.

Research from the Women’s Budget Group, which has been mentioned, noted that women’s incomes will be hit twice as hard as men’s by 2020. Women will be over £1,000 worse off by 2020; for men, that figure will be only £555. Women on below-average incomes will end up over £1,600 a year worse off under this Government, and female lone parents will be £4,000 a year worse off. That is a significant amount in a family budget.

Engender has suggested that, from 2010 to 2020, 86% of cuts to social security will come from women’s incomes. I do not understand how anyone could make up that difference. The research becomes even bleaker when we consider women from black and ethnic minority communities, as well as single parents, the majority of whom are women, and both groups are a significant demographic in my diverse constituency.

Government Members love their soundbites. For quite a long time, they had “a long-term economic plan”, but that has been abandoned, presumably because it was neither long term nor a plan. They now have a new phrase: “a country that works for everyone”. The facts and figures we have heard in the debate so far demonstrate quite clearly that this was not an autumn statement that works for everyone, and I intend to highlight a few missed opportunities in the autumn statement.

I come to the debate with some frustration. The autumn statement was an opportunity for the Government to make changes—to start a slightly new course with a new female Prime Minister. To use an example I have spoken about many times in the House, it is now 526 days since the Government announced in the 2015 Budget their intention to bring forward the pernicious two-child policy for universal credit and tax credits, which is due to come into force next April. In tandem with that, we have the medieval rape clause, which will compel survivors of rape to prove that their third or subsequent child was born as a result of rape. The policy has been widely condemned by faith leaders, women’s welfare groups, rape crisis organisations and organisations such as the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child. Ministers would do well to reflect on the seriousness of that widespread condemnation.

Interlink, from the Orthodox Jewish community, has done some research into the issue, as has the Resolution Foundation. Their figures suggest that this policy will push 200,000 more children into poverty. That is a significant figure. There is also a trap inherent in the policy, and families will not be able to earn enough to get themselves out of that trap. Interlink reckons that for every £1 extra a family earns, they will lose 75p as a result of this policy. On taking office, the Prime Minister spoke outside Downing Street about helping the justmanaging families in our society. This autumn statement does not provide that help.

When the Prime Minister was Home Secretary, she won plaudits for her action to tackle gender issues, such as forced marriage, domestic abuse and female genital mutilation. Her actions gave me some hope that this rape clause would be seen as utterly unworkable and immoral. When the consultation reports back, perhaps the issue will be tackled finally. I cannot see how this proposal can possibly work.

Instead of using the autumn statement as a means to ditch the rape clause and the two-child policy, the Government have put it out to consultation for 38 days. In the context of the more than 500 days since the policy was announced, that is a pretty small number. I await the Government’s response, but I do wonder what they expect the consultation to come back with. What do they expect vulnerable women to say when they are asked, in essence, “How would you like to prove your child was born as a result of rape?” It is absolutely despicable.

In this respect, as in so many others, the autumn statement was a missed opportunity. The Government’s austerity agenda is disproportionately impacting on women. It was a missed opportunity for WASPI—the Women Against State Pension Inequality Campaign—and the Office for National Statistics estimates that over 2,600,000 women in the UK are affected by this policy. Despite the efforts of WASPI campaigners the length and breadth of the country and of my hon. Friends the Members for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands) and for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford), these issues are not yet addressed. Those women are not having that unjustness dealt with. That hugely significant unfairness, of which my mother-in-law is also a victim, ought to be one of the Prime Minister’s actions, both as a woman in that age bracket herself and as a feminist. Women should not lose out as a result of this policy.

The Government could also have done more in the autumn statement to address an issue that my hon. Friend the Member for Lanark and Hamilton East (Angela Crawley) has been highlighting over the past few weeks. Sadly, she is not well today; otherwise she would be here herself to raise it. I am sure we all send her our best wishes on her sickbed. The Child Maintenance Service is charging a 4% administration fee for the collect and pay service—a fee imposed only on families who do not share bank details to arrange maintenance costs—and women who have fled domestic abuse are disproportionately impacted. That is patently unfair, and it puts women and children who are trying to rebuild their family life at a distinct disadvantage. The autumn statement was an opportunity to correct that unfairness. I call on Ministers to make progress on this very significant matter.

Half of Glasgow’s jobcentres are to close. In discussion with DWP staff last week, Glasgow’s elected representatives were told that the equalities impact assessment on these plans would be done only after the consultation. The Government are proceeding with these closures, yet only three out of eight are going to consultation while the others will not be consulted on. This is completely inadequate. The plans were drawn up by looking at Google Maps to see how far one jobcentre was from another and which buses people might get. Some of the buses referred to do not exist any more because they have just been withdrawn. When I met representatives of One Parent Families Scotland, they told me that the women with caring responsibilities they have been working with are already finding it incredibly difficult to fulfil their obligations as well as dropping off their kids at school and nursery, and adding the extra burden of travelling across Glasgow on more than one bus will make it very much harder, as well as putting them at serious risk of being sanctioned. It is inexplicable that that would not be taken into account prior to these consultations being issued. It is almost as though the Government are deliberately making it so hard for people to claim what they are actually entitled to.

Another group who have missed out are the under-25s. The Government are keen to trumpet their “pretendy” living wage, but what they never say is that someone under 25 is not entitled to the same pay. Their day’s work is not seen as being as of much value as if they were over 25. The Government sometimes say that that is about experience, but it is not. For someone who walks into their job on their first day at the age of 25, the wage differential is £3.45 compared with somebody of 16 starting on the same day in the same job. That is patently unfair. The national living wage is not an actual living wage; it is a revised minimum wage that is out of touch with the true costs of living in this country.

The real living wage set by the Living Wage Foundation is being actively implemented and promoted by the Scottish Government. In Scotland, the rates of companies paying the living wage are going up. We now have 693 companies in Scotland, across a wide range of sectors and a wide range of sizes, that believe that a fair day’s work deserves a fair day’s pay. The Government’s “pretendy” living wage will not deliver that. In discriminating against under-25s, the Government do not acknowledge that they have bills to pay. They are not going to get a discount on their rents, their messages or their costs of living. They are also, to compound this, not entitled to the same benefits as those who are over 25. It is completely ludicrous.

There is another issue that the autumn statement has not fully addressed—the tampon tax. The SNP was the only party to have that issue in its manifesto in 2015. As the Minister may remember—he was then the Financial Secretary—when I moved my amendment to the Finance Bill, he seemed to think that resolving this would be nigh on impossible to achieve, but I am pleased that he has been able to make progress. I thank the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Paula Sherriff), my hon. Friends and others around the House who have campaigned on this issue. Without that cross-party support, we would not have got nearly as far as we have with the Government.

Although the recent funding announcement in the autumn statement regarding the revenues from the tampon tax were welcome, I would like to press the Minister to answer a couple of questions. How many groups in Scotland have benefited from tampon tax funds? When, for certain, will negotiations lead to the abolition of the tampon tax? We are still waiting. Every month, when I go to buy more tampons at the tills, the Government are still seeing that revenue come in. I want to know when I am not going to have to pay it any longer.

I agree with groups such as the Women’s Budget Group and Engender that this autumn statement was a missed opportunity. It was a missed opportunity on the rape clause and the two-child policy. It was a missed opportunity on pay equality. It was a missed opportunity for the WASPI women. It was a missed opportunity for all women.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

I now have to announce the result of today’s deferred Division. In respect of the Question relating to financial services and markets, the Ayes were 297 and the Noes were 151, so the Question was agreed.

[The Division list is published at the end of today’s debates.]

We will now proceed, to begin with, with a time limit on speeches of four minutes, but that might well go down to three minutes very soon.

Casey Report

Debate between Baroness Laing of Elderslie and Alison Thewliss

Tuesday 6th December 2016 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. Why is there so much noise in the Chamber when the hon. Lady is speaking from the Front Bench? She must be listened to.

[Alison Thewliss]

The challenges of migration are highlighted in the review, but again and again this Tory Government have been found lacking, and in some cases they are the cause. Ending austerity is the best thing this Government could do to tackle social exclusion and promote integration. Will the Secretary of State challenge the toxic rhetoric that pits groups in our society against each another? Will he look to Scotland to see how the strategies that we are implementing are providing opportunities for people to share experiences? Will he reverse the damaging cuts to ESOL, which other Members have mentioned, and will he refuse to accept the offensive suggestion that we require an integration oath?

Point of Order

Debate between Baroness Laing of Elderslie and Alison Thewliss

Tuesday 6th December 2016 Commons Chamber

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am not sure if you can say whether this was properly in order, but I asked the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government four legitimate questions during the urgent question, and he refused to answer any of them until I was—I do not know—more serious, or perhaps in a Unionist party. How might I resolve that issue?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

I thank the hon. Lady for raising her point of order. Indeed, I heard her ask the questions, and I heard the Secretary of State’s reply. I have to say that the Secretary of State is at liberty to give whatever reply he wishes, as long as he does so in an orderly and polite manner, which of course he did. The hon. Lady is also at liberty to ask her questions in other ways—at Question Time, by requesting an Adjournment debate, by tabling other questions to the Secretary of State and by raising her issues again. The answer is not a matter for the Chair; I am satisfied that the right hon. Gentleman was orderly in the way in which he answered the hon. Lady.