Constitutional Law

Debate between Alison Thewliss and John Lamont

Tuesday 21st May 2024 Commons Chamber

[John Lamont]

I am grateful to hon. Members for their important contributions to the debate. A number of Members expressed surprise that we are having this debate. I am surprised by their shyness and reluctance to come to the mother of Parliaments to debate this important matter. We are here on behalf of our constituents to talk about how additional resource will be allocated to people in Scotland. We should all welcome that rather than being slightly uncertain about it. I am certainly relishing the opportunity to talk from the Dispatch Box about the additional resource that the people of Scotland, including those in my constituency, will get.

[Alison Thewliss]

The Minister is talking about additional resource, but he cannot deny that there has been massive inflation in construction costs as a result of Brexit, covid and his previous Prime Minister. In that spirit, will he address the problems that have been caused by his Government, and will he commit to the extra £25 million needed for Windmillcroft Quay, the Citizens Theatre and the Govanhill baths in Glasgow, which have all seen huge inflation in construction costs?

[John Lamont]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for making that point, and I will come to some of the allegations made about Scotland’s budget shortly.

The hon. Member for Glasgow South made a number—[Hon. Members: “Edinburgh South!”] My apologies. The hon. Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray) made a number of points about how annual limits are calculated. Annual limits are calculated in accordance with the 2023 agreement and are based on the OBR’s GDP deflator forecast at the time of the Scottish Government’s draft budget. I can confirm that the GDP deflator used to calculate the new limits for this order was 1.677%.

Let me respond to the other questions asked by the hon. Member for Edinburgh South. Some £1.76 billion of the national loans fund long-term loan remains outstanding and counts against the £3 billion statutory limit, including the £300 million borrowed in March 2024. I will write to him on his other points. He made a general point about the levels of Government debt, but we should not forget that the reason we have such significant debt is the huge interventions that the Government made to support jobs and communities during the pandemic. Had we not made those interventions to support jobs, including in the hon. Member’s constituency of Edinburgh South, many people would be out of work and many more businesses would have struggled to survive the pandemic. If he and Labour Members are now saying they were opposed to those interventions, I think our constituents would want an explanation of why they would not want a Government to make those types of interventions to help during a pandemic. From my experience of my own constituency, I know that the furlough scheme, for example, and the huge amount of additional support that went in to support businesses were very much welcomed, but Labour Members now seem to be opposed to those things.

The hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Tommy Sheppard) suggested that this agreement has in some way been imposed on the Scottish Government. That is just not the case: it is a great example of both Governments working together, both at an official level and at a ministerial level. Again, the two Governments in Scotland working collaboratively to deliver for the betterment of our country is something that all of our constituents would expect to see, and would very much welcome.

Health and Social Care Levy

Debate between Alison Thewliss and John Lamont

1st reading
Wednesday 8th September 2021 Commons Chamber

[Alison Thewliss]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. They are the people who can least afford it and who have worked the hardest through this pandemic, who this Government should be thanking, not taxing.

We are being asked to vote today on measures that the Institute for Fiscal Studies has described as “better than doing nothing”, which is about as charitable an analysis as is possible of this policy.

[John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Alison Thewliss]

In a second. Very few people would dispute the need for action on health and social care in England. However, an increase to national insurance contributions is not the fairest way to go about it. I would be interested to know why the hon. Gentleman thinks it is fair for his constituents.

[John Lamont]

The hon. Lady made reference to the IFS. She will know that the IFS has noted that over the past 10 years the health spend in Scotland has grown by 1.2%, whereas in England it has grown by 3.6% on a like-for-like basis. Surely it is astonishing that she would vote against £1 billion of extra investment for Scotland’s NHS.

[Alison Thewliss]

What the hon. Gentleman fails to understand is that we are starting from very different points. He does not acknowledge that, and he does not understand it.

The response from equality and anti-poverty groups has been absolutely damning. The Women’s Budget Group has said:

“We believe there is a fairer way to fund social care. This is because, as they currently stand NICs are more regressive than income tax—with a lower threshold at which payments start, and a higher rate threshold beyond which employees pay a lower rate.”

The Resolution Foundation has described the policy as “generationally unfair”. Paul Johnson of the IFS has said:

“Remains the case pensioners will pay next to nothing for this social care package—overwhelmingly to be paid by working age employees”.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)]

I very much welcome the fact that the Government are taking action to properly fund social care and the NHS in this country. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Sir Mike Penning) said, previous Governments and previous Prime Ministers have recognised the challenge of funding social care and the NHS, but it is this Prime Minister and this Government who are taking the brave step of bringing forward concrete proposals to address it.

We have heard much over the past few days and the past few hours from those on the Scottish National party Benches about how horrified they are by these proposals to increase funding for Scotland’s NHS. Astonishingly, they seem to oppose the billion pounds of extra funding that Scotland’s NHS will benefit from this year. It is astonishing. I just do not understand how they can possibly explain that to their constituents and justify such an irrational decision.

[Alison Thewliss]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[John Lamont]

I am happy to hear from the hon. Member why she has made that choice.

[Alison Thewliss]

As the hon. Gentleman well knows and as has been made clear to him in the remarks I made, funding for the NHS is not the issue here; the issue is raising taxes disproportionately on the backs of his and my poorest constituents. I would be interested to hear what he will tell his constituents when they come to his surgery about it.

Leaving the EU: Impact on the UK

Debate between Alison Thewliss and John Lamont

Wednesday 17th March 2021 Commons Chamber

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)]

I beg to move,

That this House considers that the immediate economic damage, recent uncertainty and the projected long-term damage to business and trade from the UK leaving the European Union has disproven the perceived benefits of leaving the European Union; notes that the Scottish economy, specifically fishing, small businesses and manufacturing, are particularly vulnerable to market disruption; further notes that the failure of the UK Government to remain in mutually beneficial education schemes such as Erasmus+ is to the detriment of education and cultural exchange for people in Scotland and the rest of the UK; shows serious concern at the loss of EU funding and its replacement with the Shared Prosperity Fund; affirms the positive role immigration plays in society; and regrets the impact leaving the EU will have on those who wish to live, study and work in the UK.

The Brexit process has lurched from bourach to shambles to chaos—a lesson in incompetence and hubris. We are assured that, after the next hurdle, things will get better and that we will start to see all the Brexit dividends that we have been promised. So, where are we now? Less than three months after the transition period ended, the UK is facing legal action and the possibility of trade sanctions. The Office for Budget Responsibility said in its response to the Budget that the Brexit trade deal will see

“a long-run loss of productivity of around 4 per cent compared with remaining in the EU.”

Businesses that have struggled through the uncertainty of snap general elections, exit day deadlines coming and going, a rushed last-minute withdrawal deal, and a year of covid-19 now face the possibility of tariffs along with the added paperwork brought by being out of the single market. That comes hot on the heels of a record-breaking drop in trade between the UK and EU in January. The Office for National Statistics said that, after the Brexit transition period ended, UK goods exports to the EU fell 40.7% in the month and imports dropped 28.8%. Those are the largest declines since records began over 20 years ago.

The hardest hit export to the EU was food products—a growth industry in Scotland and a sector world-famous for its quality. Food and drink exports decreased by 63.6% in January this year. Seafood Scotland says that fish and shellfish exports were down 83% in January. That is devastating for the sector, which has relied on the swift movement of goods across borders. Donna Fordyce, the chief executive of Seafood Scotland, has spoken of the reputational damage this is causing, the market share being lost to countries such as Norway and the additional time and cost of processing all the bureaucracy. In evidence to the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, she said that firms were having to spend around £250,000 to £500,000 extra per year on paperwork. Seafood Scotland has talked of a “one-way trade border” that

“chokes UK exporters, but ushers in EU imports with open arms.”

That is the reality of the shoddy deal that the UK Government negotiated on Scotland’s behalf.

There was a 56.6% decline in exports in the chemical sector ahead of the UK falling out of the EU’s chemicals regulations, and manufacturing output decreased 2.3%, which the ONS directly attributed not to covid-19 but to a fall in exports caused by Brexit. Brexit has also particularly affected an export that my constituency is blessed with: an abundance of live music. Those working in creative industries are being denied the access to the EU that previous generations have enjoyed. They are being denied access to work and access to promoting Scotland and our culture abroad. We on the SNP Benches have been clear that creative professionals and those who support them must be entitled to visa-free travel.

Even for those who simply want to play music, there are barriers. My constituent Richard Traynor recently purchased a musical instrument from a German supplier with which he has dealt for many years. When it was delivered, the keyboard had warped, he suspects due to being held in sub-zero conditions at customs holding stations for a lengthy period. He had to pay customs fees to the UK Government approaching £100 for the instrument and its subsequent replacement, in addition to courier fees for a keyboard that cost £180—a real barrier to trade. Mr Traynor told me that

“the fees charged part of this has indeed been very difficult to swallow, but it does not compare to the empty hollow feeling this particular Brexit experience has left me with. I cannot believe I will no longer be able to buy from the many really nice folk I’ve traded with over the years from various places across Europe. I cannot imagine the damage this must be doing to small retailers such as folks who run small independent record labels or who run specialist shops...I guess this list could go on and on and on.”

There is growing evidence that companies in the EU are declining to send their goods to UK customers. The UK Government may not consider that a significant issue, but as my constituent points out, in so many ways, this chilling effect diminishes not just our trade but our way of life.

Visa-free travel is something that we have all taken for granted for some time. The loss of Erasmus+ and research funding has been a devastating blow to our universities, which already stand to lose so much from Brexit. The Scottish Government said from the outset that we wanted to remain a part of the scheme, and even Jackson Carlaw MSP, the former Conservative leader in Scotland, agreed. He said in the Scottish Parliament in May 2018 that

“it is not acceptable to me if the outcome of our exit from the European Union means that we can no longer participate in the Erasmus+ programme. It is perfectly clear that the direction that the UK Government is taking means that we will continue to participate.”—[Scottish Parliament Official Report, 16 May 2018; c. 61.]

Of course, we know that that did not come to pass. I do not know whether that is a reflection of the relative influence of Conservative MSPs or whether they were also being led up the garden path by their Westminster bosses.

Mon cher collègue, my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Alyn Smith), described the removal of the scheme as “economic vandalism” against the higher education sector. On research funding, the Wellcome Trust has said this week that the UK’s ambitions to be a science superpower

“are meaningless if they’re not backed up with funding.”

There were brutal cuts to international research this week, and we still have no clarity on the £1 billion hole in Horizon Europe. But the damage goes further than this.

[John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)]

Has the hon. Lady had sight of the London School of Economics report earlier this year which said that Scottish independence would be three times more costly than Brexit? Could she comment on that?

[Alison Thewliss]

Independence will give us many options. It will give us the opportunity to take our future into our own hands and not be reliant on the incompetence of those on the Government Benches.

Young people in my constituency—many from low-income families—and many new Scots are now being denied access to not just an experience but a European identity that previous generations of Scots have benefited from. More than 2,000 students from Scotland—the highest per head of population in the UK—take part in Erasmus+ each year.

My constituent and good friend Declan Blench is a translator working in European languages. He says that he and his colleagues are now cut off from not only our markets, because trade in services is so hamstrung by this deal, but the culture they have cultivated links with and come to love. Declan says that

“most of us learned our languages in adolescence to adulthood, precisely thanks to EU links, we didn’t all grow up in multilingual households. I was brought up by a single mum in an English-only household in a mining town—how on earth could I ever have done what I’ve done, if not for Erasmus? It is not just heartbreaking but galling—sacrificing these things for the sake of unrealistic notions of imperial grandeur, the ultimate symbol of post-imperial stress disorder that Britain suffers from so acutely.”

I could not have put it better.

I know that many across the House have benefited from studying and working abroad. It is wholly unacceptable for Tory Members to pull the ladder up behind them. The hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie) recently admitted as much on the BBC “Debate Night” show. He said to a young person who asked a question:

“You and everybody else coming through right now will not have the benefits that I had through Erasmus, work, study abroad…But am I going to sit here and say that Brexit is perfect and your generation is going to reap the benefits? No I’m not. Because you’re not frankly at the minute. And I can see that.”

A moment of honesty from the Tories, but what a statement that is—that young people are not going to benefit in the way that people on the Tory Benches did; that they will take that away from the generations yet to come.

The UK Government’s replacement is a pale shadow of Erasmus+. There has been no meaningful consultation with devolved Governments on the Turing scheme, which seems to have been cobbled together at the last minute, with all the due consideration one would expect from this inept UK Tory Government. It will not pay tuition costs for students. Living costs have been cut to a fifth of what they would have previously been. It does not encompass youth work, culture, sport and vocational schemes, which are a huge part of the Erasmus+ scheme and very important to people in Scotland. We also now know that it will not cover apprentices or trainees not affiliated with further education colleges, and it will not cover teachers, youth workers, volunteers and many more who would previously have been eligible. LEAP Sports in my constituency, which works with LGBTI people, found Erasmus+ invaluable and forged international links, which helped to build the confidence and the skills of the people they support. For example, the three-year Outsport project on preventing violence and discrimination in sport based on sexual orientation and gender identity is vital work as we seek to challenge prejudice and make sport more inclusive for everyone.

Scotland’s economy has its own specific needs that are not being met by this Eton mess of a Government. We have an ageing population. Without inward migration, our population would be in decline, with more deaths than births. Scotland’s Economy Secretary Fiona Hyslop announced “A Scotland for the Future” this week, which examines the significant population challenges our country faces.

United Kingdom Internal Market Bill

Debate between Alison Thewliss and John Lamont

Wednesday 16th September 2020 Commons Chamber

[Alison Thewliss]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to make that point. It is also a point to note that the Major Government were known to divert EU funding from projects in Scotland to pet projects trying to shore up marginal seats in England, so they have form on this issue.

[John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)]

rose—

[Alison Thewliss]

I will give way in some time. I would make some progress because I know lots of people wish to speak.

This also tells us that the Prime Minister was absolutely wrong when he said:

“A pound spent in Croydon is of far more value to the country than a pound spent in Strathclyde”

because the opposite is true. A pound spent in the south-east of England is barely noticeable, but think again of that £90 million investment in the Western Isles—noticed by all, transformational in its impact and of real value to the people who live and work there. Subsidiarity, EU style.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)]

rose—

[Alison Thewliss]

If the hon. Gentleman would like to tell me why the Scottish Government should not be overseeing these projects, I would be glad to hear.

[John Lamont]

The hon. Lady is giving a typically bitter speech around the role of the UK Government into Scotland. Does she not accept that the UK Government and the Scottish Government have worked very closely together on the growth deals and city deals in Scotland? They are very good examples of what can be achieved in Scotland with both Governments working together, rather than the attitude that she takes of opposing everything that this place does.

[Alison Thewliss]

I am very interested that the hon. Gentleman raises growth deals, because every single growth deal in Scotland has been short-changed by the UK Government. The Scottish Government have put in more than the UK Government to those growth deals and we are still waiting for the money for some of those growth deals to be realised.

Devolution of Welfare

Debate between Alison Thewliss and John Lamont

Tuesday 9th April 2019 Westminster Hall

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)]

The hon. Gentleman has been making great play of the fact that he has the border near his constituency. Why does he believe that women south of that border do not deserve to be compensated because of his Government?

[John Lamont]

I support the equalisation of the pension age. It is quite astonishing for the hon. Lady to almost deny the devolution settlement. This is how devolution works. Different parts of the United Kingdom can pursue different policy objectives. The hon. Lady is almost arguing for the abolition of the Scottish Parliament and Scottish Government’s ability to take different decisions and pursue different policy objectives. Why not accept that they have the power and ability to take action to compensate those women and support the Scottish Government in taking a different approach if they choose to do so?

Supported Housing

Debate between Alison Thewliss and John Lamont

Wednesday 25th October 2017 Commons Chamber

[John Lamont]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point. Of course, in my area of the Scottish borders it is the Scottish National party, which is in government in Scotland, that is responsible for the cuts to our local authority budgets, not the UK Government. Therefore, I suggest that the intervention directed to me should be directed to my colleagues in the Scottish Parliament, where the Scottish Government have slashed local government funding.

It is right that the UK Government are looking at how to ensure a sustainable future for supported housing. Under the last Labour Administration, spending on housing benefit increased by 46% in real terms. Average social rents have risen by around 55 % over the past 10 years, compared to 23% in the private rented sector. This was simply just not sustainable. It is essential, therefore, that whatever funding model is introduced for supported housing is sustainable and works for providers, commissioners and vulnerable tenants, as well as for the taxpayer. Whatever funding model is adopted—and if devolved Administrations are given control over funding—it is crucial that local variations are considered.

The local housing allowance rate in my area of the Scottish borders is the lowest in the whole of Scotland. It is therefore important that any future funding model encourages investors to come to the borders instead of building elsewhere. I hope that the Minister has considered areas such as the borders when deciding on the future funding model for supported housing. Of course, it is also open to the SNP Scottish Government to provide additional funding for those in receipt of housing benefit through discretionary housing payments, which have been devolved. I await with bated breath a commitment from any SNP Member who has concerns about the changes to supported housing payments actually to do something, rather than just complain. The Government have demonstrated that they are willing to listen to concerns.

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)]

The hon. Gentleman is new to this House, so I will forgive him, but SNP Members have been doing and saying things on this issue for quite some time. It may interest him to know that a Department for Work and Pensions civil servant told the Communities and Local Government Committee on 13 June last year that the evidence review and policy conclusions would be published “before the summer recess”. That was last year; we have been waiting for the Government to act for quite some time.

[John Lamont]

I thank the hon. Lady for that point. As she will know, I spent 10 years in the Scottish Parliament, listening to her colleagues complaining constantly about UK Government policy decisions. But despite the fact that the SNP there had more control over welfare than ever before, it was unable to use the powers it had to take action.

The Government have demonstrated themselves willing to listen to concerns about this important issue, and I welcome that. I am confident that we will see a set of proposals next week that will provide security and certainty for tenants and providers, as well as value for money for the taxpayer.