Working Tax Credit and Universal Credit: Two-Child Limit

Debate between Carol Monaghan and Alan Brown

Thursday 21st April 2022 Westminster Hall

[Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr McCabe, and I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) for having secured this debate. More importantly, I thank her for the tireless campaigning she has done on this two-child policy, which victimises and stigmatises families and children. It is worth putting on the record that my hon. Friend was the first Member to identify the pernicious rape clause, on Budget day in July 2015, and her speech shows just how much she has immersed herself in highlighting the unfairness of this policy and the ludicrous exemptions that go with it. As she has said, it is a poverty trap. The fact that children born beyond the midnight deadline are not deemed worthy of support, and that we now have two tiers of families—two families might be the same size, but by virtue of when one child was born, one family gets more support than the other—is absurd.

I also pay tribute to all other hon. Members who have contributed or made interventions. As the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Beth Winter) said, this is about the need to support all children and ensure basic fairness; why do this UK Tory Government find it all too easy to breach human rights? The hon. Member for Arfon (Hywel Williams) made a powerful speech, talking about his own circumstances and how political attitudes have changed. The example he gave about the moral condemnation in the past of people stuck in mental institutions, and how we are returning to moral judgments of people having children, should make the Minister sit up, because it certainly made me sit up.

Then, of course, we had a fantastic contribution from the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). It did start with his “better together” comparison, but apart from that, I agreed with every word he said. When the hon. Member for Strangford uses such strong language and condemns a policy so much—I genuinely think that was the best speech I have heard from the hon. Gentleman; that says a lot, but it was a really powerful speech—if the Minister does not take note, something is far wrong. The hon. Gentleman gave the example of the Chinese limit, and how it would have impacted families and people here had such a policy been implemented, but he also spoke about the dark perspective of this policy. It is morally wrong, and not just that: it has been an abject failure in its aims. That really summed it up, so I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman for his speech.

It is disappointing that there are no Tory Back Benchers here to back up the policy. Maybe that says how bad the policy is, or maybe they are just choosing to back the corrupt Prime Minister in the “other place.” The point is that agreeing to provide welfare support for only two children is a horrible policy, backed up by dog-whistle politics. The concept clearly was that people should be able to afford children, just like those who rely solely on work for their income and therefore do not need additional welfare support. That is language designed to imply that anyone on benefits is a scrounger, and that people have children just to screw the welfare system. It is truly awful, and it actually puts a price on children.

As we have heard, in affected families, who suffers the most? The children. Hungry kids cannot learn in school. They will be disadvantaged and less likely to have a positive outcome, so whatever circle the Tories think they are breaking, they might be condemning more people to underachieve and have a higher chance of unemployment, and to be less likely to participate in higher and further education and more likely to end up in lower-paid, semi-skilled work. As the hon. Member for Strangford said, if some children suffer, others do. It is not just the ones directly affected.

Worst of all, the entire concept is based on politics and prejudice and not evidence. What we now have, clear as day, is evidence of how the policy works for those affected by the two-child policy. The Library briefing confirmed that of the 317,500 families affected in April 2021, 56% had somebody in the household working. The majority, also 56%, were in dual-parent households, so the majority of families affected are dual-parent households with somebody in employment. That is proof that the policy is based on falsehoods and proof that the bigger issue is that too many people are in low-paid, insecure jobs, and that is the issue that should be tackled.

What about the people who have lost jobs or faced reduced income due to covid? They now find that the so-called safety net of the welfare state is a lot smaller than they would have anticipated. The Tory Brexit has also impacted jobs, too. The Tories deny that, but I have a meeting tomorrow with somebody who runs a haulage company, and he is close to going under, which will take other jobs with him, because of the ludicrous cabotage rules that the Tory Government signed up to.

Covid unfortunately gave us fire and rehire—another policy that the Tories have done nothing to eliminate, but a policy that is vastly reducing the incomes of thousands of workers or seeing them sacked. Workers that the Tories might otherwise have seen as model families who were able to afford their children without welfare support will now need that support, and it might not be there for them. Families and people who have lost jobs are now having to readjust their outgoings accordingly, and now find that they have been categorised as scroungers by the Tory Government.

Another key issue of the two-child policy is that, as others have said, it disproportionately affects orthodox Jewish and Muslim families who may have religious or ethical views on family size. I agree with the intervention by the hon. Member for Strangford that the religious aspect in terms of discrimination has possible human rights implications as well.

We have heard that some women have considered abortion because they worry about not being able to afford a child. There are debates about how many women have actually undertaken an abortion because of that, but the reality is that women are having to face that choice, and they should not have to. Again, that is something the Minister needs to look at and review.

[Carol Monaghan]

There are debates about that, but the statistics are clear. The National Audit Office numbers show that since 2016, since the policy came into being, there has been a 24% increase in the number of abortions in England and Wales.

[Alan Brown]

I thank my hon. Friend for that. I will not disagree. The hon. Member for Strangford also referred to evidential work done by the LSE. This is evidence that the Government should look at. We are discussing a Government who talk about family values. How can they talk about family values when they are forcing women to consider abortion?

That takes us to other evidence of the impact of this policy. Since 2013-14, child poverty among larger families has risen dramatically; almost half of all children living in families that have more than two children live in poverty. Also, recent research for the report “Benefit changes and larger families” by largerfamilies.study shows that most of the recent rise in child poverty overall has been driven by rising poverty among those larger families.

Sara Ogilvie of the Child Poverty Action Group has said:

“The two child limit is a brutal policy that punishes children simply for having brothers and sisters. It forces families to survive on less than they need, and with soaring living costs the hardship and hunger these families face will only intensify.”

Also, according to CPAG:

“Removing the policy would lift 250,000 children out of poverty”,

doing so immediately. So, surely the Minister must review the evidence, act accordingly and take that action to

“lift…children out of poverty”.

Then, if we look at the rape exemption clause, it is apparent that it was thought up on the hoof at the time. It was probably some loose nod by the Government towards thinking that they were adding a moral, even noble, exemption to support children born after their mother’s traumatic experience of being raped. However, it is no wonder that Ministers at the time could not even explain how the policy would be implemented, because it was so absurd. No thought was given to the traumatic psychological effects of a woman having to relive such an experience and being asked to fill in forms to justify financial support for her child. Also, the bizarre logic of the exemption only applies for subsequent children, beyond the two-child limit, born of rape. So, as if the clause in itself is not abhorrent enough, it is somehow seen as being morally okay to decide which child born from rape is worthy of support, which is truly disgusting.

The other big thing aligned with this policy and other policies at the time was the whole “balancing the books” mantra. This debate made me revisit the 2015 summer Budget Red Book. I looked back at that and honestly it is truly horrifying to see how evil that Budget was. The two-child clause was estimated to save £3.4 billion by 2021; freezing benefits, £11.3 billion; benefit cap reduction, £1.7 billion, clawed back from the poor; and increasing the tax credits taper to 48% while reducing income thresholds for tax credits and work allowance was estimated to save—astonishingly—nearly £20 billion by 2021. So, there was a complete and utter hatchet job on the welfare state, and there were also incoherent policies, given the attack on some of the job-related welfare support—so much for “making work pay”. That was an awful Budget and I have to point out that it was shameful that Labour abstained on it.

However, what about the “balancing the books” mantra? Clearly, as I have just illustrated, it is “balancing the books” on the poorest, the most infirm and the lowest-paid in society. But what it also allowed in subsequent Budgets was tax giveaways to those who the Tories deemed worthy of benefiting from them.

Previously, I had the Library conduct analysis on some of the key Budget decisions that were implemented from 2016 to 2018. The Library extrapolated those figures, which were based on figures that were presented in the Budget books, up to 2025, and it estimated that, up to 2025, the Treasury was giving away £80 billion. Increasing the higher rate threshold was estimated to be a giveaway worth £5 billion; changes to individual savings accounts, or ISAs, £7 billion; inheritance tax changes, a £6 billion giveaway; and the personal allowance increase and further raising of the higher threshold to £50,000 of income was estimated to be an £11 billion giveaway by the Tories. There was also a £50 billion giveaway in corporation tax, although at least they realised the error of their ways on that one. All of that shows that plenty of money was found for giveaways, rather than for continuing to balance the books properly. And those figures show that the Tories could easily afford to reverse this two-child policy, if the political will to do so was there.

Returning to the here and now, another issue with universal tax overall is of course the removal of the uplift, or—more appropriately—a cut of £1,040 a year. As the hon. Member for Cynon Valley said, if the pandemic merited an uplift to allow people a more dignified life, then surely—with inflation running at 7% to 8%, the energy cap up 75% compared to April 2021 and petrol at record prices—there is a clear need for a permanent increase in universal credit.

I cannot finish without comparing this with what is happening in Scotland with the Scottish Government, just as my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow Central did. The Scottish Government introduced the game-changing child payment, doubling it to £20 a week, and it will increase to £25 a week when the benefit is extended to under-16s at the end of this year. As that has been done on a fixed budget in the Scottish Parliament, it cannot have the positive impact it otherwise would have had because we are still living with the impact of Tory austerity. That is proof that whatever the Scottish Government do is undertaken with one hand behind their back. It is interesting that there was a strong theme earlier in the debate about the Welsh Government needing more powers too, so Tory policies are clearly having an impact on the Union, which should make the Minister take note.

Will the Minister pledge to review the effects of the impact of the Scottish Government’s child payment policy and the support it has received from charitable organisations? The Scottish Government have shown that they are treating all children equally. That should not be too much to ask of any Government, and surely it is time for the UK Government to think again.

Budget Resolutions

Debate between Carol Monaghan and Alan Brown

Tuesday 2nd November 2021 Commons Chamber

[Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)]

As politicians, we should always try to understand the argument from the other side. On that basis, at great risk to myself, I will try to look at the Budget and recent announcements through the prism of a Scottish Tory. That means, first, that I have to ignore the 2014 promises on pensions, when it was said that voting no on the referendum was the best way to protect your pension. It means ignoring those promises and then voting for what is now going to be a £6 billion-a-year clawback from pensioners. As the Red Book shows, £30 billion over the next few years is getting taken from the pockets of our pensioners. It seems the Tories are not content with just ignoring the WASPI—Women Against State Pension Inequality Campaign—women but are determined to make what is already one of the worst pensions in the developed world even worse.

If I am a Scottish Tory, I need to ignore that, and I need to ignore the £20-a-week cut to universal credit, but I will take great delight in demanding to know what the Scottish Government will do with the £41 million household support grant Barnett money that came our way after the universal credit cut. Let us put that money in context: each UC claimant is losing over £1,000 a year. The £41 million that comes back to Scotland, if distributed on a per capita basis, equates to a one-off payment of £85 per claimant. Yet we are supposed to be grateful for a £500 million cut being offset with £41 million.

If I am a Scottish Tory, I need to ignore the fact that as a group the Scottish Tories secured absolutely nothing from the Chancellor in the Budget. Instead of asking hard questions about why the Scottish carbon capture and storage cluster was overlooked again, I have to pretend I am really happy that the Scottish cluster is now a reserve. If ever there were a metaphor for the Union, the fact that Scottish Tories are happy for the Scottish cluster to be classed as a reserve is it. That is our place in the Union as it is.

The Scottish Tories have always been silent on the fact that Scotland has the highest grid charges in Europe. They have been silent about the £350 billion of oil and gas revenues that the broad shoulders of the UK have helped to spend without creating a sovereign wealth fund. They are silent about nothing being added to the Budget that matches the Scottish Government’s £500 million low-carbon just transition fund for the north-east of Scotland.

Because of the higher oil and gas prices, the Treasury is getting an unexpected windfall from the oil and gas revenues accrued. The Red Book confirms that, by the end of this financial year alone, the Treasury will have banked an additional £1.1 billion compared with the forecasts from March this year. Why is that extra money not being reinvested where it was generated? Compared with the March 2021 forecasts, the Chancellor now expects an additional £6 billion of oil and gas revenues over the lifetime of this Parliament. That means that, yet again, oil and gas revenues are paying for the Chancellor’s giveaways elsewhere. The reality is that with the extra oil and gas revenues, the extra petrol duties accruing from forecourts and the extra VAT from our soaring energy bills, the Budget was an opportunity to mitigate the cost-of-living crisis—an opportunity that has been ignored.

On the national insurance tax that has been imposed on us, Scottish Tories say, “Don’t worry—Westminster will give you back some money that you’ve already paid to Westminster.” Why are we supposed to be grateful for that?

Another fact about the energy sector in Scotland is that the Treasury has blocked the concept of ringfencing a pot of money for wave and tidal projects in the forth- coming contracts for difference auction. Such a concept would not even need a fiscal Budget line, and not ring- fencing that money could prevent world-leading technologies from scaling up and expanding all around the world. That is yet another matter on which the Scottish Tories and the Scottish Secretary of State are silent.

[Carol Monaghan]

I hope my hon. Friend is going to point out—maybe he is not, so I will—that the Scottish Tories support the SNP’s position on free tuition. It will be interesting to see how they vote on the Budget resolutions.

[Alan Brown]

I have trimmed my speech and have just trimmed that point out a wee bit, so I thank my hon. Friend for getting that on the record.

Let me return to energy. There is nothing in the Budget on pumped storage hydro—on which, again, the Scottish Tories have been silent—but hurray: tomorrow we get the Nuclear Energy (Financing) Bill. No doubt the Scottish Tories will troop through the Lobby to support that.

Let me turn to the levelling-up fund. Yet again, Scotland gets a cut of that, so let us get the Union Jacks out—“Hurray: we get a cut of the levelling-up fund!” The reality is that our cut is, in effect, based on the Barnett formula. When the Chancellor said last week that in the first round of funding Scotland is getting more than its Barnett share, all that means is that there is less money in the ringfenced pot for Scotland going forward, because it is all based on Barnett anyway. But as a Scottish Tory, I do not care, because I revel in the fact that the Scottish Government are being bypassed and there are small projects that we can put a Union Jack on.

As a Scottish Tory, I never acknowledge that the SNP has been in power for only 14 years. The Union has been in existence for more than 300 years, yet somehow every shortfall has happened only in the past 14 years. We must have quite a talent in reverse. The Budget still does not tell us what the shared prosperity fund will look like. It is supposed to replace the vital European funding streams that all the areas that have been overlooked by Westminster relied on to access vital funds for transport and infrastructure—and the Government talk about levelling up. We are currently losing out on funding and we do not know where the future shortfall is coming from, yet the Chancellor uses the phrase “levelling up”.

In conclusion, the Budget does nothing for Scotland. We have already seen, post Brexit, the damage that has been done to the fishing industry and to our farmers, despite the promises. More and more people can see that Westminster cannot be trusted, and it really is time that Scotland took full control of its own decision-making process.

Petitions

Debate between Carol Monaghan and Alan Brown

Tuesday 20th October 2020 Commons Chamber

[Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)]

The closure of three TSB branches in my constituency will be devastating for local constituents and for businesses. Both Partick and Anniesland serve vast areas, but owing to good public transport links, they can be accessed by those whose local branches have already closed. In Drumchapel, an area with high digital exclusion and poor transport connectivity, the TSB is the only bank for miles around and there are regularly queues out the door.

The petition states:

To the House of Commons

The petition of residents of Glasgow North West,

Declares that proposed closure of the Anniesland, Drumchapel and Partick branches of the TSB bank in Glasgow will have a detrimental effect on local communities and the local economy.

The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges her Majesty’s Treasury, the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy and TSB Bank to take in account the concerns of petitioners and take whatever steps they can to halt the planned closure of this branch.

And the petitioners remain, etc.

[P002613]

[Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)]

I rise on behalf of, unfortunately, too many of my constituents who rely on universal credit. It is a fact that Tory welfare policies are plunging people into poverty. Child poverty is a scourge on society. Hungry children find it harder to learn. The reality is that their life chances are disadvantaged from the outset.

In Scotland, the Scottish Government have mitigated the worst effects of poverty and we have the lowest child poverty rates in the UK, but more is needed from the UK Government. The £20 universal credit top-up has been a lifeline for some during covid-19.

The petition states:

The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to immediately bring forward additional measures to permanently increase Universal Credit in response to the long-term impact of Covid-19.

And the petitioners remain, etc.

Following is the full text of the petition:

[The petition of the residents of the constituency of Kilmarnock and Loudoun,

Declares that the economic consequences of the Coronavirus pandemic has led to many more people facing increased levels of poverty and financial hardship; further declares that the Government provided welcome support at the beginning of the pandemic when it topped up Universal Credit payments by £20 per week; further declares that it is regretful that the Government has decided not to make permanent this increase to Universal Credit payments.

The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to immediately bring forward additional measures to permanently increase Universal Credit in response to the long-term impact of Covid-19.

And the petitioners remain, etc.]

[P002614]

European Union (Withdrawal) Act

Debate between Carol Monaghan and Alan Brown

Wednesday 9th January 2019 Commons Chamber

[Carol Monaghan]

That is exactly what many of the emails say—they voted no in 2014 because of their concern about European Union membership, and now their worst concerns are coming to pass.

I was in Romania last year as part of a parliamentary delegation. Everywhere we went, there was a celebration of Europe and its membership of the European Union. People showed great pride in the country having been a member since 2007. It was notable that one issue raised fairly regularly with the delegation was the brain drain that Romania was experiencing. It was seeing its most talented and very best young people moving to other parts of Europe. We gain benefit from that, and we should continue to.

Let us compare that with the UK. We joined a trade organisation very reluctantly in the early 1970s because we were being economically disadvantaged by not being a member of it. Almost immediately afterwards, there was a referendum to see whether that had been the right decision. Had we really done what we should have done? Throughout that time, we heard about European bureaucracy and about how things were being done to us. There was lots of comedy about it. I remember episodes of “Yes, Minister” in which people talked about sausages and bendy bananas. It is rather ironic that we are talking about the bureaucracy of the European Union and European Parliament when, just along the corridor, we have a whole pile of unelected bureaucrats sitting in this building.

The nature of the arguments in the referendum campaign also caused me deep concern. There were stories about millions going to the EU that could be spent on the NHS instead. There was scaremongering about swarms of migrants. A lot of this was stoked up by the right-wing media, and it was received by a public who were looking for leadership. EU nationals were blamed for the strain on schools, the health service and social housing, but let us be clear that the majority of EU nationals in the UK are of working age and are contributing. Three to 18 is the age of education, but the majority of EU nationals here are not in that age group. The biggest strain on our health service comes from those who are over 70, and that does not generally include EU nationals.

When I first came to London to sit in this place, I had a flat in a building where more than half the flats were empty, because they had been bought up and banked by foreign money launderers who used them as a place to keep their investments. Those flats were empty when homeless people were sleeping out on the streets. That was not the fault of EU nationals. If we want to deal with the housing crisis, we need to build houses for social use—for people who need houses. We need to stop building houses that are going to sit empty in the centre of London.

[Alan Brown]

On that theme, is my hon. Friend aware that the UK is currently the most unequal country in the EU? The people who financed Vote Leave are the very ones who are going to do their best to make the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. That will be the Brexit dividend.

[Carol Monaghan]

We know that a no-deal Brexit is going to be economically disastrous. We also know that when an economy is wrecked in such a way, people with money, power and connections are in a position to exploit the situation for their own ends. No doubt we will see that happening if we are stupid enough to leave without a deal.

Following the vote to leave, where was the political leadership? Who was countering the right-wing media? Who was reaching out to the EU nationals here? The answer is that Scotland was. On the very first day after the vote, the First Minister, Nicola Sturgeon, stood up and said, “You are welcome. We want you. We value you. Please remain. You are our friends, our family and our colleagues.” That is powerful. I and many of my colleagues wrote to every EU national in our constituencies. The majority of them cannot even vote for us in this place, so there was no personal gain for us in doing that. We did it because it was the right thing to do. But what did we see from the Prime Minister? We saw her talking about “queue jumping” by EU nationals, implying that they were cheating their way into jobs, and we now see them being asked to pay a £65 fee to apply for settled status. How can they feel valued with that sort of action?

The biggest issue for me is the position of EU nationals and the loss of freedom of movement—[Interruption.] The deal does not protect freedom of movement—not for EU nationals here or for our people moving elsewhere. It does not support that. My husband is an EU national. He spent 17 years in the Royal Navy as a commissioned officer, with two and a half years of that time spent under the ocean, yet he has British nationalists telling him to go home if he does not like things here, and he is not unique in that. The worst thing is the patronising manner in which people have been dealt with. He has been told, “You should be okay.” What? Because he is white and speaks English? We are not interested in being part of a xenophobic society that pulls the drawbridge up behind us.

Our universities have expressed concerns about Brexit. They are concerned about the loss of EU funding, both in Horizon 2020 and in successor programmes. They are concerned about the threat posed to the rich collaborations that are supported and underpinned by freedom of movement. Universities UK has said that over half of all UK-based European Research Council funding is received by non-UK nationals living in the UK. That accentuates the risk that we could lose out on talented and highly mobile researchers.

With the immigration White Paper, the Government said, “Well, if you’re skilled, you’ll be okay.” I have asked a series of written questions about what is meant by high, medium and low-skilled jobs. I have been told that high-skilled is degree level, medium is A-level or HND level, and low-skilled is GCSE level. However, that is at odds with the salary thresholds that will apply. For early-stage researchers and post-docs or for early-career nurses, teachers and even medics, the definition of skills does not match the salary threshold.

Space Policy

Debate between Carol Monaghan and Alan Brown

Thursday 14th January 2016 Commons Chamber

[Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Drew Hendry). He made some excellent points about women and equality in the industry. As a civil engineer, that chimes with me. My profession has seen a lack of women over the years, although it is doing its best to try to remedy it by engaging with schools. My hon. Friend has shown, both yesterday and today, that he is a great advocate for technology, and his enthusiasm certainly shone through in his speech. I congratulate, too, my hon. Friends the Members for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford) and for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady) on bringing forward this timely debate. I welcome the chance to participate in it.

Let me start with a confession. Anyone who knows me personally will probably be somewhat surprised that I have chosen to speak in a space-related debate. Unlike the Members who have spoken previously, when I was growing up I never had the same fascination with space. Science fiction movies did not do it for me. Although I was born in 1970, I have still not watched the early “Star Wars” movies—[Hon. Members: “Shame!”] Now I have got that confession out of the road, I should have everybody on my side. At least it shows they were listening to me.

[Carol Monaghan]

I am concerned that my hon. Friend has not watched the earlier “Star Wars” movies. Is he suggesting that he has watched the later ones?

[Alan Brown]

I have seen one or two, and I took the children along, so it was a family activity. I could not say what happened in them as I do not recall.The good news is that—in view of the earlier lack of interested nods—there will be no more puns in my speech.

I appreciate the importance of the science, technology and commercial aspects of the space industry, and I am right behind the United Kingdom Government’s proposal to focus on making the UK the European hub for commercial space flight and related space sector technologies. I also applaud the ambitious growth targets that have been set.

What other reasons have I for speaking in the debate? One of them was touched on by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady): it is great to be able to make a speech that is not preceded by the words “From now on there will be a three-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches”—although some Members may wish that there was a three-minute limit on mine.

The main reason for my participation, however, is my wish to give an unashamed plug to Prestwick airport, which I would like to become the United Kingdom’s first space port hub. It is in the neighbouring constituency rather than my own, but I can appreciate the benefits that it would bring to the surrounding area in general, and many of my constituents are already employed in the aerospace industry.

Unfortunately, my constituency is among the top 15% in the UK in terms of unemployment, and 200 skilled manufacturing jobs have recently been lost from a factory in Kilmarnock, so a jobs boost would be most welcome in my constituency and the wider area. However, despite the headline unemployment rate, Ayrshire in general has a great engineering pedigree, and there are still many successful engineering and manufacturing companies in my constituency and its neighbours. As we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire, there is already a cluster of aerospace-related firms around Prestwick, and I know that they could easily expand to service a new space port. We have also heard that nearby Glasgow already contains space technology companies, including Clyde Space and Spire. That would be another advantage of choosing Prestwick.

The UK Space Agency has made clear that its activities are about much more than direct space technology, covering climate change analysis and other beneficial research on such matters as health and ageing, as well as materials innovation and plasma physics. I realise that, given that ongoing work, successful partnerships will already be operating, but there is no doubt that if Prestwick were chosen to be a space port, it could form links with the Scottish universities, which are among the best in the world. That is another advantage. As for transport infrastructure, Ayr Harbour is nearby. Prestwick also has a railway halt, and close links with the motorway network. I believe that it is easily the most accessible location on the shortlist that the Government are considering.

Yesterday I attended a breakfast hosted by the all-party parliamentary group for aerospace. One of the discussion points, which was also raised today by my hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey, was education, and preparing kids for qualifications in STEM subjects—science, technology, engineering and mathematics—and technology design. The Scottish Government are making great strides with that in their curriculum for excellence, and the local authority of which I was a member before becoming an MP has produced a STEM programme for primary schools, as well as successfully running a business enterprise initiative for secondary schools.

In Scotland, the wider implementation of the Wood report has led to a recognition that school leavers must have a greater understanding of the working environment and what will be expected of them in that environment, and, crucially, of the fact that higher or full-time further education is not for everyone. Along with the Scottish Government's investment in modern apprenticeships, that has given Scotland—and Prestwick in particular—a head start when it comes to renewing interest in STEM subjects and technology design.

Ayrshire is also home to the campus of Ayrshire college, which has recently won awards and, moreover, is willing to work in partnership with industry to develop tailor-made courses. An excellent example of that is the partnership that has been established to create courses for wind turbine technicians. That came about because the industry realised that, owing to the growth in renewables, there was not enough qualified expertise for the operation and maintenance of wind turbines. A new £53 million campus is due to open in Kilmarnock, which I expect to present fantastic opportunities for links with the space industry.

Prestwick has one of the longest runways in the UK, and it does not suffer from fog problems. It is often used when flights are diverted because of problems elsewhere. Unfortunately, there are not enough commercial flights from Prestwick to enable it to make a profit, but that does mean that there are no capacity or logistical issues that would prevent the creation of a space port there. In fact, if that mitigated some of the losses that are currently being covered by the Scottish Government, there would be benefits for Scottish taxpayers, and funds would be freed up for investment elsewhere in Scotland. Ayrshire and Dumfries and Galloway are also home to the Dark Sky project, which could provide more links and other benefits if the space port were located at Prestwick.

The Scottish Government are very supportive and positive about development in this sector, as was demonstrated by Fiona Hyslop's attendance at the annual UK-Canada colloquium in Glasgow just before Christmas. The conclusions reached at that event will be presented to both Governments, and I am confident that they will underline the strong case that I expect to be made for Scotland in general. I urge Ministers to pay due heed to those conclusions.

Let me now move slightly away from the subject of Prestwick, although I am reluctant to do so. I agree wholeheartedly with the motion: this seems to be one sector for which the UK Government are outlining a positive vision. Like many of my colleagues, I have often complained in the Chamber about the need for the Government to spend more money on social justice, rather than on projects that some people consider to be vanity projects. However, as was pointed out by the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr Wright), wider benefits, which could be long-lasting, accrue from this investment.

There is no doubt that Major Tim Peake's mission could inspire another generation of scientists, explorers, engineers and innovators. If the benefits are to continue, however, and if the proposed space port is to have any chance of being an operational venture by 2018—with no loss of momentum, or of the interest that is currently being generated—the Government must set clear guidelines for the submission of the final bids. The final decision-making process must be transparent and non-political, in order to ensure the best possible value for money and future success.

However, given that the Government like to cut red tape and bureaucracy, if they do not want to go down that route, they could simply award the space port location to Scotland in general or, more specifically, to Prestwick. Alternatively, in the light of the speeches that we have heard so far, we could have a show of hands in the Chamber today. That would solve any problems.