Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between Christine Jardine and Stuart C McDonald(2 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (George Eustice)
As part of the agreement with Australia, we secured a special agricultural safeguard, which has a strict automatic volume trigger. It means that for the first 10 years, Australian beef and lamb will be subject to a tariff rate quota, and for the subsequent five years it will be subject to a special agricultural safeguard with a volume trigger.
Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme
Debate between Christine Jardine and Stuart C McDonald(3 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Stuart C. McDonald
I said specifically that the scheme would not continue for ever and it cannot continue for ever, but that should be based on an analysis of the economy, where we are at and the number of jobs available. Conservative Members keep telling us that people should be looking to move into employment, but any analysis by any major think-tank says that those job opportunities are just not there at the moment, so we have to wait for a time when the economy is on a more even keel, which will not, on any indication, be by 31 October.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
As the hon. Gentleman possibly knows, the Liberal Democrats agree that the scheme should be kept going. We have specifically looked at June next year as a minimum, which would cost £10 billion. That is not much more than withdrawing the scheme would cost, as the Chancellor is proposing at the moment, and is a drop in the ocean compared with the eventual cost if we do not support the economy.
Stuart C. McDonald
I agree wholeheartedly. I do not want to put a date on it today, but the costed proposal from the Scottish Government, which has been looked at by the National Institute of Economic and Social Research, is for an eight-month extension. That would save tens of thousands of jobs in Scotland, and even more across the United Kingdom, and pay for itself, because debt as a percentage of GDP would fall rather than rise. It makes perfect sense from every single point of view. It has to be about analysis rather than just picking a date in the calendar, which is essentially what the Government have done.
All in all, the scheme is a great investment, and a better one, as hon. Members have said, than the deadweight job retention bonus scheme. As we have heard, many countries are extending their similar schemes, and we should not be the outlier in that regard. There is an urgency about the situation, because employers are deciding right now what they are going to do with furloughed employees at the end of October, so we cannot wait. We need a commitment from the Government today.
The scheme does not require to be completely unchanged. We have heard about some of the flexibilities and the changes that were made as we went along, and more changes could be made as we go ahead. It could be targeted by sector, as some have suggested. There must be a focus on areas where there are local lockdowns or other restrictions. We could look at the other models that have been implemented by countries such as France and Germany, which involve short time and wage subsidies.
I join hon. Members in highlighting the desperate plight of those who have been left off the lifeboat altogether for totally unjust reasons. That includes a huge number of people who simply changed jobs at the wrong time; those who work only a small number of hours for a particular employer, which puts them below the minimum salary threshold; those paid in the form of dividends; and those working as PAYE freelancers, especially in industries such as TV and the arts, who have been hung out to dry.
Many came close to qualifying under the job retention scheme or the self-employment income support scheme, and it is heartbreaking that they were left qualifying for neither. The reality is that many have been left with nothing, or next to nothing, because they are not entitled to other support. Essentially, the Government response appears to be that it would be too hard to fix for everybody, but that is as nothing compared with the hardship that has been inflicted on my constituents.
In the context of the Government being happy to invest £10 billion in a job retention bonus scheme that is likely to have little impact, investing in support for those excluded people could be transformational for them. That may well be more labour-intensive for HMRC, rather than relying on real-time information submissions, but it can be done. As the Minister knows full well, there is a tax office in Cumbernauld that is set to close, possibly in the next few months. If he wants to keep that tax office open, I am sure that the employees there would be happy to do the work required to extend the scheme. At the end of the day, my constituents and the excluded across the UK are not asking for anything more than fairness. I hope that the Treasury will think again and offer those people a hand on to that lifeboat.
Immigration
Debate between Christine Jardine and Stuart C McDonald(4 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Stuart C. McDonald
My hon. Friend’s point speaks for itself. That is truly abhorrent.
The Prime Minister’s explicit and almost dystopian goal was to create the hostile environment, as if we can hermetically seal off the wicked illegal immigrants while the rest of us go about our business as usual. It was an approach that reached its absolute nadir with the horrendous “go home” vans—a disastrous episode that encapsulated everything that is wrong with the policy and precisely illustrated the key point here, which is that the hostile climate that the Government seek to create affects every single one of us. The hostile climate should be destroyed with its partner in crime: the net migration target.
I have outlined the sad legacy of the outgoing Prime Minister on migration policy. With her departure and influence totally removed from the Home Office, this is a time for radical reform, including rolling back most of her policies and putting evidence-based policy making, human rights and fairness at front and centre.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
As part of that change in policy, would the hon. Gentleman agree that we have to look at lifting the ban on genuine asylum seekers being able to work and contribute to the economy of the country, rather than forcing them to live on a pittance and not giving them the dignity they deserve?
Stuart C. McDonald
I wholeheartedly agree; I know the hon. Lady has tabled an amendment to the Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill on that subject, as we did during the passage of the Immigration Act 2016, so her amendment will have our wholehearted support. I was pleased to be at an event yesterday evening with a coalition of organisations working towards that goal, and I hope the Home Office is listening.
In fairness, there have been little green shoots of recovery under the new Home Secretary and the Immigration Minister. I have welcomed the work to extend the resettlement scheme, for example. There have also been warm words on other possible areas of reform, but they are as yet a million miles away from the fully fledged reform agenda and actions we need.
Stuart C. McDonald
Every individual must make their own call about whether they want to apply. I, for one, would certainly encourage all my constituents and all the EU nationals watching this to sign up for the scheme, but that does not take away from my essential point that they should not be asked to apply to stay in their own home in the first place. These rights should be enshrined in law right now.
It is not just in terms of the 3 million that we need radical change. All across the field of immigration, there is a massive job of work to do to help to fix the lives that have already been messed up by migration policies and to ensure that we avoid messing up so many more—to build a system that actually benefits our economy and society instead of undermining them and sowing division. Everyone in this House will have had many cases, as we have already heard, where we think that the rules are unfair.
This debate provides an opportunity to make the case for reform as we look ahead to the next chapter in immigration law form. I want to mention four areas very briefly, but there are a million more that I could flag up. First, I turn to the issue of families, which has already been raised. In pursuit of the net migration target, this country has adopted almost the most restrictive family rules in the world, with an extraordinary income requirement and ludicrously complicated rules and restrictions on how that requirement can be met. Over 40% of the UK population would not be entitled to live in this country with a non-EU spouse. The figures are even worse for women, for ethnic minorities, and for different parts of the UK. The Children’s Commissioner previously wrote a damning report about the 15,000 Skype children—there must now be many, many more—who get to see their mum or dad only via the internet, thanks to these rules, which force too many to pick between their country and their loved ones. It is appalling that the Home Office seems determined to extend these rules to EU spouses so that many more thousands of families will be split apart. We should be ditching these awful rules, not making more families suffer.
Secondly, there is citizenship. I have met with the Minister representatives of the Project for Registration of Children as British Citizens, and I know that last week she met the organisation, Let Us Learn. The Home Secretary has acknowledged in evidence to the Home Affairs Committee that over £1,000 is an incredible amount to charge children simply to process a citizenship application when they are entitled to that citizenship. The administrative cost is about £400, so over £600 is a subsidy for other Home Office activities. There is no excuse for funding the Home Office by overcharging kids for their citizenship. At the very least, the fee must be reduced to no more than the administrative charge. More broadly, we need to reduce the ridiculous fees that are being charged across the immigration system, especially to children.
Christine Jardine
The hon. Gentleman is making a very important point. I want to mention something that recently came to my attention at a surgery. A former EU national who is now a British citizen is concerned about the implications for them, if we leave the European Union, of the way in which the immigration laws have been written. Even though the settled status scheme might seem unclear, the situation is not clear for those who have already taken out citizenship either.
Stuart C. McDonald
The hon. Lady makes an interesting point. I do not know whether she is planning to contribute to the debate; if so, she can speak more about that.
Thirdly, our immigration detention system remains outrageously bloated, and detention without time limit makes the UK an outlier in Europe. We detain too many people for too long, including many vulnerable adults, such as torture survivors, who should never be detained at all. It is a national scandal and an affront to the rule of law, as myriad reports have shown. We have had some small forward steps from the current Home Office team, but also some missteps. We need radical reform so that detention is a matter of absolute last resort and not routine.
Fourthly, there is our asylum system, which could command a whole debate in itself. There can be few areas that require as big an overhaul. We need to ensure better-quality decisions and proper financial support. We must support the wonderful coalition urging the Government to lift the ban on asylum seekers working. We need a better managed move-on period and properly accountable and funded systems of accommodation. We need a caseworking system so that we are never left with dreadful mass evictions like those we look set to see in Glasgow.
Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between Christine Jardine and Stuart C McDonald(5 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)
The Minister for Women (Victoria Atkins)
The Minister for Women and Equalities takes her responsibilities to the House very seriously and regrets that she cannot be present this morning because she is attending an important Cabinet meeting on EU exit. If there are any urgent matters, she will of course be available to discuss them with colleagues this afternoon.
Earlier this year, the Government Equalities Office and the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy ran an award-winning £1.5 million communications campaign to promote the take-up of shared parental leave. That was supported by revised guidance and case studies, making it easier for parents to understand and access the scheme.