Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority

David Linden Excerpts

Tuesday 4th December 2018 General Committees

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

As ever, Mr Robertson, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. I congratulate the hon. Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys on opening the debate on behalf of the Government; I suspect that he did not expect to be here, but given that his boss is downstairs in the Chamber trying to hold the Government together, it is no surprise that he is. I do find one thing rather amusing: like many hon. Members present, I have just come from the Chamber, where we were discussing an Humble Address not being followed, so it is with a sense of irony that I see another Humble Address before this Committee.

I have one question for the hon. Gentleman standing in for the Leader of the House. As I understand it, the gentleman who is proposed for the IPSA post took up office on 1 December, yet Parliament is being asked to approve his appointment today, on 4 December. Over the EU referendum campaign, we were told that Parliament was taking back control, yet essentially we are being asked to rubber-stamp something that has already happened. I suspect that that is an indication of how the Government see the role of parliamentarians. We can draw our own conclusions about that, but I want to put it on the record that I ask the hon. Gentleman why Parliament is being asked to approve an appointment that has already started.

Financial Implications for the Next Generation

David Linden Excerpts

Tuesday 4th December 2018 Westminster Hall

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

As always, it is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Hollobone. I am reliably informed by WhatsApp that Divisions are imminent, so although we have a degree of flexibility, I will try to be mindful of that. I warmly congratulate the hon. Member for South Dorset (Richard Drax) on securing the debate.

I sometimes come to these debates feeling a bit like William Hague. The Order Paper says that the debate is about the financial implications for the next generation, but I realise that I am probably the youngest Member in the Chamber at the moment. I do not want to sound like William Hague by saying, “It’s all right for you: you won’t be here in 40 years’ time,” but in reality, hon. Members will not.

It is somewhat remarkable that the hon. Member for South Dorset managed a good 15 minutes or so without touching on Brexit, because the reality is that Brexit is the biggest financial threat to the next generation. As I will touch on, it will cost each person £1,600 by 2030. I will also touch on what we are doing at home in Scotland to support first-time buyers, and on the recent Sustainable Growth Commission report.

Opportunities for young people, such as the freedom of movement and the ability to study abroad, will be severely limited as a result of Brexit. All those things are helpful in terms of social mobility and increasing people’s spending power. The Scottish Government’s analysis found that, by 2030, GDP would be £9 billion lower under a free trade agreement than if we had stayed in the EU. Of course, that decision was expressed by the people of Scotland, 62% of whom voted to remain in the EU. That £9 billion is the equivalent of £1,600 per person in Scotland. That is deeply disappointing, although we see that in the main Chamber the UK Government are still refusing to admit the true cost of Brexit, with the Treasury analysis not covering the Prime Minister’s deal; it covered no deal, the European Free Trade Association, the European economic area, the situation without a customs union, and Chequers. This is all quite important for the country’s direction of travel in terms of our finances and what we will leave to the next generation.

The Bank of England’s analysis suggests that the Prime Minister’s deal, which is clearly about as popular in this House as a cup of cold sick, will take between 1.25% and 3% from GDP by 2023, with a no-deal Brexit cutting between 7.75% and 10.5%. So the idea that we can have a debate about the financial threat to the next generation and ignore these figures really beggars belief.

I also want to touch on what we are doing in my own country to make sure that we have an economy for future generations. Some of it is about what we are doing to invest in housing. I remain incredibly concerned, almost as an observer down here, about the fact that the UK Government do not necessarily see the need to invest in social housing. There are things that they are doing around stamp duty, but stamp duty limits for £500,000? I do not know a huge number of 27-year-olds who are able to go and lump down £50,000 for their first home. There is some good stuff being done in Scotland, which I commend to the Minister, about what we can do to invest in housing while also ensuring that young people can get on the property ladder.

Finally, I will touch on the issue of the growth commission, whose report was published by Andrew Wilson on behalf of the Scottish Government. That report looks at the finances of an independent Scotland, and what it is absolutely clear about is that an independent Scotland can leave behind the broken economic model of the UK and actually benefit future generations with inclusive, sustainable growth. I will finish with this point: if the approach to spending recommended by the commission had been applied by the Westminster Government over the past decade, the £2.6 billion in real-terms cuts to Scotland would have been completely wiped out.

So I commend the hon. Member for South Dorset for initiating this debate. It is very difficult to have a debate such as this one, about the next generation, when we are quite literally pulling the rug from under their feet by the retrograde step of leaving the European Union and denying them the right to love and live elsewhere, and the opportunity to get on in the world.

Finance (No. 3) Bill

David Linden Excerpts

2nd reading: House of Commons & Programme motion: House of Commons
Monday 12th November 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mel Stride]

My hon. Friend is right. If we look at some of the relieving measures on tax that have been provided to Scottish taxpayers, we can see that they come by way of the increases in the personal allowance that this UK Government have made. He is absolutely right to highlight the fact that Scotland is becoming more of a high tax jurisdiction.

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

The Minister’s colleagues in the Scottish Parliament stand up week in and week out to ask for more money for public services, so if the Conservatives will not put up tax, where does the money come from or do they cut services?

[Mel Stride]

I will tell the hon. Gentleman where some of the money comes from. I will tell him where £700 million has just come from, and that is the Barnett consequentials following from the recent Budget.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Walsall North (Eddie Hughes), although I sometimes wonder how one can follow that. It was certainly very interesting.

I want to touch on a point made by the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake). I congratulate him on receiving Royal Assent for his private Member’s Bill. It was good to see in the Red Book that the Parental Bereavement (Leave and Pay) Act 2018 is moving forward. He spoke at length about business; I know he is a doughty champion for that. He would do well to look at what the SNP Government in Scotland have done in lifting 100,000 small businesses out of business rates since 2008. They have been doing that for 10 years, so the Scottish Conservatives can come north on occasion to see that.

I rise to support the reasoned amendment in the names of my right hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford) and other hon. Friends from the Scottish National party. As the Bill derives from the Chancellor’s recent Budget, I want to make a couple of comments more widely about the Budget—and what was missing from it—before moving on to talk specifically about clause 5.

One minor benefit of not being able to speak in the Budget debate was that I had time during the weekend that followed to take the temperature of my constituents concerning the Budget. The general feeling on Shettleston Road is that austerity is far from over, and that is something that my hon. Friends and I hear week in, week out at our Friday surgeries. The Budget in fact prolongs austerity. The Prime Minister said that austerity was coming to an end, but the Budget failed every single test when it comes to the claim that the end of austerity is now in sight.

For example, there were no transitional measures to support the WASPI women, such as Anne Dalziel from Garrowhill. Anne received no notice from the DWP about the changes to her state pension age and is one of the many women in this country who have been shafted time and again by the British Government. To give an example of just how arbitrary the changes are, Anne has friends who were also born in 1953 and they received their state pension in 2016, but because Anne was born on 23rd December, her pension age was deferred three years to 2019. There were no measures in the Budget to help Anne Dalziel, and it is little wonder that the WASPI women in the Gallery staged their protest in the way they did. They have wholehearted support on these Benches.

Likewise, there were no measures in the Budget to halt and fix the roll-out of universal credit, which is due to be unleashed on my constituency next month and will undoubtedly cause social and financial misery just in time for Christmas. The amazing work that has been done by my hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Drew Hendry) on Inverness, where universal credit has already been rolled out, shows the deep damage it has caused. The fact that the Government will not listen to my hon. Friends and halt the roll-out of universal credit in Glasgow, especially at Christmas, shows how mean they are.

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)]

My hon. Friend’s constituents, like mine, visit Shettleston job centre. Does it concern him as much as it concerns me that someone making a claim there on the first day universal credit rolls out—5 December—will not be entitled to any money until 9 January?

[David Linden]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Of course, one reason that we share that jobcentre is that the British Government, in their wisdom, closed Bridgeton jobcentre in her constituency, in addition to closing Parkhead jobcentre and another six jobcentres in the city of Glasgow. Although Conservative Members paint a rosy picture about the work they are doing in their local communities, the work we see in Glasgow shows that they are absolutely out of touch and are pulling the rug from under our constituents’ feet.

Clauses 61 and 62 address gaming duty. My hon. Friend the Member for Inverclyde (Ronnie Cowan) has campaigned on fixed odds betting terminals. Like other hon. and right hon. Members, I was genuinely sorry to see the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch) resign from the Government, but she was right to do so. The reality is that fixed odds betting terminals have become a massive public health issue in our constituencies. I see that in Baillieston Main Street, where we have three betting shops lined up next to each other. The proliferation of these terminals is undoubtedly one of the worst things for public health. Whether it is the knock-on effect of depression, debt or even suicide, it is clear that fixed odds betting terminals need to be considered through the prism of public health, and not Treasury revenue.

[Ronnie Cowan (Inverclyde) (SNP)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government moved to delay the stake reduction until October 2019 after a report by KPMG was circulated in the Treasury? KPMG has said that the report was written to meet the specific terms of reference agreed with the Association of British Bookmakers. Does he agree that the Government should take this opportunity to move swiftly to implement a £2 maximum stake in April 2019?

[David Linden]

My hon. Friend has been campaigning on this far longer than I have, and he has a strong track record of pursuing the issue.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I reinforce what the hon. Member for Inverclyde (Ronnie Cowan) said. Many Members on both sides of the House, including DUP Members, want to see the change made in April 2019 because, during the six-month period proposed by the Government, as many as 300 people could commit suicide due to their addiction. The hon. Member for Glasgow East (David Linden) mentioned health and, from that point of view, the change needs to come sooner. The industry has had plenty of time to sort it out; it does not need more time.

[David Linden]

The hon. Gentleman’s intervention comes before 10 o’clock, which is quite unusual. In all seriousness, he is absolutely spot on. We all know the considerable influence of the DUP when it comes to marching through the Lobby with the Government. What he has said tonight should be heard on the Treasury Bench. The Government cannot count on the support of the DUP when it comes to delaying the reduction in the maximum stake from £100 to £2, which should send a very strong message.

I believe that in the coming days and weeks we will see a groundswell of support not just among Opposition Members but among Conservative Members, too, because this is not, and should not be, a party political issue. This is an issue of public health, and hopefully the Government will see sense in the coming weeks and not try to have a fight on the Floor of the House, but do the right thing by our communities.

On the so-called national living wage, the under-25s were, yet again, mugged by this Government. They are still excluded from the national living wage, which in itself is simply a con trick. The national living wage is not a real living wage, and it falls far short of the true living wage set by the independent Living Wage Foundation.

Over the course of the debate so far, and I suspect over the course of the evening to come, we have heard Scottish Tories say how wonderful this Budget is, but I challenge those Members: whether it is in Banff and Buchan, Bannockburn or Prestwick, can they seriously go to their local high school and say to the children who will be going on to do an apprenticeship that they think they are worth only £3.90 an hour? The reality is that, by marching through the Lobby to support this Finance Bill, they are saying that is right. The fact that none of them has sprung to their feet to say that they think £3.90 an hour is an adequate rate of pay for a fair day’s work sends a message.

In clause 5, somewhat predictably, the Government seek to give a handout to high earners. The Chancellor’s Budget gave basic rate taxpayers an extra £21 a year, compared with £156 a year for those on the higher rate. In contrast, the SNP Government have introduced progressive taxation in Scotland, where we have the powers to do so. Seven in 10 taxpayers in Scotland will pay less tax this year than they paid in 2017-18 on a given income, but it is right that those on higher incomes—that includes us as Members of Parliament—should pay a modest amount more in tax. I am perfectly comfortable with that as a concept because I know that investment in housing and in decent public services cannot be done on the cheap. It is right that those of us who earn higher salaries should pay a little more to support better public services for the good of everyone in society and our communities. But what is before us today gives tax cuts to high earners and that is just not right.

In essence, this Bill was about choices for the British Government. They have chosen to give tax cuts to high earners and to do nothing for the WASPI women; they have chosen not to give under-25s equality and a fair day’s pay for a fair day’s work; they have chosen to plough ahead with universal credit, despite it being fundamentally flawed and leading to reductions in household incomes; and they have chosen to perpetuate austerity right across these islands. But the Chancellor is not the only person with choices to make because, with each passing day, the people of Scotland are realising that they, too, will soon have a choice to make. They can choose to stay in an inherently unequal, unfair United Kingdom which is riddled with austerity and heading over the cliff edge of a hard Brexit, or they can choose an independent Scotland free from the obsession with austerity economics that so epitomises this Finance Bill. It is for that reason that I cannot support the Bill this evening.

Public Sector Pay

David Linden Excerpts

Tuesday 24th July 2018 Commons Chamber

[Elizabeth Truss]

My hon. Friend mentions the funding for teachers’ pay rises. Beyond the 1%, the pay rise will be fully funded centrally, as will be announced by my right hon. Friend the Education Secretary.

I thought the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Ruth Smeeth) referred to the MOJ, but apparently she was talking about the Ministry of Defence. The modernising defence review is going on at the moment, and I am working on that very closely with my Defence colleagues to make sure that this remains affordable.

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

The Chief Secretary talks about putting more money into people’s pay packets, so will she tell us when under-25s will be paid the national living wage?

[Elizabeth Truss]

This Government have achieved some of the lowest levels of youth unemployment for years. Under the Labour party, people were left on the scrapheap and we had rising youth unemployment, with up to 20% of our young people unemployed in 2010. What is important is that while people are training and gaining skills, it remains affordable for companies to take them on.

Homelessness among Refugees

David Linden Excerpts

Tuesday 17th July 2018 Westminster Hall

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Henry.

I commend the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) for securing the debate. I also pay tribute to my intern, Gillian Hughes, who is working with me for a few weeks and helped to prepare for this debate.

Given the complexity of Home Office procedures and the conscious decision of this Government to create a hostile environment, it is not surprising that so many asylum-seeking constituents come to me for support with their cases. However, it is even less palatable to know the new range of problems that refugees often face after going through the harrowing process of achieving leave to remain, not least the loss of their financial support and accommodation within only 28 days of a successful decision from the Home Office.

I am in the process of moving house and I can testify that it is a stressful event, even when done voluntarily and with the chance to prepare financially, so imagine trying to do it within 28 days, after having been restricted to not working, while surviving on an income of £37.70 per week and despite language barriers, unfamiliarity with the area and often no support network. In such circumstances, homelessness is a real threat.

It stands to reason that support from the National Asylum Support Service ends when someone is no longer in the process of claiming asylum. However, that should be a managed transition over a reasonable period of time. To end support abruptly makes it extremely difficult for new refugees to move forward, and places a burden on other Departments, local authorities and charities that are already at breaking point.

Last month, I held a special asylum and refugee surgery in Cranhill in my constituency in conjunction with a fantastic Glasgow charity called Refuweegee. It provides practical support in the form of donated clothing, food, toys and other necessities, and it collects welcome letters written by people from all over the city to our newest Glaswegians. One such letter that struck me recently was from a wee girl called Kiera. Kiera had written a beautiful note: “Please don’t worry, you are safe now.” How do we explain to Kiera that of 54 refugees interviewed by the Refugee Council in September last year, not one had found secure accommodation by the time their asylum accommodation was withdrawn, and half of them had been forced to sleep rough or in a night shelter?

Local authorities normally consider homelessness to be imminent if someone is within 56 days of it becoming a reality. Refugees, however, are expected to be able to move on within only half that time. It is not a practical timeframe to impose on some of the most vulnerable within our communities, especially if the Government are serious about their pledge to halve rough sleeping by 2022 and to eliminate it by 2027.

A secure home, as I am sure everyone in the Chamber agrees, is the cornerstone of building a new life and establishing roots. Housing insecurity is a major barrier to education, employment and integration. For example, at the weekend I met a Baillieston constituent, Agatha Mazengera. Recently Agatha was granted refugee status. She has already passed her 28-day mark, but she has not yet been able to secure a permanent home.

Agatha and her daughter have been moved, temporarily, to a bedsit in the opposite end of the city to where their asylum accommodation was. Agatha was very active in her former neighbourhood, as part of the parent council and parent teacher association at her daughter’s school, and as a member of the local church. She tried to keep some sense of familiarity for her daughter by continuing to travel across the city for school each day, but sadly, after a while, that became unworkable. Agatha’s daughter Mychaella therefore had to leave behind her friends at a crucial time in her education, and had to start again at a new school. The ongoing uncertainty about their living conditions means that Mychaella may have to move school yet again. A managed transition, with some professional support would have enabled that family to continue to contribute to the community of which they had become such valuable members.

A leave to remain decision might enable someone to stay in the country, but as the system stands, a clock starts to tick, giving a mere 28 days for people to find work and leave what has been in essence their home. That is a tall order when they have been living hand to mouth, have no savings and often do not even have a bank account, and are learning a new language. I have no doubt that the majority of new refugees are as keen to move to a stable home and into work as the Home Office is for them to do so. We must therefore move away from the culture of hostile practice and provide a bit of support to do that.

We must take some simple, common-sense steps to reduce unnecessary incidences of homelessness or transient housing caused by that unrealistic timescale. Allowing 56 days to move on and providing access to mainstream homelessness prevention services could dramatically increase people’s chances.

[Neil Coyle]

Even when refugees play by the rules and do the right thing, Home Office error often leads to complications that end up with people being made homeless. That happened to Mr Musari and his family in my constituency. It took two years to overturn a mistake by the Home Office. Would it not be simpler to reverse the retraction of legal aid under the coalition Government, so that civil legal aid was available to refugees and others subject to Home Office decisions or affected by Home Office policy?

[David Linden]

The hon. Gentleman’s intervention chimed with some of what I see in my constituency, such as issues with legal aid, in particular in devolved areas. It can only be even more difficult for the Home Office if it is not following its own procedures. That is a very valid point to make.

Allowing 56 days to move on and providing access to mainstream homelessness prevention services could dramatically increase the chances of people finding a suitable longer-term property. Being awarded refugee status should, at the very least, mean a fair chance of having a place of refuge. As Refuweegee in Glasgow states, “We’re all fae somewhere”, but right now our asylum accommodation system is failing people and leaving them with nowhere in the world to call home. I think everyone in this place would agree that we must do better.

Leaving the EU: Customs Arrangements

David Linden Excerpts

Tuesday 10th July 2018 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon]

I have some concerns about the customs union; but the hon. Lady will know that. We need to focus on how to get a workable relationship with the EU, where it understands that it needs us and—I have to say—that we need it. There is a need for us both to find a suitable—perhaps complex—way forward, ensuring that trade can continue. Like the hon. Lady I am concerned about how business will be affected. We cannot ignore the comments made by big business this last while; but many other businesses are quite confident about the future. I would rather there was a clear agreement and understanding. I take my opinion from Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland; I am conscious of that perspective, and where we are.

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend—he is truly a friend. He speaks about the importance of listening to business. Last week the Financial Times carried a report suggesting there were fears about food rotting in ports as a result of the Government pursuing a no-deal Brexit. The hon. Member for Strangford and the small group of 10 MPs that he is in have considerable power with the UK Government. Will he use that to impress on the Government the view that we cannot have a no-deal Brexit, as it would be so bad for ports, including those of Northern Ireland?

[Jim Shannon]

I do not believe there will be food rotting at the ports. I am more of an optimist about the future. Forgive me for saying it, but I always see the glass as half full rather than half empty. I look positively for the way to achieve our goals. I read the same press report as the hon. Gentleman, but we need to focus on where we are.

The Prime Minister has set out her stall clearly. I am a confirmed Brexiteer—it is not a secret, and hon. Members will know it. I feel that we would be better out of the EU, and I want to be out of it. The Prime Minister has made it clear where we are going; but I feel we need an agreement with the EU, to move forward. I hope that the Prime Minister can achieve that and I support her in trying to do it; but I am a single voice in the Democratic Unionist party. There are 10 of us, with a collective voice, and the 10 of us together will support the policy we agree on. I suppose that at this moment we may not be altogether sure what the Prime Minister’s policy is; but I hang on to the assurance that she gave me yesterday about fishing. I want to hang on to her other assurances as well.

I understand that the divorce settlement is onerous and acrimonious, but there is a way forward and we must find it. How are we, in the Republic of Ireland and in Northern Ireland, to achieve it? Last year I spoke at Irishfest in Wisconsin. It was a very good event. The Culture Minister of the Republic of Ireland spoke about Brexit from the Republic’s perspective, and I spoke about it from the Northern Ireland perspective. When the debate was over there was not that much difference between what we were trying to achieve. It meant we both had a mind to find a way forward. I want the border as it is. Administratively there must be a way we can get that.

We must also be ever conscious and mindful of the security and safety of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. As is true anywhere, the Government have a responsibility for the safety of every citizen. How are they to go about that? It will be done in the same way as the Garda Síochána, the Police Service of Northern Ireland—and before that the Royal Ulster Constabulary—MI5, MI6, and all the other bodies involved have done that work over the years. That is quite easy. Vehicle number registration is something that perhaps we have not done much with. The agri-food sector is very important for my constituency and it can be considered as an example, administratively; milk products cross the border three times and that happens easily because we are in the EU. However, we will be out of the EU on 31 March, so we must look towards that time.

Draft Financial Services And Markets Act 2000 (Regulated Activities) (Amendment) Order 2018 Draft Electronic Presentment Of Instruments (Evidence Of Payment And Compensation For Loss) Regulations 2018

David Linden Excerpts

Wednesday 4th July 2018 General Committees

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, as always, Sir Henry. The Scottish National party will not oppose these statutory instruments. I rise to make a couple of brief points about one of them.

I very much welcome the image clearing system for cheques. Reducing cheque clearing times will bring cash flow benefits to firms and individuals. Contrary to what some people think, cheques are still a hugely important part of our economy. For example, in 2016, 477 million cheques were used for payments and to acquire cash in the UK, with a total value of £551 billion.

While the Minister is here, I ask Her Majesty’s Government to take the opportunity to commit to retaining the cheque clearing system for as long as there is demand for the service; there was a bit of clash with the UK Payments Council back in 2009, I think, so I seek clarity from the Minister on that. I would also like the Minister to set a clear date for the reviewing and publishing of details of the measures taken. Regulation 10 of the draft Electronic Presentment of Instruments (Evidence of Payment and Compensation for Loss) Regulations 2018 provides that the Treasury should undertake periodic reviews of the measures taken, so Her Majesty’s Government must ensure that it monitors the implementation of the measures and publishes those findings.

The Scottish National party will not oppose the draft orders. I thank Committee members for their forbearance.

Treasury Spending: Grants to Devolved Institutions

David Linden Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd July 2018 Commons Chamber

[Patrick Grady]

Exactly. I do not know how many Scottish Tories took part in the health estimates debate last night, but I know for a fact that my hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford) did so. Again, we will take no lessons on attendance in this Chamber.

I say to the hon. Member for Moray (Douglas Ross) that if he is so keen to debate the Scottish national health service, perhaps he should go back to where he came from: the Scottish Parliament, which makes the decisions about health. And if he is concerned about the payroll vote, he might want to take note of the fact that the current Prime Minister has the largest Government since 1979. I will take no lessons on bloated Government from Members on the other side of the House.

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

Why are there no protestations from the party opposite about Lord Duncan of Springbank, who was defeated at the general election and then stuffed into the House of Lords?

[Patrick Grady]

Precisely. If we want to talk about wasting public expenditure, we have only to look up the corridor.

The hon. Member for Ochil and South Perthshire (Luke Graham) was quoting from his Whip’s note about what financial transactions money was being spent on, but he neglected to say, as my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen North pointed out at the very start, is that financial transactions money has to be paid back, so it is not money that the Scottish Government have the kind of discretion over that they need and deserve.

The hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie) is not in the best position to lecture us about the payroll vote. We salute the fact that he holds a place of greater esteem on the Government Benches than his hon. Friends, but I want to take him back to my modern studies class at the Inverness Royal Academy way back in 1996 and 1997 where we talked about why funding per head is greater in Scotland than in the other parts of the United Kingdom. There are two good reasons, as some of the Scottish Conservatives should know. First, we have higher costs on account of having large rural areas that need to be served. Secondly, the figures are for identifiable public expenditure, and we all know that the vast amount of unidentifiable public expenditure is spent here in the south-east of England in London on Departments and large-scale infrastructure projects that are of no benefit whatsoever to the people of Scotland.

The name that allowed me to tick off my Scottish Tory bingo sheet was that of the hon. Member for Stirling (Stephen Kerr). He said that Scotland is the highest-taxed part of the United Kingdom, which everybody was delighted to hear. Perhaps the Scottish Tories at the Hurlingham Club Tory summer ball last night were weeping into their warm prosecco over the leadership plots and the fact that they now have to pay, like all SNP Members, an extra 60p a month because tax is going up in Scotland. For what we get in Scotland, such as free prescriptions, more bobbies on the beat, investment in education, free tuition and mitigation of the Tory bedroom tax, I think that that is pretty good value for money. In addition, everyone in Scotland earning less than £33,000 a year, which includes squaddies, nurses and teachers at the start of their careers, is paying less. That is the simple fact of the effect of the Scottish Government’s budget, so we do not need to hear any more about that.

As this is an estimates debate, I want to reflect on a couple of points about how spending decisions are made in Scotland once the grant has been agreed and the tax revenue collected. As Members who have previously served in the Scottish Parliament will know, we have an open and full legislative process to agree Government spending during which Members can make suggestions. The Opposition parties in Scotland are good at explaining the things on which they would like more to be spent, but they are not so good at explaining where they think cuts should come from or what should be reduced. Nevertheless, they have the opportunity.

May Adjournment

David Linden Excerpts

Thursday 3rd May 2018 Commons Chamber

[Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)]

For reasons that are not yet clear to me, the Scottish National party Whips Office always asks me to lead on behalf of the SNP for whingefests, as these debates are uncharitably referred to.

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

Speaking on behalf of the SNP Whips Office, we would never suggest that my hon. Friend is anything but a whinger. Will he join me in paying tribute to the staff in the SNP Whips Office—Anne Harvey, Christopher Mullins-Silverstein and Kieran Reape—for all their hard work?

[Chris Stephens]

I thank my hon. comrade for his cheek. Yes, I do want to place on record the hard work of my hon. Friends and the staff of the SNP Whips Office.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Stephens]

The key point is funding, but yes it would be a perfect opportunity for the Government to say that they will fully fund a decent pay rise for public sector workers across the board. Let us not forget that these are the workers who are collecting the tax and trying to put right a broken social security system and a broken immigration system—I will come to that later.

I have always argued for the retention of people’s jobs, not just in the public sector but in the private sector, and I want to raise once again an issue I have raised in several debates: the Ministry of Defence’s nonsensical position in procuring three fleet support ships through international competition. From a written parliamentary answer I received last week, which was covered by the Daily Record, we now know that these three fleet support ships will have armaments, sensors and Phalanx guns, which will be used for defence. If that is the case, my contention is that it is a warship and these three fleet support ships should not be procured through international competition. There are enough shipyards in the UK to build these ships—to block-build them in the same way as the Aircraft Carrier Alliance does—and I hope that hon. Members agree that the ships should not be exposed to international competition. They should be built in the United Kingdom.

[David Linden]

As I am sure my hon. Friend will remember, in the run-up to the Scottish independence referendum of 2014, a leaflet was distributed in his constituency saying that separation would shut shipyards and spell doom. Does he agree that has proven to be absolutely nonsense and that indeed, under the UK Government, we are seeing threats to shipyards?

[Chris Stephens]

I thank my hon. Friend for reminding me of my predecessor’s leaflet. He raises an important point. I refer the House to Monday’s Daily Record editorial, which says that the UK Government have bent, cajoled and run away from the commitments that they made on shipbuilding prior to the independence referendum. We are still waiting on the 13 ships that were promised, eight of which we were told would be built on the Clyde and five of which may be, or maybe not—they are, of course, the Type 31e frigates.

In the news in the past few weeks, we have seen how brutal and hostile the immigration system is in the United Kingdom. As someone with a large number of asylum seekers in my constituency—about 40% of my caseload is based on immigration cases—I have very real concerns about how the Home Office handles these cases, but principally, there also seems to be a lack of Home Office staff who are willing when it comes to Members’ inquiries. I hope that the Government and Home Office will address that issue.

Those who seek sanctuary in this country—many of them are women, many of them are fleeing sexual violence, and for many of them, when they see a gentleman in uniform, it means something completely different to them than it does to other people—should not live in fear of trying to become citizens of this country. They want to come here and make a contribution, and it is important that we allow them to do so.

I hope that the Government consider looking at the issues around social enterprises. I have a case in my constituency of a gentleman who wants to join a social enterprise when he gets his status, yet the Home Office is saying that a social enterprise is not enough to help his case. I think that is a complete nonsense. We should be encouraging the creation of social enterprises, and if those who are seeking sanctuary in this country want to help and get involved in that, that is important.

I will end with a key concern raised by the hon. Member for Gateshead: the principal issues of regulation. In our exchange earlier, we talked about the cuts to the Health and Safety Executive, but there have also been job losses in the Equality and Human Rights Commission, which is there to regulate human rights and equality. We are now seeing cuts in the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service, and we have a ridiculous situation: ACAS staff want to go on strike, but who is going to conciliate the conciliators? That is the position the Government have found themselves in.

For many, tomorrow is happy Star Wars Day, because it is May the fourth—May the fourth be with you, Mr Deputy Speaker—but there are also two important anniversaries tomorrow. When I was at Thales UK on Monday, I was asked, “What happened 25 years ago on 4 May?” I innocently put up my hand and said to the audience, “Well, that will be the 25th anniversary of Partick Thistle football club beating Rangers 3-0 and remaining in the Scottish Premier League at the expense of Falkirk and Airdrieonians”—I apologise to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow East (David Linden) for reminding him. It will also be the 25th anniversary of Thales UK moving into Linthouse. Thales, of course, formerly traded as Barr and Stroud, where my gran and grandfather met—they were happily married for 61 and a half years —but what I did not realise until Monday was that the current Thales site was the former site of Alexander Stephen and Sons shipbuilders, where my father was an apprentice along with the famous comedian, Billy Connolly.

On behalf of the Scottish National party, I hope that all Members enjoy May day, the workers public holiday.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Edward Leigh]

There is, of course, a serious argument to be made—and I accept what the hon. Gentleman has said—about the value of defence spending in terms of jobs, particularly in areas such as Lancashire.

As I was saying, some senior people in the Government might argue that, while increasing defence spending was probably the right thing to do because defence was underfunded, it might not be politically sustainable. I am reminded, sitting next to my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis), that in the early 1980s there seemed to be an unstoppable campaign in favour of unilateral nuclear disarmament. We worked very closely with Lord Heseltine, who was then Mr Michael Heseltine, in the Coalition for Peace through Security. He is a first-rate politician and made excellent arguments, calling it one-sided disarmament. That 1983 election hinged very substantially on defence, and the Conservative party won it. Political parties have to major on, and argue on, the areas in which they are strongest, and every public opinion poll suggests that the Conservatives are trusted most on defence, so this is one of our strong areas and it is not an area that we should feel that we are continually criticised because we are not doing enough.

I am also reminded by my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East that these arguments have raged back and forth for many years. In the early 1930s, the Conservative party lost a by-election in Fulham, and there was a peace candidate—a Labour candidate, I think—standing for the Opposition. George Lansbury was leader of the Labour party; he famously in the 1930s wanted to abolish the RAF entirely. There was an understandable, almost universal, desire for peace in the 1930s—part of the Oxford Union debates and many other factors, with people remembering the carnage of the first world war—and rearmament was not considered to be a popular policy, although clearly after 1933 when the Nazis came to power in Germany it was necessary; and I am thinking now of what is going on in Russia.

So it was necessary to rearm but that was perhaps unpopular, and Baldwin, who was a very successful Conservative Prime Minister, gave the “appalling frankness” speech in the late 1930s when he was criticised for not rearming early enough. We only started rearming in 1936 or thereabouts and almost left it too late; we only won the battle of Britain by a whisker. When Baldwin was criticised, he gave the “appalling frankness” speech. He said, “Look at what happened in that Fulham by-election. What would have happened to the Conservative party if we had advocated increased defence spending when it was so unpopular?”

I am not saying we are in as dangerous a position now as we were in the 1930s, but defence spending is an insurance policy. This is all about the value of deterrence, and we cannot know what the threats of the future will be. What we do know, however, is that Russia is increasingly proactive and is probably run by a criminal mafia regime. We know that there is an existential threat to the Baltic states, too, and one lesson of history from the 1930s, particularly from our pledge to Poland in the late 1930s, is that there is no point in giving pledges to defend a country in eastern Europe unless we have the means and will to carry them out.

I would argue in terms of our commitment to the Baltic states that, while admirable in every respect and while underpinned by the NATO alliance—treaties and article 5 and everything else—unless we are prepared now to commit real hardware to their defence, we could be in an extraordinarily dangerous situation in which Russia would believe she could intervene and undermine those states and could even intervene militarily, because by the time she achieved a successful military intervention it would be too late and our only recourse would be to nuclear weapons.

We clearly cannot rely entirely on nuclear weapons, therefore. There must be a whole range of deterrents at all levels. That is why at the moment the armed forces are struggling: the Royal Navy is struggling, and there are threats to various regiments. I will leave it there, but I earnestly implore the Government to take heed when even the former Defence Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Sir Michael Fallon), who has just left his post and who was a very careful pair of hands who honestly defended the Government while he was Secretary of State, argues that we need to spend at least 2.5% of our national wealth on defence and we are simply not spending enough.

That is one area where we have to make difficult decisions. We have already talked about legal aid, and we are talking about the difficult decisions we have to make on defence, and now we have to take difficult decisions in our own constituencies. Earlier this week, Lincolnshire Members of Parliament held a meeting with the Policing Minister. Lincolnshire is one of the lowest funded police authorities in the country—it is in the bottom three or four—and for 35 years we have been having meetings with Policing Ministers and begging for more resources. I understand the pressure that the Minister is under. He tells us that, officially, austerity is now finished with regard to policing. All our constituents want more policing, but we have to provide the funds. We have already heard mention of the security threats in London, and it is difficult for a Policing Minister to transfer resources from the capital city to a rural county such as Lincolnshire, even though there is plenty of crime in Lincolnshire that I could talk about. I could even talk about my own personal experience of crime. It is a real issue. We clearly have to increase the resources for police funding.

In traditional Conservative counties, there are other things that people feel are underfunded. When they look at Scotland, at Northern Ireland and even at some of the big urban areas, they see fantastic internet connections, good roads and good police funding in their terms, and they wonder why the rural counties are so underfunded. My plea to those on the Treasury Bench is that they should not forget the rural counties and the real pressures that we face. Yes, there is crime, but also our roads in Lincolnshire are full of potholes. This is an important point, because people are driving at 50 or 60 mph in the middle of the road to avoid potholes, and 500 people are being killed or are injured in some form on our roads locally. These are really important issues, and the Government must address them. They must not forget the pressures that people face in rural counties.

[David Linden]

The hon. Gentleman has mentioned the excellent public services that we have in Scotland. The reality is that if we want good, well-funded public services, we have to take some quite difficult decisions on tax. There is a member of his own party, who cannot be here today for reasons unknown, who regularly rails about the fact that higher earners in Scotland—that includes myself as a Member of Parliament—pay a little more tax, but as a result we get better services. Will the hon. Gentleman join me in saying that it would be sensible for his party to look into increasing tax for those who are much better off?

[Sir Edward Leigh]

I will not join the hon. Gentleman in advocating ever-increasing levels of the tartan tax. I remain a strong Conservative, and I believe in the value of deregulation and a low-tax system. Earlier in my speech I made pleas for higher Government spending, both in Lincolnshire and on defence, so—to be fair to Treasury Ministers—how is all that going to be paid for? We cannot increase borrowing, and I would not argue that it is right to increase taxes.

There is another matter that I am really concerned about. I understand that the Government are now looking closely at a significant increase in real-terms spending on the NHS. I am of an age at which the NHS is terribly important to me and my family. I have no private health insurance. Indeed, earlier this week, I had a small procedure on my face under the NHS, which was beautifully carried out. I have no complaints against the staff, but I am very worried about this proposal, which Ministers are apparently considering, to dramatically increase the amount of money spent on the NHS in real terms.

I remember what happened during the period of the Labour Government. Of course such measures are popular in the short term, but the more we increase spending on the NHS in real terms, the lower the productivity becomes. I have spent quite a lot of time talking to consultants and doctors—I am at the age where I do that—and they all, to a man and a woman, bewail the level of bureaucracy and incompetence in the NHS. They are not arguing for more public funding in real terms, although it has to increase by a certain amount in real terms every year because we are an ageing population and we understand all the pressures. They all say that what drives them mad is the level of bureaucracy in the NHS, and it worries me that if we substantially increase NHS spending in real terms, we will simply add to that level of bureaucracy, even though Ministers assure us that that is not their aim.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Edward Leigh]

I stand corrected, but I think it is a generally accepted fact. We all know from our friends and relations, and from public debate, that the health system in Germany is superb. I am sure there are glitches and areas where we might outperform it, but generally the system there works well.

The Government have to be honest in addressing how we will meet the needs of an ever-ageing population and the desire of that ageing population for ever-new levels of treatment. We have to devise new systems to encourage people to put more of their own resources into healthcare, as I do not believe we can do that out of general taxation.

Before I sit down, I promised to make a point about DFID. Nobody values the work of DFID more than I do. DFID is doing tremendous work throughout the world, but its budget—I say this as a former Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee—is under strain, not from underfunding but from an arbitrary link in legislation to a particular proportion of national wealth. The link simply does not work, and it creates all sorts of stresses and strains.

I am not suggesting to the hon. Member for Bristol West (Thangam Debbonaire) that we cut overseas aid spending; what I am suggesting is that we get rid of this arbitrary link in legislation and have the best, the most high quality, the most free from corruption and the best-targeted overseas aid budget in the world, which I am sure is our aim and what we are achieving in large areas. Imposing such an arbitrary device on spending, which must result in a splurge of spending towards the back end of the year, cannot be right.

[David Linden]

The hon. Gentleman, as ever, is being incredibly kind in giving way. I declare an interest, having taken part in a national delegation to Tanzania a couple of months after I was elected.

I disagree entirely with the hon. Gentleman. As a Scottish nationalist, it is not often that I am inspired by seeing the British flag and seeing UK aid, but I remember going to visit a school in a rural part of Tanzania and seeing a child read a book about understanding the dangers of malaria, which was funded by UK aid. What the hon. Gentleman is suggesting would mean fewer books for children like that little boy in Tanzania, so I disagree entirely with him.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

We all know about the wonderful work being done on malaria, and we all know about the work of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. It is terribly important that we do not have people on one side of this debate arguing that overseas aid is wrong, corrupt and does not work and people on the other side saying, “We believe in it so much, and we are so worried there is some threat to it, that we need an arbitrary device to ensure that the budget increases, sometimes massively, every year.” Equally, if there were a recession, the budget might go down. It simply does not work. Anyway, I have made that point.

My last point is about social security. What worries me about my own Conservative Government is that an ever-increasing share of public spending is taken up by the NHS, social security and overseas aid, which is producing massive distortions and difficulties in other areas of spending that are absolutely vital—we have talked about defence, the police and the criminal justice system, and there are many others. The system is becoming skewed.

As a loyal Conservative and as someone who believes in Conservative values, if the Government are going down this path of giving an ever-larger part of the national cake to those three areas—the NHS, social security and overseas aid—I have to ask how they will pay for it. It is no longer possible to borrow, so they will have to pay for it with higher taxation. If it is indeed true that we will have this massive increase in real-terms NHS spending, we will need an increase in taxation, which would be lethal to the Conservative movement.

People vote Conservative because they want low taxes, and this is why I will be going off in a moment to vote Conservative in Westminster. People are voting for strong defence, strong law and order, low taxes and a pro-business environment. If we continue to increase spending on the NHS, social security and overseas aid, we will simply pave the way for a Corbyn Government. That is what I do not want to do, at all costs. Let us be true to ourselves, let us take the difficult decisions and let us be Conservative.

Oral Answers to Questions

David Linden Excerpts

Tuesday 17th April 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

A sentence without subordinate clauses from Mr David Linden?

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

How many apprentices in the UK are being paid just £3.70 an hour?

[Mr Speaker]

Very well done. Unfortunately, it was so well done that the Chancellor did not hear it. Blurt it out again, man!

[David Linden]

How many apprentices in the UK are being paid just £3.70 an hour?

[Mr Philip Hammond]

I will write to the hon. Gentleman, Mr Speaker. I do not have the number immediately to hand.