Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between David Linden and Alison Thewliss

Tuesday 24th January 2023 Commons Chamber

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)]

9. What recent assessment he has made of the potential impact of the UK’s departure from the EU on recruitment in the health and social care sector.

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

15. What recent assessment he has made of the potential impact of the UK’s departure from the EU on recruitment in the health and social care sector.

Energy Prices Bill

Debate between David Linden and Alison Thewliss

Committee stage
Monday 17th October 2022 Commons Chamber

[David Linden]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to put that on the record, and ng homes in his constituency, for example, will be glad that he has.

For my constituents living in Tollcross Road, Westmuir Street or Shettleston Road, living in those historic and iconic buildings comes at a cost, especially in the winter when energy consumption is higher. We all surely agree that installing solar panels and electric car charging points in homes is a good way to combat the climate and nature emergency and to make energy consumption cheaper and more sustainable. For those in tenement properties, however, that is near-impossible, which is why my new clause 1 seeks some form of additional support for these unique properties. We all agree that retrofitting properties can be helpful for energy efficiency, but in reality we will have to incentivise owners and housing associations to do that for tenements.

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)]

My hon. Friend is making a good case. He may be aware of the project in Niddrie Road, Govanhill, where a tenement block is being retrofitted to the Passivhaus standard with Southside Housing Association. Does he agree, however, that rolling that out across the tenement stock in the city of Glasgow alone would be hugely expensive and quite disruptive for tenants, so the cost needs to be borne in mind?

[David Linden]

Yes. For those of us with a strong interest in housing policy, Govanhill is a fascinating place to look because of the innovative stuff that has happened there as a result of the SNP Scottish Government. The Passivhaus standard is incredibly expensive; I know that Shettleston Housing Association in my constituency is still paying for the development at the top of Wellshot Road. It is important, but it comes at a cost, which is all the more reason for the Government to come forward with support.

One way to do that is to zero-rate VAT on refurbishment and retrofitting, which would cut 20% from the cost straightaway and act as a fiscal stimulus for a construction sector that will clearly be affected by any impending recession. The current energy crisis gives us the ability to provide short-term support by way of a price intervention, but longer-term support with the zero-rating of VAT for retrofitting tenements.

I know that the Minister and his party are big fans of cutting taxes—perhaps not today, but certainly normally more than I am—but I hope that we can agree that approving our new clause 1 would merely require the Government to conduct an impact assessment, which is surely not objectionable to those on the Treasury Bench. Those of us familiar with Glasgow politics know that the late Sir Teddy Taylor was the epitome of what was known as a “tenement Tory”. I can guarantee that top tenement Tory status will be conferred on the Minister if he works with us tonight and accepts the new clause without a Division. In the meantime, I am grateful to the Chairman of Ways and Means for selecting the new clause for consideration, and I look forward to the response of the Minister—indeed, the top tenement Tory—when he winds up the debate.

Nationality and Borders Bill

Debate between David Linden and Alison Thewliss

Report stage & 3rd reading
Wednesday 8th December 2021 Commons Chamber

[Alison Thewliss]

Indeed; they may take a long time, and may not have the language, to disclose that very traumatic experience. Those who were held in this quasi-detention system were not necessarily even provided with notice of their substantive interview. It was sprung on them, in many cases with very little notice. Let us imagine someone being woken up in the morning by somebody saying, “Today’s the big day—your substantive interview. Spill your guts”, and their not having the capacity to explain what happened to them, having not processed the trauma that they have been through, yet if they do not do so there and then, their case may fall apart completely. That is a brutal system, but not only do the Government have that system just now, they want to roll it out yet further.

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

I am grateful to my constituency neighbour for giving way. She is absolutely right, as is my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens), to place on record the fact that many women, for example, who have experienced sexual violence, will not feel comfortable declaring that in the first interview. Does she agree—we see this in our cases in Glasgow—that one of the common concerns that we get from constituents is that quite often when they go to these interviews, the person interviewing them does not have any qualifications or knowledge on these matters, and that therefore these constituents of ours, who she is right to say are incredibly vulnerable, pick up very quickly that even if they try to explain the situation to somebody, that person will not actually understand?

[Alison Thewliss]

Yes. I am sure that like me my hon. Friend has read through the transcripts of people’s substantive interviews, including some of the ludicrous questions that people have been asked by Home Office officials. There is just a lack of understanding of the trauma that people have been through. There is no way by which people are understood; rather, the Home Office is trying to catch people out at every turn. It is a game that people are not equipped to participate in.

The Government are failing victims of trafficking, both male and female. As difficult as it is for many women to explain how they have been trafficked, men who have been trafficked for sexual purposes will also find that very difficult to explain, particularly those who have been housed in mass accommodation such as Napier barracks; they will find it difficult to live among other men and to deal with that trauma there as well.

There was no privacy in Napier, Penally and the other facilities. Those men were asked to give their substantive interview and to speak to their lawyers without any privacy whatever, in common spaces such as kitchens. To explain their cases in earshot of other people, without having the privacy and the dignity that they should have, retraumatises people all over again. The Government should be ashamed of treating people this way. It is inhumane.

I want briefly to mention the work of the Trafficking Awareness Raising Alliance, based in my constituency in Glasgow, which does amazing work to support women who have been trafficked. In my experience, the Home Office is not doing its bit. A woman came to speak to me at a surgery in 2017. She had limited English and had clearly been through traumatic experiences. She had first been encountered by the police in 2014, three years prior to coming to me, but did not receive her substantive interview until 2017, and my office was still working on her case two years after that. How is somebody supposed to get on with their lives, heal, move on and make a new life for themselves away from trauma, when they are reminded of that trauma every day when they wake up in the morning—if they manage to wake up in the morning, because many also suffer lack of sleep and other symptoms of trauma?

The Home Office is not doing its bit. Although people should not be rushed into making disclosures, once they have done so and the case is under way, the Home Office should ensure that it is not delayed by petty bureaucracy. A lot of the bureaucracy in the case that I mentioned was as simple as getting the woman’s name and date of birth right, but we were going back and forth for months. The Home Office comes to lecture all of us on the asylum system being broken in this country, and I agree that it is certainly broken, but what the Government are proposing is certainly not the way to fix it.

Finance (No. 2) Bill

Debate between David Linden and Alison Thewliss

2nd reading
Tuesday 16th November 2021 Commons Chamber

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to speak on Second Reading of the second Finance Bill of the year. I welcome the Financial Secretary to the Treasury to her place, although I feel obliged to express my sadness that I will not spend the next few weeks in the company of the right hon. Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman), who has just left the Chamber. I am sure that he will not miss my constant references to Scottish limited partnerships, but I put the new Minister on notice that I expect her to be the one to fix that issue once and for all.

We on the Scottish National party Benches will of course propose worthy amendments—that will get voted down and ignored—in trying to make the very best of this flawed Finance Bill process, as the UK’s horribly complex tax system obtains yet another layer. I call again for the Finance Bill Committee to be allowed to take evidence. It remains baffling to me that although all the other legislative Committees in this place take expert evidence, the one that will directly affect the lives of everyone and every business in the country does not. That must change.

If the Finance Bill Committee took evidence, perhaps the UK Government would make fewer mistakes. Parts of the Bill correct oversights and errors, such as clause 83 and schedule 11 concerning the plastic packaging tax, about which I raised concerns in the passage of the previous Finance Bill. That measure is due to come into force in April next year, but the explanatory notes state that the changes in this Bill are

“to ensure that the tax…meets”

previously “announced policy objectives” and “works as intended”—well, I hae ma doots. I note that there are also measures to deal finally with the issue of second-hand cars in Northern Ireland—another bit of Brexit red tape that was not written on the side of the bus.

There is no doubt that we are facing a cost-of-living crisis and this Finance Bill provided the biggest possible opportunity for the Government to improve the lives of people across the UK. Instead, however, we see in schedule 6 that the Chancellor has seized the opportunity not to redistribute wealth, but to cut taxes for his banker pals, paid for by slashing universal credit, increasing national insurance and scrapping the pensions triple lock.

Ministers are keen to try to claim that the minimum wage is, in some way, a living wage, but it is not. This week is Living Wage Week and the real living wage rate has risen from £9.50 to £9.90 and to £11.05 in the city of London from today, so the UK Government proposals do not even keep pace with the real living wage, based on the cost of living.

I am proud that I have lots of real living wage employers in my constituency, because they see the benefit to their employees of paying a fair wage—they retain staff better and those staff are happier in their work—and they are right across a full range of sectors. There are 2,400 living wage employers in Scotland, including, in my constituency, Bike for Good, Pure Spa, Thenue housing association and a club that has obtained legendary status in the past couple of weeks: Firewater, on Sauchiehall Street. All of them pay their staff a fair wage and do their bit. I encourage the Government to become a living wage employer with the real living wage, because it would help so many people if they took a lead on that, as the Scottish Government and local authorities in Scotland have done.

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend’s work on campaigning for a fair wage for all, regardless of age. Will she join me on calling on the Government to extend that pay equality to apprentices? We have seen that with such things as the business pledge in Scotland, but unfortunately, this Government continue to think that apprentices can be paid less than £4 an hour, which is absolutely shocking.

[Alison Thewliss]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to point that out. I do not know how the Government think that apprentices are supposed to live and pay their bills on the meagre wages set as their minimum wage. In fact, through the years of this Tory Government and since Labour brought in the minimum wage, the rate between the lowest-paid—those youngest workers entitled to the minimum wage—and those at the highest end of that age distribution has increased. That gap is growing wider and wider every single year, and it is a scandal, frankly, that people are being discriminated against solely on the basis of age. The Government should put that right.

It is a grim time for many people in this country and things are not optimistic for many businesses either. As the Minister mentioned, the March Budget gave notice on increasing corporation tax and extended the annual investment allowance until the end of March 2023. These measures, however, come in the context of a national insurance hike—a tax on jobs—that the Federation of Small Businesses estimates might have a 7% marginal rate for some. This should have been scrapped and the employment allowance increased, if the Chancellor was serious about helping business owners and employees.

Hospitality and tourism firms, having been hit the hardest during the pandemic, will not retain their 12.5% VAT rate beyond March. Many did not benefit at all from the reduced rate during the pandemic, because they were not able to trade, and to hike VAT back up to 20% just as the tourist season begins next year seems absolutely daft. The UK Government seem to be playing catch-up with Scotland. The Chancellor’s plan to cut hospitality and business rates next year is less than what they are offering now and far below the 100% relief that the Scottish Government are already offering to those businesses this financial year. That is in addition to the hugely successful small business bonus scheme, which takes many businesses out of business rates altogether.

The tax reliefs in clauses 16 to 22 for businesses in the culture and arts sector that have struggled so much in the past year are welcome, but keeping the VAT reduction could provide an incentive to get people back through the doors of our galleries, theatres, music venues and funfairs.

My SNP colleagues and I have long argued in this House that more should be done to tackle economic crime and I was interested to see some measures in the Finance Bill that deal with this area of policy. Part 3 provides a framework for the Government to issue a new tax to tackle economic crime. This UK Tory Government have failed time and again to tackle tax avoidance and economic crimes—that is not a matter entirely of inadequate legislation or resources, but of woefully poor enforcement.

Under the plans set out in the Bill, all undertakings that fall under money-laundering regulations and have a revenue of over £10.2 million will be subject to the new economic crime levy. Although I support the broad principles, I have some concerns about how this will work in practice, because placing more of a burden on businesses might not exactly have the desired effect. The Law Society of England and Wales has stated its opposition to the levy, stating that it is “an additional tax” on anti-money laundering regulators and against the “polluter pays” principle. The Association of British Insurers has concerns that insurance firms, a very low risk area for money laundering, may be disproportionately hit by the measure, which could result in reducing access to insurance for vulnerable consumers. This is another area where more evidence needs to be taken to be sure that the intended effect of the Government’s measures is actually what transpires.

The Treasury Committee, which I am proud to sit on, has taken a lot of evidence in our inquiry on financial crime and it would be wise of the Government to take heed of that before progressing further with this measure. It would also be useful to know the Government’s full timetable and resourcing plan for Companies House reform. By tightening up company registration, giving Companies House AML responsibilities—as they should have—increasing the comically low fee for company registration and actually enforcing their own laws, the Government could bring in much more money and lose less of it through the complex schemes that Companies House currently facilitates.

When I asked the small business Minister—the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Scully)—in a written parliamentary question recently how much money has been raised by fines on Scottish limited partnerships that have not registered a person of significant control in the past three years, I received a response that stated that one fine had been levied in 2020-21. One fine—is that it? The last time I asked, in March last year, 948 SLPs had not filed PSC information by 31 January 2020. That figure was 2,019 in January 2019 and 7,078 in January 2018. Ministers may claim that this looks like an improving picture, but what is more likely to be happening is that people are moving those business around to similar structures in Ireland or into other vehicles such as trusts. To be clear, Companies House rules state:

“Anyone who does not respond to…notices within one calendar month, or gives false information, commits a criminal offence. They could receive a 2 year prison sentence, a fine or both.”

As far as I can establish, none of the firms that fell foul of the law was fined, apart from one, and no one got the jail. I ask again: how much money are the UK Government forgoing by not enforcing their own rules? What is the damage to our reputation, and to Scotland’s reputation, from being associated with money laundering and criminality that this UK Tory Government are failing to prevent?

The SNP is calling for a root-and-branch review of the tax system, which is much too complex and has too many places to hide and move things around. The UK Government have not confirmed whether any of the money raised by their proposed tax will be used to tackle tax avoidance. I would welcome some clarity on that point today.

Part 5 contains provisions to tackle tax avoidance, which is an issue that I have raised again and again, so I am pleased to see that some limited steps are being taken. The Bill will give HMRC powers to publish information on individuals who promote tax avoidance schemes. We support that approach in principle, but I note the concerns that the Chartered Institute of Taxation has raised about the drafting. HMRC says that it is targeting “the most egregious promoters” who flout the rules, but CIOT is concerned that the definitions of “promoter”, “relevant proposal”, “relevant arrangements” and “connected person” set a low bar.

The Bill’s wording also extends considerable latitude to HMRC officers: an authorised officer need only “suspect” that a scheme falls within the definition for people to be publicly named and shamed. I have constituents who have been named and shamed under minimum wage regulations and who have found it very difficult to challenge that and recover their reputation.

CIOT is also concerned that in future HMRC could use the measure more widely than is being proposed. I appreciate that the Bill makes provision for HMRC to retract and amend published information that has been shown to be incorrect, but it would be much better if we could have some assurances that it will get it right the first time, and some assurances about how the scheme will be resourced.

Lastly, I want to speak about an issue that has been literally close to home in the past few weeks. The eyes of the world have been on my constituency in Glasgow Central as it hosted the COP26 summit on climate change. The summit was an opportunity for the Government to show global leadership and grasp the opportunities that a green economy can provide, but the reality is that the only thing green about the Bill is the paper it is printed on. The Government’s ambivalence towards a just transition is writ right through it.

We need a comprehensive plan that understands the impact of our taxation choices on our emissions—a green OBR, perhaps, to hold this Government to account. The Government have given the Financial Conduct Authority and the Bank of England responsibilities in that area, but are taking none themselves in the Bill. Nowhere is that clearer than in the cut to domestic air passenger duty, which the Red Book says will lose the Government £30 million to £35 million a year in revenue. People do not have many options when they fly long-haul—despite what the Proclaimers say, few people would walk 500 miles and walk 500 more—but within these islands they do have the choice between getting on a plane and getting on a train. It is already much, much cheaper to fly in many circumstances. Cutting APD while allowing train fares to rise again and again is absolutely no way to incentivise people to take more climate-friendly options.

The Bill makes provision for global shipping companies to receive tax breaks for flying the red ensign. Tonnage tax is a complicated scheme that allows companies to disregard profits for tax purposes, creating a very low-tax environment. Would it not have been better to link tax breaks to emissions rather than to waving the British flag, to incentivise the green technologies required to transform shipping, and to take a lead on the issue?

Scotland is delivering action to secure a net zero and climate-resilient future in a way that is fair and just for everyone. We are committed to a just transition to net zero by 2045, with an ambitious interim target of a 75% reduction by 2030. The Bill’s purpose allegedly covers delivery on the commitments made in the 2020 White Paper on energy and the Prime Minister’s 10-point plan, contributing to the Government meeting their legally binding obligations to achieve net zero carbon emissions by 2050, but in reality there is very little in it to help Scotland to achieve our climate change goals. Indeed, in many ways it holds us back.

There is no reversal of the decision to scrap investment in a carbon capture and storage facility in the north-east of Scotland; it looks as if that investment will instead go to Tory marginals in the red wall. That is the worst type of pork barrel politics. The Acorn project at St Fergus would have been a world-leading example of a just transition project, but once again the people of Scotland have been let down by the Tories at Westminster. Neither is there any commitment to help to develop emerging wave technologies, which might well move abroad without the correct support, and there are no measures in the Bill to reform the transmission charging scheme, which costs wind farms in Scotland to plug into the grid while it pays companies in the south-east of England to connect. When I asked the Chancellor about that recently, I got blank looks and blah blah blah in return.

The Bill makes clear once again the UK Government’s lack of interest in Scotland’s commitment to tackling climate change. Schedule 14 makes provision to change VAT rates for freeports; it is disappointing to see no commitment to the fair work conditions and net zero ambitions put forward by the Scottish Government for a green port scheme. Scottish Ministers have engaged in good faith to try to improve a UK Government policy while further progressing our climate change goals: the Scottish Government wanted to take the freeport policy and augment it to work in the best interests of workers and the environment. Who could argue with that, other than Government Members? The Scottish Government have been ignored and sidelined by this UK Government. It is just not good enough.

This UK Tory Government cannot be trusted to act in the interests of Scotland. I look forward to the day when there is a Government who can and will act in those interests, using the levers of taxation powers to benefit our people, make our businesses grow and protect our environment for the future. Only independence can give Scotland that Government.

Universal Credit and Working Tax Credits

Debate between David Linden and Alison Thewliss

Wednesday 15th September 2021 Commons Chamber

[David Linden]

My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the difference between what the Conservatives say in the Scottish Parliament and what they do—that is, in Westminster, probably not vote for this motion tonight. Of course, there is a wider question: what is the purpose of devolution? Is it meant to be a sticking plaster for bad social security policy coming out of Westminster? The Scottish Government can introduce measures such as the game-changing Scottish child payment, and can go further and double that, but if the Government vote for this cut tonight, it will mean that the Scottish child payment is essentially nullified, and that will be in the hands of Scottish Conservative MPs.

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent point about the families who will be affected by this cut. I believe that my constituency holds the record, with 63% of working age families with children who will be affected. Does my hon. Friend agree that, no matter how hard charities, Glasgow SE Foodbank, the local authority and the Scottish Government try to help mitigate that, the cuts from the Tories are so deep that families in my constituency will go hungry this winter, and the Tories will not lift a finger to do anything about it?

[David Linden]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I pay tribute to the work that she has done in trying to lobby the Chancellor, who appears to have decided that he will deploy the politics of Margaret Thatcher and pit people against each other. Unfortunately, it is my hon. Friend’s constituents who will feel the wrath of that.

The British Government need to face the reality of what the cut will mean for people across these islands. Slashing universal credit will impose the largest overnight cut in the basic rate of social security since the modern welfare state began. It will mean millions of families being plunged into poverty, facing real financial hardship as we go into the cold, harsh winter months. So when the Division bell rings tonight, my party will vote Aye to this motion, and we will continue to push for these cuts to be cancelled. However, it is increasingly clear that independence is the only way to keep Scotland safe from the cruel Tory cuts that only seek to deepen inequalities and poverty in our communities.

Independence will guarantee Scotland the full powers needed to build a strong, fair, and equal economy, while eradicating poverty and supporting the most vulnerable people in our communities. So yes, we will vote for the motion on the Order Paper tonight, but I suspect that the only vote that will truly end the ongoing Tory assault on social security is a vote for Scottish independence in the upcoming referendum, and, frankly, it cannot come fast enough.

Healthcare Support Services: Conception to Age Two

Debate between David Linden and Alison Thewliss

Tuesday 15th December 2020 Westminster Hall

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

It is, as always, a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. As others have done, I want to start by congratulating the right hon. Member for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom) on securing today’s debate. The right hon. Lady—I would say she is a friend—has been an absolutely tenacious campaigner on this issue. I remember badgering her with questions on a Thursday morning when she was Leader of the House; she would always, even in Government, still find ways of getting this issue to the Dispatch Box. I think it is fair to say that the Government’s loss is this policy area’s gain. The issue is a massive passion of the right hon. Lady’s, so it is right that she leads the debate today.

In summing up for the Scottish National party today, I want to acknowledge the five contributions from Back-Bench Members. We have had very thoughtful speeches from my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) and the hon. Members for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton), for Strangford (Jim Shannon), for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) and for Truro and Falmouth (Cherilyn Mackrory). People who have a genuine interest in a policy will come to debate in Westminster Hall; I certainly felt this morning that Members were speaking about something they knew about, rather than something from a parliamentary research unit or parliamentary Labour party handout.

Before I outline what the Scottish Government’s policy landscape looks like in terms of the first 1,000 days, I want to reflect on the Royal Foundation’s study conducted last month in partnership with Ipsos MORI on early years in the UK. The results were fascinating: only 10% of parents mentioned taking the time to look after their own wellbeing when asked how they had prepared for the arrival of their baby. Ninety per cent. of people see parental mental health and wellbeing as critical to a child’s development. Parental loneliness has dramatically increased during the pandemic, from 38% feeling lonely before to 63%, and more than a third of all parents expect the covid-19 pandemic to have a negative impact on their long-term mental wellbeing. That focuses some of the immediate challenges, but what are the solutions?

For a start, Members will forgive me if I reference largely what happens in Scotland. This is very much a devolved area, but as a result of third-party obligations I want to offer some thoughts from that perspective. North of the border, the Scottish Government are investing £50 million, overseen and directed by the perinatal and infant mental health programme board, to improve perinatal and infant mental health services in Scotland across all levels of need—from specialist services, through to befriending and peer support. In addition, the Scottish Government have established the infant mental health implementation and advisory group. It provides clinical advice and support to inform the development of mental healthcare from conception to three years of age, and oversees the testing and implementation of evidence-based and innovative models for the delivery of those infant mental health services.

I want to look slightly wider at the policy initiatives currently in place and how those tie in with the topic we have been focusing on this morning. North of the border, the Scottish Government recognise that life chances and future attainment start at birth and we are certainly using our devolved powers to deliver a comprehensive package of support to ensure the best start for every child in Scotland. The Scottish Government provide a generous package of support for families to help them through this challenging time, including the three Best Start grant payments for people on low incomes, all providing a higher level of support or eligibility than the Department for Work and Pensions benefits that they replace. We have replaced the British Government’s Sure Start maternity grant with the Best Start grant and pregnancy and baby payment. That payment is higher than the UK Government payment and does not put a limit on the number of children supported: we believe that every child should be treated equally.

We have introduced baby boxes, which provide essentials to new parents in Scotland, of which more than 47,000 were delivered in 2019. Indeed, 93% of parents are taking up a baby box at the moment and there is nearly a 100% parent satisfaction rate. I declare an interest and speak from experience, as a result of receiving one in 2018 when my daughter Jessica was born. We are also delivering both nursery and school-age payments for our Best Start plan, together with the pregnancy and baby payment. We made £21 million of awards in 2019-20. Best Start Foods also provides a £17 payment for healthy food every four weeks during pregnancy and for any children between one and three years old, and £34 for babies up to the age of one.

[Alison Thewliss]

My hon. Friend makes a good point about the Best Start Foods grant. The level of the equivalent payment in England is woeful and, although it will go up in April, there are families just now who cannot afford essentials like infant formula. Does he agree that the Government should put up the payment now to see families through the winter?

[David Linden]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. I can remember—in a previous life, before I was elected to this place, when I worked for her—helping on the all-party parliamentary group on infant feeding and inequalities. I pay tribute to the work that she has done on that. The point she has made to the Government today is very much based on what the APPG has heard, so I would be more than happy to take that comment on to the Minister.

The Scottish child payment is also—and I quote—a “game changer” in the fight against child poverty that is available nowhere else in the UK. It could support up to 194,000 children this year. Together with the Best Start grant and Best Start Foods, this will provide over £5,200 in financial support for eligible families by the time their child turns six; for the second and subsequent children, it will provide over £4,900. To further support that early years provision, the Scottish Government will continue to review and transform maternity and neonatal services over five years through the Best Start programme. Through that, we will deliver person-centred care that reduces inequalities, keeps mother and baby together, provides choices and improves experience of care and clinical outcomes for the 50,000 pregnant women and their babies who use the services every year.

In the brief time I have spoken this morning, I have taken a quick canter through some of the support being provided in Scotland. I hope it has been helpful in adding to the wealth of information and policy initiatives that we have considered. I very much look forward to supporting the right hon. Member for South Northamptonshire as she seeks to raise the early years agenda in this place. She will have all of our support.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between David Linden and Alison Thewliss

Wednesday 3rd June 2020 Commons Chamber

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

5. What assessment he has made of the effectiveness of intergovernmental relations between the Government and (a) the Welsh Government and (b) other devolved Administrations in responding to the covid-19 outbreak.

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)]

13. What assessment he has made of the effectiveness of intergovernmental relations between the Government and (a) the Welsh Government and (b) other devolved Administrations in responding to the covid-19 outbreak.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (David T. C. Davies)]

We have worked hand in hand with the devolved Administrations since the start of the outbreak, including through the Cobra ministerial committees and the ministerial implementation groups. We have noted 112 engagements in total since 23 March and the number continues to rise.

Grenfell Tower Inquiry: Phase 1 Report

Debate between David Linden and Alison Thewliss

Tuesday 21st January 2020 Commons Chamber

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

There were many things on which I profoundly disagreed with the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) when she was Prime Minister, but I pay tribute to her for staying in this new Parliament not only to serve her constituents but to see through some of the issues with which she grappled as Prime Minister. For that I have an enormous amount of respect for her, despite our political differences.

I wish to start, have others have done, by paying tribute to the dignity and conduct of the survivors and the families who are bereaved as a result of the tragic event at Grenfell Tower on 14 June 2017. I have no doubt that giving evidence to the inquiry will have been difficult for all involved, but it is important that we leave no stone unturned in order to get justice for the parents, children and siblings whose family members perished on that fateful evening at Grenfell. A separate criminal investigation by the Metropolitan police is ongoing, and I do not intend to say anything that would prejudge its outcome.

It is important that we learn from this horrific event and make sure that something similar is never allowed to happen. Families need reassurance. Time and again the report reminds us of the events surrounding the Lakanal House fire in 2009. Let us not forget the six poor souls who died as a result of that fire. Sadly, there are some striking similarities between Lakanal House and Grenfell Tower that make this all the more upsetting. There is absolutely a legitimate debate to be had about the cuts to fire budgets, which the current Prime Minister cannot necessarily absolve himself from, but it is also clear that lessons were not learned from Lakanal House. For example, chapter 8 of the Grenfell inquiry concludes that similar shortcomings were displayed by the LFB control room when responding to callers from Grenfell Tower in 2017 as in 2009 at Lakanal House. Likewise, again we hear of an authority not adhering to building safety regulations. Indeed, as the right hon. Member for Maidenhead said, in chapter 26 Sir Martin says that there was compelling evidence that the external walls of the building at Grenfell failed to comply with requirement B4(1) in schedule 1 to the building regulations. That is negligence, pure and simple.

Planning and preparation are covered in chapter 27 of the report, which makes reference to the fact that national guidance requires fire services to draw up contingency evacuation plans for dealing with fires in high rise blocks that spread beyond the compartment of origin, thereby causing a “stay put” strategy to become untenable. It is a damning indictment when the report concludes that the LFB’s preparation and planning for a fire such as that at Grenfell Tower was “gravely inadequate”. Indeed, the report goes on to say that

“otherwise experienced incident commanders and senior officers attending the fire had received no training in the particular dangers associated with combustible cladding, even though some senior officers were aware of similar fires that had occurred in other countries”.

Chapter 28 of the report rightly acknowledges the extraordinary courage and selfless devotion of the firefighters on the scene, but there were clearly serious shortcomings at command and control level. For example, in the chronology of events around 2 am—I found it incredibly difficult to read that bit—we learn of two LFB officers who, without communicating, had simultaneously assumed command and control of the situation. Likewise, at varying points throughout the night, the utter chaos and disjointed nature of the response is laid bare. The Metropolitan Police Service declared a major incident at 1.26 am without telling the London Fire Brigade or the London ambulance service. The London Fire Brigade then declared a major incident at 2.06 am without telling the Metropolitan police or the London ambulance service. Finally, the London ambulance service declared a major incident at 2.26 am without telling the London Fire Brigade or the Metropolitan police. Sir Martin is absolutely right to conclude that all of this was a serious failure to comply with the joint working arrangements and protocols designed for major emergencies in London. It is right, therefore, that further scrutiny will now continue.

As the emergency services pointed out last year, it is regrettable that the first findings of fault seemed to be with the brave emergency services who ran towards the fire that night rather than focusing on the makers of unsafe cladding, but we, as Members of this House, can only deal with the inquiry—an independent inquiry—as it has been structured. So the SNP certainly welcomes the publication of the first stage of this report.

However, the damning verdict of survivors and bereaved is that this Government are simply going through the motions regarding their response. Let us not forget that people are still living in dangerous homes. The public inquiry has been beset by delays, and promises to give council tenants a bigger voice have not yet been delivered. As the shadow Secretary of State said, thousands of high rise residents are still living in towers wrapped in banned Grenfell-style cladding, with figures this month showing that 315 high rise residential and publicly owned buildings are unlikely to meet building regulations because they are clad in combustible aluminium composite panels. People’s health also continues to suffer as a result of the stress of living in unsafe buildings, with residents saying that they have turned to alcohol and drugs. The Government themselves have admitted this, with the Housing Secretary on record as saying:

“I feel as if we need to do a lot more and a lot faster to make sure that people are safe. If, God forbid, there was another incident anything like the Grenfell tragedy tomorrow, how would you explain how that could have happened two and a half years later?”

I absolutely agree with him on that. So, as we move on to phase 2 of the inquiry, let us truly listen to the bereaved and the survivors from Grenfell tower.

I want to touch on the situation in Scotland, which, although devolved, is still of interest to constituents watching at home north of the border. In my own constituency of Glasgow East, I have 10 high-rise blocks in Sandyhills, Parkhead and Cranhill, and the safety of my constituents is absolutely paramount. Last October, the Scottish Government introduced new regulations that will make Scotland’s high rise buildings even safer. I warmly welcome that, and it goes some way towards reassuring those who live in the high rise blocks that I mentioned.

I say to the Secretary of State that I am not the only Scottish MP who is aware of a degree of consternation among constituents relating to advice note 14. I understand that homeowners have been left with flats deemed to have zero value, due to the way in which advice note 14 was written and rolled out. That has left surveyors with no idea as to what is required for a building to be deemed safe or how to value a property properly. The knock-on effect is huge, particularly when it comes to selling properties. I would be grateful if the Secretary of State or one of his Ministers was willing to meet me and a number of colleagues from Scotland to discuss the technical aspects of advice note 14, which I appreciate might be a bit complex to discuss on the Floor of the House.

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)]

My hon. Friend will know that a number of my constituents have been in touch to say that they cannot sell their properties. A couple told me that their house sale had fallen through because the implications of advice note 14 meant that the other party was not able to get a mortgage. Does he agree that a lot more needs to be done to reassure the industry, as well as the people who are stuck in those houses unable to move and those who would like to move in but are unable to get mortgages?

[David Linden]

Absolutely, and I pay tribute to my hon. Friend, who was my predecessor in this role. When she covered the statement by the Secretary of State yesterday, that point was made. He has indicated that there will be meetings next month, with a view to reviewing this issue. I urge him and his Ministers, if a review is ongoing, to please take into account the representations that our constituents are making to us.

Public Services

Debate between David Linden and Alison Thewliss

Wednesday 16th October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Alison Thewliss]

My hon. Friend is absolutely correct. I hear Ministers chuntering—perhaps they do not have the same experience in their constituency surgeries as me and my hon. Friend. Perhaps they are among the MPs who decide to shop their constituents to the Home Office, rather than help them out. I agree with my hon. Friend, who has done a great amount of work for the all-party parliamentary group for Africa. This issue does damage our credibility.

Often, such cases are resolved only when they are raised with the media. I challenge the Home Office on this. I have had a number of pretty much identical cases, but the ones that have been resolved a full six months ahead of the others are the ones I have got in the press—on Channel 4, in The Guardian and in other places. I therefore question the impartiality and fairness of the Home Office.

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

Like me, my hon. Friend will see people at her surgery regularly who are looking for a family member to come here who has been numerous times before, but they are knocked back. Is not the fallacy of the UK Government’s proposal on ending free movement that, inevitably in a free trade agreement, they will start dishing out lots of visas anyway, and we will end up with more people at our surgeries when the incompetent Home Office fails to administrate those visas, creating more work for us as MPs?

[Alison Thewliss]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend.

There is also great unfairness with spousal and family visas, due to the minimum income threshold. I am aware of constituents who have had to take on several jobs to meet the threshold—they are absolutely exhausted. The daft thing is that, if their spouse was able to come over, they would more than meet the threshold. The threshold is stopping that person coming over and contributing to our country.

Regional Transport Infrastructure

Debate between David Linden and Alison Thewliss

Tuesday 5th March 2019 Westminster Hall

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

It is an immense pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Ryan, and I warmly congratulate the hon. Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis) on securing the debate. As we can tell by the time limit on speeches, there is clearly an appetite for further debate on this issue, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman and other Members will pursue it via the auspices of the Backbench Business Committee. We have heard a number of excellent speeches, but because of the time, and since I have already relinquished some of my speech, I will not sum them up.

Given that at least three Scottish Members have contributed today, it would be remiss of me not to refer to the investment that the Scottish Government have been making, as they have steadfastly invested in transport infrastructure in Scotland. Indeed, as the hon. Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Hugh Gaffney) will know, since 2007 the SNP has invested £20 billion in transport infrastructure and services, including the largest road investment programme Scotland has ever seen. I am more than happy to have a conversation about where that additional money for transport will come from, and it is regrettable that the Scottish Labour party did not engage in the budget process that we in Scotland have just been through. Perhaps it will next year.

Let me focus on some of the projects that we have invested in. There is the Queensferry crossing over the Forth estuary and the dualling of the A9 all the way from Perth to Inverness—I am sorry that the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) is not in his place to hear that. We are about to dual the A96 from Inverness to Aberdeen, completing the Aberdeen western peripheral route. There is the Borders Railway—Scottish Conservative Members are normally desperate to talk about the SNP Government, but I note that the hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont) is not here to talk about that wonderful investment by the SNP Government. There is the electrification of the rail link along the central belt, and an extension to the national concessionary travel scheme. I was speaking to my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East (Tommy Sheppard). He turns 60 tomorrow and is very excited to receive his new bus pass, which he will be using. We wish him well with that.

I wish also to reflect on investment in my constituency over the years. The M74 motorway extension was spoken about for many years in Scotland, and it was delivered eight months ahead of schedule and millions of pounds under budget. The extension of the Airdrie to Bathgate railway will benefit my constituents who use Carntyne, Shettleston, Garrowhill or Easterhouse stations, because they can now go directly to Edinburgh, which is great news. There was the upgrading of the A8 to a motorway. For those of us who travel to Airdrie—great Airdrie fans that we are—our journey time to go and see the Diamonds is even faster.

In Glasgow, I would like the east end regeneration route to be completed, including from Parkhead Forge to the M8 motorway. I am disappointed that the previous council took that off the city deal plans, but perhaps it will return. On the subject of stalled spaces, alongside my colleague, John Mason, I would like a train station in Parkhead. It has a vibrant retail environment, whether that is the Forge shopping centre, the Forge retail park, the Forge market, or Scotland’s largest football stadium, Celtic Park, with its capacity of 64,000 people. Parkhead needs a train station, and my message to Network Rail is that it should consider the successes of Bridgeton and Dalmarnock. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) has arrived, and she will have seen the benefits of the high footfall there.

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)]

The investment in Dalmarnock railway station has been marked. It went from being the lowest used station on the Strathclyde Partnership for Transport network, to a brand new, state-of-the-art station built for the Commonwealth games. Does my hon. Friend agree that there are still challenges for stations such as Bridgeton, which need lift access so that people can get in and out more easily?

[Joan Ryan (in the Chair)]

Order. This has been a very busy debate with huge pressure on time. I do not think it is acceptable to come in so close to the end of the debate and be given an intervention. It is not fair on other Members.

Finance (No. 3) Bill

Debate between David Linden and Alison Thewliss

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

[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.

 Orkambi and Cystic Fibrosis

Debate between David Linden and Alison Thewliss

Monday 19th March 2018 Westminster Hall

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I start by thanking the 484 constituents in Glasgow East who signed the petition. The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Scully) made an excellent speech and was very courteous in trying to keep his speaking time down to let other Members speak. It is a pleasure to see my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Marion Fellows) back in Parliament and on the Front Bench.

As a new Member of Parliament, the first time that a constituent came to me to raise cystic fibrosis, I am quite ashamed to say that I did not know a lot about it. I was very grateful to Karen Ashe, a constituent from Mount Vernon, who explained to me the difficulties that her daughter, who is just 14 years old, experiences, being admitted to hospital every eight weeks, and the real challenge that that brings. She impressed upon me the importance of why we need Orkambi now.

Even since the debate started, another constituent, Naomi Moore, has tweeted at me—that shows the good thing about us engaging digitally—because I said that I was taking part in the debate. She said:

“With access to amazing drugs like Orkambi/Kalydeco, I’ll be able to use my degree when I graduate. Without it, my future is uncertain and limited.”

She is a girl in Glasgow who is in her fourth year at university, studying geology. That is a very powerful point. The turnout of Members at the beginning of the debate—I must say I am quite disappointed that so many have disappeared—impresses upon us the importance of getting this right.

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)]

My hon. Friend makes the point about young people and their future, which is a big part of the debate. Robert Kennedy and Ashley Wilson from Dalmarnock came to speak to me about their three-year-old daughter, Mirren. She goes for physio twice a day for her cystic fibrosis, but they fear that as she gets older, she may face weeks in hospital at a time. Does he agree that Orkambi ought to be there for them, so that they can access that treatment as their daughter gets older?

[David Linden]

Absolutely; I know that my hon. Friend is a passionate champion of her constituents in Glasgow Central and she is right to put that on the record.

Numerous other constituents have come to me, including Lee Bennie from Garrowhill. Again, she made the case that we need Orkambi now. Over the course of the weekend, I had the privilege of spending some time talking to a friend’s brother, Ross Moore. He is not a constituent of mine, but he has access to Orkambi through the compassionate access scheme. Ross is a remarkable young man who is incredibly articulate. I was quite struck by how frank he is; he has lived with cystic fibrosis for so long and I was very moved by the way in which he could explain why he has access to Orkambi and why he thinks that other people should have access to it.

Ross was moved on to Orkambi only in October last year because his lung function had dropped below 45%. He was quite honest in saying that the first six to 10 weeks were very tough; for some people that can be make or break, but he has got through that. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) has mentioned people’s ability to try to put that effort into physio, and Ross said that it is a very arduous process. He does physio for two to three hours a day. When speaking to him, I was struck that he already has access to Orkambi, and he does not want to pull up the ladder behind him. He said to me before I came into this Chamber, “Go in there and explain the benefit of Orkambi; we need to make sure that people understand that for those who do not have access to it already we have got to have that access, because it is only through that research and that ability to use it that they will have it.”

Social Security

Debate between David Linden and Alison Thewliss

Monday 5th February 2018 Commons Chamber

[Alison Thewliss]

My hon. Friend mentions the rape clause. Conservative Members asked him earlier about MPs who had said things that we would not accept were right, but the hon. Member for Mansfield (Ben Bradley) said that people should have vasectomies rather than children, because vasectomies are free. Does my hon. Friend agree that that sort of attitude—thinking that poor people are having hundreds of children just to scrounge off the state—is completely unacceptable?

[David Linden]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. That takes me quite nicely on to my next point, and the hon. Member for Stirling takes a keen interest in such matters, so I am sure that he will be concerned about this. Government policy is meant to go through a family test, so for the hon. Member for Mansfield (Ben Bradley) to start suggesting that poor people should have vasectomies is deeply worrying and provides a real insight into the mindset of a Tory MP.

Jobcentre Closures

Debate between David Linden and Alison Thewliss

Monday 5th February 2018 Commons Chamber

[Alison Thewliss]

The hon. Gentleman is definitely right. He has previously spoken very movingly about the effect on local economies of having jobcentres as anchor tenants in such areas—in shopping centres and on high streets in local communities—and this is about the impact on the local shops, such as the butchers’ and everything else. There is an impact that the Government are obviously not taking into account.

I want to finish with a plea to the Minister. I know that it will be difficult for my constituents to make that journey. It will be hard for them to get there, find their way and do so on time. Buses are not very regular, and we cannot rely on them turning up precisely when we need them. On Google Maps, the timetable may say x—if people turn up at exactly that time, they can get here and there—but we know that that is just not how it works.

[David Linden]

My hon. Friend reminds me of a particular case of a constituent in Carmyle. She recently told me that, for her to get to Shettleston jobcentre from the village of Carmyle, which is fairly isolated from the rest of my constituency, she will be required to leave three hours early. How difficult would that be if her appointment was at 9 o’clock in the morning?

[Alison Thewliss]

Absolutely. The limitations of public transport make it difficult for people to get where they need to be at a specific time. In the early stages of this change, I want a guarantee from the Minister that not one single one—not one—of my constituents who arrives late, due to the decision of this Government to close their jobcentre, will be sanctioned. I will be keeping a very close eye on this Government and on this Minister to make sure that none of my constituents ends up being sanctioned because of the decisions his Government have made.

Trade Bill

Debate between David Linden and Alison Thewliss

Tuesday 9th January 2018 Commons Chamber

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

I start by commending my home dawg from the east side, my hon. Friend—my honourable gangsta—the Member for Livingston (Hannah Bardell) for an excellent rap. I think it has since made the news back in Scotland.

Speaking on this Bill is not really an area of comfort for me, but there are two reasons why I rise to oppose it and will be in the No Lobby this evening. One reason is an email from a constituent of mine, Gordon Shaw from Burntbroom. Some of these points were made quite well by the hon. Member for City of Durham (Dr Blackman-Woods), particularly on a UK trade policy that is guided by poverty reduction and sustainable development goals, which are sorely lacking in the Bill.

The other reason I rise to speak is that during the summer recess, after I was elected, I spent some time at Soapworks, which is based in Queenslie; McVitie’s, whose biscuits are produced in Tollcross; and Dewar’s, whose whisky is made in London Road in my constituency. A common theme that came through in all those visits was the importance of staying in the single market and the customs union. The speeches by the hon. Members for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray) and for Nottingham East (Mr Leslie) were very good, but I continue to be disappointed by the policy that has been adopted by Labour in relation to the single market and the customs union. I do not think that all those young folk who were chanting the name of the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) in Glastonbury really expected that they were chanting for somebody who seems to be intent on a hard Brexit, albeit a cliff edge that we will be going off slightly later than with the Tories. Even at this late stage, I urge as many Labour Members as possible to come round to the position that they would favour continued membership of the single market and the customs union.

I want to speak about the arrogance of this Government, particularly over the use of Henry VIII powers. Over the course of my time not in this House but as a sort of political geek growing up, I would sit and watch BBC Parliament and see the hon. Members for Stone (Sir William Cash), for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) and for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope) all talk about the sovereignty of Parliament. They have been completely absent from this debate. They are not here to talk about the fact that this Government are taking back a number of powers and, in effect, trying to make law behind Parliament’s back. I think that is deeply irresponsible, and I am a bit disappointed that they are not here tonight.

I also want to talk about the lack of consideration that the Government gave to the consultation that took place. The consultation closed, and within 24 hours this Bill was published. That does not suggest that the Government are taking anybody very seriously. Some 11,500 people wrote into the consultation, and well over 50,000 people submitted a petition. I do not have a huge amount of faith in the British civil service at the best of times, but the idea that it has gone through all those consultation responses and come up with a Bill based on that is frankly laughable.

It is important to make sure that any trade agreements do not come at the expense of standards and rights, because one of the things that this Government do have a pretty cool record on is trade at any expense. We see that particularly with the Government’s very disturbing relationship with Saudi Arabia. Frankly, this Government are complicit in the murder of Yemeni children, because they are quite happy to sell arms to the Saudis, who drop them on the Yemenis. That is deeply unsatisfying.

The hon. Member for City of Durham made some points about fair trade. The Fairtrade Foundation has, rightly, been deeply disappointed by this Bill because it contains no commitment to developing countries.

On workers’ rights, Frances O’Grady, the TUC’s general secretary, described this Bill as “ramshackle” because it offers no protection for workers’ rights or protection for public services such as the NHS from foreign contractors. One of my concerns is the relationship with the United States. Mr Ross, the US Commerce Secretary, told the BBC that a “joint scoping exercise” had taken place in Washington, and the Government have said that they are keen to make sure that a free trade agreement would be one of the top priorities. Mr Ross later said that continued passporting of financial services and compliance with EU food standards on GM crops and chlorine-washed chicken are barriers to that future trade deal. I do not want to see a Government who are pursuing TTIP on steroids.

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)]

My hon. Friend is making some excellent points about food standards within this trade deal. Does he agree that because of the different food standards that we and America have, if we accept a trade deal without scrutiny and without knowing what is in it until after it is signed, we leave our population at huge risk of having products such as infant formula that do not meet the high standards that the EU currently has?

[David Linden]

Absolutely. I very much commend my hon. Friend, who I know has done quite a lot of work on that particular area. One concern about the Bill is that MPs will not have the ability to rubber-stamp any of these trade deals, because that has in effect been taken away from us.

In my one remaining minute, I want to speak about the impact on the devolved Governments. The fact is that schedule 1 to the Bill means that the Scottish Government will not be able to use the powers to modify direct EU legislation, such as EU regulations. The Scottish Government need to be at the negotiating table when the UK Government are negotiating all these wonderful trade deals that we are told are going to happen. My final observation is that we were told throughout the entire referendum campaign that this was about taking back control. In all the suite of Brexit legislation going through the House of Commons, all I can see is that this is a power grab by the Government, and that is directly at odds with the devolved settlement.

High Court Judgment: Benefit Cap

Debate between David Linden and Alison Thewliss

Tuesday 4th July 2017 Westminster Hall

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the High Court judgement on the benefit cap.

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Hanson.

On 22 June 2017, a ruling was made in response to a judicial review of the imposition of the benefit cap brought by four lone-parent families who had three children under the age of two. This was supported by Gingerbread, Shelter and the Child Poverty Action Group, all of whom I thank for their briefings on the matter. The judgment was damning of this Tory Government. In my speech I intend to refer to Mr Justice Collins’s judgment and I absolutely commend it to anybody with any interest in this issue.

Mr Justice Collins was quite clear in his findings:

“Whether or not the defendant accepts my judgment, the evidence shows that the cap is capable of real damage to individuals such as the claimants. They are not workshy but find it, because of the care difficulties, impossible to comply with the work requirement. Most lone parents with children under two are not the sort of households the cap was intended to cover and, since they will depend on DHP, they will remain benefit households. Real misery is being caused to no good purpose.”

In response, the Department for Work and Pensions says that it intends to appeal the decision. I find that truly shocking and urge the Minister to reconsider, unless she supports misery being caused to no good purpose.

Back in the Government’s own assessment before the 2015 Welfare Reform and Work Bill, there was an acceptance that the policy of reducing the cap from £26,000 to £20,000, or £23,000 in London, would have a disproportionate impact on women. It even stated:

“Most of the single women affected are likely to be lone parents: this is because we expect the majority of households affected by the policy to have children.”

The Local Government Association says that this lower cap is being implemented without a full understanding of the impact of the original cap. I ask the Minister, what did they expect to happen? Mr Justice Collins found that the policy is unlawful and discriminates against female single parents.

The Supreme Court has said previously that the benefit cap breaches the UN convention on the rights of the child and that:

“It cannot possibly be in the best interests of the children affected by the cap to deprive them of the means to provide them with adequate food, clothing, warmth and housing, the basic necessities of life.”

Mr Justice Collins reiterates that point in his findings, stating in paragraph 40:

“the effect of the cap means that the children and their parents have restrictions on what can be provided by way of housing, food and other things that an average child should have available. Further, as the ministers have said, it may be necessary to try to move to cheaper accommodation to avoid the effect of the cap so that there will be an upheaval for the family. I have set out the evidence of the damage to both family and private life which the cap has produced and will continue to produce.”

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

I commend my hon. Friend for her sterling work on this campaign. In her conversations with the UK Government, have they indicated how this policy is compatible with their family test?