Inheritance Tax

Debate between David Linden and Jim Shannon

Wednesday 17th January 2024 Westminster Hall

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

It is, as ever, a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Robert. I thank the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Jon Trickett) for securing the debate, which has been quite informative and good-mannered. I pay tribute to my colleague and comrade, the right hon. Member for North East Hampshire (Mr Jayawardena), who I am sure was here to advocate a 5% inheritance tax.

I also pay tribute to the hon. Members for Darlington (Peter Gibson), for Easington (Grahame Morris), for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery), for Coventry South (Zarah Sultana) and for Strangford (Jim Shannon). It is not often that I disagree with the hon. Member for Strangford. He knows that I hold him in high esteem. But to gently push back on his argument, I suggest that perhaps his parents started with only £5 because of the inequality that exists. Perhaps if inheritance tax was properly in place, his parents might have had more money.

[Jim Shannon]

Perhaps I did not make my point in the right way. My mum and dad started with £5. They worked hard, developed all those shops and the farm that they owned through hard work and effort. What I am trying to say—I hope I can convey it in a sensible way—is that with that hard work ethic they made their £5 go far. It is like the story in the Bible of the 10 talents. They got 10 talents and a whole lot more.

[David Linden]

I appreciate that. Anyone watching this debate will know that, given how we are debating this, some of which is based on Bible principles, this is just something that we will disagree on. I none the less appreciate how the hon. Member put his point and I respect it.

I have listened with great interest to the points made by Members today. As we approach the spring Budget, I suspect it will not be the last fiscal event of the year if we are heading for an autumn election. As with last year’s autumn statement, I am sure that the issue of inheritance tax—we got to the crux of this with the contributions from the hon. Members for Darlington and for North East Hampshire—or more specifically the issue of scrapping inheritance tax, will feature heavily in the debate leading up to the Chancellor’s announcement this spring.

As we debate this issue it is important to be cautious and take stock of who this debate favours and at what cost. Who are the winners and losers? I appreciate that, in the cosy consensus of Westminster, talking about the royal family is not often appreciated, but there is an elephant in the room here: there is no inheritance tax for the royal family. Indeed, recently, the King, following his mother’s passing away, benefited enormously from inheriting the Duchy of Lancaster, and his son benefited enormously from inheriting the Duchy of Cornwall. Neither of them paid any inheritance tax—we are talking about hundreds of millions of pounds being inherited by the King and the Prince of Wales, and not a single penny of inheritance tax being paid on that. I am at risk of upsetting either the Clerk or you, Sir Robert, so I will not make any more comment on that, but simply leave it on the record that my constituents and I find the situation deeply unacceptable.

Just last week, I stood in this Chamber outlining the dire situation that people currently face as a result of the cost of living crisis—a crisis that shows no real signs of improving any time soon. As I go around my constituency of Glasgow East and people talk, quite rightly, about the impact of the cost of living crisis and the upcoming Budget, not a single constituent who has spoken to me in person, emailed me or come to my surgeries has said, “Do you know what, David? The biggest solution to the cost of living crisis is to abolish inheritance tax.”

I suspect that if we challenge people on the issue of polling and go out there—whether to Westminster tube station, Hemsworth or Worcestershire—abolishing inheritance tax will be so low down in people’s priorities. That is why, in the midst of this cost of living crisis, debating whether to scrap inheritance tax—which less than 5% of people pay, despite bringing in nearly £7 billion to His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs—seems ludicrous. Against the backdrop of a British Government intent on bringing forward draconian measures to force ill and disabled people into work in order to balance the books, it is ludicrous that they are floating the idea of scrapping an inheritance tax that is paid by only the wealthiest households on these islands.

However, the British Government’s commitment to reducing taxes for the most well-off is a timely reminder of just how out of touch they are. As people struggle to turn on the heating this week in -4° conditions, it is simply absurd that the British Government should be even considering getting rid of a tax that goes at least some way, albeit a very small way, to alleviating the entrenched wealth inequality that is so prevalent in our society. The UK has one of the highest levels of income inequality in Europe, so scrapping or even reducing inheritance tax only deepens further the chasm of inequality that no modern or fair society should have.

Fuelling speculation around the scrapping of inheritance tax, the Chancellor has previously stated:

“I think that inheritance tax is a pernicious tax because one of the main reasons people invest is because they want to pass on savings to their children”.

Inheritance is an emotive subject of debate. It makes us consider life after we are no longer here and what that may look like for the generations after us. This is where my friend the hon. Member for Strangford and I entirely agree: we both know where we are going after we have been here, because of our belief in Jesus. I also happen to believe that people should not have a removal van or a bank van following them to their grave, but that is a separate issue.

As a parent myself, I understand the logic of wanting to be able to provide for our children, even from beyond the grave, but here is why I take that statement and the Chancellor’s line of argument with a degree of incredulity. I recently—in fact, only yesterday—spoke with Daniella Jenkins, a senior lecturer at the University of Bristol, who made an important point about recognising the existing inequality of intergenerational wealth. Like the hon. Member for Darlington, the Chancellor made a sweeping statement without giving any consideration to what I would argue are the huge disparities in intergenerational wealth that exist across these islands.

Pre-existing parental wealth is often overlooked in this debate. It is worth noting that while some children are set to inherit from their parents, some stand to inherit absolutely nothing, either because they do not have any parents or because their parents themselves face dire levels of income inequality, meaning that they will have little to leave behind. Sadly, that issue is probably more the case in constituencies such as mine, Glasgow East; I respectfully suggest that perhaps that is why I bring to the debate a different view from that of my friends on the Conservative Benches.

Although the Chancellor frames his argument around the desire to transfer wealth to children, we cannot escape the fact that the national trends across the population show that parental wealth is very, very unequally distributed. We should also remember that the value of wealth being passed on has also increased over time. If that cycle continued, it would only further entrench wealth inequality among millennial children and younger children, because—frankly—the difference between having rich parents or poor parents is now shaping what economic resources are available to children. That is why it is so important that the discussion about inheritance is centred on fairness and equality.

In Scotland, the issue of taxation has been under intense scrutiny over the last few months, following the Scottish Government’s latest reforms to their progressive tax framework. Only today the Prime Minister spoke about Scotland being the highest-taxed part of the United Kingdom. I am afraid that is not something that keeps me awake at night. As a higher earner, I am quite happy to pay more tax, because the tax that I pay goes towards the education that my children receive at the local school; the tax that I pay goes towards the salary of my mother, who works in the national health service. As a higher earner, I have no issue whatever with paying more tax, although I know that view is not shared widely in this place.

Although the Scottish Government currently have no ability to introduce measures related to income tax, within their income tax framework they have been able to create a progressive tax system conducive to a fair and more prosperous Scotland. With the limited powers that they have, the Scottish Government have ensured that the tax and social security system is progressive and equitable, so that everybody in Scotland—regardless of their background—has the opportunity to thrive. It is within those guiding principles that progressive policies have resulted in Scottish households, particularly in the lower half of the income distribution bracket, being £400 better off a year than they would be in other parts of the UK.

While we are faced with these elevated levels of income inequality, scrapping or reducing inheritance tax would simply deepen and perpetuate the existing disparity. If the British Government are determined to make an already deeply unfair inheritance tax system more unfair, the only conclusion that I can draw is that they must transfer the necessary powers to legislate on inheritance tax to the Scottish Parliament, either through the means of further devolution or—my desired option—independence. Only then will Scotland be able to build a comprehensive and progressive tax system that puts fairness and equality at the centre, representing the values of a modern and equitable society and not those of a Westminster system that frankly does not have the confidence of the people of Scotland.

Cost of Living in Scotland

Debate between David Linden and Jim Shannon

Tuesday 9th January 2024 Westminster Hall

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the cost of living in Scotland.

My ability to wind up the Minister is never going to be in question, Ms Vaz, but in all seriousness I am grateful for the opportunity to serve under your chairmanship. I would like to open by reminding everyone that this debate takes place against the backdrop of a truly dire situation—one characterised by emergency food parcels, poor mental and physical health, parents and children having to cut back on meals, households putting the heating on less, and people relying on insecure pay-day lenders just to make ends meet. The situation I am referring to is one that we as MPs, with much regret, have become all too familiar with: the cost of living crisis.

The crisis as we know it today has shown no sign of abating, and as a result people continue to suffer. The reality is that our social security system, as it stands and at its most fundamental level, no longer prevents hunger and destitution. The British Government show no sign of taking the drastic action needed to reform it. We are witnessing a deafening silence and a lack of action that speaks louder than any words could. From social tenants, those in and out of work, parents, carers, students and disabled people, to the over-50s, the cost of living crisis knows no bounds. It will continue to run rampant through our communities unless tangible policy is put in place immediately.

As the eyes of the electorate narrow on Westminster as we creep closer to a general election, the policy and spending decisions made by the British Government are all the more pertinent. From eye-watering energy bills and excessive food costs to soaring mortgage bills, we must be in no doubt that we face a cost of living crisis made right here in Westminster.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Gentleman for bringing this debate forward. It is an incredible subject matter that applies not just to Scotland but all the United Kingdom, in particular Northern Ireland. I spoke to the hon. Gentleman beforehand about property prices, which have increased again this year. Does he agree that what we and the Government need to do as we go into 2024 is all we can to address the housing crisis, which I know he is deeply concerned about, so that the first-time buyers have a real chance to get a mortgage at an affordable rate and have a property, as we all do?

[David Linden]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman. Indeed, I was referring to that particular issue with my hon. Friend the Member for West Dunbartonshire (Martin Docherty-Hughes) earlier on, who was outlining some thoughts about how the economy has suffered as a result, frankly, of the UK Government’s rather reckless approach during last year’s mini Budget.

Social Security and Pensions

Debate between David Linden and Jim Shannon

Monday 6th February 2023 Commons Chamber

[David Linden]

Yes, I think we are going to have a political “Lady and the Tramp” moment where we actually agree on this. There will be spaghetti across the House. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. We need to be in a situation where we encourage all our constituents to take up pension credit. Having met the Minister fairly recently—

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

rose—

[David Linden]

I will give way to my very honourable Friend.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Shannon]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. In my constituency, my staff and I encourage all the pensioners we meet every week to look at pension credit. Some will qualify and some will not. Today, Citizens Advice came to me to say it is going to start a project in Newtownards in my constituency and I look forward to that unfolding. Does he feel that the Government should focus attention specifically on pension credit, because there are many people out there who would apply if they knew more about it?

[David Linden]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I think I am unique in that I am one of the few people who serve as a Member of this House who has been in his constituency office and spoken to his constituency staff—some of us go on holiday to places like Newtownards. He is absolutely right. I ask the Government to put just as much effort into advertising things like pension credit take-up as they do into propaganda-like billboards in our constituencies about levelling up. If that amount of resource were put into advertising pension credit, perhaps we would see it go further.

The British Government’s assault on pensioners does not just extend to the pitiful state pension. Let us not forget that the Tories also scrapped free TV licences for over-75s, including in Broadland. People who watch on and see the Westminster incompetence of this place will know that pensioners across these islands have already been short-changed by £6,500 on average due to state pension underpayments. Peter Schofield, the permanent secretary at the DWP, recently told our Select Committee that—

Social Security Support for Children

Debate between David Linden and Jim Shannon

Wednesday 23rd November 2022 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

As always, it is a pleasure to speak in today’s debate, Sir Christopher. I thank the hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Ms Qaisar) for securing it, and congratulate her on her first Westminster Hall debate—I am convinced that it will not be her last, and we look forward to her future contributions.

I was very impressed by the hon. Lady’s contribution today, which laid out the strategy of the Scottish Government and the work they have done outside this place for their own people. One cannot fail to be impressed by the clear commitment that the Scottish Government have to supporting children. The summary that the hon. Lady gave was illuminating and helpful; it is a guide for us in other regions across the United Kingdom to take note of, as I often do. I am a great believer in noting things that are done well in one region and taking them on board in my own region, and if we do something well, I like to share that. I know the Minister is of the same opinion.

I am very pleased to see the Minister in his place, as he knows—I have said so to my colleagues this morning. I always look forward to his contributions and his answers; I think he understands the points that we are trying to put forward, and hopefully from that understanding will come the answers that we seek. I am sure the Minister will tell us what has been done for children and social security across the United Kingdom. I want to replicate the contribution of the hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts from a Northern Ireland perspective; many of the things that she mentioned are happening in my constituency as well, as I will illustrate.

The hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts is right that the cost of living crisis is having a knock-on effect on children’s development. With the rising cost of electricity, oil, foodstuffs and school items such as uniforms and school meals, parents are struggling to make ends meet each month. That is greatly impacting parents and children. Social security services across the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland have a role to play in ensuring that children are given the best start in life. It is great to be able to discuss those matters.

We all recognise that families are struggling. I do; I see it in my office every day. I find it distressing to see a family in need, or to see a mother distressed over her children and how to make ends meet. For me, the question is how we help. I know that that is also how the Minister will respond: how can we help? What can we do?

Society is often marked, and should be marked, by its attitude to those in need. The hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts referred to being a “voice of the voiceless”. That is what I want to be as well: a voice for the voiceless—for those who do not have the opportunity to come to Westminster but expect their MP to come for them. I am happy to do that.

Increasing numbers of families are truly struggling through this winter. In my office, I have seen large numbers of families seeking assistance from food banks. I am always encouraged—I say this respectfully—that the first food bank in Northern Ireland was in Newtownards, in my constituency of Strangford: the Thriving Life Church food bank. We do between 20 and 25 referrals to the food bank every week, so we get a fair perspective on who is coming to the office.

The manager of the food bank tells me that he foresees that this winter will be the hardest ever, and that is after 10 or 12 years of the food bank being in my constituency. It is not just the working class—I use that terminology to describe, rather than anything else—who come to the food bank. The working class will probably always be there, but the manager tells me that he now sees the middle class coming. I see that all the time. I see those who are squeezed by their mortgages and car repayments, who are living on a fine budget. They do not live in luxury, but they have a standard of living that they wish to have. They are being impacted, and I see that more than ever.

Almost all the families who come to my office have young children of school age. People want to do the best for their children. That is what a father and mum do, and it is what we have done all our lives. Reports have shown that Northern Ireland has the worst poverty rates, including for child poverty, in the United Kingdom. One in four children—24%, or around 95,000—are growing up in poverty in Northern Ireland. A massive two thirds of that group are growing up in families where parents are working. Some 12% are in absolute poverty, which means exactly that: absolute. People face situations that they never thought they would face. They need help from food banks, churches and their families: mums and dads, grannies and grandas, and probably uncles and aunts will step in to help out as well.

That highlights how dire the situation is. Belfast, Londonderry and Strabane are among the places with the highest volumes of child poverty in Northern Ireland at over 26%. The average for Northern Ireland is 17%, so in those areas it is even worse. Social security plays a crucial part in assisting people in Northern Ireland, especially families. Child maintenance is proven to help children’s wellbeing and the quality of family relationships. The parent who is not responsible for day-to-day care—the paying parent—pays child maintenance to the parent or the person who does: the receiving parent. Single parenting is a major factor in explaining why families are suffering. Looking after children as a single parent can be quite a challenge when one’s income has not increased along with inflation.

In addition, universal credit is a widely used benefit that assists in living costs for those on low incomes. One of the girls in my office deals with nothing but benefit issues, because of the magnitude of the issue. That is a five-day week on universal credit, employment and support allowance, personal independence payments, disability living allowance, income support and even housing benefit.

[David Linden]

I know, having visited the hon. Gentleman in his constituency office in Newtownards last Easter, just how hard the staff in his office work. Does he agree with me that, even though we are in a crisis moment, now is quite a good time for a fundamental root-and-branch review of the social security system? Universal credit sometimes gets a bad rap. The concept in itself is not necessarily bad, but we need to look at how we can reform it to make it work. Churches do the right thing in terms of scripture—they look after our children and feed people—but that is not necessarily the role of churches. We should do a fundamental review of the social security system to ensure that churches can get on with their work rather than having to fill the void that has been created by the state.

[Jim Shannon]

As always, the hon. Gentleman brings knowledge to these debates, which is helpful. That is a knowledge that he has gained through practical and physical work on the ground. That can probably be said of everyone present, in fairness, but it is an illustration of that work. What do I think about the universal credit system? It was designed, by its very nature, to help. From what the lady in my office who deals with benefits issues tells me, I often find we have to advise that it might be better for people to stay on what they have at the moment. They should not necessarily transfer to universal credit because that, in theory, could disadvantage them.

The hon. Gentleman asked whether there is a need to look at universal credit, and I think that the answer is yes, with respect. It should not be a disadvantage to go on to universal credit. It should not hurt people’s benefits. We must remember that the benefits are there for a purpose: they are there to help the person because they have a disablement. They may have care or mobility issues—serious issues. To make the change and lose out financially just does not make sense. I, the hon. Gentleman and probably all Members in the Chamber would be happy to give illustrations of that.

Sometimes our advice has to be that what is available is not necessarily the best thing to go on to. That is the issue, unfortunately. I know that universal credit is there for a purpose, but it may not suit everybody. In addition, it is a widely popular benefit to assist with living costs for those on low incomes. The issue with universal credit is that it is a combination of many benefits and often families will receive less money. That is making it increasingly hard to cope with the rise in the cost of living. The Government, through the autumn statement, indicated that they wish to give people in the benefits system more opportunities to work. I welcome that, but that will not work in every case. It cannot work in every case because people have disability issues that mean they cannot work. In theory, it may help people, as they can gain universal credit and have a job at the same time. There are opportunities, but it does not suit all.

The rise in the cost of living is also having a detrimental impact on people’s mental health. Any parent’s main priorities for their children are good health, housing and education. There has also been an increase in free school meals and uniform grant applications as parents are struggling to cope with the cost of school payments. This year has been horrendous. I have seen more and more people apply for the grants for free school meals and for uniform. A total of 97,000 children in Northern Ireland are on free school meals. There are consistent delays in processing the claims. The Minister is always keen to assist, so I ask, please, for some urgency when the applications are being processed. Let me give him an example. In September, one of my constituents applied for a school uniform grant. Eight weeks later—about two weeks ago—that money eventually came through. Again, at the time that it was needed, it was not there. It was not that it was not coming; that was not the issue. The issue is the processing of it.

No-fault Benefit Debts

Debate between David Linden and Jim Shannon

Thursday 21st July 2022 Commons Chamber

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

I am very grateful to have secured this debate, particularly as the last item of business before we rise for the summer recess. Before moving on to the substance of the debate, I would like to take this opportunity to wish everyone in the House, especially the staff, a very happy, peaceful and restful break.

A number of organisations have been incredibly helpful in briefing me for this debate, including StepChange, the Child Poverty Action Group, the Salvation Army and my local citizens advice bureaux in Easterhouse, Parkhead and Bridgeton.

Other than housing and asylum, benefits and social security issues make up the largest cohort of my constituency casework. In the five years that I have served in this House, I have seen endless problems with the social security system, which too often is found wanting when it comes to protecting the most vulnerable in our communities.

The issue I want to hone in on today is no-fault benefit debts. That is not to say that there are not other aspects of our social security system that could do with repair, but in the interests of time I will confine my remarks solely to no-fault benefit debts. I am particularly appreciative of my colleagues in the Child Poverty Action Group, whose early warning system flagged this matter up.

Let us look at a particular case study that brings a human angle to the issue, rather than focusing on dry regulations, as can often be the case. Jess and Mark have a benefit debt of £600 because they were accidentally paid too much universal credit. The Department for Work and Pensions has acknowledged that it made a mistake when it worked out their entitlement, but it is asking for the money back, and Jess and Mark are legally obliged to pay it. Since they do not have the £600—they thought it was theirs, so they have spent it on essentials for themselves and their two children—the DWP is recovering the debt by taking £80 a month off their universal credit. Jess’s and Mark’s income was already low, and now they simply do not have enough to live on.

Unfortunately, this issue is becoming a more common concern. There are a few more case studies I would like to draw the House’s attention to. One claimant with a mental health condition has been left with an overpayment because he was accidentally given too much help towards his rent—that is, the wrong local housing allowance rate was applied; he had his young son staying with him but only the minority of the time. He could not have been expected to spot that pretty technical error.

A lone parent of a 10-year-old with disabilities was overpaid UC through no fault of her own—she received the severely disabled child element of UC when she should have received the disabled child element only. Again, she could not have been expected to spot that; but again, she is liable to repay the difference. A bereaved claimant with diabetes and osteoarthritis was overpaid UC when the DWP failed to act on information that she herself had given them about a private pension she had inherited from her late husband. She is now paying back the overpayment at £48 a month. As of April this year, she still had another 17 months of that left to go.

No matter how an overpayment of universal credit happened, the Department for Work and Pensions can ask for it back, even when somebody has done nothing wrong and indeed has done everything that could reasonably have been expected of them.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Gentleman for bringing this important issue forward. He has outlined some cases; I had a similar case, and I commiserate with his constituents. Does he not agree that when someone has done all they can to be open and honest and there is clearly no fault for which they can be responsible, the stress of debt repayments on a household can be crippling? There must be a compassionate clause that can be used to override the computer systems. I think that is what the hon. Gentleman is asking for; it is certainly what I would ask for.

[David Linden]

I thank the hon. Gentleman. When I and the hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Cat Smith) visited his constituency office on holiday during the Easter break, I saw at first hand how hard he works for his constituents; there were piles of casework all around him that day. His intervention is born of the fact that he is a hard-working constituency MP and can see the reality of this issue. He is right to call for that special clause.

Speaking about the rule before the introduction of universal credit, the then Employment Minister, the right hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling), said:

“The practical reality is that we do not have to recover money from people where official error has been made, and we do not intend, in many cases, to recover money where official error has been made.”––[Official Report, Welfare Reform Public Bill Committee, 19 May 2011; c. 1019.]

Yet the DWP almost always asks for the money back now. Overpaid claimants can ask the DWP to waive recovery, but only about 10 waiver requests were successful in 2020-21, set against 337,000 new overpayments caused by DWP mistakes in the same period. The DWP openly asserts that it will abandon recovery only in “exceptional” cases.

When the DWP insists on recovering a no-fault debt, it has the power to make large deductions from somebody’s future universal credit payments—up to 15% of their standard allowance. To be clear for those watching today’s proceedings at home, I should say that the standard allowance is the amount that the Government believe a person needs to live on, so reducing it by 15% certainly causes hardship. The Government have already suspended energy companies from that, so why on earth are they doing it?

All this is out of line with basic ideas about fairness and fault. The rules about recovering overpayments are very different from what they were for the legacy benefits and tax credits that the universal credit system replaces.

Fire and Rehire Tactics

Debate between David Linden and Jim Shannon

Wednesday 15th June 2022 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon]

I thank my colleague the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I agree with that, sincerely in my heart. As I said earlier, the Government have said that fire and rehire should not be used as a negotiation technique, but that it should also not be make illegal. Well, that is a legislative change that the hon. Member for Bury South wants to see, as well as everyone who has spoken and everyone who will speak afterwards. I want to see that legislative change in place as soon possible.

It is essential that an environment is created whereby people enjoy their work. I am very privileged to do a job that I always wished to do, but never for one second did I think that I, a wee boy from Ballywalter, would actually be here, so I am fortunate. People need to enjoy their work if they are to work hard and make a contribution to how their firm progresses. If staff are unsettled and unhappy in their work, for whatever reason, there is an onus on the employer to work harder to make them happy.

Moreover, employers rely on workers to fulfil goals and create successes, hence the need to prioritise their needs and not be dictated to. If someone wants their firm to be successful and do well, they need a happy workforce, and vice versa. I have six girls who work with me in my two offices, and I can say in all honestly that they seem fairly happy, so maybe this employer is treating them the right way. I understand how important it is to motivate staff and keep them happy.

[David Linden]

Although there are things that the hon. Gentleman and I disagree on politically, I had the great pleasure of visiting him in his constituency and meeting the staff in his constituency office. Would he reflect—as I hope will the Minister—that many of the staff who work for us would be appalled and would not stand for it if we turned around to them and said, “Do you know what? We are going to fire you from your job, but then you can come back and work for less pay, less holiday time and more uncertain hours”? Does he think that parliamentary staff, including the staff of the Minister and the Secretary of State, would sign up for that?

[Jim Shannon]

The answer, as we all know, is that they would not. This House protects the workers here by setting bands of pay, giving them the right conditions for their holidays and if they are sick. It does it here, so I think it should do the same for other workers, which is what I would like to see.

Employers must follow a set minimum dismissal procedure and a collective redundancy process is involved. The depth of this issue has to be met with scrutiny and we must hold business owners to the highest level of account to ensure that our workers are protected.

There definitely needs to be greater communication within Government. I say that with great respect, because the Minister knows that I hold him in the highest respect because of the way he does his job. When we ask him questions, he comes back with the answers—he really tries when giving us answers. I say that for no other reason than that it is the truth; I mean it and I want to put it on the record. There also needs to be greater communication in the devolved Administrations, where legislation may be the responsibility of the Northern Ireland Assembly, the Scottish Parliament or the Welsh Assembly.

We need to take action and protect our workers. Hire and refire is an unfair and unjust practice, and the Minister and the Government must take responsibility for the one in four workers who have experienced a downgrade in employment terms, whether financially or with other conditions, such as for sick pay. In this day and age, that is disgraceful. The aim is to tackle exploitative employment practices, increase clarity in the law and make employees aware of their rights.

This debate makes employees aware of their rights, but we need legislative change to protect them. I gently but firmly ask, on behalf of my constituents and all of those across this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, that the Government provide clarity on their stance on fire and rehire tactics. I want to see legislative protection, because the ultimate goal is to protect the workers.

Covid-19: Impact on Social Work

Debate between David Linden and Jim Shannon

Wednesday 23rd March 2022 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon]

My hon. Friend has summed up in a few seconds exactly what the debate is about, whereas I will take 10 or 12 paragraphs to explain it. His point is that we have to be strategic and visionary, and have a plan of action. Today is all about what that plan of action is.

[David Linden]

I visit schools in my constituency and speak to some of the kids about what they want to be when they grow up—although I am probably not grown up yet and do not know what I want to be—and it strikes me that we have to look at this issue in the context of schooling, which I accept is devolved in Scotland. We need to encourage young people to think about careers in social work. Looking around the Chamber, I was probably the one in school most recently, but I do not recall being encouraged to look at social work, when we were told in the traditional way, “Here are careers you can do.” Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we can do more to encourage young people to consider a career in social work, and would he be willing to promote that in Northern Ireland?

[Jim Shannon]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Many social workers I deal with are probably of a certain generation. He makes the point that we need to be preparing, and that goes back to my question to the Minister about having a strategy and plan in place.

I understand that many young people do come into social work, because I have met some, but—I say this very gently, and it is not in any way meant to be critical—they need to have experienced social workers to work alongside and gain their knowledge. Young people will sometimes be confronted with cases that they might not have the life experiences to deal with. That is not a criticism; experience is gained over many years. I have been confronted by such cases on behalf of constituents, and I feel that decisions are not always made—in my opinion, as someone who is not a social worker—as they could or should have been.

Benefit Cap

Debate between David Linden and Jim Shannon

Tuesday 1st March 2022 Commons Chamber

[David Linden]

Absolutely. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend, who I know is a trustee of Feeding Britain and has the Threehills Community trust in his constituency. He is right, and he sees at first hand the food poverty that exists in our communities needlessly as a result of the poor social security policy emanating from Whitehall. The Feeding Britain charity, which he is on, and local organisations in his constituency are very much at the sharp end of that, and I hope that the Minister will reflect on that.

It should be noted that benefit capped households in receipt of universal credit have also largely not benefited from the £20 increase to universal credit during the pandemic. The benefit cap remained in place, which meant that universal credit claimants who had already reached the cap saw no increase in the support they received, and even more households were affected by the cap as the universal credit increase pushed them to the cap’s limit. On top of all that, and very much to add insult to injury, the cap does not increase to reflect increasing costs of living.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

First, I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing the debate. I fully support what he has been saying. Does he not agree that in the current economic climate the power of the pound is so massively reduced that, while benefits may once have helped pay substantially for additional costs, the same amount goes nowhere near to meeting needs today? If that is the case, the hon. Gentleman is correct that there is clearly a need to reassess the cap entirely, and for that reason I fully support what he is proposing.

[David Linden]

I am very grateful to the hon. Member for his intervention. It is almost as though he had seen my speech, but that may not be the case. I like to think that he is the Mystic Meg of Strangford. But he is absolutely right and makes a serious point, which, in the context of the cost of living crisis, is a massive issue. He has very much put that on record for his constituents in Strangford, who I know will be incredibly proud of him.

The problem with the benefit cap is that it is in effect a cut in real terms each year. As we face the cost of living crisis that the hon. Member spoke about, benefit claimants will see their costs go up while their incomes continue to be capped. The benefit cap has profound impacts on the people affected by it. For many families it means insecurity and anxiety, poor mental health, an inability to afford essentials such as food and heating, and reliance on food banks. It has also forced many of the constituents of SNP Members into problem debt.

India-UK Trade Negotiations

Debate between David Linden and Jim Shannon

Tuesday 22nd February 2022 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) for introducing the debate in a consistent, helpful way. I am pleased to follow the contributions of the hon. Members for Glasgow East (David Linden) and for West Dunbartonshire (Martin Docherty-Hughes). The hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire knows that I have supported him in the campaign that he has consistently been involved with over the years and in every one of his debates, and I support him here today in urging the Minister to do something. It may not be too late for that plea to the Minister and to the Government to do something to help the hon. Gentleman’s constituent, who has been very wrongly maligned, intimidated, tortured and injured, and his family.

Holding each other accountable to a higher standard is a hallmark of any good relationship. Ours with India should be no different, which is why what the hon. Gentleman said is so important. There has been colonial and historical contact, and that has drawn us together over the years. I see—we all see—India as a friend and the close relationship between the UK and India is well known. A long history of international co-operation and trade has been central to much of that. Our trading relationship is significant and, therefore, I believe we need to have a relationship that draws on our concerns in this country. I will lay out some reasons for that.

The UK is the third biggest investor in India, and in 2020 India became the second largest investor in the UK. Our relationship is growing from both sides and that is important. During the covid-19 pandemic, trade with India secured vital personal protective equipment for our frontline workers, and helped to secure the production and roll-out of the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine on such a mammoth scale. The history and our relationship over the last 100 years—especially over the last two—have been significant and important.

It goes without saying that the UK-India relationship is mutually beneficial, and that underscores why a trade deal with India is and should be such a priority. However, in trade negotiations we should not ignore the values central to a good relationship for the sake of a better trade deal. The close relationship between the two countries necessitates that our Government and our Ministers raise the issue of human rights concerns in negotiations with India. Will the Minister confirm that the issues are constantly raised with India? I am quite sure that the answer will be yes, but will the Minister confirm that in Hansard, so that we have it to refer to for the future?

I am sad and sorry to say this, but in recent years India has seen escalating violations of freedom of religion or belief. Churches and Christian schools were targeted during the Christmas season just past. Bibles were set on fire, services were disrupted, a statue of Jesus was torn down and the crowd shouted, “Death to missionaries”. Really? In this modern world? We have this relationship with India, but the Indian Government have not acted on those issues. In 2013, the Open Doors world watch list ranked India as 31st in the global list of the top 50 countries where Christians faced the highest level of persecution worldwide. Last month, in its latest world watch list, Open Doors ranked India in 10th position; it has risen from 31st to 10th. The research sounds the alarm on the escalation of freedom of religion or belief violations in the country—not just against Christians, but against other faiths and beliefs too. I will quickly speak of them.

Lynchings and hate speech targeting Muslims in India have repeatedly made headlines. In December last year, there were open calls for genocide against Muslims at a Hindu Mahasabha party conference. That should never happen at any Government conference or any party conference. The marginalisation of Muslim women was evidenced last month when schools and colleges in the Indian state of Karnataka banned the Muslim headscarf. Indeed, Malala Yousafzai has since responded to colleges forcing Muslim girls

“to choose between studies and the hijab”—

in short, to choose between their right to education and their right to freedom of religion or belief. That must stop. Can the Minister give some indication of how we are encouraging India to do just that?

[David Linden]

I am glad the hon. Gentleman has touched on that. I discussed the issue in a meeting with the Prime Minister. Thankfully, there was an undertaking that he would raise the issue. Does the hon. Gentleman agree and accept that a lot of the behaviour stems directly from Prime Minister Modi and the various thugs in his party who think that such behaviour and intolerance towards people of a different faith is somehow normal? We need to send a very strong message from London to the Indian Government that we will not accept such behaviour and that we will raise it during the negotiations.

[Jim Shannon]

I agree that there is an onus on Prime Minister Modi to speak out. Unfortunately, we have not seen much evidence of that. If he speaks out, there should be a reaction, and those who listen to him might respond in a positive fashion, but that has been lacking so far. However, I hope that we can have such a response.

I believe that there is hope and I want to reflect on that as well. Human rights provisions in international trade deals have become the norm since the early 1990s. More than 75% of the world’s Governments now participate in preferential trade agreements with human rights provisions, and we should participate as well. European Union international trade agreements include human rights clauses and a general obligation to uphold human rights as set out in the UN universal declaration of human rights, so what are we doing to make sure that that is upheld?

Leaving the European Union has enabled us—I say this with great respect to colleagues on my left-hand side, the hon. Members for Glasgow East and for West Dunbartonshire—to pursue an independent trade policy. It is vital, however, that we do not drop human rights provisions in that endeavour and that we appropriately use free trade agreements to pursue our broader international objectives.

The UK has a history of defending human rights across the world and is a leader in protecting the fundamental right of freedom of religion or belief. I recognise the good work that our Government have done on these issues, but there are occasions when we have to speak up in a gentle but firm fashion to say that things are not right. The right to freedom of religion or belief is a gateway right and a strong indicator of the future trajectory of the human rights landscape in a country. That is where the focus must be in India, so we seek that change. Religious or belief minorities are often the first groups to be targeted before other rights are eroded, so the right to freedom of religion or belief is well placed to be an indicator of human rights provision in a trade deal with India. I am confident that the Minister’s response will endorse our concerns and deal with how we can make things better.

I am mindful of the time, so I will conclude by urging the Government to ensure that human rights provisions are included in the text of future trade deals with India, that those provisions include robust monitoring and enforcement mechanisms, that the right to freedom of religion or belief is part of that framework, and that the Prime Minister of India takes the lead on this issue. If we hope to nurture a sincere relationship with India—I hope we do; I want us to—Government silence on the matter cannot be tolerated.

Social Security (Up-rating of Benefits) Bill

Debate between David Linden and Jim Shannon

Consideration of Lords amendments
Monday 15th November 2021 Commons Chamber

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Duncan Baker), who spoke about the risks of throwing a billion pounds about here and there. I know he was not in the previous Parliament, when the Government were propped up by the Democratic Unionist party, but I recall them having no great difficulty finding a billion pounds down the back of the sofa. Indeed, I think the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) was worth about £100 million, which is probably more than Messi.

Unlike the Minister, I am glad to see the Bill back in the House this evening, because the amendments passed by their lordships give the Government an opportunity to perform a U-turn with ermine grace and charm. Before it went back to the other place, the Bill as originally drafted facilitated the British Government breaking yet another manifesto commitment, namely the pensions triple lock, which I remind the House all parties in this Chamber committed to at the election fewer than two years ago. Thankfully, the Bill was amended in the other place, and I am grateful to Baroness Altmann for Lords amendments 1 and 2, which seek to restore the earnings link.

As we are relatively short on time, I will not go over some of the meatier issues that I outlined on Second Reading, including the Government’s repeated breach of their manifesto commitments, the worrying trends in pensioner poverty, pension comparisons with OECD countries and the—at best—disappointing lack of action on pre-existing equalities that are baked into our pension system. In speaking in favour of the Lords amendments, I will outline why the SNP continues to vote to respect its 2019 election manifesto commitment and why the Budget has changed things, which may result in more Opposition Members voting tonight than on Second Reading.

The Minister will have familiarised himself with the House of Lords Official Report, but in the interests of completeness and for the benefit of Hansard, I remind the House of what Baroness Altmann said on the cost of living crisis, which affects all the constituents we seek to represent in this House. She reminded the other place of the Government’s view that

“the 3.1% figure would still protect against rises in the cost of living.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 2 November 2021; Vol. 815, c. 1140.]

She quoted the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman) who said that that figure

“will ensure that pensioners’ spending power is preserved and that they are protected from the higher cost of living”.—[Official Report, 20 September 2021; Vol. 701, c. 86.]

However, the goalposts have moved, and the fiscal outlook is much bleaker. The Chancellor conceded in the Budget that inflation in September was already at 3.1% and would rise further. The Office for Budget Responsibility has gone further, predicting that consumer prices index inflation will reach 4.4% next year. It went on to say that inflation

“could hit the highest rate seen in the UK for three decades”,

which the House will know is about 7.5%. In reality, the Bank of England’s chief economist is forecasting 5%. To be blunt, the facts have changed and the Government must now change their position at least to reflect the fiscal outlook, if not to respect their manifesto commitment.

Pensioners across these islands are not immune from rising energy and food costs, and we know that inflation is biting hard for some of the most vulnerable people in our constituencies as we approach a harsh winter. Last month, energy bills rose by 12%, and food bills have also risen, so the Government must think again.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

The 12% figure is not reflected in Northern Ireland, where energy prices have risen by some 30%, and the cost of living has also risen by 20%. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, for that reason, we must support the Lords amendments for the pensioners?

[David Linden]

I will avoid going into energy policy in Northern Ireland, given previous actions, but the hon. Member is right to place that on the record. His constituents in Strangford should be grateful to him not just for making that point but for backing the Lords amendments when we come to the Division.

The Red Book suggests that, by scrapping the triple lock, the Treasury will save £5.4 billion in 2022-23, £5.8 billion in 2023-24 and £6.1 billion in 2024-25. The Chancellor is clearly balancing the books on the backs of pensioners who continue to get a raw deal from a pensions system that they have paid into their whole lives. I caution the Minister that that is an electorally courageous move for a party that has generally enjoyed higher levels of support among pensioners. Indeed, I will be particularly interested to see how our Scottish Conservative colleagues try to sell this latest broken promise to the electorate north of Coldstream.

The SNP wholeheartedly opposes the British Government’s triple lock betrayal and urges the House to support the Lords amendments. There may be a couple of hundred extra MPs in the Division Lobby with us tonight compared with the last time the House looked at this in September, but we know that the Tory Government will use their majority to plough ahead and vote down their lordships’ amendments regardless. My constituents in Glasgow East will therefore conclude once again that the House does not work for pensioners and it certainly does not work for Scotland. The only way to do things differently is with the normal powers of independence, and I suspect that this tawdry Bill will only hasten that cause further.

Global Britain

Debate between David Linden and Jim Shannon

Monday 11th January 2021 Commons Chamber

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

The British Government’s cut to the aid budget is a clear example that global Britain is about looking after the UK’s own priorities while reducing support for the world’s poorest. Abandoning the commitment to spend 0.7% of GNI on overseas aid, but simultaneously finding millions of pounds for a festival to celebrate Brexit has left many questioning global Britain’s priorities. This cut to the aid budget will have a catastrophic impact, leading to increased poverty and instability around the world, further exacerbating the covid-19 crisis. Surely if UK Ministers wanted global Britain to lead the charge, this pandemic would be the perfect time to exemplify that leadership. I argue that cutting the aid budget is not global Britain; it is the actions of little Britain.

Last month, it was announced that the UK would no longer partake in Erasmus, even after the Prime Minister’s commitment to remain part of the scheme. In this debate, it is important to remember who will miss out from the UK no longer partaking in Erasmus; there will be so many missed opportunities for young people. I am proud to serve as honorary president of the British Youth Council. The BYC has serious concerns that, although the Turing scheme may replace the formal education aspect of Erasmus-plus, the Government have taken no action to replace the non-formal strand of the scheme. Withdrawing from the Erasmus programme is not global Britain; it is the actions of little Britain.

The UK Government claim that, as global Britain, they can establish a great trade deal with the United States, but they seem to forget that, since 2019, a 25% tariff has existed on single malt whisky imported to the US.

[Jim Shannon]

The news today indicated that online sales of whiskey—I think of the Echlinville distillery in Kircubbin—have exceeded expectations. I know that the hon. Gentleman and I have different opinions on the constitution, but does he not agree that the opportunities for whiskey sales across the world are growing?

[David Linden]

The hon. Gentleman will certainly find an ally in me in hoping that we sell more whisky, not least because it is one of the most important industries in Scotland, employing 11,000 people. Scotch itself is worth £5.5 billion to the UK economy, so I heartily endorse that.

While the UK is negotiating a free trade deal with the States, the tariffs remain in place and exports to the US have fallen by 30% since they came into force. That means that jobs in the supply chain are very much at risk. Time is of the essence for the whisky sector, and it is imperative that the UK Government work with the Biden Administration to ensure that the issue of whisky tariffs is a priority in any future trade deal. I certainly hope that that will be the case, given the so-called special relationship.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Alyn Smith) said, global Britain is not the SNP’s project. We wish it well, but we certainly do not want to be a part of it. Instead, we seek an independent Scotland rejoining the European Union as an equal member alongside our EU partners. We see the power of smaller nations and what they can achieve: the Republic of Ireland now sits on the UN Security Council and New Zealand leads the world in covid-19 elimination. That is the prize we in the SNP firmly have our eyes on, and we will not be distracted by hollow slogans like global Britain.

Housing and Planning

Debate between David Linden and Jim Shannon

Tuesday 3rd March 2020 Westminster Hall

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

It is always a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Sir Charles, if not that of the Procedure Committee. I congratulate the hon. Member for Harborough (Neil O'Brien) on securing this debate. I agreed with you beforehand, Sir Charles, that I would keep my remarks short to allow other hon. Members to speak, given that this issue is largely devolved. It has certainly been an interesting debate.

I want to reflect on the planning and housing situation in Scotland. There has been a lot of discussion today about affordable housing, but it is us in Scotland who are trying as hard as possible to deliver 50,000 affordable homes, 35,000 of which will be for social rent, by 2021. We are certainly on track to do that. In my own constituency, Cranhill has an over-55s development, which is important given that people are living longer. Likewise, properties on Cunningham House on Shettletson Road are being built to Passivhaus standard, which is good for energy efficiency measures.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Does the hon. Member agree that we have a duty to do our best to push for more affordable green homes, and that grants and incentives to cover the costs of renewable and low-carbon innovations must go in hand with greener obligations? In other words, we must meet our obligations for climate change.

[David Linden]

I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman, who chairs the all-party parliamentary group for healthy homes and buildings. Investing in greener homes is costly. Investing in the Passivhaus standard homes in Shettleston has cost Shettleston Housing Association quite a lot of money, but my constituents tell me that their energy bills are a lot lower.

I have concerns about the planning process. I often think of the Broomhouse estate in my constituency, which was supposed to start off as countryside living in the city, but it is now one of my largest polling districts. There is no school, GP practice or shop, and the local train station, in Baillieston, is now overrun by cars.

We often find that planning authorities—this is not confined to England—are more than happy to sign off on building lots of homes, not least because they provide lots of council tax revenue. It seems that little thought has been given to where the children living in those four or five-bedroom homes will go to school. We have seen the pressures put on, for example, Caledonia Primary School in Baillieston.

We have had a fantastic and wide-ranging debate. I have learned more about section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 than I knew this morning. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Harborough, who began by talking about the idea of fleeceholding. Some streets in my constituency have still not been adopted after 60 years. I used to think that was bad, but perhaps, given the situation he highlighted, it is a case of better the devil you know.

Flats and Shared Housing: Fire Risk

Debate between David Linden and Jim Shannon

Tuesday 28th January 2020 Westminster Hall

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

As ever, it is an enormous honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray. Like others, I thank the hon. Member for Reading East (Matt Rodda) for securing this debate on a hugely important and topical issue. We of course await sight of the fire safety Bill, but I know from last week’s debate on the phase 1 report of the Grenfell inquiry that there is rightly significant cross-party support in the House on this issue, as evidenced by the four Back-Bench speeches this morning. I am glad to be summing up for the Scottish National party.

In his very comprehensive speech, the hon. Gentleman spoke about concerns about cladding. We are moving into phase 2 of the Grenfell inquiry, and we all agree that we should wait and see what happens over the course of phase 2, so that our actions can take that in. Certainly, there is a wider point about the Treasury and leaseholders.

The hon. Gentleman spoke about issues relating to internal safety in buildings—particularly high-rise blocks—after the Grenfell inquiry. I have 10 tower blocks in my constituency of Glasgow East. I was very grateful to Glasgow Housing Association for taking me on a tour of those blocks, where we looked at internal issues, some of which related to fire doors. The hon. Member for Walsall North (Eddie Hughes), who is no longer in his place, was right to make the point that we can have all the legislation in the world, but cultural issues sometimes mean that people might use fire extinguishers to hold doors open, for example, which is not necessarily ideal.

The hon. Members for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty) spoke about some of the devolved issues in Wales and Northern Ireland. The hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth was right to take to task some local organisations that are definitely not stepping up to the plate. As ever, the hon. Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts), who chairs the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee, spoke very powerfully and with great authority. He was right to make the point about the impact on leaseholders.

We covered so much ground in last week’s debate in the main Chamber, so I will not repeat much of what I said then. I will focus instead on a number of ancillary issues that I did not manage to touch on last week. In the context of the debate, let us not forget that people are still living in dangerous homes, so it is imperative that we reassure our constituents, as the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth tried to do. He made the point that we cannot have just words; we must have actions from Westminster.

Last year, we saw the chilling sight of a block of flats in Barking go up in flames. The psychological impact on survivors of Grenfell, as well as on those who were bereaved, can scarcely be imagined. The fact remains that tens of thousands of people live in privately owned tower blocks in which remedial work on fire safety has yet to be completed, while the British Government pass the buck to freeholders. My message to the Government remains very much the same as last week: we must make better progress in reassuring people who live in high-rise blocks and shared accommodation.

According to the charity Electrical Safety First, in 2017-18, 150,000 fires were caused by an electrical ignition source, which accounted for 60% of all accidental domestic fires across the UK. The Government’s strategy to tackle that problem has been poor. The concentration of consumer messages has centred on the “Fire Kills” campaign, but despite the British Government’s advertisements last March—including some messaging on the dangers of overloading sockets—more definitely needs to be done to focus on electricity in future campaigns.

In Scotland, Electrical Safety First has been running the successful “Inequality Street” campaign, the aim of which is for everyone to be protected by the same electrical safety laws regardless of tenure or dwelling type. The campaign’s focus this year will be electrical safety in mixed-tenure blocks, which I welcome. Put quite simply, flat owners should be expected to meet higher standards when there is a potential impact on their neighbour’s safety.

North of the border, the Scottish Government have shown their commitment to high safety standards in Scottish homes by introducing new legislation last February that requires all domestic properties in Scotland, regardless of tenure, to have the same levels of smoke and fire detection. Private landlords have also been required to carry out five-yearly electrical checks since 2015—the Select Committee Chair, the hon. Member for Sheffield South East, made that point—and will soon be required to fit residual-current devices, which cut off the power if a fault is detected, in all their rented properties.

When it comes to tumble dryers and washing machines, there have been two major recalls recently, so electrical appliance and fire safety need to be a priority, especially for people living in flats. How is the Minister working with colleagues in the Department to communicate messages to the public about appliances causing fires? Will we soon see, for example, TV advertisements from the Fire Kills campaign about appliance fires? Will she also think about how fires are recorded by fire and rescue services?

Consumers are charging their devices more than ever before, so will the Minister commit to ensuring that British Government records include fires caused by, for example, mobile phone chargers rather than trouser presses, which must surely be falling out of use? A wider point is that more and more consumers use websites such as Wish.com, and we essentially import products from China that do not meet British standards. That is a concern.

[Jim Shannon]

The hon. Member has outlined what the Government need to do. Does he agree that companies also have great responsibilities? The Government perhaps need to introduce legislation or make changes to the law to ensure that companies are accountable to the people to whom they sell their electrical products, because currently, if the products catch fire, the companies seem to walk away.

[David Linden]

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point; the Government absolutely have a role in ensuring that we hold those companies to account. Equally, we have a role as consumers on a personal level. We have to consider the standard of an Apple charger that is sold for only £2 or £3, for example. We know that consumer behaviour is evolving and it is important, as he has said, that the Government keep pace.

As I said at the outset of my remarks, there is much cross-party consensus on ensuring that we have the highest possible fire safety standards, on which Scotland is already leading the way. The SNP would certainly support some kind of team approach—of the sort mentioned by the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth and the hon. Member for Strangford—to ensure that we are on the same page across the UK. My fundamental message is that action needs to come at a much greater pace.

Santander Closures and Local Communities

Debate between David Linden and Jim Shannon

Thursday 14th February 2019 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

This is an important issue for me. I thank the hon. Member for Glasgow East (David Linden) for securing the debate and thereby giving us a chance to contribute. Let me also put on the record my congratulations to Scottish National party Members for continually raising issues about bank closures. Every time they have brought such debates to Westminster Hall or the main Chamber, it has come from their constituents. I thank them for highlighting bank closures, because, in doing so, they illustrate how important the banks are, including in my constituency.

I have a real issue with banks closing branches and leaving the most vulnerable in our society without access to their cash and savings. It is all well and good to say that the number of transactions carried out at Santander branches fell by 23% over the past three years, while transactions online and on mobile phones soared by 99%, but that does not say that staff members have been pushing to get that figure up, as I am sure they have.

In the last few months, the Santander branch in Newtownards, which is the major town in my constituency, moved less than 100 yards from Conway Square in the centre of town to the High Street. It has a considerable customer base and very good connections and contacts with the commercial sector. At a Santander event at the branch before Christmas, I met a young lady who was there alongside Santander to state how well it had helped her to start her business from home. That is an example of how things can be done. I put that on the record, because Santander in Newtownards is obviously in touch with its customer base. It is not one of the three branches closing in Northern Ireland.

On bank closures, the fact that a large amount of people use internet banking tells a story, but does it say that they will cease to use their local branch? I do not believe it does. They will still use the branch for all the necessary things, but now they will have to go for miles to find new branches.

The hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Ged Killen), who has left, unfortunately, tabled early day motion 2057 on access to cash. I was more than happy to sign that early day motion, as I always am on important issues. As I have said in other debates here and in the main Chamber, I understand how important it is to have access to cash. I am one of those old-fashioned guys who likes to pay their bills by cash—perhaps that is the economy in Northern Ireland.

[David Linden]

The hon. Gentleman is doing himself down. It is not just an old person thing—not that he is old. Perhaps I should not be saying this from a security point of view, but for about 10 years, since I have been married, I have operated on a jam-jar basis where I take my money out at the beginning of the month and then I have my shopping budget and my fuel budget. I wanted to put that quaint point on the record.

Finance (No. 3) Bill

Debate between David Linden and Jim Shannon

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

[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.

Leaving the EU: Customs Arrangements

Debate between David Linden and Jim Shannon

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.

The Economy

Debate between David Linden and Jim Shannon

Thursday 22nd March 2018 Commons Chamber

[Jim Shannon]

The hon. Gentleman is right. It is not just for us as MPs and our constituents; it is for our children and our grandchildren. We are building a base here, as we have done in Northern Ireland through the Assembly, for a stronger economy in years to come. It is important that we move towards that.

I agree with the Government’s goal of reducing the deficit yearly, but while we must aim to do this, things arise outside of our control, and we must always be able to access spending power to meet those needs. We seem to be stabilising, and yet I am aware of the adverse effect of the roll-out of universal credit. I must put on the record my concern about its effect on the disabled and vulnerable. Opposition Members who have sat with me through many debates will understand my concern.

I am also very aware of the needs of the NHS, which the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Alex Chalk) referred to in his intervention, and the importance of providing advantages and opportunities to the NHS when it comes to funding. In the words of an elderly constituent of mine, the NHS “needs to rubbed out and drawn again, as our highly trained NHS staff are at the end of themselves and living on their nerves with no breaks and crisis management from one hour to the next”. That is why I welcome the Government’s commitment to a 6.5% wage increase for NHS staff over three years. That is good news, and we should all welcome it, because it is a step in the right direction. The DUP asked for that in our negotiations and discussions with the Conservative party, and the Conservative party has accepted it.

Fishing, which has come up on both sides of the House, is hugely important to me and my constituency, particularly in the village of Portavogie. Since we have an absentee MP for South Down, I should add that it is also important to those from Ardglass and Kilkeel. It is very important that we have a good fishing industry and sector. We are sick and tired of EU bureaucracy and red tape, of quota restrictions and days-at-sea restrictions, of boat numbers reducing in my village of Portavogie from 120 to about 75—the reductions are similar in Kilkeel and Ardglass.

The fishing sector is under pressure, but with Brexit we will have what the hon. Member for Angus (Kirstene Hair) said: a stronger fishing sector and industry, more employment, more opportunities and more jobs. I, like others, would like to see landings landing on UK soil. That is important. The voisinage agreement is a legal agreement under which we will take back some of the waters that are ours but which under another legal agreement the Republic of Ireland looks after. That will happen, and we will have more control over our own waters. So Brexit brings good news for the fishing sector.

I say the same thing to the Minister today that I said to the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs the other day. I want us to make sure that in 2020 we are out. It is the responsibility of Ministers to make sure that happens. The Secretary of State gave me that commitment, and other commitments have been given as well. Those who represent fishing villages understand our concern and angst.

My constituency has seen enormous growth in the agri-foods sector. I think of businesses such as Willowbrook Foods, Mash Direct and Pritchitts—also known as Lakeland Dairies. The latter has three factories, two in the Republic and one in Northern Ireland, and if ever we needed an example of why we need to transition to a soft border, that company is it. Its process involves milk crossing the border three times: first, it comes across in fluid form; then it goes back in powder form; and then it comes back again to Newtownards, where it is packaged and processed, and sold across the world. Rich Sauces is another agri-food business in my constituency that is doing extremely well, and we must remember that this is about not just the guys in the factories doing the production and manufacturing, but the farmers supplying the milk, and those providing arable goods for vegetable firms. Those are the success stories, and we need to reach a satisfactory arrangement for them.

We have also seen new markets created. Lakeland Dairies, for example, is marketing a new milk powder in China. The Minister has been involved with that. He has been helping us to get through the red tape we sometimes have so that we can secure that opportunity. Pharmaceuticals, insurance and light engineering are other growth industries in my constituency, like others. We have many small companies that started off with perhaps half a dozen employees and then grew. Patton’s is one that comes to mind right away. It started off with a van and three people; it now has a dozen vans and a workforce of 65.

Good things are happening, so let us talk about them. I do not mean to be disrespectful to anyone—that is not my nature—but if people talk things down enough, they will be down. We must talk them up. Let us talk up the good things—we should not ignore the negatives—and be positive. Positivity is what we want—it is certainly what I want.

I am aware that even small tax rises—for example, the 4.5% rise in rates for Northern Ireland, coupled with the almost 3% local rise in my constituency, results in a 7.5% rate increase for families slightly above the threshold for help through tax credits—can have an impact on people’s quality of life. We tell parents not to feed their children crisps as a lunchtime snack. Crisps cost 10p, but we tell them to give the children an orange, which costs 20p, so that is financially illogical. We tell parents to take their children to after-school clubs to help their social development, but they have to fund that themselves, because cuts have stopped Sure Start and other places from funding classes for children.

Members have referred to food banks. People are always being negative about food banks, but we should be positive. The Trussell Trust food bank in Newtownards in my constituency—we were the first to have one in Northern Ireland—has brought the churches and many individuals together. Every one of them is concerned for those who have nothing. Is it not a good thing when people come together to do something really good, substantial and positive to bring about change?

[David Linden]

The hon. Gentleman knows that I have huge respect for him and count him as an hon. Friend, but the reality is that the top three reasons why people go to food banks are changes to benefits, low incomes, and insecure employment. I am sure he will put that on record. We do not seek to use this as a political football, but the statistics back up my point.

[Jim Shannon]

The hon. Gentleman beat me to it—I was going to come to that point. Why do people go to food banks? I sign their chits every week, so I know why: because of benefits and delays in receiving them. We have to sharpen our system up. When people are living under a far lower threshold than anyone in this House and many people outside it, we recognise that there are problems. Food banks have brought people together with the right motivation, but they are here for a reason. The hon. Gentleman is right about why that is: because of benefit changes, benefit delays, and marital and relationship break-ups; and because people have lost their jobs. It is good to have the food banks, but they are there for a purpose. I am very pleased to commend the Trussell Trust and the food bank that works through the Thriving Life church in Newtownards in my constituency on what they do. Their volunteers do marvellous work. They are people with passion, belief and concern, as we all have in this House and hopefully outside it as well.

We ask women to get into work, but not enough funded pre-nursery places are available to help them with childcare. We tell parents that they do not get pre-nursery places because they do not meet the benefits threshold. We tell them that they must spend time reading with their children and doing imaginative play after they have had to work all day, although they pay out most of their money on getting an acceptable level of childcare. We say that they should ensure that they take time off for their own mental health.

The Government have tried to address the issue of childcare, and we tried to do so in the Northern Ireland Assembly. However, there is still some way to go on providing childcare, and I say that respectfully. The Minister might want to come back on that. Other Members feel similarly to me and know where the voids are. For some reason, there is certainly a void in childcare. If we want a woman to work, we have to make sure that she has somewhere to take her children that does not cost her the earth. There is no sense in people working if every pound they get goes on paying for childcare. People want to work to keep them sane, but they also want to be financially better off. I make those points with respect to the Minister.

We encourage family units to provide childcare while, at the same, putting the retirement age up by six years. Again, I feel greatly aggrieved that women have to work beyond their time. Many of us in this House and my party have had discussions with the Government about the WASPI women. We all know what the issues are—those are very clear—and what has happened niggles me and my constituents. Those people have to continue to work, and their children must pay someone to mind their children. It is an advantage when someone has parents, grandparents, aunties and uncles who can do the childcare for them. However, if those family members have to work for another six years, that opportunity is never there.

Birmingham Commonwealth Games and Shooting

Debate between David Linden and Jim Shannon

Wednesday 21st March 2018 Commons Chamber

[Jim Shannon]

My hon. Friend, like others, reinforces what we all know: the introduction of the sport of shooting to young people from an early age develops character, friendships and accuracy—and, of course, we hope that some will attain perhaps even a Commonwealth medal.

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has two hours before the House has to adjourn, given the number of interventions. On a serious point, however, I must note how many people are here for his Adjournment debate. I do not think that any other Member is held in the affection and warmth that we feel for him. I speak as a Glasgow MP. Obviously, we had the 2014 Commonwealth games, and we had shooting—not in the east end of Glasgow, but at Barry Buddon—and I commend his remarks tonight. We must make sure that this is not a retrograde step and that we see shooting at the Commonwealth games in Birmingham.

[Jim Shannon]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind comments. I am just pleased to see a goodly crowd here to support an important issue and a sport at which we excel.

Target shooting has a real place in our community, and the skills of those who play deserve recognition. This is a sport in which we are recognised. The connotations of gun violence must be removed from this discussion, because these are legitimate, law-abiding, licence-holding people who have the opportunity to shoot. Those who wish to use a gun for nefarious reasons are not target shooters; they do not follow the rigorous legalities that come with owning and shooting a gun; they are the ones who buy through the back door, instead of coming with a licence through the front door, and that should be said at the outset.

I wish to thank all those organisations and individuals who contacted me and sent me information on this subject, including the Countryside Alliance, the British Association for Shooting and Conservation and the sports societies. The following information was provided by the British Shooting, which covers a range of shooting sports and offers varying levels of support and expertise. I spoke to the Minister before the debate to say I believed there was something we could do, and I look to her now with genuine hope that she will take this in the direction we want. The following are the facts of the case: the 2022 games were originally awarded to Durban, South Africa, with a sports programme that embraced all the shooting sports—shotgun, rifle and pistol, airgun and full-bore rifle. The Durban organising committee was unable to obtain satisfactory financial guarantees from the South African Government, however, and unfortunately had no option other than to relinquish responsibility for the games.

The Commonwealth Games Federation sought alternative hosts, and a bidding process was opened. In England, the cities of Birmingham and Liverpool put forward outline bids. The Liverpool bid included shooting, after constructive dialogue with British Shooting and others. Birmingham’s bid team did not engage with British Shooting or, it appears, any other shooting body—that was very disappointing, and I do not think the procedure was followed correctly—and did not include shooting in its bid. It should have done so. The Birmingham bid was put forward to the CGF, and it was ultimately awarded the right to host the games.

Freedom of Religion or Belief

Debate between David Linden and Jim Shannon

Thursday 1st March 2018 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention and his membership of the all-party group. He is there, as we all are, for the same purpose: to try to make lives better and to fight—not physically, but verbally and emotionally—for those across the world who are persecuted.

The Nigerian Government have developed neither early-warning systems nor rapid response mechanisms to violence, and the federal police are rarely deployed. That worries me. Actors on the ground who spoke with the US Commission on International Religious Freedom universally reported that when the police are deployed, they stick to main roads and do not venture into more rural areas where the violence occurs. If they do not go where the violence is and try to stop it, it does not work. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right about the problem. As Nigeria is a member of the UNHRC, I hope that the Minister and his team will urge the Nigerian Government to do more to defend their citizens. I hope the Minister will offer support to help them do just that.

I will now discuss the situation with freedom of religion or belief in Nepal, which is also a member of the UNHRC. As the Minister knows, article 26(3) of the Nepalese constitution prohibits

“any act or conduct that may jeopardise other’s religion”

or

“convert another person from one religion to another”.

On 8 August 2017, the Nepalese Parliament passed a criminal code Bill that strengthens those constitutional restrictions and outlines significant criminal penalties for offenders. In other words, it is another level of persecution, this time legal. The Bill greatly threatens the rights of religious minorities in Nepal, as the broad definition of the criminal code’s provisions means they can be applied to legitimate expressions of religion or belief. For example, the charitable activities of religious groups or speaking about one’s faith could be considered to be attempts to convert another person. The wording of the Bill is also similar to the wording of blasphemy laws in neighbouring countries, which have been widely misused to settle personal scores, to target religious minorities and to further extremist agendas. The introduction of the Bill is concerning for advocates of human rights and freedom of religion or belief.

What is even more concerning is that the Bill was signed into law on the very same day that Nepal was elected to be a member of the UN Human Rights Council. On Nepal’s appointment to the UNHRC, its permanent representative to the United Nations said:

“This election offers post-conflict Nepal an unprecedented opportunity to prove its worth as an international contributor to the cause of human rights in Nepal and around the world”.

I challenge Nepal to prove to the world that what it is saying in words will happen, because the legal position in Nepal at the moment is contrary to the UN Human Rights Council and what it says. I hope, as I am sure everybody in the room does, that Nepal intends to take this opportunity. I hope that we will challenge Nepal, and that it will change its laws on blasphemy and religious conversion. Nepal’s new role means that it is even more important that the country takes protecting the rights of religious minorities seriously.

It is also important to remember that between 2014 and 2020, the Department for International Development will spend approximately £600 million in Nepal. The UK Government thus have significant influence, through which they can encourage the Nepalese Government to promote freedom of religious belief, not in words, but with action. I ask that the UK Government use that influence, and hold bilateral meetings with Nepalese representatives at the United Nations Human Rights Council, to encourage Nepal to live up to its obligations as a member of the UNHRC.

Another area of grave concern for those who take an interest in human rights and religious freedom is the plight of the Baha’i community in Iran. We have some people in the Gallery today who are here to represent the Baha’is, and we are here to represent them as Members of Parliament and from a legal point of view. The Baha’is in Iran continue to face systematic, state-sponsored persecution. This session of the UNHRC happens to fall during the second cycle of the universal periodic review of Iran’s human rights record. As part of the review, many UNHRC countries have made recommendations to Iran on how it could improve its treatment of the Baha’i community. Those recommendations have covered detention, access to education, access to employment and non-discrimination in legislation. I am sad to say, however, that it seems that none of them has been implemented, which is frustrating.

Moreover, since the election of Dr Hassan Rouhani as President in 2013, ostensibly on a reformist agenda, more than 150 Baha’is have been arrested. As of January 2018, 77 Baha’is were imprisoned because of their beliefs, and more than 30,000 pieces of anti-Baha’i propaganda have been disseminated in the Iranian media. We are here today to speak for the Baha’is and to reassure them. They are people whom we will probably never meet, but we meet their representatives.

I understand that the UK Government are likely to co-sponsor and support a resolution on human rights in Iran at this session of the UNHRC. Perhaps the Minister will be kind enough to confirm that? I certainly would welcome it, and I look forward to that confirmation. The resolution, if adopted, would renew the mandate of the special rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Iran, a post previously held by the late Asma Jahangir. I should like to return to the tragic and untimely passing of Mrs Jahangir later.

Given the sad absence of a report from the special rapporteur on Iran at this session, would the Government kindly consider making a statement during the interactive dialogue on Iran, referencing the dire situation of the Baha’is in that country? Of course, many serious violations of human rights require attention, but I suggest that a statement on Iran is needed to emphasise the intensification of abuses against Iran’s unrecognised Baha’i minority. If people cannot access education, either at secondary or higher level, are unable to own a business or a house, cannot access healthcare, and do not have freedom of religious belief, something needs to be done. The treatment of the Baha’is can, in many ways, be seen as a litmus test for Iran’s sincerity on wider questions of human rights progress.

Another vital issue that I would like to raise is forced conversion and marriage in Pakistan. Pakistani non-governmental organisations, such as the Movement for Solidarity and Peace, have estimated that at least 1,000 Hindu and Christian girls are kidnapped, forced to convert to Islam, and forcibly married or sold into prostitution annually in Pakistan. I cannot begin to understand what has happened to those young girls. The horror and brutality that they go through is unbelievable, and most be recognised by the Government at the UNHRC.

As the Minister will no doubt be aware, Pakistan had a universal periodic review of its human rights record in November 2017. As part of that process, Pakistan received and accepted three recommendations about tackling forced conversion and forced marriage. Pakistan accepted that something has to be done, which is a welcome development, but there are concerns that the recommendations will not be pursued. I am aware of situations in the past where recommendations have been made and no progress has followed, which is unfortunate. I do not want just a verbal confirmation that Pakistan will do something; I want to see actions, because actions are better than words.

In November 2016, the Sindh provincial assembly unanimously passed a Bill against forced religious conversions. The Bill was sent to the governor for approval, but in January 2017 he refused, citing concerns raised by religious scholars and political parties that the clauses were against the teachings of Islam. Such pressure has also impeded the establishment of a national council for minorities’ rights. In 2014, the supreme court ordered the Government of Pakistan to set up such a body to monitor cases of violence and persecution against minorities. The court also ordered the establishment of a special police force to protect minorities and their places of worship. As far as I am aware, those two bodies are yet to be established. Again, there has been verbal commitment, but no action. Let us see if we can move things on. Would the Minister be willing to speak to his Pakistani counterpart to find out about the status of the Sindh Bill and those new bodies? I am also aware of the problems of education, of access to books, and of books that tell stories that are slanted against Christians.

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

The hon. Gentleman is making an excellent speech, and I concur with everything that he is saying. Earlier this week, I met with Cecil, who was here with Christian Solidarity Worldwide. I was moved by some of the stories he told me about his own kids’ experiences at school of censorship in the things that they are taught. The important thing to put on record is that we are not asking for a leg-up; we are just asking for equality, particularly for the Christian faith. It is really disappointing that Pakistan is not adhering to that. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that DFID has a role to play here? Some of these books are paid for by international aid money. It is concerning that the authorities are overlooking that.

[Jim Shannon]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for making that point. I had the opportunity to meet the gentleman to whom he refers, and I agree that his stories were heart-rending. No one could fail to be moved by what he told us.

Finally, during this month’s UNHRC session there will be a specific interactive dialogue on the human rights situation in Eritrea. The UK can contribute to that dialogue by raising the Eritrean Government’s continued abuse of FORB. That abuse was highlighted in 2016, when the UN commission of inquiry on human rights released a report, concluding that the Eritrean Government perceive freedom of religion as a threat, and that there are reasonable grounds to believe that they have committed crimes against humanity. If we believe that—and that belief has an evidential basis—we need to do something.

In Eritrea, there are only a handful of recognised religious organisations, and people who practise unregistered religions face fines and imprisonment, often without charge or trial. Estimates of the number of religious prisoners in Eritrea vary, but it is thought that there are between 1,000 and 3,000 prisoners. Reports of the torture and inhuman treatment of those prisoners are, sadly, only too frequent. According to Christian Solidarity Worldwide, prisoners have been held in metal shipping containers, underground cells, and in the open air, in desert areas surrounded by barbed wire or thorns.

Even the recognised religions are tightly controlled by the state in Eritrea. Abune Antonios, the patriarch of the recognised Orthodox Church, was deposed and replaced roughly 10 years ago. He has been under house arrest since that time. Here we are 10 years later, having been unable to persuade the Eritrean authorities to release him. Antonios was reportedly released in 2017, appearing at a mass in July following an alleged reconciliation with the Eritrean Government. It is widely believed that his tightly managed appearance was aimed at convincing the international community that the human rights situation in Eritrea was improving and, more significantly, at convincing the Eritrean people that the division caused by the patriarch’s removal was over—paving the way for a pro-Government successor. After his reappearance, the patriarch was returned to house arrest. He has not been seen since.

Will the Minister urge the Eritrean Government to release Patriarch Antonios and the prisoners of conscience detained unlawfully simply because of their beliefs? I also suggest that he encourages the Eritrean Government to extend invitations to relevant UN representatives, enabling them to conduct unhindered, thorough, independent and impartial human rights investigations?

To sum up, FORB is a fundamental human right. Tragically, countless people worldwide are suffering because of its denial. In Nigeria, armed violence by Fulani herders has taken the lives of countless innocent people. In Nepal, the Government’s laws threaten the freedom of religious minorities. In Iran, the Baha’i community are oppressed by the state at every point in their lives. In Eritrea, holy men and peaceful believers wind up unlawfully imprisoned. In Pakistan, thousands of young girls are taken from their homes and married off to men against their will. Those are just a few examples of FORB violations across the world.

I believe it is our duty as parliamentarians to speak out for those who have no voice, those who are suffering and neglected and those who want to live their lives in peace—those who just want to worship their God in the way that they want. The 37th session of the United Nations Human Rights Council offers an excellent opportunity to help those vulnerable people, and I ask that the Government raise these issues at this month’s session. During the dialogue with the special rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief, I ask that the Government repeat their stated commitment to FORB. I know the Minister will do that, but will he give us the assurance that it will go to the next stage, to protect the lives of persecuted religious minorities?

Will the Minister also share the steps that he has taken to advance FORB with his counterparts at the UNHRC, and encourage them to take such measures as well? That would be helpful for the debate, and to reassure those in Westminster Hall, in the audience and those watching outside.

Before I finish—this is one of those “finally and penultimately” moments, but I am getting there—I hope hon. Members will not mind if I say a few words about the late Asma Jahangir, the special rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Iran. Her name is familiar to many human rights activists and will be familiar to many in this room. She was a lawyer and campaigner, who co-founded and chaired the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan. She suffered imprisonment and house arrest for her support for democracy and human rights, but her resilience and capabilities saw her become the first woman to serve on Pakistan’s Supreme Court Bar Association. She was a strong defender of human rights in Pakistan and spoke out against violence against women, a position that exposed her to serious threats. At the international level, she was called to serve the United Nations human rights machinery in three roles, first as the UN special rapporteur on extra-judicial executions, then as special rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief and finally as special rapporteur on human rights in Iran, a post she held until her death last month on 11 February, aged only 66. Speaking as someone who is close to 66, that is a young age—I am not that close, but I am going that way.

Pakistan has lost one of its most courageous daughters, the United Nations has lost one of its most effective human rights defenders and many people of faith and campaigners for religious freedom and for women’s rights have lost a friend. She will be mourned in prayers by many communities. I hope that in our debate today in this House we are paying some tribute to Asma Jahangir’s work and her contribution to human rights.

In conclusion, I thank the Backbench Business Committee for giving me the opportunity to bring this subject forward for debate and I thank all hon. Members for coming to participate. I look forward very much to the responses from the shadow Minister and the Minister. Today, in this House, we can be the voice for the voiceless across the world.

Drug Addiction

Debate between David Linden and Jim Shannon

Wednesday 22nd November 2017 Westminster Hall

[David Linden]

Very deliberately, because this debate is about the human and financial cost of drug addiction, I do not want to make a party political point. I could be tempted down the line of saying that if we followed the Conservative’s tax plans, that would mean £160 million less for public services in Scotland, but I shall not go down that path.

Before I move on to the human cost of drug addiction, let me sum up some of the contributions to the debate. There has been a lot of discussion and a lot of figures have been bandied about, but I want to talk about a couple of personal cases.

[Jim Shannon]

I congratulate all those who have spoken on this issue. In Northern Ireland, more people have died from drug addiction than from road traffic accidents, but perhaps there is a way of addressing that issue. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there must be more links between GPs, so that they can refer people whenever they are aware there is a problem and tackle addiction more successfully? There are methods to do that within the system.

[David Linden]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, and I shall come on to the point about support services that are provided in our communities.

The hon. Member for South Thanet mentioned the Frank project, and I was conscious that he was looking over at me and probably trying to work out whether I am here on work experience, or whether I am actually an MP. I am both young enough and old enough to remember “Talk to Frank”, and it is disappointing that we do not see as much of that anymore—I remember that when I was growing up we would see it on a regular basis. The right hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb) spoke with huge experience and knowledge on this issue. He was a Health Minister in the coalition Government, and we should spend a lot of time listening to him. I am not sure that I agreed with everything he said, but he is worthy of listening to.

The right hon. Gentleman mentioned safe injecting facilities and heroin-assisted treatment. Prior to becoming a Member of the House last June, I worked for my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss), and there was a proposal to install the UK’s first safe injecting facility in Glasgow. I am disappointed that the Lord Advocate in Scotland has said that he is currently not minded to give that legal cover, and to go down that route we will probably need Home Office Ministers to look at the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. In Glasgow we are pushing ahead with the heroin-assisted treatment model, which should be welcomed.

The hon. Member for Reigate (Crispin Blunt) spoke about the importance of following the evidence, which I endorse. Before I was an MP, I had the privilege of going to Dublin and visiting the Ana Liffey project, which is moving towards a safe injecting facility. The key message that we took from there was that we should very much follow the evidence. I commend NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde, which throughout the entire process has built an evidence-based case, and that point is well made. My hon. Friend the Member for Inverclyde had a short amount of time in which to speak. I am conscious that he speaks with a huge amount of passion on this issue, and I hope that he continues to do that in this House. I commend the work done by him and the right hon. Member for North Norfolk this week.

I see my role as an MP as being to speak up for constituents in the east end, and to give ordinary Glaswegians a voice in Parliament. Last week, Michelle Kearney, who is originally from Carmyle in my constituency, spoke bravely in the Evening Times about the death of her daughter, Michelle, who tragically died aged just 16 on 19 October 1999. I am very grateful to Michelle’s mum, who took some time yesterday to speak with me about her own story, which is incredibly moving and deserves to be heard in this House.

The details of numerous failings by the Children’s Panel and social workers is a pain that Michelle still carries to this day. These are her words, and I very much hope that I can do her justice:

“My pain is the same pain as any other mother who has lost a child. Why should my pain be minimised because my daughter made a choice to take drugs that night? That’s a big hurdle for the families…I just had a feeling. I knew she wouldn’t be an adult. I had a sense. She said, ‘mum I’m never going to be a big lady. I’ll never be happy in this world but I know that I will in the next’…I could feel her dying every day. I buried her in my head for four years…She became a prostitute, not to fund anything but because that’s all she thought she was good for. She had met a girl that night and went back to a flat. I believe she was injected by the girl because she was injected into her right arm and she was right handed. It took 12 hours for her to die and she died with strangers…The police came to my door to tell me that she had been found dead. She had only tried drugs twice to my mind. It was just her time to go and came as no surprise, I just didn’t expect it to be drugs…She was the first child to die in those circumstances so her death was very public. There was no justice. It devastated our family.”

Michelle’s courage in talking publicly about her daughter’s death is, in itself, remarkable, but the fact that she has now chosen to dedicate her life to helping others as a counsellor for the Family Addiction Support Service says a lot about her selflessness. I pay tribute to that service in Glasgow. It does tremendous work with families, and throughout this debate we must be mindful of the families of those affected by addiction. I hope that by being able to give Michelle a voice in Parliament today I have managed to do her justice, but it was just by chance that I read her story in Saturday’s Evening Times. By that point I had already informed the Whips Office, and the Chair, that I intended to speak in this debate, based on my own upbringing.

I have spoken before in this House about being brought up in the Cranhill area of Glasgow’s east end—something of which I am fiercely proud. My first involvement in any form of political activism was not delivering leaflets for the SNP; it was going on a Mothers Against Drugs march with my mum on our housing estate. On 3 January 1998, another young Cranhill boy, Allan Harper—just a few years older than me—tragically died of an overdose. Even as a seven-year-old, I still vividly remember walking along Bellrock Street, past the maisonette flats, for the candlelit vigil for Allan. We did that march, with the mammies and the weans in Cranhill, to send a strong powerful message to the drug dealers on our estate that we would no longer tolerate them pushing drugs in our community. Twenty years ago on that march, never in my wildest dreams did I imagine that 20 years later I would be standing here as the MP for Cranhill. It is something of which I am incredibly proud.

As we reflect on the current battle that we have with drugs in our communities and families, I very much hope that in 20 years’ time, the next MP for Cranhill will not be standing here talking about a death rate from drugs of 867. The time for talk is over; the time for action is now, and that is a message for all Governments.