Syria

Drew Hendry Excerpts

Monday 16th April 2018 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

The strikes that took place were about degrading the chemical weapons capability such that we can alleviate and prevent further humanitarian suffering. Of course it is right that we need diplomatic effort to get a political solution to what is happening in Syria, and we will continue to push on that diplomatic effort, as we do with a variety of international partners. We will continue to support the UN intervention and the Geneva process.

[Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)]

The Prime Minister has described this action as a targeted strike that does not increase tensions in the region. If that is the case, can she confirm that she has ruled out the possibility of any retaliation from Russia?

[The Prime Minister]

As I have said in response to a number of questions, when we were looking at this action, one of the issues we took into account was the need to ensure that we minimised the risk of escalation—we did that.

Infected Blood Inquiry

Drew Hendry Excerpts

Thursday 29th March 2018 Commons Chamber

[Chloe Smith]

What I have said to the House today is that it will be for the solicitor to the inquiry to determine those expenses, so I am not in a position directly to answer the right hon. Gentleman’s question today. As I have said, my colleagues and I have decided that reasonable expenses, which are properly incurred in respect of legal representation for the purpose of responding to the consultation of the inquiry on the terms of reference, will be awarded.

[Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) for bringing this issue to the House and, indeed, to the Minister for accepting the issue and for her tone this morning. Since being first elected in 2015, I have been in regular contact with victims of this scandal, who have been deeply frustrated by the pace at which the Government have been dealing with this. Will she commit her Government now to do what is in their power to move this process on as quickly as possible, with dignity and compassion, for those who have been affected by this outrageous scandal?

[Chloe Smith]

As I have said this morning already and have said before, we want this inquiry to move as quickly as possible so that people get the answers that they deserve, and have deserved for many years.

European Council

Drew Hendry Excerpts

Monday 26th March 2018 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

As I have said all along, and as I repeated earlier, we believe it is important that the Spanish constitution is upheld and that the rule of law is upheld.

[Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)]

The Prime Minister is right to stress the importance of standing up for shared values “within our continent and beyond.” That being the case, what does she think about politicians being arrested in Catalonia to suppress the peaceful democratic process?

[The Prime Minister]

As I have just said in answer to the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Stuart C. McDonald), and as I will continue to say, we believe that the Spanish constitution should be upheld and that the rule of law should be upheld.

Capita

Drew Hendry Excerpts

Thursday 1st February 2018 Commons Chamber

[Oliver Dowden]

Of course there are lessons to be learned from this. Indeed, that is exactly what bodies such as the Select Committee on Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs are looking into. However, there is a distinction between a private company and a public body. I do not think it would be appropriate to extend the full FOI provisions to all private companies.

[Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)]

If the Minister is serious about getting the best value for the public, will he commit to learning from the Scottish Government? The Scottish Futures Trust’s latest independently audited benefits statement shows more than £1 billion in savings since it was established.

[Oliver Dowden]

I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s question. Of course we will learn those lessons, but it is worth noting that the Scottish Government gave a contract to Capita in 2015. Capita was appointed by the Scottish Public Pensions Agency to deliver its integrated pensions IT software solutions, which is another example of Governments choosing to use the expertise of the private sector.

Oral Answers to Questions

Drew Hendry Excerpts

Wednesday 20th December 2017 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I am very happy not only to send Christmas wishes to the principal, staff and students at Fareham College, but to congratulate them on working hard to achieve such excellent results. My hon. Friend is absolutely right. This is about ensuring that young people have the skills, training and education they need for the jobs of the future. It is about building a Britain fit for the future.

[Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)]

Q8. For many terminally ill people on universal credit, this will be their last Christmas. Does the Prime Minister agree that it can never be appropriate for terminally ill people to be forced to meet work coaches or to fit into an arbitrary six-month prognosis to claim support? Will she listen—finally—to the experts at the Motor Neurone Disease Association and Macmillan CAB and remove these conditions to allow these people some dignity as they, with their families, face the end of their lives?

[The Prime Minister]

The hon. Gentleman is right that we have to deal with cases where somebody has a terminal illness with the utmost sensitivity. These issues have been raised before. The conditions and principles applied to terminally ill people claiming universal credit are in fact the same as those for people claiming employment and support allowance, and have remained the same for successive Governments. A number of approaches can be taken, and there are several options for how people progress through the system, but he is right that we should deal with terminally ill people with sensitivity. That is what the system intends to do.

Oral Answers to Questions

Drew Hendry Excerpts

Wednesday 6th December 2017 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

Of course this is an important issue. As my hon. Friend said, we have seen great progress in providing higher standards of cancer care for all patients. Survival rates are at a record high and about 7,000 more people are surviving cancer after successful NHS treatment compared to three years ago. Of course we want to do more on this issue. He raised a very specific point. I understand that the Department of Health is adopting a phased approach to investment, as the national cancer programme runs for a further three years. I would be happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss the matter.

[Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)]

Q12. Contrary to the Prime Minister’s previous answer on this subject, only her Government can remove barriers to universal credit for terminally ill people in Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Will she answer the question again? Will she end the cruel requirement for people across the UK who do not want to know they are dying to self-certify on universal credit?

[The Prime Minister]

I will ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions to look at this issue. As the hon. Gentleman knows, we are working on how universal credit is rolled out and how it is dealt with in relation to individuals. I am sure he will understand that if particular things within universal credit apply to people in particular circumstances, they can be applied only if the jobcentres are aware of those circumstances. I will ask the Department for Work and Pensions to look at the matter.

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Drew Hendry Excerpts

Committee: 4th sitting: House of Commons
Monday 4th December 2017 Commons Chamber

[Ross Thomson]

Thank you, Sir David.

There was no option for debate, and no opportunity to amend or even reject those laws. Where was SNP Members’ concern for sovereignty then?

[Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Ross Thomson]

My hon. Friend is right that the rhetoric of the SNP group in Westminster is very different from that of the SNP group in Holyrood.

[Drew Hendry]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Ross Thomson]

No, I will answer this point first. It looks as though we are achieving a real consensus about the powers that will come to Scotland, but we have just heard the SNP’s heated rhetoric in this Chamber. I know the SNP group in Holyrood, because I worked with them, and I know that Alex Neil and some bashful others are very keen on Brexit and powers coming back to, and being exercised in, Holyrood. SNP Members in Westminster want those powers to lie with the EU, and they want the EU to retain and maintain full control over all those areas.

Given that the EU is still very much travelling in the direction of greater integration, the SNP will simply want to cede even more powers to the EU if they get their way and win a second independence referendum. Boy, we in the Conservative party will do everything to prevent that from happening. There is no power grab here; this is simply the SNP’s great power giveaway.

[Drew Hendry]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

--- Later in debate ---

[Ross Thomson]

In 2016, the SNP went into the election with a majority in Holyrood and lost it. The SNP now depends on the votes of the Greens to see through its legislation, its budget and a second independence referendum. The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the election in June. I do not know whether he has looked behind him, but 21 of his colleagues have gone missing, including the former leader of the SNP, Alex Salmond, and the party’s leader in Westminster, Angus Robertson. In that election, it was quite clear that the people of Scotland wanted to send the First Minister a message: “In 2014, we said no and we meant it.” That is why there are fewer SNP Members here than there were. There may be 35 of them, as the right hon. Gentleman says, but 13 Scottish Conservatives have achieved more for Scotland in five months in the last Budget than 56 SNP MPs ever did in two years.

I want to get back to my previous point. We will always stand up for Scotland’s businesses, communities and its people.

[Drew Hendry]

On that point, will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Ross Thomson]

I have literally just answered a point, so I will finish making this one. We will ensure that no barriers are created to trade within the UK. Even the SNP Scottish Government—including the Brexit Minister, Mike Russell—accept that there will have to be common UK-wide frameworks, because they are needed. That is reflected in the Scottish Affairs Committee report, as other colleagues have highlighted in the debate. We need common frameworks, because a UK single market or unitary market—whatever we want to call it—is our greatest asset and we need to maintain it. Where frameworks are needed to underpin the work of companies and individuals across all parts of our United Kingdom, we will make the case for such frameworks.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ross Thomson]

My hon. Friend is right. Scotland has two Governments: the United Kingdom Government and the Scottish Government. I know from my own constituency that my residents like it when both Governments work together, rather than being at each other’s throats. We have co-operated on city deals, for example, to achieve something, and we need to see more of that, because my constituents are absolutely fed up with the back-biting.

[Drew Hendry]

On the subject of powers, does the hon. Gentleman still subscribe to what was written on the banner that he held outside the Scottish Parliament for the Vote Leave campaign? The banner urged people to vote to

“LEAVE the EU and give control of the Scottish fishing industry to our democratically-elected Scottish Parliament”.

Does he still agree that those powers should go to the democratically elected Scottish Parliament?

[Ross Thomson]

I am so grateful to the hon. Gentleman for bringing that up. By leaving the European Union, we can take back powers over fishing, and we will come out of the common fisheries policy. As we heard earlier in this debate, the SNP wants to take us straight back into the EU and therefore drag every fisherman in Scotland straight back into that very policy, selling Scotland’s fishermen out. That has been confirmed today, but the Scottish Conservatives, such as my hon. Friend the Member for Banff and Buchan (David Duguid), will stand up for Scottish fishermen and deliver a Brexit that works for them. I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving me the opportunity to say so.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Deidre Brock).

I rise to speak in support of new clause 64 and the Labour amendments that seek to address the sidelining of the devolved Administrations. Since devolution, over 17 years ago, there has been considerable divergence in many policy areas between the different parts of the UK. Environment and rural affairs policy has been significantly devolved, and this is one area where Brexit will have a huge impact. The day before the UK Government triggered article 50, the Welsh Government provided rural communities with a £250 million boost via the final tranche of the rural development fund to help them become more resilient after Brexit. We need this support to continue.

This evening, we have listened to the detail and intricacies of clause 11, the impact of which will have a detrimental effect on Wales, if powers come back to Westminster from Wales. I will take my speech in a different direction, however, so that I can highlight the needs of the farming community in Gower in the light of the new clauses and amendments. As we all know, there might not have been much truth in some of the claims made by the leave campaign, but many farmers had no reason to disbelieve politicians when they were told that

“Wales would not be one penny worse off after Brexit”

and that Welsh farming would have

“at least as much support”

as it currently has after Brexit, but we are yet to see any funding guarantee from the Government that will ensure that Welsh farmers get, at a minimum, the same level of funding support they currently receive through the common agricultural policy after 2020-21.

The Tory UK Government have refused to provide assurances about matching the current level of funding, but they have also failed clearly to explain what will happen about any future trade rules for farmers. The right hon. Member for Clwyd West (Mr Jones) stated that NFU Cymru supported the retention of a common framework for agriculture, but decisions made in Westminster would most definitely not reflect the needs of the devolved nations, particularly of sheep farmers in Wales. There has been no mention, either, of how any support there is for farmers will be distributed between the devolved Administrations.

The Farmers’ Union of Wales supports the UK’s remaining in the single market and the customs union. The president of the FUW, Glyn Roberts, stated it was “the only sensible outcome” as much of the uncertainty about the future would just disappear. NFU Cymru has also stressed that access to the EU single market must be tariff free. We wait on tenterhooks for news from Brussels about whether a special deal can be struck for Northern Ireland, but as the First Minister, Carwyn Jones, said earlier, we cannot allow different parts of the UK to be treated more favourably than others. If Northern Ireland is to stay in the customs union and the single market, why cannot Welsh farmers profit from the benefits of remaining in them as well? They currently have a fantastic global reputation for quality produce, higher environmental standards and animal welfare protections. Wales needs to retain that strong brand, underpinned by high standards, but we have still not had any guarantees on how we can protect it.

It is more important than ever for Members of Parliament to engage with the farming community and the farming unions, which is something that I am proud to do. In my constituency, farming focuses on dairy, lamb and beef. I have met many farmers, and have discussed the post-Brexit situation with dairy farmer Andrew Stevens of Llannant Farm and with Dan Pritchard of Gower Salt Marsh Lamb. Dan has been involved in agricultural talks in Brussels, and says that the main concern for sheep farmers is uncertainty: because no one knows what is happening, it is impossible to plan for the future. Given that profits are already being squeezed for farmers, certainty about a future trade deal with the EU needs to be prioritised, or many more farmers will lose their businesses and stop farming. If Welsh farmers put their trust in the Tories, they will find themselves out of business.

The lamb, beef and dairy industry in Wales is subject to high standards of regulation, and we are proud of that. It ensures that produce from Wales and the United Kingdom is of the highest quality. Welfare should be a high priority, but the big issue for Welsh farmers is that Tory austerity means that people cannot afford to make better choices. Farmers will be unable to compete without either some sort of protection or some assistance to export so that we can continue to sell our goods in the EU and to other countries. Given the threat of tariffs and the risk of losing subsidies, the farming industry in Wales is feeling vulnerable. There must be public procurement in which the produce from our Welsh farms has priority. Our schools, hospitals and armed forces should be using British produce, including produce from Wales.

During my discussion with Dan from Gower Salt Marsh Lamb, he identified one positive aspect of our leaving the EU: the possibility that other markets could be tapped into. However, while farmers hope that that may happen, the prospect of a tariff on their current trade with France, the EU’s largest importer of lamb, makes future business inconceivable. The fact that such huge changes are on the horizon means that leaving the EU is an uphill battle for Welsh farmers. The message from farming unions in Wales is clear, and the message from the Welsh Government is clear: the UK Government must maintain current levels of investment in farming in Wales after Brexit, to ensure that Welsh farmers remain competitive and can produce food of the highest standards.

I support new clause 64 because it would establish collaborative procedures for the creation of UK-wide frameworks only if Ministers

“have consulted with, and secured the agreement of, the affected devolved administrations”,

such as Wales.

[Drew Hendry]

We have heard a great deal about clause 11 tonight. My right hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford) described it correctly earlier, and even Conservative Members representing Scottish constituencies admitted that it was faulty in its current form. Indeed, it is nothing more than a power grab which is fatally undermining the devolution settlement in all the nations of the United Kingdom.

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

I thank my hon. Friend for giving way so early in his speech. I do not know whether he has seen the coverage of last week’s rural broadband debate, during which Scottish Tory Members shouted across the Chamber, “Strip the Scottish Government of their powers.” That is their attitude. There is no doubt that there is a power grab at stake.

[Drew Hendry]

My hon. Friend has made a good point. It is important for us to be aware that there are forces that would like power to be taken away from Scotland.

Clause 11 was drafted by people with no understanding of devolution law. It is a midden in its current form. There are questions about the mechanisms that will result from it. Surely, if the Prime Minister’s “union of equals” statement is correct, frameworks should be agreed, not imposed. If, as the Minister said earlier, this is a temporary situation, why should it not lie with the Scottish Government to take that power temporarily until the frameworks are agreed? Our amendment 72 ensures that the devolved legislature would give consent to those appropriate areas in clause 11 before it comes into effect.

As we have heard, the fact that there are 111 powers demonstrates the scowth of the issues at stake. As things stand, however, UK Ministers could simply make changes to important policy areas without the formal consent of the Scottish Government or the Welsh Government, or the Scottish Parliament or the Welsh Assembly.

We are told to trust that a deal will be done—that we can expect this to happen—but I think people were expecting something to happen today, yet that deal did not happen. How can we have confidence that things will be done and a deal will be delivered when Arlene Foster can just pick up the phone and say, “No, we don’t like that”?

There are 111 areas covering a massive range of Scottish life: fishing, farming, law, data sharing, aircraft noise, pesticides, fracking, flooding, water quality, food, forestry, organs, blood safety—as my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East (Tommy Sheppard) pointed out earlier—land use, railways, renewables and victims’ rights.

It is clear that those at the top of the profession in legal circles believe clause 11 is drafted without an understanding of devolution law. As Professor Alan Page put it:

“Not only does the Bill propose a massive increase in the power of UK Ministers to legislate in the devolved areas, it also proposes that their exercise should not be subject to any form of Scottish parliamentary oversight or control. What is proposed therefore is a law-making system fundamentally at odds with two of the key principles on which the devolution settlement is based.”

He was not the only one. Professor Rick Rawlings noted:

“The sooner clause 11 of the Withdrawal Bill is cast aside, the better. Constitutionally maladroit, it warps the dialogue about the role and place of the domestic market concept post-Brexit.”

On clause 11, even the Law Society of England and Wales has called for discussions about where the common frameworks will remain and their scrutiny. Professor Alan Page said that

“the real purpose of Clause 11 is not to secure legal continuity but to strip the devolved institutions of any bargaining power that they might have when it comes to the discussion of common frameworks and all the rest.”

We welcome the fact that there will be discussion over devolved areas of responsibility; consultation, however, does not satisfy the needs of devolution, and the UK Government should seek consent from the Scottish Government before exercising delegated powers in devolved areas, and the same goes for Wales and Northern Ireland. People’s jobs, businesses and farms, their environment at sea, in the air, above ground and below ground, virtual lives and literal lives, justice we depend on, and even the blood in our veins: tonight we must vote to uphold the rights of people across the nations and ensure that power is not taken from them.

[Brendan O'Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)]

I begin by echoing the words of my right hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford), because clause 11 is an unashamed power grab; it is undermining the devolution settlement, and it drives a coach and horses through devolution across these islands. In the time that I have to speak, I will talk about the impact it will have on farming, particularly in my Argyll and Bute community.

It is generally accepted that Scottish farmers, particularly farmers and crofters working the land on the west coast, face vastly different challenges from farmers in the rest of the UK. Not only do Scottish hill farmers toil with some of the poorest land, but they face additional challenges from climate, geography and topography, and so much so that 85% of Scottish agricultural land is classed “a less favoured area” compared with just 17% of English agricultural land.

Given that Scottish farmers face specific challenges, surely it stands to reason that they need a bespoke solution that recognises the vast differences that exist across these islands. It is understandable that the Scottish Government and the Scottish farming community are demanding confirmation that all powers relating to agriculture post-Brexit will automatically be passed to the relevant legislature—in this case, the Scottish Parliament. I fear that this Government are taking us down a dangerous road. They are deliberately proposing fundamentally to alter the basic principles of devolution.

Redundancy Modification Orders

Drew Hendry Excerpts

Wednesday 12th July 2017 Commons Chamber

[Martyn Day]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am grateful to you for allowing me this opportunity to raise the issue of redundancy modification orders—or, to use the full Sunday name, the Redundancy Payments (Continuity of Employment in Local Government, etc.) (Modification) Order 1999.

As the name implies, the order acts to preserve continuity of employment where an employee moves between certain local government, and indeed some other identified, positions. Pretty much every type of job that once belonged to the local government family is covered by the RMO, with a wide range of bodies listed. To illustrate that, the list already includes bodies in my constituency, such as West Lothian Leisure Ltd, and others including the Scottish Environment Protection Agency, Scottish Water, the Scottish Commission for the Regulation of Care and the Scottish Social Services Council, to name just a few.

I refer Members to the order’s explanatory notes, which describe its effect quite clearly:

“The Order modifies certain provisions of the Employment Rights Act 1996 concerning redundancy payments, in their application to persons employed by certain local government employers or other employers in related sectors. The modifications have the effect that the employment of such a person by more than one such employer may be treated as if it were continuous for the purposes of those provisions; and re-engagement of such a person, or an offer of re-engagement made to such a person, by any such employer is treated as if it were re-engagement, or as if the offer had been made, by that person’s employer.”

In ordinary language, that means that the order deems certain successive employments as continuous, and the provisions of the Employment Rights Act 1996 would apply as if the individual had been employed by the same employer throughout the entire period.

If an employee under notice of redundancy receives a job offer from another listed body on the modification order and starts the new role within four weeks of the end of their old job, they are considered to have continuity of employment. If an employee decides during the first four weeks not to continue with the new job, they will be able to terminate the contract, and they would be entitled to receive any redundancy payments from the old employer. However, no continuous service accrued under the redundancy modification order applies to anything other than the redundancy payment. Such continuous service fails to entitle employees to any additional annual leave or other benefit over and above that of their contractual entitlements.

While the order treats certain types of successive employments as continuous, it does not preserve continuity if there is a break in service. The order has been amended a number of times to include new employments, with the last amendment being in 2015.

The crux of the issue, and the reason for this debate, is the lack of progress made on updating the order, and the impacts of this on employees’ rights and continuous service benefits—benefits such as pension and annual leave entitlement, as well as the calculation of redundancy payments. Many terms and conditions of local government employment are linked to continuous service, so the impact of changing employers extends far beyond redundancy rights, affecting other entitlements, such as sickness allowance and maternity pay.

The lack of an update to the order means that a number of organisations across the UK have yet to be included in the order, despite applying for inclusion—in some cases, several years ago. One such organisation is the Falkirk Community Trust, which applied for inclusion shortly after its establishment in 2011. Its application has been considered, and the trust has been approved for inclusion in the schedule of bodies in the order. To date, this inclusion has not taken place and has been beset with delays.

The Government stated in 2015 that the order would be updated in due course. As the House will be aware, the Department for Communities and Local Government administers the local government redundancy modification order on behalf of the UK Government and the devolved Administrations in Scotland and Wales. I have been told in answer to parliamentary questions that the Department is

“actively looking at options on taking forward the Redundancy Modification Order and will update relevant organisations in due course.”

[Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech about this important issue for employees. Has he had any indication from the Government of why this is taking so long and when it will be resolved?

[Martyn Day]

That is indeed a question that I shall be coming to, and one that I have asked by way of written questions and in letters to Ministers. I hope that this Minister will answer it tonight.

In November last year, I wrote to Ministers in the Department for Communities and Local Government asking them to set a firm timescale for updating the order. The response that I received was completely unsatisfactory: it gave no explanation for the delays, and made no firm commitment to updating the order within any definitive timescale. It is now 2017 and no updates have been made, which leaves many employees throughout the country in a kind of limbo, not knowing whether their continuous service will be recognised. Indeed, literally thousands of local government workers may be unaware that they could be affected by this lack of action if they were to move posts.

One such person is my constituent Jill Kernan, who first made me aware of this issue—and I am grateful to her for doing so. Jill has worked in local government for more than 20 years, and because she has transferred between employers on occasion, her case very much highlights the problem. In 2013 her employer at the time, North Lanarkshire Council, formed an arm’s-length company called North Lanarkshire Properties LLP. The small number of staff, and Unison, which was representing staff in the TUPE process, were assured that addition to the order was a formality, and would happen imminently. Given how relatively straightforward the process should be, that assurance did not seem unreasonable. Life, however, is seldom as straightforward as we would expect, and when Jill took up a new post with Falkirk Council early last year, she discovered that the arm’s-length company—and, indeed, many others—had still not been informed of the decision on addition to the order. Consequently, Jill has lost continuation of service. She and others like her need to know when a decision will be made, and whether it will be retrospective.

The right not to be unfairly dismissed and the right to a redundancy payment require two years’ continuous service, and workers affected by these delays in updating the order clearly risk losing those rights. While I hope that the situation can be resolved retrospectively, I am left wondering what happens to anyone who is made redundant during this limbo period. The redundancy modification order has undoubtedly had a huge impact on Jill’s continuous-service benefits, including pension and annual leave entitlement as well as other service-related conditions. Quite simply, that is not good enough: our public sector staff deserve to be treated better. There are more than enough challenges in the local government and public sector environment without managers and staff having to investigate and try to sort out staff conditions and benefits when people are changing jobs in such circumstances.

In recent years, local government has had to come up with many innovative and effective ways of making efficiency savings and streamlining the delivery of public services, and the creation of arm’s-length companies has been a regular feature of that process the length and breadth of the UK. Many Members will have, for example, culture or leisure trusts in their constituencies which have been set up in the last few years. I wonder how many of those are included in the current RMO, and how many are—as in my own local experience—still awaiting inclusion. The number of new companies of that kind, and consequently the number of affected workers, are likely to continue to increase.

The frequency of updates of the order to include new employments is simply not keeping pace with the reality of life in the public sector, and those affected are very frustrated by that. I share their frustration with the Government in this regard, and I have a number of questions to ask. Why is the process taking so long? When will it be resolved? What will be done to sort the problem out retrospectively so that hard-working constituents who have been affected by the delays do not potentially lose out? In particular, how can we ensure that those affected can reclaim any lost benefits when the RMO finally catches up with the new employments?

The redundancy modification order is a key instrument in protecting the terms and conditions of local government workers, and its timeous updating should be given a higher priority than it has been given by this Government. I also think that Ministers should consider the preservation of other length-of-service benefits such as annual leave and sick pay entitlements, and not just that of redundancy pay.

As I mentioned earlier, the Department for Communities and Local Government administers the order on behalf of the devolved Administrations. I therefore suggest that, given that legislative competency over local government is devolved to the Scottish Parliament, it might make sense to devolve the administration of the redundancy modification order to Scotland as well. I should like to hear the Minister’s opinion of that suggestion.

I look forward to the Minister’s response, and to his answers to my questions.

Debate on the Address

Drew Hendry Excerpts

Wednesday 21st June 2017 Commons Chamber

[Ian Blackford]

The hon. Gentleman has to speak to his Labour colleagues. If they want to stand up for the people of this country, they have to join the SNP in demanding that we remain members of the single market. That is the salient point.

The Queen’s Speech fails not only on minimising the impact of Brexit. It fails even harder on reversing the damage caused by almost a decade of austerity. For this Tory Government, austerity cuts are not simply a policy response to a particular economic situation. They are an ideology and a political choice. [Interruption.] I hear somebody shouting “nonsense”. Let me say politely to the Government that, in 2009, we embarked on a policy of quantitative easing. I suspect that all hon. Members supported the need to take monetary policy action in 2009. The situation now is that there has been £430 billion-worth of intervention in the markets. The point is that we have not taken the fiscal measures to deliver sustainable economic growth that had to sit hand in hand with the monetary policy action. We have underpinned the financial markets as a direct consequence of quantitative easing. Those with assets have done well. The financial markets have increased by more than 70% over those years. The tragedy is that real wages have declined. The responsibility for economic management rests with the Government. We have not looked after the working people of this country but have ensured that those with financial assets have done very well. That is the specific charge, and why the Government can and must change course.

That political choice has put certain groups of people in the crosshairs, including working families, those on low incomes just managing to get by, and the disabled and vulnerable who rely on support from social security. I use that phrase for a clear purpose. In Scotland, we talk about social security, but the Government in London talk about welfare. That is why they have a problem. They do not realise that it is about the importance of that safety net. Our society is simply as strong as its weakest link.

[Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that those who are most under pressure will find it even worse if the Government continue their shambolic roll-out of the universal credit full service, which is ahead of schedule in the highlands and is hurting people deeply every day—those seeking work, the disabled and those who are working?

[Ian Blackford]

I commend my hon. Friend for his work in this area. I know that many constituents have come to him who are enormously affected by the changes. It is important that the Government reflect on the impact of the changes and that they change course.

Article 50

Drew Hendry Excerpts

Wednesday 29th March 2017 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I have answered questions on this throughout this afternoon, and my position has not changed.

[Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)]

While the Prime Minister was delivering her Battenberg address earlier, she indicated that she would continue to ignore Scotland. Is she aware of the comments of Tory MSP Annie Wells, who says that she does not respect the sovereignty of the Scottish Parliament, and will the Prime Minister distance herself from those remarks?

[The Prime Minister]

I did not say that I was going to ignore the views of Scotland. In fact, we make it very clear in the letter that was sent to President Tusk that the views of all the constituent parts of the United Kingdom will be taken into account in our negotiations.