Government Plan for Net Zero Emissions

Debate between Drew Hendry and Stephen Kerr

Tuesday 8th October 2019 Westminster Hall

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

I congratulate the hon. Member for Truro and Falmouth (Sarah Newton). She said that everyone in this room is committed to net zero; she is correct about that. She also said that things must go further and faster, and that we must see a strategy and concrete policies from the UK Government. I agree with her on the need for targets, tests and scrutiny, as well as on her points about retrofitting energy efficiency. However, I will be a critical friend during the short time I have to speak and point out areas where things could be done much better by the UK Government.

Spending per head on energy efficiency in Scotland is four times that in England. If it were more, we could do even more in Scotland. The UK Government are falling short on home and business energy efficiency, and they are way behind on carbon capture, utilisation and storage. They need to get on with decarbonisation of the gas grid, which must be accelerated to enable low carbon heating for homes and businesses. They must flatten the pedal on vehicle and tax incentives to promote low carbon choices. VAT must be reduced on energy efficiency improvements. This Government must drop their ideological opposition to renewable onshore wind and stop holding solar power back.

The hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard) said that more of the same will not do. The budget needs to cut through to every aspect of climate change, and big, bold investments are required. James Richardson from the National Infrastructure Commission said:

“You need to really push ahead with renewables in the 2020s.”

Chris Stark from the Committee on Climate Change said that the choice is between nuclear and CCS; I firmly believe that CCUS is the way forward. Evidence abounds that poor air quality affects productivity. The National Infrastructure Commission has said that the money we need to spend on air quality should not be seen as a cost, but as a benefit to us.

I agree with what the hon. Member for Stirling (Stephen Kerr) said about young people. I will focus on what he said about CCUS. He is correct that we on the Select Committee on Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy were unanimous in expressing huge disappointment about the UK Government’s response to CCUS. Scotland has enormous potential in this area. Storage and readiness at St Fergus has the infrastructure, expertise and transferable skills to move with a fast first-mover advantage. It has capacity to store at least 5.7 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide. To put that into perspective, that is 150 times the emissions from Scotland in 2016. That is a massive storage capacity. The UK Government need to get on with doing that. Existing oil and gas infrastructure must be plugged and transferred, or it will be lost.

My hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands) talked about the UK’s obsession with nuclear power. He outlined the many actions of the Scottish Government and talked about the cross-party support in the Scottish Parliament. He said clearly that we could do more if we had the powers to do so. The UK Government need to step up and allow us to go even further and faster with what we need to do.

The cost of the Hinkley Point C nuclear power plant, already the most expensive single development on the planet, is set to rise by nearly £3 billion. The Government should not be pouring money down the bottomless pit of new nuclear when offshore wind, for example, is much less than half the price for consumers and does not blight the planet with further nuclear legacies. It is important that this Government strip out their nuclear obsession.

The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Emma Hardy) talked about the fantastic opportunity for butterflies and, more important, for trees. Forestry is a critical area where this Government need to up their game dramatically. In 2019, the new Scottish Government forestry strategy and tree planting scheme across Scotland took enormous strides. The industry employs 25,000 people and the trees planted in Scotland make up 84% of all trees planted across the UK. Some 22 million trees were planted in Scotland, while England fell 7 million short of its target. The Government need to get that fixed.

[Stephen Kerr]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Drew Hendry]

I will not take any interventions, because I want the Minister to have time to respond.

The Scottish National party Scottish Government are leading by example, redoubling efforts to end Scotland’s contribution to climate change by 2045. The Secretary-General of the United Nations described Scotland’s holistic approach to tackling climate change as “a qualified success,” and called on the UK Government to follow. The UK Government should use their reserved powers to help Scotland to achieve its climate change ambitions, not hinder us with opposition to renewables and inaction on energy efficiency.

We welcome the UK’s joint bid with Italy to host the UN framework convention on climate change COP 26 in Glasgow. That should be a progressive and inclusive event, and the Minister here today should absolutely disagree with the Prime Minister, who said at the Tory conference that the First Minister of Scotland should be banned from attending. That comment was puerile, ignorant and has been roundly condemned across Scotland; I hope the Minister will do the same today.

Shared Prosperity Fund

Debate between Drew Hendry and Stephen Kerr

Tuesday 14th May 2019 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir David, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis) on securing this important and timely debate. We have all been waiting far too long for details on this matter. The hon. Gentleman spoke about looking through the eyes of communities, and his challenges to the Minister were repeated by many others in the Chamber. We must respect the devolved Parliaments and ensure that badly needed regional aid is in place. The hon. Member for Coventry South (Mr Cunningham) intervened to speak about the dangers of listening to who shouts the loudest, and of pork barrel decision making.

The hon. Member for Barnsley Central mentioned data from the conference of peripheral maritime regions—I must declare an interest because, as a former leader of Highland Council, I am a former vice-president of that body—and the data were very detailed. He highlighted €895 million for Scotland in this spending round, including €180 million for the highlands and islands. For the Minister’s benefit, I remind hon. Members that both that country and that region voted in great numbers to remain in the European Union.

The hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) spoke about the funding being used to challenge depopulation, as well as other issues that have gone unaddressed by Westminster Governments for many years. Indeed, one symbol of European funding joins our two constituencies. After decades of no or little investment in the highlands and islands, the Kessock bridge that now spans our constituencies was made possible only by EU funding—something people in the highlands are very much aware of.

The hon. Member for Barnsley Central spoke about supporting the most vulnerable, and he mentioned the need for regeneration and business support, and the low-carbon agenda that comes with such funding. In response to an intervention, he recognised that people are becoming desperate for information, which is true—people are desperate to find out where such support will now come from. The devolved Administrations must be told what the money will be, how it will be used and how it will work. Currently, they do not have clarity about how much money there is, when it will be allocated and to whom, or how the system will work.

The hon. Gentleman spoke about the guiding principles of there being no less money than already exists, that the regions must not be worse off and that the system should be fully devolved. This funding must go beyond parliamentary cycles and spending reviews.

[Stephen Kerr (Stirling) (Con)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Finance (No. 3) Bill

Debate between Drew Hendry and Stephen Kerr

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

[Drew Hendry]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. Indeed, I do welcome the work at St Fergus. It perhaps would have been proper to point out that the Scottish Government are also driving that St Fergus development. It perhaps also would have been appropriate to point out that the funding that has been put forward by BEIS is one tenth of what was removed three years ago. Three years after the point at which it could have taken advantage of world-leading cutting-edge technology, it thinks it is good enough to put in a tenth of the funds and hope that that lip service will pay dividends. It just will not wash.

[Stephen Kerr]

rose—

[Drew Hendry]

I will give way to the hon. Gentleman later.

This Government also continue to fail the young. [Interruption.] Thank you for that direction, Mr Speaker. I will do my best to keep the pace going.

This Government also continue to fail young people. They could have ended wage discrimination, but they chose instead to keep punishing them. Those young people deserve the same pay for the same work and they deserve a real living wage. As my colleagues pointed out earlier, there is nothing—nothing—for the women born in the 1950s who were short-changed on their pension entitlements. It is no wonder that the argument for an independent Scotland has never been stronger. The Tories’ obsessions make the case for us in Scotland.

I do want to refer to the hon. Member for Stirling (Stephen Kerr), because we rarely agree on anything, but the one thing that we do agree on tonight is fixed odds betting terminals. Delaying the reduction of stakes in fixed odds betting terminals is a disgrace; it will only take more money from vulnerable addicts and put it in the pockets of the bookies and those with vested interests. It is a disgrace that is felt right across this House. Research from Landman Economics has shown that the average fixed odds betting terminal user loses £192 a month, with the average user of a machine capped at £2 a spin losing just £22 by comparison. There is no justification for delaying this action.

It is also clear, from this very debate, how the Tories want to muddy the waters on tax avoidance, as they have on the IR35 changes. If they are not pointing the way to tax avoidance, even when they look to clamp down on it they miss the mark, as we can see with the implementation of the IR35 changes. The loopholes absolutely need to be closed. However, the employers and agencies benefiting most from these schemes have, for the most part, got away with it. With HMRC implementing stringent measures on many who were duped, many are now fearful of being forced to repay immediately with no provisions that reasonable time will be allowed and a payment scheme be made available. Folk are genuinely worried about becoming bankrupt.

Austerity lives on for those who can afford it least. The Prime Minister and the Chancellor spin the line that austerity has ended, or is ending; well, maybe, depending on who you hear it from. But everyone knows, even their rare supporters, dwindling though they are, that that is just a toom tabard of a statement—another Government rebranding exercise. My constituents are making the choice between putting food on their tables and heating their homes. They have had enough of it. Those on universal credit with spiralling debt because they do not know when the next payment is coming, or whether, if it does, it will be correct, have had enough of it.

Universal credit impacts on other communities. After five and a half years, we know the truth. As the OBR Budget document details, the changes to the work allowance reverse only half of the cut that was made to it in the 2015 Budget. Are we seriously expected to cheer this Government for putting back in less than half of what they removed, after years of punishing those who could afford it least? Millions of people have been dragged through this system already, with misery, heartache and poverty—and what have they been told? They have been told that the system works—that they are all wrong—but there are now voices joining theirs.

Even in the Minister’s small concessions, he is admitting this Government’s failure. They should be utterly ashamed of what they have inflicted on people. If Ministers had a shred of decency, they would come to the Dispatch Box and apologise to my constituents and to the far too many others who have had to endure the roll-out of universal credit. Let us not forget that these people will not be benefiting from transitional funding announced in the Budget; instead they are left trying to piece together their lives following the impact on their families, sometimes shattered by this move. They are left wondering how on earth a Government supposed to provide them with a safety net to which they and their families have contributed are left counting pennies while those who have the most still avoid paying their share.

For those to be transitioned to universal credit, £1 billion for the transition does not even touch the sides of what is needed. If this Government were serious about mitigating the impacts, they would migrate people to universal credit without expecting them to process a new application. People who need universal credit support simply do not have anything spare to get them through the transition weeks, be it two weeks or five weeks.

Then there is the new funding for universal support to be announced. I will welcome that; any support is better than none. But again it is more fudge, because, as anyone who has any idea about this mess knows, most of the issues people experience with universal credit are long-running and ongoing well after the initial application. So where is the fund for ongoing universal support? While that was omitted from this Bill and by this Government’s PR machine, the chief executive of Citizen’s Advice made it very clear in her letter to the Work and Pensions Committee when she said:

“Our current agreement does not include funding to provide support to people once their claim is complete.”

Of course, I hear the Government’s other rhetoric that for most people the process is simple and problem free.

I do not want to see any more people in tears in my constituency office. I do not want to see any more families struggling to get along. I do not want to see any more families going to food banks and having to prostrate themselves to get what is essentially a handout in order to keep them going when they should be properly protected under a decent social security system that any forward-thinking country would have. Perhaps that country should indeed be an independent Scotland.

Banking Sector Failures

Debate between Drew Hendry and Stephen Kerr

Thursday 12th July 2018 Westminster Hall

[Drew Hendry]

There is a need to tackle that. I will come on to exactly what my party proposes, which I think the hon. Gentleman will find favour with.

I do not want to lose the words of the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton, who said—this is not a direct quote; I hope he will forgive me—that Ministers do not require the good will of the banks to hold them to account. That is important. Finally, he talked about the major banks being so large and complex that it seems impossible to rein them in. He mentioned a solution being a financial services tribunal, so that plaintiffs do not face a cost, win or lose. We have to consider that.

I understand that there is a bit of time left, so if it finds favour with hon. Members I will make a few more comments. I wanted to talk about all these issues, but I will start with the impact of some of the decisions made by the banks on local communities. People in rural areas have been hit by the closure of their banking services. My constituency alone has seen branches close in Inverness, Nairn, Aviemore and Grantown-on-Spey.

I was sent an appeal by the Badenoch and Strathspey Disability Access Panel. Its members felt so strongly that they got together to send their concerns. They wanted to communicate their concerns to Members about the adverse impact of bank closures on rural communities generally, and on the disabled members of those communities. They said:

“Recently the Royal Bank has closed its branches in Aviemore and Grantown, and the Bank of Scotland has closed its branch in Kingussie.”

For those unfamiliar with the geography of my constituency, those are quite disparate communities. Closing the branch in Grantown means that somebody wanting to access RBS services now has a round trip of more than an hour—in good weather—to Inverness to do so. They also say:

“Like the community in general, disabled people are very dissatisfied by the use of Mobile Banks, which offer only limited facilities for a few hours in the week. This causes problems of privacy, queuing (whatever the weather) and security, e.g. sums of money can build up between the visits of the bank and people are rightly worried about the safe keeping of them.”

They are worried about being seen in open queues as they go to mobile banks with piles of cash on them. Cash businesses often have to operate in rural economies. They also say:

“Disabled people have particular worries. The banks claim that Internet banking is a viable alternative, but many disabled people have no access to the internet. Furthermore, they find the option of having to undertake a return journey of between 20 and 30 miles (or more) to visit a proper bank distressing, because it either means depending on someone for transport or trying to use public transport, which is far from frequent in a rural community and which can be challenging to access for a person with a disability.

Finally, the banks have failed in their duty of keeping customers informed. How accessible are the sites chosen for the vans, how accessible is entry into the van, what facilities for the disabled are available in the van, e.g. for deaf or visually impaired people, and how well trained are the staff in dealing with the needs of disabled people? It may be that the banks have made adequate provision, but there has been no attempt to communicate this to disabled customers, who may be deterred from making use of the mobile bank. Incidentally, there has been an occasion when the mobile bank did not appear because of mechanical failure, but there was no system in place for the public to know what was happening.”

They were waiting in the cold for something that would turn up, without communication.

The disability access panel said of one customer that she uses a stick and walking from her house to the bank is a “big undertaking”. No seats are provided for people who are waiting,

“so she had to stand outside, which was difficult. The steps were very high—they did help her up the stairs but she doesn’t think she could do this every week. She asked for bank statements and was told they couldn’t do it…she would have to go to Inverness.”

They could only offer her the balance, just like at an ATM. The panel continues:

“She gave them feedback but they only noted it down on a bit of paper, she didn’t feel they took her complaint seriously.”

All I have had from RBS in response is that it has forwarded some information about the current situation. It is looking for a coach builder; it has not found one yet, but in the short term it is using a system called MyHailo, so customers will have a fob that they can press to get a member of staff from the van to come out. That answers very few of the criticisms that were made.

It is a disgrace that, despite being a 70% shareholder in the bank, the Government have failed to use their influence to represent Scottish communities and reverse devastating branch closures. The public bailed out the Royal Bank of Scotland; it cannot repay communities by simply abandoning them. It is a dereliction of duty that the UK Government did not make stronger representations to RBS about the impact that the closures will have on communities across Scotland and the other nations of the UK as they roll out. RBS branch closures have a devastating impact on Scottish communities, particularly, as I have said, in isolated rural areas. RBS has underestimated how much people rely on traditional in-branch banking services.

[Stephen Kerr]

I wish to support what the hon. Gentleman has just said and add to it. The Royal Bank of Scotland and others who are party to the process of bank branch closures have underestimated the anger that those closures have caused in communities in my constituency and throughout Scotland. That anger towards the Royal Bank of Scotland is not going away. Real reputational and brand damage has been done to what was otherwise a great—a grand—Scottish institution.

--- Later in debate ---

[Drew Hendry]

The hon. Gentleman and I normally disagree on just about everything. Very occasionally, we find points of agreement, and it is impossible to disagree on this issue. There is palpable anger. I talked about the comment by the hon. Member for East Lothian about the failure of trust in the bank. That is at grassroots level. It is right inside the communities. How daft is it to have trust in the bank demolished at the very top level and right at the grassroots? It is just crazy behaviour; it is also harmful behaviour. It is clear to me that some people are just looking for a very short-term gain, so I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention.

There is more I could say on the rural issue, and there is a lot more that people would say, but I want to get on to the treatment meted out by RBS’s Global Restructuring Group to SMEs in the aftermath of the financial crisis.

[Stephen Kerr]

I think that the hon. Gentleman and I will find that we can agree on a number of things this afternoon, and for that reason alone, this debate is noteworthy. He mentions the short-term gain that the Royal Bank of Scotland feels that it is making through the branch closures, but the amounts of money involved are minuscule in the context of the bank’s operations, and the damage that the closures are causing, if that were to be quantified—I am sure that it would have to be somehow—would be far greater than a few million pounds. The Royal Bank of Scotland must accept that it has a social responsibility that goes beyond mere pounds, shillings and pence.

[Drew Hendry]

This is becoming a habit, but I completely agree with the hon. Gentleman. I have cut my notes a wee bit shorter, but the point I was going to make was exactly that: the sell-off of assets does not make any financial sense in the longer term. If we believe that the vans are going to stay—that requires a stretch of the imagination—they still have to employ people and incur costs. When we hear figures of x million pounds, that sounds like a lot of money to some people, and in some contexts it is a lot of money, but in terms of the scale of the bank, it is a tiny drop in the ocean, so again, I agree with the hon. Gentleman.

As I said, I will turn to the treatment meted out by RBS’s Global Restructuring Group. In the aftermath of the financial crisis, it behaved in a completely unacceptable and disgraceful manner. I concur with hon. Members that it is also a disgrace that the UK authorities have failed to intervene. Following the credit crunch, GRG took control of 16,000 SME customers with £65 billion of assets in Project Dash for Cash. Following allegations of malfeasance, GRG was reportedly disbanded in August 2014. More than 12,000 companies were pushed into the bank’s controversial “turnaround” division; and between 2007 and 2012, the value of loans to customers in GRG increased fivefold to more than £65 billion. With the threat of foreclosure of loans, the banks seized control of customer assets cheaply from businesses that they claimed were failing even though they had not defaulted on any loan repayments.

When we state the situation as simply as that, we wonder how it can be the case, yet as we have heard, time and again it was. We have said this before in the main Chamber and other debates, but it is absolutely shocking that bank managers were able to increase their bonuses by identifying customers who could be squeezed in what RBS itself, in a 2008 email, called “Project Dash for Cash”. The leaked document disclosed that the taxpayers’ bank ran down businesses as part of a premeditated strategy to cut lending and bolster profits. People should be in jail for doing that.

RBS is not alone in being embroiled in this scandal. Several other banks, including Clydesdale, were caught in similar scandals.

Scottish Economy

Debate between Drew Hendry and Stephen Kerr

Wednesday 27th June 2018 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Main. I congratulate the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Ged Killen) on securing the debate, and share his disappointment that neither the Secretary of State for Scotland nor any of his team turned out for the debate.

I should like to give some uncommon—

[Stephen Kerr]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Drew Hendry]

I was just about to give the hon. Gentleman some praise—but carry on.

[Stephen Kerr]

It is a well-known convention in the House that no Secretary of State or Cabinet Minister responds to debates in Westminster Hall, and the point that the hon. Gentleman made was not entirely fair.

[Drew Hendry]

If the hon. Gentleman had been listening to what I said, he would know I said “or any of his team”. [Interruption.]

Retail Sector

Debate between Drew Hendry and Stephen Kerr

Wednesday 6th June 2018 Commons Chamber

[Drew Hendry]

I would love to give the hon. Gentleman a direct answer, but I have not come across that situation myself. I will happily look into it. I will not come here and make up something that I do not know anything about, so I will look into the lease issue for him.

I will come back to what the Scottish Government are doing in Scotland later in my speech. In tough times, the last thing that retailers need is for costs to rise. When prices go up, the number of customers goes down. It is a natural cause and effect. The biggest current risk to the Scottish economy and the retail sector comes from the hard Brexit that is on the table now from this Tory Government. We still do not know what the Labour position is. [Interruption.] Well, we still do not know what the Labour position is on a hard Brexit. Hopefully, we will find out soon.

[Stephen Kerr]

rose—

[Drew Hendry]

Oh, Madam Deputy Speaker, have I ever refused the hon. Member for Stirling (Stephen Kerr)?

[Stephen Kerr]

And the hon. Gentleman maintains his record of giving way, so I thank him. He says that the biggest threat to the retail sector in Scotland is a hard Brexit, which is, I am afraid to say, all too predictable from the Scottish National party spokesman. That is not what the director of the Scottish Retail Consortium, David Lonsdale, says. He says that the devolved Administration’s increase in surcharges and business rates inflexibility have served to make it more expensive to operate shops in our town centres. We cannot go to a higher authority than the Scottish Retail Consortium to describe what is wrong with Scottish retail.

[Drew Hendry]

Of course, if the hon. Gentleman wants to trade in higher authorities, let us see if we can find one. Let us go to the Governor of the Bank of England, Mark Carney, who says that a hard Brexit will cost each family £900 per year—a reduction in income that people simply cannot afford and that will not aid anyone, especially retailers. Let us go to the Office for Budget Responsibility, which says that lower economic growth is predicted in each of the next five years—lower than the 1.7% in 2017.

The single market and the customs union remain vital for Scotland’s economy. It is a Herculean task to find a business person or a business organisation in Scotland that does not agree with that. Hard Brexit not only threatens the cost outlined by Mark Carney and others, but, according to the SPIE 2 report, means that costs will reach £2,300 per person per year compared with remaining in the EU. Report after report highlights the economic folly of the hard Brexit approach. All of that sucks up disposable income—the lifeblood of the high streets.

Let me return now to austerity and its effect on retail. Austerity is a choice. Dealing with a deficit can be done by encouraging growth, not by austerity. Between now and 2022-23, the Scottish Government modelling suggests that the Chancellor could provide an additional investment in Scotland of around £5 billion while still meeting the UK Government’s targets on structural deficit and debt reduction. These policies disproportionately affect the least well off—the very people who spend more of their income in local shops. On welfare cuts, the Resolution Foundation states:

“The coming year (2018-19) is set to be the second biggest single year of welfare cuts…(after 2012-13) at £2.5bn.”

Having been in a pilot area for universal credit for more than five years now, I can testify to the effects that it has had on the local economy by draining the ability for people to spend in their local shops. The people of Inverness in my constituency are all too aware of these consequences.

Of course, there is another effect that is likely to cause great problems and to be a damaging issue for retail. Retail needs people—to buy and to sell. The unique selling point of being in retail, particularly high street retail, is that customers can speak to staff and staff can show customers products. The Government’s proposed approach to immigration could mean that real-terms GDP in Scotland is 9.3% lower by 2040. That affects tax and employment not just for shops and businesses, but also for public services.

Over the decade to 2019-20, Scottish Government funding has been cut by £2.7 billion, which is 8.4% in real terms. The Scottish Government will only receive 2.5% or £37 million of the £1.5 billion funding for Brexit preparations allocated in 2018, so when we look at support for business, it is against a background of lower funding. The Scottish Government’s recent budget set out how reforms of the business rates, for example, will ensure that Scotland provides the best possible environment for business. Rates relief for small business in Scotland is more competitive than in England. We provide the most competitive reliefs package in the UK, worth a record £720 million—up from £660 million in 2017-18. From 2018, we will introduce a business growth accelerator that will see no bill rise for 12 months as a result of improvements or expansion of existing business property. It will also ensure that no rates are paid on new builds for a year when they are entered into the valuation roll.

Earlier I mentioned the small business bonus scheme, which was protected in the 2018-19 Scottish Government budget and has saved businesses almost £1.5 billion cumulatively since it was introduced in 2008. The scheme has provided record relief to almost 104,000 recipients over the past year. The estimated total relief under the scheme, which removes or reduces rates bills, rose to £230 million—an increase of £43 million from £187 million last year. This amounts to an average saving per property of £2,000. The maximum savings that a business can achieve through the scheme will increase next year from £6,990 to £7,200 a year. That is a record level of small business support. Andy Willox, the Scottish policy convener for the Federation of Small Businesses, said:

“Without this rates help, Scottish firms tell us they would scale back investment, and their plans for growth. This vital scheme forms the centrepiece of the Scottish Government’s package of help for smaller firms.”

The Secretary of State rightly talked about the need to diversify in retail, and we have to ensure that we take that factor into account. As he rightly said, most successful businesses are able to adapt and change with the circumstances they face and the opportunities that arise. Many successful retailers—small and large—have adopted online platforms alongside their traditional face-to-face retail. In fact, they are finding that a double benefit: not only can people find and access their products, but they also know somewhere where they can go and get direct advice about those products. It is of course important to set the environment to ensure that that can work properly.

Although the Scottish Government have committed to extending superfast broadband access of 30 megabits per second to Scotland by the end of 2021, the UK Government really have to up their act and understand that 10 megabits is not good enough for the rural parts of Britain that are not covered by the Scottish Government’s actions. The UK Government appear intent on cutting Scottish consumers out of the broadband universal service obligation completely, despite the fact that they are being asked to pay for it alongside consumers in other parts of the UK. In Scotland, we are investing £600 million through the first phase of our Reaching 100%, or R100, programme to achieve our goal of superfast broadband access for all. Procurement is under way and deployment will begin during 2019. Even though telecoms is reserved to Westminster, the UK Government’s contribution to R100 is just £21 million—only 3% of the total.

Figures provided by thinkbroadband show that the UK Government have met their target of 95% superfast broadband coverage, at the UK definition of 24 megabits and above. But, in fact, using the same data used by the UK Government and our own internal data, we have confirmed that we exceeded our target of 95% fibre broadband coverage across Scotland by the end of 2017. Our Scottish 4G infill programme aims to push 4G coverage beyond commercial roll-out by investing up to £25 million of public funding to deliver future-proofed 4G mobile infrastructure to help selected mobile notspots.

I agree with the Secretary of State that the quality of people’s working lives must be enhanced, and I join him in paying tribute to Aldi for making a commitment to being the highest paying supermarket. For too long retail sector wages have been too low for too many people. As I said in my opening remarks, working in retail is a rewarding job, but it is also challenging at times. Retail’s future workforce and customers are obviously going to come from the ranks of young people, so I will make the kind request that has been made eloquently in this Chamber by many other Members, for the UK Government to start to understand that they need to reward young workers, not punish them.

Research from the Scottish Parliament’s information centre shows that workers under the age of 18 would earn roughly £6,500 less than people who are over 25. The research further highlighted that 18 to 20-year-olds would find themselves £3,705 worse off—and apprentices £7,605 worse off—compared to workers over the age of 25. If the UK Government seriously want to reward hard workers, as they so frequently say they do, will they listen to the SNP’s demand and retract this deeply discriminatory decision that punishes workers solely for being young? It is a missed opportunity to provide economic empowerment to young people from lower socioeconomic demographics.

The SNP would encourage every employer to reward their staff fairly and, where possible, to pay the real living wage. Many of the most successful retailers, such as Aldi, are already committed to doing the best for their staff, and that is the right thing to do. The new national living wage rate of £7.83 an hour for over-25s came into effect on 1 April 2018, but the national living wage refers to average earnings, not living costs, and is therefore not a real living wage. The living wage differs in that it is calculated according to the basic cost of living, and therefore takes account of the adequacy of household incomes for achieving an acceptable minimum living standard. Incidentally, the Scottish Government were the first Government in the UK to become an accredited real living wage employer. Our young workforce and consumers—the very people who need to get into the habit of using retail and finding ways to stimulate the economy, and the people who will be paying taxes to support pensions into the future—must be included in a fair strategy.

To conclude, I ask Ministers—[Interruption.] I am getting some warm applause from the Tory Benches. How delighted I am to always find a few extra words to thank them for their attention during these exchanges! Will Ministers copy what has been working in Scotland with the small business bonus? Will they look at adjusting the rates system in that way? Will they finally listen to the endless stream of businesses and business organisations that have come forward to point out the perils of a hard Brexit direction? Will they listen to the people affected by the universal credit roll-out? This all cumulatively affects the future of retail and the ability of people to operate on the high street. It is time to help the whole of the economy. Listening to these points would definitely hit that mark. It is well past time to ditch the dogmatic approach to austerity.

Nuclear Safeguards Bill

Debate between Drew Hendry and Stephen Kerr

Ping Pong: House of Commons
Tuesday 8th May 2018 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Kerr]

The hon. Lady is right to pick me up on those words, and I am grateful for her intervention. Because the Prime Minister has successfully concluded the implementation agreement with the European Union, the minimum that we should settle for is no disruption, especially in this sector.

I was about to say that we as a country must be in a position to continue to honour our international obligations, and to be the responsible nuclear state that we are. The importance of this Bill, with this amendment, is that in the event of there being no agreement with Euratom, which is not what we want, it will enable the United Kingdom to be in a position to act as an independent and responsible nuclear state. That is why the amendment should command support on both sides of the House.

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

I should like to begin by echoing the remarks of the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr Whitehead) about the Minister’s participation in the Bill so far. He has indeed been helpful, inclusive and relentlessly courteous as we have gone through the process. I welcome the progress that has been made, but that must be set against the background of what we believe to be the folly of leaving Euratom in the first instance. The last time the Bill came before us, I said that despite the Government’s ideological intention to abandon Euratom—it is ideological; there has been no attempt to challenge whether there might be a possibility to stay in it—their proposals fell short of answering vital questions on the UK’s nuclear future. Those answers have been asked for by the nuclear industry, the medical profession, our research sector and virtually everyone associated with nuclear power. Simply put, we should not be leaving Euratom.

Even with some sensible amendments from the Lords that have been accepted by the Commons, the Bill still fails to answer many critical concerns. As I have stated before, we in the Scottish National party believe that the safest nuclear power is no nuclear power. In Scotland, we have demonstrated what can be achieved by alternative renewable energy sources, and there is still a vast potential to be tapped, especially offshore, for an abundance of low-cost clean energy. In contrast, the UK Government continue to chase the folly of new nuclear, including the white elephant that is Hinckley C. That means higher costs for consumers, and technologies whose capital costs continue to skyrocket.

Industrial Strategy

Debate between Drew Hendry and Stephen Kerr

Wednesday 18th April 2018 Commons Chamber

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

I always enjoy listening to the Secretary of State; I find him a courteous and well-mannered person who tries to put forward a positive view at all times. I find the same to be the case when I work with his team.

This long-awaited industrial strategy is welcome—it is good to see something—but it lacks the substance that we should see in a document that would make a meaningful difference for people, and it misses the mark on fairness and ambition. I hope to delight the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Kwasi Kwarteng), because along with my criticisms, of which I have many, I am going to try to be constructive and suggest some points that the Secretary of State might want to consider.

On inclusive growth, the Scottish National party has long argued that ideologically-driven measures not only are harmful to society, but actively hinder business development, growth and investment. Inclusive growth must be at the heart of any economic strategy, yet the Government continue their obsession with a failing austerity dogma, and nothing in the industrial strategy signals a change of direction. The Institute for Fiscal Studies has forecast that austerity could last until the mid-2020s, meaning that Scottish businesses, households and public services could ultimately face 15 years of austerity measures—and that amid the harsh realities of a hard Tory Brexit. The UK is facing the biggest increase in inequality since the 1980s, the worst wage stagnation in 70 years, which the IFS described as “dreadful”, and a huge increase in child poverty as a direct effect of tax and benefit reforms.

In the context of Brexit, the Global Future study was released just today. After looking into all four options available to the Prime Minister, it established that, in the long term, the amount available for spending on public services will fall. Under the so-called Norway option, there would be £262 million less a week. Under the Canada model, there would be £877 million less per week, while under a no-deal scenario, there would be £1.25 billion less per week. For the NHS, there would be 22% less funding available if there was a bespoke deal, and 9%, 31% and 44% less under each of the other options. Of course, it is not just about the public sector. As we have found from speaking to industry after industry and sector after sector, there are many concerns across the piece about the direction of the Brexit negotiations.

Unfortunately, the hon. Member for Glasgow North East (Mr Sweeney) is no longer in the Chamber, but I wish to reflect on what he said about Jack McConnell and the post-study work visa. I have a great deal of respect for Jack McConnell, who was and remains a far-sighted politician. He recognised that Scotland requires different measures when it comes to our immigration needs. For many decades, our problem has been one of emigration. We need people to come to Scotland. If we are to retain competitiveness and increase productivity, it is essential that Scotland’s immigration system is outward-looking and that it allows businesses to attract the necessary skills to boost growth and create jobs.

[Stephen Kerr (Stirling) (Con)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Drew Hendry]

I will give way briefly in a second, but I am mindful of what Madam Deputy Speaker and Mr Deputy Speaker have said about the time available for the debate. I shall make a little progress first.

The ability to attract workers to Scotland is a vital component of how we strengthen our economic advancement and tackle demographic challenges. Over the next 10 years, some 90% of our population growth is projected to come from migration, and that will be directly affected by Brexit dogma.

[Stephen Kerr]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that we need to attract people, new talent and high-end jobs to Scotland. I just do not know how the SNP Government wish to achieve that by having Scotland as the highest-taxed part of the United Kingdom.

[Drew Hendry]

Of course, in a discussion about the future of EU nationals, many of whom are very worried about their future, the hon. Gentleman tries to make a rather petty political point. What he should acknowledge is that Scotland is far from being a less attractive place. Thanks to the huge council tax hikes in England, which are the largest in 14 years—bills are up by some 5.1%—people are actually paying more tax in England than they are in Scotland.

There are roughly 181,000 EU nationals in Scotland. Half the welcome net increase in the Scottish population between 2000 and 2015 has come from people born in EU countries, yet the strategy overlooks the likely impact of immigration restrictions on UK industry. If there were a time to pause and think about the effects of immigration on people and industry, it should surely be this week, when we have seen the manifest failings of the UK Government’s current immigration strategy.

Some sectors in Scotland, such as the thriving food and drink sector, are particularly reliant on the employment of EU nationals. Many businesses across Scotland and the UK employ and rely on EU workers, but the UK Government’s regressive approach to immigration has failed to take proper account of that fact. It is simply not possible to replace straightforward access to the EU labour market with domestic recruitment, and replicating existing immigration rules for non-EU nationals would place significant and unnecessary costs and bureaucracy on business. As has been noted, we have had two very clear cases of people in my constituency of Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey who have been contributing to our local economy being booted out by the immigration policy of this Tory Government.

Let us now turn to the ambition of the industrial strategy. If we really want to deliver affordable energy and clean growth, it is astounding that the UK Government have failed properly to recognise renewable energy in the industrial strategy. The devastating predicted drop in renewable investment of 95% between 2017 and 2020 should be a wake-up call that urgent action should be taken to secure a thriving future for this dynamic sector. Of course, during that period, we have also seen the near decimation of the solar industry.

Scotland is proudly in the vanguard for the development of renewable energy projects and investment. The SNP Scottish Government have set out ambitious targets for a transition to a low-carbon economy. By contrast, the UK Government’s erratic energy approach and the UK’s decision to leave the European Union have created uncertainty in the sector. The UK Government have responsibility for the damaging effects that we have seen.

Social Security

Debate between Drew Hendry and Stephen Kerr

Monday 5th February 2018 Commons Chamber

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

I, too, commend my hon. Friend the Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Neil Gray) for covering the issues so completely. He welcomed the changes that are there to be welcomed, while making the criticisms that are due. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow East (David Linden) succinctly covered many of the points I would normally make in a speech such as this and, as we have just heard, my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson) covered the pensions issues, particularly the treatment of the WASPI women, a subject dear to my heart. Given that that territory has been covered so completely, I wish to concentrate on one aspect that we face from this measure: the fact that most working-age benefits will now be frozen in cash terms from 2015-16 to 2019-20 inclusive.

That continued freeze on social security, in the light of the consumer prices index of 3%—

[Stephen Kerr]

rose—

[Drew Hendry]

I will make some progress. That situation means punishing costs for families, which are trapping thousands of them, including the children, in poverty. All they have to look forward to is the noose getting tighter every year. The fall in the pound has led to food prices rising at their fastest rate in four years, with an increase of 4%. Meat prices have risen by nearly 4% and vegetables have gone up in price by nearly 6%. Even taking refuge in a cup of tea is more unaffordable, as coffee, tea and cocoa prices soar—they are more than 8% higher. In these debates, we are talking about the effect on families at their kitchen tables—about them eating and about them making choices. When we are going through the technical nature of these debates, we would do well to reflect on that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Drew Hendry]

This is clearly part of the problem: the understanding of people’s real lives. We are not just talking about people who are out of work; we are talking about a range of people, including those suffering in-work poverty. This all comes at—

[Stephen Kerr]

rose—

[Drew Hendry]

I am going to make progress, but I will cover the hon. Gentleman’s points, as he has asked his question twice.

All the time, as a result of this Government, vital support remains frozen, and one in four children are growing up in poverty as a result. We already know, thanks to research from the Child Poverty Action Group, that children from well-off families outperform their low-income counterparts at age three to five, and by age five there are gaps of 10 months in problem solving development and 13 months in vocabulary. Three-year-olds in households with incomes below £10,000 are two and a half times more likely to suffer chronic illness than children in households with incomes above £52,000. There are also strong links between the experience of child poverty and poor mental health. One study shows that children living in low-income households are nearly three times as likely to suffer mental health problems as those in better-off households. So why do this Government not accept the damage that is being done?

In Scotland, tackling child poverty is at the heart of decision making. I will give way to the hon. Gentleman at this point.

[Stephen Kerr]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way unbidden. Let me ask him the same question. I do not dispute the sincerity or passion that SNP Members have on this issue, but since 2016 the Scottish Government have had powers to top up reserved benefits. So if SNP Members feel as passionately as they seem to, what are the SNP Government in Scotland going to do in practical terms—

--- Later in debate ---

[Drew Hendry]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. We have now heard in painstaking detail the grandiloquence of the hon. Member for Stirling on this point, where he has spectacularly failed, not once or twice, but thrice, to make the point—

[Stephen Kerr]

Answer the question.

[Drew Hendry]

Let me answer the hon. Gentleman’s question directly. In Scotland, tackling child poverty is at the heart of decision making. Scotland is now the only UK nation to have child poverty targets set out in law—the Tories scrapped such targets for the whole of the UK and we now know why. In Scotland, we have initiatives to see fairness delivered: the Poverty and Inequality Commission; a new £50 million fund to tackle child poverty; our use of the limited social security powers to support young families at key stages of—

--- Later in debate ---

[Drew Hendry]

My hon. Friend makes that point extraordinarily well; this comes against a background of having to backfill to deal with the poverty and misery caused by UK Tory policies. Lessons could be learned, but will they be? They should be, in order to provide justice, fairness and dignity. In order to achieve that—

[Stephen Kerr]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Drew Hendry]

No. In order to achieve that aim, the lessons must be seen to be learned. It is shameful that we have to fight policies such as the cap and freeze, given that children in Scotland and across the nations of the UK are condemned to poverty by them. The UK Government should wake up to the harm they are doing and end this policy and the dogmatic approach through austerity that is driving it.

Nuclear Safeguards Bill

Debate between Drew Hendry and Stephen Kerr

3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Tuesday 23rd January 2018 Commons Chamber

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

I am delighted to be here with the Minister, who is a genial and hard-working man. I know that he will try to answer some of my questions, and I hope his answers are clear.

When the Secretary of State launched the Bill, he said it was “straightforward”, but the amendments are required because there is nothing straightforward about leaving Euratom. The Scottish National party is concerned about the whole process. The hon. Member for Copeland (Trudy Harrison) talked about us being “there or thereabouts”, but that is not good enough when it comes to nuclear safeguards. As it stands, the Bill is a safeguards Bill without any safeguards; there is no contingency for anything going wrong, yet Ministers have failed to convince not just hon. Members in this Chamber, but industry and the people. Leaving Euratom will result in more cost and less value, and the opinion of many in the industry is that it will be impossible to set up an equivalent UK authority within the timescales outlined. That is the view of industry, the Office for Nuclear Regulation, the Nuclear Industry Association and the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority, all of which gave evidence to the BEIS Committee. I was delighted to hear the Chair of that Committee, the hon. Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves), point out the great concern about the Government’s ability to do as they propose. All the nuclear industry and all those bodies do not want us to leave Euratom; either they see no benefit in our doing so, or they are actively concerned about the consequences.

Ministers have simply ignored the difficulties and the overwhelming evidence before them. They have plodded ahead, and when asked “How?” they use their favourite word: hope. They hope that things will be in place—that agreements, funding and people will be available. Despite the impending loss of influence in developing policy in Europe on future nuclear decisions, the unanswered questions about cost, the difficulties in training or even recruiting replacement inspectors, they plod ahead. As the Minister said in response to questions on these matters in the Select Committee, “They don’t really know and we don’t really know.”

There are a lot of unknowns in the Bill, which is why it is imperative to amend it. The ONR says plainly that it might need more than a two-year transition period after 2019, yet the Government still provide no assurance.

[Stephen Kerr]

The hon. Gentleman says the Government give no assurance, but the Prime Minister, in her Florence speech, was explicit about the Government’s agenda in respect of a two-year implementation period. I cannot help concluding that the reason the hon. Gentleman advances this line of argument is that he has a destructive attitude toward the whole process, and his ultimate aim is to create a constitutional and ongoing sense of crisis. In fact, the Bill guarantees some continuity, including the two-year period.

[Drew Hendry]

The hon. Gentleman, like many of his colleagues in Scotland, likes to try to go to a happy place when faced with harsh realities. The fact is that a two-year transition period is viewed by virtually nobody as a responsible timescale in which to get up and running.

[Stephen Kerr]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Drew Hendry]

No, I am going to make some progress.

The UK, as it presses ahead with the folly of Hinckley C, will need thousands of workers, many skilled in the nuclear industries.

--- Later in debate ---

[Drew Hendry]

I am delighted to have given the hon. Gentleman so much material today. He seems to be fascinated by my words. He will concede, however, that I was talking in the context of our being foolish and reckless enough to leave both the EU and Euratom.

[Stephen Kerr]

That is interesting editing. I cannot recall word for word exactly what was said before and immediately after what the hon. Gentleman said, but I think that I clearly heard him say that it was possible, in these new circumstances, to negotiate new arrangements. We must indeed accept that we will need new arrangements, and that they will need to be negotiated. As was said earlier, we cannot take something like associate membership off the shelf—I think Members will have to accept that such an arrangement does not currently exist—but I agree with him that anything is negotiable. I come from a background of sales negotiation, and that was one of the mantras by which we lived: “everything is negotiable”.

I think that when wise adult heads are brought to bear, definite win-win outcomes are possible, as they are in the context of the Bill and its subject matter. I hope very much that the Government will use their powers under the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill and the powers that this Bill will confer on them to bring the appropriate measures to life at the right time, so that we can secure the continuity and the prosperity of the UK’s nuclear energy business.

[Drew Hendry]

As we have heard many times, and as the evidence has borne out, the industry is clearly desperate for the standards that we currently enjoy through Euratom to be maintained. We have heard time and again that the industry would prefer us to remain in Euratom or to have associate membership, but if that does not happen, which seems to be the direction in which we are going today, it has said that it would like the new standards to be the same as those of Euratom.

It is vital for us to secure a commitment that the UK agency will be able not only to cope with the new work but to obtain the necessary resources, at the levels that are required through Euratom. However, as I said earlier, I do not believe that that is achievable, given the challenges. Crucially, there are still not enough people with enough experience. No matter how much the hon. Member for Stirling (Stephen Kerr) wants to persuade children that science is a good idea, I do not think we have yet found a way to compress five years into two, and it will not be possible in that period to gain the experience nuclear inspectors require.

Two requirements still need to be met: one is for complete transparency in the process, so that those who have expressed concern and the industry can know what is happening; the other is, through the amendments, to get a guarantee that arrangements will be in place that ensure that nuclear safeguards are operated to the same standards as now. I am anti-nuclear and proud that my party is, too, but we have to protect people’s interests where the nuclear industry is concerned. Too many of us in the highlands remember the mess left at Dounreay. Anyone who wants to know what can go wrong in the nuclear industry should go up there and learn about what was left on the beaches and the radioactive material moved about in welly boots because the equipment had rusted, before the correct standards were put in place through Euratom.

Universal Credit Project Assessment Reviews

Debate between Drew Hendry and Stephen Kerr

Tuesday 5th December 2017 Commons Chamber

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

I would have thought that if Ministers were so confident about the success of universal credit, they would release these reports in full and in public. The people deserve to hear if the experience in those reports matches that of those who have endured the failings of universal credit in our constituencies where it has had an impact. As my hon. Friend the Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Neil Gray) pointed out, there are many and manifest failures with the system that have been reported many times.

When the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Frank Field) told us of the experiences in his surgeries, it brought tears to the eyes of Members, but this is not the first time that universal credit has brought tears. I remember, just after being elected as an MP, meeting members of the local citizens advice bureau, and there were tears as they talked about the trials and tribulations of people who were going through in their office. Elaine Donnelly, who works with Macmillan Citizens Advice Partnership, was one of those people in tears. She came to my universal credit summit—Ministers did not attend, although they were invited—and told us of the experiences that she had with people who are terminally ill. Crucially, she says that she no longer cries, because she has heard so much about this that she is now battle-weary. She is numb. It does not hit her in the same way any more because so much has been going on.

Members such as the hon. Member for Ochil and South Perthshire (Luke Graham) talk about the rhetoric that goes on, using words such as “scaremongering”. Not only have all Conservative Members been invited to my constituency to hear about these experiences, but so have Government Front Benchers.

[Stephen Kerr (Stirling) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman recently visited my constituency on the subject of universal credit. I was very grateful that he visited the beautiful constituency of Stirling. Which aspects of universal credit—its principles—does he support? Every speech I have heard him make in the House has been an undiluted torrent of negativity about universal credit. It is accepted that the system is not perfect, but can he tell us which parts work and which he supports?

[Drew Hendry]

I am very glad to answer that question. To repeat the statements that I have made and that my hon. Friend the Member for Airdrie and Shotts has made today, SNP Members have never opposed the principle of universal credit. We have always supported the principle of simplifying the benefits system so that people can get social security in a simpler and more effective way, but—this is where Conservative Members really need to open their ears and listen—the experience of people applying for universal credit is not that the process is simple. It is, for many people, hard and devastating. For a lot of people, it can really have an impact on not only their family lives, but their health.

Universal Credit Roll-out

Debate between Drew Hendry and Stephen Kerr

Thursday 16th November 2017 Commons Chamber

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

I thank the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Frank Field) for securing the debate and congratulate the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (David Duguid) on his maiden speech. I note that the comparative beauties of our constituencies are yet another thing to disagree on across the Chamber.

Universal credit was piloted in Inverness way back in 2013. I am always astounded by the lengths to which Members who have not experienced it will go to defend the system, given that they have not seen what is happening. The hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Heidi Allen), who is no longer in the Chamber, has said elsewhere that jobcentre staff had told her that universal credit was only 60% built. We have had it since 2013, so we have been feeling its impact daily since its inception. Make no mistake: universal credit, as it rolls out to full service in its current form, without being halted and fixed, is a disaster, and it is only going to get worse as it goes to more people and the resources to support it are stretched even further.

I see Government Members shaking their heads at that. When they accused me previously of scaremongering, I invited all Conservative Members, including the Minister and the Prime Minister, to come to a summit in Inverness to hear from the agencies and people involved about the problems being imposed on them, but none took up the offer. Had they done, they would have heard harrowing stories, as I tried to relate yesterday in my question to the Prime Minister, from the agencies and people there, but none of them came. Instead, when I raised my question, there was laughter—[Hon. Members: “No.”] It was recorded, and people can listen to it. What was funny—the fact that it is harrowing, the fact that I was talking about cancer patients dying before their universal credit claims came through, or the fact that I was talking about terminally ill people who have to self-declare that they are terminally ill, even if they have told their doctors they do not want to know their fate? How cruel is that? And yet there was laughter.

[Stephen Kerr (Stirling) (Con)]

There was no laughter.

[Drew Hendry]

If Conservative Members listen to the recording, they will hear the laughter loudly.

If it was not any of those things, was it the fact that we are having problems in Inverness? The manager of the local citizens advice bureau tweeted yesterday:

“Sad when the misery and suffering that is caused by UC could be found amusing by anyone—suggest they try it for a few months.”

Some adjustment is available from the Scottish Government, but universal credit is a reserved matter, so the UK Government’s constant attempts to pass the buck and abdicate responsibility for what is their responsibility is not good enough.

I have very little time, but I want to read out an email I got from somebody inside the ESA benefit inquiry line:

“the chaos that UC is causing me and my colleagues is quite simply unacceptable. People on UC realise it’s not fit for purpose so ring ESA and BEG to be let back on to the benefit but that is not possible. How long do you think it will be before one threatens suicide”?

There are so many problems with universal credit and not enough time to deal with them today. The Government need to halt it and fix it.

Smart Meters Bill

Debate between Drew Hendry and Stephen Kerr

2nd reading: House of Commons & Money resolution: House of Commons & Programme motion: House of Commons & Ways and Means resolution: House of Commons
Tuesday 24th October 2017 Commons Chamber

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

As my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson) pointed out earlier, the SNP welcomes the progress on smart meters. The Scottish Government have set out developments for the roll-out in their Scottish energy strategy, which will obviously encourage uptake.

As we have heard from many Members, the benefits of smart metering technology are more accurate bills, more convenience and better energy. The technology can enable customers to better manage their energy, so consumers will be able to get a better deal, and could help consumers with more competitive tariffs. There are, though, serious concerns that must be dealt with before we can welcome everything in the Bill or, indeed, the whole roll-out of smart meters.

The first concern is on data and privacy. As we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran, GCHQ did some work on the vulnerability of smart meters and found “glaring loopholes” that would allow access to meters. There is not only the potential for the abuse of customer information, but a security concern. If smart meters can be accessed in that way, it is potentially dangerous for national security. It is incumbent on the Government to ensure that proper controls are in place to make sure that that cannot happen.

It is important that consumers know that their data will be safe. I urge the Government to look into measures that allow the consumer to have more control over and ownership of their own data. They should have the right to look after their own information. There are clearly issues of connectivity and reliability, particularly with respect to customers’ concerns about whether units will work when they switch energy suppliers.

[Stephen Kerr (Stirling) (Con)]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the issues with the first generation of smart meters could easily give rise to frustration among consumers? They are encouraged to monitor their energy usage and costs and to shop around, but when they do shop around, they discover that their smart meter is no more and has deceased.

[Drew Hendry]

The hon. Gentleman makes a pertinent point. The Government need to put the consumer confidence issue front and centre and deal with it.

We must consider the costs and the potential increase in bills to pay for those costs. The right hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) mentioned the fact that the consumer is not necessarily put first in the process. Surely, it would be appropriate for the outcome of a cheaper bill—a better deal for the consumer—to be put right at the heart of the delivery of the smart meter programme. I am not convinced that it is currently, so I suggest the Minister come back with some reassurances on how it will be.

With respect to the serious problems with consumers’ bills, the smart meter roll-out does not deliver on some of the big elephants in the room. My hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran mentioned Hinkley Point, one of the biggest white elephants around. The cost-benefits will be negated by the costs of Hinkley and the strike price that has been agreed, which nearly doubles the cost to consumers.

Smart metering does not tackle other issues for consumers in the different parts of the nations of the UK. For example, in my constituency and others in the highlands, we still have the inequity of consumers paying up to 6p more per unit than consumers in other parts of the UK. That cannot be right. When the Minister looks into measures to reduce costs for people in their homes, I urge him to consider some of the more pressing issues that are adding to fuel poverty.

There is, perhaps, one issue that the Minister could consider in taking forward smart meters, particularly when we get to the next generation of smart meters. We have talked a lot about the ability to switch tariffs and to monitor how much is being spent, but how easy would it be to allow consumers the ability to switch suppliers at the touch of a button in the next generation of smart meters? That is within the gift of the technology. Why is it not within the scope of the measures that we are taking forward?

I will not take up the full time that is available to me. I will just finish with a few questions. Will the Minister come back and state clearly, today and in future meetings as the roll-out goes forward, what will be done in practical terms to ensure that vulnerable people will not miss out in the roll-out of the smart meters programme? When will we see details on the next generation of meters, and will the Government consider those payment and switching options that I mentioned? When will we see the detailed roll-out of the strategy to understand how everyone will be included in this by 2020?