Ofsted’s Work with Schools
Baroness Laing of Elderslie Excerpts(7 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
We now proceed to the Select Committee statement on behalf of the Education Committee. I will shortly call Mr Robin Walker, the Chairman of the Committee, who will speak for up to 10 minutes, during which no interventions may be taken. At the conclusion of his statement, I will call Members to ask questions on the subject of the statement, which should be brief questions, not full speeches. I emphasise that questions should be directed, not to the relevant Minister, but to the Select Committee Chair. Front Benchers may take part in questioning.
SEND Provision and Funding
Baroness Laing of Elderslie Excerpts(10 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ben Bradley (Mansfield) (Con)
I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this very important debate, and to my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Sir David Davis) for securing it. I hope that I can contribute with some experience as the leader of a local authority and as someone who sat on the Education Committee’s SEND inquiry in 2019.
I want to describe the problem from a local authority perspective for colleagues in the House. The 2014 legislation was well intentioned, as we have heard, but it has not delivered on those intentions. In some ways it has created an impossible circumstance, where very high levels of demand and expectation now exist on a service that faces huge budget and capacity pressures. That is not sustainable.
Local authorities in many ways are caught between a rock and a hard place. They are expected to meet the demands of families but also have to balance a budget, and all the time with the knowledge that any steps taken to reduce costs may well end up being overturned in tribunal. Inadvertently, and understandably, seeking to give parents of SEND children some authority and control over what support they get is creating an adversarial system. There are funding issues to all that, but fundamentally the system does not work, so funding alone will not fix it. Because it is a partnership across health, schools, local authorities and others, there is a challenge both in meeting expectation and in accountability for the outcomes.
Fundamentally, at a policy level we have a system that says to families that they can have whatever support and services they want. That is a laudable aim, but in reality there are limited budgets and capacity in the system, which means that local authorities and delivery partners are constrained in what they can do. The system has not recognised that contradiction, so the local partnership is still judged against an unachievable target, which is why, in the latest inspections, nowhere nationally is any better than “inconsistent” in its SEND outcomes.
In Nottinghamshire, we fully recognise the need for improvement in the capacity for SEND support, in tackling waiting times for outcomes, and in the scrutiny and accountability of the system, among other things. We have introduced a new SEND improvement board—Dame Christine Lenehan of the Council for Disabled Children it its independent chair—with the intention of driving improvement in the system with proper scrutiny and oversight. We have already seen positive steps from it. We are fully committed to tackling those issues, to the extent that I have also created a specific cabinet role for SEND support.
In truth, though, we are constrained. The inspection regime is not really sure of what it is asking us for. Many authorities have huge deficits in the high needs block, so they are massively overspending, yet they have still received more positive inspection outcomes. We have balanced the budget and do not have a deficit, which clearly has an impact on services, but that does not seem to be a factor in inspection outcomes. Are we being asked to balance that budget or not? We have a legal duty to do so, but it is not recognised by Ofsted.
Nottinghamshire is among the most poorly funded authorities in this space, but we still balance our budget for additional needs. Other authorities have more money and still overspend massively but are rewarded with better inspection outcomes. Fundamentally, the system does not have a shared and coherent view of what it is asking us to deliver. That is a huge issue.
We are also told that the Government’s approach is to increase inclusion in mainstream schools where possible. It is absolutely right for children to receive appropriate support in mainstream setting wherever possible, and for us to work with schools and SENCOs to deliver it. Notts has taken that approach for many years and been held up as an exemplar of good practice in some Government circles, but at inspections we are marked down for it. Again, different parts of Government are telling us different things, so it is not always clear what we are being asked to do.
We take a graduated approach and step children up the pyramid depending on need, but the first response is to try to support children to remain in mainstream school, partly because that is very often the best outcome for the children, and partly because it is a requirement of a system with limited funding that we try low-cost options first. From an outcomes perspective, that is often the right thing to do, because although some children will require lifelong care, we want many of them to go on and live independent lives and be in employment—we should have high ambitions for our children. It is not often the best thing to become more reliant on more services than we need, because it can make that journey to being an independent adult more difficult.
Every child and every circumstance is different, but from what I am saying, Members can see where the tension and conflict arises at each stage. The opinion of health professionals and people tasked with achieving the goal of helping children to become independent adults often clashes with the totally understandable desire of parents to get the most and very best bespoke support for their child.
SEND transport is one of the biggest pressures on council budgets at the minute. Our budget has risen by 50% over five years because of rising demand, inflationary costs of fuel and contracts and wage rises, so we are again in a position of trying to save money. In some cases, that is the right thing to do because the expectation outstrips what is reasonable. However, it will inevitably lead us to further conflict as we have to go back to families and say, “I know you’ve had a one-to-one taxi service to school with a supportive member of staff every day for the past several years, but we now need you to share with somebody else,” or, “We now need you to take your child to school yourself, because you have a mobility vehicle for that purpose.” That might be the right thing to do—these might be rational decisions in order to offer the best services within a limited budget—but it will inevitably cause issues. That is coming down the track. If we end up with such decisions being overturned in tribunal, we are back to the question of what we are being asked to achieve within our limited budget.
On a brighter note, I want to mention some of the work that we are doing in Nottinghamshire. We are taking this incredibly seriously through our independent improvement board and cabinet-level focus, as I have mentioned. We are creating 494 SEND specialist places, including at the Newark Orchard SEND School, which opened last year, and at a new school that we are building in Mansfield this year—I am very proud of that. We are working with SENCOs in our schools to improve the graduated approach and the available support.
Money is not the ultimate answer here. We have well-meaning legislation that does not work. I ask Ministers to consider two proposals: first, the help with SEND transport costs—
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. It will be obvious to the House that many people still wish to speak. After the next speaker, I will have to reduce the time limit to five minutes. The next speaker, with six minutes, is Ruth Cadbury.
Rob Butler (Aylesbury) (Con)
Like everyone else, I will start by congratulating my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Sir David Davis) on securing this important debate.
One of the key priorities in my campaign to be elected to this place in 2019 was to give children in the Aylesbury constituency a brilliant start in life—and that means all children, including and, indeed, especially those with special educational needs and disabilities. I am pleased to say that there are several specialist SEND schools in my constituency. I have had the privilege of visiting many of them, including Pebble Brook and Booker Park, Chiltern Way Academy, and the independent Pace Centre. The work they do is awe-inspiring, and I pay tribute to their staff, who constantly strive to give the children for whom they care the best possible opportunities and experiences.
Too often, however, the families of the children with SEND feel that they are being left to fight a ferociously complicated system to get their child into those schools and ensure that they have the support they need. Thankfully, they have local support from people in a similar position, including members of the GRASPS group, which is run by volunteers in Buckinghamshire, but they have told me at length of their concerns about delays in assessments, complexity in form-filling, and then the long waits for the EHCPs about which we have heard so much this afternoon.
The team at Buckinghamshire Council and I have discussed those concerns to try to find ways in which to help, and I know that the team are determined to do so, but it is no surprise that the council has highlighted funding as a major challenge. As we have heard, the cost of SEND education can be exceptionally high, and it is not unusual for the cost of residential placements for children with the most complex and serious needs to run to hundreds of thousands of pounds a year.
The SEND Green Paper and the SEND and alternative provision improvement plan, published in March 2023, made clear the need to update the funding model. The Government are not ignorant to this, and I am pleased with their direction of travel. We have an excellent Minister to drive that forward in the months ahead. I am pleased that £10 billion of high needs funding has been allocated for the coming financial year, representing a cash-terms increase of 12%.
It should be stressed, and it has been, that high needs block funding has nearly doubled in cash terms since 2013-14, which demonstrates this Government’s commitment to helping SEND pupils and their families. However, Buckinghamshire Council fares very poorly compared with many other local authorities, with much lower allocations of funding. The cost to all local authorities of providing support for SEND pupils is increasing dramatically, both because of the number of cases and because of the complexity of need.
Locally, since 2016, there has been a 101% increase in requests for EHCPs. Since 2020, the unit costs for children’s placements have increased by 30%. As a result, Bucks Council is looking at bringing some provision in-house to try to contain some of the costs, but that cannot happen overnight. In the meantime, it must try to find the extra money.
Members from all parties will know that I have a profound interest in youth justice. Having spent many years as a youth magistrate and as a member of the Youth Justice Board, I have always been struck by the disproportionate number of young people with SEND in the criminal justice system. According to data published in 2022 by the Department for Education and the Ministry of Justice, 80% of children cautioned or sentenced for an offence have been recorded as having special educational needs at some stage—80%. That is an appalling statistic.
It cannot be morally right that so many children with SEND wind up on the wrong side of the law and, all too often, behind bars. We must do more to give children with SEND the appropriate education and training so that they have the same potential to live law-abiding lives as their peers, and we must ensure that provision for those who unfortunately end up in the youth justice system is properly tailored and funded.
I end on a positive note. Many Members of this House run an annual competition for local schoolchildren to design their Christmas cards. For the past two years, I have done something slightly different. I have gone out to local SEND schools, one each year, to ask them to produce the design for my card, and the reason is very simple. All too often, children with special educational needs are airbrushed out or considered incapable of achieving the same as their peers, but I take a different view. I want local children with special needs to be celebrated for what they achieve. I want them to be visible, and I want to give them a showcase in the local community. The simple act of getting them to design my Christmas card has enabled me to do that, and I thank the children at Booker Park School, who designed my 2023 card, and the children at Chiltern Way Academy, who did it in 2022. Both cards had excellent pictures that carried real meaning. This emphasises that there is potential in every child, and we need to approach children with special educational needs and disabilities with a spirit of optimism and positivity.
Health and Social Care Workforce
Baroness Laing of Elderslie Excerpts(1 year, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Social Care (Helen Whately)
My grandfather was a doctor, my mother was a doctor, my father was a surgeon and my aunt a nurse, so when I think of the NHS, I do not picture a hospital or an ambulance; I picture the people—the doctors, nurses, pathologists, radiologists, physios, healthcare assistants, porters and all the other people who make the NHS what it is. The NHS is its workforce, and the same is true for social care. Life is made possible for hundreds of thousands of people thanks to the hard work, skills and compassion of social workers, nurses, care workers, care home managers and all the other people who work in social care. That is why I welcome this chance to talk about our health and social care workforce.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Steve Brine), the Chair of the Health and Social Care Committee, for his comments and for all his and his Committee’s work on their report. In the Government’s response to that report, we were right behind the key recommendation to publish workforce projections, and last week we put that into practice when we published the NHS long-term workforce plan. It is an ambitious plan to train many thousands more doctors, nurses and other health professionals; retain more of their talent and experience; and reform how they train and work to secure the future of the NHS, backed by an investment of £2.4 billion. I will not try to set out everything in that plan this afternoon, but I will share some of the highlights and respond to the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester and other hon. Members.
In brief, the plan forecasts the increase needed in the NHS workforce between now and 2037, and sets out how we will expand the numbers of doctors, nurses and other health professionals that we train. We will double the number of medical school places, boost the number of GP training places by 50%, increase the number of adult nurse training places by over 90%, and expand the number of dentists we train by 40%. We will widen the talent we bring into the NHS by increasing the number of staff trained as apprentices from 7%, as it is now, to 22% by 2032. That will give more people the opportunity to earn as they learn, widening access to healthcare careers to more people from different backgrounds.
However, as hon. Members have highlighted, the NHS is already full of talented people whose skills we want to retain. Of course, some people will always want to move on to new things or indeed retire, but the NHS can and must do better at retention. That is why we made retention an integral pillar of the long-term workforce plan. The NHS is the UK’s largest employer, and it should set a real example in how it cares for its staff. As the plan says, the NHS will do more to support people throughout their careers, increase opportunities to work flexibly, and look after its workforce’s own health and wellbeing.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) spoke about the importance of individual trusts as employers, and the importance of their leaders and managers to staff retention. I very much agree with him about that—I have spoken about it previously in this House, probably as a Back Bencher. How well people are led and managed is probably the biggest determinant of their experience at work, and is therefore a big factor in retention. I would flag to my right hon. Friend that the Messenger review, which I expect he is familiar with, is excellent in this area, and the long-term workforce plan references that review’s recommendations. Taking them forward will be an important part of the plan.
I should also mention pay. Pay is not the only factor affecting recruitment and retention—in my many years of talking to NHS staff, I have heard far more often that having enough colleagues on their team is arguably the most important thing—but it does matter. NHS staff should be fairly rewarded for the work they do. That is why we listened and reached agreement on pay for staff on “Agenda for Change” contracts. Under that deal, over 1 million NHS staff, including nurses, paramedics, midwives and porters, have received a 5% pay rise and extra one-off payments. In addition, as we announced today, the Government have accepted the recommendations of the doctors’ and dentists’ remuneration body for this year in full.
We should not forget that the NHS pension scheme is one of the best that can be found, and we have made it more flexible to make the most of the experience of staff who are particularly close to retirement. Since April, former NHS staff claiming NHS pension scheme benefits can return to work and rejoin the scheme, and from October we will introduce a partial retirement option that gives more flexibilities to staff, meaning that patients will benefit from their skills for longer. We have already acted on the tax treatment of pensions, which we know is a factor in the decision of some doctors and other NHS staff to retire early or reduce their hours. My hon. Friend the Member for Winchester referred to that as the BMA’s No. 1 ask.
The final part of the plan I will mention is reform, because as care changes, so must how we work and, indeed, how we train staff. That is why the plan includes reforms to training, such as increasing the number of apprentices, which I mentioned; increasing the focus on generalist skills alongside specialisms; increasing the share of training in settings outside of hospitals, such as GP surgeries; adopting more blended learning and the use of simulation; and making sure that we get the right duration of training programmes. When it comes to how people work in the NHS, the places that people receive care are changing, with more care outside of hospital and closer to home. As such, the plan envisions a faster rate of increase in the number of staff working outside of hospitals, with the mental health workforce growing fastest, followed by community and primary care. In fact, over the period of the plan, the NHS community workforce is planned to double.
The way people work will also change, with staff working more in integrated teams coming together from different parts of the NHS and, indeed, together with social care. Joining up care is better for patients and their families. It is more effective, but also more efficient.
On productivity, all of this will be supported by new technology. We will use advances in technology in how we train and in how people work. We will use technology such as AI to support clinicians, increase efficiency and improve patient care, so giving staff the gift of time—time to spend with patients.
Equally important in our future health and care system is our social care workforce. As my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester said, this is indeed something I am passionate about. I have heard many calls, including today, for a social care workforce plan. The good news is that we are well under way with substantial social care workforce reforms. They were first set out in the White Paper, “People at the Heart of Care”, and then described in more detail in our next steps plan published in April. We are investing £250 million in reforming care as a career, with a new care qualification, specialist training courses for experienced care workers and a new career structure for care workers to support career progression.
Those reforms build on the work we are already doing to build the social care workforce, with record funding available for local authorities to spend on social care—up to £7.5 billion announced in the autumn Budget—which, through the fees local authorities pay, supports care providers to pay their staff better in turn. The reforms also build on our introduction of Care Quality Commission assurance of local authorities’ care duties and our introduction of the care worker visa, so that care providers can draw on international recruitment.
On that point, I will pick up on the intervention made by the hon. Member for St Albans (Daisy Cooper) on the question of exploitation of international recruits. I think that is very serious, and I am very concerned about it. I say that against the backdrop that, as we know from the data from Skills for Care, the number of care workforce vacancies is falling—that very good news was published yesterday—coupled with what I hear from the many care providers I speak to, which is that international recruitment is really helping fill vacancies and meet the care needs of our society.
In general, I know that care providers are working very hard to support the international workforce they are recruiting, but I am very disappointed that we have heard stories of exploitation at a minority of care providers. I do not want anyone working in health or social care to be exploited. That is why we have provided guidance to people who are receiving a care worker visa on their employment rights and how to seek help. We are also funding local support to be provided to international recruits into social care, and we are working across Government—including my Department, working particularly with the Home Office—on tackling exploitation.
All in all, I would say that what we are doing to support the social care workforce is working. The number of care vacancies is falling, retention is improving and care is on the path to getting the recognition it deserves.
In closing, I thank the Chair of the Health and Social Care Committee for welcoming the NHS long-term workforce plan. I was very glad to hear him say that many boxes had been ticked by the plan. I hope my response has provided him and other hon. Members with further assurance. The NHS long-term workforce plan is historic in its ambition to recruit, retain and reform the NHS workforce. Our social care workforce reforms are also ambitious to make care work a profession that gets the recognition it deserves. The workforce are the heart of our national health service and social care. All that skill, compassion and dedication is essential to the lives of people up and down the country, and that is why we are looking and planning ahead to secure the future of our health and social care system.
Adult and Further Education
Baroness Laing of Elderslie Excerpts(1 year, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Jane Hunt
I absolutely agree. I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention.
FE colleges such as Loughborough College are our greatest asset in local communities and the best conduit for social mobility. Let us reform the sector for the future, so that they have the tools and resources in place to make the difference to the lives of their students and to the businesses where they will go on to work. I want to put it in a positive rather than a negative way: yes, we need to look at the money and look at the VAT, but there is such fantastic resource within FE colleges. It is all there to be had. Let us do that, and let us help them.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
The Question necessary to dispose of the motion stands over until 7 o’clock under Standing Order No. 54. The sitting is therefore suspended until 7 pm.
Question deferred (Standing Order No. 54).
Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation
Baroness Laing of Elderslie Excerpts(1 year, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
It is on this motion that the debate will take place today and on succeeding days. The Questions on this motion and on the remaining motions will be put at the end of the Budget debate on Tuesday 21 March. I call the Leader of the Opposition.
Keir Starmer (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. May I say that it is good to see you back in the Chair?
For all the hype, this is a Budget for growth that downgrades the growth forecast. The Chancellor’s opening boast was that things are not quite as bad now as they were in October last year after the kamikaze Budget. The more he pretends everything is fine, the more he shows just how out of touch the Government are. After 13 years of his Government, our economy needed major surgery, but this Budget leaves us, like millions across our country, stuck in the waiting room with only a sticking plaster to hand. Our country is set on a path of managed decline, falling behind our competitors—the sick man of Europe once again.
This was a day for ambition, for bringing us together with purpose and intent, for unlocking the pride that is in every community and matching their belief in the possibilities of the future, but after today we know that the Tory cupboard is as bare as the salad aisle in our supermarkets. The lettuces may be out, but the turnips are in: a hopelessly divided party, caught between a rock of decline and a hard place of its own economic recklessness, dressing up stagnation as stability as the expiry date looms ever closer.
The figures published today spell it out: a year of stagnation, with growth non-existent. According to the International Monetary Fund, we are the worst-performing country in the G7 this year—a prediction today confirmed by the Office for Budget Responsibility, with growth downgraded in the years to come. This is a failure that can be measured not just by the figures, but by the empty pockets of working people right across the country: 13 years without wage growth, 13 years no better off, 13 years stuck in a doom loop of lower growth, higher taxes and broken public services.
The OBR makes it clear today that things do not look any better in the long run. A broken labour market is holding back our prospects. There are 7 million on NHS waiting lists. Ill health and disability are on the rise, and the consequences, as we have just heard, have been deferred to the future. It is the classic short-term, sticking-plaster cycle: decisions cynically ducked today; pain for working people tomorrow.
It does not have to be like this. Britain has enormous potential. In science, innovation and technology, we should be leading, not lagging. We need an industrial strategy that removes barriers to investment, but the announcements today are nowhere near the mark. The lowest investment in the G7: that is the Government’s record. All our competitors know this. They are gearing up for an almighty race, for the opportunities of tomorrow, and we have to be on the start line, not back in the changing room tying our laces.
The Chancellor mentioned the war in Ukraine. Of course the Opposition stand with Ukraine, and we stand with the Government’s response to Putin’s brutality. We will look carefully at the details of the military spending announced, and we will support them, but what we cannot accept is the use of the war as a blanket excuse for failure.
Our economy has weak foundations. Global crises hit Britain more than other countries. Wages in this country are lower now in real terms than they were 13 years ago. The average French family are a tenth richer; the average German family a fifth richer. Those countries faced the same pandemic and those countries face the same war. The war did not ban onshore wind, the war did not scrap our home insulation scheme, the war did not run down our gas storage facilities—the Government did, with decisions that hurt working people battling the cost of living crisis right now. It has been the same story for the whole 13 years: always the sticking plaster, never the cure, and today’s Budget does nothing to change that. Again, we see a failure to grip the long-term challenges—[Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. People should not be speaking while the Leader of the Opposition is delivering his speech. They should be listening. We will now listen to the Leader of the Opposition.
Keir Starmer
Today’s Budget changes nothing. Again, we see a failure to grip the long-term challenges and no determination to create growth, which unlocks the potential of the many. Working people are being made to pay for Tory choices and Tory mistakes.
These are the organising principles of Conservative economics, and we should judge them by their choices: the running down of our public services, paid for by working people; the disaster of the Tory mortgage premium, paid for by working people; the opportunities still missed for a proper windfall tax, paid for by working people. That is what makes the Chancellor’s boasts about lower inflation so ridiculous—the idea that it is a tax cut. British people can see through that. They see their tax burden at its highest level for 70 years, and they know it is not the Government who are lowering inflation. It is working people, earning less and enjoying less. It is their sacrifice that is helping to bring inflation down, and they deserve better than another cheap trick from the Government of gimmicks, making them pay while trying to claim the credit.
Even with the price guarantee, the average energy bill has doubled in 18 months. Because of the Government’s recklessness, the average mortgage payment is up by £2,000 a year—a massive hit to living standards, however they cook the books. And yet there is still no real ambition on industrial strategy, no real ambition on the clean energy that will give us cheaper bills, no real ambition on house building. We are seeing the same old Tory choices, with sticking-plaster politics, no growth for the many, and working people paying.
Let us turn to “his” policies on the cost of living. I say “his” policies because there is a history to this—a pattern. Over the course of the whole cost of living crisis, time and again it is Labour who brings the Government not just to their senses, but to our position. Who first pushed for the energy price guarantee? Labour. Who first called for a proper windfall tax? Labour. Who first stood by people on prepayment meters? Labour. Who first said we should freeze the price guarantee this April? Labour. And we can go on, because it is also Labour that first committed to extending the fuel duty cut—a policy that, in January, the Chancellor dismissed, as part of a dossier that he published. So for one poor soul in their research team at least, this really is a back-to-work Budget. I have a word of advice for the Chancellor as he promotes this policy in the coming days: use your own car, and for heaven’s sake make sure you know how to use a debit card. I look forward to the Prime Minister promoting the swimming pools policy. He will not have to borrow one of those—unlike the car.
The cost of living crisis is not over, and once again the Government have left money on the table when it comes to oil and gas companies—money that could have been better spent on working people. Politics is about whose side you are on. There are loopholes that urgently need closing. Even the former CEO of Shell admitted that the companies should be paying more. The long-term plan just is not there. We are seeing the same old Tory choices and the same three principles—sticking-plaster politics, no growth for the many, working people pay—and we are seeing those principles at play in our broken labour market.
Much of what the Chancellor said today focused on that, as well it might. The figures announced in this Budget show how damaging the current situation is to growth—a long-term drag on our ability to create more wealth. Our inactivity levels are particularly shocking, up by half a million since the pandemic, and ours is the worst jobs recovery in the G7. More people are unable to work because of ill health than ever before.
We will look at what the Chancellor has announced today, because we on these Benches have long called for reform of the work capability assessment, and for a welfare system that supports people with disabilities and long-term health conditions and helps them to thrive at work. The universal credit system must help people into employment, and childcare is a huge barrier to that. We have made the case for reform.
When it comes to childcare, of course more money in the system is obviously a good thing—[Interruption.] They obviously were not listening when he told us when he was actually going to do it. We have seen the Tories expand so-called free hours before. As parents up and down the country know, it is no use having more free hours if you cannot access them, and it pushes up the costs for parents outside the offer. That is what we have seen before.
On pensions, the Chancellor made a big spending commitment that will benefit those with the broadest shoulders when many people are struggling to save into their pensions. We needed a fix for doctors, but the announcement today is a huge giveaway to some of the very wealthiest. The only permanent tax cut in the Budget is for the richest 1%. How can that possibly be a priority for this Government?
The truth is that our labour market is the cast-iron example of an economy with weak foundations. Our crisis in participation simply has not happened elsewhere—not to this extent. It is a feature of Tory Britain, and global excuses will not wash. We need a wider reform agenda. Instead of making working people pay, we need to make work pay. We need to move on from growth that is based on insecure, low-paid jobs to growth that comes from good work and strong employment rights and can deliver higher productivity: growth from the many, for the many, that makes people better off in all parts of our country.
I welcome the Chancellor’s announcements on devolution deals. The principle that we should push power out of Westminster is fully supported on this side of the House. In fact, we want him to go further: communities beyond Birmingham and Manchester deserve the right powers, and the same powers, to drive growth as well.
But the Chancellor is a former Health Secretary, and a published author on health, no less—he gave me a signed copy of his book. He knows that growth needs an NHS fit for the future, and no country can be fit for work when there are 7 million people on hospital waiting lists. So I was waiting for him to match Labour’s ambition—waiting for him to match our plan to train more doctors and nurses and to tackle the capacity crisis, a policy that he publicly praised just 15 days before becoming Chancellor. And yet it never came. If ever there was a symbol of the poverty of ambition, that is it, because the reality is that a country getting sicker is a country getting poorer, and a country getting poorer is a country getting sicker. Health and wealth must go together. Britain cannot afford to be the sick man of Europe. Britain cannot afford the Tories.
And there is another way. On these Benches, we understand that institutions must be respected, that constraints must be accepted, that fiscal rules should be sound and followed rigorously, and that every pound is precious and must not be wasted. The Tories want to shout about their record, so let them shout. Wages: lower. Taxes: higher. Borrowing: higher. Debt: higher. Their chaos has a cost.
Certainty is vital for the growth that we need, essential for businesses and investors in our country. As we have spelt out, compared with a blanket cut in corporation tax, investment allowances are the right approach, but the question that many businesses will ask today is this: how long before the wind blows again, and we all go through this again? That is what the Tories do not understand about business investment. Their endless fighting on tax is bad for growth, in and of itself. Real stability means that taxes do not go up and down like yo-yos, and the R&D tax credit regime does not get overhauled twice in six months. [Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. Okay, that is enough. I now cannot hear the right hon. and learned Gentleman at all—and it is nothing to do with being old. Now, be quiet.
Keir Starmer
Let me give an example of that instability. It is a bit of a fraught subject at the moment, but when the Chancellor was Culture Secretary he apparently took some lessons on the rules of football. Let me provide a refresher. The number of times his Government have broken their fiscal rules: 11. That is one football team. The number of times they have changed corporation tax policy: 22. That is two teams—you have got a game. But if he wants the post-match analysis, he will have to consult the experts, who will be back on his screens and ours this weekend. I know that the whole House will want to applaud that.
But a Budget is about not just the choices made but the choices ignored. Britain needs more than certainty for growth; that is the least we should expect. We need change, stability and success. Anyone listening to this who is worried about NHS waiting lists or about crime going unpunished—[Interruption.] They do not want to hear about the waiting lists. They do not want to hear about crime going unpunished. Housebuilding rates are falling. I suppose they do not want to hear about that either. They will have heard very little that makes them feel hopeful about our future.
The Government could have used sensible taxation policies on non-doms or oil and gas companies and made the money work for working people. They could have tackled the vested interests that gum up our planning system and shown real ambition on the investment we need to turn us into a green growth superpower. That was the test today: could we move beyond the usual sticking-plaster solutions and set a new direction for growth that serves the interests of working people?
I am afraid that the verdict on this Budget is clear: they will not offer change because they cannot. And so our course is set: managed decline, Britain going backwards, the sick man of Europe once again. That is the Britain they have created and they should look it in the eye, because today’s figures on growth put their failures up in lights. After 13 years of Tory sticking-plaster politics, 13 years of no growth for the many and 13 years of being asked to pay, working people are entitled to ask, “Am I any better off than I was before?” After 13 years, with no excuses left, nobody left to blame, no ambition or answers, the resounding answer is no, and they know it.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. We will just let things settle down a bit. If people are leaving, please will they do so quickly and quietly, out of consideration for everybody else who is still taking part in the debate? Get a move on. I call the Chair of the Treasury Committee.
Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker; it is wonderful to have you back in the Chair.
After that torrent of socialist declinism from the Opposition, I want to start by saying how lucky we are to have a lucky Chancellor. He has been lucky this winter because the weather has been a lot warmer than it was when he stood here in November, and as a result the price of energy has come down. But he has also made some of his own luck. Thanks to the steps that he took, the financial markets have stabilised and he has had to pay less in interest than he was expecting to—about £4 billion.
It is hard to believe that this is the first official Budget we have had in this Chamber since October 2021. A lot of things have changed since then. Our world-leading NHS vaccination roll-out has ended the severe contagion of the pandemic, but Putin’s evil and illegal invasion of Ukraine has sparked the worst inflation for 40 years. The challenges that those events have placed on the public finances have been extraordinary, and the spending cannot all be borrowed and passed on to the next generation. That is why I welcome today’s news that the Chancellor is forecasting 3% lower debt in years to come.
The Treasury Committee welcomes the fact that the Budget is accompanied by forecasts from the Office for Budget Responsibility. We think it is important that that stands alongside a Budget. It is a key part of the independent framework for Chancellors and we will be taking evidence from the OBR next week on the underlying assumptions behind its forecasts.
What has changed most perniciously since the last Budget in October 2021 is inflation. It was only just beginning to rear its ugly head back then, and as a member of the Treasury Committee throughout this entire period, I have been like Cassandra in highlighting some of the inflationary risks that we faced. Far from being transitory, as the independent Bank of England hoped, inflation has become quite deeply embedded in the UK economy in wage inflation and in expectations. That is why I welcome the news today that the OBR is expecting inflation to go back down to 2.9% by the end of this year.
Inflation is the worst tax that we have on our economy. It is a tax paid particularly by the very poorest, who spend the highest proportion of their income on food and energy, so the Chancellor must not listen to the siren voices urging him to increase or abandon the inflation target that he gives to the independent Bank of England. The top priority for our economy this year must be to at least halve inflation.
It is to be welcomed that in his Budget today, the Chancellor has tried to focus on measures that help to achieve that inflation target. The extension of the fuel duty freeze and the cap on household energy costs will all help to keep inflation almost 1% lower than it would otherwise have been. These might not feel like giveaways but they do cost money against the do-nothing counterfactual option. It is good to see that they are being implemented because of better public finances, and that these tax cuts can be seen as consistent with the Government’s second priority of reducing debt.
In our recent Treasury Committee report, we called on the Chancellor to think again about the fiction that lies behind fuel duty forecasts. Every year, they get embedded in the fiscal outlook, and every year Chancellors realise that it is not an ideal time to raise fuel duty. I welcome the fact that the fuel duty cut has been extended for another year and that, once again, the fiction has not been followed through into reality, but we need to think long and hard about why a tax that is inflationary, that harms growth and that is heading the way of the dodo, as we all move to electric cars, is still in the forecast numbers.
The third economic policy of growing the economy in a non-inflationary way will involve all of us working more productively. The Stride review, named after my illustrious predecessor, has rightly focused on this key question. Many helpful measures have been announced in today’s Budget. With over 1 million job vacancies in our economy, we are still, as a country, working fewer hours than we were before the pandemic. Unlocking that human and economic potential is key to strong, productive, non-inflationary growth.
The steps that have been announced today on childcare and on pensions will help to ease the labour shortages that are pushing up wage demands and help to counter those inflationary pressures. The Treasury Committee looks forward to exploring all these issues in detail with our expert witnesses and with the Chancellor in our next evidence sessions, because the details really matter.
The Treasury Committee has highlighted the new benefit cliff edges that my right hon. Friend introduced last November, when he announced that, next winter, only low-paid households will receive the £900 help with their cost of living. We asked for it to be spread over six instalments to reduce the risk of cliff edges. We are sorry to hear that a somewhat clunky computer system means there will be three instalments instead. We worry that, if a person loses their job just after the qualifying date, they will miss out on a lot of help.
There are still cliff edges, taper rates and disincentives to work galore in our benefit and tax systems, whether they are around free school meals, childcare limits, child benefit tapers, tax-free childcare cliff edges and the withdrawal of the tax-free allowance. The very welcome measures announced today on all those fronts, and the pension cap abolition, will all be studied in detail by the Committee. We plan to work closely with our colleagues on the Work and Pensions Committee to find recommendations to smooth some of those cliff edges and distortions.
The Chancellor can see how these cliff edges are disincentives to working more hours, and every hour of work should pay. We have made huge progress towards that today. At any stage in life, and at any age, people should be rewarded more the more they work.
Speaking briefly as a constituency MP, I welcome the help for swimming pools, for pubs, for levelling up, for Malvern theatres and for childcare providers and nurseries. There is a lot of very good news for them today.
The Chancellor has had some luck since November and he has shared that luck with UK households today. He has a clear intention to bring down inflation, to grow the economy and to reduce debt. May good luck continue to follow him, and may the extra billions of pounds he has secured for the defence budget help our Ukrainian friends have good luck and to beat back the Russian invaders. Slava Ukraini.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. Before I call the next hon. Member, let me say that it will be obvious that a great many people wish to speak this afternoon. I would prefer not to have to put a time limit on, and we will manage without one if everybody sticks to about seven minutes. You can say a lot in seven minutes. If we cannot manage to have a self-imposed rule, we will put on a time limit. I call Priti Patel.
Scottish Independence and the Scottish Economy
Baroness Laing of Elderslie Excerpts(2 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. I have to protect the hon. Gentleman. He has as much of a right to speak as anyone else. Let us give him a chance.
Mr Perkins
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. During that Scottish referendum, I was in Edinburgh, Cumbernauld, West Dunbartonshire, Airdrie and Falkirk, and I spoke to people about the issues and about how much I hoped that they would choose to stay in the United Kingdom. The people I spoke to on the doorsteps were pleased to debate the subject. Lots of them voted to stay in the UK and lots voted otherwise. Virtually all those constituencies ended up voting overall to stay in the UK, but they recognised that not only was this a matter on which the people of Scotland would decide, but that the matter was of interest to people across the United Kingdom.
The basic assertion that the Scottish National party made—that an independent Scotland would be part of the EU but that it would take the pound and, at some point in future, have a Scottish pound—has been absolutely blown to pieces by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South. That was clear for everyone to see, and the momentary quiet that descended among those on the SNP Benches when he was making his case spoke volumes.
We have heard from SNP Members—
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. Members will have noticed that there is something else going on today, and that various Members have suddenly appeared in the Chamber. The reason is that I am now about to announce the result of the ballot held today for the election of a new Chair of the Health and Social Care Committee. I can announce that 436 votes were cast, four of which were invalid. The counting went to four rounds. There were 401 active votes in the final round, excluding those ballot papers whose preferences had been exhausted. The quota to be reached was therefore 201 votes. Steve Brine was elected Chair with 253 votes. He will take up his post immediately and I congratulate him on his election. I know that he is unavoidably detained elsewhere and cannot be in the Chamber at this moment. The results of the count under the alternative vote system will be made available as soon as possible in the Vote Office and published on the internet. We will now proceed.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. I have tried to allow the debate to develop naturally, without time limits. I had hoped that there would be a few speeches of about seven or eight minutes, which would be perfectly reasonable. Since then, there have been some very long speeches. It would be better if we could manage without time limits, but that would mean people being self-disciplined and speaking for about seven minutes or so, which is actually quite a long time.
Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am delighted that the House has voted on a motion
“that Scotland cannot afford to be part of the failing state of the UK and must be independent for economic stability”.
This indeed is a historic moment. This House has voted in favour of a motion on Scottish independence—this is the first time that that has happened—with a clear majority of those who were elected from Scottish constituencies voting for that proposition. Of course, that follows on the back of the mandate that the Scottish Parliament has and that the Scottish Government have for delivering an independence referendum. I wonder what assistance your office can give to make sure that the UK Government now assist the Scottish Government in delivering on that mandate that we have and the support of this House for Scotland becoming an independent country.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his point of order. I was doing the arithmetic and I had some doubts as to whether the House was in fact quorate, as I would expect there to have to be 40 votes. But I must clarify that although the Tellers read out that the Ayes were 38, in order to calculate the quorum I have to add in four Tellers and myself, because I am here. Therefore, the House is quorate—only just, but the House is quorate. So I appreciate the point of order that the right hon. Gentleman makes. It is not for me to say anything at all about what the Government might or might not do, but I am quite sure that those on the Treasury Bench will have heard the point he made, and indeed the past six hours of debate, and he will have the opportunity to pursue the matter in the usual way.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Have you received any indication from the Home Secretary that she intends to make a further statement to the House about the detention centre at Manston? You will have been aware that on Monday, the Home Secretary said:
“What I have refused to do is to prematurely release”—
the split infinitive is hers, not mine—
“thousands of people into local communities without having anywhere for them to stay.”—[Official Report, 31 October 2022; Vol. 721, c. 639.]
It is reported today that last night exactly that happened. A bus full of detainees was taken from Manston to Victoria station, where they were left abandoned; apparently, one was left to sleep rough overnight. That surely contradicts what the Home Secretary told the House. She has something to answer for. It would be useful for the House to know whether she intends to come here and explain herself or whether, yet again, she has to be brought here.
Madam Deputy Speaker
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his point of order. As he will know, the Chair has no responsibility, which is fortunate, for what Ministers say at the Dispatch Box or indeed for what any Member says in the Chamber. [Interruption.] I would hope that those currently at the Dispatch Box would have the decency not to speak when I am answering a point of order.
The right hon. Gentleman has made his point, which would be better made to Ministers than as a point to the Chair. At business questions tomorrow, he will have an opportunity. If he seeks to bring any Minister to the House to answer a question, he knows the formalities, such as an urgent question, that he can use.
Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. On 13 May, I sent a letter to the former Secretary of State for Health and Social Care about the investigation of allegations of sexual abuse in the NHS. Given the gravity of the issues, I have since chased for a reply to that letter by email on eight occasions, and I have raised it at business questions.
Later, I tabled a written parliamentary question asking a Minister to respond. The Minister said incorrectly that he had replied to the letter, when he had in fact replied to a different letter. I believe that that was a genuine mistake, but it is a mistake none the less: the answer to my written question is factually incorrect. More to the point, I have yet to receive an answer to the letter I sent on 13 May—five and a half months ago—on behalf of a constituent who raised serious allegations about sexual abuse in the NHS.
Could you please advise me, Madam Deputy Speaker, on how I may ask the Minister to correct the answer to my written parliamentary question 66030, and how I might finally secure a response from the Department of Health and Social Care to my letter?
Madam Deputy Speaker
I thank the hon. Lady for having given me notice of this point of order. She describes the response that she received as having been a genuine mistake. Although the contents of answers to parliamentary questions are not a matter for the Chair, of course, I remind the House that the Government’s own ministerial code requires Ministers to correct any inadvertent errors in answers to parliamentary questions at the earliest opportunity. If an error has been made in this instance, I am sure that the Government will seek to correct it as quickly as possible. As far as the continuing delayed response to her constituent’s correspondence is concerned, she may, as I said to the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael), wish to raise the matter at business questions tomorrow.
Having just referred to the fact that it is important that matters are clarified if an inadvertent mistake has been made by a Minister, the same of course goes for the Chair. I should draw to the attention of the House that, earlier today, Mr Speaker made reference to the Government being a shareholder in Royal Mail. Mr Speaker has asked me on his behalf to make it clear that he understands that in fact the Government are no longer a shareholder in Royal Mail. Bearing in mind the importance that Mr Speaker always stresses about Members correcting the record if an inadvertent mistake has been made, he wishes to lead by example and make it clear that he wishes to correct the inadvertent error that he made earlier today. I am sure the whole House will appreciate that.
COP26: Devolved Administrations
Baroness Laing of Elderslie Excerpts(3 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
And so we move on, and come to the debate on the role and response of the devolved Administrations to COP26, an event that will take place in the wonderful city of Glasgow. I call Brendan O’Hara to move the motion.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. I should say for the sake of clarification that I hope we can manage without a time limit this afternoon. That will be possible if Members take about eight minutes or less. Most have taken considerably less, but if others speak for longer I will have to impose a time limit, which would be a pity because it should not be necessary.
Nick Fletcher
I thank the hon. Lady for her comment, but all four nations come together to create the United Kingdom.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. The hon. Lady questions whether the hon. Gentleman is speaking to the motion; I think I know the motion quite well, and the hon. Gentleman is introducing his speech.
Nick Fletcher
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
We reduced our emissions by a significant 44% between 1990 and 2019. The speed at which we have managed to decarbonise our electric grid is just one example: a decade ago, 40% per cent of our electricity came from coal; it is now a mere 1.8%. Under this Government, this country is embarking on an ambitious industrial revolution that will help to transform the lives of people up and down the country, no matter which nation they belong to.
Scotland: General Election and Constitutional Future
Baroness Laing of Elderslie Excerpts(3 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ian Murray
It is called having principles. The hon. Gentleman ought to try it sometime. We are against independence because it would be bad for the Scottish people, and that is why SNP Members have to answer these questions. They cannot just decide that they are going to move their principles and damage the Scottish economy, Scottish society and Scottish culture on the basis of what the hon. Gentleman has just said. Anas Sarwar will get Scottish Labour back on track with his optimism and his positivity.
As we come out of this pandemic, we must focus on solutions that ensure that Scotland comes back a better, stronger and fairer nation than the one that went into lockdown last year. The SNP wants to go back to the same old divisive discussions, while Labour in Scotland is looking to the future, not separation and not defending the broken status quo. In just a few short weeks, Anas Sarwar, together with my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer), has shown that we can be a credible alternative. Scots do not have to choose between the divisive politics of the SNP—[Interruption.]—the divisive, arrogant politics of the SNP that I hear behind me and the Scottish Tories’ status quo.
Not one vote has been cast yet. Now more than ever, Scotland needs its powerful Parliament to deliver a strong NHS, take action on the jobs crisis, deliver a national care service and treat poverty as the health and economic emergency that it is. Scotland needs a Government who do not just say that education is a priority but really show our children and young people that we are committed to giving them the future they deserve.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
The House will be aware that a great many people wish to take part in this important debate. Members will be accustomed to a time limit of three minutes, but in this very important debate, we will begin with a time limit of four minutes.
John Lamont
The last time I checked, the SNP is your party name and it is your party ticket. If you are telling us now that you do not want to associate with that, perhaps you should think about changing your party’s name. The last time I checked it is also your party, as we heard from your party spokesman this morning—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. I let the hon. Gentleman get away with it at first, but every time he says “your party”, he is referring to me, and I think everybody knows that the party of the hon. Member for Glasgow East (David Linden) is not mine.
John Lamont
I am very grateful, Madam Deputy Speaker. I did not want to cause you deep offence, possibly, which clearly was not my intention.
I am very clear what my party believes in: Scotland’s place is at the heart of the United Kingdom. The hon. Member for Glasgow East (David Linden) clearly does not share my view on that, and he can put that to the electorate in May. The Scottish National party’s priorities, choices and decisions reflect the reality of a party that does not care about Scotland’s children, Scotland’s businesses, our frontline workers and our rural communities, nor is it one that believes it can be held accountable for its actions. The SNP—the Scottish National party—is failing Scotland. The SNP is failing Scots when our focus should be on the pandemic, vaccinations and the economic recovery. Now is not the time for another divisive referendum.
Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab) [V]
I declare my interest as someone of Scottish descent—a reminder, as is the case for many families, of our shared interest in these islands over centuries.
There is, of course, a case that can be made for an independent Scotland, but I profoundly disagree with it, and in a brilliant speech my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray) exposed its contradictions and lack of answers. Let us be honest: the SNP has continued to argue for a second referendum ever since it lost the first. I have listened for many years as the SNP told a story about a nation disrespected and denied its rights by this Parliament. I have always found that rather story depressing because it seems to me that it undervalues Scotland but is told to nurture the grievance that all too often appears to be at the heart of the independence cause.
I have often wondered whether a visitor from afar who knew nothing of the condition of our country might conclude that the people of Scotland were labouring under the terrible yoke of an English-dominated Parliament, but we all know that that is not the case. Indeed, I look at the success of devolution and the extensive powers, some of them barely used, as well as additional funding, that devolution has brought to the people of Scotland—some yoke, some grievance. As a Leeds MP, I dearly wish to have some of those things for the people I represent.
I wish to see the benefits of this shared Union: the security that it gives us all, from whichever part of the United Kingdom we come, and the power of a single currency backed by the Treasury. In recent months, we have seen how, by working together through our NHS, we have been able to vaccinate people in all parts of our Union to protect them. I ask the hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Tommy Sheppard), why does it require separation for Scotland to engage with the rest of the United Kingdom?
This may be uncomfortable for some to hear, but I am struck by the similarities in the arguments put by those who argued for Brexit and by those who argue for Scottish independence. Both are based on the charge that one is somehow done down by the other. Both argue that sovereignty should outweigh economic self-interest. Given the problems we see on the border between the UK and the EU, how could it possibly be in the economic interest of Scotland—or, indeed, of England—to establish that same customs and single market border from the Solway firth to just north of Berwick-upon-Tweed?
Both arguments create bitter division. Opinion in Scotland is very divided on independence; be wary of the untold consequences of small margins and do not make assumptions. Opinion polls move, but there is only one true indicator of the settled will of the Scottish people, and that is the outcome of the 2014 referendum. I do not decry anyone’s right to continue to argue their cause in the face of that settled will, but I do question the wisdom of doing so, especially now. Together, we face unprecedented challenges—a pandemic, an economic crisis, the threat of dangerous climate change—but I believe that we can and will best respond to them not through separation, but as one country, one Union, one United Kingdom.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
I can attest to the Scottish descent of the right hon. Gentleman, as his grandmother and I went to the same school, albeit not at the same time. [Laughter.]
John Lamont
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I seek your guidance. After his intervention, the hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Tommy Sheppard) made a very unfortunate hand gesture at my hon. Friend the Member for Moray (Douglas Ross) that I believe was disrespectful both to my hon. Friend and perhaps to other people watching this debate outside of this place. I seek your guidance as to whether that type of behaviour is acceptable in this place.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. I caught that something had occurred, but I could not see what the hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Tommy Sheppard) did with his hand. If he did make a gesture that is unbecoming of an hon. Member of this place, I am sure he will apologise.
Tommy Sheppard
I certainly had no intention to make any gesture that would cause offence. I do not know why the offence has been taken. I was trying to indicate that the hon. Member for Moray (Douglas Ross) had not given due consideration to what I had said. I am not sure exactly what gesture is meant. I was pointing at my head and saying, “Think about it.” [Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker
Let us not prolong this. I take it that the hon. Gentleman will apologise if he inadvertently caused any offence by a gesture that should not have taken place in this place. It would be helpful if he would just nod to me.
Tommy Sheppard
I do apologise if any offence was taken; it was not intended.
Madam Deputy Speaker
That is sufficient. It is essential that we keep good order and good humour in these debates, where of course there is massive disagreement about policy and ideas but there is always courtesy between hon. Members. I am grateful to all hon. Gentlemen, who are now behaving honourably.
Kenny MacAskill (East Lothian) (SNP) [V]
As others have mentioned, today is St Patrick’s Day. It is also a century on from when the United Kingdom, in its first iteration as the United Kingdom and Ireland, ended when the Irish Free State was established. Now the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland stand on the brink as Scotland seeks its independence to make its way in the world and to end the dystopian fantasy of post-Brexit Britain and its pursuit of a new age of empire.
What Charles Stewart Parnell said of Ireland applies to Scotland:
“No man has a right to fix the boundary of the march of a nation; no man has a right to say to his country—thus far shalt thou go and no further.”
Yet that is what Scotland is being told, despite support for independence being ever greater and despite Scotland’s democratically elected representatives demanding the right to hold a referendum. Instead, we are told that it is no to indyref2, and that now and forevermore it will remain that way unless and until it is set by the British on their conditions. That is simply unacceptable. Scotland cannot be subject to a British, or even Boris, veto. It is neither his nor their right or prerogative—it is the democratic right of the Scottish people.
That is why we have to consider what options are taken. Section 30 has been rejected by the Prime Minister. A consultative referendum is to be boycotted by the Opposition parties. It is for that reason that more and more people in Scotland see the need to make the Holyrood poll a plebiscite election. It cannot be, or will not be, boycotted because of its nature. The vote on the list can be definitive for independence and parties are signing up for that. It is simply not acceptable that Northern Ireland is entitled to a referendum and the Irish Free State was established on a referendum, yet Scotland is denied another referendum despite carrying out its actions democratically and without violence.
As Brexit Britain sails off into oblivion, it is for Scotland to gain its independence. There is a better way, and the people of Scotland are beginning to recognise that the tenor and tone of the debate has changed. In 2014, and occasionally in some of the contributions here, we have heard, “Please don’t go, Scotland, we love you.” Equally, it is becoming clearer and clearer that it is not a desire to retain Scotland for Scotland’s interests, but a desire to retain Scotland for the interests of those who are the British establishment. That was made quite clear by the former Chancellor of the Exchequer, George Osborne, who wrote recently of Scottish independence that:
“The rest of the world would instantly see that we were no longer a front-rank power, or even in the second row.”
So the whole position put forward by the British Government is not the advancement of the interests of the Scottish people; it is the preservation of the interests of Britain as it stands and of those who are currently very wealthy, as the chumocracy looks after its friends and others.
It is for that reason that the people of Scotland recognise there is a better way, but the better way is to be an independent Scotland where you can care for your own people rather than provide for the private profits of the few. That has to be brought about and if it cannot be delivered by a referendum, we have to make the coming election the plebiscite. Independence is the right of the Scottish people; it is not subject to a veto from Britain, or from a British Prime Minister.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
I now have to reduce the time limit to three minutes, as we go to Wales. I call Jonathan Edwards.
Andrew Bowie
That is very kind of my hon. Friend. I couldn’t possibly comment; that is for other people to judge.
The SNP has dragged Scotland down, down, down. In fact, the only things to go up in Scotland recently have been the taxes. That is the record of the Scottish National party. It is not a surprise that we are now on to the fourth poll in a row showing support for the Union increasing and support for separation going down. As the hon. Member for Glasgow East (David Linden) said a few weeks ago, “Cheerio, cheerio, tick-tock.”
Let us leave this divisive and disruptive debate behind us. Let us move on and tackle the issues that really matter to Scots—rebuilding, growing, creating jobs and making our schools, once again, the best in the world—comfortable in ourselves, happy as a strong, devolved nation within a great and enduring family of nations.
Scotland Act 1998: Scottish Civil Service
Baroness Laing of Elderslie Excerpts(3 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Owen Thompson (Midlothian) (SNP)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Obviously, I appreciate the points that the right hon. Gentleman is making. However, there are court orders in place around the identities of individuals involved in that case. I do appreciate the points that he is making, but I would appreciate your guidance on how we can ensure that these court orders can in fact be adhered to in this place.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his very serious point of order. I can assure him that I am listening very carefully to what the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) is saying. I think that he, being a very experienced parliamentarian, understands the side of the line on which he must stay, as far as mentioning sensitive matters and matters connected with courts, and so on.
Mr Davis
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I have, I think, brought whistleblower views to the attention of this House on about a dozen occasions in the last 20 or 30 years and, on every single occasion, I have protected the innocent people involved.
The download that I am talking about—Sue Ruddick’s telephone download—is held by the Scottish police, so the accuracy of this account can be checked if they need to. Alex Salmond has asserted that there has been, and I quote,
“a malicious and concerted attempt to….remove me from public life in Scotland”
by
“a range of individuals within the Scottish Government and the SNP”,
who set out to “damage” his
“reputation, even to the extent of having”
him “imprisoned.”
These are incredibly grave charges. The whistleblower clearly agrees with those charges. He or she starts their communication with the assertion that the evidence provided, and I quote,
“point to collusion, perjury, up to criminal conspiracy.”
Since I received the data, it looks as though the Committee has received at least some of it themselves, and some has also been put in the public domain by the hon. Member for East Lothian (Kenny MacAskill), a previous Justice Secretary in the Scottish Government. It was described anonymously by one of the Committee members as
“just private conversations that we had no business intruding on”.
Well, I will let the House be the judge of that.
No single sequence of texts is going to provide conclusive proof of what the whistleblower described as a “criminal conspiracy”, but it does show a very strong prima facie case, which demands further serious investigation, by which I mean, at the very least, a thorough review of all the emails and other electronic records for the relevant personnel at all relevant times.
For example, these texts show that there is a concerted effort by senior members of the SNP to encourage complaints. The messages suggest that SNP chief executive Peter Murrell co-ordinated Ruddick and Ian McCann, the SNP’s compliance officer, in the handling of specific complainants. On 28 September, a month after the police had started their investigation of the criminal case, McCann expressed great disappointment to Ruddick that someone who had promised to deliver five complainants to him by the end of that week had come up empty, or “overreached”, as he put it. One of the complainants said to Ruddick that she was
“feeling pressurised by the whole thing rather than supported”.
The day following the Scottish Government’s collapse in a judicial review in January 2019, Ruddick expressed to McCann the hope that one of the complainants would be
“sickened enough to get back in the game.”
Later that month, she confirmed to Murrell that the complainant was now “up for the fight” and
“keen to see him go to jail”.
Ruddick herself, in one of her texts, expressed nervousness about
“what happens when my name comes out as [redacted] fishing for others to come forward”.
Note, again, that this was after the criminal investigation into Salmond had commenced. This is improper, to say the least. Contact with, and influence of, potential witnesses is totally inappropriate once a criminal investigation is under way. That was known inside the SNP itself.
Text messages reveal that at an SNP national executive committee meeting early in January 2019, the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry) raised concerns among staff at Westminster that SNP headquarters were engaged in “suborning” of witnesses, while on 28 August 2018, a senior member of SNP staff in this building described in an email the SNP headquarters move against Salmond as a “witch-hunt”.
Shortly after charges were brought against Salmond, Peter Murrell sent messages saying that it was a
“good time to be pressurising”
detectives working on the case, and that the more fronts Salmond was having to “firefight” on,
“the better for all complainers.”
When the inquiry put those messages to Mr Murrell, he said that they were “quite out of character”. That is no defence even were it true, but, having seen the evidence of other messages, it seems to me that they were all too much in character for Mr Murrell. In a Committee evidence session on 8 December last year, Mr Murrell replied under questioning that there were no more messages of the type already in the public domain from January 2019.
That statement, delivered under oath, is hard to reconcile with the dozens of messages stretching over a period of months from September 2018 that I have now seen. There is more, but it would take the whole debate to read them out. The Committee needs to gain access to all this information. The anonymous Committee member who described them as “just private conversations” should understand that meddling in an ongoing police inquiry is at best improper, and at worst criminal, so it requires proper investigation. If the Committee does not feel it can do the job, perhaps it should ask the police to do it instead.
That brings us to the complaints process that Mr Salmond was subjected to. This process was new. Created in late 2017, it was different from existing Scottish Government complaints procedures in a number of ways, including being retrospective, lacking a mediation procedure and, extraordinarily, applying to previous Ministers but not to previous civil servants. The procedure was shared with the head of propriety and ethics in Whitehall, who expressed discomfort with the proposals and specifically asked whether they were only to apply to Ministers, not civil servants. As far as I can tell, she did not get a reply. It is hard to imagine a Department in Whitehall essentially ignoring concerns expressed by the head of propriety and ethics, which is one of the reasons that I want Whitehall to review the checks and balances built into the Scottish civil service.
The Scottish Government also ignored their own new policy and appointed an investigating officer who, it emerged, had had prior contact with the complainants, and not just any contact—a potential complainant was asked for their input on the draft procedure before they had formally made their complaint. They did not consult women’s advocacy groups, which would have been proper. They did consult trade unions, but not in a proper or timely fashion. Instead, input was sought from the very first complainant whose case would be investigated. Mr Salmond sought judicial review of the process, and in due course, this complaints procedure and process was judged by Lord Pentland in the highest civil court in Scotland to be “unlawful”, “unfair” and “tainted with apparent bias”—an astonishing judgment, backed up by the maximum possible punitive award of costs.
The judicial review of 2018 led to further extraordinary behaviour by the Scottish Government. In her evidence before the Holyrood inquiry, the First Minister of Scotland, Nicola Sturgeon, said that her Government’s external counsel were “confident” at the outset of the civil case that they would be successful. That is a significant mischaracterisation of the advice. The Government’s external counsel had identified a central vulnerability in the Scottish Government’s case. The complaints procedure under which Salmond was investigated had a real risk of being found to be unfair. Counsel stated:
“the vulnerability arises from the Procedure itself, and not from its implementation in this particular case.”
We now know that counsel came to that conclusion without being given the full facts of the case—facts that, in due course, took it from being an arguable case to a completely unarguable one.
External counsel Roddy Dunlop QC gave that first assessment of their chances in late September. By the end of October, he is clearly worried that the Government had not disclosed important facts about their operation of the process and says that at that point:
“it makes little sense to continue to defend the indefensible.”
Within a few days, he is advising that the “least worst” option is to concede the case. By 14 December, the obvious failure of the Government to meet their duty of candour leads to a commission and diligence committee being appointed to establish the real facts.
On 19 December, after the first meeting of that commission, the Government’s external counsel tells the Government:
“With regret, our dismay at this case deepens even further...Suffice to say that we have each experienced extreme professional embarrassment as a result of assurances which we have given, both to our opponents and the court, which assurances have been given on instruction, turning out to be false as a result of the revelation of further documents.”
The Scottish Government pressed on despite the counsel’s continued concerns about their “untenable position”. Most remarkably, the counsel told the Scottish Government that they were “personally horrified”, and that they could
“no longer rest on pleadings that they knew to be untrue.”
The defence had collapsed because of the Government’s lack of candour. Mr Salmond was very fortunate that the Government’s counsel, Mr Roddy Dunlop, now Scotland’s leading QC, behaved with impeccable honour and honesty throughout. Let us be clear: this is not just a case of a Government who failed to provide information because they could not manage their own filing systems. This was a Government who actively withheld important, relevant information. In one case, a critically relevant email was actively removed from an information bundle that was going to the court and that had already been approved by the Government counsel. I do not know who took that email out—I have it here. I do not know who gave the instruction, but in my view the removal of that document would be a summary dismissal offence and possibly a criminal offence. At the very least, it would be a contempt of court. Yet over his three evidence sessions, the Lord Advocate, the Chief Law Officer of Scotland, did not see fit to mention this crucial incident to a parliamentary Committee trying to get to the truth. It came to light just 10 days ago, when the Government were forced to publish their legal advice.
It was only in January 2019, after months of increasingly damning advice, that the Scottish Government faced the inevitable and conceded the judicial review. Costs were awarded against the Scottish Government at a punitive level reserved for defences conducted “incompetently or unreasonably”. The Scottish public will now pay the bill for their Government’s dogged pursuit of a doomed case.
More than that, the Scottish Government behaved in a way that was misleading to the court in a case that had serious implications for the criminal case that was to follow. The charges in that case were very serious. Had Mr Salmond been guilty of them, he would, quite rightly, have gone to prison, and his reputation would have been destroyed forever. Yet the Government were willing to play fast and loose with the facts in a way that, if they had succeeded, would have jeopardised the whole process of justice. For me, that is even bigger than the grotesque waste of £1 million. As it was, of course, he was exonerated on all charges by a predominantly female jury in a criminal court presided over by a female judge.
The Scottish Government had committed abuses of process in the initial investigation. They had failed to live up to their duty of candour in court with an indefensible case. At this point, we might have expected some contrition. Instead, the Scottish Government have now set their sights on impeding the Committee tasked with investigating the whole affair. The Members of the Holyrood inquiry are valiantly struggling to do their job, or at least some of them are, but time and again they have been frustrated. The inquiry has had to cope with evasiveness from the Scottish Government and the constant threat of legal action by the Crown Office, the Scottish equivalent of our Crown Prosecution Service.
First, the Crown Office intervened by barring the publication of the evidence of Geoff Aberdein, Mr Salmond’s former chief of staff. This evidence is critical in determining whether Nicola Sturgeon breached the ministerial code. It is clearly in the public interest to see this evidence. However, it is not allowed to be published, so I have a suggestion for the Committee. I have it on good authority that there exists from 6 February 2018 an exchange of messages between civil servants Judith McKinnon and Barbara Allison suggesting that the First Minister’s chief of staff is interfering in the complaints process against Alex Salmond. The investigating officer complained, “Liz interference v. bad”. I assume that that means very bad. If true, this suggests that the chief of staff had knowledge of the Salmond case in February, not in April, as she has claimed on oath. The First Minister also tied herself to that April date in both parliamentary and legal statements. She was, of course, aware earlier than that. The question is just how aware and how much earlier.
Secondly, the Crown Office intervened to see that the evidence of the former First Minister was redacted, supposedly to protect the identity of complainants, which is the point that the hon. Member for Midlothian (Owen Thompson) made quite properly earlier. Again, that redacted evidence focused on whether or not the First Minister breached the ministerial code, but The Spectator magazine had already published online Mr Salmond’s entire evidence with only a single paragraph redaction.
When The Spectator went to court to secure the publication of that evidence, the Crown Office made no objection whatsoever to the paragraphs that it bullied the Holyrood inquiry to redact. That leaves an absurd situation where the inquiry cannot speak about evidence that is freely available to anyone with an internet connection. The redactions are therefore clearly not designed to protect the complainants; they are designed to protect the First Minister from accountability to the inquiry.
Thirdly, the Scottish Government withheld the damning legal advice given in the civil case. It was only with the threat of a no confidence vote in the Deputy First Minister that the Committee could see part, and I emphasise part, of that advice. However, what we do know is that across November and December 2018 there were a series of meetings where it was decided to persist with the judicial review. That was against clear advice from counsel.
Rather extraordinarily, those meetings appear to have been largely unminuted. I recommend that they ask for the junior counsel’s notes. It was only at the last possible minute that the Government conceded the case, and only after counsel had threatened to resign. The First Minister told the Committee:
“I am not aware that they threatened to resign”,
but she will have seen a report that clearly states that counsel
“in light of their professional duties”
and their view of the case
“will require to withdraw from acting on January 3”.
Fourthly, the Scottish Government have repeatedly denied the Committee relevant evidence for what they claim to be legal reasons. That position is nonsensical. Of course there should be protections over sensitive material exposed in criminal trials—we agree on that—but those protections should not prevent a parliamentary committee from doing its job of holding Government to account.
Together, those form a litany of acts that repeatedly frustrated the Committee and denied the public full transparency and accountability. They fit squarely into a pattern of evasiveness and abuse of process that the Scottish Government have woven from the start. As I said in opening, the proper place for these matters to be determined is Holyrood. It would be eminently preferable for MSPs to be exposing any relevant evidence, but given the British Government’s failure in 1998 to give sufficient power to the Scottish Parliament, and given that the Scottish Parliament derives its authority from this House, certain evidence must now enter the public domain here.
The Holyrood inquiry has exposed some critical failings at the heart of the Scottish Government. They failed with the complaints process, they failed to heed legal advice, and they failed to honour commitments to ensure a transparent parliamentary review, but perhaps more worryingly the inquiry has revealed the limits of what the Scottish Parliament can expose. There is a deficit of power, and with it comes a deficit of accountability.
At the very least, I ask the Minister to consider an amendment to the 1998 Act to deliver separation of powers to Scotland—something that I believe a previous Justice Minister, the hon. Member for East Lothian, has written to the Justice Committee about already—to strengthen the civil service, and to reinforce the powers of the Scottish Parliament, correcting the fundamental power imbalance between the Executive and the legislature in Scotland. Let us give the Scottish Parliament the power to do the job.