Oral Answers to Questions

Gavin Newlands Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd November 2021 Commons Chamber

[Helen Whately]

I sincerely agree with my hon. Friend and thank him for his support. We are overhauling the UK’s outdated alcohol duty rules—the biggest simplification for 140 years—and taking a common-sense approach. Drinks will be taxed in accordance with their strength, encouraging responsible drinking, tackling the problems caused by cheap high-strength drinks, and supporting our pubs and our hospitality sector.

[Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)]

The Chancellor promised the aviation sector a bespoke support package before breaking his word. Instead these businesses will have to make use of other support schemes, including time to pay. What does he say to those businesses now hit by tens or hundreds of thousands of pounds in interest charges by HMRC when the sector is quite clearly still very badly affected by the pandemic?

Better Jobs and a Fair Deal at Work

Gavin Newlands Excerpts

Wednesday 12th May 2021 Commons Chamber

[Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)]

In yesterday’s programme for government, Bills that will make it harder for people to vote, scrap fixed-term Parliaments and reduce judicial oversight of the Government were announced. Yet the Government found no room in their programme for a clear and unequivocal pledge to make fire and rehire illegal, and this at a time when workers’ rights are under attack from some of the biggest businesses in the land. The results will be all too predictable. Continued inaction will inevitably lead to yet more companies telling their staff to accept wage cuts, with no negotiation or discussion, or face the sack.

Minister after Minister has condemned the practice. The Prime Minister himself said earlier this year that using threats to fire and rehire was unacceptable as a negotiating tactic. Questions from myself and many other Opposition Members have been met with the response that the Government are studying the ACAS report that was delivered to them—a report that has now been sitting on their desks for three months. We do not know what is in the report—the Government have not published it—but I have to ask: what is the point of commissioning ACAS to produce it if nothing is to be done with it?

Given the indignities that millions of employees have been expected to tolerate over recent months at the hands of unscrupulous and immoral employers, it is shocking that there is no employment Bill or any reference whatever to workers’ rights and dignity, nor any mention of levelling up for those subject to employment practices that are more reminiscent of the Poor Laws than those of a 21st-century society—and this despite the fact that back in November the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Scully), said of the employment Bill that it was a matter of when, not if.

In recent weeks, as we have heard others mention, hundreds of British Gas workers have lost their jobs because they refused to be fired and rehired. Where is their levelling up? Sites are filled to bursting with British Gas vehicles—van graveyards, deliberately created by the company because no one is left to work in them—with the entirely predictable result that service visits and repairs are hugely behind schedule.

Last year it was British Airways telling staff to sign on the dotted line or join the dole queue, just weeks into lockdown. In Ireland and Spain, where BA’s parent company also operates, these tactics would be illegal. Workers in those countries were safe from fire and rehire, but in the UK, BA saw no legal obstacle to effectively telling staff, in some cases with decades of service, to take 40%, 50% or 60% wage cuts, or face the sack, all while BA was using money from those same taxpayers to stay afloat.

Ultimately, the state has a responsibility to ensure that the rights of workers are protected by the force of law against the deep pockets and power of huge corporations. By failing to act yet again, the Government are abandoning that responsibility and instead appear to be content with issuing stern lectures from the Dispatch Box about how naughty these companies are. Lectures do not level up for workers. Lectures do not pay mortgages, they do not pay the bills and they do not protect jobs.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Kwasi Kwarteng)]

I was struck by the speech from the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband). He said at one point that the Government had not changed; in fact, the one thing that had not changed was the right hon. Gentleman. I listened to his speech and was taken back to when I was a Back Bencher in 2014 and he was the Leader of the Opposition—he could have said exactly the same thing. It is always the same thing: he does the country down and says that we always talk about austerity. How can he talk about austerity when he himself acknowledged that the Chancellor has spent £350 billion on unprecedented support—on furlough and for British business? The world that he describes is the world of his tenure as Leader of the Opposition—there may well be a vacancy; who knows whether he could come back?—but it is not a world that many millions of people in this country recognise.

We continue to protect the lowest-paid workers: we have raised the national minimum wage and again raised the national living wage—having been the first Government to institute it, we raised it only in April, but perhaps the right hon. Gentleman forgot that. He has certainly forgotten the immense help and the grants that have supported businesses that would otherwise have closed. The bounce back loan scheme has approved more than £46 billion of loans for 1.5 million businesses. As we follow the Prime Minister’s road map out of lockdown restrictions, new recovery loans and restart grants will help businesses in urban areas.

The country that I see is completely different from the gloom and doom that the Leader of the Opposition—forgive me; the right hon. Gentleman is not the Leader of the Opposition any more, although he may be in future—paints. It is not recognised by millions of our fellow subjects. The Queen’s Speech builds back better and delivers on real people’s priorities. We are embracing a green, vibrant economy. It was extraordinary to hear the right hon. Gentleman again denigrate our achievements in the green industrial revolution. Only a month ago, John Kerry said to me—and he was good enough to say this publicly—that the efforts of this Government and this country had been extraordinary and we were world leaders in the fight against climate change. That is acknowledged. The right hon. Gentleman cited the United States: their target is a 50% reduction by 2030 from the 1990 level; our target for 2030 is a 68% reduction. It is far in excess of the United States’ target, yet the right hon. Gentleman once again points to other countries with the assumption that here in Britain we are terrible and everybody else is doing it better, whereas in fact the reverse is the case. It is Britain that people look to as leaders on climate change. Inwardly, the right hon. Gentleman probably acknowledges that.

Let me move beyond the histrionics of the right hon. Gentleman’s speech. We have laid legislation for the UK’s sixth carbon budget which, I am delighted to say, proposes a target that would reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 78% by 2035 compared with 1990 levels. It is by far the most ambitious reduction plan in the G7 and the right hon. Gentleman knows that. He knows that the 10-point plan has been acknowledged throughout the world as a world-leading and world-beating proposal. [Interruption.] They scoff and laugh, as they scoff and laugh at their own voters. They scoff and laugh at the country endlessly, and I am afraid they have suffered from their scoffing and mocking attitude.

The right hon. Gentleman was good enough to mention the EU’s proscriptive state aid regime, which we have jettisoned, and welcomed the fact that we have a subsidy control Bill that will create a new domestic subsidy control system. He accepted that, which did require a measure of realisation that we are moving on from the EU. I am delighted that, among his colleagues, he at least accepts that Brexit is finished and that we can move with confidence beyond EU membership. I very much welcome that but, again, to hear his speech one would think that the United Kingdom was a place of irredeemable squalor and poverty, when in fact the opposite is the case. When people look at the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine and the way in which we have conducted the vaccine roll-out, they see a country that has been extremely successful. Only today I was speaking to Ministers from Japan and Italy, who mentioned, without any prompting whatever, the extraordinary work that our scientists, nurses, health service and, in fact—dare I say—our hard-working Ministers and civil servants had put in to effect a successful roll-out. People are looking at Britain and they see a successful country that is regaining its place in the world.

This country is home to a powerful combination of elite research institutions, thriving life sciences companies, superb research charities and, of course, an excellent national health service. This winning combination has led the world’s fight against covid and saved many thousands of lives while creating a high number of high-quality jobs across the United Kingdom. These are things of which we should be proud and which our Government are hoping to—and will—build on. Yet the right hon. Gentleman is looking back to the past, simply repeating all the tired old phrases of five, six or seven years ago.

The ARIA Bill, which will become an Act in this Session and formed part of the Queen’s Speech, is a world first. It is a great innovation. The Department is delighted to have introduced this Bill to create an Advanced Research and Invention Agency, which will fund high-risk, high-reward research with the potential to produce new technologies, new industries and new jobs. ARIA represents the very best of British ingenuity and creativity, but the right hon. Gentleman and his friends wish to pretend that we are the very worst—that nothing we can do is any good and that nothing we can do can compete with France, Germany and all the other countries that he mentioned. In fact, in science and innovation the opposite is true. The Ministers from the countries I mentioned were actually saying the opposite of what the right hon. Gentleman is saying.

I see a huge difference between Government Ministers and MPs and our people across the country, and the Opposition—a fundamentally different outlook about the future and possibilities of this country. Time and again as a Minister and even as a Back Bencher, I have heard nothing from the Opposition but a litany of complaint and, frankly, a dirge of abuse about the country. The Government have huge optimism and belief in the abilities of this country and of our people to overcome difficulties—

[Gavin Newlands]

rose—

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

I am not going to take any interventions. All I hear from the Opposition is scoffing, mocking and abuse. The truth is that across innovation with the vaccine roll-out, across net zero with the 10-point plan and the opportunities for COP26, and across enterprise, we have a Government who are committed to bringing progress and driving success across the entirety of the United Kingdom.

It would be indecent of me not to mention the latest addition to our parliamentary forces, my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Jill Mortimer). Consider this, Mr Deputy Speaker: this was a constituency that had never returned a Conservative Member of Parliament. Indeed, a former Labour Member of Parliament who is not so popular on the Opposition Benches these days, Peter Hartle—I can’t even remember his name! Peter Mandelson, now Lord Mandelson, said quite clearly that this was a seat that would never vote Conservative, but of course it did. And why did it vote Conservative? I suggest that, listening to the dirge-like pessimism of many Members of the Labour party, the people of Hartlepool took a different approach. They believe in the future of the country and of their community. We as a Government are determined to repay their faith in their country and their hard work, and to ensure that we not only level up but build back better.

Ordered, That the debate be now adjourned.—(David T.C. Davies.)

Debate to be resumed tomorrow.

Exiting the European Union (Excise)

Gavin Newlands Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd February 2021 Commons Chamber

[Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP) [V]]

I beg to move,

That the Travellers’ Allowances and Miscellaneous Provisions (EU Exit) Regulations 2020 (SI, 2020, No. 1412), dated 3 December 2020, a copy of which was laid before this House on 3 December 2020, be revoked.

We fully support the extension of duty-free shopping for people travelling to the EU, which is surely the thinnest of silver linings on the huge, grey thundercloud that is Brexit. However, the withdrawal of the VAT retail export scheme and the airside extra-statutory concession represents a real threat to thousands of jobs across Scotland and the UK.

The Treasury’s own consultation showed that an overwhelming majority of respondents were against the abolition of RES. It is trying to grab us with the HMRC guidance on the measures stating that the withdrawal

“may have a marginal impact on retailers in Great Britain.”

But even the Office for Budget Responsibility found that the Treasury has not taken into account the indirect impact on businesses outside the retail sector, showing the modelling undertaken by the Treasury to be fundamentally flawed and based on entirely incorrect assumptions and figures. The supply chain considerations are completely missing from the HMRC statement, with not a word about the manufacturers and suppliers outside of direct retail that will find their bottom line impacted by the disappearance of RES as we know it.

Nor has HMRC shown itself to be entirely accurate in its understanding of the fiscal impact of abolition. Its technical note conflates the number of sales with the number of passengers, underestimating the use of RES by up to 75%. It focuses on the direct benefits to London and Bicester Village, ignoring the indirect impact on travellers from regional airports transiting to their final destination outside the EU, thus underestimating the demand for the extra-statutory concession at these airports.

In short, the attempts of HMRC and the Treasury to justify their decision smack of a post facto race to find facts that fit their narrative, rather than a proper analysis of the pros and cons of both the retail export scheme and the extra-statutory concession. Anybody who thinks this is purely about high-end retailers and retail rent income at airports is ignoring the implications for businesses up and down the land, which are robbed of outlets and goods and seeing demand from overseas visitors shrivel when it should be increasing as we move out of the pandemic.

That is not a good starting point for the Treasury’s actions, and it does not take a world-leading economist to see that two of the industries hardest hit by the pandemic are retail and aviation. The abolition of RES is another blow to each of them. It is perhaps not game-changing in isolation, but it is yet more chipping away at the foundations of employment in my constituency and right across the country.

Edinburgh’s Princes Street, to take one example, has in the past few weeks seen Debenhams and the city institution Jenners fall victim to the pressure on retail, not just from the pandemic but from the wider trends across the sector. Removing RES will hit shopping in the city even harder and will cause even more jobs to be lost at a time when hundreds are already going.

Let me address the way in which the decision was taken. There was no engagement whatsoever with the Scottish Government or, presumably, with any other devolved Government, despite the obvious implications for our retail and tourism sectors. That is utterly disrespectful and counterproductive. I want to see all these decisions taken for Scotland, by Scotland, and while we are part of this Union, it should be incumbent on the Treasury and every UK Government Department at least to speak to their counterparts in the devolved Governments about proposals that will have a serious and detrimental impact on their citizens. If they had engaged, they would have heard the Scottish Government’s real concerns. Scottish Finance Secretary Kate Forbes was clear as soon as she heard of the changes that she did not and does not

“believe that this is an appropriate juncture at which to make such an abrupt and significant change.”

The director of the Scottish Retail Consortium, David Lonsdale, raised the impact that the policy could have on tax-free shopping in Scotland’s cities. He said:

“The Finance Secretary’s comments are a timely and welcome intervention in support of city centres…The decision could cost Edinburgh city centre, for example, many millions in lost retail sales, let alone the knock-on impact on tourism…This decision would leave the UK as the only European country not to provide a tax-free shopping scheme to encourage tourism. There is a good reason no other European nation has taken this step, and we urge swift reconsideration.”

He is right. Other European countries will take advantage of this short-sighted decision.

Warnings are coming from right across the UK. The president of the UK Travel Retail Forum, Francois Bourienne, said the decision would put

“the UK out of step with travel retail systems around the world”

and

“completely disincentivises tourists to visit the UK and British passengers making purchases as they go on vacation abroad. It puts UK airports and travel retail at a substantial disadvantage against their European counterparts after Brexit. This will lead to significant additional job losses in the travel industry.”

Hand in hand with the abolition of the retail export scheme is the scrapping of the extra-statutory concession. Again, the consultation found overwhelming—in fact, near-unanimous—support for the continuation of some form of the concession after Brexit, and again the Treasury ignored those responses. Again, we are seeing the chipping away of revenue streams that employ thousands of people throughout the country and are vital for many airports.

Regional airports depend on the revenue from airside shopping to a far greater degree than the Heathrows of this world—in fact, up to 40% of a smaller airport’s revenue is generated through retail, as a higher proportion of its passengers fly point to point rather than domestically through a hub such as Heathrow. The kicking away of this financial crutch at a time of huge pressure on the finances of airports is another blow to an industry that is reeling from the pandemic and, in the case of many regional airports in England, still dealing with the after-effects of the collapse of Flybe.

In Scotland, it is estimated that the abolition of the ESC will potentially result in the closure of most retail outlets at airports, and will result in lost revenue of around £20 million and the loss of hundreds more jobs that neither retail nor airports can afford. To quote the UK Travel Retail Forum again, it said:

“This could be the final nail in the coffin of several UK regional airports.”

At a time when the industry is on its knees, I am concerned that the UKTRF is right.

I want to see a sustainable future for our airports and aviation, but the more the Government unleash havoc for airport operators’ balance sheets, the more I am concerned for their future. It is also difficult to reconcile the Government’s position that continuing with the extra-statutory concession would be against World Trade Organisation rules with the fact that the Government’s own consultation document states that they were

“minded to extend airside tax-free sales”

at the beginning of the consultation process.

There is one way to mitigate some of the damage: the introduction of arrivals duty-free, as we see in operation around the world, including in all European economic area nations—Norway, Iceland and Switzerland—and as we know the European Union is actively considering. It is vital that we do the same. There are many reasons why this is a good idea, not least because it would support a beleaguered sector and help to safeguard jobs.

As I said, retail revenue cross-subsidises other operations and would help to fund new route development, which is critical to the future recovery of not just Glasgow but all our airports. It plays an absolutely pivotal role in supporting regional connectivity, the air travel side of which is worth £4 billion to the Scottish economy—the same as its value to London and the south-east. A report by Airlines UK found that in one year’s time, around 80% of the hundreds of routes lost to the UK aviation sector will be in the UK regional airports outside of London and the south-east. If the Government truly have a levelling-up agenda, they must do something to address that.

It is important to note that arrivals duty-free would have no impact on domestic sales of products; instead, such sales would represent the repatriation of duty-free sales that would otherwise happen outside the UK, where the passenger starts their journey. There would be no impact on tax revenue and no increase in the number of products entering the market, as travellers’ duty-free allowances would remain the same. Additionally, the introduction of arrivals duty-free stores would generate new jobs around the United Kingdom, providing further benefits to the economy through personal income and business taxation. It is not too late for the Treasury to see sense and reverse the decision, if the will is there among those on the Government Benches. The airports and retailers affected by these changes will also be willing to work together to modernise rather than ditch the retail export scheme and the extra-statutory concession.

I know that the Government would not want to be seen as the people behind the collapse of regional airports. Hitting the pause button on the plans would help to secure thousands of jobs that rely directly on these sales and thousands more at the airports across the UK that are at risk if those revenue streams are destroyed. I hope that the Minister will be able to share a positive response to the calls from me and from across the industry for a new approach to benefit the sector and the wider economy, not least because of the millions of pounds in revenue and the hundreds of jobs that the Department’s decision puts at risk at Stansted airport in her own constituency.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gavin Newlands [V]]

I thank all Members for contributing to this afternoon’s debate, but I am afraid that the Minister’s response does not really cut it. The fact is that she has ignored both the airport and retail sectors. She has seemingly also ignored the lobbying of her own colleagues on the Conservative Benches. In fact, she has forced the Scottish Conservative leader to back an SNP motion in the House of Commons this evening. I hope that she and her colleagues in the Treasury will reflect on this short-sighted decision.

I listened to the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Ealing North (James Murray), who made several good points, but I am really none the wiser as to whether the Opposition support the Government on this matter or whether they are going to vote to revoke the regulations. Perhaps we shall see in the next couple of minutes.

In conclusion, not many Members on the Tory Benches—other than the last two speakers—seem to get it. Some of the other contributions were incredibly whimsical in nature, talking about booze cruises, ferry discos and whatever. We are talking about people’s jobs. I am not talking about rich foreigners coming over here and getting money off. I am talking about the jobs that these schemes support, right here in our constituencies in the UK. To be honest, the less said about the incredibly unnecessary snide snipe from the hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine), the better. That was followed by the hon. Member for Moray (Douglas Ross), although he then went to largely agree with our proposal.

It has not been enough; the Minister has not been clear that any review into this situation will come quickly enough for the sector, and it is for that reason that we will have to push this to a vote.

Oral Answers to Questions

Gavin Newlands Excerpts

Tuesday 26th January 2021 Commons Chamber

The Chancellor of the Exchequer was asked—

[Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)]

What discussions he has had with representatives of the (a) retail and (b) aviation industries on the VAT retail export scheme and airside extra statutory concessions.

[The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Kemi Badenoch)]

During the consultation on duty free and tax-free goods carried by passengers in 2020, the Government engaged extensively with various stakeholders and carefully considered 73 consultation responses. I have continued to meet stakeholders, including retail and aviation representatives, following our announcement.

[Gavin Newlands [V]]

Given the deep trouble within retail and aviation, with Debenhams one of many chains disappearing from high streets with the loss of tens of thousands of jobs and, as the Minister will be aware with Stansted and its importance for employment in her constituency, aviation by and large grounded, does she not accept it was a mistake to scrap the VAT retail export scheme and the extra-statutory concessions, both of which brought much needed revenue to the retail sector at airports, which is now lost from the economy, possibly for good?

[Kemi Badenoch]

We do not accept that. The independent Office for Budget Responsibility set out its assessment of the fiscal impact of the withdrawal of the VAT RES scheme, factoring in a higher than usual elasticity to account for spending on luxury goods. Its estimate is that this will result in a significant Exchequer saving of about £400 million per year. On airports, we recognise the challenges the aviation sector is facing as it recovers from the impacts of covid-19. We have supported the sector throughout the pandemic and continue to do so. This includes the recently announced airport and ground operator support scheme, which will provide eligible firms with support of up to £8 million per claimant.

Economic Update

Gavin Newlands Excerpts

Monday 11th January 2021 Commons Chamber

[Rishi Sunak]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his question. He is right to passionately champion both our aviation and aerospace sectors, which are critical to our economy. I am grateful for the help that he gave in helping to design a test-to-release policy for quarantining arrivals, but also in campaigning for business rates relief for airports—up to £8 million per airport, which is benefiting dozens of our regional airports up and down the country. I will bear in mind his suggested measures for forthcoming Budgets, but, like him, I want to see our industry return to its strength.

[Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP) [V]]

Just for the record, the Chancellor said that he was unsure of what the Scottish Government were going to do with regard to the business top-up grants. It has just been announced that larger hospitality businesses will receive up to £25,000 in Scotland. Due to his intransigence, it looks like the 3 million excluded will be going a full calendar year without support. That is absolutely shameful. The fact that the £20 per week uplift to universal credit does not apply to legacy benefits is equally shameful. Can the Chancellor tell my constituents about to lose that £20, when Minister after Minister admits that they could not survive on universal credit rates, why and how he expects so many of our constituents to do just that?

[Rishi Sunak]

The Scottish Government obviously have control over their tax-raising powers and indeed have the ability to top up and design benefits, so if that is something that they are keen to do, they have the ability to raise the tax to fund a permanent uplift in the welfare system. I am sure that that is an opportunity that the Scottish Government can take up if they want to and see fit to do so.

Draft Customs Safety and Security Procedures (EU Exit) Regulations 2020

Gavin Newlands Excerpts

Thursday 10th December 2020 General Committees

[Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms Nokes.

I share the concerns voiced by the shadow Minister, the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton South East (Mr McFadden). I have scored out three questions that I was going to ask that he has already asked, so I look forward to the Minister’s response, particularly on the border security concerns that the right hon. Gentleman rightly raised.

I am not sure if anyone at all outside Government thinks that the Government are in any way, shape or form ready for 1 January. The very fact that this SI is before us today shows that they clearly expect chaos at the borders from January, yet they are pushing on regardless. Yesterday’s related troubling announcement of a suspension of lorry drivers’ hours regulations has drawn concerns about the safety implications of that decision. Lorry drivers are potentially paying the price for the UK Government’s Brexit chaos and the delays, which this SI seeks to—to use the Minister’s word—alleviate. I should add that that was yet another important Department for International Trade announcement made without a parliamentary statement and parliamentary scrutiny, but I digress; that lies outside this Committee’s scope.

HMRC estimates that it may need to process 270 million customs declarations from 2021, compared with 55 million currently—a 500% increase. In June, the Government announced that, regardless of whether they agree a trade deal—that looks less likely by the day—new checks on EU goods entering GB would be phased in over six months from January 2021 to give firms “time to adjust”. However, the National Audit Office has been scathing. It says that there is still “uncertainty” over where new border infrastructure will be located and whether it will be ready. It is concerned that traders will not be ready for the full checks on UK exports that the EU plans to implement from the start of 2021. It is also concerned—I cannot read my own writing; my high school teachers at would not be surprised—about operational issues that require resolution, including ensuring that hauliers can use a planned online service allowing them to declare that they have the correct documents for the EU border and thus obtain a permit to drive on certain roads in Kent. The NAO cites the Government’s latest worst-case scenario planning figures, which estimate that 40% to 70% of lorries crossing the channel will not be ready. Have those figures changed? Are they now more likely to represent the best-case scenario?

The Public Accounts Committee has also been scathing and accused the Government of “taking limited responsibility” for the nation’s preparedness as the clock ticks down. Last month, Rod McKenzie, policy director for the Road Haulage Association, told a Scottish Parliament Committee that his industry had

“been badly let down by the UK Government from beginning to end.”

He also noted that the information given to hauliers to help them to implement the international permits they will require in the event of no trade deal being reached had been “quite often totally incomprehensible”. That description of the Government’s approach over the past weeks, months and years is an apt place to conclude my remarks. We will not oppose this sadly all-too-necessary SI, but we mourn the need for its existence.

Public Health Restrictions: Government Economic Support

Gavin Newlands Excerpts

Tuesday 13th October 2020 Commons Chamber

[Steve Barclay]

It is very many years since I gave legal advice as a community lawyer, but one of the things I remember is that in employment law there is often a lot of complexity around what can and cannot be done. The wider point that has been raised in the House, and which my hon. Friend’s question points to, is that there is a consensus that it is not acceptable for businesses to be doing that. Going back to the very first statement that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor gave as we started on the response to covid, he said that how people conduct themselves throughout this pandemic will be remembered. With regard those businesses that do act in this way, we will obviously need to look at that in due course.

[Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP) [V]]

Given the Chief Secretary’s answers on “fire and rehire”, which I am very much heartened to hear, I hope that he will back my Employment (Dismissal and Re-employment) Bill. With no aviation support package as promised, the job support scheme riddled with holes and the abolition of airside tax-free shopping, further debt or job losses are the only options for firms. It is akin to 1980’s policies of “sink or swim”. Last week’s statement was completely silent on the sector. Is it now Treasury policy to write off aviation, making tens of thousands of jobs unviable?

[Steve Barclay]

The reality is that the aerospace and aviation sectors have received over £8.5 billion through the covid corporate financing facility. Grants for research and development, loans and export guarantees are also expected over the next 18 months. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport recently launched the Global Travel Taskforce, which underscores the Government’s commitment to this sector. The hon. Gentleman talks about support. The aviation sector has benefited from our comprehensive package of measures, whether it is the furlough or tax deferral schemes, or all the other measures that we have put in place. That is all part of the wider support that we have given to UK business as a result of the broad shoulders we have as a United Kingdom.

Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme

Gavin Newlands Excerpts

Thursday 17th September 2020 Commons Chamber

[Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)]

I beg to move

That this House welcomes the Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme and calls on the Government to examine, improve and extend that scheme’s operation and application to ensure that people who started work after the furlough scheme started are included and that this support continues until the UK’s economy is more robust, so that the goal of retaining as many jobs as possible is secured.

I first applied for this debate in May, but the matters at hand are as relevant now as they were at that time, and perhaps even more so as we continue to struggle with the challenges of covid-19 and its serious and far-reaching consequences. I wish to say at the outset that I will not press for a vote on the motion, because it would simply eat into the talking time in the next important debate.

The job retention scheme was established by the UK Government. At the time, it was a very welcome response to the disruption caused by the virus, helping to keep workers and families afloat during difficult times. It would be wrong, indeed churlish, to say anything else. I know that this point will be explored in the next debate, but every single MP in the House will have had emails from constituents who have been deprived of any support through no fault of their own—the newly employed, the newly self-employed, freelancers and so on. The injustice of being excluded from support has profound consequences for those affected. For six months, some have had no wages coming in, and for far too many there is no end in sight to their troubles.

For these people, this issue should have been quickly addressed by the Chancellor, when the up to 3 million excluded came to light. It should have been addressed and still can be addressed, but it has not been, so their debts are building, their futures are uncertain and they are simply being ignored. Hearing, as we have many times in this Chamber, of the Chancellor’s bounty for other workers does not pay their bills; it only increases their sense of being overlooked and ignored. The words “We are all in this together” ring hollow and mocking in their ears, and we shall hear more about that in the next debate. Now we face the situation of the job retention scheme being wound down at the end of October, with hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions, of people losing their jobs.

In previous debates, Government Members met the common-sense arguments in favour of extending furlough with cries of “This scheme can’t last forever”, and I presume that that is because they simply cannot answer why it needs to be wound down in October. Extending the furlough scheme by a mere eight months could save 61,000 jobs in Scotland alone. In much of Europe support schemes are being extended, not curtailed, with Germany investing 4% of its annual income in recovery compared with the UK’s feeble 1.3%.

We must save jobs that are sustainable in the longer term until our economy is more robust. Many self-employed people—people overlooked entirely by the job retention scheme—must also be included, otherwise we will face a wave of job losses and millions will face enormous ongoing financial hardship, with some sectors of our economy taking years to recover and some jobs lost forever.

[Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)]

My hon. Friend talks about some sectors struggling and transport, in particular aviation, would be one of those sectors. Does she agree that if the Government do not extend a version of the furlough scheme for all sectors they should at least be looking at doing so for specific sectors that are really struggling?

[Patricia Gibson]

My hon. Friend is absolutely correct. We need sectoral support, and some areas are desperately looking for help, but we also need to extend this scheme in general.

To wind down the scheme and withdraw all support at the end of October, just as payment holidays are ending, will do huge damage to workers and their families, as many will face losing their homes and any hope of financial recovery. Tens of thousands of viable jobs could be saved with an extension of support. We know, as we have heard from my hon. Friend, that the aviation and aerospace industries and the tourism and hospitality sectors are struggling badly, as are our night-time industries. They have been hit very hard, and the Institute for Public Policy Research has estimated that 3 million jobs could be lost, most of which would remain viable in the longer term if support were to continue.

The Fraser of Allander Institute reports that 55% of Scottish businesses using the job retention scheme expect to reduce employee numbers when it ends.

Protection of Jobs and Businesses

Gavin Newlands Excerpts

Wednesday 9th September 2020 Commons Chamber

[Steve Barclay]

My hon. Friend raises an important point. From other parliamentary campaigns he has been closely involved in, I know how much he values best practice in the financial services sector. As a former financial services Minister, I share that objective, which is why I am so grateful for the work he has been doing to ensure that best practice is followed to address the specific issue he brings before the House. Of course, the best thing to enable businesses to pay loans back is to get the economy as a whole motoring. That is why we are redoubling our efforts to get on with that now and why the Prime Minister announced that £5 billion of capital investment will be brought forward as part of giving a boost to businesses, so they can indeed meet the requirements of those loans as they arise.

Our plan supports jobs, creates jobs and protects jobs. That supporting of jobs is really the third component. It includes the announcement of the £2 billion kickstart scheme set out by the Chancellor, which will subsidise hundreds of thousands of high-quality jobs for unemployed young people, allowing young people to gain experience that will improve their chances of going on to find long-term and sustainable work. We are also investing a total of £1.6 billion in scaling up employment support schemes, training and apprenticeships to help those of our constituents who are looking for a job.

[Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)]

The Chief Secretary will be aware that companies such as British Airways have used the furlough scheme to facilitate mass redundancy programmes for their staff. In fact, BA has also implemented the firing and rehiring of its remaining 30,000 staff, often on massively reduced wages. Does he think that that is fair?

[Steve Barclay]

That is exquisite timing, because I was just about to turn to the point that the hon. Gentleman raises about that use of furlough and the question that the shadow Chancellor raised about whether the scheme should be extended. I want to address head-on the concerns I have heard about that decision.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alison Thewliss]

The hon. Member is absolutely correct. A second spike does not seem to be on the Government’s agenda, and it should be. The measures put in place were put in place at speed, at haste, and the Government should be learning from this and preparing for that second spike now. I would be incredibly grateful if at some point a Minister confirmed that they are doing that, because it is absolutely necessary. We cannot ignore the risk of a second spike, given how the figures have been creeping up in recent days.

The IPPR has said that ending the furlough scheme will lead to unemployment

“not seen since the Great Depression of the 1930s”,

with the loss of 3 million jobs, 2 million of which would be viable in the longer term if it were continued. The furlough scheme should be continued for at least two years, or for as long as we need it—perhaps we will not need it for two years, which would be a good eventuality—as is being done in Germany and France. Independent Ireland is keeping its scheme going for a year. No employee or employer should be forced to decide between their health and their income.

The self-employment support scheme should also have been continued. In addition, a basic temporary income scheme should have been introduced to protect anyone falling through the gaps in support. There is still time for the Treasury to step in and make that commitment, because the lack of parity between those in the different schemes is completely unjustifiable. I remain deeply disappointed that the recommendations of the Treasury Committee to address the gaps in support have not been taken up by the Treasury. The ExcludedUK group, representing at the least 3 million people who have been denied any UK Government support—these include the newly self-employed, freelancers, limited company directors, those on short-term PAYE contracts and many others—is still being ignored by the Chancellor, despite having presented the Treasury with viable solutions.

The situation facing women requiring maternity leave has also been incredibly stressful and unfair, with many finding themselves ineligible and some who were forced to take maternity leave early now struggling to get the childcare they need to even attempt to go back to work. It is hugely disappointing to hear that the UK Government have rejected the very reasonable request by the 226,000 maternity petitioners to extend maternity leave for three months. I hope the Government will reconsider that. I am led to wonder whether different decisions might be made if there were more women on the UK Government Benches.

When we see Jim Harra, head of HMRC, admit this week that £3.5 billion of furlough cash has been lost in fraudulent claims or error, it is even more galling to those who have no support whatsoever. There have also been errors in my constituency on HMRC’s part. Its inflexibility and inability to deal with MP requests on this issue has also been hugely frustrating for those whose businesses are on the brink.

The take-up of the coronavirus job retention scheme has been significant, as has been said, with 9.6 million workers furloughed by 1.2 million employers since March. Those employers had made £34.7 billion of furlough claims by 9 August. The scheme will cost the UK Government an estimated £80 billion in total, but we should not forget that this cost is an investment in people and in public health. The cost of not acting would be far greater.

The figures published by the Treasury demonstrating the sectoral impact of the furlough scheme are interesting. They show only 2% of employees in public administration and defence and 7% of those in finance and insurance being placed on furlough, compared with 77% of those in accommodation and food services—some 1,693,600 employees—and 70% of those working in the arts, entertainment, recreation and other services, amounting to 474,300 employees across the UK. This of course reflects the different nature of the jobs in those sectors and whether it has been possible for people to work.

The sectors in which furlough take-up has been high are not suddenly going to be able to return to pre-covid business, and there is a real argument for sectoral extensions if the Government will not consider a wholesale extension. The ability of these businesses and organisations to generate income will continue to be hampered by the need to impose public health restrictions. For example, how would a national arts company or a full-scale production be able to get a theatre performance up and running? How would that theatre be able to turn a profit at 40% capacity? What about the restaurant next door, which theatre goers might usually have gone to for a pre-theatre meal, or the pub they might have gone to afterwards, where nobody will be allowed to stand at the bar and that will not have outdoor seating in the depths of a Scottish winter, or even a Scottish autumn?

How does the Chancellor expect such firms to bear the cost of staffing, rent and other outgoings when they will not see a corresponding increase in income? The short answer is that those costs cannot be borne. The CBI’s head, Carolyn Fairbairn, has warned that

“it’s too soon to pull business support away at the end of October”.

The Fraser of Allander Scottish business monitor for quarter 2 this year reported that 55% of businesses that have made use of the job retention scheme expect to decrease their staffing numbers when the scheme is phased out.

[Gavin Newlands]

My hon. Friend will have heard me raise with the Chief Secretary those companies that have abused the furlough by using it to pay for mass redundancies—British Airways is not alone; Centrica and others have followed suit. However, he failed to answer the question about the firing and rehiring of staff at massively reduced wages. Does she think that is fair?

[Alison Thewliss]

It absolutely is not fair. The scheme is being abused by businesses, and that should not be allowed to happen. I commend to the Government my hon. Friend’s Bill on fire and rehire. If they wanted to do anything at all to help, they would take on the recommendations in his Bill, because they would make a huge difference to people. People should not be expected to do the same job on vastly reduced terms and conditions, under pain of losing their job altogether. It is exploitation pure and simple, and the Government should not accept it.

The Chief Secretary talked about new opportunities for those in industries that could not continue, but that fails to recognise the reality that there might not be enough jobs for those who are laid off to go into, and that what jobs there are might not be at the same wage level as the jobs they are in now. The cost will be met by the UK Government in one way or another—in employment benefits if not in extending furlough.

The end of furlough coincides with the end of the period for which people have been granted bill payment holidays. The Standard Life Foundation report, “Emerging from lockdown”, highlights that

“of the 3.7 million households across the UK granted a bill ‘payment holiday’, over 6 in 10 are already facing financial difficulties and will struggle to repay their debts when these arrangements end. For many, these payment holidays will cease on 31 October 2020—the same date the government’s job retention schemes end, leaving many facing job losses and crippling financial strain.”

The effect could be devastating: people laid off because their employers cannot afford to keep them on, with debt mounting, and all this among people who are already finding life difficult. The drop in income if people move on to universal credit—if, indeed, they are eligible, which many people are not—will push many families over the brink. I fear that the UK Government are not looking at the bigger picture in the choices they are making.

The kickstart scheme is not available easily to small employers, which could have a disproportionate impact on the rural economy in places where there are not enough employers to club together to make up the minimum 30 employees. To return to a theme I have spoken about before, there is a risk of young workers being exploited and not being paid a living wage. Nobody in this House would want to live on the wages that young people are expected to work for in this country. I ask the Chief Secretary to reconsider and to pay a real living wage to the young people on the scheme. They deserve nothing less.

I also raise caution about relating the scheme to universal credit, because many people are not able to access universal credit, as I have said. If the scheme runs only through universal credit, many young people who might otherwise have benefited from the scheme, such as it is, will not be eligible.

Where the Scottish Government have the power, they have acted. The Scottish Government have spent £4 billion on covid, with over £2.3 billion for businesses. That is above the Barnett consequentials allocated to us. The Scottish Government published their response to the recommendations of the Advisory Group on Economic Recovery on 5 August. They are acting to protect jobs by developing and delivering sector-led recovery plans, working with industry leadership groups, trade unions and others, starting with the construction sector, which is coming back from its furlough period. They are supporting jobs through the covid-19 transition training fund. Through the programme for government, they are supporting a national mission to create new jobs, good jobs and green jobs, which includes investing £60 million to support up to 20,000 young people into jobs. There is the £100-million green jobs fund, investment in decarbonisation and the Unlocking Ambition programme. They are also using the national performance framework to promote equality and to respect, protect and fulfil human rights.

The Scottish Government have made an extra £330 million of funding available this financial year specifically to support Scotland’s economic recovery. That includes £230 million of economic recovery stimulus to invest in capital projects and a £100 million package of funding focused on protecting jobs and supporting those who have been made redundant or whose jobs are at risk.

I would dearly love the Scottish Government to do more, given the scale of the crisis, but their hands are tied. The Fraser of Allander Institute is clear that

“the Scottish Government can borrow up to £450m per annum for capital investment (a cap of £3bn). On resource spending, they can borrow up to £600m per annum (a cap of £1.75bn), but only for ‘forecast error’ and ‘cash management’. They cannot borrow to fund discretionary resource spending.”

That is the crucial point. We urgently need more financial powers in Scotland. If the UK Government will not act on the things we have asked them to act on, they should not stand in Scotland’s way when we have a desire to support our people and businesses. Powers must be devolved to let the Scottish Government get on with the job.

All of this stands in the context of the looming threat of a no-deal, chaotic and damaging Brexit, with the UK Government gleefully breaking international agreements they themselves signed up to and the outrageous proposals today in clause 46 of the Tories’ United Kingdom Internal Market Bill. The UK Government’s power grab over economic development and infrastructure plans cannot be allowed to stand. The Tories speak of a power surge, but the last time I checked, a power surge was a dangerous thing that usually lasts only a few seconds, but that results in serious damage to valuable appliances. For once, the Tories might be telling the truth when they say that that is what is coming to Scotland under their plans.

Westminster and the Tories cannot be trusted with our economy. What we see today is not “whatever it takes”. Winding up the furlough scheme and allowing so many people to fall through the support net will cause lasting harm to so many people with businesses and to the wider economy. We must have the full powers of a normal independent country to meet the needs of our economy and, most importantly, of the people of Scotland.

Covid-19: Future UK-EU Relationship

Gavin Newlands Excerpts

Wednesday 15th July 2020 Commons Chamber

[Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)]

It is, for a change, a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie), and I am glad to see him doing better. His more measured approach to this debate has been noted on the SNP Benches, and I wish him well—although, as usual, he was talking guff.

We are in the middle of a health crisis that stretches not just across borders—whether or not the Prime Minister recognises them—but across continents. At least 600,000 people around the world are dead from coronavirus, and many millions more will contract the virus in the future. That situation requires an international response, yet sadly, and predictably, the UK has gone further into its Brexit bunker, and decided to try and opt out of the world.

We have heard repeatedly about how Ministers want the UK to remain close friends with our EU allies, but what sort of friend insists on diverting the resources of the EU and its member states away from dealing with the most serious health emergency in modern history, and to negotiating with an obstinate and childish ex-member that seems to use a “Dad’s Army” script as its terms of reference? The EU has made clear time after time that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Alyn Smith) said, it would be more than amenable to an extension to the negotiations, to allow it and the UK the space and time that is needed to deal with the public health emergency consuming us all. The response from the UK? “No thanks. I’m all right Jack.” What sort of relationship does it think will emerge on the other side?

Scotland is being dragged into a bombastic mix of exceptionalism, isolationism, and outright self-destruction. Ministers and Conservative Members have said that we voted as a Union, but people in Scotland have heard that before. People in Scotland also know that our democratic wish to work alongside our longstanding partners and allies has been torn up and chucked in the Brexit bin. Again, we are seeing that the British state is fundamentally incapable of good governance for Scotland or the rest of the UK. A clique of self-congratulatory Oxbridge graduates would steer their own country on to the rocks in the name of Brexit if they even knew where the steering wheel was. Instead, they have allowed their country to drift over the decades, taking the rest of us with them.

Scotland has never endorsed this self-immolation. For all that Ruth Davidson was lauded to the heavens by her high-profile supporters in the press, her crowning triumph was 28% of the vote in 2017—a figure that dropped two years later. The Tory record at election after election has been an unbroken streak of dismal failure for decades, yet our entire society and economy has been reshaped and allowed to wither on the vine, because that same Tory party has governed the UK for nearly 28 out of my 40 years. Now they expect us to keep silent and meekly go along with their back-of-a-fag-packet Brexit.

As I have said a few times in this place in the past few weeks, my constituency is facing the biggest challenge to our economy for decades. Rolls-Royce, Glasgow airport, easyJet, British Airways, Menzies Aviation and Swissport—I could go on to list company after company, and sector after sector—are in the process of collectively laying off thousands of my constituents. I have asked time after time what the UK Government plan to do to support constituencies such as mine, which are staring economic disaster in the face, but there has been no answer and no sign of a plan. But EU countries do have plans and they are implementing them now. They want to save jobs and key industries, and they have their levers and powers to do that. The Danish Government do not have to send missives to the Germans asking permission to have an industrial or macroeconomic policy. The French Government are implementing their plan for aviation now, yet there is no plan in the UK—none. Aerospace and aviation are left to rot; there is no sectoral support and no sign of any.

Businesses face a double whammy of coronavirus and Brexit, both accentuated by UK Government incompetence, ideology and arrogance. The exporters in my constituency still do not know what and where they will be able to export to the EU in the new year. Our manufacturers still do not know whether they will be massively disadvantaged by trade barriers that their EU competitors regard as fit only for the history books. The service industries still do not know what access, if any, they will have to the single market after 1 January, all while every business and individual in the country grapples with the impact of coronavirus, and the massive dislocation it is causing and will continue to cause.

This is history repeating itself. Our country lived through decades of de-industrialisation as asset-strippers and spivs were allowed to run riot and destroy hundreds of thousands of jobs in the name of ideology—the UK Government sat back and let it happen. Emigration from Scotland ran into the hundreds of thousands as families moved anywhere and everywhere they could to find a skilled job—the UK Government sat back and let it happen. Our towns and cities became victims of the post-industrial economy—the UK Government sat back and let it happen.

[Tom Hunt]

The hon. Gentleman talks about the uncertainty that many businesses in his constituency face, but surely that uncertainty would drag on if we were to extend the transition deadline today. Surely it would be far better to focus on getting a deal and providing greater certainty through a clear framework of where we are going to be in the years ahead, rather than extending and pushing it down the road.

[Gavin Newlands]

I am very grateful for that intervention, but I have just listed all the things where businesses do not know what is going to happen after 1 January, so what certainty is the hon. Gentleman talking about? I have no idea and neither do businesses in my constituency. If he has some certainty to give us, I would be happy to give way again so that he can tell us what that is.

The UK has shown itself unfit and unwilling to govern Scotland properly, with, more often than not, zero democratic mandate to do so. I know that an independent Scotland, with its governance, capability and capacity, could plot a better course than the one we are locked into. I know that we could take our place back in the EU alongside the other small independent countries that make up the majority of its members. Do the Government want to carry on telling the people of Scotland that somehow we, on our own, are an economic basket case propped up by the largesse of the Treasury, as has been indicated? That is their concern, but I urge them not to be hypocritical; they should deliver that message to the people of Denmark, Ireland, Sweden, Portugal, Austria, Finland, Luxembourg, Slovenia and all the other nations, self-governing, sovereign and independent, that make up the EU. The UK Government should pop up in the national news programmes of those countries telling the electorate that they are doing it wrong. They should be firing out press releases and extending the Prime Minister’s role as Minister for the Union to cover all these countries, Britsplaining their way across the continent. But they will not find a receptive audience and they do not find one in Scotland. More and more the rot at the heart of the UK is laid bare for all to see and people are saying enough is enough—enough of jingoism, isolationism and palling up with Trump; enough of watching the poorest in society being punished by a welfare state that is meant to help them; enough of rhetoric towards our friends in the EU that, until very recently, was the sole preserve of the Daily Mail letters page.

We want a Scotland that protects our citizens and works to protect others. We want a Scotland that values Europe and the benefits we bring each other when working in partnership. The Minister for the Union and his colleagues should realise now that to block the democratic will of the people to achieve these goals would be another nail in the coffin for the UK and another example for the Scottish people of how the UK works against our interests, not for them.

Scotland belongs in Europe and the people of Scotland will make that happen sooner rather than later. The Government, despite what they may think, cannot stop democracy, and they cannot and will not stop the people of Scotland choosing their own future.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

[Alexander Stafford]

I am saying that we voted in a once-in-a-lifetime, once-in-a-generation referendum, and we cannot keep going back and asking the same question again and again. Nothing is more undemocratic than asking the same question again. In fact, one organisation that kept going back and asking countries to vote again and again was the European Union. Time and again, it asked countries to vote again because it did not like a decision. We are democrats: we must stand up for democracy. Even when we do not like democracy, we have to support it; otherwise, the mandate of every single one of us in this House is null and void, because we can go back again and again. For Members to argue for another referendum on Scottish independence now is for them to argue for their own position in this House not being secure—to argue that the people who elected all of us do not know what they voted for. If they do that, they have no authority to call for a referendum. It is a bizarre argument for the SNP to make.

Let me turn back to what this debate should be about: the EU and coronavirus. We need to leave for numerous reasons: business investors need confidence and stability; we need to end the transition period so that we can get the Brexit dividends that will turbo-charge our economy; and, given the ongoing challenges presented by coronavirus and various geopolitical tensions, we must move forward from this Brexit paralysis.

The people of this country are tired of scaremongering and of this great country being talked down. Everyone on all sides of the debate just wants the best possible deal for Britain—or they should do. The Government are working hard to achieve exactly that: an ambitious, comprehensive, Canada-style free trade agreement with our European friends and allies, built on mutual respect and co-operation. We are making good progress in the negotiations and they are proceeding apace. In fact, the reason why we got rid of the virtual Parliament and came back was to get the legislation passed. The SNP was against our coming back to a physical Parliament—another of its delaying tactics that would have delayed Brexit even longer.

I remind the House that those on the Opposition Benches told us that we would not get a deal in respect of Northern Ireland, yet here we are today. We must not be distracted by the Labour and SNP naysayers who seek to talk down our nation down—[Interruption.] They are even chuntering to talk to our great nation down.

Regardless of what type of deal we agree with the EU, I am absolutely certain that Brexit will provide great opportunities for the whole of the UK. My priority is to protect jobs and livelihoods in the areas—such as my constituency of Rother Valley—that have been long forgotten and often left behind. Brexit offers us a chance to create many high-quality British jobs in all four corners of the nation and truly to level up. We can promote UK plc by exporting our skills and goods globally to whomever and wherever we please.

It is necessary to point out that all four nations of the United Kingdom will benefit from the Brexit boom. Our friends in the SNP offer little for the people of Scotland beyond shameless and insidious separatist rhetoric. They neglect to mention that the UK single market is worth over three times more to Scotland than the EU single market—[Interruption.] Does the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands) wish to intervene, or does he wish to chunter? I will happily take an intervention from a chuntering man.

[Gavin Newlands]

The hon. Gentleman talks about rhetoric; has he listened to the first half of his own speech? It has been replete with rhetoric the entire time. He should really read his own speech before he finishes it.

[Alexander Stafford]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for intervening about rhetoric; after all, this debate is more about rhetoric. I was told it was about the European Union and Brexit, but all I am hearing about is Scottish separatism and Scottish nationalism from this nationalistic party. It is all about trying to bang the tartan drum and trying to get things back, but we had a referendum. Let us move forward and talk about the debate that matters: the Brexit boom that we are going to get and the things that this whole Government were elected to do. We will fulfil our mandate.

I remind the Scottish nationalists—the separatists on the other side of the House—that every single person in Scotland receives a dividend of £1,968 per year more. That is £2,000 per person; it is a great deal for the people of Scotland. However bad the SNP’s separatist rhetoric is, though, Labour’s position is even worse—its Members cannot be bothered to turn up to this debate. After years of flip-flopping and changing their mind on Brexit, they still do not support our exit from the EU. If they did, they would be here, arguing with Government Members against the nationalists, but they cannot be bothered to turn up. My constituents in Rother Valley know only too well that if Labour had won power—with the help of the SNP, because Labour would have been propped up by an SNP Government—Brexit would have been abandoned. That would have gone against the good, ordinary working people of my constituency.

In stark contrast, the Conservative party has kept its promise by taking the UK out of the EU on 31 January. We shall exit the transition period in the same decisive fashion, in order finally to take our rightful place among the nations of the world.