Budget Resolutions

Debate between Hannah Bardell and Callum McCaig

1st reading: House of Commons
Tuesday 14th March 2017 Commons Chamber

[Callum McCaig (Aberdeen South) (SNP)]

As the Scottish National party’s spokesperson on business, energy and industrial strategy, may I too admonish my hon. Friend the Member for West Dunbartonshire (Martin Docherty-Hughes) for missing Business questions this morning? Nevertheless, I agree wholeheartedly with what he says on whisky duty, national insurance and WASPI women. I will come on to talk about national insurance contributions in a moment.

The Budget was dressed up as something a little bit different and a little bit bland. It really was bland, but parts of it did not ring true. The Chancellor seemed to think he could demonstrate that Tory austerity has not been felt most keenly by those who do not have the means to bear it. That may be true if we look at it in a very narrow sense—the top 10% of earners, when all things are taken into consideration, have borne a slightly greater share—but the lowest three deciles have borne a similar percentage decline in their income as a result of the Government’s policies. It may be easy to say that those in the top decile have taken the greatest hit, but the reality is that a 1% or 2% fall in income will mean considerably more to those in the bottom three deciles than it will for those in the top 10%.

The Chancellor said in his Budget speech:

“As a result of the changes we have made since 2010, the top 1% of income tax payers now pay 27% of all income tax”.—[Official Report, 8 March 2017; Vol. 622, c. 813.]

He wears that as a badge of pride, but that is not an indication of a fair society. It is the very opposite and it demonstrates that we live in an incredibly unfair society where 27% of income tax is being paid by 1% of the population. That is because they earn, unjustifiably, more than the rest of the population. That is not a badge of honour; that should be a badge of shame for this Government.

We have heard talk about how the Government want to use technical education and reforms in the Budget to put entrepreneurship and technical skills at the heart of the British economy, yet the single key announcement in the Budget was the change to national insurance contributions for the self-employed. They are the entrepreneurs. They are the folks with the technical skills we need in our economy. As we have heard from Member after Member today, those people do not enjoy the same benefits and protections enjoyed by those of us who are employed. That is why they deserve a differential in terms of their national insurance contributions. To dress this up as anything other than a naked tax grab is entirely disingenuous. This will not help our economy and it is coming at precisely the worst time. It must not just be stopped, but cancelled entirely.

The most disappointing aspect of the Budget for me was the utter silence on the energy challenges we as a country face. Next to nothing was said on renewables. There was nothing on how we decarbonise our economy. There was nothing on how we tap the massive potential in Scotland, particularly in our rural communities. There was nothing on how we can get contracts for difference for our island communities or how we tap the massive potential of our tidal streams. We heard nothing on the implementation of carbon capture and storage, which we will need if we are going to be able to afford, in both a financial and technical sense, to meet the carbon budgets we as a Parliament agreed.

[Hannah Bardell]

rose—

[Callum McCaig]

I will not give way, as others still wish to speak.

The privatisation of the Green Investment Bank is pushing ahead at precisely the wrong time. As part of this, I hope that the Government will reflect on the challenges they face and cancel that sale.

Oil and gas has raised its head as an issue, given the changing dynamic in Scottish political debate. In 2014, the then Prime Minister promised Scotland a £200 billion oil bonanza if we voted no. He told us that the industry relied on the broad shoulders of this United Kingdom. Well, those shoulders have barely shrugged in defence of the 65,000 people, many of them in my constituency, who have lost their jobs while the Government have been asleep at the wheel.

I and my party will take no lectures from folks over there on the oil and gas industry. We have seen an absolute dereliction of duty; the Government have been asleep at the wheel. This Budget provided an opportunity to right that wrong, but what did the Government do? Did they come forward with the exploration incentives that the industry needs? No, they did not. They simply reheated a previous commitment from the last Budget and said that they would set up a discussion group. Frankly, that is not good enough. When people are losing their jobs, it is not enough to sit down and have a chat over a cup of tea. An independent Scotland would undoubtedly have acted; it would have acted swiftly and decisively to save these people’s jobs.

Commercial Financial Dispute Resolution Platform

Debate between Hannah Bardell and Callum McCaig

Thursday 15th December 2016 Commons Chamber

[Callum McCaig (Aberdeen South) (SNP)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (George Kerevan) on his choice of tie and on securing this debate—we are wearing remarkably similar ties today, although I am not sure whether that says more about him or me.

This is a really important debate, and there are two aspects to it. First there is looking back at some of the truly appalling practices carried out on behalf of banks, and secondly there is the forward-looking aspect of making sure that these mistakes are never repeated. I do not believe that the solutions that have been put forward will do that adequately.

Banking is clearly a cornerstone of our economy. The central role that it plays has been built on trust—businesses’ trust that their bank will deal with them responsibly, but also that the Government and the financial system will protect them if that relationship, for whatever reason, breaks down. That system may work for a large conglomerate—a major employer with the ability to go toe to toe with the banks in terms of litigation, affording lawyers and so on. However, for small or medium-sized enterprises, that relationship is skewed, and they stand to lose out because they cannot meet the might of the banks.

Let me just put that into perspective. I am sure that these numbers will not come as a surprise to anyone, but small and medium-sized enterprises account for 47% of turnover and 60% of employment in the private sector. That is a huge part of our economy, and one we must all be cognisant of, and we must provide the protection it requires.

How do we go about rebuilding the trust that has been lost? We have heard that the problem stretches across the length and breadth of the country and that different banks and sectors have been affected by malpractice. Will ad hoc arrangements address the problem? I do not believe they will, because the problem is not ad hoc; in large part, it is systemic, and we do not solve systemic problems with ad hoc fixes.

There is a temptation in this place, and in all walks of life, to find the simplest solution possible. In this case, that will not cut the mustard; we need to find a proper solution, and my hon. Friend’s suggestion of a commercial financial dispute resolution platform, whether that is a tribunal or something else, is a key part of doing that.

Like other hon. Members, I have constituents who have had issues in this respect, particularly with RBS and its Global Restructuring Group. While I have been sitting in the Chamber, a constituent—I do not feel comfortable naming them, and they have asked me not to—has messaged me about this. He said that, in the dealings his lawyer has had with RBS, the bank’s lawyers have said that these things are water off a duck’s back and that a bit of bad publicity now will not change how it operates. If that is the case, it suggests that, even when we have ad hoc solutions in place, they do not solve the ad hoc problems. That adds to the compulsion on us to find that systemic solution.

[Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)]

Perhaps I could name one of my constituents, Archie Meikle, of Ashwood Homes, who has given me permission to do so. I have fought on his behalf for over six months, and we have been waiting for responses from RBS after he was forced into the GRG. Does my hon. Friend agree that the only way we can solve these problems and grow our economy is by making sure that our businesses are protected from programmes such as these, which are being pursued by the banks?

[Callum McCaig]

Unsurprisingly, I agree wholeheartedly. The importance of economic growth is tied into this. There are individual consequences to issues like these, but there are also whole-system economic problems that come from them.

Aberdeen is going through a difficult economic time as we speak, although I think we are beginning to see green shoots of recovery. However, we have not seen the problems associated with the previous financial downturn, and we may be in a beneficial situation. However, there is no systemic solution, and just because we do not have a problem now, that does not mean that there will not be problems in the future. The economic problem in Aberdeen has been particularly localised, but if it were to be repeated on a national level, the mistakes of the past could well creep back in. As the UK moves towards leaving the European Union, there is the risk of greater pressure on our financial and business systems, and the temptation may come back for banks to use the opportunity to make money on the backs of others. It is therefore incredibly pressing that we get this right.

The benefits of this proposal would be manifold. Rather than huge crises that we need to solve, we would have early intervention, and we would have parity between banks and companies, so that they could identify and solve problems early, without the need for massive recompense, as has been the case.

We have heard from many hon. Members today that it is very difficult to put a figure on the cost to business. It is even more difficult to calculate the cost to the economy of lost growth as a result of these problems. But let us come back to the human cost, which a number of Members have mentioned: the hours of grief, the hours of anguish and, in certain cases, as the hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Michelle Thomson) mentioned, the lives that have been lost. That is the problem, and we can do something about it: we can protect our businesses. We can ensure best practice, and above all, we can ensure that the mistakes of the past are never repeated.

Offshore Oil and Gas Industry

Debate between Hannah Bardell and Callum McCaig

Thursday 3rd March 2016 Westminster Hall

[Callum McCaig (Aberdeen South) (SNP)]

The hon. Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) and my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) have discussed access to finance. My hon. Friend is making a powerful point about how innovation requires financing. Does she agree—I am sure she does—that access to finance is critical to maintaining that drive for innovation?

[Hannah Bardell]

I absolutely agree. It is critical that we send the right message not just to the industry but to the markets that we are there for them and will invest in the technology. Again, as our exports drop, we must consider how we can do better. This is an area where we are leading the world, and we must invest.

Another innovation developed was the rebreather. As I am sure many Members remember, there was a series of helicopter accidents in the North sea, and in August 2013, a helicopter went down off the coast of Shetland. I was part of the emergency response team for my company at the time; sadly, we lost someone in that accident. That experience changed me and everybody else involved, and I will certainly never forget it, but the industry’s response—we had the support of Oil & Gas UK, the police and all the various bodies—was incredible. It showed the industry’s robustness and ability to respond. Ultimately, getting in a helicopter is pretty much the only method of transport for people who work offshore. The industry’s response—developing a new breathing system and new ways to get people offshore—was important, because the accidents put significant pressure on production and on the ability to get people out and back safely.

I will touch briefly on the apprenticeship levy, which was introduced by the UK Government to deliver 3 million more apprenticeships. We welcome anything that can deliver more apprentices. However, there is a lack of clarity on the issue and a concern in the industry, which I have raised and will meet the Minister about shortly, regarding double charging. Some parts of the industry are already paying a levy to the Engineering Construction Industry Training Board for apprentices.

I urge the Government to do all they can to ensure that the levy is clear, concise and simplified, and that it delivers what it promises. Scottish Ministers have had concerns about the lack of consultation, and they are still not clear how the new body being created will work. It is important that people do not end up being put into apprenticeships that are not real apprenticeships but low-paid jobs. We must do our best to get young people into this important sector and many others. I welcome the Minister’s willingness to meet me, and I thank the Aberdeen and Grampian chamber of commerce, which has done a lot of work to bring together people in the oil and gas sector on that issue.

Oil & Gas UK’s operating expenditure report for 2017, the activity survey, says that the industry has made substantial progress. We must commend it on reducing operating costs, with total operating expenditure falling by around 15% to £8.2 billion. The industry has the wit and will to do so. Clearly, innovation comes not only in technological form but in terms of expenditure. Under massive pressure, the industry has led the world in innovation. We must do all that we can, in terms of the tax regime and the field allowances that Oil & Gas UK has called for, to reform the special taxes paid by the industry, to promote investment and maximise capacity during the downturn.

Other hon. Members and I recently met the Underwater Centre in Fort William, which trains divers across the globe, particularly in the UK and Scotland. We must remember that diving is one of the most dangerous jobs that anybody can do. The Underwater Centre told us that the average age of a diver is now more than 50. What is happening is that although people are still coming through for training from Scotland and the UK—less so globally—the centre is seriously concerned that when the upturn comes, not enough people will have been invested in and not enough divers will have been trained, and we will get back into the same cycle that we have seen before, in which only certain people have certain skills, and companies must pay a fortune for them. I saw it happen in the industry when I was there: people were paid phenomenal salaries for specialist skills, because we had not had the foresight to invest in training.

I come to the work that the Scottish Government have done with Scottish Enterprise and Scottish Development International. I know from having tried to open an arm of a business in Norway—and succeeded—how important Scottish Enterprise and SDI were. They gave us support and financing to attend, for example, the Offshore Northern Seas conference in Norway and get business, and helped us understand how to operate in a different country. The Scottish Government have been doing everything that they can to support the industry in its time of need. First Minister Nicola Sturgeon set up a jobs taskforce in January 2015 in collaboration with Scottish Enterprise, chaired by its CEO Lena Wilson. It is only fair to pay tribute to Lena Wilson, who has done a huge amount of work on the issue. She has worked tirelessly with the Oil and Gas Authority, Oil & Gas UK and many others.

The Scottish Government are also running an “adopt an apprentice” scheme through Skills Development Scotland to re-employ any modern apprentices in the industry who have lost their jobs or apprenticeships. On 1 February 2016, the Scottish Government announced £12.5 million for oil and gas innovation and further business support, including £10 million in Scottish Enterprise funding to help reduce the risks associated with carrying out research and development and enable access to specialist exports to help kick-start innovation projects in Scotland.

Finally, I would like to make a point about health and safety or, as it is often called in the oil and gas sector, HSSE or HSSEQ—health, safety, security, environment and quality. The right hon. Member for Tynemouth (Mr Campbell) also mentioned it. At a time when costs are under such huge pressure, it is important that health and safety are not compromised. I have seen the results personally, and had to deal with incidents. The industry has come a long way since Piper Alpha. It is hugely innovative and it continues to invest, but it is important that we send the message that health and safety must not be compromised in these difficult times.

In conclusion, there is a huge amount being done by Government, by industry bodies and all across the sector, including by companies and individuals, but we have to send the strongest message possible that this industry has a prosperous future and that we need to do all we can to support it. The oil and gas industry matters and the message that we have to send to our banks and to investors is that it is open for business and is here to stay.

HMRC Office Closures

Debate between Hannah Bardell and Callum McCaig

Tuesday 24th November 2015 Commons Chamber

[Hannah Bardell]

If the hon. Gentleman gives me some time, I would like to make some progress.

The most recent proposed closure of local HMRC offices will result in Scotland being left with no HMRC offices beyond the central belt of Scotland. The plans fail to understand or take into account the diversity and needs of the Scottish economy. There are a wide range of industries beyond the central belt of Scotland, including farming, fishing, whisky, tourism and, indeed, oil and gas. Many of those industries rely on the ability to work with their local tax offices, given the complexities of their businesses.

[Callum McCaig (Aberdeen South) (SNP)]

rose—

[Hannah Bardell]

I give way to my hon. Friend.

[Hon. Members]

Oh!

[Callum McCaig]

I do not know why people are upset—I have not spoken yet. As a former resident of the great city of Aberdeen and a former worker in the oil industry, my hon. Friend will understand the complexity of an industry that relies heavily on contractors and the need for specialist tax advice. Will she explain to hon. Members the distance between Aberdeen and Edinburgh? They are not just down the road from each other, but those making this decision seem to think that that is the case.

[Hannah Bardell]

I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. I am aware of the complexities of the oil and gas industry, but I am afraid that the Government and Conservative Members do not seem to appreciate them.

The world of work is changing, and many people across the UK are choosing to start and develop their own small businesses. In particular, women are choosing to take charge of their own destiny and start their own businesses, many of them from home. A network of good tax support is essential to support those businesses, run by men and women, if they are to thrive.

I was recently visited by a constituent who has a farming business. He impressed on me the importance of access to local HMRC services and face-to-face support. Industries such as farming often operate a year in arrears to very tight margins, and I and my colleagues have grave concerns about the impact on them and a wide range of other sectors, not least small and medium-sized enterprises.