Oral Answers to Questions

John Lamont Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd November 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Clarke]

The hon. Gentleman makes a passionate case for Stockport and the health facilities there. Obviously, we will always look at these proposals seriously, as will Departments including the Department of Health and Social Care. Although I cannot comment on this proposal specifically, not having had sight of it in detail, I am always happy to have conversations with him.

[John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)]

6. What progress his Department has made in levelling up all regions of the UK.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Helen Whately)]

Levelling up is this Government’s defining mission; it is a golden thread running through this Budget and spending review. We are creating the right conditions for businesses to grow and giving people the right skills to succeed. We believe that the place where someone grows up should never limit their prospects.

[John Lamont]

This Government are rightly committed to levelling up all parts of the United Kingdom, including Scotland. Improving transport links by extending the Borders railway in my constituency from Tweedbank to Hawick, Newcastleton and on to Carlisle would be a very good way of improving the economic opportunities for people living in those communities. Will the Minister confirm that the UK Government support the extension of the Borders railway as part of the levelling-up agenda?

[Helen Whately]

I commend my hon. Friend for his forthright campaign for the extension of the Borders railway. I reassure him that the Department for Transport and Transport Scotland are discussing the options to extend the railway, and, as I think he knows, the £350 million Borderlands inclusive growth deal includes up to £5 million to assess feasibility.

Access to Cash

John Lamont Excerpts

Wednesday 20th October 2021 Westminster Hall

[John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mrs Miller.

It is also a pleasure to participate in this debate this afternoon and, as others have done, I congratulate the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones) on securing it. The debate is on a topic that comes up very frequently in conversations I have with local residents in surgeries in my constituency. In a rural area such as the Scottish Borders, the recent closures of the TSB banks in Hawick and Kelso and the planned closure of Virgin Money in Galashiels mean that for some residents their nearest physical bank branch is miles away in Edinburgh—and when I say “miles away” I mean 50 miles away, which is totally unacceptable. I can very much relate to the earlier comments by the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) regarding the impact of bank closures on rural communities, such as those in many parts of Scotland.

That local picture mirrors a national trend. It is estimated that there were over 13,000 bank and building society branches in 2012, but by March 2020 that figure had dropped dramatically to only 8,000.

[Dr James Davies (Vale of Clwyd) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones) on securing this important debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont) is quite right to refer to bank branches. In my own high street in Prestatyn, over the last five years the number of ATMs has dropped from six to zero, due to the closure of bank branches. Does he agree that incentivising local businesses to host ATMs is one possible way forward?

[John Lamont]

I am grateful for that important point, with which I absolutely agree. It is important for local business that hosting cashpoints is cost effective. I am aware of a number of businesses that have tried to host cash machines, but it has turned out not to be a financially viable option for them.

Although cash use understandably decreased during the pandemic, that should not be a reason to move away from cash completely, and banks should certainly not use it as a reason to close local branches. I have seen at first hand that many local residents and businesses in my constituency use and rely on the vital services that their bank branches offer. Too often, large banking firms present evidence of reduced footfall as a justification for closure, but those figures do not reflect the fact that those vital bank branches provide services to customers week in, week out.

People often to prefer to deal with other people, face to face, and that is compounded by a lack of confidence in using online services as an alternative. Other constituents face difficulties in accessing online banking. For some local businesses, poor connectivity makes card payment machines unreliable, and residents who face connectivity problems cannot rely on the broadband service to access secure banking services. The SNP Scottish Government’s botched roll-out of the R100 scheme has simply compounded matters for many residents in local communities, but that is a longer debate for another day.

Amid the closure of local branches, I welcome that the UK Government have ensured that customers can use banking services across the network of more than 11,000 post office branches. Nevertheless, post offices do not provide the full range of services that bank branches can, including financial advice and planning, as well as privacy, which is clearly important for many residents. I totally share the concerns of my right hon. Friend the Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell) about the suitability of the post office to provide alternative services.

To conclude, I again congratulate the hon. Member for Pontypridd on bringing this important debate. I welcome the UK Government’s commitment to protecting access to cash, complemented by initiatives to tackle digital exclusion. There will always be a place for using cash, so maintaining access to the financial services that support my constituents in the Scottish Borders must be an absolute priority for the Government.

Health and Social Care Levy

John Lamont Excerpts

1st reading
Wednesday 8th September 2021 Commons Chamber

[Alison Thewliss]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. They are the people who can least afford it and who have worked the hardest through this pandemic, who this Government should be thanking, not taxing.

We are being asked to vote today on measures that the Institute for Fiscal Studies has described as “better than doing nothing”, which is about as charitable an analysis as is possible of this policy.

[John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Alison Thewliss]

In a second. Very few people would dispute the need for action on health and social care in England. However, an increase to national insurance contributions is not the fairest way to go about it. I would be interested to know why the hon. Gentleman thinks it is fair for his constituents.

[John Lamont]

The hon. Lady made reference to the IFS. She will know that the IFS has noted that over the past 10 years the health spend in Scotland has grown by 1.2%, whereas in England it has grown by 3.6% on a like-for-like basis. Surely it is astonishing that she would vote against £1 billion of extra investment for Scotland’s NHS.

[Alison Thewliss]

What the hon. Gentleman fails to understand is that we are starting from very different points. He does not acknowledge that, and he does not understand it.

The response from equality and anti-poverty groups has been absolutely damning. The Women’s Budget Group has said:

“We believe there is a fairer way to fund social care. This is because, as they currently stand NICs are more regressive than income tax—with a lower threshold at which payments start, and a higher rate threshold beyond which employees pay a lower rate.”

The Resolution Foundation has described the policy as “generationally unfair”. Paul Johnson of the IFS has said:

“Remains the case pensioners will pay next to nothing for this social care package—overwhelmingly to be paid by working age employees”.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)]

I very much welcome the fact that the Government are taking action to properly fund social care and the NHS in this country. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Sir Mike Penning) said, previous Governments and previous Prime Ministers have recognised the challenge of funding social care and the NHS, but it is this Prime Minister and this Government who are taking the brave step of bringing forward concrete proposals to address it.

We have heard much over the past few days and the past few hours from those on the Scottish National party Benches about how horrified they are by these proposals to increase funding for Scotland’s NHS. Astonishingly, they seem to oppose the billion pounds of extra funding that Scotland’s NHS will benefit from this year. It is astonishing. I just do not understand how they can possibly explain that to their constituents and justify such an irrational decision.

[Alison Thewliss]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[John Lamont]

I am happy to hear from the hon. Member why she has made that choice.

[Alison Thewliss]

As the hon. Gentleman well knows and as has been made clear to him in the remarks I made, funding for the NHS is not the issue here; the issue is raising taxes disproportionately on the backs of his and my poorest constituents. I would be interested to hear what he will tell his constituents when they come to his surgery about it.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Lamont]

These proposals will result in Scotland’s NHS and services that our constituents use getting a billion pounds extra each year to help deal with the backlog of treatment, the GP shortages and the whole catalogue of other issues that Scotland’s NHS is dealing with. It is nonsense to pretend that social care is not an issue in Scotland as much as it is in the rest of the United Kingdom. Indeed, the SNP Scottish Government in Edinburgh has called for action on social care in the past. They have said that they intended to increase investment in social care in Scotland, but they have also been clear that their plans required extra resources. Their planned reforms

“can only be delivered with increased investment.”

Their independent review of adult social care said

“more money will need to be spent on adult social care over the long term.”

Further to that, Audit Scotland recognised that “more investment is needed”. The Scottish Government admitted in their August 2021 consultation that the proposals for a new national care service were not yet funded.

[Dr Whitford]

In Scotland, as I said earlier, we already spend 43% per head more on social care. If the hon. Gentleman is moaning about Scotland, he can perhaps imagine the problem here. Scotland has a plan: the Feeley review, the national care service, a human rights approach and extending free personal care and free provision to all home care. What we are not happy about is the idea that suddenly the Prime Minister will meddle in a completely devolved area of health and social care, and we will have the same outsourcing and fragmentation that England has struggled with since 2012.

[John Lamont]

Nothing in this plan undermines the devolution settlement. This plan provides our constituents with more investment for NHS services across Scotland. What the hon. Lady seems most upset about is this United Kingdom Government delivering that resource for something that the Scottish Government had previously asked for, and she admits that, which is frankly astonishing. It is beyond belief that the SNP opposes these proposals, which would raise much-needed extra resources for the NHS and the social care sector in Scotland. Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland will benefit by an additional £2.2 billion a year as a result of the levy and an equivalent increase to dividend tax rates.

There is a clear Union dividend from this policy. Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, taken together, will benefit around 15% more than is generated from their residents, equivalent to around £300 million a year. The hon. Ladies and Gentlemen on the SNP Benches shake their heads. How on earth can they justify opposing this extra money coming into Scotland? Scotland will receive £1.1 billion in extra funding over the coming year.

We must ask why the SNP is so opposed to this extra money coming to Scotland and our NHS. That is certainly what my constituents in the Scottish borders are asking. They have witnessed the remarkable job that our NHS heroes have been doing during the covid-19 pandemic, but they also recognise the massive challenges now facing Scotland’s NHS: delayed operations, GPs under pressure, rural health services being withdrawn and waiting lists growing and growing. Yet, when offered extra funding from the UK Government to help address that and to tackle the social care crisis, the SNP says no. The SNP says no to extra funding for Scotland’s NHS.

[Dr Whitford]

Rubbish.

[John Lamont]

The hon. Lady says “rubbish”. Should I say “rubbish” to my constituents who have had their operations delayed time and again and those who cannot get access to a GP in their surgery because of decisions made by the Scottish Government, who blame a lack of resource and repeatedly blame the UK Government for not funding them enough? Here we have it: £1 billion more coming to Scotland and the SNP says no. It is typical SNP grievance politics. It is not about solutions or making the lives of our constituents better; it is about grievance, grievance and more grievance. The NHS in all four parts of the UK needs significant investment to tackle the lasting effects that covid-19 has had on services and we must work as one United Kingdom to tackle the collective challenge.

It is also true that the SNP Scottish Government have not prioritised investment in the NHS during their time in office. As I referenced earlier, the IFS has noted that, in the last 10 years, spend on health in Scotland has increased by just 1.2% as a proportion of total expenditure compared with 3.6% in England on a like-for-like basis. Therefore, despite all the spin we hear from SNP Members, Scotland’s NHS needs this extra investment.

Some in the SNP have been complaining that the policy is some sort of attack on the devolution settlement. That is utter, utter nonsense. It is true that devolved Administrations will be required by law to spend their share of the revenue raised by the levy on health services in 2022-23 and, from April 2023, on health and social care services. It is also true that some elements of the new revenue will be spent directly by the UK Government for the benefit of all four nations, including on purchasing vaccines to help defeat the virus. However, there is no requirement for the Scottish Government to implement the same policies as the UK Government. The devolution settlement is protected. So the SNP is really going to oppose this extra funding coming to Scotland’s NHS and social care services.

I very much welcome the announcement. It has been a tough decision for the Prime Minister and the Government, but it is the right decision. More funding for our NHS and social care services should be welcomed by everyone in the House. It baffles me completely why the SNP so strongly opposes it.

Leaving the EU: Impact on the UK

John Lamont Excerpts

Wednesday 17th March 2021 Commons Chamber

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)]

I beg to move,

That this House considers that the immediate economic damage, recent uncertainty and the projected long-term damage to business and trade from the UK leaving the European Union has disproven the perceived benefits of leaving the European Union; notes that the Scottish economy, specifically fishing, small businesses and manufacturing, are particularly vulnerable to market disruption; further notes that the failure of the UK Government to remain in mutually beneficial education schemes such as Erasmus+ is to the detriment of education and cultural exchange for people in Scotland and the rest of the UK; shows serious concern at the loss of EU funding and its replacement with the Shared Prosperity Fund; affirms the positive role immigration plays in society; and regrets the impact leaving the EU will have on those who wish to live, study and work in the UK.

The Brexit process has lurched from bourach to shambles to chaos—a lesson in incompetence and hubris. We are assured that, after the next hurdle, things will get better and that we will start to see all the Brexit dividends that we have been promised. So, where are we now? Less than three months after the transition period ended, the UK is facing legal action and the possibility of trade sanctions. The Office for Budget Responsibility said in its response to the Budget that the Brexit trade deal will see

“a long-run loss of productivity of around 4 per cent compared with remaining in the EU.”

Businesses that have struggled through the uncertainty of snap general elections, exit day deadlines coming and going, a rushed last-minute withdrawal deal, and a year of covid-19 now face the possibility of tariffs along with the added paperwork brought by being out of the single market. That comes hot on the heels of a record-breaking drop in trade between the UK and EU in January. The Office for National Statistics said that, after the Brexit transition period ended, UK goods exports to the EU fell 40.7% in the month and imports dropped 28.8%. Those are the largest declines since records began over 20 years ago.

The hardest hit export to the EU was food products—a growth industry in Scotland and a sector world-famous for its quality. Food and drink exports decreased by 63.6% in January this year. Seafood Scotland says that fish and shellfish exports were down 83% in January. That is devastating for the sector, which has relied on the swift movement of goods across borders. Donna Fordyce, the chief executive of Seafood Scotland, has spoken of the reputational damage this is causing, the market share being lost to countries such as Norway and the additional time and cost of processing all the bureaucracy. In evidence to the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, she said that firms were having to spend around £250,000 to £500,000 extra per year on paperwork. Seafood Scotland has talked of a “one-way trade border” that

“chokes UK exporters, but ushers in EU imports with open arms.”

That is the reality of the shoddy deal that the UK Government negotiated on Scotland’s behalf.

There was a 56.6% decline in exports in the chemical sector ahead of the UK falling out of the EU’s chemicals regulations, and manufacturing output decreased 2.3%, which the ONS directly attributed not to covid-19 but to a fall in exports caused by Brexit. Brexit has also particularly affected an export that my constituency is blessed with: an abundance of live music. Those working in creative industries are being denied the access to the EU that previous generations have enjoyed. They are being denied access to work and access to promoting Scotland and our culture abroad. We on the SNP Benches have been clear that creative professionals and those who support them must be entitled to visa-free travel.

Even for those who simply want to play music, there are barriers. My constituent Richard Traynor recently purchased a musical instrument from a German supplier with which he has dealt for many years. When it was delivered, the keyboard had warped, he suspects due to being held in sub-zero conditions at customs holding stations for a lengthy period. He had to pay customs fees to the UK Government approaching £100 for the instrument and its subsequent replacement, in addition to courier fees for a keyboard that cost £180—a real barrier to trade. Mr Traynor told me that

“the fees charged part of this has indeed been very difficult to swallow, but it does not compare to the empty hollow feeling this particular Brexit experience has left me with. I cannot believe I will no longer be able to buy from the many really nice folk I’ve traded with over the years from various places across Europe. I cannot imagine the damage this must be doing to small retailers such as folks who run small independent record labels or who run specialist shops...I guess this list could go on and on and on.”

There is growing evidence that companies in the EU are declining to send their goods to UK customers. The UK Government may not consider that a significant issue, but as my constituent points out, in so many ways, this chilling effect diminishes not just our trade but our way of life.

Visa-free travel is something that we have all taken for granted for some time. The loss of Erasmus+ and research funding has been a devastating blow to our universities, which already stand to lose so much from Brexit. The Scottish Government said from the outset that we wanted to remain a part of the scheme, and even Jackson Carlaw MSP, the former Conservative leader in Scotland, agreed. He said in the Scottish Parliament in May 2018 that

“it is not acceptable to me if the outcome of our exit from the European Union means that we can no longer participate in the Erasmus+ programme. It is perfectly clear that the direction that the UK Government is taking means that we will continue to participate.”—[Scottish Parliament Official Report, 16 May 2018; c. 61.]

Of course, we know that that did not come to pass. I do not know whether that is a reflection of the relative influence of Conservative MSPs or whether they were also being led up the garden path by their Westminster bosses.

Mon cher collègue, my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Alyn Smith), described the removal of the scheme as “economic vandalism” against the higher education sector. On research funding, the Wellcome Trust has said this week that the UK’s ambitions to be a science superpower

“are meaningless if they’re not backed up with funding.”

There were brutal cuts to international research this week, and we still have no clarity on the £1 billion hole in Horizon Europe. But the damage goes further than this.

[John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)]

Has the hon. Lady had sight of the London School of Economics report earlier this year which said that Scottish independence would be three times more costly than Brexit? Could she comment on that?

[Alison Thewliss]

Independence will give us many options. It will give us the opportunity to take our future into our own hands and not be reliant on the incompetence of those on the Government Benches.

Young people in my constituency—many from low-income families—and many new Scots are now being denied access to not just an experience but a European identity that previous generations of Scots have benefited from. More than 2,000 students from Scotland—the highest per head of population in the UK—take part in Erasmus+ each year.

My constituent and good friend Declan Blench is a translator working in European languages. He says that he and his colleagues are now cut off from not only our markets, because trade in services is so hamstrung by this deal, but the culture they have cultivated links with and come to love. Declan says that

“most of us learned our languages in adolescence to adulthood, precisely thanks to EU links, we didn’t all grow up in multilingual households. I was brought up by a single mum in an English-only household in a mining town—how on earth could I ever have done what I’ve done, if not for Erasmus? It is not just heartbreaking but galling—sacrificing these things for the sake of unrealistic notions of imperial grandeur, the ultimate symbol of post-imperial stress disorder that Britain suffers from so acutely.”

I could not have put it better.

I know that many across the House have benefited from studying and working abroad. It is wholly unacceptable for Tory Members to pull the ladder up behind them. The hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie) recently admitted as much on the BBC “Debate Night” show. He said to a young person who asked a question:

“You and everybody else coming through right now will not have the benefits that I had through Erasmus, work, study abroad…But am I going to sit here and say that Brexit is perfect and your generation is going to reap the benefits? No I’m not. Because you’re not frankly at the minute. And I can see that.”

A moment of honesty from the Tories, but what a statement that is—that young people are not going to benefit in the way that people on the Tory Benches did; that they will take that away from the generations yet to come.

The UK Government’s replacement is a pale shadow of Erasmus+. There has been no meaningful consultation with devolved Governments on the Turing scheme, which seems to have been cobbled together at the last minute, with all the due consideration one would expect from this inept UK Tory Government. It will not pay tuition costs for students. Living costs have been cut to a fifth of what they would have previously been. It does not encompass youth work, culture, sport and vocational schemes, which are a huge part of the Erasmus+ scheme and very important to people in Scotland. We also now know that it will not cover apprentices or trainees not affiliated with further education colleges, and it will not cover teachers, youth workers, volunteers and many more who would previously have been eligible. LEAP Sports in my constituency, which works with LGBTI people, found Erasmus+ invaluable and forged international links, which helped to build the confidence and the skills of the people they support. For example, the three-year Outsport project on preventing violence and discrimination in sport based on sexual orientation and gender identity is vital work as we seek to challenge prejudice and make sport more inclusive for everyone.

Scotland’s economy has its own specific needs that are not being met by this Eton mess of a Government. We have an ageing population. Without inward migration, our population would be in decline, with more deaths than births. Scotland’s Economy Secretary Fiona Hyslop announced “A Scotland for the Future” this week, which examines the significant population challenges our country faces.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)]

I listened very carefully to the opening remarks of the hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss). What I find quite extraordinary about the SNP is its ability to hold to two completely incompatible and inconsistent policies at the same time. We recently concluded the SNP’s first debate of this afternoon, in which it argued that Scotland should be separate from the rest of the United Kingdom. It has now introduced a debate to complain about the economic impact of the UK leaving the European Union. A total of 60% of Scotland’s trade is with the rest of the UK, worth more than £50 billion, against £16.6 billion in exports to the EU, yet the SNP wants to rip Scotland out of that United Kingdom economic union. More than half a million Scottish jobs are linked to trade with the rest of the United Kingdom, yet the SNP continues to obsess about taking Scotland out of the United Kingdom.

It is not surprising that so many people are baffled when, on the one hand, the nationalists argue for Scotland’s separation from that political and economic union, yet, on the other, they want even closer ties with another political and economic union—separation from the UK, but yet closer ties to Brussels and the EU.

I do not need to remind the House that the SNP tried to impose an economic shock on Scotland by recklessly voting for a no-deal Brexit at the end of the transition period with the EU. The EU-UK trade deal is worth £653 per person over a no-deal Brexit, according to the Scottish Government’s own analysis, yet SNP MPs trooped into the Lobby to vote for a no-deal Brexit. They voted for a no-deal Brexit and all the economic challenges that that would undoubtedly have brought. They voted for a no-deal Brexit in spite of the financial hardship that would bring to families in Scotland. They also voted for a no-deal Brexit despite the Federation of Small Businesses, the Confederation of British Industry, the British Chambers of Commerce, the National Farmers Union of Scotland, the National Sheep Association and many other organisations, as well as our constituents, urging MPs in Parliament to back the UK-EU trade deal. So it is a bit rich to hear them squealing today about the impact of Brexit when they voted for a no-deal Brexit.

We should not be surprised that SNP Members voted against the UK-EU trade deal or that they supported a no-deal Brexit. In fact, they have a track record of voting against trade deals, even those from which we benefited as members of the European Union, some of which this Government have rolled over for the benefit of the UK and Scotland. SNP Members complain about our exit from the EU, yet they failed to support or abstain on countless trade deals that we have secured. They voted against trade deals with Canada, South Africa and Korea and abstained on trade deals with Japan and Singapore. I would welcome an intervention from one of the SNP Members here today to tell us which single trade deal the SNP has supported in the past 15 years. No? Nothing. They are not favour of trade or of jobs; they are not in favour of all the families and people we represent who are dependent on trade in Scotland. They are against trade and against the jobs that are supported by trade—[Interruption.] I will be happy to take an intervention from the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown) if he wishes to tell me which trade deal he supports. No? I didn’t think so.

We are already witnessing the profound economic benefits that Scottish industry is having from our new international trading relationships, and I very much welcome that. It is clear that SNP Members are not in favour of independence; they want closer ties with Brussels. They want to take Scottish fishermen back into the hated fisheries policy and to take farmers back into the common agricultural policy. They do not want independence; they just want closer ties with Brussels.

Government's Management of the Economy

John Lamont Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd February 2021 Commons Chamber

[John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)]

My constituents have not forgotten what befell the UK economy the last time Labour was in power. The party which has left unemployment higher than it found it every single time it has been in office, and which left a note joking about the fact that there was no money left, might have approached this subject with a degree of humility.

The motion before the House invites us to reflect on the last 10 years of Conservative-led economic management. We should start with the situation that the Conservatives inherited in 2010 after 13 unlucky years of Labour misrule. The deficit was higher than at any time since records began in 1948, £1 in every £4 that Labour spent in its last year in power was borrowed, and unemployment was up by nearly half a million. Labour Members now say that it was all because of the global financial crisis, for which they should not be blamed, but that ignores two key facts. First, that Britain suffered one of the worst banking crises in the world was a direct consequence of the spectacular failure of Labour’s system of financial regulation. Secondly, the UK entered that crisis running a deficit. We were borrowing too much even before that crisis hit.

Restoring order to the national finances was the defining economic mission of the decade leading up to the covid crisis. By the time that covid hit, the deficit had been reduced by over 80%, putting our public finances back on a sustainable path. The unemployment rate was halved and employment reached record highs. Conservatives doubled the personal allowance and have taken 1.75 million people out of income tax. The lowest paid have received a £4,000 pay rise through the national living wage. Income inequality is lower now than it was in 2010. The highest earners are now paying a greater share of tax than at any time during the last Labour Government. All this meant that we entered the pandemic in a position of strength. This shows how vital it is to take the difficult decisions when times are relatively normal, so that we are able to take extraordinary measures when times get hard.

Labour has spent 11 years opposing every single one of the steps that we have taken to fix its mess. In 2019, having learned nothing from its mistakes, it suffered its worst defeat in a generation. The counterfactual, had Labour succeeded in that election, hardly bears thinking about. Labour’s last shadow Chancellor was actively preparing for a run on the pound if he ever got into office. His goal was to “overthrow capitalism”. That was the economic agenda that the Leader of the Opposition and the present shadow Chancellor both urged the British people to vote for. As we enter what I hope to be the countdown to the permanent reopening of our country, we should learn the real economic lessons of covid—that we have to take the difficult, responsible decisions to be ready for when the storm rolls in, and that we will all do better to be united and weathering storms such as covid together.

Lockdown: Economic Support

John Lamont Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd November 2020 Commons Chamber

[Steve Barclay]

As I mentioned earlier, within the £1.1 billion of support to local authorities, we have given them discretion to respond to local needs, and that includes Greater Manchester as a region. On the airport sector specifically, one reason why we have allocated more than £12 billion to test and trace is that one of the key issues, as I was told by that sector, is the importance of travellers being able to be tested quickly and released sooner than has been the case in recent weeks. We are working extremely hard on that issue, because that is one of the key measures, alongside the financial support to local authorities, that would make a real difference to the airport sector.

[John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)]

I very much welcome the commitment that we heard yesterday from the Prime Minister that the furlough scheme will extend to Scotland whenever it is needed. Can the Chief Secretary to the Treasury confirm that the self-employment support scheme will also extend to my constituents in Scotland, ensuring that self-employed people are not left behind?

[Steve Barclay]

As I said earlier, these are UK-wide schemes. We continue to listen and engage, but the schemes apply on a UK-wide basis. That has been the case throughout, and that continues to be the case now.

Oral Answers to Questions

John Lamont Excerpts

Tuesday 20th October 2020 Commons Chamber

[Chris Elmore (Ogmore) (Lab)]

[John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)]

[Taiwo Owatemi (Coventry North West) (Lab)]

--- Later in debate ---

[Jesse Norman]

[John Lamont]

[Jesse Norman]

Co-operative and Community Benefit Societies (Environmentally Sustainable Investment) Bill

John Lamont Excerpts

2nd reading & 2nd reading: House of Commons
Friday 11th September 2020 Commons Chamber

[John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)]

First, I thank the hon. Member for Cardiff North (Anna McMorrin) for bringing this private Member’s Bill to the Chamber today. As was apparent from her speech, she has a lot of experience of working on environmental issues, and I appreciate the work she has put into the Bill so far. It is not perfect, and I look forward to it being improved as it progresses through Parliament. I wish simply to highlight the issues where I think I can support the Bill, to flag up some issues from my own constituency and examples of the good work that co-operatives undertake, and to give a summary of what I see as the key aspects of the Bill.

Co-operatives and community benefit societies are long-standing in our communities. We are told that co-ops are democratically owned and controlled by their members and that they exist to meet common needs and aspirations, in contrast to companies that are arguably more focused on the payment of dividends to shareholders. We are also told that co-ops are more about sharing power and wealth. Clearly, there will be a divergence of views on some of those statements—some will agree, some will not—but I am in no doubt about the worth of co-ops to our economy and wider society. The contribution of co-ops is clear and their importance cannot be understated. Importantly, I believe that co-ops should be part of how we build back better after covid-19.

There are lessons to be learned from how co-ops do business. Last year, co-ops contributed £38 billion in turnover and provided work for almost a quarter of a million people. While only 43% of companies survive their first five years, more than 72% of co-op start-ups continue to flourish. In 2019, there were more than 7,200 co-ops operating across the United Kingdom in a range of sectors of the economy. The ownership of co-operatives is a hugely important consideration in this debate. It is argued that sharing ownership in co-ops gives people and communities a stake in the operation of the business and encourages greater engagement, interest and concern in the long-term interests of the business. This applies as much to customer or employee owners of large retail businesses as it does to local co-ops, which together own valued local enterprises such as pubs, football clubs and shops. I am sure we all have examples from our own constituencies of successfully operating co-operatives.

In rural areas such as my own, in the Scottish borders, the agricultural sector is particularly prominent and important. More than £7.9 billion of co-operative turnover comes from farming in the UK annually. There are lots of examples of successful co-operatives in my constituency.  Growing up on a farm, I know that the cost of modern farm machinery can be significant. Organisations such as Progressive Agri near Coldstream help farmers to purchase machinery and equipment as part of a group. There are other agricultural co-ops, such as Scottish Borders Produce, which is a cross-border co-operative with members from across the Scottish Borders, East Lothian and Northumberland. It specialises in the environmentally responsible growing and processing of top-quality vining peas for the retail frozen market. This green shares Bill would give them and others like them a means of generating external finance in order to make substantial and environmentally friendly investments and expand their operations. There is evidence to suggest that sharing ownership in such co-ops also boosts productivity, by making employees and suppliers more likely to work harder to support their business. Studies have shown that the commitment ownership brings boosts productivity, because people are invested emotionally and financially in the business.

Co-operatives offer a dynamic solution, rooting long-term social value within financial value. Their involvement in a successful and sustainable future UK economy is vital, but why are there not more of these co-operative-type models? In 2020, they make up less than 1% of the total number of businesses. As we look towards the post-covid world and consider how to make businesses more robust, more resilient and fairer, the answer could be a more co-operative economy. In addition to the clear economic importance and resilience of co-operatives and community benefit societies, their focus on localism and wider social benefits aligns with our goals for sustainable development. Advocates of co-operatives emphasise that these types of business models are a more sustainable form of business due to an evasion of the desire for immediate profits and, instead, a focus on longer-term goals. That is clearly a point for debate and discussion, but there is no doubt that co-ops and alternative models of business have a role to play in our economy.

The Committee on Climate Change emphasised the importance of an environmentally sustainable economy in its 2019 report, “Net Zero: the UK’s contribution to stopping global warming”. The report highlighted the importance of the UK providing an attractive green investment environment, noting that Government success in providing clear and stable mechanisms that attract sufficient volumes of low capital will be key to the overall success in reaching a net zero greenhouse gas target. The Committee concluded that the UK is well placed to lead globally on the development of products to finance low-carbon investment. Again, co-operatives and community benefit societies provide one mechanism to achieve that.

However, despite the clear possibility of co-operatives and community benefit societies enhancing the level of environmentally sustainable investment in this country, there are limitations on their ability to raise external capital in a way that is consistent with their founding principles, and thus their growth. The Bill seeks to address that. It would arguably allow co-operatives and community benefit societies to gain powers to raise finance by issuing redeemable green shares to external investors. In turn, any capital raised would be required to be invested in environmentally sustainable projects. We have heard from other Members during the debate about how we define environmentally sustainable projects. Where is the line between a green project and something that might be just more of a commercial initiative? The Bill will need to clarify that as it progresses.

Without the Bill, co-ops rely on their members’ capital to fund their operations. Withdrawable shares are bought by members and shares are limited to a maximum of £100,000 for an individual stakeholder, with the aim of preventing co-operatives relying on only a small number of their members or a single member having excessive financial clout. The introduction of redeemable green shares facilitated by the Bill might provide a solution, allowing co-operatives and community benefit societies to raise new sources of finance.

[Gareth Davies]

It is undeniable that the climate change agenda is critical to the investment landscape. Does he therefore agree that it is a little confusing that green shares will be limited to external investors and that they should also be available to members?

[John Lamont]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. I agree that there is some uncertainty around that. This is one of the issues that needs to be flushed out during parliamentary scrutiny of this Bill, so that we have as much clarity as possible on that point, but he is right. As I said, we need to be sure that any investment will be in the green environmental projects that we want to see promoted by the Bill.

[Anna McMorrin]

I want to clarify the point made by the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Gareth Davies). Actually, members can invest in a project, which would be the green shares, because that is what co-operatives do—they are wholly owned by the members. This is unlocking investment from outside as a bigger investment called a green share. I just wanted to correct the hon. Member.

[John Lamont]

I am grateful for that point, but the fact that the hon. Lady had to make it suggests that it is not entirely clear in the Bill. Hopefully, during the Bill’s progress, we can get clarity on the face of the Bill about how that will work in practice.

It is argued that these redeemable shares are important on two levels. The first is the important benefits of environmentally sustainable investment—for example, in the retrofitting of existing housing association homes or the expansion of renewable energy co-operatives. The second is the benefits to co-operatives themselves. Co-operatives UK is just one advocate of such redeemable shares, noting that they could be

“particularly useful for larger societies raising significant equity investment from individual and institutional non-user investor members.”

It notes that redeemable shares

“provide a straightforward and clear exit route for shareholders, just as withdrawal does, but would be fully under the control of the society.”

This Bill will not only allow co-ops and community associations to raise private investment capital for environmentally sustainable purposes, but it also has profound wider benefits. Locally, our communities and economies would benefit from the development of green jobs and skills, and the Bill might be part of that. In my constituency, there is clear evidence that that is happening already, but we need to do more to facilitate it. More widely, we could see benefits in the form of cheaper, greener energy; warmer, more energy-efficient homes; and cheaper, more sustainably and locally sourced food. For my constituents and the rural economy in the Scottish borders, the Bill could encourage such initiatives.

Equally important are the safeguards in the Bill. Such protections prevent the undermining of the co-ops’ or societies’ ethos or their conversion into commercial companies through the issuing of green shares. Upholding the ethos of co-operatives and community benefit societies is crucial to the success of the Bill and the aims behind it and to sustain the longevity of these societies. I am confident that those objectives can be achieved through the provisions in the Bill, which include limiting voting rights to one vote, regardless of the value or number of shares held, limiting the rights of investors to the assets of the society in the event of its liquidation, limiting the ability of investors to de-mutualise and, lastly, enabling societies to remove the right to vote for their conversion into a company.

[Anthony Mangnall]

My hon. Friend spoke well about the importance of localism and of co-ops, which all our constituencies benefit from. Does he fear that if we open these organisations up to external investors, we will water down the focus of localism?

[John Lamont]

Yes, absolutely, that will be one of the challenges. In my experience, the benefits of these co-operatives and societies has been the local engagement, and the danger is that outside influence could change that ethos and approach.

As other Members have noted, the Bill’s foundations are in using investment for wider good. This is an important step forward, in terms of shining a spotlight on this type of business model and highlighting the importance of environmentally sustainable investment, but more needs to be done.

Last year, a study commissioned by the Department for International Development examined public demand in the UK for sustainable development opportunities. That was the most comprehensive study of the UK public’s demand for such opportunities, understanding whether people want the impact on people and the planet to be considered in investment decisions. Generally, the survey found that 68% of UK savers want their investments to consider the impact on people and the planet alongside financial performance.

Since 2012, sustainable investments have grown by 107% annually as an investment strategy. There is significant growth of individuals who invest sustainably in companies, organisations and funds with the purpose of generating measurable, social and environmental impact alongside financial return. Impacts are spread across various sectors from renewable energy and climate change, to health, safety and community development. The Bill arguably fulfils some of those desires and pivots towards a more sustainable future, unlocking new finance sources through the green shares, which must be invested in an environmentally sustainable way.

As investment trends change, policy such as this drives that change in our culture to adopting socially responsible practices in businesses and industry, and encourages adaptation towards a sustainable investment environment. I hope that this is a step towards changing the sustainability outlooks of other companies and business models. Although, of course, protecting lives and suppressing the coronavirus has been the priority for the Government over the past few months, as the virus has devastated many of our communities, that is not to say that we should put the climate crisis on the back burner; that must remain our priority.

As we heard earlier from my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton South (Andrew Lewer), the UK has played a world-leading role in tackling climate change. I challenge some of the opening remarks of the hon. Member for Cardiff North, the sponsor of this Bill. The transition to clean growth for the UK has demonstrated that we are one of the pioneers in this area. We are the first country to legislate to eliminate our contribution to climate change by 2050, and the fastest in the G20 to cut emissions.

At the same time, the Environment Bill is being introduced to protect and improve the environment for future generations, enshrining in law environmental principles and legally binding targets. The first progress report of the Government’s ambitious 25-year environment plan found that 90% of the priority actions have been delivered or are on track to be delivered. Coal power stations will be completely shut down by 2025, if not 2024. Glasgow will host COP26, coronavirus allowing, putting Britain at the heart of the world’s efforts to combat climate change. We are currently on track to protect 4 million sq km of ocean across our overseas territories before the end of 2020. These are huge achievements in themselves, and I hope the hon. Lady will acknowledge that we are making significant progress, notwithstanding her comments earlier.

However, I am all too aware that there is a need to accelerate work to protect the environment. Innovative ideas to make it more affordable and more accessible to finance environmentally friendly investments are to be welcomed and studied closely, and this Bill gives us that opportunity. Through green shares, we can begin to allow local communities to rise to the climate change challenge and see more level playing fields between co-operatives, community benefit societies and their private competitors.

The Bill also presents itself as an opportunity to aid a recovery from the pandemic in a greener, more sustainable and more resilient way. There are extremely difficult times ahead, but we must look to the future and consider the green jobs and skills that we should be able to facilitate and create as part of our green recovery.

Just last week, in my own constituency, plans for 50 new jobs were approved in the coastal town of Eyemouth. These jobs will come from the new maintenance base for an offshore wind farm off the Fife coast. Providing skilled jobs or improving towns and villages in other ways, such as in Eyemouth, must be how we tackle climate change. Not only does that ensure that no one is left behind, but it helps to persuade those who are less convinced of the merits of such projects that that is the way forward. Co-ops have a huge opportunity here to play a big part in providing jobs and community benefits.

To conclude, I congratulate the hon. Member for Cardiff North again on bringing forward the green shares Bill. I look forward to seeing it progress, I look forward to seeing it improved, and I look forward to hearing the other contributions to the debate.

Covid-19: Future UK-EU Relationship

John Lamont Excerpts

Wednesday 15th July 2020 Commons Chamber

[John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)]

It is an absolute honour and a privilege to see you in the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I am very grateful to have the opportunity to speak in this SNP Opposition day debate. The SNP motion calls for an extension to the transition period for negotiations with the European Union. It is important that we are absolutely clear what the motives are for the SNP calling for that extension to the transition period. It is not about protecting Scotland’s economy. It is not about assisting the economic recovery after the coronavirus pandemic. It is all about creating further uncertainty and constitutional chaos to assist in the nationalist dream of breaking up the United Kingdom. That is the SNP’s top priority. That is its only priority. That, in fact, is the only reason that many SNP Members got involved in politics in the first place—[Interruption.] I am pleased that they are nodding in agreement. I am pleased that they are agreeing with me—we agree on something at last. Any proposal from the separatists should be considered in that context. The SNP is aggravating on Brexit simply to push its independence obsession.

There is no doubt that the impact of the coronavirus will be significant on Scotland’s and the UK’s economy, but the answer is not to add further uncertainty to Scotland’s businesses with further dither and delay on Brexit. Businesses want certainty so that they can plan for Scotland’s and the UK’s future outside the European Union. Businesses are already preparing for life outside the EU at the end of 2020. The last thing they need or want is the further uncertainty that has been advocated by the SNP today, so I fully support the UK Government’s commitment not to extend the transition period at the end of 2020, because that would simply risk further economic damage to Scotland’s economy.

I also fully endorse the massive support of more than £13 billion that this UK Government have pumped into Scotland so far during the covid-19 outbreak. This includes nearly £5 billion in furlough payments, £1 billion for the job retention scheme, the kick-start scheme, the VAT cuts, the eat out to help out scheme, nearly £1 billion in the self-employed income support scheme, hundreds of millions of pounds in business loans and increases to benefits, plus £4.6 billion in Barnett consequentials. That is a £4.6 billion boost to the Scottish Government’s budget during this covid-19 outbreak. I know that some in the SNP, including the Scottish Government’s Finance Minister, Kate Forbes, like to pretend that this support does not exist unless the Scottish Government logo is branded all over it, but if Scotland was no longer in the United Kingdom, the safety net of support that the UK can provide during this pandemic and other crises would not have been there for other parts of these islands or, indeed, for Scotland anymore.

[Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

The hon. Member and I have disagreed numerous times about the UK’s place in the European Union and what we should do about that, but does he share my confusion about why a party that is so intent on dragging Scotland from one valuable union—indeed, the most successful economic union in history—is so intent on using another to do it?

[John Lamont]

I completely agree. The points that the SNP’s Westminster leader made earlier could have been made by anybody during the campaign about whether we should leave or remain in the EU; Nigel Farage would be proud of the arguments that he articulated. I am pleased that the hon. Lady is nodding wholeheartedly; it was a very good Farage argument that was put forward by Mr Blackford.

Let me move on to reiterate the support that has been made available by the UK Government and what that means from a practical perspective for Scots. These are not abstract sums of money that have no bearing on everyday lives in Scotland; these are people’s jobs and livelihoods, and the economic wellbeing of our families. Some 800,000 jobs in Scotland have been saved so far during the pandemic, highlighting the strength of our Union. The coronavirus job retention scheme has furloughed 628,000 Scottish jobs, and the UK Government have spent £425 million on supporting 146,000 self-employed people in Scotland through the self-employment income support scheme.

Of course, when talking about jobs, it is worth remembering that nearly four times as many jobs in Scotland are linked to trade with the rest of the United Kingdom as with the European Union. The Fraser of Allander Institute estimates that around 545,000 jobs in Scotland are supported by demand for our goods and services from the rest of the UK. That is why it is so important that we do everything we can to protect the strength of the UK single market, ensuring that businesses across the UK can continue to trade easily. Scottish exports to the rest of the UK are worth £51.2 billion, against £16.6 billion in EU exports. Whether they are in my constituency in the Scottish borders or in Eastleigh, West Bromwich, Brecon or Dudley, our businesses should be able to trade freely in every part of Britain.

The importance of the UK internal market is why the suggestion from Scotland’s First Minister, Nicola Sturgeon, that she may close the Scotland-England border or impose quarantine restrictions on people from England is so damaging to Scotland and to our economy. After the First Minister’s announcement, I had tourism businesses, B&Bs and hotels contact me to report that their customers from the rest of the UK had started to cancel their bookings because they were so worried about the border being closed and quarantine restrictions being imposed. That should concern us all, because overnight trips from the rest of the UK were worth nearly £3 billion to Scotland in 2018.

To compound matters, we had the horrific scenes on the Scottish-English border in my constituency, on the A1 north of Berwick, of nationalist protesters shouting—and I quote—“Stay the F out” at English people travelling into Scotland. These racist protesters have admitted taking inspiration from the division stoked by the SNP politicians. They were inspired by comments by SNP politicians. One of the protesters has been pictured with Nicola Sturgeon and other senior SNP figures—

[Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Surely it cannot be allowed to stand that the hon. Gentleman effectively accuses SNP Members of stoking racism. The SNP condemns unreservedly any kind of anti-Englishness or any kind of racism directed at people from south of the border.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

The hon. Gentleman knows—[Interruption.] Please do not talk so loudly while I am talking. The hon. Member for Ogmore (Chris Elmore) can heckle other people, but he cannot heckle me. Well, he can try. The hon. Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady) knows that his point of order is not a point for the Chair, but a point of debate. The hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont) will give way when he is ready to give way, and I look forward to hearing the retort from the hon. Member for Glasgow North.

[John Lamont]

Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am going to take an intervention—don’t you worry—but I want to conclude this important point about the completely unacceptable behaviour towards our neighbours, friends and family members trying to cross the border between Scotland and England, coming into my constituency to work, to see family members and to visit friends. Nationalist protesters with “Yes” banners were shouting abuse at them. That is totally unacceptable.

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

rose—

[John Lamont]

I look forward to hearing from the hon. Member that she will condemn that type of behaviour.

[Patricia Gibson]

I would like to say to the hon. Member, who has made a number of allegations, that the SNP, as he knows, does not have any truck with racism in any of its forms. He seems to suggest that the SNP is an anti-English party; if it makes a country racist to seek self-government, then the other 190 members of the United Nations are all racist countries. The First Minister’s granny is English, so what possible motivation could the hon. Gentleman have for these hysterical comments? If he is condemning any analysis that suggests that borders may perhaps be temporarily closed to control this virus, perhaps he would like to comment on the practice that has been adopted by Australia, which is doing the same thing between states.

[John Lamont]

The fact that the hon. Lady refused to condemn that behaviour on the border speaks for itself. Similarly, the delay from the First Minister of Scotland to condemn that behaviour also caused great concern, not just in my constituency but across Scotland. That is not the Scotland I represent, and it is not what we are about. That behaviour on the border is unacceptable, and we should condemn it.

[Daniel Kawczynski (Shrewsbury and Atcham) (Con)]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and I am listening carefully to what he is saying about the situation on the border between England and Scotland. As a border MP representing an English seat that has a border with Wales, I can say that we in Shropshire have also seen real difficulties and problems in our community as a result of Cardiff pulling further and further away from London, which causes confusion for border communities such as mine.

[John Lamont]

I am grateful for that point. As the Minister described so well, in these times of crisis, as a nation—every part of the nation, whether it be Wales or Scotland or England—we should be coming together to tackle those challenges, not having foul-mouthed nationalist protesters standing at the borders shouting abuse at our English friends and neighbours.

I want to develop the economic point. We can see the economic damage that can be caused to Scotland by statements made by nationalist politicians when they deter people from travelling to Scotland. Even before the current crisis, the SNP’s record of managing Scotland’s economy has been extremely poor. The SNP is holding Scotland’s economy back. Scotland’s deficit is six times that of the UK. The rate of unemployment in Scotland is higher than anywhere else in the UK.

Even before coronavirus, the SNP had cost Scotland more than a quarter of a million jobs, and then we have its failures in other policy areas, too. Under the SNP, Scottish schools have slipped to their lowest international scores in science and maths. There are 3,600 fewer teachers since the SNP came to power. On the NHS, Nicola Sturgeon’s waiting time guarantee has never been met. Crime is on the rise, with most areas of Scotland now having fewer police officers on the frontline. The Scottish Government have missed their own legal emissions targets and the SNP has broken its promise to extend Scotland’s broadband fibre network. That is a catalogue of failure by the SNP, yet SNP Members come here today arguing for more uncertainty, more delay, more constitutional upheaval and yet another independence referendum.

[Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)]

In thinking of certainties in this debate, I trust that the hon. Member shares with me a great gratitude to the armed forces. Regardless of whether they are Welsh, Scottish, English or Irish, they cross borders into Wales and Scotland to come and help to defeat the virus. I think we can all be proud of the armed forces of the United Kingdom.

[John Lamont]

I am grateful for that important point, which is a useful reminder of the important role that our armed forces have played in tackling this pandemic. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for reminding the House of that.

I am not entirely sure why SNP Members claim to support independence for Scotland, because if they had their way, they would be rushing to give that independence straight back to the European Union by joining it again. They would be handing newly acquired powers back from Scotland to the European Commission; handing back control of our fishing waters to the European Commission; and dragging Scotland back into the hated common fisheries policy.

The SNP lacks ambition for our great nation of Scotland. I am sad to see the division and uncertainty in Scotland that the SNP is stoking up in an attempt to score political points. The SNP will use any means to push for its independence obsession. It will not come as any surprise to the House that I will not support the SNP’s motion. The SNP is desperately trying to undermine the UK and the UK internal market, putting Scottish jobs and the livelihoods of my constituents and other Scots at risk.

It is the UK Government who are putting the protection of Scottish businesses and jobs at the heart of their approach, both in their EU negotiations and in tackling this pandemic. I support them in everything they are doing to achieve that.

Future Relationship with the EU

John Lamont Excerpts

Tuesday 9th June 2020 Commons Chamber

[Penny Mordaunt]

Of course, not only the Cabinet Office but many other Government Departments have negotiations with a wide range of stakeholders, including the unions. The British people value the things that the hon. Gentleman has spoken about. They value their rights. They value high standards. They value high environmental standards, and all the other things that many Members care about, because they know their constituents care about them. On these things, including particularly on employment law, the UK has led the pack, so I would say to him: have a little faith. It is his job not to trust the Government, but he should trust the people.

[John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)]

The Minister will understand that many of Scotland’s fishermen voted to leave the European Union to retake control of our fishing waters, so can she assure me that the UK will not compromise on our fishing rights and that the EU will need to accept that the UK will become an independent coastal nation by the end of 2020?

[Penny Mordaunt]

I can give my hon. Friend that reassurance. We want a separate fisheries framework that reflects our rights in international law. Our requests are simple, reasonable and straightforward. We want the EU to recognise those rights, recognise us as a sovereign equal, and come to the negotiating table with renewed vigour to ensure that we can get that agreement and a deal.