European Union (Withdrawal) Act

Debate between Kirsty Blackman and Patrick Grady

Monday 14th January 2019 Commons Chamber

[Kirsty Blackman]

I think the UK Government are trying to say as little as possible about the economic analysis because they know that Brexit will damage the economy.

I am specifically focusing on the economy, but I will talk about other things in a few moments. Investors have pulled $1.01 trillion out of UK equity funds since the 2016 referendum. That is an eye-wateringly large figure, and it comes as a direct result of the referendum according to Emerging Portfolio Fund Research, a data provider.

The Scottish Government have said that our GDP would be £9 billion lower under a free trade agreement—that is not under a no-deal scenario—than if we stayed in the EU. Amazingly, the figure is significantly more than even the most Unionist of commentators said that independence would cost the Scottish people. We are stuck with the UK, which is making terrible decisions and cutting more off our GDP than even those least in favour of independence said that independence would cut from our GDP.

[Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)]

My hon. Friend is making a fantastic point. Is not the core of her argument that nobody, however they voted in the 2016 European referendum, voted to become poorer? That is all the more reason to put this to the people again in a people’s vote so that folk can have their say now that they know what the consequences of Brexit actually are.

[Kirsty Blackman]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. People were told stories about unicorns and mermaids. They were told that there would be amazing economic largesse in the event of Brexit, and they have been told that for a huge number of years, and not just in relation to the Brexit vote. People have been told by politicians that those who choose to come to live and work in this country make us poorer, which is an absolute lie. Those people contribute to our GDP, they contribute to reducing our public sector net debt and they contribute to our economy, and that is without going into the cultural and social benefits.

Finance (No. 3) Bill

Debate between Kirsty Blackman and Patrick Grady

Committee: 1st sitting: House of Commons
Monday 19th November 2018 Commons Chamber

[Kirsty Blackman]

I agree. The Reading Room provided for the cross-Whitehall analysis was not fit for purpose, in that I could not go there and mull over the papers in the way that I would normally do. Generally, if I am presented with a Finance Bill, for example, I will sit at home and read it. That is what I like to do on a Saturday night. I will sit at home and read these things. We have to be able to access any analysis that is published in a way that suits us, and releasing it publicly would be the best possible way to do this. Another reason for doing that is that the external stakeholders could provide their comments in the best possible way, so I entirely support the hon. Gentleman’s suggestion.

New clause 11 asks for a report on the consultations that have, or have not, been carried out in relation to the tax measures. As I said on Second Reading, not enough of the tax measures in the Bill were consulted on this year. I understand that there were more such consultations in previous years. If we do not want the Government to have to row back next year because they have screwed something up as a result of inadequate consultation, it will be important for these tax measures to be published and consulted on and for us to get the expert advice that we need from the stakeholders.

Clause 90 is just bizarre. I read it, and then I had to go back and read it again because I could not believe that a clause would give the Government the power to spend whatever they liked. It does not cap the spend on the emissions reduction trading scheme’s preparatory expenditure. I was genuinely confused about how the Government could propose that. The clause will give the Government carte blanche. Our amendment 9 and our new clause 10 ask for a Commons resolution and an expenditure review before that expenditure can take place. We think it reasonable—and I am sure the general public would think it reasonable—that if the Government want to spend money on something, they should tell us how much they intend to spend.

The Government are spending money to stand still. This is a cost, and the Government have to spend the money for things to be exactly the same after Brexit as they are today. It is a cost that we would not have if we were not leaving the European Union. The Minister talked about the estimates process. I am pleased that he is as interested and excited by the estimates process as I am. I talk on the estimates whenever I possibly can. There are two parts to the estimates process: one in February and the other in July. I am not sure whether this money counts as in-year spend or as part of next year’s spend. We might be able to discuss it in February, which would be great, because at least that would be before we leave the EU. However, if it is classed as next year’s expenditure, we might not be able to discuss it until July, by which point the money will have been spent.

[Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)]

We can discuss this all we like during the estimates process, but does my hon. Friend agree that it is incredibly difficult to actually vote on any of this? Despite all the promises made when the English votes for English laws system was introduced, it really is impossible for Members of Parliament to have a say on specific aspects of Government spending through the estimates process.

[Kirsty Blackman]

That is absolutely the case. The Minister’s comments about the lack of ability to scrutinise spend in the Finance Bill were incredibly illuminating. The reality is that we cannot adequately scrutinise or amend spend anywhere. I was talking to some people about the Budget process and the Finance Bill in the last couple of weeks, and about how the two fit together. I explained that we discuss tax in the Finance Bill, but that we do not discuss spend until the estimates process. Some spending measures will come through, at which point we will sanction them. For example, if the immigration Bill comes forward, we would imagine that it would have some spend associated with it, and we will debate that spend at that time. But a huge proportion of the billions of pounds that the Government spend on a regular basis is only ever discussed during the departmental estimates, which we cannot amend or change. I do not understand how we can have a Parliament that is supposed to be so powerful and supposed to be taking back control when we do not have control over Government spend, which is surely fundamental to how the Government behave.

Banking Misconduct and the FCA

Debate between Kirsty Blackman and Patrick Grady

Thursday 10th May 2018 Commons Chamber

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

I will not say that it is a pleasure to speak in this debate, because it is not. The stories that we have heard from across the House today are absolutely harrowing. It is clear that each one of us represents constituents who have been affected by what RBS, GRG or one of the other banks have done in the pursuit of profit.

I must declare an interest: my cousin, her husband and their four children were one of the families who were affected by RBS and GRG. In fact, their business was put into the GRG and, as late as 2016, they were made homeless as a result of GRG repossessing the farm in which they lived, so a couple with four children were made homeless by GRG. I felt that it was important that I declared that as an interest.

One of my constituents, who I hope is in the Public Gallery today, has also been to see me in relation to his experiences with GRG. I will not say exactly what GRG did, because that has been widely covered by a number of Members this afternoon. His wife suffered a cardiac arrest as a result of the stress and subsequently died. We have also heard about people committing suicide as a result of what happened with GRG. One Conservative Member—I apologise, but I forget who—talked about the fact that companies jumped through all the hoops they were asked to jump through and yet were still relentlessly pursued for money that they were said to owe because of over-inflated interest rates. This was a relentless pursuit of profit. My constituent who approached me is very clear that there needs to be a public inquiry, and I absolutely agree with him.

This issue has destroyed lives. It is impossible to overestimate how hard it is to be a small business owner anyway. It is difficult to run a small and medium-sized business, particularly if a person has not run one before. It is also a lonely occupation. A person is there trying to run a business by themselves. They may never have done that before, and their bank is supposed to be there to support them; they are supposed to be there to provide them with finance to ensure that they can run a successful business. They are not supposed to pursue people for the assets that they want to gain for themselves.

We have not covered how much of a cabal this situation has involved. The reality is that a very small number of people were running GRG. In fact, some practices that have been raised with me involved these people trying to cover their own backs by encouraging one small business owner to take over the assets of another small business owner at a particularly low price, so that that person’s balance book could look wrong. It is horrendous if those things happened, but they were able to happen because of the very small nature of such organisations and the fact that people were not able to talk about them because they were being told that they were in debt.

[Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)]

I, too, have had constituents affected by this, and I agree with many comments made throughout the debate. My hon. Friend is making the case for a public inquiry, otherwise it will fuel suspicions that there is an attempt to continue to keep this matter away from the public eye. She also highlights the fact that we are talking about the Global Restructuring Group. Does she agree that the Minister needs to tell us whether there is international exposure on the activities of the Royal Bank of Scotland—that is, whether these practices were used in some of its overseas activities and whether it is liable for the results of any such behaviour?

[Kirsty Blackman]

This has not been widely covered in anything that has been published so far in relation to GRG. It would therefore be incumbent on any inquiry to take that into account.

The hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) mentioned the issues with the section 166 report and what was initially published. He made an important point, and I echo his sentiments. For hon. Members who have not read the report, it makes for devastating reading and is worth looking at.

The reality is that the redress scheme is not good enough. For a start, it does not have enough money to compensate victims adequately for what has happened to them. RBS will never be able to afford to fund all the claims being made by small or medium-sized businesses. As the redress scheme is run by the bank itself, it is fairly easy for the bank just to pay out to the victims, where the bank now has majority ownership and is therefore one of the main creditors. If there is not adequate external scrutiny, such situations can arise without check.

GRG was in the wrong. Everybody in this House agrees that GRG was in the wrong. RBS agrees that GRG is in the wrong, which is why it has a redress scheme. It is clear that the time for talking has passed. All of us standing around here are clear that something needs to be done. This issue has united the House, which does not happen very often. It is in the power of the Government to take actual action and to create a real system with proper redress.

Carillion and Public Sector Outsourcing

Debate between Kirsty Blackman and Patrick Grady

Wednesday 24th January 2018 Commons Chamber

[Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)]

My hon. Friend makes some important points. Do not the Government need to send a strong signal to public sector bodies that are issuing contracts that best value does not necessarily or always mean the cheapest? The problem is that companies undercut each other because they think that is how to get the contract, and the local authority thinks it has to take the cheapest, rather than the best value that will deliver the best quality service.

[Kirsty Blackman]

I agree. As a local authority councillor, I worked under the best value regime looking at contracts and tenders. I judged them, not just on the best price, but on best value and the quality of service provided, and whether the companies would be able to deliver what they said they would when they tendered for a contract. Something has gone wrong in the system. I do not know if that is because of Tory austerity, which has resulted in a squeeze on contracts in the public sector and a drive to ensure that contracts are awarded to the cheapest bids, rather than those that provide best value. Given the collapse of Carillion, the Government need to look carefully at the reasons behind awarding all those contracts to ensure that this can never happen again.

I see you shoogling in your seat, Madam Deputy Speaker. I will just take another minute. The Public Accounts Committee warned of the risks of contractors paid from the public purse becoming too big to fail; unfortunately, the Government did not heed the warning and continued to award the contracts. I think—I hope—the Minister would agree with me that it is disgraceful that the contracts were awarded and Carillion continued to line the pockets of its shareholders despite not being in a position to fulfil the contracts. Clearly there are major structural issues with the awarding of contracts. I hope that this is the beginning of the UK Government looking seriously at the matter and making proper changes to ensure that these events can never happen again.