Oral Answers to Questions

Margaret Ferrier Excerpts

Tuesday 28th February 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gauke]

Although, as you say, Mr Speaker, there may perhaps have been a slightly tenuous link with the question, it was still a predictable question from my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Sir Gerald Howarth). We are delivering on the 2%-plus expenditure commitment on defence, and we are increasing defence spending in real terms. Again, it is important that we have a strong economy so that we can properly fund our defence.

[Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (SNP)]

The shocking revelation that NHS Shared Business Services Ltd misplaced more than 500,000 pieces of sensitive medical data is a direct result of a health service that is being squeezed by the Chancellor’s purse strings. The Tory Government are clearly putting patient safety at risk through lack of resourcing and a targeted savings drive. Will the Chancellor immediately reassess the situation and the level of NHS funding?

[Mr Gauke]

On the level of NHS funding, the hon. Lady will find that expenditure has gone up more in England than it has in Scotland. Given that it is a devolved matter, she might want to raise her concerns with the Scottish Government.

Christmas Adjournment

Margaret Ferrier Excerpts

Tuesday 20th December 2016 Commons Chamber

[Siobhain McDonagh (Mitcham and Morden) (Lab)]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. By now, hon. Members may have seen my break into the music industry with “National Living Rage”, a Christmas song that I recorded with a number of Labour Members last week. Derided by some, adored by others—my mum—I am delighted that the song has had its desired effect of generating national attention for the serious issue of pay cuts. It has had 40,000 hits on YouTube and been laughed at on everything from “Daily Politics” to Channel 4’s “The Last Leg”, but it has got a serious message out in the public domain by humorous means.

These cuts are being made by some good employers who have made a bad decision when it comes to older, long-standing staff. I want to take a moment to consider the tens of thousands of workers who face a pay cut this Christmas—those families who have to bear the pressure of selling their house or finding another job just to make ends meet. Christmas should be a time of good will to all men and women, but a disappointing roll call of employers are being scrooges this year. Instead of delivering presents, they are serving their loyal, long-standing staff with pay cuts and notices. From B&Q to Marks & Spencer, 2 Sisters Food Group, Waitrose, Caffè Nero and EAT, good employers are getting it wrong, using the introduction of a higher statutory minimum wage as an opportunity to cut total staff pay.

No one in this House should be under any illusion that this is some sort of niche issue—on the contrary, it is affecting residents in every constituency across the country. It is estimated that about 11,000 of the iconic high street retailer Marks & Spencer’s total workforce of 83,000 would be negatively impacted in some way by pay cuts—that is 13% of the workforce adversely affected, almost all of whom are on pre-2002 contracts. Some 2,700 workers will lose more than £1,000 a year, and 700 will lose more than £2,000 a year. Approximately more than half a million people in the retail, restaurant and food manufacturing industries will receive a pay cut—that is about 13% of the total number of workers in those industries. Many of the companies involved are high street names with historically good reputations, but they have made some terrible errors of judgment. It is not too late for them to change their minds, and I am asking all of them to reverse their decisions to cut staff pay at their January board meetings. Should those companies not change their minds, I hope the Government will step in and salvage their policy for all workers.

I have seen evidence that proves that many other companies are planning the same sort of pay cuts in the coming year. The chair of John Lewis, Sir Charlie Mayfield, stated in a private meeting earlier this year his intention to review the partnership’s “historic premium pay arrangements”, which he said were not in keeping with John Lewis’s competitors. We know what the John Lewis Partnership’s competitors are doing, so clearly the “review” of “legacy payments” is just a euphemism for the cutting of pay for long-standing staff. We have already seen clear evidence of that in Waitrose’s decision earlier this year to take away paid breaks from new and existing staff. The House will appreciate my frustration when Sir Charlie emailed me to say that he no longer had any intention of meeting me today. Buster, the boxer from John Lewis’s heart-warming Christmas ad, and I are very sad not to have the opportunity to discuss John Lewis’s plans for pay cuts. Can we assume that the decision not to meet me is an admission of guilt on its part? I guess that Buster and I will not know for sure until those pay cuts are announced in the coming year.

If I am wrong about John Lewis, I will happily return to this House and publicly apologise. I will be delighted to be wrong about John Lewis—it is a great British business that got great through great customer service from well-treated staff, the sort of people whom the Prime Minister describes as those giving their best and putting in the effort. I am happy to apologise if I am wrong and I reiterate to Sir Charlie that I would be happy to meet him and discuss this important issue wherever and whenever he likes.

Having concentrated on unscrupulous employment practices, I know that corporate executives are watching every move in Parliament so, through you, Mr Deputy Speaker, I want to deliver a message to all those company CEOs and chairmen of boards. The campaign to ensure that no one in this country loses money as a result of the national living wage will continue into the new year, until every worker gets the pay that they so richly deserve. My colleagues and I will be writing to chairmen this week to ask for their contract changes to be reversed at the January board meetings.

I want to use these last few minutes to express my deep concern for the Ahmadiyya Muslim community in Pakistan and in this country.

[Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (SNP)]

As vice-chair of the all-party group on the Ahmadiyya Muslim community, I want to say that we all stand in solidarity with them wherever they are in the world. Does the hon. Lady agree that we should always speak out against religious persecution, wherever it occurs and whoever it falls on?

[Siobhain McDonagh]

I agree with the hon. Lady: whatever the religion and wherever people are, we must stand up for religious tolerance.

There have been two worrying developments overseas. The first was a raid in Rabwah, where 16 fully armed policemen and 12 plain-clothed officers from three police vehicles forced entry into an Ahmadi office without a warrant, wounding and arresting four innocent Ahmadi men. The raid was unlawful and most likely ordered by the highest ranking officials in the Punjab province.

The second was the destruction of the historic Chakwal mosque, which was attacked by more than 1,000 people a week ago. Stones were pelted and the property was burnt to

“bring it under the influence of Islam.”

I need not remind hon. Members that Ahmadis are not allowed to define themselves as Muslim in Pakistan. I hope that all hon. Members will stand together to express their solidarity with the Ahmadi Muslim community and I ask the Foreign Secretary to do all he can to stand with the oppressed and persecuted Ahmadi people.

Finally, I wish all my constituents in Mitcham and Morden, all hon. Members and you, Mr Deputy Speaker, a very merry Christmas and a peaceful new year.

Sale of Annuities

Margaret Ferrier Excerpts

Wednesday 19th October 2016 Commons Chamber

[Simon Kirby]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right: two wrongs, sadly, do not make a right. The Government are committed to giving people pension freedoms so that they can choose what to do with their money, because that is the right choice to make, but, in this particular and individual circumstance, it was not the appropriate way forward.

[Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (SNP)]

My constituent, Mr Anderson, contacted me and advised me that, despite the risks, he planned to take up the option of selling his annuity. I wrote to the Treasury and was assured only 19 days ago:

“The Government remains committed to delivering these proposals”.

Yesterday’s announcement is a betrayal of people such as Mr Anderson. I notice that the Minister did not answer the question a few minutes ago, so what exactly do the Government suggest that Mr Anderson and others do now?

[Simon Kirby]

Obviously, Mr Anderson is as important as all the other people who, no doubt, will be very interested in this announcement. It transpired through consultation that a very small percentage of people would be better off. We were looking at legislation that would oblige the Government to provide guidance and advice; in the vast—very vast—majority of cases, that advice would be that it would not be appropriate and in the consumer’s best interests to proceed. There is no easy answer, but at the end of the day, I am not going to allow vulnerable older people to take advantage of what may, superficially, seem a good deal, but what, in the long term, is a poor one.

House of Lords Reform and Size of the House of Commons

Margaret Ferrier Excerpts

Wednesday 19th October 2016 Commons Chamber

[Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (SNP)]

My disgust at the undemocratic, unaccountable, unrepresentative House of Lords has been aired in this place on a number of occasions. Let us be clear that there is absolutely no case in any kind of modern democracy for the number of unelected peers to so greatly exceed the number of democratically elected Members in this place. It is quite simply astounding that plans to slash the number of democratically elected MPs are proceeding, further widening the gross disparity—

[Michael Gove]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

--- Later in debate ---

[Margaret Ferrier]

No, I am not giving way.

Boundary proposals have been issued. Tomorrow, Scottish voters will wake up to the news of a complete reshuffle of Westminster constituencies north of the border and firm proposals to remove six of their MPs. People will rightly be outraged.

It is vital that the Government understand that outrage and acknowledge that frustration. The reason that so many formerly disfranchised voters registered en masse and voted yes in the Scottish independence referendum was that they were fed up with the unrepresentative nature of the democratic process. They felt that Westminster did not speak to them or for them. We stand for doing things the way they ought to be done—for having a vibrant, representative democracy that reflects our diverse society. Those of us in the SNP will never take seats in an appointed Chamber.

Around a quarter of Lords appointments since 1997 have been former MPs who lost elections or resigned. It is no wonder that so many people in the UK feel disillusioned and disfranchised when unsuccessful ex-MPs get returned to our democracy through the back door. Although rejected at the ballot box, the appointed peers are able to collect £300 tax-free per day just for turning up. Between February 2014 and January 2015, £21 million was spent on Lords’ allowances and expenses. That will continue to rise as the already bloated House of Lords continues to see its ranks swell. We are told that the purpose of reducing the number of MPs is to cut the cost of democracy, so why is the cost of the Lords allowed to spiral ever upwards?

I would be doing a disservice to myself and my party if I did not acknowledge that some peers are incredibly hard working and conscientious. Some contribute a great deal to society, and I have had the pleasure of working with them in a constructive manner on all-party groups.

[Dr Lisa Cameron (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (SNP)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that part of the fundamental difficulty is that peers appear to be selected for who they know rather than elected for what they know?

[Margaret Ferrier]

My hon. Friend makes an extremely good point. That is the problem, and that is why there are so many of them.

The efforts of the Members of the House of Lords whom I was talking about do not go unnoticed, and so they should surely have nothing to fear from standing for election to a democratic second Chamber. There have even been occasions when the House of Lords has played an important role in blocking or amending legislation. Imagine how much more important a function our second Chamber could play in shaping legislation if it were fully elected and fully representative. More than half of peers are over 70. I know we are facing an ageing population but to even suggest that that is representative of wider society is absurd. Twice as many peers used to work for the royal family as have worked in skilled or manual labour. That simply is not right and cannot deliver the real-life experience needed in an effective second Chamber.

It simply is not right that the boundary plans proceed. We need plans to vastly reduce the number of peers and a full review of reform of the House of Lords. In the meantime, the Government must discard their plans to reduce the number of democratically elected Members of Parliament.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

I apologise to the two speakers who cannot get in, but I have to call the Front Benchers. I am sorry about that, but the interventions have killed us.

Summer Adjournment

Margaret Ferrier Excerpts

Thursday 21st July 2016 Commons Chamber

[Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (SNP)]

I wish to speak about a very important matter that affects many people in Scotland. It is certainly not the first time the issue has been raised in this place, but, unfortunately, in the light of the circumstances, it needs to be brought to the Government’s attention again.

Yesterday, when giving evidence to the Defence Committee on naval procurement for the Type 26 frigates, First Sea Lord and Chief of the Naval Staff, Tony Douglas, replied in response to a question on when the Type 26 design would be approved, “I can’t give you a time or a date. It could be next year.” This suggestion could in effect place the Type 26 programme on the Clyde on an indefinite delay. That would be wholly unacceptable and nothing short of a betrayal of the workers on the Clyde.

The Ministry of Defence needs to come forward and be absolutely clear, open and honest about the level of uncertainty that the Type 26 programme faces. The new Minister with responsibility for defence procurement, the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, the hon. Member for West Worcestershire (Harriett Baldwin), could give none of the assurances on the future of the contract that were promised to the Clyde shipyards. Yet again, the future of the programme has been cast into very serious doubt.

That news came less than 48 hours after the Tories trooped through the Division Lobby—accompanied, unfortunately, by many of their allies on the Labour Benches—to vote en masse for the renewal of Trident. A blank cheque has in effect been written for weapons of mass destruction. On Monday, my hon. Friend the Member for Argyll and Bute (Brendan O’Hara) asked the Defence Secretary whether the massive expense of Trident and the recent analysis by the Institute for Fiscal Studies showing that UK GDP might be reduced by up to 3.5% as a result of the Brexit vote would result in a black hole in the public finances of up to £40 billion in 2020, and what that would mean for defence procurement. The Defence Secretary could not give an answer.

[Bob Stewart]

Economists seem to get it consistently wrong. They got it wrong on Brexit. They cannot talk about 2020 when, as far as I can see, they cannot even get it right for next week. Their forecasts are always wrong.

[Margaret Ferrier]

It does not matter what the figure is; we are going to spend up to £205 billion on a weapon of mass destruction that could kill hundreds of thousands of people worldwide—it is based in Scotland—so I am sorry, but I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman.

The UK’s nuclear weapons programme has a major knock-on effect for the rest of the defence procurement budget. Other massive projects are in the pipeline, including the Type 26 frigates, but the ring-fencing and generous contingencies for Trident are no doubt affecting that project. The workers on the Clyde appear to be paying the price for the obsession on the Government Benches with Trident and Brexit.

I cannot stress enough how much of a betrayal this represents for those shipyard workers, their families and the communities that depend on this work. They have had assurance after assurance from the UK Government, both in this place and from the Scottish Tories, but are now suffering from the continuing uncertainty over and mismanagement of the Type 26 programme. Every penny spent on Trident is a penny less for conventional defence, including the Type 26 frigates.

GMB Scotland organiser Gary Cook admitted in April that £750 million had been removed from the Type 26 programme’s budget. On several occasions during Monday’s debate, the issue of jobs was brought up—when we voice our concern about weapons of mass destruction we are told to shut up and be grateful for the jobs. Without doubt, those jobs come at the expense of other people’s livelihoods. It seems the Government care about defence jobs only when it suits their agenda.

Leaked emails have shown that delays in the delivery of the Type 26 global combat vessels will cost the taxpayer more money than proceeding with the work would. The Type 26 frigates were due to be built by BAE Systems, with work beginning in December. The Ministry of Defence then asked for savings of £500 million over five years, refusing BAE’s Systems’ offer of saving £275 million while still beginning work on time. The delays have put jobs at risk, and the suggestion in the leaked emails that those delays will end up costing the taxpayer more money in the long term has been echoed by former First Sea Lord Admiral Lord West. The delays show the Government’s ideological obsession with making cuts, no matter the cost. By going back on the original deal and rejecting BAE Systems’ offer, the Tories have confirmed that they are prepared to put jobs at risk and waste taxpayers’ money by pursuing cuts across all sectors of Government.

[Steven Paterson]

The point that shines through all this is that assurances were given to workers on the Clyde in 2014. Promises were made that have been betrayed. In a week when we have committed to a 40-year programme on Trident, it really sticks in the craw that those workers are still waiting for the promises made in 2014 to be delivered.

[Margaret Ferrier]

My hon. Friend takes the words right out of my mouth. I was just about to say that Scotland has come to expect cuts and broken promises from this Government. We remember the pledges that were made just a couple of years ago. The Tory Government told us during the independence referendum that jobs in shipbuilding would be safe if Scotland voted no. If the very clear promises made to workers on the Clyde by the UK Government before the referendum were to be broken, it would be an unforgivable betrayal of that workforce, and people in Glasgow and across Scotland would not be quick to forget.

Now that I have got that out of the way, on a lighter note, I would like to take this opportunity to wish Mr Speaker, his deputies and all Members of the House of Commons a very enjoyable, relaxing and safe summer recess. I thank all the estate staff, including those at the Table Office and the House of Commons Library, the Doorkeepers, and all the people who serve us in the Tea Room and other cafeterias, including Noeleen, who I wish all the best. A special thanks must go to the Clerks and staff who look after me and other hon. Members on the Scottish Affairs Committee—I wanted to get that on the record. I will be spending my time during the recess as we all will, back in my constituency, working hard. However, we have to have a break to recharge our batteries before returning to Parliament in September. I wish everyone a happy summer.

Supply and Estimates Procedure

Margaret Ferrier Excerpts

Wednesday 20th July 2016 Westminster Hall

[Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (SNP)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered reform of the supply and estimates procedure.

It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Evans. I am delighted to have secured this brief but important debate. It has taken some time for me as a new Member to become acquainted with some of the workings of the House. Some procedures are fairly straightforward, others completely bewildering, and some rather insufficient. I do not feel that it is entirely unfair to say that the supply and estimates process—the way in which Parliament approves spending—is both bewildering and insufficient. That view is shared by many hon. Members across the House. Both the current and previous Chairs of the Public Accounts Committee have been scathing of the estimates process. Several academics have also raised serious concerns about it, and some have given evidence to that effect to Committees of the House.

Dealing with complex spending plans is never likely to be a straightforward matter, but the Supply and estimates process is in dire need of reform if we are to ensure that Parliament can exercise real scrutiny of the Government’s finances. I welcome the current inquiry being held by the Procedure Committee on the Government’s Supply estimates, and I hope that the Leader of the House will engage with the Committee on the recommendations that are likely to be made.

I will speak about the wider matter of Supply estimates today, but I want to focus particularly on the implications of devolution. In reality, the estimates process is an outdated system, designed before devolution, that does not function as an effective scrutiny of Government finances. There is no real opportunity for MPs to give expenditure the scrutiny it deserves, unlike nearly every other Parliament in the world; the Parliaments of the UK and Chile are the only two that do not have the freedom to examine and adjust spending. That is yet another example of why Westminster needs to be dragged, kicking and screaming, into the 21st century.

At present, we are offered blunt tools to amend estimates. We can vote to reduce expenditures for the entire Department for which we are debating a Select Committee report. However, we can vote down all Government spending—something that has not happened in 111 years. The estimates process is not fit for purpose. It allows the scrutiny of Select Committee reports but not the scrutiny of estimates. Topics to be debated are decided by the Liaison Committee. It is unreasonable to expect that Committee alone to represent all the interests of the House in debatable estimates motions within the confines of three days each Session. If we want to scrutinise Barnett consequentials fully, we need a lot more than the estimates days allowed by Standing Order No. 54.

[Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important and timely debate. I am a member of the Procedure Committee and I am taking part in the inquiry she referred to. In that inquiry, Professor David Heald from the University of Glasgow, which is in my constituency, gave his view that the estimates process is completely irrelevant to the Barnett process. That view is borne out in other evidence we received and stands in complete contradiction to what the House, the Scottish National party and Scottish Members in particular were told during the English votes for English laws process, which was that our opportunity to scrutinise the consequences of EVEL legislation would be through the estimates process.

[Margaret Ferrier]

It is good to see a member of the Procedure Committee here today. He will be fully up to speed with everything that is happening there. We look forward to the report—we hope that it will be published in November this year—and I hope the Government listen to its recommendations and respond constructively.

As I said, three days is completely inadequate. Furthermore, it is an oddity that more time is given to supplementary estimates than main estimates. After all, main estimates are where the vast majority of the decision making occurs. It seems eminently logical to switch the number of days available at the very least, so that two are set aside for consideration of main estimates and one for supplementary estimates. My hon. Friend the Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart), the SNP shadow Leader of the House, who has joined us in this debate, has submitted written evidence to the Procedure Committee’s inquiry into the estimates procedure in which he makes a common-sense proposal to allow both Opposition days and Backbench Business Committee days during the estimates windows, which should take the form of amendable or debatable motions to approve estimates or parts of estimates.

My hon. Friend also advocated the case advanced by the hon. Members for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) and for Southport (John Pugh) back in 2012 for the establishment of a separate Budget Committee to examine Government expenditure plans and to make recommendations to the House. I, too, think that has great merit and warrants serious consideration. It is currently all too easy for the Treasury to bury important changes within hundreds of pages of information. We owe it to the taxpayer to ensure both transparency and effective scrutiny, neither of which are possible in the current system. A Budget Committee would allow for a much more thorough inspection of spending proposals and could complement a heavily reformed Supply and estimates process. Such a Committee should also play a vital role in the scrutiny of Barnett consequentials to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

Furthermore, Westminster should introduce a proper Budget expenditure debate, such as those held in the United States or the Scottish Parliament. That sensible measure would allow a much closer assessment of spending. The compelling case for the inclusion of Barnett consequentials in estimates has been further compounded by the introduction of English votes for English laws. The complicated EVEL process reduces the ability of Scottish MPs to influence matters with funding implications for Scotland. The Leader of the House has repeatedly claimed that the estimates process provides a suitable avenue for us to affect those matters of great financial importance. However, in reality, it does not.

The Chair of the Procedure Committee, the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker), said during an oral evidence session of that Committee last September:

“the way we execute Estimates and appropriations is less than satisfactory in the House of Commons, and for those colleagues who are concerned about Barnett consequentials, perhaps the concerns could be alleviated if we had proper debates around supply procedure.”

Legislation that might be considered to fall within the rules for the exclusion of non-English MPs might have important expenditure implications for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. The previous Leader of the House showed reticence in accepting that fact. I urge the new Leader of the House to give proper consideration to the argument being put forward. Will he agree to review the interaction between the Supply and estimates procedure and EVEL arrangements as part of the review of the latter?

Legislation passes through the House that could have a significant impact on the block grant available to the devolved legislators. Members who represent constituencies in the devolved nations are now denied a right to vote at crucial stages of that legislation. Many other Members and I have raised serious concerns regarding Barnett consequentials and the effect that such legislation could have upon them. The Government contend that the estimates process provides ample opportunity for all Members to address that. However, there exists a complete lack of relevant information available to Members regarding amounts derived from each Department’s spending, which makes up elements of the block grants. That is wholly inadequate.

Pursuant to Budgets and autumn statements each year, the Treasury provides information to the devolved Administrations of the amount within the block grant derived from the spending of each Department. However, Members of this Parliament are not given access to that information when they are asked to give formal approval to Government spending. It seems incomprehensible that absolutely no consideration is possible of the full implications of Government spending, including the effect on the budgets of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Will the Leader of the House engage with the Treasury specifically on that issue?

The current measures for the estimates day debates were put in place before the process of establishing separate legislatures for the devolved nations commenced, so there is a fundamental inadequacy in how we examine Barnett consequentials under the current process. As a member of the Scottish Affairs Committee, I heard evidence last September from Sir William McKay, who said:

“There is neither possibility nor opportunity”

to do so, and that

“estimates opportunities are limited in both time and matter.”

In fact, he commented that EVEL is “a dog’s breakfast”—a phrase my hon. Friend the Member for Perth and North Perthshire loves to use in the Chamber.

In evidence recently given to the Procedure Committee, Dr Joachim Wehner, associate professor of public policy at the London School of Economics, said:

“The UK generally does extremely well in terms of macro fiscal disclosure, but it does less well when you look at the details of public spending. That is a weak spot in the overall transparency assessment of the UK. So the quality of the estimates is below par compared to the UK’s own high standards in this area, but also compared to its peers and other OECD countries.”

The mother of Parliaments, like many mothers, is not as in touch with the modern world as its younger descendants. The OECD wrote that we have some of the worst levels of scrutiny of estimates of any country in the developed democratic world. The House does not formally consider, debate, amend and vote on expenditure in the same way as with the Budget and taxation. There simply must be more opportunity to consider, debate and make amendments. MPs should have some measures to amend or affect estimates short of attempting to vote down all Government spending. There must be a way for Members to amend spending without having to defeat the Government on a major money motion. If nothing else, such a system makes minority Budgets much harder and, in doing so, cements a tendency in this place to move towards a two-party system with power pooling with the Executive. That is not a healthy way for a democratic country to operate.

Before I summarise, I would like to quote Adam Tomkins MSP, professor of public law at the University of Glasgow and the Scottish Conservative spokesperson on the constitution. In his written evidence to the Procedure Committee, he said:

“Whether these procedures give MPs the means fully to scrutinise any Barnett consequentials of England-only or England and Wales-only legislation may be doubted. If they prove to be inadequate, it may be that one unintended consequence of EVEL will be to reform the House of Commons’ supply process. From the perspective of parliamentary openness and effective parliamentary scrutiny, that would be no bad thing. The Treasury, however, may take a different view.”

I urge the Leader of the House to engage specifically with the Treasury about reforms to the timing and presentation of estimates, including the case for draft estimates, and the need for clear information on Barnett consequentials, including a statement of change from the previous year. Will he agree to examine specifically any lessons that can be learned from the Scottish Parliament’s procedures on the consideration of spending? Will he agree to engage with the Procedure Committee about the likely recommendations of its current inquiry on this matter?

Will the Leader of the House agree to look at the arrangement for estimates days, with a view to increasing the number available and making more time for main estimates than supplementary ones? Will he have discussions with the Treasury, with a view to making estimates motions more easily amendable? Will he seek to engage with relevant parties to explore the merits of establishing a Budget Committee? Lastly, will he agree to review the interaction between Supply and estimates procedure and the arrangements for English votes for English laws as part of the review of the latter?

[Mr Nigel Evans (in the Chair)]

I welcome the Deputy Leader of the House to his new role.

Bank Branch Closures

Margaret Ferrier Excerpts

Thursday 30th June 2016 Commons Chamber

[Christian Matheson]

I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention, and I was about to make exactly the same point.

People drop into shopping areas such as Hoole to go to the bank and then perhaps to one of the local shops. Incidentally, Hoole recently won the outstanding award from the “Great British High Street” awards, for which I thank the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr Jones). I would be grateful if the Minister passed on my thanks to him.

The bank is very much part of the ecology of the local high street. If we take it away, we damage that ecology and the other small businesses that rely on it for increasing custom, as people pop to the bank and then to one of the small shops. We rely on it, too, to provide easy access to banks for small businesses, as my hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Nia Griffith) pointed out. Small businesses feel able to put up a small “back in 10 minutes” sign on their door in the middle of the day as they pop down to the local bank to get change or pay in money, but they would not feel able to put up a “back in two hours” sign if they were they forced to go into the city centre of Chester or indeed any large town. It is tough running small businesses and time away from the shop is business time lost.

For all the advantages of internet banking—and there are many—the blunt truth is that a small business cannot pay cash into the bank through a laptop computer. I cannot help but wonder whether all of this is made worse because of the advertising these banks use. No wonder HSBC moved away from calling itself “the world’s local bank”; yet we still have Lloyds bank saying that it has been “by our side” for 250 years—at the same time as it closes its Hoole branch. It is not by our side any more in Hoole, I am afraid. The very untruths of the advertising campaigns, claiming to be local and supportive of local small businesses, while making access to branches harder, exacerbates the crisis that we face—and it is a crisis.

Reuters reported last week that 600 branches closed in the 12 months to April this year. There is a social division in these closures. It says that more than 90% of the closures were in areas where the median household income was below the British average of £27,600, according to an analysis of Office for National Statistics data on average incomes in the locations where branches were closed. By comparison, five out of the eight branches opened by these banks over the same period were in some of the wealthiest neighbourhoods in Britain: Chelsea, Canary Wharf, St Paul’s, Marylebone and Clapham, all districts in London. That is right: despite the onward march of technology, banks are still opening new branches, but in highly affluent areas.

The Reuters report cites concerns from campaigners that

“banks are cutting too fast in places where people are less able to fall back on digital banking services because of a lack of access.”

That reminds me of the words of my good friend the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen) about the different ways in which access to banking services might be prevented. Problems can be caused by people’s finances, the lack of physical access or the inability to use the internet. The report quotes Fionn Travers Smith of Move Your Money, which campaigns for ethical banking. She says:

“We are witnessing the creation of a dual financial system: one for the middle class and wealthy and another for the poor.”

Indeed, I have found that one of the groups to be hardest hit by the recent closures in Chester are pensioners, not necessarily the most tech-savvy group—although I do not want to make assumptions—who now have to make the journey into the centre of my city.

[Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (SNP)]

On that point, I have been dealing with a constituency case in which a couple were conned out of their life savings—some £50,000—in a sophisticated telephone and online scam. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that forcing people to adopt these services rather than giving them the option of over-the-counter services serves only to enable organised crime and scams?

[Christian Matheson]

I have to say that the thought had not occurred to me, but I think that dreadful case illustrates a problem on which we should all focus. We can have a lot more confidence in dealing with a bank when we are inside a physical bank and dealing with an individual as opposed to being subjected to one these terrible scams. I am most grateful to the hon. Lady for bringing that awful case and awful problem to our attention.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ronnie Cowan (Inverclyde) (SNP)]

I am grateful for the opportunity to speak on a subject of particular importance to my constituents in Inverclyde. As Members are aware, there has been a steady decline in the number of bank branches over the past 20 years. Between 1997 and 2014, almost 4,000 bank branches closed across the UK. Worryingly, this rate of decline shows no sign of decreasing, with figures obtained by the BBC indicating that a further 600 branches closed between April 2015 and April 2016. Proportionately, Scotland, Wales and the south-west of England are the hardest hit by closures.

Unfortunately, Inverclyde has not been immune from the effects of this decline and in recent years there have been a number of prominent branch closures in my constituency. My constituents have clearly expressed their opinion about these closures. They feel frustrated and dissatisfied. They feel that their views about an important community service have not been respected.

[Margaret Ferrier]

I have been contacted by several of my constituents who are concerned about the branch closure of the Royal Bank of Scotland, which is just across the road from my constituency office in Cambuslang, and about the Clydesdale bank in Blantyre. They rely on over-the-counter services and no reasonable alternatives are being put forward. Does my hon. Friend agree that banks have a responsibility to these people, many of whom have been customers for many decades?

[Ronnie Cowan]

I certainly agree. When the Gourock branch shut in my constituency, the Royal Bank of Scotland gave me four alternatives within travelling distance, one of which is in Dunoon. Those with local knowledge will be aware that 5.72 miles from Gourock might seem fine, but it is not possible to drive there because it is across a body of water! A ferry journey there and back would be required. That is a good instance of where the geography of the area has not been taken into consideration.

When the Port Glasgow branch of RBS closed in 2012, my constituents were told that it was not a problem as they would still have access to the branches in the neighbouring towns of Kilmacolm and Greenock. When RBS took the decision last year to close the Kilmacolm branch, my constituents were told that that was not a problem as they would still have access to the Greenock branch. How long will it be until RBS tells my constituents that it is closing the Greenock branch, but that that is not a problem because there is a branch in Glasgow?

RBS made a promise that they would never close the “last bank in town”, but since 2014 that is precisely what they have done—165 times. Kilmacolm is now one such place without a bank. Instead, it is serviced by a mobile banking van of the kind we might see travelling around rural communities such as Mull or Iona. In January, RBS invited me to Kilmacolm to see how the new system and the mobile banking van worked in practice. I watched constituents lining up on the pavement in the pouring rain waiting to be served. They stood outside in the open, often with large sums of cash in their bags. When customers eventually reached the front of the queue, they had little or no privacy in which to carry out their personal banking. The procedure was even worse for elderly people and those with a disability, since the van’s narrow, steep and slippery stairs restricted accessibility. For example, a person in a wheelchair can expect to be served outside in the open, as it is physically impossible for them to enter the vehicle.

There was anger and frustration among customers using the service. Their most pressing concern was about the security of undertaking their personal banking in this way. The van was set up just metres from the empty shop unit that had once contained the permanent branch, which only compounded the agitation of customers as they stood in the rain waiting to be served. I have since revisited the van several times, and it is obvious that it is not an acceptable substitute for a bank branch permanently based in a community.

Gourock has also been hit by recent bank closures. Earlier this month, the Bank of Scotland closed the only remaining bank in the town. I appreciate that the way people bank is evolving and moving into the digital world—I wrote IT banking systems in a previous life—but it is important that all people within society be catered for, and that is not happening. The Bank of Scotland report into the Gourock branch closure showed that 44% of its customers were aged 55 or over, and undoubtedly some will not have been comfortable with online banking. That figure alone should have been sufficient to keep a branch open as a service to the community.

I know that banks undertake consultations and implement transitional arrangements, but are increased profits an acceptable excuse for providing a reduced service to the community? Perhaps a balance can be found, but I fear that branch closures are already undermining the service required by my constituents. Banks have an obligation to communities and play a key role in local economies. My constituency is fighting a war of attrition against economic stagnation and a declining population. High street bank closures are only making it harder for us to overcome those difficulties.

I shall end with a direct appeal to the major banks. I understand their need to evolve and adapt, but the closures have come too fast and lasted too long. It is time for that to end. I hope that the banks will give serious consideration to the concerns raised in the Chamber today.

Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

Margaret Ferrier Excerpts

Wednesday 16th March 2016 Commons Chamber

[Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (SNP)]

The Chancellor opened his Budget speech by telling the House that he is acting now so that we do not pay later. The UK is paying in the region of £37 billion a year in debt interest alone, greater than the entire Scottish block grant. Does the. Lady agree that although the Chancellor believes that that deficit will soon be eliminated, he has conveniently ignored the massive public debt that has been racked up?

[Alison McGovern]

I thank the hon. Lady for that intervention. I have asked the Chancellor in this House on a number of occasions whether he believes that he will ever see a surplus, not a deficit, before he leaves the Treasury for the last time. I have never had an answer.

On debt, in the last Parliament we were told that it would be falling by the end of the Parliament and, technically, it was. That was the fig leaf that saved the Chancellor’s shame as he sold assets to ensure that the debt fell. In fact, the OBR made it clear in July that this fire sale would make the difference between debt rising and falling as a share of GDP in 2015-16. What we have heard today is the Chancellor’s most significant next failure, because it finally removes that fig leaf. He has failed all the tests he set himself.

This is not, as I said, about economics. It has nothing to do with whether I think the Chancellor picked the right debt target. This is about what he promised the British people. I ask Ministers not to deal so lightly with the promises they make to the British people. The British people deserve better than that.

On the deficit, we should be cynical about the Government’s claims. They swept to power in 2010, saying that they could easily close the budget gap in one Parliament. It has not taken them one and it looks set to take them two, but here is the detail we can see in the Red Book. My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie) said earlier that these were heroic assumptions, and they are, because 60% of the surplus the Government say that they can get comes from just changing the timing of corporation tax arrangements. This is a fiddle and a fix and the British people will be deeply cynical of a Government who come to this Dispatch Box and say that they have fixed the roof while the sun shone when they have done nothing of the sort. Why should we ever believe them again? They have breached the welfare cap that they said they would stick to; they lost our credit rating.

I have set out why we should be deeply cynical about what the Chancellor said today. It gives me no great pride to encourage people to be cynical about what politicians say; our democracy is one of the best in the world and people should be able to believe what we say. However, worse than what the Chancellor did say was what he did not say. He left out of today’s Budget some profoundly important subjects. First, on banks, would it surprise this House to realise that as we speak important financial institutions such as building societies are still being hammered by the bank levy when they did absolutely nothing to cause the crash and should be the future of financial institutions in this country?

On the Women Against State Pension Inequality campaign, there was nothing at all. Deathly silence for the thousands of women in this country who fought for everything in their time at work and are now being hammered as they retire. There was not a single word from the Chancellor about the WASPI campaign, despite the fact that my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Owen Smith), the shadow Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, generously proposed cross-party arrangements for transitional payments to those women.

On the NHS, I am equally worried. There was no mention at all of record deficits in the NHS. We should be worrying about not just the budget deficit that but the deficit in trusts up and down the country that make me fearful about whether we can keep the doors of A&Es open. People believed the Tories when they mounted that NHS campaign. They believed that they had changed. I think we know now that they have not changed at all.

On that subject, the Chancellor made not a single mention of child poverty today. When the Tories backed the Child Poverty Act in 2009 and 2010, did any of us really think that just five years later, they would try to rip it from the statute books? Did any of us think that politicians could be so cynical as to turn their backs on children in poverty—to tell parents they were going to get a national living wage but remove the support, through the social security system, that goes to families that makes sure no child in our country is poor? I really do not think the British people thought that when the Tories told them they had changed, they would so quickly turn their backs.

I believe it is a disgrace that the capital gains tax cut that will hand out money to the rich is worth more than the pledge that the Tories have made on childcare. Even though they came to the country in May and said, “Never mind what the Labour party has done, providing support for childcare for the first time in our country’s history; we can better that,” at the first opportunity, in their Budget, they are prepared to spend more money on making rich people richer than on helping get families to work. That is a disgrace, and it will make people wonder what they voted for.

I am sorry to make a speech not about the economics, or about whether we should invest, or about what particular part of our economy could improve its productivity. I am sorry not to be here talking about the brilliant opportunities our country has, whether they are in science, or in our young people’s learning and the businesses they will run in future. It pains me that our democracy is reduced to this kind of spin. But the Chancellor, unfortunately, has given me no choice. I read that Red Book and I remain very cynical.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (PC)]

Diolch yn fawr iawn, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is a pleasure to speak in the debate, and to respond to the Budget on behalf of Plaid Cymru. Of all the commentary I have read in the weeks leading up to the Budget, the piece that by far most struck a chord with me was the article by Paul Mason in The Guardian. As we are all aware, the economic skies are darkening, and the Chancellor admitted as much in his statement. In my view, we are in the third stage of the great recession that hit the global economy in 2008. First came the banking crash in 2008, followed by a crisis in the eurozone, and now we face a major slowdown in the emerging economies, which will prove to be a massive headwind for the global economy.

It is no wonder, therefore, that the Chancellor’s prognosis is far darker than that in his autumn statement of only a few months ago. If a week is a long time in politics, three months is clearly a very long time in economic forecasting. In the OBR’s report, the very first point in the executive summary, point 1.1, states:

“In the short time since our November forecast, economic developments have disappointed and the outlook for the economy and the public finances looks materially weaker.”

That sums up this Budget in one small point. The Chancellor’s economic strategy since 2010 has been built around monetary expansion by the central bank to counteract his fiscal contraction. The major consequence of that has been a failure to rebalance the economy on a sectoral basis. We are even more reliant on consumer spending than we were before 2008; it accounts for two thirds of UK GDP. We are also facing another obvious bubble in house prices.

What we needed in the Budget was an emphasis on exports and business investment. Exports, according to the BBC in the lead-up to the Budget, are 6% down on 2014. Chart 3.35 of the OBR report forecasts that exports will be 36% lower than the UK Government’s aspiration in the 2012 Budget of an increase in their cash value to £1 trillion by 2020. Thirty-six percent below projections is an incredible figure. Business investment, according to the OBR, fell by 2.15% in the last quarter of 2015, and EEF, the manufacturers’ organisation, notes that investment confidence is plummeting. Productivity is chronically low compared with that of G7 competitors, and it is a staggering 18% below pre-recession levels. The trends have again been reversed downwards by the OBR today.

According to Credit Suisse, wealth inequality continues to grow, despite growing evidence that tackling inequality is an economic growth driver.

[Margaret Ferrier]

The Chancellor stated that the richest 1% are paying 28% of all income tax revenue. What he did not mention is that 26 pence in every £1 of wealth created went to the richest 1%, while only 7 pence went to the poorest 50%, or that the richest 1% increased their collective wealth by 79% over the last 15 years. With that in mind, does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Chancellor was talking nonsense when he said “inequality is down”?

[Jonathan Edwards]

I am extremely grateful to the hon. Lady for her intervention. We saw today tax measures that will exacerbate those growth inequalities, as highlighted by the former shadow Chancellor, the hon. Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie), in his contribution, which was fantastic, if I may say so. The tycoon tax cut in capital gains tax will exacerbate those differences.

That brings me back to Mr Mason. The Chancellor’s biggest crime is that not only has he failed to fix the roof, but he has failed to change the foundations on which the UK economy is built. So much for the rebalancing we were promised. So much for the march of the makers. So much for tackling geographical and individual wealth inequality. The Budget included the much-heralded extra cuts of £3.5 billion in response to the slowdown in projected growth. Those cuts are deemed to be necessary only because of the fiscal mandate and charter, which the Treasury imposed on itself. As we warned at the time, the mandate is a Trojan horse to enforce austerity, and it was very disappointing that Labour party colleagues, even under the current leadership, supported the Tories in the Lobby on that measure. At this point, I should note that even the Institute for Fiscal Studies, in its green budget, was very critical of the mandate and its impact on fiscal policy.

The public continue to be at risk from another catastrophic failure of the banking sector. In my party, we have always maintained that we need to split retail and investment banking. It is interesting that Sir Mervyn King, the former Governor of the Bank of England, and Sir John Vickers, the chair of the Independent Commission on Banking, which was set up following the crash in 2008, have called for greater safeguards and criticised the Treasury for watering down plans to rein in the banks and reduce the risk of a future banking collapse. Given the darkening global economic skies and the possible exposure of London banks to the slowdown in emerging markets, we were very disappointed that there were no measures in the Budget to protect the public from another banking failure.

We are also very disappointed that there was no guarantee in the Budget that Welsh public sector pension assets would be pooled into a Welsh-specific fund for investment in Welsh infrastructure. We have no opposition in principle to the Treasury plans to have five sovereign wealth funds, as it calls them, out of pension assets, but our assets in Wales will clearly be less than the figure that it has set of £25 billion. Our assets are worth about £16 billion. There are huge dangers for us in Wales if our assets are pooled with an English region, because it would mean a lot of that investment would once again flow out of my country.

The Budget completely failed to secure parity for Wales with Northern Ireland and Scotland on fiscal responsibility. There are full corporation tax powers for Northern Ireland and full income tax powers, as well as powers on airport duty tax, for Scotland. Even Labour in Wales is now calling for the devolution of air passenger duty to my country. On two occasions, I have tried to amend the Finance Bill to devolve the tax, and I will return to that when the Finance Bill is introduced in the House. As we say in Wales, tri cynnig i Gymro—three attempts for a Welshman. I hope my Labour colleagues will join me in the Lobby in the next month or so.

The big question is: why does the Treasury continue to treat Wales as a fiscally second-class nation? We need an arm’s length body to deal with such major fiscal and funding issues across the UK. I was very glad to see the recommendations, only yesterday, of the Finance Committee of the National Assembly, under the chairmanship of my colleague Jocelyn Davies, calling for such a body to be set up so that the Treasury loses its ability to manage such vital funding decisions.

We are very happy to see the sugar tax policy in the Budget. I might add that it is a long-held Plaid Cymru policy. It was rubbished at the time by the Labour party and the Conservative party in the National Assembly. We are delighted that our project has become a mainstream one. As always, where Plaid Cymru leads, the other parties will follow.

The announcement on the Severn bridges will gain many headlines in Wales. What the Chancellor neglected to tell the House is that the bridges will of course return to public ownership in 2018. He has in effect announced today the political equivalent of taking a fiver out of somebody’s back pocket, giving them back some change and expecting them to be grateful.

Our other big demand in the Budget was to increase infrastructure spending sharply to at least pre-recession levels—the equivalent of 1% of GDP—which is about £19 billion extra per annum for the UK and £1 billion extra per annum for Wales. The lead-up to the Budget was heavily trailed with announcements about projects for the north of England—primarily HS3 and the proposed Manchester to Sheffield road tunnel, but also Crossrail 2. These multi-billion projects only go to show the Treasury’s failure to ensure fairness for Wales in relation to HS2. The statement of funding policy that came with the comprehensive spending review gave us a 0% rating, whereas Scotland and Northern Ireland both had 100%, which has set a very worrying precedent. I was extremely disappointed that rather than standing up and fighting for our country, the Labour Government in Wales decided to throw in their lot with the Tories on that specific issue, which will come back to haunt us for years to come.

Scotch Whisky Industry

Margaret Ferrier Excerpts

Wednesday 9th March 2016 Westminster Hall

[Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Moon. I congratulate the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Brendan O'Hara) on securing this important debate in support of the whisky industry, which is important not only to Scotland, but to the whole of the United Kingdom.

I declare an interest as an avid Scotch drinker. In fact, I drink all sorts of whisky, whether it is Arkansas rye whiskey or my particular tipple of Highland Park. Or there is even the whisky produced by the English Whisky Co., which is very good, or Penderyn, which is very lemony, very citrusy, very nice. I have named enough now in the hope that somebody sends me a free crate; we will see. I will not talk about my evening on Kintyre with a full bottle of Laphroaig—we will leave that one, but the photos are still out there.

This is an important debate for all the reasons that the hon. Gentleman gave. Scotch whisky is a huge part of the UK economy. I want to talk in particular about its impact on the whole of the United Kingdom and my constituency, the duty rate, and the potential for growth in the market through trade agreements such as the Canada-EU comprehensive economic and trade agreement.

I have just accepted a small role as the Prime Minister’s trade envoy to Canada, and one of my mandates from him is to market and push CETA and its benefits. I am not the first politician to hold two diametrically opposing views at the same time, but while promoting CETA, I am, of course, also campaigning for us to leave the European Union. Leaving that small inconsistency aside, CETA will obviously be of great importance to the Scotch whisky industry. I would argue, of course, that outside the European Union we would still have the same access, blah blah blah, but Canada is the 15th biggest market for Scotch whisky, with about £66 million-worth of exports—about 20% of all Scottish exports to Canada. Unfortunately, however, due to the liquor board system in Canada and some of the burdens placed on imports, Scotch whisky is unfairly discriminated against at the moment. We have to make sure, through the final stages of CETA, that those barriers are removed so that we have full access for Scotch whisky to the Canadian market.

That is a reminder of just how important trade treaties can be to jobs. There is a lot of opposition to the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, and some of that is unfortunately filtering through to CETA, but we have to make it very clear not only to people in this place but to the wider public that it is a good deal that will support jobs across the United Kingdom.

Scotch is doubtless a Scottish product, and Scottish people should be very proud of it, but it is also a great British product. IG Industries in my constituency provides a lot of the packaging, and Muntons, also in east Yorkshire, provides some of the cereal. I like to think that when people have their tipple of Scotch whisky, the taste comes not just from the fine Scottish water but from the even better east Yorkshire grain.

[Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (SNP)]

The Scotch whisky industry creates prosperity and jobs right along the supply chain, be it in cereal, ceramics, glass or haulage. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we should do all that we can to support the industry and to protect the many jobs that depend upon it, and that we should listen to its calls for a small drop in duty?

[Andrew Percy]

I do have sympathy with that. It was nice to hear the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute pay tribute to the Chancellor, which is not something I often do either. He was correct to do so on this issue, because the calls that were made last year were successful. We have all seen the incredibly positive impact that has had on the supply chain and jobs, and if there could be movement again, that would be appreciated. I need not reiterate the number of jobs that the hon. Gentleman quoted, but they are a huge part of this country’s economy and employment profile. As we heard, our trade deficit would be 11% higher without Scotch whisky. It is a great product, and a British product in so many ways, including the fine Yorkshire grain and the packaging from my constituency. It supports jobs at the Immingham port complex through exports, so it is important to the whole UK market.

I am conscious of your instruction on time, Mrs Moon, so I will end with a simple request to the Minister, which he will hear many times today. If there is an opportunity ahead of next week’s Budget for some movement on the 67% duty rate, I will entirely support it, not least because of the arguments we have heard so far today.

--- Later in debate ---

[Calum Kerr]

Thankfully not. Those wonderful titles pay tribute to the region’s rich heritage and will help to promote us as the whiskies are sold across the world. Of course, I am sure the distilleries will produce lighter, lowland-style whiskies, and I am sure I am not the only one looking forward to tasting them—they cannot come soon enough, but we will have to wait.

The companies behind the new borders distilleries are certainly entrepreneurial, and they have plans, beyond traditional distilleries, to produce other spirits, including gin. The sites have the potential to be highly popular attractions in their own right, and the visitor centres look fantastic. If I had £1 for every person who has offered to be a taster, particularly at the Hawick distillery’s gin lab, where people can make their own gin, I would be a rich man. I am taking names if anyone here wants to sign up. The sites will be fantastic tourist operations.

I visited Springbank in Campbelltown with a number of friends, and I was struck by the number of people who were there because of the distillery. I met one group from Sweden who had matching blazers, and another group from America had whisky-tasting ties. I am not suggesting that we all had to get into uniform, but it reinforced the huge way in which a distillery puts a town on the map, raises its profile globally, brings more investment and creates more jobs than just those directly involved in the distillery.

[Margaret Ferrier]

I congratulate Speyside Distillers in my constituency. Founded in 1770, it has just secured a £2.3 million funding package to help it grow its market in the far east. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Chancellor should seriously consider duty reduction in next week’s Budget so that all distillers can expand, grow and contribute to the UK economy?

[Calum Kerr]

I agree with my hon. Friend. If the Minister has missed that point, why not reinforce it? I am sure he agrees with us. I notice a lot of nodding, and I am sure it is in agreement that the reduction should be at least 2%.

This is a hugely exciting situation, as is reflected in the energy and enthusiasm of the Members gathered here. Our export market is strong, and the hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Michelle Thomson) mentioned something that I wanted to highlight, too. The planned distillery in Hawick mentioned the duty in India. If we raise 76% in our own country, it puts us in a difficult position to argue for reduced duty elsewhere. Clearly, the Indian situation of 150% is unacceptable. I will be interested to hear the Minister’s comments on what we are doing about that.

We should also remember that the UK domestic market is the third biggest market by volume, with only France and the USA selling more. It still accounts for seven times more sales than China, so its importance to our producers is clear. We have already heard the case, so I will not reiterate how reducing duty is a win-win situation. By reducing duty, although there is not necessarily causality—good word—we might raise more money in total.

People often use the word “iconic” about whisky. I prefer to describe it another way. Whisky is literally the spirit of Scotland. It embraces all the very best aspects of our history and culture, and it is both romantic and emblematic. It uses our finest national ingredients and has strong green credentials. Of course, it is a product of very high quality and reputation. Just as the money it earns helps to bind together the UK economy, so its character and the joys of its depth and warmth bind Scots together as people. Whisky is one of Scotland’s great products and great successes. Now we need the Government to celebrate that success, to build on it and to work with the industry to grow this fantastic drink’s reach and prosperity. I urge the Minister to take that message away today. If he can secure the backing of his colleagues in Government, I am sure that is something to which we would all raise a glass.

Oral Answers to Questions

Margaret Ferrier Excerpts

Tuesday 1st March 2016 Commons Chamber

[Damian Hinds]

My hon. Friend speaks in exactly the right spirit. He is the representative of Burton, the home of beer, and nobody has done more to advocate for that important British industry. The Budget is on 16 March. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor makes any and all changes to any duties at such fiscal events.

[Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (SNP)]

Scotch whisky is the biggest net contributor to UK trade in goods. Without it, the UK’s trade deficit would be 11% larger. Manufacturers across Scotland, including Spey in my constituency, that have experience of exporting know that domestic rates of tax have an impact on the attitude of international markets. What consideration has the Chancellor given to industry calls to reduce the excise in the upcoming Budget?

[Damian Hinds]

My right hon. Friend the Chancellor is always very alive to representations from the Scotch whisky industry. Of course, that product accounts for some 25% of UK food and drink exports. Japan has been a strong export market for the sector, but others have not worked out so well. We continue to listen to what that important sector has to say.