Leaving the EU: European Social Funding in Scotland and the UK

Natalie McGarry Excerpts

Tuesday 10th January 2017 Westminster Hall

[Natalie McGarry (Glasgow East) (Ind)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the effect of the UK leaving the EU on European Social Funding in Scotland and the UK.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Nuttall. During the EU referendum campaign last year, great importance was attributed, and a lot of time was given, to the debate about how much money the UK contributes to the EU. One spurious and now debunked claim was plastered on the side of a now infamous bus. However, seldom spoken of before, during or after the referendum campaign were the funds that come back from the EU to the UK, where they go and the difference they make. We live now in post-vote, pre-Brexit uncertainty, in which the vacuous slogan “Brexit means Brexit” is accepted as satisfactory political discourse, although it has little meaning. Indeed, Scotland’s First Minister, Nicola Sturgeon, stated last week that even after high-level talks with the UK Government she is no further forward in understanding the UK Government’s negotiating plan.

The debate during the run-up to the referendum became so shrill and engulfed in dog-whistle politics that the many benefits of EU membership were ignored in favour of focusing on borders and migrants, even though those benefits make a huge difference to many communities in many constituencies, including mine. I am, of course, referring to European structural investment funds, which bolster and boost economic development across the EU’s member states and regions. Since their inception in the 1970s, European structural funds have enabled great progress to be made in reducing economic and social inequalities among the EU’s member states and regions.

My remarks, and indeed my concerns, focus predominantly, but not exclusively, on the European Social Fund. Like other nations across Europe, Scotland has benefited enormously from European social funding. That great investment in our people has created invaluable opportunities in employment and education in the city of Glasgow and across Scotland and the UK. In the current period—2014 to 2020—Scotland will benefit from the European Social Fund to the tune of £464 million. Those funds, matched by the Scottish Government, will see millions of pounds invested across the country to improve sustainable and quality employment, to promote social inclusion and combat poverty, to create opportunities in education and employment, and to fight youth unemployment.

It is easy to distil facts and figures into rhetoric while missing the impact on the lives of real people in our communities, for whom European social funding helps to bridge a gap. In communities in my constituency, partnership working with local housing associations, such as that between Parkhead Housing Association and Glasgow Kelvin College, uses outreach to teach computing skills to people in their own communities and community centres, which lowers digital exclusion and helps people to attain the confidence and skills they need to achieve their potential. The system would otherwise leave behind many of those people.

The last round of European social funding—2007 to 2013—supported fantastic and worthwhile projects across Scotland. Glasgow City Council helped people out of gangs and into work. Coatbridge College provided employability services to school leavers. Glasgow Met worked with ethnic minorities to improve employability skills. The Wise Group helped people find routes out of prison. Fife Council tackled worklessness. Glasgow Clyde College provided community-based training. The Scottish Chambers of Commerce offered business mentoring. Dundee College helped people not in education, employment or training. ENABLE Scotland supported people with learning difficulties into work. The Glasgow Centre for Inclusive Living helped people with disabilities to secure work.

[Brendan O'Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)]

My hon. Friend is making a compelling case about the impact of the loss of European social funding on Glasgow and the surrounding area. Does she agree that the loss of ESF funding will have serious consequences right across urban and rural Scotland, including on my constituency, whose fragile economy benefits greatly from ESF funding and whose people voted overwhelmingly to remain within the European Union?

[Natalie McGarry]

The hon. Member makes a very compelling case. He is a doughty fighter for his constituents in Argyll and Bute.

[Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)]

Before coming to this place, I worked at South Lanarkshire College, and I saw for myself the immense difference to people’s lives that ESF funding can make. Does my hon. Friend agree that there are many people in our local communities, including mine, whose lives are on a very different and more positive trajectory because of the benefits of colleges such as South Lanarkshire and the work they do with European funds?

[Natalie McGarry]

The hon. Member makes a very important point. The post-Brexit discourse has focused on higher education and other sectors, but not much on further education and the invaluable work that is done in local communities—at the very coalface, in the sense that people in colleges and community groups go into the very hearts of communities, where people are hardest to reach. That work is invaluable, and the hon. Member’s point is well made.

The projects that I mentioned are only a few of the many supported through European funding that make a tangible and real difference to the lives of people in Scotland and across the rest of the UK. This year alone, Glasgow Kelvin College, a further education institution that serves my constituents and has a campus in the Easterhouse area of my constituency, secured £1.5 million-worth of European social funds, on top of £1.9 million last year, which enabled it to continue its fantastic work on employability and vocational skills across Glasgow. That European social funding directly supports real jobs—more than 10 of them—and helps to create opportunities for many more.

In the past few months, I have met the principals of colleges in Glasgow with groups and organisations whose work relies on European social funding. They are worried about the future. They should currently be considering future bids for funding, but little or no information has been forthcoming about where they stand. The Government can provide certainty to Nissan and talk about guaranteeing research and technology funding to appease the higher education sector, but European social funding is the Kevin McAllister of the Brexit rush—drowned out by louder voices, trampled on in the rush to get out the door and left home alone.

The elephant in the room is, of course, the fact that the UK is leaving the EU, and that no non-EU country has ever received European social funding. Brexit is not the circumstance of Scotland’s or Glasgow’s choosing. Organisations across our city and throughout our country stand to lose hundreds of millions of pounds. Our people the length and breadth of Scotland and the UK stand to lose invaluable services and support, which will be to the detriment of their lives and our economy.

My constituency—indeed, our entire city and our country—voted to remain, yet our further education and communities face Brexit’s damaging consequences unless the Government stand up now and guarantee that they will protect the funding for projects at an equitable and comparable level. The true and full impact that the projects financed by the European Social Fund have may not be fully realised during one round of funding, but it will be undoubtedly real and lasting. That cannot be said of the impact that taking it away will have—it will be immediate and painful. EU funding has been an integral feature of Scotland’s educational, employment and economic landscape for so long that the removal of those key resources cannot be easily done—at least, not without substantial damage.

[Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that much of that damage will be done to the deprived communities in cities such as Glasgow, which use such funding to engage young people in education, employment and training?

[Natalie McGarry]

The hon. Member has pre-empted almost my next sentence.

Worse still, because structural funds are targeted at poorer regions and areas of higher socioeconomic disadvantage, the impact will be disproportionate if such gargantuan funding gaps cannot be filled. Of course, the UK Government have announced that they will underwrite all EU structural and investment fund projects signed before the autumn statement last year, and that they will assess whether to underwrite funding for certain other projects that are signed after the autumn statement but before the UK leaves the EU. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said that the UK Government were

“determined to ensure that people have stability and certainty in the period leading up to our departure from the EU”.

That statement, however, is at odds with the Government’s position, and their rhetoric is far from reconciling with the reality facing organisations in Glasgow, across Scotland and, indeed, throughout the UK. The Government’s position falls far short of what is needed. It is a limited guarantee for a narrow number of schemes for a restricted number of years, and it will leave Glasgow and Scotland hundreds of millions of pounds worse off than if we were still members of the EU. Organisations throughout Scotland that provide invaluable services do not have the certainty or security that the Chancellor has promised them.

In December, at Education questions in the House, I expressed those specific concerns. After I asked my question, the hon. Member for Luton North (Kelvin Hopkins), who had campaigned to leave, asked:

“Given that all EU spending in Britain is simply returning part of our gross contribution to the EU budget, would it not be sensible for the Government simply to commit now to replacing EU funding with UK Exchequer funding, thereby keeping everyone happy?”

The Minister for Schools replied that the

“the United Kingdom Government will decide how best to spend the money that was previously going to the European Union.”—[Official Report, 19 December 2016; Vol. 618, c. 1164.]

That was certainly more substantive than “Brexit means Brexit”, but no more enlightening.

With an eye to the future, what assessment have the Government made of the impact of losing EU structural funding on economic growth, output, productivity and employment in Scotland and throughout the UK? Does the UK intend to adopt a similar social and regional development programme to that of the European social fund and the European regional development fund? If so, would the UK Government match the existing allocated structural fund budget in absolute terms? Would any new programme have the same priority areas of focus as EU structural funds? The EU structural funding programmes allow for long-term planning over a seven-year period. Would the UK Government commit to a similar seven-year funding structure, or would it be different?

In the here and now, will the Government confirm that European social funding will not be frozen during the negotiations for the UK to leave the EU? Will the Government confirm what discussions they have had with the EU to ensure that structural funding that has been allocated to Scotland for 2014 to 2020 will not be clawed back? Finally, will the Government commit to undertake an evaluation of the European regional aid lost to Scotland during 1975 to 1995 because of the Government’s deployment of a subtractionality funding model?

The UK Government can, should and must do more. Ignorance, or indeed arrogance, will simply not suffice. It would be unforgivable for Scotland to be punished for a situation not of its own making; to suffer for an ill-judged Westminster gamble to appease Eurosceptic Back Benchers. Now is not the time for uncertainty for the further education sector or invaluable community projects. The Government can end that uncertainty now.

Guaranteeing existing levels of support and match funding is not subject to treaty negotiations with EU partners; we are talking about the here and now, and about what the Government choose to prioritise. The Government cannot hide behind empty slogans because this is about the Exchequer and the Government’s spending priorities. The Prime Minister stood on the steps of Downing Street and said that she wanted a Government who would work for all. Prove it. She should not disregard Scotland and not ignore our interests, and she should show us her plan and that she is serious about protecting Scotland.

Fixed Odds Betting Terminals

Natalie McGarry Excerpts

Tuesday 26th April 2016 Westminster Hall

[Natalie McGarry (Glasgow East) (Ind)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alan.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) on securing the debate. Many of us have probably applied for a similar debate, and for a Glasgow Member the issue is particularly pertinent. In 2014, The Evening Times of Glasgow found that the city had the highest proliferation of FOBTs—puggies, as they are known colloquially—at one for every 2,458 adults, with losses of £30 million per year. Only Liverpool came anywhere close to matching the Glasgow figure. It is not a statistic that I am proud of.

In my constituency the number of betting shops is particularly high, and they are in a concentrated area. It has been suggested that the disproportionate impact of fixed odds betting terminals on poorer and more vulnerable communities is due to the massive overprovision of bookmakers in such areas. Some streets in the east end of Glasgow have as many as four bookmakers on them, within a few hundred yards of each other, and with multiple FOBT units in each shop. In parts of my constituency, the high street is dominated by fast food shops, payday loan shops and bookmakers, and their proximity to each other is no coincidence.

Areas with a higher density of gambling machines are therefore more likely to be poorer areas, with lower than average economic activity and more people in lower-paid jobs, which means that the machines have a higher impact on people in those communities. I might have taken this incorrectly, but I take issue with the idea that people in such areas have more addictive personalities than those in more affluent areas. This is about proliferation, availability, the absence of hope, and the desire for control. Gambling has a massive impact on the lives and families of problem gamblers, often leaving families in debt, desperate, and more dependent on council and Government services. A report by Glasgow City Council on the impact of FOBTs found significant evidence of clustering of betting shops on many local high streets and other retail centres in Glasgow. Despite a period of unprecedented growth in online gambling, the number of betting shops has remained consistent and floor space continues to increase.

On the points made by the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr Robertson), the idea that the poor pay in betting shops so that the more affluent can go horse-racing does not seem to me a reason to urge caution on the Government about taking action.

[Mr Laurence Robertson]

I did not say that.

[Natalie McGarry]

Evidence from the Scottish health survey suggests that as many as one in 20 betting shop customers—[Interruption.] Would the hon. Gentleman like to intervene instead of speaking from a sedentary position? I would be happy to take an intervention.

[Mr Robertson]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way. What she said was not remotely close to any point I made.

[Natalie McGarry]

That was an interpretational issue, then. I am glad to have my interpretation corrected, because what I said was what came across to me, and perhaps to others in the Chamber.

Evidence from the Scottish health survey suggests that as many as one in 20 betting shop customers may be problem gamblers. The addictive nature of the machines can and does devastate the lives of many people, especially those from poorer communities. The Government need to step in and do more to help those struggling with addiction, and they need to seek out preventive measures.

What is of most concern is the fact that many of the most popular games on fixed odds betting terminals are categorised as B2 casino content and are not subject to the same restrictions on stakes and prizes as traditional slot machine games. With vulnerable people already at risk, the Government must take action and reconsider the B2 classification.

[Graham Jones]

I am fascinated by the hon. Lady’s argument. She is a former member of the Scottish National party—I do not know whether she is still a member. The point was made to the Smith commission that Scotland wanted full devolution of powers over FOBTs, yet the party tabled no amendments to the Scotland Bill on the issue. It said nothing about it, and not one Scottish MP spoke about the matter during the passage of the Bill. For the SNP to criticise the Government is simply duplicitous.

[Natalie McGarry]

I admit that I find myself extremely disappointed that the hon. Gentleman makes a political point on an issue of great importance for people across the UK. Amendments were tabled on fixed odds betting terminals, but unfortunately, because of the constriction on the time given to the Bill, they could not be brought forward.

[Graham Jones]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Natalie McGarry]

No, I am sorry. There is a more important point to be made about the impact of fixed odds betting terminals on vulnerable communities, and I will thank the hon. Gentleman to sit down so that others can get to speak.

I urge the Government to consider the evidence from communities such as mine, and to take action to stop fixed odds betting terminals blighting people in vulnerable and disadvantaged communities.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

Welfare Reform and Work Bill

Natalie McGarry Excerpts

Tuesday 27th October 2015 Commons Chamber

[Natalie McGarry (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this crucial debate. I congratulate and welcome to her place the shadow Minister for disabled people. She made a fantastic contribution.

I support amendment 56, which was introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Banff and Buchan (Dr Whiteford). The proposed changes to the employment and support allowance and the potentially devastating cuts to the work-related activity group are of particular interest to me as the disability spokesperson for the SNP.

This Government say that the Bill will support our economy and improve support for those who need it, but it is clear that it is a deeply damaging and divisive piece of legislation which will harm workers, families and communities and will exceed even the worst excesses of the Thatcher Government. The Tories’ approach to social security has been deeply destructive, and has damaged the vital social fabric that binds our society together. Liz Sayle of Disability Rights UK says that the language used in this context conveys a sense of suspicion of disabled people, as though they were trying it on to get free transport and handouts. That suspicion is completely misplaced, but is reinforced by the policy and rhetoric of this Government.

This Government’s cuts are systematically undermining the life chances of working people, especially children and young people across the UK. It is an ideological attack on the most disadvantaged—a war not on poverty, but on the poor. But despite my fervent opposition to the Bill, and my vocal opposition to this Government’s policies, I want to take the opportunity to reach out to Members right across the House. I understand the desire to support people into work, and to create a system where social security supports those in need and encourages those who can work to do so. That ambition, I believe, is shared by all of us across the House. However, I cannot see how Members on the Government Benches can say with any integrity that this Bill furthers our common aim.

We already know that many people who are currently unfit for work are dubiously placed in the ESA work-related activity group, and that DWP policies already force WRAG claimants to meet arduous bureaucratic requirements simply to receive the financial support they rely on. We already know that the UK Government’s austerity programme is impacting disproportionately on those living with disabilities and sicknesses and that it impairs their ability to work. We also know that there is absolutely no evidence that these policies of cuts will have a positive impact on moving those in the WRAG group into work. There is no evidence from the Government, despite repeated requests for it to be produced. It is therefore absolutely shameful that, without any evidence, the Conservatives should have disabled people in their sights yet again, promising to cut nearly a third of ESA support for new claimants in the work-related activity group.

It is also deeply distressing for many claimants that the Government intend to freeze ESA WRAG support for the next four years, failing to protect this important social security payment against the rising cost of living. When it comes to people with long-term sicknesses and disabilities, however severe, and the support they need, the Government simply do not get it, and for too many it seems that the Government simply do not care. We talk about language, and we have a Secretary of State who has shockingly made a distinction between disabled people and “normal” people. We have a Government that have continually introduced policies that isolate disabled people and distance them from their communities and support, risking institutionalising people in their own homes.

It is quite unfathomable why the Conservatives think that those with illnesses and disabilities should not have their special requirements and challenges recognised in the level of support and care that they receive. By reducing ESA for WRAG claimants to the level of the general jobseeker’s allowance, the UK Government are undermining the entire purpose and principle of ESA, which was always intended to support those with particular challenges in entering employment more gradually than those on jobseeker’s allowance.

By targeting disabled people for the latest cuts, Government Members do nothing more than demonstrate an utter unwillingness to listen to the needs of disabled people and disability organisations. As a disability spokesperson for the SNP, I spent the past few months speaking with and listening to people across the UK. I heard from organisation after organisation, I heard statistic after statistic, and it is clear the harm this Bill will cause. I cannot see him in the Chamber this afternoon, but who has my counterpart on the Government Benches, the Under-Secretary of State for Disabled People, been talking to? An echo chamber?

According to a new survey conducted and released today by the Disability Benefits Consortium, almost one third of people on ESA who were surveyed say that they cannot afford to eat on the levels of ESA that they receive now. Do the Tories intend to starve those people into work? To me, that is not just morally repugnant but economically incoherent and illiterate. Inclusion Scotland has said that the proposals are

“a direct attack on the living standards of disabled people, their families, carers and children and will result in hundreds of thousands more being plunged into poverty and destitution”.

To talk about levels of destitution in 2015 is an outrage and we cannot simply stand by and let these people’s lives be sacrificed on the altar of fiscal responsibility. Surely no civilised society would penalise the disabled and disadvantaged in the pursuit of an ideological austerity obsession.

I know that my constituents will find it difficult to fathom how the Government can introduce such harmful proposals and I sincerely hope that Government Members at least have significant concerns about them, too.

[Graham Evans]

I am most grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way. I welcome her to this place; she makes a powerful point and a huge contribution. Disability and carer benefits for working age people in 2014-15 were £11.4 billion and in this new financial year of 2015-16 they are £11.5 billion. The hon. Lady is talking about cuts, but the spending has gone up, not down.

[Natalie McGarry]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that point. These are real-term cuts and many people have disappeared from the system because of its complexity and because of their fear of it.

With every Bill in this Session, we have a chance to act in concert, to set out the direction of our country and to make it clear what and who is important. I look to all Members, on both sides of the Chamber, to look to themselves and to their consciences and not just to their Whips. I implore Members from all parts of the House to put themselves in the position of the half million people who will be affected by these cuts—I am talking about those with mental ill health, learning disabilities, autism, Asperger’s and all the families involved—and vote in solidarity with them. They are real people, so Members should vote for amendment 56.

[Victoria Atkins (Louth and Horncastle) (Con)]

I wish to speak to new clause 7, amendments 35 to 48 and new clause 6.

I had the very great privilege of sitting on the Committee for this Bill and I have heard arguments from all parts of the House. There is one point in relation to new clause 7 that we looked at in Committee and that I wish to develop further today, and that is the principle of making work pay. The benefit cap has been criticised by some Opposition Members, but the reality is that, in my constituency, it is a very popular policy. The median salary in my constituency is £480 per week, which is less than the cap currently in place for benefits of £26,000. The point has already been made, and indeed we looked at it in the Bill Committee, that that £26,000 figure is equivalent to a gross figure of £35,000.

Voter Engagement

Natalie McGarry Excerpts

Thursday 11th June 2015 Westminster Hall

[Natalie McGarry (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

Thank you for allowing me to speak, Mr Turner, and for your immense patience in understanding that the 90% of Scottish National party Members who are new are finding our feet with regard to parliamentary procedure.

This is an extremely important conversation, and I thank the hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry) for bringing it to the attention of the House. In Scotland, we have just come out of a referendum process where we had massive engagement. There are huge lessons to be learned about how that process was conducted. Perhaps the House should consider the level of engagement in Scotland.

Our electoral system leads to issues with parliamentary democracy and legitimacy. I am delighted to be here, but, as a democrat, I find it somewhat problematic that the SNP has 95% of Members with only 50% of the vote in Scotland. To me, that is a legitimacy problem. The Tories are in government with the votes of 35% of the overall UK electorate. The system is set up in a very binary way, so that we have a big, strong Government, but that leaves a majority of people voiceless as regards representation. If we are honest with ourselves, as democrats in this House we need to look at why people feel voiceless and why that stops them from getting engaged in the democratic process. I am not a fan of the UK Independence party, but many people voted for it and they have only one Member of Parliament.

In Scotland, we need to have a conversation about the link between poverty and exclusion from society, which is manifested in lower turnouts in areas of multiple social deprivation. My constituency, Glasgow East, is one of the most deprived in the whole UK. The turnout in Glasgow for the Scottish referendum was 75%, compared with 91% in East Dunbartonshire, one of the richest constituencies in Scotland. Work must be done to encourage people in such areas to vote.

There is definitely a link between indebtedness and being on the electoral register. People are terrified about putting themselves on the register if they are worried about debt catching up with them, so if we want to increase participation in democracy, we must make it safe for people. That requires education, but that also leaves a burden on us as parliamentarians to go out and speak to people in our communities and engage with them. If the Scottish referendum showed anything, it was that going into communities and having legitimate, open conversations is a way of encouraging people.

We should have events that allow people to come along and question politicians, because the problem with politics, which was exemplified in the expenses scandal, was the sense of them and us. It should not be them and us; we are all together and there should be no division between the people and their representatives. We have to come from the people and be among the people in order to represent them. That is the type of legitimacy that we get from considering and really engaging with people at community level. In that way, we will grow democracy.

In my constituency, the turnout in 2010 was 52%, but in 2015, following the referendum, it was eight percentage points higher. That is not a huge amount of people coming out, but there is a distinct upward trend that is not replicated in the rest of the UK. We therefore need to use that as a lesson.

The referendum was a binary choice: people understood what they were voting for. Whether they voted yes or no, they knew what the consequences were. We do not necessarily have that in party politics, so people do not feel as engaged in that or the manifestation of that in one person. That needs to be addressed going forward.

We need to look again at the electoral system and be really honest with ourselves. Are we keeping first past the post because it suits the Government of the day, or the Opposition, or is it because people truly believe that to be the best democracy that we can have? I do not think that it is and I strongly recommend that we look again at the type of country that we want to live in and the type of representation we have for people in the House.