Checks on Goods Entering UK

Patrick Grady Excerpts

Monday 29th April 2024 Commons Chamber

[Sir Mark Spencer]

Actually, on increased food prices in Wales, the biggest danger is taking 20% of land away from Welsh farmers and out of production and imposing a top-down approach to those farmers. I hope that the right hon. Lady will rethink her support for the Welsh Government’s disastrous proposals, which will drive thousands and thousands of people out of Welsh agriculture.

[Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)]

As a direct result of all these changes, small businesses will close, jobs will be lost and consumer choice will be reduced. That is the exact opposite of what Brexit was supposed to achieve, is it not?

[Sir Mark Spencer]

I do not accept the hon. Gentleman’s characterisation. This is a pragmatic approach to keeping the country safe from animal and plant diseases while allowing the free flow of trade via a model in which people can get certification away from the ports to ensure that they can import products, and stamping down on those who want to act illegally.

Oral Answers to Questions

Patrick Grady Excerpts

Thursday 14th March 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mark Spencer]

I can. The sustainable farming incentive motivates farmers to improve their soil quality, which is good for the production of food, and incentivises farmers to look after pollinators, which is good for the pollination of crops. The environment and food production are two sides of the same coin. We, as farmers, want to encourage farmers to look after the environment, so that we can continue to produce top-quality food on highly productive land.

[Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)]

11. What recent assessment he has made of the impact of the UK’s departure from the EU on food prices in the UK.

[The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Steve Barclay)]

If the hon. Member is concerned about food prices, I urge him to consider the impact of the Scottish Government’s decision to crack down on meal deals and supermarket promotions, which will mean that Scottish customers pay more than English ones for the same products.

[Patrick Grady]

That has nothing to do with the question on the Order Paper. The London School of Economics found that Brexit has added £250 to the average household bill. The healthcare certificates that are now required will add even more. Is the reality not that the cost of living crisis is a cost of Westminster crisis, fuelled by Brexit?

[Steve Barclay]

The hon. Member seems to imply that food inflation has been unique to the UK. Actually, we have seen more severe consequences on the continent. It is right to draw the House’s attention to the decisions that the SNP Government are taking, which have an impact on increasing food prices.

Oral Answers to Questions

Patrick Grady Excerpts

Thursday 7th December 2023 Commons Chamber

[Steve Barclay]

The hon. Lady raises an important point about the impact of climate change on food prices in the future. That is exactly why the Government passed the Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Act 2023 to help to unlock innovation and strengthen food security by enabling our leading scientists to develop crops that will best resist climate change. It is why the Government published the third national adaptation programme as recently as July, and it is why we have our farming innovation programme—with £270 million of funding—which is focused on driving productivity and ensuring that there is sustainability in the environmental and farming sectors.

[Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)]

8. What recent assessment he has made of trends in the level of food prices.

[The Minister for Food, Farming and Fisheries (Mark Spencer)]

October’s consumer prices index price inflation was 10.1%, down from 12.1% in September and the lowest figure since June 2022. Industry analysts expect food price inflation to continue to decrease, and the Government are providing an average of £3,300 per household to help with the cost of living this year and next.

[Patrick Grady]

The Minister, like the Secretary of State before him, forgot to mention one of the biggest drivers of food inflation in this country. I will give them a clue: it starts with “Br” and ends in “exit”. The reality is that the UK is the only G7 country where food price inflation remains above 10%, and the average across OECD countries is 7.4%. If this Government are not going to follow the SNP’s proposals for price controls on food, what are they going to do to finally get a grip on increasing food prices?

[Mark Spencer]

I think the hon. Gentleman is mistaken. If we compare prices in the European Union with prices here in the UK, we see that the price of a basket of goods here in the UK is substantially lower than it is for our friends in the European Union. If Brexit were the problem here, surely those prices would be higher in the UK than they are in the European Union. I think he is barking up the wrong tree.

Oral Answers to Questions

Patrick Grady Excerpts

Thursday 6th July 2023 Commons Chamber

[Douglas Chapman (Dunfermline and West Fife) (SNP)]

1. What recent discussions she has had with Cabinet colleagues on increases in the cost of food production.

[Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)]

11. What recent discussions she has had with Cabinet colleagues on increases in the cost of food production.

[Kenny MacAskill (East Lothian) (Alba)]

13. What steps her Department is taking to help mitigate the impact of increased food production costs on (a) consumers and (b) businesses.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Spencer]

I think the hon. Gentleman will be aware that we are not responsible for Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, which has had a significant impact on global energy prices. The good news is that those global energy prices are coming back to a level, and that is starting to feed back into our food supply chain. That is why we are helping and supporting farmers, investing in new technology and investing in their businesses to make them more sustainable and more profitable going forwards so that they can continue to deliver great quality British food at a reasonable price.

[Patrick Grady]

The war in Ukraine has not caused the labour shortages that are causing Scottish crops to be ploughed back into the fields. The war in Ukraine has not caused customs barriers and tariffs that mean that Scottish seafood is being left in the sea. Brexit has caused those things. That is why food inflation is higher in the UK than elsewhere. When will the Government accept that?

[Mark Spencer]

Unfortunately, the hon. Gentleman is misinformed. Food prices are higher in Germany and France. If Brexit were the issue, clearly that would not be the case. That is why we are investing in those farmers. We are supporting them by increasing the number of visas that are available in the seasonal agricultural worker scheme. We are supporting those farmers to continue to produce great quality food.

Hunting Trophies (Import Prohibition) Bill

Patrick Grady Excerpts

Report stage
Friday 17th March 2023 Commons Chamber

[Sir Bill Wiggin]

I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman’s understanding. Unfortunately, it is not quite as straightforward as that. The purpose of the Bill reaches beyond what the UK imports and exports because we already have a permitting system that allows us to manage that, so this is more than that. This is a proper ban. The people who are expected to be on the receiving end are the people who would benefit from new clause 4 being added to the Bill, which would give an opportunity for them to consult.

Amendment 6 aims to limit the ban on trophies that are in breach of the convention on international trade in endangered species permit requirements. Amendment 12 —I am again grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch for tabling it—exempts Botswana, Namibia, South Africa, Tanzania, Zambia and Zimbabwe from the ban, based on their conservation records.

I will try to make some progress because I believe the Government have been exceptionally helpful on this and the amendment that most matters is amendment 1. If I can just get to that part of my notes, I will seek to enlighten the House as to why—

[Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Sir Bill Wiggin]

I will be delighted to give way while I am shuffling my papers.

[Patrick Grady]

Happy St Patrick’s Day, Mr Speaker. I was reflecting that perhaps the animals hunted as trophies are not the only endangered species around here: there are several of them on the Government Benches as well, in the shape of Conservative Members of Parliament.

I hope the hon. Gentleman recognises that many of our constituents feel very passionately about these issues—it would be unfair to suggest otherwise—and that the scope of the Bill is, as the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Andrew Western) has said, limited to the bringing of these trophies into the United Kingdom. No one is trying to tell sovereign Governments what they should be doing in their own countries, but we should take cognisance of what is being brought into this country, and many constituents in Glasgow North whom I have heard from are extremely concerned about the practice of trophy hunting and the trade in such trophies, and it is important that we recognise that strength of feeling. It is good that the hon. Gentleman is introducing these amendments in a constructive manner because the last thing constituents would want to see is parliamentary game playing and undermining of the private Members’ Bill system.

[Sir Bill Wiggin]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his typically helpful intervention, which allowed me to shuffle my papers. I agree with him: the people who are concerned about the topic of this Bill are kind-hearted. They want to make sure that animals are safe and protected, and they have a very good vehicle to express that in the form of the Bill tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley. The problem is that the road to hell is paved with good intentions, and none of us in the whole House wants to see any reduction in the habitat of endangered species, or the success of their recovery. Therefore, I hope that the Bill will not undermine that, as I fear, and that instead we can come together and agree a Bill that will be able to pass through the House.

To that end, amendment 1 is a most important amendment, because it seeks to restrain the Secretary of State’s powers—I know that this Secretary of State is tremendous, but I cannot predict who it might be in the future. Therefore, the amendment would restrict the Secretary of State’s actions to the species listed on the face of the Bill—the ones that we are all concerned about. It would remove their power to vary by statutory instrument the species to which the Act applies. It would close the loophole that grants the Secretary of State the power to extend the Act to animals that are not considered endangered. I am concerned that that power could go beyond our 2019 manifesto commitment to ban the import of hunting trophies from endangered animals, which our constituents voted for.

I thank the Government for engaging with me so positively on this matter. I believe that we can move forward constructively if we adopt amendment 1, which would keep the scope of the Bill limited to species listed in annexes A or B of the principal wildlife trade regulation. Under that regulation, all CITES species are listed in four annexes, according to their varying levels of protection. Annex A, which includes all CITES appendix 1 species and some CITES appendix 2 species, lists the most endangered species: those that are either threatened with extinction or so rare that any level of trade would imperil the survival of the species. They include the hunting leopard, Indian lion and black and white rhino, apart from those in South Africa where numbers are higher.

Annex B includes all other CITES appendix 2 species, as well as some other species, but predominantly those threatened by commercial trade. For instance, the African elephant, the African lion, some white rhinos, some brown bears, and the American black bear would fall into that classification. Granting the Secretary of State power to vary by statutory instrument the species to which the Bill applies would allow species that are not listed in CITES and are not endangered to fall within the scope of the Bill. That was brought to my attention on Second Reading, when the Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton Deane (Rebecca Pow), said:

“The Government intend to table an instrument that covers those species of concern”—[Official Report, 25 November 2022; Vol. 723, c. 585.]

—an instrument that would cover other animals, which really disturbed me. The British people did not vote for an indiscriminate ban on shooting any animal that the Secretary of State might choose to name. They voted to protect endangered species, and that is what I hope the Bill will do.

I do not think that I need to go on. If the Government are willing to accept amendment 1, I can pause and allow some of my friends and colleagues to contribute. If the Minister would like to intervene, I would be delighted to know whether amendment 1 is acceptable to the Government; otherwise, we can talk about amendment 14, which leaves out the power of the Secretary of State to specify animals or species to which the prohibition applies. Of course, that does a very similar job to amendment 1.

Oral Answers to Questions

Patrick Grady Excerpts

Thursday 23rd February 2023 Commons Chamber

[Dr Coffey]

We are picking up after the inaction of the previous Labour Government—that takes time. That is why we will continue to do the work. I say to the hon. Gentleman that it is important that we work on a catchment-based approach, which is the approach that is being taken. It is important that we focus in on those rivers, which is why I am asking Natural England to make progress with assessments of sites of special scientific interest around the country, thinking particularly of rivers. It is important that we continue to work together with the people who have the rights and responsibilities of owning those waterways at a local level to make sure that the hon. Gentleman’s rivers are cleaner than ever before.

[Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)]

Is the ploughing under of perfectly good crops because there is not enough labour to harvest them efficiently a success of Brexit?

[Mark Spencer]

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that we have increased by another 15,000 the number of visas available through the seasonal agriculture workers scheme. An extra 10,000 visas are available should the industry require them. We are supplying the industry with the labour it requires, and the scheme seems to be working very well at this moment in time.

Convention on Biodiversity COP15: Outcomes

Patrick Grady Excerpts

Monday 19th December 2022 Commons Chamber

[Dr Coffey]

I thank the hon. Gentleman. I know that the people of Northern Ireland are also keen to see enhanced nature. I recall my trip earlier this year when I went to the Giant’s Causeway for the first time ever and saw beauty in nature but also the force of nature and a desire to continue to improve it. As for how we work together, it will be up to individual devolved Administrations, but I know that Northern Ireland Ministers and the Executive have been very supportive of our approaches so far.

[Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (Ind)]

What impact is the UK’s decision to cut the aid budget from 0.7% to 0.5% of gross national income having on the UK’s ability to contribute to the 10-point plan for financing biodiversity?

[Dr Coffey]

We have actually increased the amount of official development assistance going to environmental and climate change projects. I am excited about that. We will continue to see more money coming in from around the world, including from the private sector and philanthropic donors, to help achieve these ambitious aims. I am excited about the future decade.

Nature and Climate Declaration

Patrick Grady Excerpts

Wednesday 9th November 2022 Westminster Hall

[Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (Ind)]

It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Grady, and I am glad to have caught your eye slightly spontaneously—clearly, there is space in the debate for further contributions. I congratulate the hon. Member for St Ives (Derek Thomas) on securing the debate. It is absolutely fantastic to see Government Members proposing debates on this topic, as there have been recent Westminster Hall debates in which the Government Benches have not been occupied. The hon. Gentleman spoke passionately about what his constituents have said to him. Other Members said the same, and I have definitely had that experience. That is testament to the power of constituents lobbying Members of Parliament, engaging with us, making those visits and inviting us along to the parish services, nature demonstrations and woodland walks.

The hon. Gentleman spoke about the church services that have been held to mark COP27. That reminded me of the many church services and demonstrations—the entire range of civil society activities—that took place in Glasgow this time last year for COP26. People from Glasgow North and across the city were immensely proud to host that conference and welcome the whole world. The momentum that was generated there cannot be lost, which is why debates such as this are so important, particularly as it is taking place while COP27 is happening in Egypt.

Many constituents have asked me to sign the nature and climate declaration, and I have been very happy to do so and to work with Zero Hour and the other organisations promoting it. On several occasions, constituents have made the journey to London to speak at mass lobby events on the Climate and Ecology Bill. The attempt to take it through the House of Lords is generating a lot of momentum, and I really hope the Government pay attention to what is said in the upper House. Not all of us are fans of the fact that people can be appointed for life to that place, but it has a role in the UK’s constitution. If the Government are serious about protecting the UK’s constitution, they need to show that they are taking the House of Lords seriously. When it debates issues such as this, it is important that the Government pay attention.

It is timely that this debate is happening during COP27. In the Chamber today, the Prime Minister was subject to some robust questioning from both sides of the House. One of the key points for the Minister to consider is that there is growing cross-party consensus not just about the need to tackle the climate emergency and the crisis facing nature, but about some of the steps that have to be taken. As we said in the debate that the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) secured last week, if Members of the Conservative party want to come up with free market-based solutions to tackle the climate emergency and preserve ecology, that is fine, but the problem is that externalising pollution and damaging factors from the current economic system caused the climate emergency in the first place. We can debate how we reach the targets—that is fine—but we have to agree that the targets are absolutely necessary.

[Wera Hobhouse]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that one of the best delivery mechanisms is local government, but the Government are not prepared to devolve power and resources to local authorities, which are often closest to the people and are where the best solutions can be found?

[Patrick Grady]

Yes, indeed, and a lot of local authorities are doing what they can. The city authority in Glasgow, having hosted COP, is determined to be a leader in reaching net zero and for Glasgow to become a net zero city. Many local authorities and devolved institutions have been way ahead of the Government in recognising and declaring a climate emergency. To date, we have not had a Minister accept at the Dispatch Box that the planet is facing climate emergency, and adopt that language. If the Minister were prepared to do that, that would be a helpful step forward.

[Mr Robin Walker]

A moment ago, the hon. Gentleman asked whether Conservative Members could come up with ways in which the private sector and the market can help, and I think that was a fair challenge. One of the positive legacies from Glasgow, which was mentioned in the Prime Minister’s statement earlier today, was the international climate finance pledges, and private sector organisations have got involved in that. Does he agree that that is a better approach to engendering international progress on this issue and supporting developing countries than the suggestion from the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband) that we should be paying reparations to countries around the world for climate damage?

[Patrick Grady]

I think it is important that we address loss and damage. It is a question of climate justice, and this is a concept that the Scottish Government have embraced for many years. The reality is that those of us in the developed part of the world—western, liberal economies—have benefited from an industrialisation process that has led to the anthropogenic climate change we are experiencing. The effects of that climate change are being felt first and hardest in developing parts of the world that have done the least to cause climate change. Whether people use the language of reparation, loss and damage or mitigation and adaptation, the reality is that it will have to be paid for.

Climate change is a reality that people have to adapt to. As we said in last week’s debate, there are already significant population flows. The population flows that are coming to these islands are as nothing compared to what is happening with internal displacement of people in Africa and Asia. There are small island states that are simply not going to exist any more, but the people who live on them have to go and live somewhere, and that has to be paid for.

It is not necessarily helpful to get tied up in the language around how the finance is leveraged. There is absolutely a role for the private sector and private funding. I was very interested to attend, at last year’s COP, events organised by the Global Ethical Finance Initiative, which spoke about how the private sector can ethically, effectively and sustainably leverage funding that helps businesses grow and develop but that also tackles precisely these challenges.

[Wera Hobhouse]

Last week, I asked the Leader of the House if we could have some progress on the pledge on accessing climate finance for poorer countries. She could not answer that question. I have asked for a debate. It would be great if we could have a statement from the Government on the progress on access to climate finance.

[Patrick Grady]

The hon. Member is absolutely right, and I would support a bid for such a debate—I might even notify the Chair in advance that I wish to speak, rather than popping up at random.

As the hon. Member says, it is all good and well making pledges—the Prime Minister spoke many times today about the £11.6 billion that has been pledged—but that money has to be disbursed. It has to be spent effectively, and that cannot be at the expense of other development projects. Climate funding and justice have always required additionality to pre-existing aid flows. Without that, we will go backwards on progress towards meeting the very sustainable development goals that the hon. Member for St Ives spoke about, which school pupils in his constituency, as in mine, are so concerned about.

This issue has to have implications for the Government’s domestic agenda as well. The reality is that new coal and nuclear power stations are not a sustainable solution, nor a route to protecting climate or nature. In Scotland, we are very proud that 100% of our electricity requirements are generated by renewable sources. We want to continue to build on that as time goes on. That is why it is important that the UK Government, and indeed devolved Governments and local authorities, start developing a broader vision of a circular economy that has wellbeing at its heart. I am very relieved that the language of growth at all costs, which was briefly the mantra of the UK Government for 40 days or so from the start of September, has quietly disappeared. Infinite growth is simply not possible on a finite planet. While growth is an important indicator, it is not the only indicator of wellbeing, prosperity or success.

All those considerations have to fit into the Government’s thinking. A cleaner, greener future is also a cheaper and safer future. I have heard from constituents who are concerned that, in among the cost of living crisis and everything else that is going on in the world, some of these priorities—particularly those we heard about at COP26 last year—have begun to be forgotten. That is why the COP process is so important: we have that annual reminder, the whole of civil society is mobilised and Governments are motivated—including the latest Prime Minister. Actually, if we want to tackle the cost of living crisis, adopting a more sustainable approach to our energy use and our consumption of goods and so on will lead to a cheaper and safer future at the same time.

The fact that there is a certain amount of cross-party consensus behind the climate and nature declaration represents an opportunity for the Government. Support will be there for action that helps us meet our targets. The Government should recognise that and capitalise on it. The fact that we are having the debate during COP27 makes it particularly timely. We all look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say.

Cost of Living and Food Insecurity

Patrick Grady Excerpts

Tuesday 8th February 2022 Commons Chamber

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

I commend the Labour Front-Bench team for tabling this motion, and I commend the hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton (Jim McMahon) for setting out succinctly and forcefully the impact on real human beings of the failures of this Conservative Government. It was so farcical as to be really comical, if it was not so tragic, that the right hon. Member for Wokingham (John Redwood), who is no longer in his place, asked the Minister to agree that cutting food miles was a good idea, yet a Minster from the same Department a couple of weeks ago thought it was brilliant that we had arrived at a new trade deal with Australia and that we should be trying to cut food deals. What better vignette could there be to illustrate the inconsistency and chaos of this Government? They have torn up the best trade deal we will ever have with our nearest neighbours and replaced it with a deal with people who are literally on the other side the world, yet they have the cheek to tell us that the way to deal with food shortages in Britain is to cut food miles.

Just to put into context the scale of what we are facing here, the Bank of England has increased interest rates to try to control increasing inflation, but it is warning that it could reach 7.25% in April. Very few of our constituents will get a pay rise that comes within a mile of 7.25%, and most will be lucky to get anything. Data released by the Food Foundation charity shows that, in January this year, 4.7 million adults had experienced food insecurity, and National Energy Action estimates that 6 million households in these islands will be living in fuel poverty: that is not having to cut back slightly, but being unable to keep themselves warm enough to be safe and healthy, or to feed themselves and their families enough to keep healthy.

New analysis by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation warns that the energy price cap will have the harshest impact on the poorest families. We knew that anyway, but JRF has given the evidential backing to it. The poorest families will spend 18% of their income on energy bills after April. Can hon. Members imagine spending 18% of their £80,000-a-year salary on fuel bills? This place would be in uproar if that happened. Why is it acceptable for low-paid folk to pay a bigger chunk of their income when it would not be acceptable for Members of Parliament? The Office for Budget Responsibility forecasts that average real wages will still be lower in 2026 than they were at the start of the financial crisis in 2008.

If all that was being said about a poor economy, a poor country or a poor collection of countries, we would think it was shameful, but it is being said about one of the richest places on the planet, as the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) mentioned earlier. Fuel poverty and food poverty—people literally living on the edge of starvation and hypothermia—are happening not because of necessity but because of a deliberate sustained political choice. It has certainly been the political choice of Conservative Governments since they were elected under the former Prime Minister David Cameron.

[Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)]

Does my hon. Friend, like me, remember that, in 2014, the Labour party and the Conservative party said to Scotland that, if we voted for independence, freedom of movement to Europe would end, supermarket shelves would be empty of food and energy prices would go through the roof? Does he agree that they have quite a bit of explaining to do?

[Peter Grant]

It is a valid point. Every so often, I go back through all the scare stories that have been pushed through my letterbox—mainly from the Labour party, because we do not really have a Tory presence in my constituency, or certainly not in my part of it. When we go through all the horrible things that they say will happen if Scotland becomes independent and leave them for two or three years, we find them happening anyway. It started with the closure of the naval base in Rosyth and it is still happening today with the end of freedom of movement and increasing food prices.

It is estimated that 1 million adults, equivalent to more than 3.5% of the UK population, are having to go without food at least once a month because they cannot afford to eat. About 640,000 people in Scotland cannot afford their energy bills, and that is before they got put up by 50%. That is in a country that has more energy than it needs and that, most years, exports energy to England and other countries because it cannot use all the energy it produces.

Where else in the world would we find any commodity in surplus that is, at the same time, priced beyond the affordability of its own citizens? What on earth is wrong with the way that Scotland is run that means that the people who produce almost more energy per head of population than anywhere else in the world cannot afford to pay their bills, keep their homes heated and keep their families healthy?

The Chancellor’s response is better than nothing but it is woefully inadequate. He is basically offering a payday loan: “We’ll give you the money just now to pay off your fuel bills and we’re going to hope and pray that they come back down again in the next few years.” If they do not, what on earth happens? The Scottish TUC has said that the Treasury’s buy now, pay later loan

“comes nowhere near tackling the problem…It is nothing short of shameful that people are being forced to choose between food and heat.”

If emergency loans are such a good idea to tackle the problem of increasing energy prices, why not go to the source of the problem and give them to the energy companies? They are struggling because of many global factors that have been covered in other debates. At least that way, the Government would be giving the loans to people whose shareholders should be able to meet the cost. Why give the loan to somebody who will not be able to afford to pay it back next year, the year after or the year after that?

Given that the decision has been made to give that money directly to citizens, the SNP says that it should be turned into a grant. People should not be made to choose between taking the money now and not being able to pay it back later. The Chancellor must also cut VAT on energy bills, which is within his gift. Why has he not done it?

As well as giving emergency loans to the energy companies, the Chancellor should have ruled out a rise to the energy price cap—he simply should not have allowed it, or Ofgem should not have allowed it. He could also reintroduce the £20-a-week universal credit uplift that the Tories cancelled recently. None of that by itself will solve the problem completely, but at least it would give an indication that we are dealing with a Government who care, whereas, quite clearly, we are dealing with a Government who could hardly care less.

[Peter Grant]

Absolutely. My hon. Friend—I hope that I can continue to call her a good friend and colleague—has, as always, made a very valid point.

One of the most iniquitous and downright evil things about the crisis that we are now facing is that the people who get the hardest hit will be those who are least able to afford it. If we all had to take a 20% hit to our living standards, none of us would enjoy it, but all of us would manage. Most of my constituents cannot afford to take that scale of hit to their standards of living and they are the ones who are being hit the worst.

I want to look briefly at some of the things that have been done by the Scottish Government, using their limited powers to mitigate this crisis. The Scottish Government have a much more progressive income tax system than the rest of the UK. It is often attacked by Tory Back Benchers who are interested only in the wellbeing of high earners, but the fact is that, in 2021-22, 54% of people in Scotland—the lower paid 54% of people in Scotland—are paying less income tax than they would if they lived in England. There is also fact that Members of Parliament for Scotland pay a bit more income tax than our colleagues in England. I do not mind that if the money is going into essential services.

Last year, the Scottish Government invested around £2.5 billion to support low-income households, nearly £1 billion of which went directly to children living in low-income households. They have committed more than £3.9 billion to benefit expenditure in 2022-23, providing support to more than 1 million people. That figure of £3.9 billion is £361 million above the level of funding that we get from the UK Government, so while again the Tories will demand guarantees that all of the money that comes to Scotland be used for its intended purpose, the Scottish Government are spending almost 10% more than they are receiving for that purpose.

The reaction of the Child Poverty Action Group was that this was

“a hugely welcome development on the path to meeting Scotland’s child poverty targets... a real lifeline for the families across Scotland who are facing a perfect storm of financial insecurity as the UK cut to universal credit bites, energy prices soar and the wider costs of living rise.”

It said that on 29 November 2021. The British Government did not seem to wake up to the problem until about 29 January 2022.

My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow—

[Patrick Grady]

North.

[Peter Grant]

Glasgow North. I do beg my hon. Friend’s pardon. I love the city of Glasgow, but I can never remember the constituency boundaries.

My hon. Friend has raised the impact that Brexit is having. Brexit has had a disastrous effect on our economy, and it has not finished. The OBR estimates that we still have three fifths of the way to go. Most of the damage from Brexit has still to be done. Every single person on these islands faces a cost of around £1,200 as a result of Brexit, and we know who will be hit the hardest. Make UK, the organisation that represents 20,000 manufacturers, has said that Brexit changes will undoubtedly add to soaring consumer costs in 2022.

COP26: Limiting Global Temperature Rises

Patrick Grady Excerpts

Thursday 21st October 2021 Commons Chamber

[Caroline Lucas]

I could not agree more with the hon. Lady. It is quite shocking for people to realise that so much of our climate finance is actually in the form of loans, not grants. Given that we are talking about some of the most vulnerable countries in the world, which are already trying to cope with the impacts of climate change, for which they were entirely not responsible, I think the idea that we are then going to ask them for interest on those debts is absolutely obscene.

[Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)]

I was very proud to support this debate, and I am delighted that the hon. Member has secured it. Is that not why the concept of climate justice is so important? We should recognise the historical obligation we have in this part of the world for having contributed to climate change to those who have done the least to cause it and who are being hit first and hardest. That is a concept the Scottish Parliament has recognised and is trying to live up to, and it is a standard that we still have not heard the UK Government accept. Would it not be helpful if, at the end of this debate, the Minister said that the UK Government accepted the need to achieve climate justice?

[Caroline Lucas]

I could not thank the hon. Member more for his intervention. I think he has been reading my notes, because I was going to make exactly that point. The Prime Minister himself has said:

“It is the biggest economies in the world that are causing the problem, while the smallest suffer the worst consequences.”

Yet he has not grasped the implications of his own statement. As the hon. Member has just said, climate justice means the biggest economies doing far more and being far more ambitious than net zero in 30 years’ time. Climate justice means cutting emissions at home, without overreliance on international offsets or costly and uncertain negative emissions technologies. Climate justice also means recognising the obscenity of continuing with business as usual knowing that young people, especially those in climate-vulnerable countries, are paying for it literally with their futures.