Oral Answers to Questions

Patrick Grady Excerpts

Tuesday 29th January 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mel Stride]

The questions I have just responded to are in a similar vein and all lead back to one conclusion, which is that, if we are to avoid a no-deal scenario, there has, by definition, to be a deal that is agreed with the United Kingdom. We have a very good deal that the Prime Minister has negotiated and will be negotiating further with the European Union. It sees us respecting the outcome of the 2016 referendum but, most importantly, making sure that flows across our borders are as frictionless as possible.

[Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)]

6. What discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Scotland on the economic effect on Scotland of the UK leaving the EU customs union and single market.

[The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Elizabeth Truss)]

The Prime Minister’s deal delivers the ability to negotiate free trade agreements with third-party countries and to protect trade with the EU. So I suggest that the SNP backs the deal, rather than try to stop Brexit.

[Patrick Grady]

Will the Minister confirm that we do not actually know any of the full economic effects because the Treasury has not conducted an economic analysis of the Prime Minister’s deal? On that basis, can it really be the Government’s view, as the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Secretary told me a couple of weeks ago, that other European countries will be looking enviously at the UK’s position?

[Elizabeth Truss]

It is an absolute cheek for SNP Members to claim that there is an issue with our deal, given that they want to break up the UK. Some 61% of Scotland’s external sales are actually to the rest of the United Kingdom.

European Union (Withdrawal) Act

Patrick Grady Excerpts

Thursday 6th December 2018 Commons Chamber

[Stewart Hosie]

I do not doubt that some of the assessments given for what might have happened to date, before we leave, were wrong. I was very clear from the outset of the referendum that nothing would happen. My personal view was that nothing would happen in the first couple of years. Indeed, even after we leave I do not think the impact will be immediate. But when we look at big foreign direct investment decisions on £1 billion investments to access a market of 500 million or access a market of 70 million, I suspect at that point we will begin to see some very substantial and negative consequences for the UK economy.

[Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)]

Does all this not prove that it stands to reason that the best possible relationship with the European Union must be membership? If the deal was going to be so beneficial for the UK economy, everybody else would want the same deal and the whole European Union project would implode. That is simply not possible and demonstrates that, no matter what people were voting for, they were not voting to become poorer.

[Stewart Hosie]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I am not going to do it today, but certainly in previous debates we have gone through quote after quote after quote from Brexiteers who said that we would not be leaving the customs union, we would not be leaving the single market and we would still have the right to travel freely throughout Europe. Not everybody voted for a Brexit that was based on any single assessment damaging the economy, living standards and opportunities for their children and grandchildren.

The last of the assessments is the most recent, the Government’s assessment, which again shows a central forecast in all circumstances broadly in the minus 2% to minus 9% range. I find it extraordinary that the Government in essence have ignored every single serious assessment of the economic damage Brexit will do. What we see now with this proposal on the withdrawal agreement are rabbits caught in headlights, walking the economy towards danger, rather than pausing, thinking and changing course.

Finance (No. 3) Bill

Patrick Grady Excerpts

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

[Kirsty Blackman]

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

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

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

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

[Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)]

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

[Kirsty Blackman]

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

Finance (No. 3) Bill

Patrick Grady Excerpts

2nd reading: House of Commons & Programme motion: House of Commons
Monday 12th November 2018 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)]

It is a great pleasure to speak in this debate not only to support the Bill, but to associate myself with the comments of my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, who unfortunately is no longer in his place. In his opening remarks, he mentioned some words by the late Baroness Thatcher, and on reflecting on that, it is clear to me that some things never change. From what we have heard this evening, it is clear that the Labour party would still have the poor poorer as long as the rich were less rich. As I say, it is a great pleasure to speak in the debate. I will keep my remarks brief, as many other colleagues—from across the House, I am sure—will want a chance to speak about the great things this Government have included in the Bill.

Just two short weeks ago, we heard a Budget from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and the Bill delivers on a number of promises made in that Budget. Key among these is that this Conservative Government are cutting taxes for hard-working people and lifting the lowest paid in our society out of income tax altogether. Our increase in the personal allowance will mean that, in 2019-20, basic rate taxpayers will pay about £130 less tax than in 2018-9 and £1,205 less tax than in 2010-11, when the coalition Government came to power.

Unfortunately, as I pointed out in the Budget debate just two weeks ago, my constituents will be unable to benefit from the raising of the higher threshold, as the SNP Government in Edinburgh would rather punish the strivers and the grafters—the policemen, teachers, entrepreneurs and wealth creators—than reward them, as we do. Instead, the tax gap between Scotland and the rest of the UK is growing wider and wider, with the Scottish Government squeezing out every penny.

[Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)]

I am sorry the hon. Gentleman is having to get used to speaking from the Back Benches again, after his tremendous turn from the Front Bench in the UK Youth Parliament, but I am sure that, if he keeps up this line of complimenting the Government, it will not be long before he is back there. Does he not accept that the reality of the progressive tax reforms agreed by the Scottish Parliament as a whole—not just by the SNP Government—is that most people in Scotland are actually paying slightly less tax than they were this time last year? [Interruption.]

[Andrew Bowie]

As is being said from a sedentary position behind me, I think the total amount of money by which somebody in Scotland will be better off, if they are below a certain level, is about £24 a year. What the SNP is doing is punishing aspiration and stopping people—[Interruption.] As is being shouted from behind me, it is gesture politics. The SNP is punishing the entrepreneurs and the wealth creators that we need to attract to Scotland, especially to the north-east of Scotland. I could go on, but I will not because I have a lot to get through.

We are hearing exactly what we heard two weeks ago from the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Drew Hendry)—doom and gloom. This is the politics of gripe and grievance, and SNP Members cannot even find it within themselves tonight to welcome the huge strides that we have taken in supporting the oil and gas sector since 2014. I share the frustration of the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) about the oil and gas sector, although I would say that that is an issue for the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, rather than the Treasury right now. But no reference was made to the welcome given by Oil and Gas UK or indeed by individual companies in that sector for our commitment to the stable regulatory and fiscal regime that, since 2014, has made the North sea one of the most attractive basins in the world in which to invest. I think that is something all representatives from Scotland, especially from the north-east of Scotland, should celebrate and thank this Government for.

As well as slashing income tax for millions of people, the Bill will implement a number of indirect tax cuts, such as the freezing of duty rates on beer, on ciders and most of all on whisky. This is a measure that we Scottish Conservatives have lobbied on relentlessly, and it will be a great boost to our local breweries and distilleries, such as Deeside Brewery in Banchory and Royal Lochnagar at Balmoral, both of which I have the honour of representing in this place.

There are freezes to support our haulage sector—heavy goods vehicles duty will be frozen for 2019-20. I am sure the importance of this freeze to the British haulage industry will be obvious to everyone as we prepare to leave the European Union. I have a dream that one day these vehicles will be able to transport Scotch whisky, which we as a Government are supporting; Aberdeen Angus beef from farms that are championed by the Conservatives, but abandoned by the SNP; and Peterhead haddock fished from this new sea of opportunity, with us out of the common fisheries policy, being delivered by this Government, along the Aberdeen western peripheral route, if the Scottish Government ever manage to resolve the mess they have got into on that road and do so without wasting even more of Scottish taxpayers’ hard-earned cash.

Folic Acid Fortification

Patrick Grady Excerpts

Thursday 25th October 2018 Commons Chamber

[Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)]

It seems that a lot of us are substituting for other people today, but it is nice to speak in a debate on a topic on which there is a little consensus and agreement for a change, so I welcome the Government making time for this debate and the announcement about the fortification of flour with folic acid. It is particularly appropriate, as the Minister said, to be holding this debate on World Spina Bifida and Hydrocephalus Awareness Day. As the hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson) said, this change has been a long time coming—the Medical Research Council first called for it in 1991—so I hope that the consultation will be concluded as quickly as possible so that we can move to an implementation phase.

Since 1991, the evidence of the benefits of folic acid fortification has only increased to the point at which there is now clear consensus across the medical community about the importance of this step. Dr Linda de Caestecker, public health director of NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde, and Dr Jonathan Sher, an independent consultant on pre-conception health, education and care based in Edinburgh, have both written and campaigned extensively on this issue. In February this year, they published a paper in which they said that folic acid, or vitamin B9, could accurately be described as “vitamin benign” given its strong benefits and lack of significant downsides. They also pointed to the important fact that the lack of fortification has led to a health inequality gap, saying in a recent edition of Holyrood magazine:

“Relatively well-educated, well-informed, well-off women tend to follow the advice”—

to take supplements before and during pregnancy—

“while their less advantaged sisters often do not. The gap has also grown between women with well-planned and well-timed pregnancies and the large percentage of Scottish women who become pregnant unintentionally, unexpectedly, or with minimal preparation.”

The challenge is particularly acute in Scotland, which has more live births of babies with spina bifida per head of population than anywhere else in the UK. In turn, as the Minister hinted at, the UK rate is higher than that in many other parts of the world where fortification has already been introduced. Over 70 countries have already adopted this practice and have seen a decline in neural tube defects as a result. That is one of the reasons why last year the Scottish Public Health Minister, my good friend—and now the Cabinet Secretary for Communities and Local Government—Aileen Campbell, along with her Welsh Assembly counterpart, wrote to ask the then Secretary of State for Health to move forward on fortification.

The Scottish Government have also made it clear that they are prepared to take their own steps on fortification if necessary, but the evidence and research mentioned by the hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West shows that fortification will be more effective if it is rolled out at the same time across the whole UK. It is welcome that action is at last being taken. The focus of the consultation must therefore be on how fortification can be delivered effectively, not on whether it should be implemented in the first place. I echo some of the hon. Lady’s questions.

When the announcement was trailed earlier this month, the chief executive of Spina Bifida Hydrocephalus Scotland, Andy Wynd, said that the decision to proceed with fortifying flour with folic acid will have a monumental impact on the health of babies in Scotland. I pay tribute to the work of SBHS and other organisations, such as Shine and the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, which have long campaigned on this issue and which provided helpful briefings in advance of today’s debate.

My hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Stuart C. McDonald) works very closely with SBHS, which is based in his constituency. SBHS does incredible work to raise awareness of spina bifida and to support people and families with the condition to live happy and fulfilling lives. On that note, I wish the best of luck to my friend, and former constituent, Tommy Ga-Ken Wan who, with his dancing partner Piotr Marczak, is taking part in SBHS’s “Strictly Come Prancing” event in Glasgow later this month, which will raise much needed funds and awareness—as does the annual SBHS gala Burns supper, which I had the privilege of attending in 2016.

I attended that Burns supper with another constituent, Jackie Lennox, whose sister Tracy was born with spina bifida. Tracy sadly passed away in 2014—as we have heard, spina bifida is a life-limiting condition—and in her memory Jackie established Tracy’s tree, which has become a new but much loved tradition in Maryhill. The memorial Christmas tree outside the burgh halls is decorated each year with baubles bearing the names of loved ones who have passed away.

It is difficult to know how Tracy’s life, and many others, might have been different if the fortification of flour with folic acid had already been routine, but what we do know is that the introduction of fortification will reduce cases of neural tube defects and complicated pregnancies and will allow more babies and families to live longer and less complicated lives. That is why it is important that the Government now move as quickly as possible to take these last steps towards implementation. We must make sure we take this opportunity to finally make it, and get it, right.

Treasury Spending: Grants to Devolved Institutions

Patrick Grady Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd July 2018 Commons Chamber

[Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)]

I understand that there are hordes of people around London this evening looking for 90 minutes of entertainment on a green playing field, and where better to look than the House of Commons? We have been thoroughly entertained already and I am sure that there is nothing else in this evening’s line-up that could be as interesting. I want to start by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South (Stewart Malcolm McDonald) on securing this debate, and the Backbench Business Committee and the Liaison Committee on securing the time for him. My hon. Friend unfortunately took unwell morning and is unable to be here. I say gently to Members who criticise people for their absence that they should perhaps not do so from a position of ignorance.

[Douglas Ross]

I was fully aware of the illness of the hon. Member for Glasgow South and I understood that that was why the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) took his place. That was perfectly clear to all of us on the Government side of the House. What was not clear was where the other 34 Scottish National party MPs were at the time. The reinforcements have arrived in the Chamber now, so the text messaging system works well, but that is the point that we were making.

[Patrick Grady]

I was watching the parliamentary private secretary passing notes around the back of the Chamber earlier, so I will take no lessons on internal group communications from the hon. Gentleman.

I have spoken in estimates day debates before and been called out of order for daring to actually discuss the estimates, so it is very helpful indeed to be able to have this discussion on Government spending. The reason that we have these debates is that the SNP questioned the estimates process in the context of the English votes for English laws process. We were told by the then Leader of the House, who is now the Transport Secretary, that if we wanted to have a say and a vote on spending as it affected Scotland, the estimates process was the way to do so. As we have been so ably encouraged by Conservative Members to take that opportunity this evening, I am sure that they will look forward to that happening at 7 o’clock and in the time that follows.

In summing up, it would be only fair to address the points that have been raised by Conservative Members. The hon. Member for Angus (Kirstene Hair) was interested in health and in the Barnett consequentials that will allegedly come as a result of the £20 billion increase in expenditure for the health service. It is great to know that they are coming, and the Scottish Government have consistently said in successive manifestos that they will pass on all the Barnett consequentials that they receive for health. The question is: where is the funding coming from? It was supposed to be coming from a Brexit dividend, but it now appears that it will come from increased taxation or perhaps from cuts to other Departments. However, if other Departments are cut to fund health spending, there will be cuts to the Barnett consequentials as well.

[Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP)]

To give the House an example, the NHS in England got £337 million for winter pressures last year, but what finally made it over the border was not the expected £32 million but £8.4 million, for exactly that reason.

[Patrick Grady]

Exactly. I do not know how many Scottish Tories took part in the health estimates debate last night, but I know for a fact that my hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford) did so. Again, we will take no lessons on attendance in this Chamber.

I say to the hon. Member for Moray (Douglas Ross) that if he is so keen to debate the Scottish national health service, perhaps he should go back to where he came from: the Scottish Parliament, which makes the decisions about health. And if he is concerned about the payroll vote, he might want to take note of the fact that the current Prime Minister has the largest Government since 1979. I will take no lessons on bloated Government from Members on the other side of the House.

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

Why are there no protestations from the party opposite about Lord Duncan of Springbank, who was defeated at the general election and then stuffed into the House of Lords?

[Patrick Grady]

Precisely. If we want to talk about wasting public expenditure, we have only to look up the corridor.

The hon. Member for Ochil and South Perthshire (Luke Graham) was quoting from his Whip’s note about what financial transactions money was being spent on, but he neglected to say, as my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen North pointed out at the very start, is that financial transactions money has to be paid back, so it is not money that the Scottish Government have the kind of discretion over that they need and deserve.

The hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie) is not in the best position to lecture us about the payroll vote. We salute the fact that he holds a place of greater esteem on the Government Benches than his hon. Friends, but I want to take him back to my modern studies class at the Inverness Royal Academy way back in 1996 and 1997 where we talked about why funding per head is greater in Scotland than in the other parts of the United Kingdom. There are two good reasons, as some of the Scottish Conservatives should know. First, we have higher costs on account of having large rural areas that need to be served. Secondly, the figures are for identifiable public expenditure, and we all know that the vast amount of unidentifiable public expenditure is spent here in the south-east of England in London on Departments and large-scale infrastructure projects that are of no benefit whatsoever to the people of Scotland.

The name that allowed me to tick off my Scottish Tory bingo sheet was that of the hon. Member for Stirling (Stephen Kerr). He said that Scotland is the highest-taxed part of the United Kingdom, which everybody was delighted to hear. Perhaps the Scottish Tories at the Hurlingham Club Tory summer ball last night were weeping into their warm prosecco over the leadership plots and the fact that they now have to pay, like all SNP Members, an extra 60p a month because tax is going up in Scotland. For what we get in Scotland, such as free prescriptions, more bobbies on the beat, investment in education, free tuition and mitigation of the Tory bedroom tax, I think that that is pretty good value for money. In addition, everyone in Scotland earning less than £33,000 a year, which includes squaddies, nurses and teachers at the start of their careers, is paying less. That is the simple fact of the effect of the Scottish Government’s budget, so we do not need to hear any more about that.

As this is an estimates debate, I want to reflect on a couple of points about how spending decisions are made in Scotland once the grant has been agreed and the tax revenue collected. As Members who have previously served in the Scottish Parliament will know, we have an open and full legislative process to agree Government spending during which Members can make suggestions. The Opposition parties in Scotland are good at explaining the things on which they would like more to be spent, but they are not so good at explaining where they think cuts should come from or what should be reduced. Nevertheless, they have the opportunity.

[Pete Wishart]

The one thing that the Scottish Tories did not want to talk about is where they are in control in Scotland. They are in control in Perth and Kinross Council, where they are closing schools and depriving leisure facilities of hard-earned money. That is the reality of the Tories in power. A Tory vote is not consequence free.

[Patrick Grady]

There is no danger of a penalty shoot-out this evening; the goals are quite clearly being scored by Members on this side of the House.

[Luke Graham]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Patrick Grady]

I do not think that intervening would be wise. The hon. Gentleman should probably take a seat.

We just have to compare the system in this House with the system in Scotland. Here, we have 90 minutes of debate, but the Scottish Parliament has months of decision making. Tomorrow, in less than 30 seconds, the Supply and Appropriation (Main Estimates) (No. 2) Bill, which has not even been published yet, will be nodded through, authorising billions of pounds-worth of expenditure without any real scrutiny whatsoever.

I cannot finish without talking about the other consequence for devolved institutions. It is the elephant in the room, the canary in the coal mine, or whatever metaphor we please: the dodgy deal, the grubby agreement, the confidence and supply arrangement that has propped up this weak Government for over a year in return for £1.5 billion that we cannot scrutinise and is almost impossible to find anywhere in the estimates document. The debates yesterday and today and the Bill tomorrow are literally the supply element of confidence and supply, but getting to the bottom of the deal is almost impenetrable. All the Library briefing note can find is a line about health buried somewhere. If I was in the DUP, first of all I would be here, but I might also be starting to feel slightly aggrieved about whether the money is ever actually going to show.

However, at least that money has been promised. The real disgrace of the confidence and supply arrangement is that Barnett consequentials are not being made available to the other devolved institutions. We have seen the contempt in which the UK Government hold the devolution settlement these days. They ripped up the Sewel convention to pass the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill without a legislative consent motion from Scotland. In fact, that contempt has been clear since they have shown total disregard for the Barnett formula. No matter what vows were made in 2014, it seems that the conventions and formulae that have underpinned devolution for the past 20 years are slowly but surely being undone. There we are.

We have heard the reality of Tory austerity, which has always been an ideological choice, not a necessity. It has meant real-terms cuts to the discretionary budget in Scotland. We heard the hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards) speak of the struggles in Wales, which has been dealt the double whammy of Tory austerity and Labour incompetence. We wonder where and when there will ever be a proper chance for scrutiny of the confidence and supply deal that is propping up this Government at the cost of £1.5 billion, which has been delivered without the due consequentials elsewhere.

I know that, unaccountably, the attention of other Members might be somewhere else at 7 o’clock, but we in the SNP are left with no choice but to divide the House on the estimates.

Banking Misconduct and the FCA

Patrick Grady Excerpts

Thursday 10th May 2018 Commons Chamber

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

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

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

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

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

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

[Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)]

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

[Kirsty Blackman]

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

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

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

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

RBS Global Restructuring Group and SMEs

Patrick Grady Excerpts

Thursday 18th January 2018 Commons Chamber

[Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)]

I join others in congratulating the hon. Member for Norwich South (Clive Lewis) on securing this debate and in thanking the Backbench Business Committee for granting time for it, especially after a debate on the subject was cancelled before Christmas. It is clear from the contributions today that we could easily have filled a whole six hours, there is so much going on. I think it started for all of us with individual constituents coming to us, and we began to realise that this issue extends across the entire country.

One of the key questions, or perhaps the key question, that remains to be answered is whether the behaviour of the RBS GRG was, to paraphrase the right hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb)—I hope this is not unparliamentary language—a cock-up or a conspiracy. Either way, the decision to seize and strip the assets of thousands of small businesses across the country has, as we have heard, caused untold misery to the owners and employees of these businesses and their families, and it seems to have caused genuine damage to the economy as a whole.

The fact that we are having this debate is a tribute to the campaigners, the various organisations that have raised awareness with their MPs and the work of the all-party group on fair business banking. Those campaigners include one of my constituents, Mr Neil Mitchell, who I know is watching this debate very closely. We have heard many powerful testimonies from constituents, and I want to share some of my constituent’s experiences.

Neil was the chief executive of Torex Retail. He alleges that the RBS Global Restructuring Group “conspired by unlawful means” with Cerberus, a private equity fund in America, to engineer the sale of Torex to Cerberus for a cut-price £204 million in June 2007, which is more than 10 years ago. He alleges “systematic institutionalised fraud” by the RBS GRG in relation to its dealings, which have cost him his business, and time and money afterwards in his campaign for justice. Although I, like many Members, have been able to table parliamentary questions, speak in debates and write to and meet Ministers, Mr Mitchell has faced the burden of this case. While he is rightly seeking restitution of his own losses, his greater motivation has been to support other affected businesses in seeking justice and the establishment of a system that will mean that this kind of scandal can never happen again.

All Mr Mitchell really wanted was a meeting with the chief exec of RBS, and I wonder how much grief might have been avoided if RBS had been willing to meet constituents and business owners much earlier in the game. Instead, Mr Mitchell commenced private legal action against RBS, Cerberus and KPMG; he reported his case to the Serious Fraud Office and the FCA, launched a civil legal action against the companies involved and financed a private criminal investigation with a view towards a private criminal prosecution. He has also played a part in the “ripped off” campaign. I pay tribute to his dogged determination and that of many other campaigners.

There are some key questions that the Government need to answer and that we perhaps all need to reflect on. First and most important, in whose interests were the decisions of the RBS GRG to force these businesses into default? Who has the beneficial interest in businesses that were secured borrowers being forced into default? Whether for an individual or a business, what is the primary objective of engineering the deliberate default and stripping of assets of businesses that potentially have long-term viability? Many of these businesses were stripped of fixed assets that realised capital for a state-owned bank, and individuals were forced out to the labour market, with all the cost to the state and loss to the economy that unemployment brings.

I thoroughly agree with all the calls for a dispute resolution mechanism and, indeed, for a public inquiry into the actions of GRG. Every victim of mis-selling should be given fair and equal opportunity to receive justice. Banks have to fulfil their duty to have the public interest at their heart, and that has to be put at the heart of banking culture in the United Kingdom.

Business of the House

Patrick Grady Excerpts

Thursday 11th January 2018 Commons Chamber

[Paul Maynard]

My hon. Friend makes an important point about how we need to ensure that we manage rising demand, with 2.9 million more attendances at A&E since 2010. Clearly, we have a dynamically changing healthcare demand pattern, so it is important that we do all we can in our local communities to manage that demand better. GPs have a key role to play in that, and he makes an important point that I hope can be added to further in this Chamber.

[Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)]

Maryhill jobcentre in my constituency will close tomorrow, in the face of massive public opposition. When will the new Minister for Employment, the hon. Member for Reading West (Alok Sharma), come to the House and reassure us that no further jobcentres in Glasgow are under threat?

[Paul Maynard]

I hear what the hon. Gentleman has to say and understand his concern. We are increasing the number of Jobcentre Plus staff in Scotland and throughout the country to provide more support to those who need it most. We are merging a number of smaller offices into bigger sites as leases come to an end. We have consulted the public in areas where people will have to travel more than 3 miles or for more than 20 minutes. If the hon. Gentleman still has concerns about his example in Glasgow, I urge him to secure an Adjournment debate so that he can hear more detailed answers as to the circumstances in Maryhill.

Christmas Adjournment

Patrick Grady Excerpts

Thursday 21st December 2017 Commons Chamber

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

What a pleasure it is to follow the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who has been a real source of encouragement in his fellowship to me since I joined the House; I pay tribute to him.

I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute to this debate before the Christmas adjournment. Before doing so, I would like to express my best wishes to the whole House, particularly the staff of the House, who have been incredibly welcoming to new Members. I hope they have a very happy and peaceful Christmas.

When I volunteered to sum up this debate for the Scottish National party, I was not quite aware of what I was letting myself in for. We have heard 16 Back-Bench contributions, from my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Deidre Brock), the right hon. Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms), and the hon. Members for Harrow East (Bob Blackman), for Keighley (John Grogan), for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford), for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone), for Beckenham (Bob Stewart), for Ealing Central and Acton (Dr Huq), for Southend West (Sir David Amess), for West Ham (Lyn Brown), for Mid Worcestershire (Nigel Huddleston), for Ilford South (Mike Gapes), for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy), for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson), for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) and, of course, for Strangford (Jim Shannon). This has been the most wide-ranging debate that I have ever seen in this House. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Southend West, who managed to get 25 or 26 different topics into six and a half minutes, which will be a real challenge for me next year.

I also place on the record my sincere thanks to my constituency staff—Derec, Carolann, Emily, Ross, Laura, David and Michelle—for all their hard work since my election in June. Their support has been invaluable and I am truly indebted to them.

Mr Speaker, the turn of the year is normally an opportunity for us to reflect on the year just past. However, with your indulgence, I want to look forward to 2018, particularly to some of the major challenges coming down the track for my city of Glasgow. On Friday last week, I had a meeting with Easterhouse Housing and Regeneration Alliance, which is a coalition of eight independent, community-based social housing providers in Greater Easterhouse. Before going any further, I pay tribute to the staff and directors of those eight housing associations, because our housing associations in the east end of Glasgow are more than just that: they are the backbone of the community, and go well above and beyond the role of a registered social landlord. It is important that that point is placed on the record and that our sincere thanks are expressed to all housing associations, which are so often the glue that holds our community together.

When I met EHRA staff last week, they expressed some serious concerns about changes emanating from the Department for Work and Pensions next year that will, quite frankly, be a hammer blow to the city of Glasgow—and a double blow at that. Ministers have already signalled their intention to close half of Glasgow’s jobcentres, with three out of the four jobcentres in Glasgow’s east end due for the axe. As its stands, jobcentres in Easterhouse and Parkhead, as well as in Bridgeton, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss), will all be closed and relocated to Shettleston. Nowhere in the UK is being as disproportionately impacted by jobcentre closures as Glasgow’s east end—an area that has an unemployment rate double the UK national average.

I am afraid that, despite countless written questions, correspondence and a face-to-face meeting at Caxton House, the Employment Minister has repeatedly failed to take account of the profound concerns expressed by myself and the whole community in Glasgow’s east end. That includes our three east end Tory councillors, who also oppose these closures.

[Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)]

As my hon. Friend says, the jobcentre closures are affecting the whole city of Glasgow. Is he particularly concerned, as I am, that Ministers have not been very reassuring on whether this will be the last round of closures, and that there is a real risk that, further down the road, the city could lose even more of its jobcentre provision?

[David Linden]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. He is absolutely right. The fact that Ministers have not clarified that point should be sounding alarm bells in our city, and I very much join him in expressing that concern.

However, it is not too late for the Government to drop these plans. They should conduct a full equality impact assessment. When they do, they will see for themselves the profound challenges posed by sanctions, poor transport connections and the deep-rooted issues of territorialism and gang violence that still exist in our city.

The second issue of concern expressed to me by the EHRA relates to universal credit. The social destruction that is universal credit is due to be unleashed on Glasgow next year, and it is crystal clear from the debates we have had in the House that it is simply not working. More than that, it is fundamentally flawed, and the tweaking around the edges that we saw during the Budget simply is not enough. Major concerns still exist—among not just politicians on both sides of the House but housing associations in the third sector—as to how universal credit is due to be rolled out, particularly in Glasgow.

Every day, evidence is mounting that universal credit is creating social destruction as it continues to roll out across these islands. The reduction from six weeks to five weeks, although welcome, is not enough. The wait for the first payment of universal credit is pushing people into rent arrears, debt and crisis, and we know that 25% of claimants are even waiting longer than six weeks—and that is according to the Department for Work and Pensions.

I am afraid that the manner in which the Tories have rolled out universal credit is completely opposed to their stated intention of making it mirror a salary. The refusal to halt the roll-out is nothing more than arrogance, and we see that the Conservative party is wedded to this ideological flagship welfare cut, despite the misery it is causing in our local communities.

Citizens Advice Scotland has said that evidence from five bureaux in areas where universal credit has been fully rolled out has shown an average 15% rise in rent arrears issues, compared with a national decrease of 2%, and an 87% increase in crisis grant issues, compared with a national increase of 9%. Citizens Advice Scotland has also analysed over 52,000 cases it has seen and has concluded that those on universal credit would, on average, appear to have less than £4 per month left to pay all their creditors after they have paid essential living costs—that is not something we should be condoning in the House.

Finally, the Trussell Trust has reported seeing a 17% increase in food bank usage in areas of full universal credit roll-out—more than double the national average. My own local food bank—Glasgow NE Foodbank, run by Tara Maguire—is already at breaking point. The full universal credit roll-out in Glasgow could well be the straw that breaks the camel’s back. That is why I am very much calling today for the roll-out of universal credit to be halted and abandoned entirely in Glasgow.

If there is one thing I have learned in my time in this House, it is that the Government have difficulty listening. We see that with Opposition day debates and with the power grab they are trying with the Brexit Bill. So if I may, I would, in the spirit of Christmas, urge Ministers to come back to the House with a new year’s resolution to listen and to act in the interests of our communities. They can start doing that by abandoning the proposed closure of Glasgow’s jobcentres and halting the universal credit roll-out in Glasgow.