IR35 Tax Reforms

Paul Sweeney Excerpts

Thursday 4th April 2019 Westminster Hall

[Mr Paul Sweeney (Glasgow North East) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gapes. I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Ged Killen) for securing the debate and pulling together the necessary support from the Backbench Business Committee. This debate is a good example of the constituency MP in action and effectively representing constituents—the sentiments expressed so far by my hon. Friends indicate that.

I had never heard of IR35 until a constituent came to see me about it and asked me, “What do you know about IR35?” I had to confess: “Nothing. I have never heard of it.” I was in for a quick education, however, as he iterated his deep concerns about the changes. I must confess, having never before seen, heard of or understood IR35, I share his alarm. It is only right that the Minister recognises the deep and genuine concern about the issue, which is shared not only by constituents, but by hon. Members who have been made aware of it.

My hon. Friend encapsulated that concern—the changes to IR35 are akin to using a sledgehammer to crack a nut. I am heartened to see Labour MPs standing up for freelance workers and raising concerns about the policies that the Conservative Government have proposed, which could damage entrepreneurship, workers’ rights and private sector businesses. That is quite curious, as the narrative is usually the other way around.

I am aware that the original IR35 legislation was introduced by the previous Government some time before I entered the House, but I refer hon. Members to what the current Chancellor said in November 2001, at the time of its introduction:

“One reason why the Government’s IR35 initiative has been so damaging and destructive is the fact that it has hit at the most flexible part of the economy.”—[Official Report, 6 November 2001; Vol. 374, c. 16WH.]

It would be interesting to see if the Minister can explain how the reforms are no longer as damaging and destructive as his boss previously thought.

In February, I submitted a written question to the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. In his answer, he said:

“The reform does not change the amount of tax payable by the firm engaging the worker.”

I am afraid that that is factually incorrect. Before the reform, the firm that engaged the worker did not expect to pay employer national insurance contributions. The person of significant control did that, and deducted it from the amount received from the engager. After the reform, the engager will pay employer national insurance contributions on top of the amount paid to the person of significant control.

The figures produced by the Office for Budget Responsibility have the highest uncertainty rating possible, with no data available on the behavioural effects. My hon. Friend the Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West indicated that the potential effects could be devastating for firms, which may have to contend with cumbersome administration burdens and face considerably increased costs both to retain and to hire contingent workers, particularly those that require overnight stays to complete the work. As extra costs to business are inevitable, firms clearly need more notice so that they can plan accordingly. They face hard choices to decide whether to increase costs or cancel or delay existing projects.

Of course, some firms will no doubt be in a position to pass any extra costs on to the contingent workers whom they hire by reducing the amount that they pay. Sadly, those in weaker bargaining positions and with lower earnings will be most affected. Those given a Hobson’s choice will end up classed as employees for tax only, but will not have any of the associated employment rights. That seems entirely contrary to the Government’s good work plan.

There are clear concerns about the complexity of employment status assessments, which HMRC’s check employment status for tax tool, or CEST tool, has been unable to overcome. It is worrying that HMRC promotes the use of a tool that gives incorrect results, as evidenced by the Lorraine Kelly case, which has been mentioned. Given that HMRC loses the vast majority of IR35 cases in court, how can it adequately educate and prepare the entire private sector to accurately assess the status of the contingent workforce? Should a teacher who consistently fails their own exams be the one chosen to teach the lessons? We must reflect on the complexity and incompetence that pervade the system.

Putting the financial implications to one side, the logistical challenges for the private sector are enormous. An estimated 600,000 self-employed freelancers work in the UK, and they and their firms will be affected by the reforms. Every single engagement needs to have a status assessment completed, and I am told that each assessment takes approximately one and a half hours, so over 1,000 status experts would be required to complete the next six months. There are simply not that many available, and even if there were, the level of inconsistency across them would create more uncertainty.

Firms that think they have correctly assessed genuinely self-employed people will themselves have no certainty, because HMRC can challenge the situation at a later date and go back six years if it considers that the firm has been careless. Every firm will have to prepare for the reforms within 12 months, but where are the warnings and support from HMRC and the Treasury?

In the light of the very subjective nature of the tests, HMRC will always be able to take an angle, which could mean that a firm will have to battle for many years to defend itself, at considerable cost to its business. The level of possible tax risk and penalties for firms could be crippling. Cambridge University estimated a tax risk equal to 56% of the original cost of hiring the self-employed worker. That risk will accumulate every year for each worker hired, and put an uncertain risk on the balance sheet of every UK business that is engaged in the practice.

That kind of risk will need to be evaluated during any potential company sale, which could reduce the attractiveness, value and shareholder value of the firm. Will firms still consider the UK as a base for operations when that kind of uncertain financial environment is the newly laid foundation of the British economy? If a growing company needs to hire contingent workers, will it choose the UK as its base?

The new proposals also introduce a new tax. It is based on a subjective assessment by the client, which could be wrong, yet there is no route to appeal. HMRC has suggested that firms should manage the appeal process themselves, but asking the perpetrator to judge their own situation is hardly a valid appeal and does not enable a taxpayer to seek natural justice through the courts. The new proposals effectively bestow on firms powers to make tax judgments that affect someone else’s wellbeing without there being any proper way to appeal. If HMRC cannot get the assessment decisions right, is it fair to put them into the hands of firms that have a vested interest—to avoid tax risk—in wrongly claiming that the worker is caught by the legislation? That will clearly require some sort of independent arbitration service, but the assessments need to be completed before the work begins. How is that possible when the service would need to deal with around 600,000 assessments a year?

I sympathise with the Treasury’s challenge. It is concerned about the projected decrease in employer’s national insurance contributions, as the modern workforce changes and more people move to flexible self-employment. The Treasury wants to take the same sized slice of tax from everyone who provides labour, irrespective of their employment status. Unfortunately, the tax system has not kept up with the modern way of working, and employer’s national insurance is now seen as an unnecessary cost by firms that can much more easily obtain the services that they need from the contingent workforce, particularly with platform-based or gig-based working.

The employer’s national insurance of 13.8% is, in all but name, a payroll tax, which firms that hire contractors do not have to pay. It is the £60-billion elephant in the room. Contractors, because of various changes over the years, pay largely proportional taxes to those on a salary, and any historical tax advantages are small compared to the chunk of employer’s national insurance that firms do not have to pay when they hire the self-employed. If the tax differential was closed, none of us would be standing here today and there would be no such thing as “deemed employees” or IR35.

If the Government are concerned about falling revenues because of the self-employed, they should ditch the introduction of a new complex tax that is based on the already failed IR35, and instead just introduce a new off-payroll tax that applies to all firms that hire freelancers who are off-payroll. A small but simple tax would be far preferable to the large and uncertain one. To re-class those people as “deemed employees”, without giving them employment rights, is not the answer and never has been. The concept is ideologically flawed and will damage the flexibility of the British economy as the UK attempts to find its feet in these particularly uncertain times for the economy and its prospects for growth.

I shall close by asking the Minister some direct questions. If, as HMRC has claimed, a third of workers are probably “deemed employees”, how come HMRC keeps losing IR35 cases in court? In the light of the inaccuracy of HMRC’s CEST tool, and the lack of evidence about testing and accuracy, can the Minister assure us that the tool will undergo formal independent scrutiny to ascertain its worthiness, before any future enhancements are released to the wider sector? What studies has the Treasury conducted to consider the impact of the reforms on the self-employed?

--- Later in debate ---

[Anneliese Dodds]

I am grateful for that clarification. Regardless of where the individual was based in the country, the case was revelatory. In theory, with a levelling of the playing field upwards when the private sector is covered by IR35, some of the concerns about the leakage of highly skilled contractor staff from the public sector could be removed by the extension. However, the other problems that hon. Friends and Members have rightly referred to are still there, not least the problems that arise for small, often one-man or one-woman-band contractor companies that are trying to provide specialist skills on this basis, who may well end up being disadvantaged in relation to much larger providers of those specialist services. Surely we do not want that; surely we want to continue to have the innovation that exists in the complex ecology of different firms and freelancers offering such services.

We really need a joined-up approach to the issues that brings together the consideration of tax and employment law and levels up protections for the self-employed, as well as dealing with the current implications of the tax system that boost bogus self-employment. In the absence of that, we have the issues that we have been talking about today, and employers themselves are trying to find a third way through all of this, as we have seen with the GMB-Hermes deal recently, where a new employment classification has been created in the absence of any other way to improve the situation.

We do not have a coherent approach. It is unfortunate that, as Members have mentioned, the lessons have not been learned from the roll-out of IR35 to the public sector before it is rolled out to the private sector. I will not go through all of them now, as they were appropriately described by my hon. Friends, but one that I want to underline again is the concern about the finance and time that has to be spent by the self-employed who face uncertainty because of the new rules.

The kind of experience that individuals have had with the HMRC online tool, which has already been explained, is a common one. The tool is not based on all of the case law, and the case law itself is not very clear in how it directs us to determining the status of many different contractors, so it does not resolve the situation for many users. It puts an additional strain on contractors, including many individuals who, as has been mentioned, might be on quite low incomes and cannot absorb additional costs. The Government need to look at the issue at a legislative level, rather than the onus being on HMRC to try to deal with it in a technical and procedural manner. It simply cannot. A different approach needs to be taken. As we established in our previous general election manifesto, the burden of proof should be with the employer, so that the law assumes a worker is an employee unless the employer can prove otherwise. We need to be clear on that.

Concerns about the appeals process have been mentioned. I will not go into them in detail, but I will underline the questions asked by hon. Members. How can we be sure that the process will be fair when it is led by those who employ contractors effectively marking their own homework, in the memorable words of one hon. Friend?

The Institute of Chartered Accountants has stated that tax and benefit differentials between different types of work need to be addressed. There needs to be further consultation on what, if any, tax incentives are offered to the self-employed. That is one view from industry and it coincides with what was outlined in the Taylor report:

“Over the long term, in the interests of innovation, fair competition and sound public finances we need to make the taxation of labour more consistent across employment forms while at the same time improving the rights and entitlements of self-employed people.”

That brings me back to the fundamental issue that I will close with, Sir David.

It is a fact that the tax and legal status of work is not aligned, not certain and not comprehensible. It is impossible for many of those caught up in it to understand the right way forward. My party has said that we need a proper commission to look at it in detail, to modernise the law around employment status and to look at how it interrelates with tax status. We have presented a 20-point plan for security and equality at work. We need to build on that through a consultation that includes the voices of the people affected. We have heard so many of them in the short time that we have had today.

[Mr Sweeney]

My hon. Friend is making important points about the flaws in current thinking. With the consultation on expansion due to start in the next month or so, there is an urgent risk. Does she think we need to pause and reassess the roll-out before we blunder into it and cause much damage?

[Anneliese Dodds]

I am very concerned that the consultation is going ahead and that the whole process is continuing, because the consultation does not focus on the problems with the public sector roll-out. I would have anticipated that any consultation to expand the approach would take those issues on board. I hope the Minister will address that in his response, specifically why there has not been the necessary change of direction.

We may need legislative change, as I suggested, because of the lack of clarity, but we should not treat individual contractors as guinea pigs while it all gets sorted out, given the impact it could have on them. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ged Killen]

I thank the Minister for that. I appreciate that we can have a constructive approach. I do not think any of us disagrees about the principles; this is about getting it right.

HMRC’s idea of working with people to assist them is different across the board. I point out gently to the Minister that it can be daunting for people to have HMRC assisting them, because it provides guidance but it is also the enforcer. People are therefore keen to get things right on their own, so we need a fair and transparent system that everyone can understand and use fairly. If we can get a tool that works, that is great, but let us make sure we have one before we come down too hard on people.

I did not hear the Minister confirm whether the changes will eventually be rolled out to small businesses in the private sector. I appreciate that he might not be in a position to answer that today. If the Government are considering that, I urge real caution. They have not suggested that yet, but, having come from a small business background, I can say that that would be a very difficult prospect.

[Mr Sweeney]

My hon. Friend makes an important point about the roll-out being restricted to larger businesses, which the Minister referred to. The changes will inevitably also impact small businesses, which are contractors with areas of expertise. For example, a large bank such as Barclays might commission a software expert to come in and build a product or tool, and that expert might in turn employ staff to support that project. If we classify the person who runs that small business as an employee of the bank, how are they meant to pay their staff?

That is the fankle that this reform will result in. It will draw us into situations where thriving, dynamic businesses that are responsive to the needs of large businesses—small businesses that can, for example, plug into a large financial institution to deliver a bespoke project and detach again —are not able to function in that way because their people will be pulled in as payroll staff members. Does my hon. Friend agree that those will be some of the inevitable negative impacts for small businesses if the Government do not get their act together with these changes?

[Ged Killen]

I absolutely agree. Small businesses will be affected by these changes anyway. People will be operating in a two-tier system, because many will work for small businesses as well as for large businesses in the private sector, and different rules will apply in those situations. I am not saying that is an argument for equalisation, because I still think it would be difficult for small businesses to act as the judge of whether someone falls under the scheme.

I am not in any way opposed to the principle of preventing tax avoidance. We all want to ensure that we boost tax revenues as much as possible, but that must be done fairly and transparently, and we must not destroy flexible working in the economy or self-employed people and small businesses in the process.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered IR35 tax reforms.

Santander Closures and Local Communities

Paul Sweeney Excerpts

Thursday 14th February 2019 Westminster Hall

[Mr Paul Sweeney (Glasgow North East) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Rosindell. I pay tribute to my constituency neighbour, the hon. Member for Glasgow East (David Linden), for securing this debate. He spoke very powerfully about the impact that these bank closures will have on the city of Glasgow and further afield.

As I listened to my constituency neighbour’s comments, I reflected on the picture in Glasgow. By my calculation, there are five Santander branches in the city of Glasgow, yet the two that have been earmarked for closure are in Springburn in my constituency and in Parkhead in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency. They just happen to be the two worst areas of Glasgow for social multiple deprivation, which leads to me to look at the wider programme of branch closures. In the last four years there have been four branch closures in my constituency, including two run by the Royal Bank of Scotland—one in Dennistoun and the other in Possilpark, directly opposite my constituency office—and the Clydesdale Bank in Springburn, just around the corner from the Santander branch that is earmarked for closure. The only branches left will be the TSB in Dennistoun and in Springburn. We are down to some of the last banks in the poorest communities in Scotland, which is a great tragedy. What does it say when we extrapolating that observation across the country?

Of the five branches in Glasgow, the ones in Shawlands, Byres Road, Argyle Street and Sauchiehall Street are staying open. They are in quite prosperous parts of Glasgow, and I think they are staying open simply because the current accounts held at those branches are much more valuable to the bank. It is profit-seeking behaviour, and there is no legislative imperative for the bank to correct it. The bank will therefore seek to maximise profit at the expense of its customers.

[David Linden]

There was a point that I omitted from my speech due to time constraints. One of the things that I learned from speaking to the staff was that we had a mortgage adviser in Parkhead. Given that they were not doing a roaring trade, apparently they were taken out six months before the decision to announce the plans for closure. That absolutely backs up the hon. Gentleman’s point: these decisions are made entirely on the basis of profit rather than on serving the people who live in those communities.

[Mr Sweeney]

I accept that observation. To be fair, my interaction with a physical branch is limited, because I have adopted new technology—I suppose it is because I am a millennial. I use the banking app for TSB, despite some recent difficulties with the transfer from Lloyds TSB using the banking technology. The only time I visited a branch for any substantial business was when I took out a mortgage in Dennistoun about three years ago. The hon. Gentleman makes the point that if we are going to cut the cloth, we will create almost a self-fulfilling prophecy by stripping out key banking services such as mortgage provision, which is a great problem.

[Luke Graham]

The hon. Gentleman is making a very solid point about deprivation. Some of his branches, and my branch in Alloa, are in some of the most deprived parts of our country, yet they are having services taken away. When Santander and other banks consider branch closures, they look at levels of deprivation in a constituency and they have an index. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the index should be made public and that we should put the access to banking standards on a statutory footing, so that these closures can be subject to real consultations and be far more transparent?

[Mr Sweeney]

A rare collegial moment for the Chamber, perhaps. I agree entirely, and I was just about to come on to that issue.

When I met with Santander management last week to discuss the closure of the Springburn branch, I made the observation, “I recognise exactly why you’re doing this.” They did not deny it. I also said, “Yes, there needs to be total visibility about the economic impact and the disparity in terms of the demographics of where these bank closures are happening, because there is no visibility of that pattern.” This was recognised long ago: in the 1970s in America, there was a practice called red-lining, which involved American banks deliberately blacklisting poorer communities and withdrawing banking services.

In 1977, the Carter Administration passed the Community Reinvestment Act. As a result, commercial banks in America are obliged to redistribute their profits into sponsoring co-operative banking services and mutuals, and to promote credit unions. There is therefore a much more diverse range of banking services as a result of direct Government intervention to redistribute those services, which dates back to the 1970s. As a result of the Community Reinvestment Act, Santander will invest £11 billion in sponsoring co-operative banking, mutuals and other sustainable banking activity. That is a hefty redistribution and is in stark contrast with what happens in the United Kingdom, where there is no legislative imperative for banks to do it. We need to address that yawning chasm in legislation.

I made the point to the Santander management that the root cause of a lot of these problems is the increasing monopolisation of the banking sector in the UK. We have five major clearing banks, which hold 85% of all current accounts. By comparison, in Germany there are 400 local Sparkassen banks and over 1,000 co-operative banks. Clearly the picture there is very different, because there is legislation in place to redistribute the holding of capital in the banking system, so it is done more sustainably and is more responsive to local communities and to sectors of industry. As a result, Germany has a much healthier and more balanced economy.

I also made the point that Santander’s origins lie in the Abbey National, which was demutualised in 1989, the year I was born. We have seen a pattern of demutualisation across the banking sector, which has been negative for the UK economy. I would seek legislation to reverse the demutualisation of the British banking system.

[Catherine West]

Is it not particularly galling that a bank that used to be a building society with a sense of social conscience is inflicting this huge series of bank closures on our local communities?

[Mr Sweeney]

Absolutely. It is a stark example of the exploitation that we see on multiple fronts. We see it not only in universal credit, jobcentre closures and post office closures, but in things such as fixed-odds betting terminals and bookmakers being concentrated in poorer communities and high streets. We also see a stark contrast in microcosm in Springburn shopping centre. Right next door to the Santander branch is a branch of BrightHouse, which is a rapacious lender exploiting the poorest communities in our country. In my opinion, its practices should be illegal. It is just as bad as the payday loan lenders. That is a good example in microcosm in Springburn of what is wrong with the British economic system, writ large. We need to address that.

I hope the Minister will reflect on the reality. He is welcome to come and visit my constituency and see what it looks like on the ground. If we do not fix it, we will entrench economic division, alienation and the sort of social tensions that exist in our country, and which might have erupted as the reason why so many people voted to leave the European Union. A source of their frustration was an economic system that does not serve their interests. This is all connected; there is a complex interdependency. We need to address the wider tensions in society. This is yet another example of what is wrong with the state withdrawing from regulation and permitting neo-liberal practices to prevail. It is a major concern and needs to be addressed.

In the case of Springburn, the bank justified its closure programme by saying that there was a 25% reduction in footfall. I accept that the industry is subject to disruption due to changes in technology, as the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (John Woodcock) said. However, the curve is way ahead of where people are at on the ground. The Government should be involved in closing down that gap, so that it reflects the real transitions that people make, particularly elderly people and disabled people.

It was claimed that 91% of people use a variety of other ways to engage with the bank in Springburn, but that includes phoning up the local branch to make an enquiry and using an ATM. Those are not mutually exclusive activities, so that is a questionable statistic. A minority of users—only 46%—use another Santander branch. The nearest branch is in Glasgow city centre, which is an expensive bus ride away for many people, particularly given that the community has a very low car ownership rate. A minority of customers—only 49%—use online or telephone banking services.

The Springburn branch is proposed to close in June this year, yet Santander’s lease will not expire until December, so for six months it will be a blight on the community with boarded up frontage. I want the bank to address that, as a minimum. If it is going to close the branch, it should ensure there is a transition. I appeal to it to realise its social responsibilities.

Ironically, at 2 pm today the Springburn Regeneration Forum kicked off across the way from the Santander branch in the Springburn shopping centre that is proposed to close. It is a community-led approach to bring together the council and other stakeholders to plan the regeneration of Springburn. What a blow that on the same day that that is happening the bank across the way in the Springburn shopping centre has announced that it is pulling out of the community. That is a sad illustration of our commercial banks’ lack of social conscience. That should be addressed. If the banks do not do so voluntarily, it should be done through legislation.

In a nutshell, that is what I think is wrong with the UK banking system and what the Minister should reflect on. I am sure our Front Bench team will do so, too. I am a Labour and Co-operative Member of Parliament. We are committed to a massive restructuring of the UK banking system in favour of co-operative banking, mutuals and a more equitable form of financing our economy. That is what we are supporting.

[Hugh Gaffney (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Rosindell. I thank my constituency neighbour, the hon. Member for Glasgow East (David Linden), for securing this debate.

In my constituency of Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill, we have seen the loss of local branches in recent years. Recently, Stepps, Tannochside and Bellshill have all seen their local Royal Bank of Scotland close down, despite the fact that the Government own the majority stake in RBS and could have kept some of those branches open and protected those jobs. We have also seen the collapse of Scotland’s oldest savings bank, the Airdrie Savings Bank, which led to the loss of branches in Coatbridge and Bellshill.

The loss of those branches in my constituency are just a snapshot of what I have heard today and what is happening throughout the whole country. I repeat that the rot started with the Crown post office closures. Now Santander says, “Let’s turn to the Post Office. It can help us.” Too little, too late.

[Mr Sweeney]

My hon. Friend is making a very important point about the post offices. One of the justification for the Santander closures was, “Don’t worry. The bank service can transition over to the post office.” The Springburn post office has been put up for franchising and will be in the back of a grocery store somewhere. That is hardly a place that someone is going to go to take out a mortgage, is it?

[Hugh Gaffney]

That is exactly what is happening up and down the country. I have seen many fighting for people’s jobs in Crown post offices, which have good terms and conditions that are not matched by WHSmith.

I asked the Chancellor in a written question whether the Treasury had made any assessment of the impact of Santander’s decision to close branches on consumers’ access to money. I received a reply from a Minister, who stated that the Treasury had made no assessment, and that it was a commercial decision for Santander. How often have we heard that? I would like the Chancellor and his Treasury Ministers to tell the affected communities that the Government have made no efforts to determine the impact of the proposed branch closures on their ability to access their money. That is their written answer: no effort, no access. That is shameful, but it is an all-too-common attitude for this Government.

The impact of the branch closures has been worsened by the loss of cashpoints. Figures released this week by Which? show that 280 cashpoints were lost across Scotland in 2018, 203 of which were free to use. Despite the growth of online and telephone banking, 73% of the public continue to use cash frequently to pay for goods and services. My children still use cash; the elderly still use cash. This is not a cashless community yet. The branch closures and the loss of cashpoints only make it harder for people to access their money. The branches and cashpoints are being lost in the poorest and most vulnerable communities in the UK, as my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North East (Mr Sweeney) pointed out, and as many others up and down the country know.

Which? has asked the Government to appoint a new regulator with sole responsibility for cash infrastructure. I think that is a much-needed step forward to ensure that consumers and businesses can continue to access cash. I urge the Government to take action by creating a regulator, so we can begin to reverse some of the devastating effects that our communities have experienced because of the branch closures and the loss of cashpoints. If they are not listening today, when will they start listening?

Christmas Adjournment

Paul Sweeney Excerpts

Thursday 20th December 2018 Westminster Hall

[Mr Paul Sweeney (Glasgow North East) (Lab/Co-op)]

What an appropriate and enjoyable way to round off my first full calendar year as a Member of Parliament. It is great to recap—indeed, I was just looking at my stats. It feels like it has been a whirlwind in some ways and an eternity in others, but it is certainly never boring. In the past year, I have spoken in 167 debates, so clearly I cannot shut up in this place, but it has been good fun and a challenge, too.

The best feeling as a Member of Parliament—a view probably shared by many hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy), who spoke so powerfully about various issues close to his heart—is being able to achieve a really good outcome for a constituent. It may seem like a trivial administrative exercise for the Member of Parliament, but it can have a life-changing impact on a constituent. That has really been the most rewarding aspect of being a Member of Parliament, and I reflect on the power of elected Members to do good. We are all here fundamentally for the right reasons. In the context of a confrontational and acrimonious national debate, we should take cognisance of that as we approach Christmas, and focus on the good aspects of being Members of Parliament and serving in the public interest.

The debate on Brexit rumbles on about the most appropriate measures in the national interest. I share the sentiment of my hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (Martin Whitfield) about the urgent need for the Government to rule out the prospect of a no-deal Brexit, because it is quite clear that that would not be in the national interest. This Government—any Government—must govern in the national interest. It is not on for the Government to hold us to ransom in that way. Blackmail of Parliament is not appropriate in a democracy. It is appropriate now for the Government to rule out a no-deal Brexit.

I was all geared up and prepared to speak in the debate on the draft agreement, but, of course, the Government moved the goalposts on that. I understand that the vote will now be held on 16 January, which will be my 30th birthday. What better birthday present than the opportunity to vote down this utterly moribund and rubbish deal, which will not serve our national interest in any way whatsoever? I look forward to Parliament then taking control of this process and exerting the will of the people, which was not clearly expressed by the Government and is not being reflected by the Executive branch of our democracy. We must reassert the will of Parliament to deliver in the national interest. I am looking forward to a challenging first quarter of 2019, as we steer the ship away from the rocks, hopefully towards a calmer course, back to prosperity and stability.

One of the greatest challenges in my constituency this year has been the roll-out of universal credit, which started at the end of November. As many hon. Members have mentioned, it has been very challenging, not least for the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian, which has been a pilot area for the roll-out. The fact that it is rolling out in Glasgow, an area that already has significant social challenges, not least in my constituency, is a particular concern. Once full migration happens, I will have the largest number of universal credit claimants in Scotland—over 16,000—so I am bracing myself for the impact of that change on my constituency casework. I hope we can help people as much as possible to avoid the worst effects of a social security system that has moved away fundamentally from the founding spirit of the Beveridge principles: that we should create a floor below which none should fall and above which everyone can rise.

As a society, we must restore the principle that we have a minimum level of dignity that no one can fall below. We need to restore that, because the current situation is simply not on. An unfortunate measure is the rate of homelessness. I mentioned in the House that, on average, two people a week are dying in Scotland as a result of having to sleep rough. The average life expectancy of those living on the streets is just 39. In Glasgow, the picture is that, in the last year, 5,300 people found themselves homeless. That figure covers just homeless applications, and does not include those who do not present themselves to apply as homeless.

The council in Glasgow had a statutory duty to house 4,200 people. There are only 8,000 social rented lettings available per year in Glasgow, so the council was able to secure accommodation for only 2,400 people. The physical capacity of the state to help people is failing. That is not on and we need to address it. That is a shameful figure. It should be a fundamental human right to have shelter. We should restore that to the principles of the governance of this country. That is something I hope we will find a consensus on in the new year.

As a Member of Parliament for the only city in Scotland that is a dispersal area for asylum seekers, another challenge has been immigration and asylum cases, which account for the bulk of my casework. We work very hard and are challenged by the situation that faces a lot of people. People have come to this country in the most appalling circumstances. I could regale members with many tales of incredible human resilience and courage. It is quite moving to understand what the people who have been able to exist in those circumstances have been through. However, to then see the cold bureaucracy of the Home Office stifling what resilience they have left and destroying what hope they have in their future is devastating for me, as I recognise my limitations as an elected Member to help them. Often, we do get good outcomes, which is reassuring, but it feels like a constant war of attrition. It cannot be right. We have to look at a more compassionate basis for our asylum and immigration system as we move into 2019. I hope we can achieve that together as a House.

We have to recognise the extent of human suffering that exists in our communities, often cheek by jowl with great prosperity. A lot of the people who find themselves in these situations are very dignified and do not want to talk about the extent of the hardship they face, but none the less, it is there. I want to pay tribute in particular to the Rev. Brian Casey and the Rev. Linda Pollock, two Church of Scotland kirk ministers who have risen to the challenge of the hardship faced by a lot asylum seekers in my community and have mobilised so many in their congregation to work to help many people facing deportation, detention—without limit, in many cases—and the constant fear of being sent back to their torturers and tormentors. At this time, when we think of Jesus being a refugee, it is appropriate to reflect on the way we treat some of the most vulnerable people in the world who are in our midst.

I also pay tribute to the incredible work of the pupils at Springburn Academy, who rallied to the cause of two of their fellow pupils, Pakistani Christian boys who are facing persecution and had family members killed in Pakistan, by arranging a huge petition. That is a really appropriate thing to think about as we move into the new year: people do rise to the challenge, and our communities are resilient and will act in what they see to be the best interests of their fellow human beings. I think that Government should step up and try to follow the example of the compassion shown by our communities.

Another key issue in my constituency is the number of drug-related deaths, which in Glasgow is more than 1000% higher than the European average. It is a critical issue. It is a public health emergency in my city. It is urgent that policy is adapted and reflects the urgency of this crisis in Glasgow. In the new year, I am looking forward to the establishment of the first heroin-assisted treatment facility in Glasgow, hopefully by the summer. In due course, we hope to expand its scope into a full safe drug-consumption facility, which will enable people to interact in a clinical environment to consume drugs and minimise the harm that they face as a result of their addiction, and treat addiction as a public health rather than a criminal justice issue. I will persist with that in the new year.

I also want to pay tribute to the amazing community organisations, some of which I have mentioned. The Beatroute art centre helps to engage people who are socially excluded in the wonderful joy of exploring and realising their musical talents. The Barmulloch Community Development Company has just been awarded the Architects’ Journal award for the best public building of 2018, for developing a brand new, state-of-the-art community centre in the heart of Barmulloch, which is an amazing facility in the heart of a community that has historically been quite deprived. It shows that even the poorest communities in our country deserve world-class public services and public buildings, and we should develop our communities in that way, with nothing less than the best quality provision for everyone.

I also recognise Possilpoint, which does amazing work to support disabled people in my constituency, as well as Possobilities, which does similar work. Possilpoint also has a charity called Young People’s Futures, which does a great amount of work to divert young people from being snared by the drug barons and organised criminals in my constituency, and show them that there is a better way forward. That is a really worthwhile effort, particularly by Ann Lawrance, who leads that work.

The Mallard charity provides care for adolescents, particularly those suffering from severe disabilities who require respite care away from their families. It does an amazing bit of work to give their families an opportunity for time away from that constant need to care for their family members. Again, however, once that child transitions from adolescence to adulthood, there is a cliff edge and no support. We need to work hard to look at how we can provide care provision for young people through their adult years, and have a national care service, as Labour has proposed, so there is a cradle-to-grave approach to care and it does not simply drop off a cliff when someone reaches the age of 21.

The Carntyne credit union also does great work, particularly through its food bank, to support people who are suffering at this time of year. The Balornock uniform bank promotes an environmentally sustainable way to save money by exchanging school uniforms. Kids grow so quickly that people can do that without feeling shame, because it makes perfect environmental sense to have an exchange. It is a worthwhile and wonderful project that was started by a constituent.

The Quarriers and Penumbra also do amazing work. Penumbra deals with people who have faced problems from alcohol-related brain injuries. That is a cross-section of the amazing work that I have encountered when going round my constituency as a Member of Parliament in the last year. They are all wonderful people, who are often hidden in plain sight—someone going about their private life would not know, but they can be there without anyone being aware of it. Discovering those amazing activities and championing them as much as I can is one of the most wonderful aspects of becoming a Member of Parliament. Hopefully, somehow, some of those amazing pockets of excellence will be embodied in national policy one day.

Another major issue that erupted in Glasgow this year was the tragic fire at the Glasgow School of Art, of which I have been trying to champion the restoration. Hopefully we can find a way forward for that wonderful, iconic building—the most important architectural edifice in my city. As someone who has championed the built environment in Glasgow for many years—long before I was a Member of Parliament—it is very close to my heart.

It is also a reflection of how we need to treat the quality of our public realm and our public buildings in cities across the UK, many of which were built at the highest watermark of Britain’s industrial and commercial prosperity between 1870 and 1914. Most of our city centres are Victorian and Edwardian in character, and they are now of a certain vintage, which means that intensive intervention will be needed to maintain the quality of the built environment in our urban areas.

We have to look, as I will in the new year, at how we adapt our public policy to preserve the wonderful built environment of our great cities across the United Kingdom. In particular, I will look at policies such as VAT, which is levied on renovations but not on new builds. Right away, that creates a 20% perverse incentive against renovations vis-à-vis new builds. We have to look at those sorts of perverse incentives as they apply to our urban areas and ensure that we maintain the amenity of our great cities.

The Springburn winter gardens is a major project that I have been championing in my constituency. It is a category A listed building and the biggest glasshouse in Scotland, but sadly it has been derelict since 1983. It is my personal mission to see it restored, and I hope we will make big progress on that front in 2019. We have already seen encouraging movement through various funding applications.

Like my hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell), who talked about the closure of a local hospital and the disposal of the site, I am concerned by the major issue of Stobhill Hospital in my constituency, where my younger brother and I were born. It closed as an in-patient hospital several years ago and it has been left to total rack and ruin by the NHS board in Glasgow. More than £1 million of lead and copper cabling has been stripped away by organised criminals, which is a huge loss to the national health service. It has simply walked away and does not care about the ongoing maintenance of such buildings once they are no longer in use.

The site is also a huge blight on my community. I have engaged with the health board on how we bring forward the community to look at the future of that site and manage it in the future. There are often short-sighted policies about the clinical focus of the NHS, but we should look at the legacy of now redundant buildings and how they can be used for a new public purpose to continue to improve our communities. I will do that in the new year as well.

Coming from a shipbuilding background, I have often contributed to defence-related debates in the House and raised the issue of our shipbuilding and associated industries. I am hopeful that in the new year, we will continue to make the case to the Treasury and the Ministry of Defence about the importance of maximising the power of public procurement in this country to pump-prime and provide a sustainable future for our heavy industries, such as shipbuilding, because a huge skill base is invested in them.

If we were to build every ship required by the Ministry of Defence in this country, we would achieve a saving to the Treasury of 20% through wage and supplier payments, rather than giving that to Fincantieri in Italy or Daewoo in South Korea. They are not bidding so low out of altruism; they want the contract because it makes economic sense for them to build those ships. We should take the hint and build them in the UK. We should have a consistent policy that for every major public sector industrial procurement contract that can be done in the UK through our UK manufacturing base, the first preference should be given to UK-sourced manufacturers to maximise the impact of the public purse and the multiplier effect across the UK economy.

That has never been more important than in the last few days. A major crisis has erupted with the potential closure of the St Rollox railway works in my constituency, which could lead to the loss of 200 jobs. The railway works has been there since 1856—the dawn of the railway age—and it would be an absolute tragedy for a community that once built 60% of the world’s locomotives to lose its last railway works. Of course, I am sat next to my hon. Friend the Member for York Central, whose constituency is another major centre of the railway industry. It is important that those skills are there.

The enterprise is fundamentally viable. I will do everything I can to protect and secure the future of the railway works, even if that requires a workers’ buy-out or some means of the workers taking ownership of the site. One of the big problems that the site has faced is that it became a branch plant of a works in Milton Keynes. It then became owned by a German company, which is not out there batting for the works, but treats it as a marginal part of its operation. If that site was the master of its own destiny, the management and entrepreneurial spirit of its team could fight for it, and it would have a better, more prosperous future.

We should reflect on the structure of ownership of major industries in this country. The railway works is one example of how great talent and skill, and a critical mass of wealth creation, can be destroyed through the ignorance and lack of entrepreneurial spirit of faceless multinational corporations that come and strip assets and value out of our communities. We have to fight back against that, and I will work on that.

Another major issue I have raised this year is the plight of veterans, and particularly veterans’ suicides, which is a huge problem, including for a significant number of people in my former regiment, the Royal Regiment of Scotland. We continue to raise the problem of the mental health of veterans and those in service in the armed forces. We need to continue to rise to that challenge.

It is the duty of the state to provide a minimum level of support in accordance with the military covenant to ensure that those who have served our country in the most challenging circumstances are not left behind once they leave the service—they must be sustained in their careers afterwards. We must do more to protect them. It is simply tragic that so many of them are not being heard, or when they are being heard, that they are not being properly cared for. Often, people have reached out and tried to get support, but they have been ignored or they have not been properly satisfied. It is a horrible situation and we have to do more to raise awareness.

Finally, MPs’ unsung heroes are their staff—the people who support us and stand behind us. I could not do it without my staff and I want to namecheck them: Tom Dickson, James Burns, Hollie Cameron, Stevie Grant, Angus Bugg-Millar, Pat Rice, Alex Paterson, Sophie Dicker and Jordan Agnew. Every one of them has made me the MP that I can be today. It is a reflection of their efforts that I won The Herald’s Scottish MP of the year award this year. I was quite chuffed with that unexpected accolade, but I could not have done it without them. I am merely the figurehead of the operation, but there is a much more robust and intelligent cohort behind me that makes it all happen. I am sure I speak for all hon. Members when I pay tribute to our staff and those who support us, and wish them all a great Christmas and a happy new year.

--- Later in debate ---

[Marion Fellows]

I thank the hon. Gentleman. He spoke about the dangers that some young people, in particular, are going through as a result of using it. He really wants the drug to be reviewed and perhaps its use halted, to save people from the horrendous symptoms that they can experience.

The hon. Member for Keighley (John Grogan) spoke about rugby league. Yes, I remember it when I was growing up; I remember Eddie Waring and Keighley in their heyday. I know that he spoke about other things, too, but I really have to move on.

The hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) gave us a very sobering reflection on religious freedom and how important it is in this country. He talked about Jainism, about Sikhs and about the problem of getting religious information on censuses.

I was quite horrified to hear about the wildcats on “Good Morning Scotland” this morning. As the hon. Member for East Lothian (Martin Whitfield) said, they have been interbreeding with feral cats, which is an animal welfare issue. He also talked about Brexit and universal credit.

The hon. Member for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers) gave a great summary of the previous speakers; he was probably much better at that than I am. I am grateful to him, in that respect, because I have been able to rush through some of the others. He also spoke very knowledgably about the work of his two local authorities, as well as speaking about Humber ports and direct rail connections.

The hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) spoke about post offices. As Members will know, I have a personal interest in them, having lost my own post office. The post office in Wishaw was closed for three weeks, because it was not possible to get another person to take over the sub-postmastership, which caused my constituents great suffering. She also spoke about NHS land and what happens to it, which is another real issue, as did the hon. Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy), who also talked about drones. I cannot get an earlier flight from London City airport because what has happened at London Gatwick has had an impact right across the United Kingdom; it is really serious. He also talked about work overseas, especially in Africa, and I am grateful to him for some of the knowledge he gave me that I did not have beforehand.

I seriously hope that I have not missed anyone out. I will move on to the hon. Member for Glasgow North East (Mr Sweeney), who has had a very interesting time since he became an MP. He cut right through a number of things. He is an enthusiastic supporter of the Glasgow School of Art, which is in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss). His own constituency has the famous St Rollox rail works, which I know. My husband took me to Springburn on our honeymoon, to show me where he had been born and lived. However, when we turned the corner, we found that the building he had been born in had been demolished. I make light of it, but there is Springburn Museum for the hon. Gentleman’s delectation and delight, in which there is a picture of my husband on coronation day in 1953, watching his sisters in a race to celebrate the Queen’s coronation. I will not mention where I was then.

With your indulgence, Mr Robertson, I will mention my own constituency of Motherwell and Wishaw, of which I am extremely proud. It is a haven for refugees and has been since 1919. The first group that I can remember are the Lithuanian refugees who came over after the first world war. There have also been Polish refugees and, more recently, Congolese refugees, who were taken to Motherwell, and the Syrian refugees, who have also been placed and welcomed in my constituency. Indeed, when there was a move by some right-wing organisations to demonstrate against refugees being settled in Wishaw, I am very proud to say that many citizens of Wishaw stood at the bottom cross in Wishaw and campaigned for the refugees’ successful integration, which I believe is really happening. In Motherwell and Wishaw, when children of refugees go to school and meet local children, it becomes a real exercise in getting along together.

I will also talk a bit about what I did as an MP when I was first elected in 2015. We saw a need and we set up the Poverty Action Network, because we knew there were lots of local organisations fighting poverty and we wanted to bring them together and facilitate the exchange of ideas. We have the Basics food bank; St Vincent de Paul; Lanarkshire Links; Voluntary Action North Lanarkshire; Scottish Action for Mental Health; Neighbourhood Networks; Made4U in ML2; Citizens Advice; Motherwell Baptist Church; Safeguarding Communities—Reducing Offending, or Sacro; Women’s Aid; Routes to Work; Big Lottery Fund; Christians Against Poverty; The Haven; Lanarkshire Community Food and Health Partnership; North Lanarkshire Disability Forum; Alzheimer Scotland; Getting Better Together; NL Leisure; Motherwell Football Club Community Trust, because Motherwell is now a community-owned football club; Families Against Murder and Suicide; Chris’s House, which helps families who have suffered the suicide of a family member; Lanarkshire Cancer Care Trust, to which I am especially grateful as it transported my late husband to a hospice on a weekly basis; Community Care Scotland; North Lanarkshire Carers Together; Wishaw, Murdostoun and Fortissat Community Forum; South Wishaw Parish Church; Miracle Foundation, which provides parties and support for young children who have lost parents or other close relatives; Lanarkshire Baby Bank; One Parent Families Scotland; the Welfare Rights Team in North Lanarkshire Council; North Lanarkshire Partnership; Scottish Welfare Fund; NHS Lanarkshire; and Police Scotland, especially the police based in Motherwell.

[Mr Sweeney]

I loved hearing about the history of the hon. Lady’s connection with Springburn. Sadly, Springburn Museum has now closed down, but I hope that the wonderful exhibit she referred to can be recovered for the renewed Springburn Museum in the winter gardens, which I mentioned.

I also just wanted to say that I was really impressed by the reference to Motherwell, which I did not realise was a co-operative or a fan-owned club. Perhaps that is a great sign of Scotland’s tradition of the co-operative movement, and perhaps in 2019 we can see a further extension of the wonderful co-operative movement in Scotland and across the UK.

[Marion Fellows]

I thank the hon. Gentleman very much for his intervention. It gives me a chance to say that Motherwell Football Club Community Trust does very good work because it is able to reach groups that other organisations cannot reach, such as men who have not worked or men with drug problems, by bringing them into the stadium. Generally it is men they bring in, although I hope to buy a half-price season ticket in the new year.

I, too, have been doing a lot of work on universal credit. It has been rolled out in North Lanarkshire for about nine months now, and we had the manager who was responsible for its introduction in Lanarkshire at one of our Poverty Action Network meetings. I have to say that some of what she said did not chime with the reality of what has happened, but I do not blame her personally. Nevertheless, there are still real differences and real challenges to be met, because universal credit is causing great hardship, both for those who receive it and for North Lanarkshire Council, whose rent arrears have risen astronomically.

In fact, one of the things that has most made me proud, and most made me upset, is that in the last two weeks I have been to food bank drives—I ran one myself in Motherwell town centre and the local Tesco ran one, too—and when I spoke to the fundraiser in Tesco, she said, “Marion, we don’t even have to tell them what to do. We don’t need to hand out the leaflets. They know what to buy, and they buy it in bulk. And it’s often those who have the least who help the most.” I pay tribute not only to my own constituents, but to constituents all over the UK who make these donations. And may I just say that in the 21st century, it is shameful indeed that we need to do this?

Mr Robertson, I have tested your indulgence, and I want to make sure that both the hon. Member for Bristol South (Karin Smyth)—the Opposition spokesperson —and the Minister get a chance to contribute to this debate, so I will stop there.

--- Later in debate ---

[Karin Smyth]

Yes, wildcats. I visited Edinburgh Zoo as part of the British–Irish Parliamentary Assembly this year, and it does some great work, so I wish my hon. Friend good luck with that. As I said, I agree with him about the major part of his speech: the irresponsibility of the Government on Brexit.

I agree with much of what the hon. Member for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers) said about the local enterprise partnerships: some are better than others, and it is for local people to help out in their communities. I look forward to the Labour Government sorting out those direct trains for him. My hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) talked about the issues around Coney Street, and we have all been affected by the so-called consultation by the Post Office. That is something we all recognise, and I know that my hon. Friend will make sure the Post Office does its homework better. Regarding Bootham Park Hospital, she and I have joined forces with NHS Property Services on the importance of NHS estate being part of those communities and overcoming the fragmented nature of the health service, working better to help local communities with big, important decisions. Again, my hon. Friend is right to highlight the social history of places such as our football grounds: those public spaces need to be taken into those communities and consulted with properly.

The hon. Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy) has reminded us of the debates he has raised previously about drones. What has gone on today is shocking; we have not caught up with all of it. I also agree with him about new developments—I have a number of those in my constituency—needing infrastructure when they are built, particularly GP access and school places, which help to get communities on board. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North East (Mr Sweeney) on his first full year, and his 167 contributions to debates. Well done.

[Mr Sweeney]

It was 168.

[Karin Smyth]

Sorry, 168. I also congratulate him on The Herald award, and welcome him; he has been a great addition to Parliament.

Before I wrap up, I will take this opportunity to thank all staff for the smooth running of this place: the porters, the Clerks, the security staff, the postal staff, and the others who people perhaps do not see quite as often. I hope they get a well-deserved rest. I thank all the public services in my constituency of Bristol South, which keep our city running so well. I have spent the past year with Avon and Somerset Constabulary, working on the parliamentary scheme: that has been a real eye-opener, and I commend them on the work that they will keep doing.

Like many hon. Members, I look forward to spending the recess with my family—I hope they do too. If not, there are some great choices of activities to take part in. We have “Aladdin” and “A Christmas Carol”, and the Tobacco Factory in my constituency is turning the theatre into a giant adventure playground to tell the charming story of “The Borrowers”. Some Members might recall this story: a family of tiny people who secretly live in the walls and floors of an English house, borrowing anything they can find upstairs. Let us hope it does not come to that in the coming year. From cotton buds to crisp packets, what the Borrowers do is the original upcycling—a wonderful theme for Bristol, which prides itself on its approach to environmental issues. In previous speeches, I have urged Members to visit Ashton Gate stadium, the home of Bristol City, to watch the football or the rugby. This time, I suggest to colleagues that they “spice up their life” and “only take a minute” to get tickets to the Spice Girls or Take That at the stadium—but “I don’t want to talk about” the Rod Stewart gig. On that note, I wish everyone a very merry Christmas.

[The Lord Commissioner of Her Majesty's Treasury (Paul Maynard)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Robertson. In the time I have left, I will do my best to do justice to everyone who has taken part in the debate. Christmas and the new year are a time to look backwards and a time to look forwards. Every year, Opposition Members are given the gift of hindsight, which is denied to Government Members—if only we had that hindsight. We might even get crystal balls this year, who knows? They could be rather cloudy though, as who knows what might happen in the future?

As many Members have indicated, we are currently grappling with themes of great importance and complexity, so it is worth remembering that our ability to engage in such deliberations arises from us having a mandate from our constituents. What we have heard today reminds me that what goes on in each of our constituencies gives us the insight that enables us to participate in the much more momentous and wider debates that are now taking place in the Chamber. We have also heard about the rich tapestry of voluntary activity and third-sector organisations across all our constituencies. At this time of year, more than ever, they deserve our praise.

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Gateshead (Ian Mearns), not just for chairing the Backbench Business Committee, but for being so assiduous in seeking time for Back-Bench business. I share the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) that we should have more of it, and that it should be protected when we do have it, so that it is not squeezed by the unexpected and shifted into less sociable hours. I wish him well in that endeavour.

As ever, my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West (Sir David Amess) delivered on all our expectations. I think it is fair to say that his speech was exhaustive, if not exhausting—not just for him, but for those of us who had to listen to it. I repeat my offer that if he wants Southend to get city status, I will support that if he returns the favour and backs Blackpool for city status. We can have a two-for-one. That is only fair. His comments on the girls and boys club were absolutely spot on. Blackpool has a fine girls and boys club that does so much across the town as a whole and deserves far more recognition than it sometimes gets. As for his centenarian tea party, the reason it has so many attendees is because Southend is the happiest place in Britain, and people who are happy live longer. If someone wants to be a centenarian, clearly they should move to Southend.

On a more serious note, the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) and many other Opposition Members expressed concerns about homelessness and universal credit. I think the two are to a certain extent brought together. She was right to comment on rough sleeping. I know she was in the Chamber for the urgent question earlier today. We talked about some of the Government’s approaches through the rough sleeping strategy. From my constituency, I know some of the challenges that those who are homeless have accessing universal credit, for example. There is a need to get people from the Department for Work and Pensions into our homeless hostels to ensure that people can sign up and access the benefit, as well as set up the bank accounts they need. The accessibility of basic bank accounts is a problem I have been trying to tackle with the Department. The new Secretary of State, far from standing idly by—I gently observe that—is trying to ensure that the benefit rolls out as effectively as possible. I recall a time when the Labour party supported the principle of what universal credit is trying to do.

I entirely recognise that Opposition Members will want to pressure us over how we deliver and roll things out—that is entirely right and proper—but representing a seaside town with a seasonal economy, I know that UC gives us an opportunity to ensure that people do not need to keep signing off and on each time their job situation changes. That they can have more secure access to benefits remains the right principle. We have to redouble our efforts to ensure that we deliver it appropriately.

I agree with the hon. Lady on many of her comments on homelessness. The hon. Member for Glasgow North East (Mr Sweeney) cited figures on life expectancy that always shock me whenever I hear them and bring home to me why the situation is so appalling. As politicians, we obsess about rules, regulations, structures and delivery bodies. The essence of our decision making should be the dignity of each and every person. As my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East mentioned, one rough sleeper is one too many in any civilisation or society. He is thanked so much by the House for his work on the Homelessness Reduction Act 2017 that it almost becomes commonplace, but the figures he cited show what a difference it made. We should be grateful to him for that.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) for educating me about isotretinoin and I am grateful for his input. I know he will keep on campaigning on that issue. We will ensure that the Department of Health and Social Care gets to hear about it again.

Rugby league never gets enough coverage in this place or the wider world. I was watching “North West Tonight” the other week and learned that Red Star Belgrade has started a new rugby league team. I am sure the hon. Member for Keighley (John Grogan) will share my delight at that. The tentacles of rugby league are stretching far and wide of late. I have met Vicky Beer. Perhaps I can brief him later on how I found the experience, rather than say it at the Dispatch Box. We will leave that there. I agree with him about Boxing day trains. The spirit was willing when I was rail Minister, but the flesh was very weak. One more push from the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) might help deliver that. When we discuss Vicky Beer later, perhaps the hon. Member for Keighley can also explain what he thinks the UEFA nations league is actually about. I still do not understand the consequence of it.

My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East spoke powerfully about religious freedom, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy). I learnt more from my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East about the various religious calendars of the world’s religions than I ever did as a good Catholic boy—holy days of obligation only! I am grateful to him for that educational activity, if nothing else.

I am also grateful to the hon. Member for East Lothian (Martin Whitfield) who spoke about nature issues. I had not really thought about the Scottish wildcat until today, and he has broadened my sum of knowledge. I am also grateful to him for mentioning, even briefly, the issue of invisible disabilities. It was one of the key things that I wanted in the transport accessibility paper I did at the end of my time as Rail Minister. He may wish to look at that paper to see what he can borrow to implement in Scotland. We were trying to be as fertile as possible with our ideas.

I am so glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers) is now tipping his constituency to be the queen of the east coast, because there is no vacancy for the best seaside resort generally. I say, as the MP for Blackpool, that that was a sensible move on his part. He has reminded me that my time as Rail Minister has a long legacy, as we have only just heard from the Office of Rail and Road about its sudden new-found enthusiasm for open access rail. Actually, that has taken about 10 years, rather than the one since I was the Minister. My new ombudsman was launched last week, which I am keen to point out in the one time I get to be at the Dispatch Box.

The hon. Member for York Central reminds me of what I have been missing since we last sparred in debates, which we did all too often. I might actually start to agree with her, because I had a Crown post office in the heart of Blackpool, and it too was moved into a WH Smith. That was not just into a corner, but into the basement where no one had a chance of seeing it, and there were accessibility issues. I urge the hon. Lady to keep fighting on that one.

My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford rightly spoke about drones, which are an issue he was so perspicacious in debating a year ago. We all get the sense of urgency on the issue, given what happened at Gatwick. I was also delighted to hear about the high-speed washing machines that he referred to. All my constituents know that if they want to find me, they have to visit the local Costa Coffee. Now, when I am sitting in there, I can think of the washing machines whirring away behind the scenes to make sure I have a clean cup each time.

The hon. Member for Glasgow North East has been reviewing his statistics as he finishes his first full year. As someone who used to do that, can I warn him that the tyranny of TheyWorkForYou.com can be an unpredictable guide to future activity? The further he shins up the greasy pole, the fewer his opportunities to participate might be. As Scottish MP of the year, he is clearly destined for great things, and he will perhaps find that he has fewer and fewer opportunities to speak. I was trying to decode his tie—tartan fading into grey. Is it some hidden message to the SNP? I do not know. I was trying to work it out.

[Mr Sweeney]

Just for the record, the tie is actually a gift that I received from Home-Start Glasgow North, which is a charity that helps people with childcare. It was a very nice gift. I think the hon. Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady) has the same tie, so there is an ecumenical approach to us wearing it.

[Paul Maynard]

I am glad to hear it. I know that Home-Start is a very fine charity in all its branches across the country, so I am happy to pay tribute to it.

I was delighted to hear that the hon. Gentleman is such a fan of the Glasgow School of Art. The one time I went to Glasgow was especially to see that very building, so I certainly wish him well with that.

I will end by making the observation that one of our biggest challenges as Members is to maintain our good will, even in this season of good will. I always try, particularly when participating in this debate, to recognise that we all ultimately want the same thing: to make the lives of our constituents better and to make the common future of the country a better place. We may differ over the paths that we take to get there—some of us more than most, perhaps—but I like to think that for the vast bulk of us in the moderate mainstream, there is far more that unites us than divides us.

When I hear the rancour of some debates, it genuinely saddens me, because it makes it harder to reach the best decision in the national interest. When we have had such a divisive and rancorous period since the referendum, it is incumbent on all Members, even when we disagree on the fundamentals, to recognise that what underlies that is a desire for the best outcome for the nation as a whole.

In the final minute, it would be remiss of me not to thank you, Mr Robertson, for chairing the debate, the whole Panel of Chairs, the Deputy Speakers, Mr Speaker himself, the House staff, the catering staff, the parliamentary security, the cleaners, the librarians, and everyone else. I apologise to anyone I have missed out, but I thank them anyway as well.

I end by asking us all to remember those who are facing their first Christmas alone, those who may have lost loved ones over the course of the year, and those who may face significant hardship at this time of year. It is a time when we turn to our families, but some people have no family to turn to and do not have those opportunities. Although it is a time of great good will to all and good cheer, it can also be a very bleak time for many people, and I am sure that what will unite all of us in the Chamber is to think of everyone in our constituencies and to wish them the best for the year to come, and to hope that we get the very best outcome that we can, whatever happens in our crystal ball, on 14 January.

ONS Decisions: Student Loans

Paul Sweeney Excerpts

Tuesday 18th December 2018 Commons Chamber

[Elizabeth Truss]

My right hon. and learned Friend is right to point out that people do not pay back on their student loan until they are earning £25,000.

[Mr Paul Sweeney (Glasgow North East) (Lab/Co-op)]

When I went to university 10 years ago, I was the first member of my family to do so, but because I was from a low-income background, I benefited from bursaries, which supported me through education. Unfortunately, Governments in both Edinburgh and London have cut back bursaries over the past decade, meaning that student loan debt in Scotland is £5 billion this year—up from £1.8 billion 10 years ago, which is a 169% increase—and that the individual debt of a student in Scotland has gone from £5,900 a year to £13,000 a year on average. Do the Government not recognise that such an increase is unsustainable and, reflecting the ONS results, that we have to restore a grant system?

[Elizabeth Truss]

I suggest that the hon. Gentleman look at the results. The fact is that, since 2009, there has been a 68% increase in the number of low-income students going to university.

EU Customs Union and Draft Withdrawal Agreement: Cost

Paul Sweeney Excerpts

Monday 22nd October 2018 Commons Chamber

[Darren Jones (Bristol North West) (Lab)]

rose—

[Mr Paul Sweeney (Glasgow North East) (Lab/Co-op)]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

I will take the three remaining questioners if it is a short sentence from each—no more than that. I call Mrs Madeleine Moon.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Sweeney]

Does the Minister not accept that any firm whose operations span European supply chains will be worse off if we do not have a customs union?

[John Glen]

Again, that is why we have to reach a conclusion to the negotiations that leaves the United Kingdom with the best possible outcome in respect of the future economy.

Summer Adjournment

Paul Sweeney Excerpts

Tuesday 24th July 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Paul Sweeney (Glasgow North East) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is nice to round off my first year in Parliament with a recap of some of the highlights that I have been able to contribute to as a new Member. I think that any Member would agree that the most satisfying aspect of our job is seeing the real benefit we can have for our constituents’ lives, particularly in casework. That has made a real impression on me in the past year, in particular when it comes to dealing with the hostile environment policy that this Government have been foisting on some of the most vulnerable people in our communities.

My constituency has a relatively large migrant population, and some cases have struck me as particularly damning. It took a total of 18 years for the Government to grant the Kamil family, who are Iraqi-Kurdish refugees, leave to remain as a refugee family. They have spent their lives in limbo. Indeed, the youngest was denied the opportunity to go to university because the immigration status the family faced was insecure, and the eldest was unable to secure work at an engineering company, despite graduating with a first-class engineering degree from Aberdeen University.

These are highly motivated citizens who have so much to contribute to our society and our economy. We have to recognise the benefits that many of these people can deliver for our country, having overcome such terrible hardship and usually fled some of the most war-torn and desperate situations in the world. We cannot treat them with contempt any more. We have to recognise the value they bring to our country. I hope we can recognise that in a debate in the House in the forthcoming parliamentary term.

Another case was Duc Nguyen, who was not so much a refugee but was trafficked to this country from Vietnam. He was arrested and put in prison for being forced to work in a cannabis factory, released and then detained by the Home Office, even though its own guidance says that it should not detain trafficking victims. The Home Office recognised that. We need to have a debate about how the Home Office puts its policies into practice, particularly in relation to detaining victims of human trafficking. That was another case that struck me as particularly difficult.

I was very pleased to welcome a constituent, Giorgi Kakava, to the House yesterday, and he sat in the Gallery to watch a debate. It was great to bring him to the heart of our democracy, given that he has been under so much stress in the past few months. His mother tragically died in February this year, leaving him an orphan. He is 10 years old and has lived in this country since he was three, yet he was threatened with deportation by the Home Office. Luckily, after my intervention in Prime Minister’s questions, the Home Office decided to grant him temporary leave to remain, but we have to continue to fight for him to be given permanent leave to remain. He speaks with a Scottish accent. He is one of us, and he is at school with his friends in Glasgow. The notion that he could be deported to Georgia—a country that is alien to him—is totally absurd.

Those are some of the absurdities that we see in our immigration system. I hope that we can address them in the forthcoming term, to re-establish confidence and dignity in our immigration system and uphold British values.

We have to address the Government’s industrial strategy, particularly in relation to renewables. Gaia-Wind, a company in my constituency that is a world leader in small-scale renewable energy, nearly went into liquidation because of the Government’s failure to introduce a transition from the feed-in tariff for small-scale renewable energy. That needs to be addressed, and it is irritating and extremely frustrating that the Government continue to leave companies that offer so much potential for wealth creation in our country in limbo.

I am worried about the roll-out of universal credit in my constituency in September. We have already seen failures when it comes to personal independence payment assessments. The level of appeals is absurd, and 71% of appeals are successful, which shows how broken the system is. We have to deal with that. I am worried about the transition from disability living allowance to PIP in my constituency, given that there have been 1.6 million underpayments. That shows that there is a severe drop-off in entitlement, which we need to address.

I have been asked by my constituent Daniel Haggerty to raise the issue of social housing. Last year, the number of social rented houses built was probably the lowest on record since the second world war. We need to seriously address that, and Labour’s commitment to increase the number of social houses built and increase our social house building programme to the largest in 30 years is laudable.

I want to address the industrial strategy in this country. In an announcement sneaked out today, the Government have said that they will delay the procurement of the Type 31e frigate. We have already seen disruption to the shipbuilding programme in the UK from changing the Type 26 programme to a Type 31 build split, and we now to have a delay to that programme. As a matter of urgency, we need to address this and provide certainty for our shipbuilding industry. As someone who grew up around it, I know what that means. In the 1990s, yards competed against each other for contracts—drip fed—which meant insecure employment, disinvestment and a lack of competitiveness. We need to get into a virtuous cycle for our industrial benefit, which means having highly secure jobs. The Government must get a grip on the Type 31 programme as a matter of urgency, which is why I look forward to debating it in the forthcoming term.

Scottish Economy

Paul Sweeney Excerpts

Wednesday 27th June 2018 Westminster Hall

[Stephen Kerr (Stirling) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Main. I congratulate the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Ged Killen) on securing this important debate on the future of Scotland’s economy.

Scotland’s GDP continues to languish in the doldrums and is not forecast to grow by more than 1% per year until at least 2023. A critical indicator of an economy’s future success is the overall level of investment. In Scotland, although foreign investment is high, overall investment is low. That is not a healthy picture, and it is not a solely Scottish problem, but one that affects the entire UK economy. It is one of the key drivers of low productivity.

According to World Bank figures, investment in the UK from public and private sources sits at 17% of our GDP, which put us 118th in the world. The United States invests 20% of its economy, and Japan invests 24%. The arguments on the need to improve our levels of investment are well rehearsed, but I would like to focus on the need for a fully functioning, effectively organised UK national investment bank to shape the future of Scotland’s economy, and to invest in enterprise—especially, of course, in Scotland. Let me strike a chord of bipartisanship here. I know the Scottish National party has a plan for a Scottish investment bank, and it is a worthy concept, but I want to advance the case for a UK national investment bank.

Jim McColl is one of Scotland’s most successful business people and we should listen to him. He recently commissioned a report from University College London on the case for a UK national investment bank, and I recommend it as a thoroughly sound read. I would be very happy to supply every Member of the House with a digital copy of the report, from which I wish to make three quick points. First,

“By making strategic investments and nurturing new industrial landscapes, a modern industrial strategy focused on solving important societal challenges can help to rebalance the economy and reinvigorate the industrial base.”

Secondly,

“This requires not just any type of finance but patient, long-term, committed finance. This can take different forms, but in many countries, patient strategic finance is increasingly coming from state investment banks...By developing new financial tools and working closely with public and private stakeholders, state investment banks can—if structured effectively—play a leading role driving growth and innovation.”

Thirdly,

“The European Investment Bank...has long been a key source of finance for infrastructure projects in the UK, financing £7 billion of projects in 2016.”

As we leave the EU, we clearly need to consider options to replace the European Investment Bank.

A national investment bank of the type found in many European countries would ensure the availability of quality patient capital. Entrepreneurs have to have access to patient capital, because they need immediate investment for longer-term returns. If businesses do not have access to that quality of capital in our country, they move to where they can get it. If they do not physically move, the ideas that need to be nurtured by patient capital move, and we see the continuation of the old cycle. Britain, and Scotland in particular, is a magnificent nursery of imagination and creativity. New products and concepts start off on their journey of commercialisation on these shores, but end up being fully deployed and exploited somewhere else. That cycle must be broken for good, and the availability of patient capital is crucial.

[Mr Paul Sweeney (Glasgow North East) (Lab/Co-op)]

The hon. Gentleman mentioned Jim McColl; I met him recently to discuss the future of commercial shipbuilding in Scotland. The example he cites is exactly the point that the hon. Gentleman mentioned. In Germany, they have access to patient finance and can finance the capital cost of a ship—up to £1 billion apiece—whereas in Scotland there is simply no facility for that. Does he not agree that a Scottish investment bank, although a laudable proposal, would not be on anywhere near the scale needed to achieve the massive industrial growth that we need?

[Stephen Kerr]

I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman. That is why I am advocating, for the future of Scotland’s economy, a UK investment bank. I have had many dealings with Jim McColl, and I agree with the direction of his argument.

Patient capital instils long-term support, builds confidence in the whole commercialisation process, from ideation to launch, and fosters the entrepreneurial spirit of our brightest and best. The return on patient capital invested is a measure of financial success, but when it comes to measuring social good, those things are exponentially better.

I prepared a much longer speech on this subject. I know the Minister might refer me to the British Business Bank, but to me it is not really operating to its full potential as an actual real bank. The resource available is too low. It is £200 million a year from the taxpayer for the whole UK economy; that will do little to address the investment shortfall in our economy. Essentially the British Business Bank needs to be reformed to become a real bank with the ability to issue bonds and raise funds.

Finally, in the interests of time—I might have already gone over my time limit, for which I apologise, Mrs Main—I want to ask the Minister a couple of simple questions as we consider the future of Scotland’s economy. Do the Government accept that British businesses and entrepreneurs need an additional source of good quality patient capital—capital that is not currently available in any quantity? What is our Government’s considered view on the proposition that the British Business Bank be converted into a fully functioning national investment bank, on the same basis as the national investment banks in other countries? To agree further with the hon. Member for Glasgow North East (Mr Sweeney), Germany is an example: the KfW is worthy of close examination by the Government, especially as we leave the European Union and have to consider how we will support British businesses—and Scottish businesses in particular—to compete on the global scene.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Paul Sweeney (Glasgow North East) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for the first time, Mrs Main. I start by thanking my good friend and comrade, my hon. Friend the Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Ged Killen), for securing this debate and for making a speech that cut to the very heart of the problems that will face the Scottish economy in the decades to come.

With the impending threat of Brexit and the threat of a second Scottish independence referendum always on the horizon, it strikes me that once again people in Scotland are caught in a vice between two Governments who are absolutely intent on causing them economic harm in pursuit of their own nationalist and constitutionally driven agendas. We have seen that writ large today. It is not about talking Scotland down. In fact, speeches today have reflected the passion that Members have for standing up for their constituents and their economic interests. My hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Danielle Rowley) talked about the real issue of the massive job cuts her constituents face. Calling that “talking Scotland down” does a real disservice to Members in this Chamber.

People in Scotland have been let down on two counts over the past 10 years. First, a UK Government have taken the political choice—I emphasise that it is a choice—to implement austerity. Secondly, a Scottish Government, rather than use the powers they have to alleviate and mitigate those austerity measures, have consistently chosen to use the Scottish Parliament as a conveyor belt simply to pass that austerity on and, indeed, amplify it at the local government level. That is not what the Scottish Parliament was meant to be and not what those of us on these Benches who fought long and hard for its creation envisaged.

We envisaged a Parliament in Edinburgh that would be a bulwark against Tory austerity, would stand up and be counted and would chose a different path. Trends show that the Scottish economy is lagging behind that of the rest of the UK in terms of growth, productivity and employment. In 2017, growth stood at just 0.8%, while the Scottish Fiscal Commission predicts that growth will remain at less than 1% until 2024—something that the Fraser of Allander Institute has labelled as “unprecedented in a generation”. It is the slowest period of long-term growth in the Scottish economy in over 60 years.

I would of course like to caveat that with the fact that statistics released this morning show that growth has increased by 0.2% during the first quarter of 2018, which is slightly higher than in the UK as a whole. That news is of course welcome, but I should like to think that everyone in the room today would like to see improvement and would agree that the long-term growth trend remains insufficient. Productivity was mentioned by several Members, and it has dropped by 2.2% in the past year alone. It is a fundamental economic principle that to generate economic growth, a country must increase productivity. To increase productivity, two very important factors must be addressed: investment and an interventionist industrial strategy.

Scotland’s productivity ranks in the third quartile of OECD countries, and the rate of productivity growth in Scotland lags behind that of many of our competitors. To catch up, Scotland must expedite a significant increase in its rate of productivity growth. Achieving the required growth would be truly transformational for the Scottish economy. Increasing Scotland’s productivity to the level of the top quartile of OECD countries would grow GDP by almost £45 billion, which is an increase of 30%. Annual average wages would be more £6,500 higher, which is an increase of 25%. That is the prize if we can address the structural problem.

Just 10 businesses in Scotland account for 45% of all private sector R&D activity in Scotland. Almost 70% of R&D investment is by non-Scottish-owned businesses. Despite higher education R&D rates in Scotland being among the highest in the world, we have seen a significant disconnect between academic innovation and its application by industry in Scotland. There is obvious potential to increase industrial interaction with higher education, and addressing that is a major focus of the innovation centres, such as the advanced forming research centre, that were set up by the last Labour Government.

Much work is still to be done. To match the rate of the top quartile of OECD countries, business R&D investment in Scotland would need to be 90% higher—an increase of £10 billion a year. Companies that are looking to grow are not considering external funding, and that raises questions about the level of growth ambition and whether ambitions can be achieved through internal funding alone. Poor competitiveness in productivity, innovation and capital investment also hinder the scope to drive export sales and grow overall industrial production. Around 60% of Scottish small and medium-sized enterprises trade only within Scotland. Scotland’s exports are also highly concentrated. Just 15 businesses account for 30% of all international exports, and 70 firms account for 50%. Scotland’s key international export markets remain Europe and the USA, with sales to emerging markets relatively low, and five sectors account for 50% of exports in Scotland.

Labour is absolutely committed to addressing the problems we see in our growth and productivity levels, not only in Scotland, but across the entirety of the UK. In our manifesto, we detailed the investment we would make in economic development in the event of a UK Labour Government. In Scotland, that would mean £70 billion over a 10-year period: £20 billion through our proposals to enhance the Scottish Investment Bank, providing patient long-term finance to industry, which the hon. Member for Stirling (Stephen Kerr) mentioned; £20 billion through our national transformation fund; and £30 billion that Scotland would benefit from through enhanced Barnett consequentials. If the hon. Gentleman is so enthusiastic about Labour policies, I encourage him to consider crossing the Floor, instead of having to lobby his Ministers for the same policies.

Scottish Labour has also committed to a proper industrial strategy, which has unfortunately been sorely lacking in the UK and Scottish Governments’ plans. Our industrial strategy would generate high-skilled, high-quality, stable employment for men and women. It would encourage a diversification of ownership models and the governance of our industrial base, encourage and actively support the role of trade unions in the economy, and recognise and resource the critical role of innovation in developing sectors of our economy.

Critical to all those pledges is the investment I spoke about. We must recognise that the role of a Government is to be an enabler—part of a triple helix of private entrepreneurs, research-led universities and an entrepreneurial state, assisting where there is potential to develop sectors, create new high-skilled, high-paid jobs, and sustain and grow viable enterprises.

We must never forget the human cost of failing to address those issues, of a stagnating economy that results in unemployment, and of an economy that is propped up by low-skilled, low-paid jobs, meaning that we have the scandalous situation in which 52% of all adults living in poverty in Scotland are in employment. Whether people like it or not, it is a fact that the UK economy is propped up by low-skilled, low-paid jobs. The Office for National Statistics recently indicated that the number of zero-hours contracts has increased to 1.8 million. That is 1.8 million workers across the UK who do not know what their income will be from week to week. Is that really the way we want our economy to function—built on the back of low-paid and insecure work?

That takes me back to the points I made about our industrial strategy. We have been explicit in our desire to ban zero-hours contracts on the basis that they are exploitative and ensure that our economy is skewed in favour of big business while ordinary working people suffer. If we were in any doubt about the truth of that, we need only to look at the Scottish Fiscal Commission’s findings, which state that real wages are lower today than they were in 2010 and are predicted to continue falling this year. It is simply not good enough.

While the UK Government and the Scottish Government bicker over constitutional intricacies, people are struggling to feed their children. According to the Child Poverty Action Group, more than 230,000 children in Scotland live in poverty. Just let that sink in for a second: one in every four children in Scotland is in poverty today. That should shame every single one of us.

We are on the cusp of a great opportunity, with the fourth industrial revolution now under way. One of the great achievements in Scotland under the last Labour Government was to reverse Scotland’s historical population decline, but there is so much more to do. We need to enhance population growth in Scotland. In 1902, the Scottish Registrar General predicted that by 1962 the Scottish population would be 10 million. Clearly we never achieved that, so we have a great opportunity to make up for lost ground.

We are on the cusp of that opportunity. That is why I am proud to stand here today as a Labour MP who can say that when there is a UK Labour Government and a Labour Government in Scotland we will address the inequalities in our society and the structural problems that we have identified in today’s debate. It is time for the UK Government and the Scottish Government to stop burying their heads in the sand when it comes to such issues purely because they are deemed too difficult to deal with.

We are ready to govern this country in a way that works for the many, not the few. If others are not, I have one message: call a general election and let us get on with it, because we are ready to invest in Scotland and to ensure that Scotland’s economy and people do not suffer anymore due to the short-sighted nature of their current Governments.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Stuart Andrew)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Main. I congratulate the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Ged Killen) on securing the debate. I am sorry that he is not as pleased to see me as I am to respond to the debate. I point out to him that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Moray (Douglas Ross) said, I am a UK Minister. I am proud of being part of a Unionist UK Government, and I will work with my colleagues—and colleagues across the Floor—from Scotland just as much as I will work with colleagues from Wales and, indeed, from my own constituency.

[Mr Sweeney]

Will the Minister give way?

[Stuart Andrew]

No—I have very little time, in fairness, and I want to get through quite a few of the points that have been raised. This has been a very good and lively debate. I said it was a pleasure to be here. At the beginning of it, I was thinking, “What have I walked into?” However, it is a pleasure.

A fundamental change is going on in the global economy that will throw up both opportunities and challenges for Scotland and the rest of the UK. Automation, artificial intelligence, growing digital connectivity and the need to deliver environmentally sustainable growth will profoundly affect the way that we do business, how businesses function and how people work. As we plan for Scotland’s economic future, the UK Government are confident that Scotland is well placed to take advantage of the changes that will affect the entire economy. Scotland is an open and enterprising nation, with some of the best universities and research institutions in the world. As part of the UK, it has a global reputation for welcoming businesses with high standards, respected institutions and a strong rule of law.

It is the job of Government to ensure that business is ready to respond to change, and that is why we have created the industrial strategy, which is incredibly important. Through the four grand challenges that we have identified, the UK can become a global technological revolution leader in clean growth, artificial intelligence and big data, the future of mobility, and meeting the needs of an ageing society—something that the hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) rightly mentioned.

In all those areas, Scotland can make a fantastic contribution. Edinburgh is becoming one of the UK’s most important clusters for AI and digital technology. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy has announced an AI sector deal, bringing around £1 billion of investment through public and industry funding. That will ensure that it is a vibrant sector and has the resources and structures in place to survive.

I am pleased that we have already made an announcement about the construction industry, which the hon. Member for Midlothian (Danielle Rowley) rightly highlighted. We will report back later in the year, once all the details have been agreed. I am glad that she raised that. Equally, there is the food and drink sector, which the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West mentioned.

I am conscious that time is going fast, and I want to respond to some of the issues that were raised. The hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West talked about a “third way”. We heard that before with the previous Labour Government, which landed us with a £150 billion deficit. This Government have had to work hard to get that deficit down, which has not been easy. The Opposition Front Bencher, the hon. Member for Glasgow North East (Mr Sweeney), said that those are “choices”. It is the reality of ensuring that we have an economy that is balanced and in which people have confidence, so that we can get the investment we need to create the growth that has brought millions of new jobs for people in this country. We are seeing record levels of employment. That is a record of which I am proud.

[Mr Sweeney]

Will the Minister give way?

[Stuart Andrew]

No, I am not taking any interventions, because I am very conscious of time.

Brexit was also mentioned. I have heard it said time and time again that the Government are hell bent on a hard Brexit. If anything, we are hell bent on ensuring that we get a deal that works for the UK and the EU. I have faith in my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. She has achieved agreements when the media and people in this House thought that she could not. Let us have faith in her and support her as she goes to the June Council, and I am sure that we will have a Brexit deal that will work.

I agreed with what the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West said about the deficit in Scotland. It is concerning that as a share of GDP the deficit is 8.3% in Scotland, compared with 2.4% for the rest of the UK. That needs to be addressed. Not dealing with the deficit really knocks confidence. People in business will not be confident if it is not being dealt with properly.

We also heard about low wages. I remind hon. Members that it was this Government that dealt with the personal allowance, which is benefiting some 2.5 million Scots’ wage packets. We have increased the minimum wage to a living wage—from £5.80, as it was in 2010, to £7.83—bringing £4,000 a year more to the lowest paid in the country. My hon. Friend the Member for Ochil and South Perthshire (Luke Graham) was right to show the differing figures, comparing the UK performance with the Scottish performance. We on this side are determined to work with the Scottish Government. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland worked closely with the former Economy Secretary in Scotland. That needs to continue.

Some of the comments that have been made today are absolutely right. We have challenges ahead of us, but we also have opportunities. As we can now develop trading agreements around the world, I want us to expand that for the whole of the UK, so that every part of the UK can benefit. Scotland is as important a part of this nation as any other.

As I said, the hon. Member for Midlothian was right to talk about the construction industry. She talked about overthrowing capitalism being a bigger issue. I would say that, yes, it certainly is—and one that would seriously damage the economy of this country. I hope that people will take note.

My hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Stephen Kerr) talked about a UK investment bank. We are always open to positive proposals to support the economy. The UK Government will consider any such proposal, ensuring that it offers value for money. I will ensure that I raise those points with colleagues in the Treasury following today’s debate.

The hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Drew Hendry) said that we were talking Scotland down. We are determined to ensure that our economy works for every part of the UK, and we are working with the oil and gas industry to ensure that there is a sector deal. In the last 10 seconds I have, I say to the SNP that constant talk of independence does nothing to give confidence to business to invest in the UK.

Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 10(6)).

Easter Adjournment

Paul Sweeney Excerpts

Thursday 29th March 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Paul Sweeney (Glasgow North East) (Lab/Co-op)]

After nine months in the House, clearly there is still a learning curve.

I pay tribute to you, Mr Speaker, to your colleagues in the Chair, and to all Members—Whips and others—who have been so generous in offering their insight and advice. As a new Member, I am having to adapt to a very unfamiliar environment and to some rather esoteric practices. The most rewarding aspect of being a new Member is having the opportunity to bring to the attention of this House, and of the wider public, affairs that I hope will improve the lot and lives of my constituents, and also improve national policy. That is why it is so important to have such debates in which we can reflect on what we have discussed in this House over the last term and consider what important matters to raise in the coming term.

The key issues I want to raise as we move towards the next term relate to the green deal. At least 167 of my constituents have had work on their homes carried out under the Government-backed green deal, but a number of them have faced significant problems following that work. One of my constituents is now unable to sell her house due to the reckless, unregulated actions of a rogue green deal installer. Many of my constituents have found themselves in tens of thousands of pounds in debt, their retirements ruined for the rest of their lives. This has played out appallingly, and we need a debate in this House on how the Government will compensate and protect those people, who entered into these green deal arrangements in good faith, under a Government kitemark, especially now that the Government have supported new iterations of the scheme without significantly changing the regulatory framework for green deal suppliers. This is a matter of immediate urgency.

It is also important that this House discusses the case of Dr Hadiza Bawa-Garba. Many Members will have noted the recent case of this doctor, who was struck off by the General Medical Council after being convicted of gross negligence manslaughter, despite the matter being an evident case of institutional failure across the NHS that could have an impact on any junior doctor in the field. This has led to an unprecedented loss of confidence among the medical profession and across the UK in the GMC’s governance. The case highlights the need for an urgent debate to consider the GMC’s capacity to effectively regulate in the interests of patients’ safety and so that we can restore public and practitioner confidence in it. That is a matter of immediate urgency.

I come to another matter that I have been discussing with colleagues, including in my role as a member of the all-party group on shipbuilding and ship repair. I note that the hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens) is in the Chamber. He is another of the group’s members and represents Govan shipyard. We have a common interest in the matter of Royal Fleet Auxiliary ship procurement and, in particular, in the issue of unfair state aid practices that may distort the competitive procurement of these vessels. Of particular note here is Daewoo Shipbuilding & Marine Engineering, which is currently building the Tide class tankers for the Royal Fleet Auxiliary and has benefited from unfair state aid assistance from the South Korean Government. We need an urgent debate to discuss the procurement of new Royal Fleet Auxiliary fleet solid support ships. Such a debate should consider whether any shipyard worldwide that is benefiting from unfair state aid will be excluded from the competition and the potential merits of holding a UK-only competition to design and construct the new fleet solid support ships for the Royal Fleet Auxiliary.

In addition, it is important that the House considers the continuity Bills in relation to the devolved Administrations. Given the lack of agreement between the devolved powers and UK Government on common frameworks following our exit from the European Union, we urgently need a debate in this House on the implications of the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill for the Scottish devolution settlement and the settlement for other devolved Administrations in the UK.

I welcome the scheduled debate on industrial strategy in our first week back in this House, but I emphasise that it is important that we raise the issue of public procurement as part of that debate and, in particular, the Government’s lack of willingness to ensure that Government contracts and sub-contractors of Government projects abide by fair work practices. We must also discuss the need to ensure we have efficient financing practices for public procurement. That is of particular note in defence contracts, where we have seen the absurdity of in-year budget spend profiles prejudicing against efficient procurement over the longer term, which is driving longer-term costs into major public procurement programmes. That has to be grasped and sorted out as a matter of urgency. That is in the long-term industrial interest of the UK, particularly today, as we have seen the sad demise of GKN as an independent industrial company—it is a major player in Britain’s defence and aerospace sector.

I finish by saying that it has been a great pleasure to have served in the House during my nine months as a Member of Parliament. I wish everyone a very happy Easter.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Sweeney]

I thank the Deputy Leader of the House, if that is his official title, for giving way. I want to press him on the issue of GKN, because it has just been announced that it will be subject to a takeover by Melrose. In the light of that development, does the Minister agree that this urgent issue needs to be debated in this House before the takeover progresses any further?

[Paul Maynard]

That point is certainly well made. I was not aware of that announcement, because I have been in the Chamber for a while, but I will make sure that we raise it with the relevant Department and get him a response. When we come back after Easter, I am sure that that will be a matter for discussion in the House in some way, shape or form.

To go back to Inverness, I will have to pay a visit, if only to hunt for Nessie, about which I have been inspired by my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham.

Leaving the EU: UK Ports (Customs)

Paul Sweeney Excerpts

Monday 19th March 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mel Stride]

With regard to Euratom’s remit over the kinds of isotopes that the hon. Lady is referring to, nothing in our relationship with Euratom, or our lack of involvement with it going forward, will affect the ability of those isotopes to move between mainland Europe and the United Kingdom.

[Mr Paul Sweeney (Glasgow North East) (Lab/Co-op)]

The difference between a customs partnership and a customs union strikes me as a distinction without a difference. However, if there is a difference, and the Government are eschewing a policy of maintaining any form of customs union after Brexit, why did the Minister’s officials place a clause in the Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Bill leaving it open to the Government to create a customs union after Brexit?

[Mel Stride]

One of the reasons for that relates to our Crown dependencies and overseas territories, where we may need to make arrangements to make sure that the whole deal functions effectively.

Community Bank Closures

Paul Sweeney Excerpts

Thursday 8th February 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Paul Sweeney (Glasgow North East) (Lab/Co-op)]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for the opportunity to contribute to this very interesting and vital debate on a massive issue that affects communities across our nation. It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who made a particularly passionate and insightful speech about the impact the programme of closures will have on communities in his constituency.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Ruth Smeeth) on securing this debate, and on speaking so passionately and knowledgeably in introducing it this afternoon. I also thank the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr Wragg) for his contribution, and for securing the debate through the Backbench Business Committee.

I speak with a degree of nostalgia and affection for community banking, given that I grew up around community banks. My mum has worked in retail banking for her whole career, and I remember vividly as a kid being taken down into the vaults of the Bank of Scotland in Charing Cross, where my mum worked. I also remember opening my Squirrel saver account at the Bank of Scotland, and my little plastic Bank of Scotland piggy bank, which was great.

I speak with great affection about community banks, but I also know how important they are, particularly for elderly customers and vulnerable people in the community. They develop a very close and affectionate relationship with the staff, who know them very well, understand their needs and are able to accommodate them. It is a form of personal interaction that builds affectionate relationships and a long-term engagement with banks, and those relationships are hugely valuable for the banks. I would have hoped that more banks recognised how important such personal interaction is for communities —it is vital—and how it contributes to them.

It is a shame to think that that bank in Charing Cross is now a Starbucks. That shows that this is a long-term process of withdrawal from communities, and we must challenge it because our communities are approaching a real cliff edge. My worry is that the programme of bank closures that we have observed, particularly in recent years, appears to target the poorest communities in our society disproportionately. Well over 1,000 branches have closed in the past two years alone.

In my constituency of Glasgow North East, where unemployment is twice the national average—I would add that it has had the lowest turnout in elections in any constituency, which perhaps shows the level of disengagement of many people—we have had the closure of the RBS branches in Possilpark, one of the poorest communities not only in Glasgow but in Scotland, and on Alexandra Parade in Dennistoun in recent months, followed by the closure of the Clydesdale bank in Springburn.

It was a cruel irony that, when I went down to look at the Clydesdale bank branch on Springburn Way, next to the shopping centre, I saw a branch of BrightHouse doing good business—it was doing a roaring trade. BrightHouse is a rapacious organisation that fleeces the poorest communities in our society by, I would argue, mis-selling consumer goods at outrageous rates of interest. That is also something we should challenge. As more people are forced out of normal commercial banking into the hands of these rapacious lenders, such lenders have to be challenged.

[Ged Killen]

My hon. Friend is talking about poorer communities being left behind by these banking changes, and he is absolutely right. Although the recent stay of execution for 10 branches in rural areas of Scotland is welcome, these are some of the wealthiest communities in Scotland, and three of the banks being saved are in the constituency of the Secretary of State for Scotland. The Government are the majority shareholder of RBS, so surely there is a role for RBS to step in and look after more such deprived communities?

[Mr Sweeney]

My hon. Friend is correct, and that is one thing we do not see—I have tried to piece together the evidence, but it is not nationally recorded. What is the density of banking operations in the poorest communities in our society? Data is not gathered on that issue. Possilpark and Springburn fall into the most deprived decile on the Scottish index of multiple deprivation, including for employment, health, education and housing. That seems to be the case for a lot of areas with branch closures, certainly in the Glasgow area, and it would be interesting if the Government could oblige banks to provide the data as a matter of national standards. By contrast, in the wealthiest parts of the city—I took the example of Byres Road, which is arguably the wealthiest postcode in Glasgow—every major bank is represented. Banks seem to be withdrawing from the poorest communities while maintaining their services in the richest parts of the city, and if that is extrapolated across the UK, it paints a dismal picture.

It has been argued that bank closures are a reality of technological change because more people are using online banking services. In reality, however, 2 million Scots do not use online banking, and they are disproportionately older people who are not familiar with the change in technology. We must be realistic about the rate of change and how practical it is, so as to reduce the harm caused to society and prevent the generational dislocation that is evidently occurring. More than one third of people who use the services of Citizens Advice Scotland have no or limited internet access. How will they access finance and banking if the major commercial banks disinvest in their local communities? Such closures are not just driven by technological change.

It is a great privilege to be a council member of the Institution of Engineers and Shipbuilders in Scotland, and the banking sector is a huge driver of innovation in our society. As hon. Members have said, we have seen huge technological changes, and one great British innovation that sticks out for me is the ATM. In 2016, the Scot James Goodfellow was inducted into the Scottish Engineering Hall of Fame for his work in inventing and patenting the first ATM in 1966. He did that in response to the desire by the major commercial clearing banks to close on Saturday mornings. People were trying to find a technological way to accommodate that desire, and that is how the ATM came into being and why it is so ubiquitous on our high streets today. We must harness technological change for the public good, not simply use it as a cop-out or an excuse to ridiculously disinvest from our communities at an inappropriate rate. We in the House must challenge that and adapt technological change for the public good; we cannot leave the banks to be judge and jury about the way that such change should occur.

I mentioned that closures are not just driven by technological change, and we must consider the banking sector in the UK. Five of the major commercial banks hold 85% of all current accounts, and personal banking services are combined with riskier investment banking activities. That is symptomatic of a very difficult and high-risk sector that in the last decade alone threatened our national prosperity with the banking crash.

The banking system in this country is an oligopoly and one of the most centralised systems in the world. As Adam Smith recognised, profit-seeking behaviour runs contrary to the common good and the creation of national wealth—we should always remember that when considering this issue. Germany has more than 400 local savings banks, known as Sparkassen, 1,000 co-operative run banks, and 300 private commercial banks, and that contrasts with the five massive banks in this country. Those banks in Germany are characterised by providing “patient finance”, not just to households and consumers but also—critically—to industry.

When James Goodfellow made his speech while being inducted into the Engineering Hall of Fame, he said that the greatest regret of his career was that ATMs were patented and invented in this country, yet they are not built or manufactured here. We have not benefited from this country’s industrial innovation, and our industrial strategy is symptomatic of our banking sector. We do not finance industrial growth because we are seeking high-risk, high-return profit in the City; we are not investing in the real economy, and that contrasts with the German banking system.

Why does Germany have the largest manufacturing sector in Europe, and one of the largest in the world? Because its banking system is resilient enough to underpin patient finance and allow real industrial growth and long-term economic resilience. We see that with German investment in machinery and a productive economy, and with their productivity rate—German workers produce in four days what UK workers produce in five. If we look at that as a broader symptom of malaise in banking and industry, we have to grip it and address it at all levels.

That is why I am so proud to stand here as one of the 39 Co-operative party Members of Parliament: the largest ever group of Co-operative MPs in Parliament and the third-largest party group in this House. The Co-operative party has long recognised the structural problems in society, which is why it proposes turning RBS into a mutual owned by its members and run in a not-for-profit manner in the public interest. The case for that is clearly self-evident and vital: we need that disruptive intervention in the sector.

We want to create a legislative mechanism to support the development of credit unions in the United Kingdom, one perhaps based on the US Community Reinvestment Act 1977, which I think was mentioned previously. The key innovation of the Act, introduced under the Carter Administration, was to combat discrimination and provide access to credit for low and moderate-income communities. If we reflect on the nature of bank closures in the UK, it is highly likely that they disproportionately affect the poorest communities. In the United States, that was known as “redlining”: banks essentially blacklisted communities they thought not worthy of investment. We can make the accusation that that is happening today in this country, albeit on an informal and opaque basis. It is about time a light was shone on the reality of the economic dislocation happening in our poorest communities.

Legislation similar to the Community Reinvestment Act would combat that discrimination by providing access to credit for low and moderate-income communities. It would apply a rating to banks based on their density of operation in poorer areas. In the US, investment credit unions are included as a CRA activity, meaning that the credit union sector is worth billions of dollars and it competes on an equal footing with commercial banks. Santander’s operations in the United States contrast with its operations in the UK: an £11 billion five-year commitment to support community benefits. An increase of 50% was announced in the US. It does not extend its American community reinvestment activity to the UK, because there is no legislative or regulatory imperative to do so.

The picture in the UK today is one of perilous dislocation, with banks withdrawing from our most vulnerable communities. It is the duty of this House and this Government not simply to capitulate to free market dogma, but to temper and control that market in the public interest.