Child Poverty in Scotland

Debate between Paul Sweeney and Stephen Kerr

Wednesday 30th October 2019 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to follow so many passionate and thoughtful speeches. My reflection on the debate and Members’ contributions—particularly that of my hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Hugh Gaffney), whom I congratulate on securing the debate—is that poverty is, fundamentally, probably the worst evil in our society. It is particularly pernicious, because it is a cruel and indiscriminate denial of opportunity to many people who have great potential.

My constituency has some of the highest child poverty levels in Scotland—and in the UK as a whole. When I go round it, I am constantly reminded of the denial of opportunity to many young people, particularly children. There was a turn of phrase used by Jimmy Reid when looking at high-rise tower blocks in my constituency—the infamous Red Road flats, which are now demolished and being redeveloped. He said that behind every one of the windows could be a Nobel prize-winning chemist, or a great Formula 1 racing driver, a fantastic doctor, engineer or perhaps Prime Minister, but—you know what?—they will never get the opportunity because of where they were born and the circumstances in which they were brought up. From birth they have been denied their potential. As a nation and as a community, that sabotage of young people’s lives is the greatest loss to us all, and in many cases it is literally a life sentence.

In the early 1990s Jimmy Reid made a documentary in Scotland, and he was filmed standing in a field between Milngavie and Drumchapel. The camera panned across the field, and he said that a child who is born on one side of the fields will live 10 years longer than a child born on the other side of the field, in Drumchapel. The average sentence for murder in Scotland is not far off 10 to 15 years, so for many children born in those circumstances, that is literally a life sentence. That destroyed potential is a great tragedy for us all.

Child poverty can be solved through political means—it is not inevitable, as many speakers have suggested; it can be solved. Child poverty has been both demonstrably reduced and demonstrably accelerated at the behest of policies of various Governments, and if there is one thing I can be proud of about the previous Labour Government, it is their efforts to reduce child poverty. When Labour came to power in 1997, child poverty stood at 3.6 million in the UK. When Labour left office in 2010, that figure had been reduced to 1 million. That was still too many, but it was a significant and demonstrable reduction. Today child poverty stands at 4 million—more than a reversal of those achievements—and we must address that generational tragedy.

We should not get too bogged down in the minutiae of Brexit; instead, we should focus on what we could be doing. What motivates me—and probably most Members—to get out of bed in the morning, is thinking about how we can leave a legacy that will improve lives for future generations. That certainly motivates me, my hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill and other Members of the House, yet this Government have demonstrably, deliberately and consciously implemented policies that have permanently damaged lives.

[Stephen Kerr]

indicated dissent.

[Mr Sweeney]

It is true. Those policies will have a material effect on children born in this decade of austerity. We are visiting huge destruction not just on their lives, but on a whole community that has been denied those opportunities, and when we reflect on what Members have said today, that is the greatest tragedy.

One of the most moving aspects of this is the fact that child poverty is driven primarily by insufficient income, yet 65% of all children living in poverty in Scotland live in working households. Parents are trying to do what they can. They are not feckless or idle; they are trying to achieve what they can, but the capacity of the economy to meet their basic income requirements is not there. That is a legacy of this Government, their failure to address the 2008 financial crash, and their entire counter-productive austerity agenda, which has retarded economic growth in this country and caused one of the most regionally unbalanced and slow-paced recoveries of any major economy in the western world.

[Stephen Kerr]

Does the hon. Gentleman welcome the fact that this Government have lifted the threshold after which people start paying tax to £12,500? That really helps people. Combined with that, we have increases in the national living wage. Does he not welcome those as well? Does he welcome the fact that the Government have introduced policies to allow people at the lower end of the income scale to keep more of their own money, so that they can spend it on their families? Does he welcome any of the policies that the Government have introduced to tackle child poverty?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Sweeney]

I would congratulate the Government if they had demonstrably increased incomes for people on low wages, but wage growth in this country has been the lowest in the western world, and that is the primary measure of success.

[Stephen Kerr]

Tax!

[Mr Sweeney]

The hon. Gentleman makes a point about tax, but the tax threshold was never met by people on the lowest incomes in the first place, so that measure does not deal with people at that end of the scale. People who already rely on social security benefits have been crushed by the two-child welfare cap that has been mentioned. Those are the things that affect people.

One searing example of that can be found in a recent report by Oxfam, Child Poverty Action Group Scotland and the Poverty Alliance, which addresses the issue of hunger in Scotland. It is an inspiring and chilling report, and the thing that strikes me most is the testimony that it contains. One example is from a lady called Alison. She is typical of many people—usually women—who turn up to my constituency surgeries in horrendous circumstances. A person might be born and brought up in a constituency and live there their whole life, as I have, but they never know the half of it until they become a Member of Parliament and realise what is going on behind closed doors.

Many people are too proud to come and demonstrate that they are suffering and have problems. They do not want to make a spectacle of themselves, and they are upset about having to speak to a Member of Parliament about their circumstances. The example from Alison is particularly egregious. Speaking about the whole issue of food insecurity and the wellbeing of our children, she said:

“My son, throughout the whole of this, was scared to put the heating on. He was scared to put the light on. He was sitting in the dark. He’s not playing his computer. What else is he meant to do when he’s socially isolated? When there’s no money to go on a bus, never mind take him out for the day…When things were on a level, it’s very, very sad to even say, he was just happy that we went for a hot chocolate and a muffin. Now that’s a simple thing. That is not doable anymore.”

Another parent said:

“Me and my daughter used to go everywhere. But now, I don’t have nothing like, so we can’t do anything.”

One mother said:

“I’ve felt suicidal more times than I’ve had hot dinners and that’s no joke.”

That is a true testimony from someone suffering in Scotland now.

To me, it is offensive at a very fundamental level if the great achievements of the welfare state have been rolled back to the extent that people are suffering in this way. Not only is there the shaming need for people to go to food banks and prostrate themselves in front of authority figures to demonstrate that they need help, but we have also removed the social floor that was there for many people. We created the idea that there was a floor beneath which no one would fall and above which everyone could rise. That is how my family progressed, and how I was able to have opportunities that my parents did not have. To think that that has been reversed under this Government is offensive.

Summer Adjournment

Debate between Paul Sweeney and Stephen Kerr

Thursday 25th July 2019 Commons Chamber

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

It is a pleasure to follow so many thoughtful and interesting speeches on all aspects of public service in our constituencies and further afield. Bringing matters of concern before the House, and considering their further debate in the House, is the best expression of public service.

There are matters of urgency that often do not get a hearing in this House, so it is particularly pleasing that I have been fortunate enough, in the past two days, to ask two successive Prime Ministers within 24 hours whether they would commit to saving the Caley railway works in Springburn. Unfortunately, I had a fob-off response from both. It is absolutely shameful that this Government have not offered to make any constructive or proactive effort on this issue. The hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Matt Warman) mouths “It’s devolved” from the Treasury Bench; let me point out the nuances of the devolved arrangements.

There is an ongoing effort to market the site to international investors. That could involve the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, but interestingly BEIS does not wish to engage in that effort, or to collaborate with the Scottish Government. I condemn the Scottish Government for their inaction, which is for entirely different reasons, but the UK Government could certainly add their efforts to a combined, collaborative approach. I am dismayed that the Prime Minister and his predecessor had neither the wit nor the tact to offer that to the campaign. It would become anyone who aspires to lead the country to seek to work in collaboration with all parts of all Administrations across the United Kingdom to achieve this objective.

[Stephen Kerr]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the best strategy for preserving the Union would be to banish “devolve and forget” for good?

[Mr Sweeney]

I could not agree more, to put it succinctly.

There needs to be much more effort to collaborate across Governments. Where different aspects of problems can be solved at different levels of government, that ought to be discussed collaboratively and efficiently, rather than people simply mouthing “It’s devolved” and abrogating any sort of responsibility. That is not acceptable, frankly.

In Springburn, there is a long-standing tradition of railway engineering excellence that goes back to the dawn of the railway age. It is the railway metropolis of Scotland. It once exported half the world’s locomotives to all parts of the world. People look at the Finnieston crane in Glasgow—that great icon of the city’s skyline—and think it is to do with shipbuilding, but it was entirely to do with taking locomotives down to the docks to load them on ships and export them all around the world. I had the idea of bringing one of the old locomotives back to the Caley works and restoring it to working condition. Unfortunately, the Scottish Government did not entertain that solution.

In the next few days, we hope to have a meeting with the Cabinet Secretary for Transport, Infrastructure and Connectivity in Scotland, but of course, that will be closing the door after the workers have left, which is a great shame. We need to come around rapidly and create a cross-governmental taskforce at UK and Scottish Government level to reopen the Caley railway works quickly. I hope to work constructively, and in a spirit of collaboration, with all Governments in all parts of the UK to achieve that objective. I hope that Members on the SNP and Government Benches here are receptive to that.

That is just one example of how we can bring a local issue to national prominence through agitating here for a solution. Hopefully that nuanced expression of what could be done has been heard by those on the Treasury Bench. We can look forward to correspondence on this in the next few days, and hopefully can pull together a plan to save the works and restore them to production as quickly as possible.

There are many other wonderful aspects of my community, which is why I am so proud to represent it in Parliament. Often, there is innovation in the face of adversity; I think many Labour Members could reflect on the same theme. In the wake of a decade of austerity, many people are rising to the challenge of trying to help their community. Public services have been extracted, statutory responsibilities have been reduced, and there has been further erosion of the public realm and public service, which is a great shame, but the situation has also brought out the best in people and brought about great innovation. There is an opportunity for the Government to identify where people on the ground are innovating and doing very well indeed in offering really productive and efficient services to their community. We can perhaps think of those services as benchmarks and templates that could be scaled up to national level.

We could look more effectively at what is done very well locally. I have a couple of examples. I recently worked in the constituency with a local community activist, Susan Wilson, who is a local community champion in Tesco’s by day, and does a lot of other voluntary work outside that. She is a real dynamo in the community. She works with the Allotment Angels in Reidvale. That is part of the Include Me 2 Club, a fantastic charity that helps adults with additional support needs and disabilities. It helps many local people, including people from sheltered housing and a homeless man who, as a result of his voluntary work on the allotment, was recently able to find a job building a wonderful community garden. That is a real exemplar of fantastic community innovation in the face of adversity.

Whitsun Adjournment

Debate between Paul Sweeney and Stephen Kerr

Thursday 23rd May 2019 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Kerr (Stirling) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Scunthorpe (Nic Dakin). He described what we had experienced in the Chamber to the point at which he stood to speak as a masterclass. And that masterclass continued. This is the first time that I decided to attend a recess Adjournment debate and I have learned a great deal about how to make the best use of the time afforded by such debates. The hon. Member for Gateshead (Ian Mearns) gave us a very thorough commentary on his constituency. I know a little about Gateshead and I have to say that the people of Gateshead are some of the friendliest and most welcoming in these islands. I always look forward to my visits to Gateshead to visit friends who live there.

My hon. Friend the Member for Southend West (Sir David Amess) gave a tour de force. I am taking notes about what I observed in how he conducted himself. I share his concerns about the state of our democracy. I am really concerned about the esteem in which people hold this place and I am deeply concerned about some of the comments I pick up every Saturday when I knock on doors in my Stirling constituency. We desperately need to consider the reputation of Parliament and the way in which we have conducted ourselves over the past little while.

There was a mention from across the Chamber of sporting triumphs. It would be remiss of me not to wish my namesake Shelley Kerr, the manager of Scotland’s World cup team, all the very best when the tournament starts next month in France. I am sure that all of us will have marked in our diaries a very important date and time, Sunday 9 June at 5 o’clock, because that is when England will be beaten by Scotland in the women’s World cup. I wish the Scotland team well. It is fantastic, as a Scot, to be able to have a national team in a World cup—in fact, in any kind of tournament at all. I rejoice in their success in being in it and I know they will do us proud.

The hon. Member for Scunthorpe mentioned steel and the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee. I note what he said. I am a member of the Committee and he asked some very valuable questions.

As I mentioned, this is the first time that I have attempted to speak in a recess Adjournment debate. If you do not mind, Mr Deputy Speaker, I would like to reflect on the fact that, just after we come back from recess, it will be a few days more to the second anniversary of my election to this place as the Member of Parliament for Stirling, and the election of the other Members who first came to the House in 2017. I want to use this opportunity to thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, Mr Speaker and the other Deputy Speakers, the officers and staff of the House, and our Members for the many kindnesses and considerations I have experienced and been shown over the past two years. I am absolutely certain that I speak for the whole 2017 intake when I say that.

I never tire of the privilege of being a Member of this House and representing the people of the Stirling constituency. What can I say about Stirling? Every day when I walk to this place, I choose, whenever I can, to walk through Westminster Hall. There are several plaques in the floor of Westminster Hall. I always take time to reflect on and show my visitors the plaque that designates the spot where William Wallace stood when he was sentenced to death by this English Parliament. I mention that because Stirling is the home of the National Wallace Monument, where I recently witnessed the reality of the Union, which is my main topic this afternoon. At the monument, which will be 150 years old this year by the way, there is a 14-foot-tall statue of William Wallace, which has been in place for 132 years. It bears the effects of being that old, so it was recently taken down from the monument and repaired. That was a very worthy project and I salute all who were connected with it, but the repair—bear in mind the history of William Wallace and the nature of the plaque in the Westminster Hall floor—took place in Wigan, in England. I am not sure what the spirit of William Wallace would make of that; nevertheless, I felt that it surely represented something about our United Kingdom.

The hon. Member for Gateshead reminded us, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West, that we are in this place not for the purposes of self-aggrandisement, but to serve others, without a selfish motive or agenda, and to seek to do good to all people. We are reminded of that every day that we attend Speaker’s Prayers and by this building and everything about it. We need those reminders, because passing laws, holding the Executive to account and speaking truth to power and patronage is fundamentally about serving people and seeing that their needs are best served by the actions of Government.

I will take a few minutes of the House’s time to speak about good governance. I have said many times in this House that I do not always feel that my constituents and the people of Scotland are being best served when it comes to governance. When I say governance, I mean the system of government at all levels and how they work together to serve the best interests of the people. There are many examples of where Government serve the people well. I specifically mention the dedicated and skilled public servants that I have witnessed working hard in various activities. This includes teachers, people who provide care in our health service, the police and the fire service, and we undoubtedly have the best armed forces and the best consular network that we could imagine around the world. We have a great deal to be grateful for. However, my concern is that when Government do not work together and when they pass the buck—when citizens are told, “It’s not my job to do this or that”—that is when people are poorly served. Whether that is different Departments or arms of a single Government, or different levels of Government not acting together, it amounts to poor service and poor governance.

In Scotland, we have a situation where the idea of disharmony and not working together is the aim of public policy. The Scottish National party Government delight in telling the people of Scotland what cannot be done. They love to tell us that they do not have the power to do this, that or the next thing and they delight in telling us that it is someone else’s fault. They love to tell us, “Actually, it is Westminster’s fault.” I refer to my earlier comments in reflecting that what the people of Scotland have witnessed in this Parliament in recent months and years has added evidence, unnecessarily, to support these spurious claims about blame. The manufacture of grievance is what nationalists are all about. We should remember that the only reason they manufacture grievance and the reason they love to blame is that they wish to use it to advance their argument for independence. They exist only to create division and sow discord. It is their modus operandi; it is the means to the end that they seek.

Let me say straight away that it is simply not good enough for me, as a Scottish Conservative and Unionist, to point that out and to despair at the SNP, the way it wants to do Scotland down and its incessant negativity. That is not enough. The SNP may be seeking to build walls between people, but we in this place must be determined to build bridges. We need to be the people who engage positively with the issue of governance throughout the United Kingdom. I believe that it is time for a positive Unionism to be active in the lives of my constituents and the people of Scotland—a positive Unionism that is designed to make life better for our citizens; a positive Unionism that shows the people of Scotland and the people of Stirling that there is a real benefit to being part of the Union.

For me, the key to unlocking that demonstration of benefit is to work together across all Administrations in the United Kingdom to create partnerships. We have seen that for ourselves in Stirling, where the city region deal brings together local authorities and the Scottish and UK Governments. They have to work together, to sit down together, to talk to each other and to make agreements about how to transform the Stirling economy and the lives and life prospects of the people of Stirling. I should mention that that also applies to the constituency of my near neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Ochil and South Perthshire (Luke Graham).

What we need is more joint enterprise between Governments. To make that happen, I believe we need reform. It is imperative that we view such reform not simply as a fix for process and bureaucracy that allows people to fall between the stools, but as a bulwark against grievance-based nationalism. In short, we need to modernise the Union, and the emphasis should be on the delivery of good governance.

I am grateful that my views on good governance are not my views alone, but are shared by many Members on both sides of the House. Just a couple of weeks ago, I was very pleased to join the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) and the hon. Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray)—a Scottish Conservative, a Scottish Liberal Democrat and someone from Scottish Labour—to publish a joint article in Scotland on Sunday about good governance for Scotland.

I would like to share with the House some of our conclusions about what good governance means. We said that we share a common interest in making a

“passionate, positive and heartfelt case for Scotland’s integral role in the United Kingdom”.

We see it as a fundamental part of our jobs as Members of this House to make that positive case. We concluded that it has never been more important to make the positive case for the Union because the SNP, under Nicola Sturgeon, is once again making reckless demands for another independence referendum. We said in the article:

“We believe in the UK not just because it is the most successful union the world has ever seen,”—

and it is—

“but because of how we see it improving and responding to the political, cultural, and social demands of a new era.”

That new era is being brought about because of our departure from the European Union and the new powers that will be transferred from Brussels to Holyrood. More than 80 powers will be transferred from Brussels to Holyrood, and that is on top of the other powers that the Scottish Parliament has been granted in recent years, including powers on welfare.

If I may, I will conclude with a short extract from the article. I believe that these words are worthy of the House’s attention because they are cross-party and, above all else, they are heartfelt words from Scots who care deeply about the Union and the future health and prosperity of the United Kingdom.

Our article said:

“We must be creative in finding solutions to modernising the Union. As a result of our asymmetrical devolution, one challenge is that with many of the powers which may come back to the UK from the EU we will find that some ministers in Westminster will be responsible both for UK common market cohesion, as well as the specific policy framework for England. It creates a conflict of interests, to which”—

to some of us—

“federalism is one solution. The other would be the creation of a Department for the Union to act as an arbiter.”

I would ask those on the Treasury Bench to seriously consider this policy idea.

[Mr Sweeney]

The hon. Gentleman is making an interesting series of proposals and he opens up an interesting discussion. However, the integrity of the United Kingdom is dependent on its being functional and serving a real purpose that means something in people’s lives, and the ongoing constitutional Punch and Judy show that is going on in Scotland right now is ill serving that objective. Does he not agree that we need to move away from the yah-boo polarisation of constitutional obsession in Scotland and focus on delivering policies that improve the quality of life of people in Scotland, and then demonstrate the value of solidarity?

[Stephen Kerr]

I welcome that intervention. In fact, that is exactly what I am saying. Speaking as a Conservative and a Unionist, I wish that we could get past all the unending and, frankly, fruitless discussions about constitutional arrangements, and talk about policies that improve the life opportunities of people in Scotland. I completely agree with the hon. Gentleman, but we need to address the issue of the governance of Scotland to be able to bridge the gap, in constitutional machinery terms, that allows the SNP the breathing space to fester the grievances that it is busy manufacturing while he and I are sitting here.

Our article goes on to say that the Department for the Union

“could be part of the constitutional jigsaw that would solve some of the problems the country will face in the future if they are not addressed. This department would be of such importance that we suggest the leader of it should be one of the five great offices of state: joining Prime Minister, Chancellor of the Exchequer, Home Secretary and Foreign Secretary. They would be supported by a group of senior ministers representing Scotland, Wales, England and Northern Ireland.

A Department for the Union at Whitehall would be responsible for maintaining and enhancing the regulatory and governmental framework of our United Kingdom. Hearing the voices of English, Scottish, Welsh, and Northern Irish ministers, businesses in each sector, and civic bodies would allow for a regulatory framework which works for our whole United Kingdom. Within this framework, devolved governments would be able to adjust policies to suit the individual needs of each country of the United Kingdom whilst protecting the cohesion of the single market of one of the largest economies in the world. This department could work closely on future constitutional change and make informal arrangements such as joint ministerial committees more formal and effective. One of the SNP’s arguments for independence is that the Scottish Government is not treated with respect by the UK government. We reject that claim, but a Department for the Union would put it to bed, and would encourage a better working relationship between the two governments in the interests of all the people of Scotland.”

I am very grateful for the indulgence of the House in being able to share these ideas today.

I worry not just about our democracy, in the way that was referenced earlier, but about the fragility of the Union. I sometimes think that what the hon. Member for Glasgow North East (Mr Sweeney) said about Punch and Judy constitutional politics is replicated in this House, because some people think that the Union is something that the Scots debate, or is about the issue of a border between Ireland and Northern Ireland. The fact is that we all have a vested interest in the health, wellbeing and future security of the Union. This is a time to end the division and rancour that the Scottish Government have consistently created, and to end the building of walls between people in Scotland and people in the rest of the UK. It is a time for the UK Government and this Parliament to put their shoulder to the wheel in Scotland and help to bring people together.

Leaving the EU: Implications for Scotland

Debate between Paul Sweeney and Stephen Kerr

Tuesday 3rd July 2018 Westminster Hall

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

As always, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I congratulate the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson) on securing this debate on what is a fundamentally important issue.

We are leaving the European Union—that much is clear. The discussion that we should be having now—although it has not been entirely possible due to the inability of the Tories to come to an agreement in their own Cabinet—is how we leave, on what terms we leave and how we ensure that when we leave, we do not suffer economically or socially as a result.

Before we get into the detail of today’s debate, I would reflect on one thing: if Brexit has taught us anything at all, it is just how difficult it is for the UK to leave a political and economic union that we have been part of for just 40 years. That should be cause for concern for not only Members of the Scottish National party here today, but also the Scottish Government and the First Minister. As the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran said, she and her colleagues have a desire for Scotland to leave a political and economic union that we have been part of for more than 300 years. I can only begin to imagine the difficulties that would be thrown up were people in Scotland to decide that they agreed with that proposition—thankfully, they do not. The SNP’s own confusion over the matter is laid bare by its recent growth commission, which ironically proposes to leave the UK but to surrender all control of interest rates, inflation and capacity to introduce fiscal stimulus in Scotland. What an absurd, worst-of-all-possible situations that would be.

There are three main areas I want to focus on: the constitutional, social and economic implications. It is undeniable that there are constitutional implications for Scotland arising from the decision to leave the EU. The Scottish devolution settlement was written in 1998 and our membership of the European Union is integral to it. A couple of weeks ago, we saw the UK Government shut down debate in the Commons, leaving a mere 15 minutes to discuss devolution. Not allowing one single Scottish Member of Parliament to speak was disgraceful; it showed nothing but contempt, not only for Scottish Members, but for those we represent.

[Stephen Kerr]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Luke Graham]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Sweeney]

I give way to the hon. Member for Stirling (Stephen Kerr).

[Stephen Kerr]

I point out to the hon. Gentleman that it was the insistence of his Front Benchers on holding 11 pointless votes that led to that 19 minutes of debate. We agree that it was shameful, but it was because the Labour party—his party—insisted on those 11 stupid votes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Sweeney]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising that point. It is important that we scotch that myth once and for all—

[Stephen Kerr]

It is not a myth.

[Mr Sweeney]

It is a myth. Labour proposed to extend the time allowed under the programme motion to provide ample time to discuss all the amendments. I tell the hon. Gentleman that all 11 votes were necessary and vital. He might dismiss them as ridiculous, but they were essential.

Scottish Economy

Debate between Paul Sweeney and Stephen Kerr

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.

UK Intergovernmental Co-operation

Debate between Paul Sweeney and Stephen Kerr

Wednesday 20th June 2018 Westminster Hall

[Stephen Kerr]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention and for the information he brings to the debate. What he describes would be a tragic outcome for everyone, but he underlines the point I am trying to make, which is that the emphasis on differences is not always true. The wall I am describing cements a nationalist agenda of Scottish exceptionalism and difference. It discourages working across borders. The border is used as a barrier to seek to limit the building of partnerships throughout the United Kingdom.

Glasgow City Council has more in common with Manchester and Birmingham City Councils than it does with Argyll and Bute, but they are lumped together incongruously to satisfy a geographic and nationalist imperative. Similarly, the problems of rural health boards are not dissimilar, regardless of whether they are on one side of the border or the other. It is a real shame that the arrangements for the devolved settlements do not contain references to partnership working, other than at ministerial level. Instead, we have created a system that allows for the creation of division and separation, rather than one that encourages partnership and innovation.

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

The hon. Gentleman makes some interesting propositions on collaborative working at a number of different levels, but the current primary mechanism is the Joint Ministerial Committee. Does he agree that it is currently pointless, as it has no authority? It needs to be put on a statutory footing to give it proper teeth. I am perturbed, because the hon. Gentleman voted down a proposed amendment that would have done that. Why did he do that?

[Stephen Kerr]

I agree with much of what the hon. Gentleman said. I welcome his intervention. I will come on to the point he raised. It has also become the norm with the current arrangements that Scotland’s two Governments conduct their business by megaphone rather than by meeting, speaking and perhaps even listening. There is no imperative that means they must sit down and listen to each other, which speaks to the point made by the hon. Member for Glasgow North East (Mr Sweeney), and that is just not right. Regionalism is a positive example of how things could be made to work.

The recently established metropolitan Mayors by necessity work with different levels of government. They work with the councils across their regions and with the UK Government. That in turn builds a broad-based coalition of partners that seems to work well, criss-crossing local rivalries and party political loyalties for the good of the region. It encourages compromise and the sharing of objectives. Andy Burnham, the Labour Mayor of Greater Manchester, must work with Conservative and Liberal Democrat councillors, and he also must work closely with Conservative Government Ministers. He must negotiate and compromise, as all the Mayors do, but of course none of them are nationalists.

The arrangements for the devolved Parliaments and Assemblies do not encompass that vision of partnering. They seem to me to be tokenistic and designed to create a hierarchy of importance that is not in keeping with a vision of partnership unionism. The history of the JMC is that it meets irregularly on an ad hoc basis, with little or no formal recognition of the value of joint working. There is limited transparency on what happens at those meetings and what difference they make. They are exclusively focused on the Government-to-Government business of the moment. There is no structure for formal departmental or inter-parliamentary working, or for local government agencies or other national agencies to work together. There is so much to be gained by creating those networks and forums as part of the process of the machinery of the Union.

There are examples in the world of how things can be made to work better. The Canadian system is a case in point. It is federal in nature, but the different provinces and territories have different levels of local control, and the parliamentary system has important similarities with that of the UK. The Canadians have a national Ministry of Intergovernmental Affairs and Youth, headed by a Cabinet Minister—the so-called Unity Minister. So important is that role to Prime Minister Justin Trudeau that he performs it himself. It is not as simple as being a command and control network from the federal Government. Far from it—the Ministry’s remit is far deeper than establishing national guidance or control for the provincial and territorial governments. It is responsible for encouraging joint working between the provinces and territories and the local government agencies.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Kerr]

With the greatest respect, I have never heard such nonsense. The opposite is the case. The United Kingdom Government are determined to ensure that powers repatriated from Brussels go to the Scottish Parliament, and the SNP voted against that last week. We should never forget that.

[Mr Sweeney]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Stephen Kerr]

I will give way one more time, and then I should finish.

[Mr Sweeney]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his generosity. He mentioned local government, which is an important aspect of the equation. This is not merely about devolved powers residing in Holyrood; it is a question of the over-centralisation of government in Scotland itself. Scotland is actually the most centralised country in Europe in terms of governance. We have to radically address that distribution of power within Scotland.

Scottish Welfare Powers

Debate between Paul Sweeney and Stephen Kerr

Tuesday 20th March 2018 Westminster Hall

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

Thank you, Mr Rosindell, for your expert chairmanship of the debate. We have had a spirited introduction from the hon. Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock (Bill Grant), with some interesting re-writing of history regarding the Tory party’s legacy when it comes to defence of the welfare state in Scotland.

At every stage of the process of devolution, it is Labour that has led the charge. During the passage of the Scotland Act 2016, although the welfare provisions were agreed by the Smith commission, it was only the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray) that extended the new benefits in devolved areas, and top-ups in reserved areas. It was only his action that forced that change in the Lords, and pressure from the Labour party that ensured that that provision was included in the Act.

A huge opportunity has been presented to the Scottish Government with the extension of welfare powers. That is exactly what devolution was intended to do. Remember that the spirit of devolution was set up in the face of rampant Thatcherism and the rolling back of the industrial and welfare settlement that Scotland had enjoyed since the end of the second world war.

[Stephen Kerr]

On a point of information, Mrs Thatcher left office in 1990. The devolution settlement the hon. Gentleman is referring to occurred under Tony Blair’s Government, eight years later.

[Mr Sweeney]

I think I referred to the “spirit” of devolution. If the hon. Gentleman recalls his history, devolution, which of course the Tories implacably opposed throughout, was born in the 1980s. Likewise, the popular campaign for a Scottish Parliament was born out of the 1980s and the reaction against Thatcherism, the policies of which were anathema to the Scottish people. Devolution was born in the face of Thatcherism. If I am not mistaken, it was the former Secretary of State for Scotland, Sir Malcolm Rifkind, who referred to Thatcher as the midwife of the Scottish Parliament.

Clearly, Labour led the charge at every stage in the process. Although there is a great opportunity for the Scottish Parliament to be what it was designed to be—a bulwark against Tory austerity, not a conveyor belt for it—we have seen a weakness in the Social Security (Scotland) Bill, which was built on empty rhetoric, not substance. Again, it has been Labour pressure that has led the charge against the SNP pulling off an audacious power grab, without any scrutiny or accountability, in the Bill’s development in the Scottish Parliament.

Scotland has the powers to create its own social security system, to change the lives of disabled people, to tackle poverty, and to reinforce the safety net, but there is still so much missing from the Bill. The Bill at stage 3, as it goes through the Scottish Parliament, will be very different from the form it was issued in last June. That has been achieved through campaigners lobbying, and Labour holding its ground, seeking to deliver real change to improve the lives of the people of Scotland. I want to be clear about how it has progressed through the Scottish Parliament, for the avoidance of any doubt and any rewriting of history.

In June 2017, a briefing was circulated to all MSPs highlighting that the Bill contained no top-up to child benefit, no rules setting out how the Government should create new benefits in devolved areas, and no ban on the private sector, going back on the Scottish Government’s word from April 2017. There was also no hard commitment on uprating, going back on their word from June 2016, and no scrutiny through the legislative process. By the end of that summer, during stage 1 Labour had secured the following concessions in the Bill: scrutiny and parliamentary procedure, a right to independent advocacy, a right to payment cash as default, and a statutory duty to maximise incomes.

However, the Minister for Social Security in Scotland continued to block protections for recovering overpayments made by office errors, which is more onerous than the UK system. She also blocked inflationary uprating—that is to say, the Minister wanted to do less than the UK system—and redeterminations, as they wanted to replicate the UK system. She also blocked the banning of the private sector, and the setting of binding targets to encourage the uptake of £2 billion in unclaimed benefits. However, since January we have seen a U-turn on all those issues, by laying or supporting amendments and seeking Labour’s support, while antagonising the third sector and civic society in the process.

During stage 2 of the Bill, the SNP and the Tories voted down amendments to secure human rights in the Bill. For months, a key and fundamental part of SNP rhetoric focused on how the system would be built on dignity and respect, yet when put to a vote they teamed up with the Tories to vote that down. That rightly angered the third sector, and some of the Scottish Government’s key supporters, who have long called for the right to social security to be part of the legislation. The Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations said in response to this issue:

“This ‘due regard’ amendment...was to ensure that the principles in the Bill, something we have heard a lot about from the Scottish Government, could be realised in practice.

Astoundingly, despite the Scottish Governments rhetoric around a social security system based on human rights, the amendment was not agreed and no such duty will exist in the Bill.

Confused? You should be.”

That is a shameful indictment of the Scottish Government’s true commitment on this issue.

[Stephen Kerr]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way again. I congratulate him on his powerful speech, even though I do not agree with everything that he is saying. Does he agree that the evidence that he is presenting shows how difficult it is for the Scottish Government to get their arms around the issue of providing a social security system in Scotland? It is a complex issue, is it not?

[Mr Sweeney]

I agree that the complexity of the social security system should not be underestimated, but none the less we should have committed at the outset to the objectives and the vision that we wanted to see, which we share. Surely they should live up to their rhetoric on this issue.

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Debate between Paul Sweeney and Stephen Kerr

Report stage: First Day: House of Commons
Tuesday 16th January 2018 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Kerr]

Let me come to that—I promise that almost my next sentence will be on that. I want to make sure that the Bill and Parliament deliver what my constituents expect.

I now turn to clause 11 and the amendments to it, particularly amendment 3. Let me be absolutely clear about the clause: we must have an agreement between the UK and Scottish Governments to allow for the passage of a legislative consent motion. I am not convinced that that is a legal necessity, but it is a convention that the Government are honouring and they should be commended for that. I am therefore intensely disappointed, dissatisfied and frustrated that a deal has not been struck between Scotland’s two Governments.

In the past few days, there has been a lot of talk in the media about the claim that there is an agreement in principle between the UK and Scottish Governments. The Scottish Government’s Brexit Minister, Mike Russell, claimed on television on Sunday that such an agreement existed. Will the Minister tell us the status of the negotiations between Scotland’s two Governments? Is there an agreement in principle? Is there an agreement on the frameworks that we all agree are essential for the operation of the UK marketplace, to allow the UK to honour its international obligations and to strike trade deals?

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

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the need to make amendments to improve clause 11, which is almost universally accepted as deficient, is not predicated on there first being an agreement on a legislative consent motion, or the agreement with the Scottish Government to which he refers? Amendments should be taken on their merits alone.

[Stephen Kerr]

That is brave talk, but the facts of the matter are that Conservative Members are seeking to co-operate with the devolved Administrations so that there can be a unanimous approach to the legislative consent motion.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Kerr]

I completely agree. Although I could not disagree fundamentally with the wording of the amendment, it is not adequate for its purpose in terms of the withdrawal Bill and the importance of achieving the legislative consent motions that this Government have rightfully determined are the way to proceed with what is—I agree—a major constitutional rearrangement of the affairs of this country because of our exit from the European Union.

[Mr Sweeney]

We all accept that having those joint frameworks is a desirable and necessary thing, but we are talking about the sequence in which that should be carried out. It is not necessary for us to wait for that to happen before amending clause 11 and making it fit for purpose now. Why do we not crack on and do it today? What is stopping us?

[Stephen Kerr]

What is stopping us is the fact that there is no point creating an amendment which then itself has to be amended. No one is more disappointed and frustrated than I am that we do not have these amendments. I sat and listened to the Secretary of State for Scotland make the same commitment. I will come on to that as it is a serious matter for me.

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Debate between Paul Sweeney and Stephen Kerr

Committee: 4th sitting: House of Commons
Monday 4th December 2017 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Kerr]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for bringing the Fraser of Allander Institute to the attention of the Committee, because the institute also points out that the perpetual threat of a second independence referendum is having a dragging effect on the Scottish economy.

[Mr Sweeney]

The hon. Gentleman referred earlier to the Scottish Parliament being the most powerful Parliament in the world, and I am aware that he opposed its initial creation but now recognises its benefits. The creation of the Scottish Parliament has resulted in regulatory divergence between parts of the United Kingdom. Does that fact not undermine the whole logical position of the Tories’ argument against our amendments? Surely, it has already been established that divergence exists but there is still a viable single market in the UK.

[Stephen Kerr]

In my opinion, divergence brought about by devolution enriches the fabric of the Union, but the divergence we are talking about could, in a very real sense, undermine the integrity of the United Kingdom’s common market.

I have had emails from constituents that regularly begin with the words: “I believe that Brexit should strengthen devolution for Scotland, not weaken it.” Many other Members will have had similar emails. I want my constituents to know that that is exactly my position. I want a Brexit that strengthens the democracy of our country and strengthens the devolution settlement for Scotland. I ask Ministers, in the summing up at some point tonight, to make it clear again that the Bill guarantees the existing devolution settlement and the existing powers of the Scottish Parliament and promises that there will be more powers to come.

In regard to the tone and manner in which this issue is discussed and debated, I wish to pay tribute—SNP Members will not be surprised to hear me say this—to Ruth Davidson, Professor Adam Tomkins and others, who have worked as honest brokers in this process, by working with the Scottish and UK Governments to bring them together to build consensus. I believe consensus is vital for the new constitutional settlement we need to reach.

I welcome the recent change of tone from the Scottish Government, especially from the First Minister. When she came out of Downing Street on her last visit to London, I thought she had some very positive things to say. As a Scot, I welcome that: I welcome the fact that the First Minister of my country is willing to be a positive contributor, rather than a simply a detractor.

I want take this opportunity to express my full confidence in the approach and style of the First Secretary of State and the Secretary of State for Scotland, who are leading the UK Government in the very important talks with the Scottish Government. I have great confidence that there will come out of the discussions an agreement that will be sustainable because it will be built on consensus. Consensus is not gained by shouting matches or feigned indignation—we see quite a lot of feigned indignation in this place—and all I would say is thank goodness the SNP leadership in Edinburgh has more maturity than some of the MPs it sends to London. I remain hopeful, and I am optimistic.

Devolved Powers in Scotland

Debate between Paul Sweeney and Stephen Kerr

Tuesday 17th October 2017 Westminster Hall

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

It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone.

I thank the hon. Member for Stirling (Stephen Kerr) for securing this debate, and I congratulate him on his first speech in this Chamber. I also thank him for reminding us that this is the 20th anniversary of the historic referendum on devolution. It was generally accepted at the time that it was the settled will of the Scottish people to establish a Parliament in Edinburgh—they were clearly not in agreement with the hon. Gentleman. He reminds us that the Scottish Parliament was founded in the face of Tory intransigence—that must never be forgotten. I am heartened that he has changed his view since then. Perhaps the evidence of the Parliament’s credibility over its two decades of operation has made him see the light. I fear that we may be doomed to disappointment, because it is clear that there is continued intractable opposition from Conservative Members about how we progress the constitutional future of the United Kingdom sustainably.

Several Conservative Members referred to the need to move power closer to the people, yet the Strathclyde Regional Council was abolished because it dared to hold a referendum on maintaining a public-sector water supply company. How does that square with their position?

I have asked questions on two occasions—including to the Prime Minister—about the need to establish a constitutional convention to deal with the distribution of power and governance across the United Kingdom in the wake of Brexit, and I had a totally unsatisfactory response on both. It is clear that, when it comes to defending the integrity of the United Kingdom, the Tory party is utterly inept and totally incapable. That is unacceptable. It is becoming increasingly clear to me that the only presence in this House that will fight for a sustainable future built on solidarity in the United Kingdom is the Labour party.

I recall John Smith’s comment that there are two forces sawing away at the legs that support the Union—the Scottish National party, whose primary mission is to destroy the United Kingdom, and the stupid Conservative party, which always fails to rise to the occasion when it comes to delivering deep, meaningful and fundamental reforms to the constitution of this country. That is unacceptable, and it must be called out in this Chamber today.

Although the hon. Member for Stirling lauds the Scotland Act 2016, which enhanced the Scottish Parliament’s powers, he failed to say that the devolution of welfare powers was due to my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray), who tabled more than 120 amendments to the Bill, including on all of the welfare powers. Therefore, to suggest that it was all the initiative of the Conservative party is absolutely bogus and unacceptable.

[Stephen Kerr]

We did deliver it.

[Mr Sweeney]

They delivered it in the face of intransigence. They failed to rise to the occasion.

The hon. Member for Angus (Kirstene Hair) talked about NHS cuts, but did not propose to use the Scottish Parliament’s powers to deal with them meaningfully. Conservative Members talk about NHS cuts, but I have heard repeated claims that they have no interest in using the Scottish Parliament to deal with them meaningfully. My hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (Martin Whitfield) said that 19% of Scots feel that the Scottish Parliament has not risen to the occasion; in fact, they wish to abolish it.

We have to raise our game. We have to look at what we can do to build a credible devolution settlement. We need to use the Scottish Parliament’s powers to maximise the benefit for the Scottish people.