Cost of Living and Brexit
Debate between Philippa Whitford and Stewart Hosie(1 year, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dr Whitford
No, I am sorry. I have just given way to the hon. Lady.
The Institute for Fiscal Studies’ analysis of the Scottish tax and benefit system showed that it was more progressive, with almost 30% of low-income families £2,000 a year better off in Scotland, but Scotland aspires to something more radical than just mitigating Westminster austerity such as the two-child limit or the six-year benefit freeze. Our vision is to be a fairer, greener nation. The Scottish Government founded the Wellbeing Economy Governments Group in 2018 with Iceland and New Zealand, and Finland and Wales joined later. A wellbeing economy does not just focus on GDP, which includes the profits of damaging sectors such as the tobacco industry, but invests in the physical and mental health and social, economic and environmental wellbeing of every citizen. It is a holistic approach that recognises that our society and economy depend on the success of every individual, every family and every community.
Therefore, in addition to the targeted anti-poverty measures, the Scottish Government invest in the wellbeing of all those living in Scotland, from the baby box that welcomes the birth of a child and university tuition that allows our young people to reach their full potential to the free personal care that allows older people to stay in their own home for as long as possible. However, with the tightening limitations of devolution, the Scottish Government do not have the power over their own economy or the control of taxation and social security that are required to deliver the wellbeing economy we aspire to. We all know that we need a different type of economy by the end of this decade, or we will leave our grandchildren to face climate collapse. The pandemic brought everything to a standstill, which gave us a unique opportunity to decide what kind of economy and society we wanted to rebuild.
Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP)
Before my hon. Friend goes on to talk about the kind of economy we want to see, will she make the observation that in an important debate on the cost of living and its evil twin Brexit, on the day after an urgent question on the Tories’ mortgage crisis, we have one Tory Back Bencher and two Labour Back Benchers in the Chamber? Does that not tell the Scottish people everything they need to know about how little Unionism really cares for ordinary people?
Dr Whitford
The proposal for this economy, as I said at the beginning of my speech, is not just for the people of Scotland: it is for the people of the four nations of the UK. The review of the TCA will come up in 2026, and while it is not possible to make Brexit work, it is possible to mitigate some of its worst effects. For that, though, we need to understand what Brexit is doing to the UK’s society and economy and have proposals that we can bring to the EU to ask for change.
Unfortunately, the opportunity to change to a different economy and society has not been taken. We already see poverty and inequality rising, and the climate emergency being pushed off the action list—including by Labour, which has just U-turned on its pledge to invest £28 billion in the transition to a green economy. Unfortunately, the climate crisis cannot wait. Scotland is blessed with extensive green energy potential, from wind and tidal power to green hydrogen and pump storage hydro. The current Government have failed to support Scotland’s green energy potential, and sadly there is now little reason to expect much change under Labour, either.
Immigration
Debate between Philippa Whitford and Stewart Hosie(5 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Stewart Hosie
No, I will not on that point.
I am delighted to be called in this debate. I am pleased that it does not simply focus on the Prime Minister’s toxic legacy on immigration and the hostile environment that she and her hapless Government created, but recognises the positive contribution that immigrants and immigration bring to the country. In this debate, in this Chamber and in the country, I am sure that there will be positive discussion about how we improve the system to make it far more humane and—this is where I agree with the hon. Member for Stirling—far less arbitrary than it is at present. I am also pleased that the motion specifically references Scottish needs on immigration, both for demographic and different economic sectoral reasons. This is important, particularly for Scotland’s growth sectors, which I will say more about in a moment, along with making a small number of other specific points.
I note the value and benefit that migrants, and EU migrants in particular, bring to the economy and I will cite four of Scotland’s growth sectors to demonstrate that. In Scotland alone, in the food, drink and agriculture sector, 10,000 EU migrants are employed. That is 12% of total employment in the sector. One in eight people working in that entire sector is an EU or EEA worker. In tourism in Scotland, there are 17,000 EU workers, which is 9.5% of the total employment in that sector. In the creative sector, there are 10,000. Even in finance and business services, 9,000 workers—or 4% of the total employment in that growth sector—are from the European Union. That is before there is any mention of the contribution that migrants and migrant workers make to health and other vital public services. It is clear from those few examples that any attempt to constrain or restrict the flow of EU labour in any way would be profoundly damaging for businesses in Scotland. Their costs would undoubtedly rise—that is, if alternatives could be found at all—and output, particularly in agriculture, would most certainly suffer.
My second point is that inward migration delivers almost all the net population growth expected for Scotland. Without it, over the medium term, the population would remain static, but have a higher proportion of older people. Migration is therefore vital to ensuring that the proportion of working-age people is maintained, so that there are people to do the jobs that need to be done, and to pay the taxes to fund the public services on which we rely.
The Government’s argument is that there is still a mechanism in place for people to come, and the Minister spoke about the number of people coming to the EU in various capacities, but all sorts of skilled labour—not just highly paid skilled labour—is mobile; that is how it can come to Scotland, and to the UK. If we put up barriers, be they real, hard, financial, or even soft, perceived barriers, we limit the number of people who want to and can come to Scotland, because it might simply be easier for them to go elsewhere.
Dr Whitford
My hon. Friend talks about soft barriers. There has been a 90% drop in nurses coming from the EU, even though they are not obstructed as yet. Is that not a sign that people go elsewhere if they feel unwelcome?
Stewart Hosie
That is precisely my point. If that drop in numbers continued for more than a few years, the health service and other caring sectors would have a serious problem. It is not simply EU citizens but all migrants—all new Scots—who deliver benefit to our country. I will concentrate a little more on EU and European economic area citizens, but I will shortly move on to the contribution made, and the problems faced, by people from beyond the European Union who come here, either permanently or for short visits.
We should be thankful to the Government for the publication of “EU Exit: Long-term economic analysis”, which puts a hard GDP number on the benefit from EEA migration. We know that Brexit is bad economically, but every single non-EEA Brexit scenario modelled, including no deal, average free trade agreement, and the now lost and forgotten Government White Paper, was worse with a zero net inflow of EEA workers—around 2% of GDP worse over the forecast period. Net zero EEA migration has a hard-number impact; we know that, as do the Government, because they published it.
No one who cares about the economic wellbeing of Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland or the UK as a whole should ever embark on a hostile environment policy that makes it difficult for people to come to the UK, or that in any way, shape or form stops EEA citizens living or working here, yet that is precisely what the Government have done, and it is not only EEA citizens who suffer.
I will give two brief examples of the unnecessary and arbitrary obstacles faced by people who wish to live here permanently or make a short visit. The first is of a South African lady who married a Scottish man who lived and worked in South Africa more than 15 years ago. They moved to Scotland. The lady travelled initially on a tourist visa, but was told that she had to go back to South Africa, where they no longer had a home, job or income, to apply for a UK visa. That obviously caused distress, and had a significant financial cost to a household with modest earnings. Forcing that lady to return to South Africa to apply for a visa that would allow her to live in Scotland with her husband delivered absolutely no benefit to the UK. It was a nasty, pointless, arbitrary and unnecessary piece of hostile bureaucracy that could be changed tomorrow if this Government cared anything for the people who live here.
The second example I wish to give is of a very successful Pakistani gentleman. He travels regularly overseas and has never overstayed on a visa in any country. Indeed, on his last visit to the UK, he left after only a couple of weeks, having visited all the friends and family whom he wished to see, which was the reason for his stay. Even though he had an excellent sponsor and an exemplary record from previous visits, his last visa application was rejected—and not on what you, Mr Deputy Speaker, I or a reasonable person would consider real grounds; he was told, wrongly, that he did not have
“enough incentive to leave the UK on completion of”
his
“proposed visit”.
Indefensible! That arbitrary judgment was handed down by some bureaucrat in the absence of any evidence whatever.
Weddings and funerals are missed, and family relations are destroyed, because of ludicrous, arbitrary decision making. If these decisions were made by some tin-pot despotic country, we would all rightly say, “That’s appalling. The rule of law has been abandoned in favour of arbitrary decision making.”
Privatisation of NHS Services
Debate between Philippa Whitford and Stewart Hosie(6 years, 7 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Stewart Hosie (in the Chair)
Order. The hon. Lady will decide what interventions she wants to take.
Dr Whitford
I have only just started, and there is not much time left. It is repeatedly mentioned in this House that patients and carers in England have to pay significant car parking charges. That should not be seen as a benefit.
The Conservatives introduced the internal market in 1990. That introduced competition between NHS hospitals, and even at that point created an “us and them” mentality in my local area. It created divisions between the GPs and the hospital through the purchaser-provider split. Sometimes, if a patient was sent to me but had a problem that I diagnosed as pertaining to a different department, I could not refer them on, because the GP would not fund it. They had to go back to the GP and start again. That was both inefficient and, at times, dangerous.
Unfortunately, I have to criticise official Opposition Members, because I remember in 1997 when Labour got in and talked about going back to one NHS. Those of us who worked in the NHS were delighted. Sadly, we soon started to hear about foundation trusts and, in essence, we were back to the same policy. It was Labour that introduced independent treatment centres, initially with block contracts for common operations such as those on hips and knees. Most of those contracts were not met, and were therefore of incredibly poor value. GPs were being pushed to refer their patients to the ITCs. That was eventually recognised, and the move was made towards payment by results, which eventually led to the tariff. Capital funding was also kept off the books, leading to the private finance initiative, which we have discussed many times in this place. PFI has been shown to result in between £150 million and £200 million of profit per year for the companies that hold the contracts. That is putting a huge strain on many trusts.
In the 2010 election, the Conservatives promised no top-down reorganisation. Unfortunately, just a couple of years later, with the introduction of the Health and Social Care Act 2012, we saw that that was not true. The Act came into force in April 2013, and section 75 in particular pushed commissioning groups to put contracts out for tender. That has created relentless pressure to bring independent sector providers into the NHS. As the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) mentioned, it has risen from £2.2 billion in 2006 to £9 billion in 2016-17, more than 10 years later. That is approximately the same cost as providing all GP services, so it is not a minor cost; it is significant. The independent treatment sector in 2015-16 won approximately 34% of contracts—a figure that rose to 43% in 2016-17. However, as the independent treatment sector has moved towards more community services, it is now winning approximately 60% of contracts. There is no question but that there is greater involvement of private companies in providing healthcare.
We hear all the time about waste in the NHS, but we have had circular reorganisation throughout my career—from 100 health authorities to 300 primary care trusts, to 150 primary care trusts and to a little more than 200 clinical commissioning groups. CCGs were described as putting power into GPs’ hands, but less than half of CCGs have a majority of clinicians on them, and less than 18% have a majority of GPs. We are now going to go through another change, with the introduction of 44 sustainability and transformation plans or accountable care organisations. The costs associated with the redesign, the redundancies, the new organisations, the external consultants and the change managers are all described as one-offs, but this has been repeated relentlessly over the past 30 years and has resulted in huge waste. Much smaller organisations, such as hospital trust and ambulance trusts, are now run by very senior managers with six-figure salaries—the same size as those received by the people who ran health authorities at the start of all this. That is a waste.
Then there are the running costs of the market itself—the contracting design, the tendering, the bid teams, the corporate lawyers, the billing and the profits. The costs of the system are utterly opaque. It is not possible to penetrate the veil of commercial sensitivity, and the Department of Health does absolutely nothing to show where public money is spent. It is estimated that the cost of the English healthcare market is between £5 billion and £20 billion—no one really knows. We have no evidence of precisely how high the costs are, and there is absolutely no evidence of a benefit, so it is not possible to do a cost-benefit analysis.