Northern Ireland Protocol: Implementation

Richard Thomson Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd February 2021 Commons Chamber

[Michael Gove]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the work that he and his Committee have done to help ensure that the protocol is well understood and to resolve some of the problems that have arisen. There are a number of specific issues. I alluded earlier to the requirement that export health certificates are provided, but, as his Committee well knows, there are other issues such as the grace period covering the supply of chilled meats to Northern Ireland and the movement of pets between Northern Ireland and Great Britain. All those issues and more are ways in which the protocol is having an impact on people in Northern Ireland that is not in the interests of Northern Ireland, the United Kingdom or, indeed, good relations between us and the EU. Vice-President Maroš Šefčovič totally understands the need to resolve these issues and, with good will, I believe that we can do so speedily, as my hon. Friend rightly points out that we need to.

[Richard Thomson (Gordon) (SNP) [V]]

I extend my best wishes to Mr Poots for a speedy recovery. The indication from the EU that it was considering triggering article 16 was a significant error of judgment—albeit one that was quickly walked back. Nevertheless, it was a mis-step that has followed significant problems with the Northern Ireland protocol, with businesses facing delays—and perhaps not helped by the Prime Minister saying that he would have no hesitation in triggering article 16 after spending months denying that there would be any kind of post-Brexit checks between Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

We now have a situation that has escalated to the point that port inspection staff have needed to be withdrawn from their duties over concerns for their safety, which is completely unacceptable. Can the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster give me an assurance and explain how he intends to work with the Northern Ireland Executive, the Irish Government and the EU to de-escalate all the issues around this matter and explain what further steps he will take to ensure that the protocol—an agreement entered into freely—works as it needs to for the benefit of all in Northern Ireland?

[Michael Gove]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his elevation to the Front Bench in the SNP shadow Cabinet reshuffle that has just taken place. I look forward to working with him, as, I know, does my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

I disagree with the hon. Gentleman on one point. I think the Prime Minister was absolutely right to say that, if necessary, article 16 can be invoked. There is a difference between recognising that it is there as an emergency cord to pull if we need to in order to ensure that the rights and interests of the people in Northern Ireland are protected, but it can be invoked only in specific circumstances, none of which, as the hon. Gentleman knows and has acknowledged, were in place when the European Commission invoked it. More broadly, we all want to make sure that the lives of people in Northern Ireland can be as safe, secure, prosperous and free as possible, in the same way as any other citizen of the United Kingdom. I look forward to working with the hon. Gentleman’s colleagues in the Scottish Government to ensure, through provisions such as the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020, that we continue to do everything necessary to safeguard our precious Union.

Covid-19: NAO Report on Government Procurement

Richard Thomson Excerpts

Wednesday 9th December 2020 Westminster Hall

[Richard Thomson (Gordon) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Eagle. I add my own words of congratulations to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Dan Carden) for securing the debate. In his opening remarks, he did an absolutely excellent job of dissecting the morass of contracts that have risen to public attention for all the wrong reasons and do not, on any objective measure, pass the sniff test.

We have heard much about what the report does tell us, so before the Minister responds, let us be absolutely clear about what the NAO says the report does not tell us. Page 44 of the NAO report states:

“This report should not be considered as offering positive assurance over aspects of any of these contracts which are not detailed in the report, or as offering any legal opinion on the use of public procurement regulations… We have not drawn any conclusions regarding the value for money of the procurement”.

The report was drawn up on the basis of a risk-based examination of 20 contracts, which are a fraction of the 8,600 new contracts that had been awarded by 31 July. To be clear, there is absolutely nothing wrong with taking that risk-based approach. That core analysis is done to find what issues emerge, and my goodness, what issues have emerged. It seems that the NAO knew exactly where it should be sticking its spade in the ground when it started this work.

Of those new contracts, £0.7 billion-worth were awarded through contract extensions; £0.2 billion-worth through competitive tendering; and £6.7 billion-worth through existing framework call-offs. Those contracts are not the ones that should cause anyone any particular concern. Rather, scrutiny should rightly focus on the £10.5 billion-worth of contracts that were direct awards with no competition.

Obviously, the Government have to have the ability to give direct contract awards in situations of extreme urgency, as the law allows. Rightly, however, strict conditions are attached to that. I do not think that anyone would disagree that those conditions are likely to have been met in the very early weeks of the crisis, but what came thereafter is an entirely different question. Within those contracts, whenever they were awarded, it is important to be able to get a sense of what was proportionate, where conflicts of interest may have arisen, how those conflicts of interest were managed, what steps were taken to mitigate the risks and how value for money was ensured as far as possible. All too often, as the report highlights, inadequate records were kept, which means that transparency has been diminished and, in many cases, it is not possible to demonstrate how particular decisions were reached and why.

I accept that, in cases of urgency, sometimes processes need to be circumvented. The law allows for that. Certain corners will be cut; certain niceties might be overlooked. The fact that this took place does not overshadow the many genuine efforts of Government employees to procure swiftly under conditions of urgency and great difficulty, but the importance of record keeping is absolutely key to maintaining transparency, so that we know that the right decisions were taken for the right reasons. The fact that the Government are still citing the need to procure with extreme urgency as a reason for persisting with this method of procurement, even after the summer, does not wash at all.

As we have heard, there are serious public concerns about certain contracts that were awarded. In some cases, those who were awarded the contracts were unable to fulfil them either at a reasonable price or to the required level of quality. In some cases, those who won them already enjoyed a closeness with the Government and some members of the Government, which was inappropriate at best.

It is remarkable that people with no experience of manufacturing, who were simply acting as middle men looking for a slice, could find themselves in a priority queue for consideration. The fact that there was a priority queue is a matter for concern. Although both lanes were supposed to be using the same gateway and scrutiny process, a stark set of numbers emerge from that analysis: 47 out of 493 contracts, or 9.5%, of those in the priority lane went on to secure a contract award, compared with only 104 out of 14,892, or less than 0.75%, of those in the normal lane.

Many contracts were awarded without any kind of financial due diligence being undertaken on the companies. In some cases, due diligence was done after the awards were given and came back as an amber or red condition. I accept that in times of urgency one may need to press on and take the chance. However, the further one goes into the process, the less justifiable it is to take that risk. To do financial due diligence in that way on contracts worth not only tens of millions of pounds, but in excess of £100 million, is a bit like going bungee jumping and only worrying about whether the cord is attached after embarking on the journey downwards. Frankly, it is beyond belief that this was allowed to happen.

The differentiation between the lanes was not based on evidence of any ability to deliver, nor was the aim to speed up the procurement process; it was preferential access, pure and simple. I was not the first Member to refer to suspicions of a crony virus working in Government, but the suspicion lingers. For too long, too many people too close to the centre of Government have won too many contracts, of which too few are properly documented or can demonstrate adequate value for money.

On 15 March, the Health Secretary said:

“Our approach to tackling coronavirus is to be as clear and transparent as possible—because all that matters is getting this response right ”.

In her summing up, the Minister will no doubt seek virtue in the fact that the Government were, in their own eyes, getting on with the job at an incredibly difficult time in a global pandemic. We must be clear: if that is the defence mustered for the content of this report, it is an excuse that is beginning to run on empty. The report stated:

“This has diminished public transparency, and the lack of adequate documentation means we cannot give assurance that government has adequately mitigated the increased risks arising from emergency procurement or applied appropriate commercial practices in all cases. While we recognise that these were exceptional circumstances, there are standards that the public sector will always need to apply if it is to maintain public trust.”

There is an urgent need for openness in these processes so that the public can maintain their trust in them and trust can be restored in the Government’s approach. That is why today I repeat the SNP’s call for a full public inquiry into the awarding of tenders and into those who had access to UK Government meetings preparatory to procurement awards throughout the health emergency. The Government absolutely must also accept unreservedly, without any qualification and in full, the recommendations made in the National Audit Office report. If they are to escape the suggestion that they have been allowing preferential access and enrichment to a select few under the cover of an unprecedented emergency, they can really do no less than that.

Covid-19 Update

Richard Thomson Excerpts

Monday 2nd November 2020 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on the clarity with which he puts the dilemma. Even in areas where the incidence has been very low, it is now climbing very fast.

[Richard Thomson (Gordon) (SNP) [V]]

It was reported at the weekend that the chair of the UK Government’s vaccine taskforce showed official sensitive Government documents to an event for US venture capitalists—a move that a former chairman of the Committee on Standards in Public Life described as “seriously ill-advised”. With jobs being awarded, even in the midst of a pandemic, without recourse to the approved recruitment processes, and billions of pounds of public procurement being awarded without going through open processes, what steps does the Prime Minister plan to take to restore public confidence in the competence and probity of his Government, and to help to reassure people that there is not a cronyvirus at the heart of his Government that requires eradication every bit as much as the coronavirus outside of it?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank people who are working pro bono on NHS Test and Trace, who come under repeated attack, or on our vaccine taskforce. It is thanks to their hard work that the UK is among the frontrunners in being on the verge of being able to deliver a vaccine. If and when a vaccine is produced next year—I must tell the House that it is by no means certain, but if and when it emerges—it will be at least partly thanks to their hard work.

Covid-19 Update

Richard Thomson Excerpts

Monday 12th October 2020 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I share my hon. Friend’s general hostility to unnecessary regulation of any kind and, believe me, it hurts to do a lot of the things that we have had to do over the last few months, but I see no reason at all why, without being too bureaucratic about it, we should not conduct an assessment of the implications of these measures as well.

[Richard Thomson (Gordon) (SNP) [V]]

Last week, prompted by data and scientific advice, the Scottish Government acted to introduce new restrictions to halt the spread of the virus. The measures, which were criticised at the time by Scottish Conservative politicians, have been largely followed by the Prime Minister this afternoon. It is vital that businesses and individuals get the financial support that they need through this crisis. In that case, why will the Prime Minister not match the public health powers that the devolved Governments already have with the financial powers which would allow them to do whatever it takes, whenever it is necessary, to support businesses and individuals, instead of always having to hope that eventually his Government will catch up?

[The Prime Minister]

As the hon. Gentleman knows, it is one of the features of this crisis that the UK Treasury has been able to step up to the plate and support people throughout the United Kingdom. That is going to be our approach throughout and I am grateful also for the close harmony in our approach to which he alluded earlier.

United Kingdom Internal Market Bill

Richard Thomson Excerpts

Wednesday 16th September 2020 Commons Chamber

[Richard Thomson (Gordon) (SNP)]

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the amount of money available to spend on frontline services in the Aberdeenshire Council area is only £11 below the Scottish average, which includes the high-spending island authorities? To help him with that, 11 is nearly twice six, which is double the number of chips that he had in his dinner the other night.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alun Cairns]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I have a more practical, current example, relating to my constituency.

When attracting investment, the added complexity of dealing with two Administrations for very large projects detracts from the ease of landing those deals. Let me highlight an example. I have long had the plan and hope to develop what I call battery valley in Wales, akin to silicon valley in the US. I believe that Wales has the capacity to develop expertise in the manufacturing and storage of batteries for electric vehicles as we move from the internal combustion engine. I have had the privilege of travelling to manufacturers and meeting investors around the world to encourage them to consider Wales for that purpose. It is great news that Britishvolt is looking at making such an investment in my constituency. That investment could be well in excess of £1 billion. It could be between £1 billion and £2 billion. Naturally, it will expect some sort of Government support to invest in Wales and specifically—hopefully—in my constituency.

An example of the sort of incentives that the German federal Government have offered for a similar investment to be made in Germany is close to €2 billion. The Welsh Government cannot compete with that sort of scale of spend, but clearly the UK Government have a part to play and can seek to jump-start the industry by making large-scale sums of money available that the Barnett formula could never deal with. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Stephen Crabb) highlighted, the clauses in the Bill fill a major hole in the current devolution settlement in terms of attracting major investment and major infrastructure projects.

The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Gerald Jones) highlighted briefly the challenges around the shared prosperity fund. Nations and regions across the UK have long been frustrated by the European aid programmes. West Wales and the valleys has seen spend approach £5 billion since the year 2000. Owing to the complexity of the European Union arrangements, I certainly do not think we have had the best value from that. We can look to the Welsh Assembly’s Public Accounts Committee, business groups statements and communities that have been frustrated by it, and we can all point to specific projects in areas across Wales that have not been what the community really wanted or needed, but that just happened to fit the rules that the European Union set.

Finally, I highlight that we are not a federal country. We are a Union of nations, but even in the most federal of constitutions, the central administration has the power to act and to support. It is absolutely right that the United Kingdom Government have the power to act in support of every part of every constituency wherever you are in this kingdom.

[Richard Thomson]

I rise to support my party’s amendments because I firmly believe that seeking the consent of devolved Ministers represents the absolute bare minimum to respect the devolution settlement in the provisions before us.

Although I am not new to politics, I am comparatively new to this place, and my views on politics and self-government for Scotland were forged in the 1980s and the devolution debates of the early 1990s, well before Scotland had a Parliament of its own. When I speak to young Scots of voting age now, very few of them have any memory of there not being a Scottish Government and Parliament. The idea that there ever would not have been seems alien and absurd—almost as absurd to them as it seemed to me that those institutions did not exist back in the 1990s.

Although I was supportive of devolution at that time, the arguments that I and others made at that time in favour of independence referred to devolution and its potential weaknesses. Those arguments did not find favour at that time. They were that devolution was going to create a subordinate Parliament to Westminster, that without a written constitution, its powers and status could not be guaranteed, and that power devolved is power retained—all those arguments, whatever their essential truth and accuracy, were lost in the assurances given at the time about permanence and respect.

The fact that those arguments about permanence and respect were made by politicians of the standing and character of Donald Dewar no doubt helped enormously. For the past 21 years, by and large, that is exactly how it has been. Disputes over money and policy aside, both Parliaments have co-existed. As Holyrood’s stature has grown, and Ministers have begun to act with the stature befitting a Government, rather than a regional subordinate Executive, so too has Scottish confidence grown. I think it is that, rather than any concern about the integrity of the UK internal market, that seems to be driving a large part of the motivation behind this part of the Bill.

A number of speakers have talked about the current settlement. One thing that the current settlement does give is clarity: if a matter is not explicitly reserved under schedule 5 to the Scotland Act 1998, it is devolved. Unionists who proclaim the parliamentary sovereignty of this place should know that that is because this place legislated for that. Throughout devolution, the Sewel convention has operated, meaning that this Parliament will not ordinarily legislate in areas of devolved competence without the express consent of the Parliaments. It is precisely to protect that principle of consent that my party is putting forward this amendment today, to ensure that under that principle of consent, no action in respect of these powers will be taken without the agreement of the relevant devolved Ministers.

Turning to clauses 46 and 47, I think of the ancient proverb that one should beware Greeks bearing gifts. Scots, through long years of experience, have come to be suspicious of Westminster politicians pledging similar gifts. Scottish voters have long been wary of that. The proposed powers are so wide-ranging, covering promoting economic development, infrastructure, cultural activity, sport, education and training activities, that their motivation is quite clear. Indeed, the right hon. Member for Wokingham (John Redwood), who was in earlier, gave the game away: this is nothing more sophisticated than sticking a great big flag on the side of something and saying, “We paid for that.”

There is no money element to these proposals, but I have to say that if they actually represented additional money, we might be having quite a different debate. However, I know from bitter experience that all that will happen is that the Scottish Government’s funding will inevitably find itself top-sliced—a bit like the Scotland Office having to pay for press officers or private polling—and it will be presented as the return of Scottish taxpayers’ money and UK borrowing, and as being somehow down to the largesse of the Treasury and we should all be grateful for it.

The ability that these measures will give UK Ministers of the Crown to bypass devolution and Scottish Ministers —who are also Ministers of the Crown—and to bypass the democratically elected Government of Scotland to make policy and allocate resources in devolved areas, whether that is in line with the priorities of those elected to lead in those devolved areas or not, represents the biggest single attack on devolution imaginable, short of the abolition of those institutions themselves.

Let us take infrastructure as an example. I find it hard to understand the argument that the Bill could improve that situation. Scottish Governments of all political stripes across many years—decades, indeed—have a record of ambitious investment, whether delivered or planned for the future. The magnificent Queensferry crossing was mentioned earlier. We also have the Aberdeen to Inverness rail improvements, involving more than £200 million of improvements that benefit my constituents to a remarkable extent. We have the central belt rail electrification. We have the Aberdeen bypass, and the Balmedie to Tipperty dualling. We also have the completion, after 50 years, of the central Scotland motorway network.

[Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

The hon. Gentleman has just given us a list of projects that he is putting great big flags on the side of and claiming credit for, when actually the Aberdeen bypass was signed off by the previous Administration. It had been planned for a very long time.

[Richard Thomson]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for that intervention, because it might have been signed off, but it was signed off in such a way that mired it in protracted legal disputes for years—[Interruption.] I am glad she finds that funny, but that was what delayed it more than anything else. It is only thanks to the diligence of the present Scottish Government that it got through at all. The dualling of the A96 and the A9, the Borders railway and the future rail decarbonisation are all major big-ticket investments that are happening under the current arrangements, which do not require any tinkering with the devolution settlement.

[Alan Brown]

For me, these infrastructure projects say everything about the Union dividend. It is a fact that it has taken an SNP Government to complete the M8 motorway between Glasgow and Edinburgh, the two biggest cities in Scotland. Under the Westminster Government, we did not even have a motorway running east to west in Scotland, which was a disgrace. Does my hon. Friend agree that another problem with Scotland delivering infrastructure is the fiscal constraints on capital borrowing? Westminster will not allow us to borrow enough money to invest in the infrastructure we need.

[Richard Thomson]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point, and I intend to deal with some of those points later in my speech.

The hon. Member for Moray (Douglas Ross) said on Second Reading:

“I want to see our two Governments working together as they do on city and growth deals the length and breadth of the country.”—[Official Report, 14 September 2020; Vol. 680, c. 89.]

I absolutely agree with him: for as long as we have two Governments for Scotland, they should indeed work together.

However, citing that argument in support of the Bill is, I believe, fundamentally flawed because these deals already work and there is no need for a further encroachment on the devolution settlement to make similar deals work better.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Bowie]

The hon. Gentleman has been very generous with his time, and I am listening intently to what he is saying. I do take the point about the fiscal framework and local authorities, and I get his point regarding the per head spend, but that figure amounts to £50 million less that they can be spending on infrastructure projects and roads. I heard what he said about the growth deals, the sector deal and investing, and I would back him and join him in all those campaigns, as he fully knows—perhaps except for borrowing powers for the Scottish Government—but I stress that I hope that he would join me in my campaign to see Aberdeenshire Council being treated fairly and, given the revenue it has delivered to the Scottish Government, getting a fair share to spend in the north-east of Scotland.

[Richard Thomson]

As I was about to say—the hon. Member was doing so well until he said he would not back the borrowing powers, which is very disappointing because it could change so much—legitimate criticisms can be made of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities funding formula. I voiced them myself when I was the council co-leader in Aberdeenshire. However, the Bill will not resolve or change that. I hope that the hon. Member would agree that if we are to make changes to that, they should be based on factual analysis and evidence, rather than just recycling old tropes.

[Patricia Gibson]

My hon. Friend has set out quite a considerable list of things the UK Government could do now to invest in infrastructure projects across Scotland. Does he share the concern my constituents will have about the UK Government’s willingness up to this point to make such investment? For example, the Tories first promised the Dalry bypass in North Ayrshire in my constituency in 1938, but it took an SNP Scottish Government to deliver it.

[Richard Thomson]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. As I say, if this were backed up by additional resources, we might be having some different discussions, but it still would not make the case for this encroachment on devolved powers.

[Andrew Bowie]

I am listening very intently to what the hon. Gentleman is saying, as I did to what the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson) said, and I actually agree with a lot of what he has said, yet he has made no argument for not giving the Government more powers to spend. Yes, there are areas where the UK Government could be and, in my opinion, should be spending in Scotland, but there is no reason to vote against giving them more powers to do just that and support our local authorities to develop and deliver infrastructure projects in Scotland.

[Richard Thomson]

On the contrary, there is every reason to do that precisely because I have been making the argument—I do not know how carefully the hon. Member has been listening to it—that there is absolutely no need to encroach on the existing devolved settlement to deliver all the things that we are being told need to happen.

Frankly, this is nothing more than an arrogation, a usurpation and a trespassing on the principle that the decisions taken exclusively for Scotland should be made in Scotland by those who are directly accountable to the people of Scotland, taking us back to the bad old days prior to devolution, when Ministers of a party elected on a minority of the votes and seats could nevertheless rule the country without going to the trouble of winning an election beforehand.

Devolution was once described as

“the settled will of the Scottish people”—

as a way to accommodate legitimate desires for growing democratic aspirations within an old Union. That was certainly how it looked until 1997, and it is how it has looked for many in Scotland until recently, but the Union that Scots were invited to vote for in 2014—the balance that existed between Parliaments, Governments and institutions in London, Brussels and Edinburgh—has already gone. The failure to back an amendment of this nature shows that the very principles of autonomy, consent and respect that lay at the heart of the devolution settlement are also about to go.

People who voted in 2014 to be part of two Unions—the European Union and the British Union—can now see that they can only possibly be part of one. If this amendment falls and is not taken on board by the Government, it will show that the entire basis of devolution—that decisions should be taken for the people of the devolved nations and regions by those elected by and directly accountable to them—is being similarly trashed.

If the UK Government wish to depart from the EU and to deploy their majority to crush these principles, there is very little that I or my colleagues can do in practice to stop that, although there is plenty that can be done outside this place. For all that I used to make the argument that one day, the Scottish Parliament might have its wings clipped by a politically motivated activist Conservative Government, I never imagined for one day that a Government would come along so stuffed full of John Bull as to make it actually happen.

The polls across Scotland—I am sure that private polls in the Scotland Office confirm what the public polls say—show that increasing numbers of Scots know and understand that to re-attain EU membership, independence is required. If the Bill is passed unamended, it will become equally clear that independence is also required to preserve Scotland’s hard-won democracy and autonomy. It will give me no satisfaction to be proven right, from back in 1997, about where devolution might end up. There is if not yet a settled will, very definitely a settling will in Scotland that that is the case. If yet more of the Scottish people reach the conclusion that independence is now the only way to protect Scotland’s Parliament, this Government, having acted in haste, will be left to repent at leisure and in not very splendid isolation.

[Marco Longhi (Dudley North) (Con)]

I rise to speak with enthusiastic support for clauses 46 and 47, and I start by saying that long before the advent of the EU, the UK internal market functioned seamlessly for centuries. This Bill and the clauses we are debating ensure that every part of the United Kingdom—England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland—will benefit. The Government committed to delivering the UK-wide shared prosperity fund, replacing the awful bureaucratic EU structures. Clauses 46 and 47 are specifically designed to ensure that no one, regardless of home nation, misses out on this fund.

Of course, if we cast our minds back to 2016, one of the leave arguments made during the referendum was that not only is the UK a net contributor to the EU, but that the reduced funds that it receives back are prescribed explicitly by the EU in terms of how much and where in the UK these funds are spent. We were being told where to spend our own money, and less of it. Brexit and the Bill rectify that utterly bizarre arrangement and allow a sovereign UK Government, working together with their devolved Administrations, to set out how and where these funds are spent, which is precisely as it should be. We voted to take back control, and control we are taking back.

Under clauses 46 and 47, our UK Government could make payments, including grants, loans and guarantees, to any person in the United Kingdom for the purpose of promoting economic development in the UK, providing infrastructure in the UK, supporting cultural and sporting activities, projects and events, and supporting international and domestic educational and training activities and exchanges.

We have very recently seen the benefit of taking a UK-wide approach to funding issues such as covid-19 and the effects of Storms Ciara and Dennis, and the Bill supports exactly that type of approach.

Oral Answers to Questions

Richard Thomson Excerpts

Wednesday 1st July 2020 Commons Chamber

The Secretary of State was asked—

[Richard Thomson (Gordon) (SNP)]

What recent discussions he has had with the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the Government’s plans to support economic recovery as the covid-19 lockdown restrictions are eased.

[Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)]

What recent discussions he has had with the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the Government’s plans to support economic recovery as the covid-19 lockdown restrictions are eased.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr Alister Jack)]

I would like to take a few moments to pay tribute to Glasgow’s emergency services for the enormous courage they showed in dealing with last week’s shocking knife attack. Our thoughts are with all those who were caught up in that terrible incident. In particular, I know that the whole House will join me in wishing Constable David Whyte a speedy recovery from the injuries he sustained in trying to help others.

I have regular discussions with my Cabinet colleagues, including the Chancellor, on all aspects of the impact of the coronavirus pandemic in Scotland. As we emerge from tackling this global crisis, we are determined to get Britain’s economy back firing on all cylinders, and as we do, protecting people’s health remains our top priority. However, just as we entered lockdown together, the best way to ensure the recovery of our economy is by working together across the United Kingdom.

[Richard Thomson]

May I associate myself with the Secretary of State’s opening remarks?

In his insipid word salad of a speech yesterday, the Prime Minister committed barely more money to rejuvenate the British economy post coronavirus than we have committed to refurbishing the Palace of Westminster. The Scottish Parliament lacks the powers to properly borrow and invest that other tiers of government take for granted. Will the Secretary of State commit to look again at the fiscal framework and giving Scotland the borrowing and investment powers it needs for the future?

[Mr Jack]

As the hon. Gentleman will know, the fiscal framework is due to be reviewed in 2021. In the interim, we have given huge support to Scotland from the British Exchequer, with £3.8 billion in business support for the covid crisis, and the furlough scheme, which has supported almost 800,000 jobs. There is a capital budget for Scotland this year of £5.4 billion, and there is no shortage of projects that need to be done, so I ask him to encourage the Scottish Government to get on with them.

Covid-19 Update

Richard Thomson Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd June 2020 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

Yes, indeed. The guidance, as I say, will be published later today.

[Richard Thomson (Gordon) (SNP)]

The Prime Minister has highlighted examples around the world where restrictions have been relaxed and where there has been a subsequent resurgence of the virus, and he has said that he will not hesitate to reintroduce restrictions if required. I would just like to get an unambiguous commitment from him about not seeing anyone penalised for doing the right thing to combat this virus. If it was necessary to continue with the furlough and self-employment support schemes beyond October, would his Government do so?

[The Prime Minister]

We have said what we have said about the furloughing scheme. It is our intention, obviously, to make sure that we are not in a situation where we have to keep those national schemes going. That is why the furlough scheme is tapering off in October. But, clearly—and I have said what I have said—if there are localised outbreaks or, indeed, if it is nationally necessary to put the brakes back on, then nobody should be penalised for doing the right thing.

UK-EU Negotiations

Richard Thomson Excerpts

Tuesday 16th June 2020 Commons Chamber

[Michael Gove]

My hon. Friend makes a very, very good point. He echoes the words of Carolyn Fairbairn of the Confederation of British Industry, who said:

“We have left the EU politically. We do now need to leave the EU economically. Business does not have any interest in delaying that because that is uncertainty magnified”—

I agree.

[Richard Thomson (Gordon) (SNP) [V]]

The Prime Minister once famously observed that

“there are no disasters, only opportunities”—

and indeed, opportunities for fresh disasters. While it is hard to negotiate any deal worse than no deal, it is clearly not beyond the modest abilities of even this Government to do exactly that, so why not limit the opportunity for fresh disasters by seeking an extension and taking as long as is necessary to establish a coherent negotiating position and to then negotiate the least harmful version of Brexit that they are capable of?

[Michael Gove]

It is the case that we have a clear negotiating position—one that was supported in the general election last year—and it will be the case that the hon. Member’s constituents will benefit from the new opportunities that being outside the European Union will bring—being outside the common fisheries policy, having access so that Scots farmers can secure new markets for their high-quality produce, and, at the same time, safeguarding the high-quality standards on environment and animal welfare that are at the heart of the UK’s world brand.

Oral Answers to Questions

Richard Thomson Excerpts

Thursday 27th February 2020 Commons Chamber

[Michael Gove]

My hon. Friend, in typically pithy fashion, draws attention to the fact that when we consider the whole question of when people reach the age of maturity, the landscape is complicated. The previous Labour Government—this was led by Ed Balls—raised the participation age in education to ensure that 17 and 18-year-olds had to be in employment, education or training. That was a welcome recognition of the need to support young people to be everything they can be at the appropriate moment. This Government are committed to ensuring that young people have the right opportunities, but it is important to acknowledge that, for example, even though young people can apply to join the armed forces at 16, they cannot be deployed in a battlefield situation until they are at least 18. It is important, when discussing 16, 17 and 18-year-olds, to appreciate the complexity of the situation and to show sensitivity.

[Richard Thomson (Gordon) (SNP)]

T7. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will agree that, when it comes to Andrew Sabisky, we should call a Spad a Spad. Can he confirm whether someone appointed as a Government political adviser, even on a contractor basis, can in any way be exempt from the Spad vetting process or the requirement for prime ministerial approval?

[Michael Gove]

As my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Cabinet Office, pointed out earlier, there is a difference between special advisers, who are appointed by and work for the Prime Minister, and contractors, who exist in all Departments.

Oral Answers to Questions

Richard Thomson Excerpts

Wednesday 12th February 2020 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

Yes, I thank my hon. Friend for her campaign against illegal wildlife trading and trophy hunting, and we mean to end the import into this country of trophies hunted elsewhere.

[Richard Thomson (Gordon) (SNP)]

Q11. In 2018, Lubov Chernukhin, the wife of Vladimir Putin’s former deputy Finance Minister, paid £20,000 for lunch with the then Scottish Conservative leader, Ruth Davidson, who we believe is soon to be ennobled. Will the Prime Minister remind the House once more why his Government are yet to publish the Intelligence and Security Committee’s report into alleged Russian interference in UK politics?

[The Prime Minister]

As I think the hon. Gentleman knows very well, the report will be published as soon as the Intelligence and Security Committee is reconvened. As I have told the House several times, those of a conspiratorial cast of mind will be disappointed by its findings.