Protecting Steel in the UK

Debate between Richard Thomson and Nigel Evans

Tuesday 23rd January 2024 Commons Chamber

[Richard Thomson (Gordon) (SNP)]

First, I express my concerns on behalf of the 2,800 workers at Port Talbot who will lose their jobs and the many others in that community and the surrounding area who will feel the knock-on ramifications of this decision. It is a situation that all too many communities in Scotland, and indeed across the UK, remember from the toxic legacy of the Government’s industrial policies in the 1980s, when the rapid enforced decline of heavy industry across too many places was progressed with. That toxic legacy gives us a prime example, if we needed one, of how not to go about an industrial transition. With the rejection of the multi-union plan, it seems that the present-day Government have learned no lesson in that regard.

Make no mistake: this decision is economically, environmentally and strategically inept. It means that the UK takes a step closer to being the only state in the G20 without the capacity to make its own virgin steel. That is a risk to security, but it also means that the UK is effectively outsourcing the emissions associated with the production of that virgin steel, while unforgivably offshoring the jobs. That is not a just transition; it is just plain daft.

The green transition that we know we need to make should be a main driver of economic growth in the decades ahead, and we can see how Governments in the EU and in the US who get to grips with that challenge can drive forward that investment. In contrast, in Port Talbot we see a £500-million UK Government investment leading to the direct loss of 2,800 jobs. That is a transition of a sort, I suppose, but it does not come anywhere close to meeting the needs of the communities there, the economy or the planet.

Finally, I say as gently as I can to those on the Labour Front Bench that if decarbonisation is not to mean deindustrialisation, they should please have a word with their leader and make sure that he does not water down any further his £28 billion pledge, because communities that depend on our getting the transition right, such as mine, deserve and expect no less.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

To resume her seat no later than 6.44 pm, I call Ruth Jones.

Beneficial Ownership Registers: Overseas Territories and Crown Dependencies

Debate between Richard Thomson and Nigel Evans

Thursday 7th December 2023 Commons Chamber

[Richard Thomson (Gordon) (SNP)]

Let me begin by sharing the disappointment of the right hon. Member for Barking (Dame Margaret Hodge) that this debate is necessary at all. It is incredibly disappointing that the target the UK Government had of ensuring that by December 2023—the month we are in—public registers were set up for the overseas territories and Crown dependencies looks set to be missed. This debate ought to start, as in fairness it has, from a fundamental premise: public registers of beneficial ownership are a vital tool in helping to identify and therefore reduce financial crime, and to increase financial transparency.

The simple fact of knowing who owns what, who benefits from it, and where the moneys have flowed from and are flowing to all helps to identify and tackle crime of all sorts, including corruption, drug trafficking and people trafficking, as well as domestic and international tax evasion and tax avoidance. Being able to get this under control would be massively to our collective benefit, and not just from a reputational point of view, because the revenues, moneys and assets that are concealed in this way can be used to fund activities that are detrimental to national security. It would also be massively to the benefit of the rest of the world to close down options for kleptocratic “businesspeople” or politicians to strip assets from their countries and squirrel them away in untransparent jurisdictions to enrich their lifestyles. That is clearly not a good thing, and the people of those countries suffer as a consequence of that permissive environment.

Registers are a necessary but insufficient step, and there is a lot of work to be done, not just on this issue. We have heard about London’s unenviable reputation as the laundromat—I think that term was used—for some of the world’s dirty money. I remember participating in a debate earlier in my parliamentary career about similar issues that were caused by London being the laundromat for reputational issues, through the prevalence of libel tourism, the ability to use SLAPPs—strategic lawsuits against public participation—and the prevalence of public affairs and public relations agencies that are willing to accept money to do such things. There is much work to be done to clean up the United Kingdom’s act in that sense.

Although the UK Government introduced a register of beneficial ownership in 2016 and have encouraged the Crown dependencies and overseas territories to follow suit, they have not done that, so far at least, despite voluntarily agreeing to do so. That is despite the UK Government using the sweet persuasion of publishing a draft Order in Council as long ago as in 2020 to require them to do so and giving them a deadline of this month, which now seems almost certain to be missed.

This is the fundamental point: if the UK wishes to seek leadership on this issue, it cannot be taken seriously as a world leader on financial transparency if it does not do more, and is not seen to do more, to stop overseas territories being used as havens for individuals to evade their obligations.

It matters very much that that should happen. More than half of the shell companies exposed in the Panama papers were incorporated in UK tax havens. More than two thirds of the companies analysed by the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists from the Panama papers leaks were found to be registered in the British Virgin Islands. The UK and its overseas jurisdictions are collectively responsible, through that permissiveness, for costing the rest of the world nearly $90 billion in lost tax each year by enabling non-residents to hide their finances and avoid tax. As the hon. Member for Wallasey (Dame Angela Eagle) highlighted, Tax Justice UK estimates that the UK and its network of overseas territories and Crown dependencies are responsible for some 35% of global tax losses suffered by countries around the world.

The impact that clamping down on this problem could have, not just on the public good for the UK but in many other countries around the world, is highly significant. We are often invited to believe that the biggest threat to our quality of life—[Interruption.] Excuse me. [Interruption.] Thank you very much.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I thank Mr Doughty for providing a cup of water, in the spirit of the Lib-Lab pact.

[Richard Thomson]

Lib? Well, it shows that there is perhaps a future for progressive alliances of one kind or another, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Northern Ireland Elections

Debate between Richard Thomson and Nigel Evans

Wednesday 9th November 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

I call the SNP spokesperson.

[Richard Thomson (Gordon) (SNP)]

I, too, thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement. I very much echo his sentiment that Northern Ireland is governed best when it is governed locally, but it is also important to recognise that government and politics in Northern Ireland work best when there are good and productive relations between London and Dublin, and between the UK and the European Union.

Northern Ireland has been in the unfortunate position of having both its Governments paralysed by inaction over the past few months, albeit for different reasons, but we have made clear our view that the best place for Members of the Legislative Assembly to be—and where the overwhelming majority of people in Northern Ireland expect them to be—is at work in Stormont, holding a functioning Executive to account as it gets on with overseeing the delivery of vital public services. We do not think it serves the interests of people in Northern Ireland for there not to be an Executive in place, but neither would it serve their interests to hold an election, which, if it achieved anything, would only be to further entrench already well-dug positions. We therefore look forward to the legislation on the period for Executive formation, to allow for essential decision making to take place in the meantime and to allow for some long overdue negotiations to take place.

While we have been clear that the protocol was a necessary measure to protect Northern Ireland from Brexit, we have also been clear that it is not unreasonable in the light of experience for the UK Government to try to renegotiate it. Does the Secretary of State agree that any new settlement on the protocol cannot only be about Northern Ireland and that a revised settlement will only be a better settlement if it eases trade for all parts of the UK, including the UK-EU export trading environment, rather than just trade between GB and Northern Ireland?

National Insurance Contributions Increase

Debate between Richard Thomson and Nigel Evans

Tuesday 8th March 2022 Commons Chamber

[Richard Graham]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member has made some very good points but I do believe he has inadvertently misled the House by claiming that those who are least well-paid will be paying the most on the tax when we have just heard from the Chief Secretary that over 6 million earners will not be contributing a penny towards the cost of the national increase rise. Mr Deputy Speaker, may I give the hon. Member, through your offices, the opportunity to withdraw his earlier remark?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

That sounds like a debating point as opposed to a point for the Chair.

[Richard Thomson]

Again, I refer the hon. Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham) to the concept of the marginal rate of tax and ask him to look at the totality of the impact—if he had been patient I would have happily given way; he had no need to resort to such devices.

On raising additional resources for health and social care, as we are invited to believe this levy is supposed to do, it is surely much fairer as a general principle to spread the burden by increasing income taxes across the board on both earned and unearned income, as well as to look again at areas such as inheritance taxes and capital gains, so that the totality of the wealth of the nation can be taken into consideration in sharing the burden. There is a real danger in my view, particularly as a result of localised property price inflation, that this policy will further widen economic, social, generational and geographical divides, baking that unfairness into the social and economic settlement for decades to come. We have a Government who like to talk the language of levelling up while doing the exact opposite on personal and business taxation. We will be paying the costs of that in reduced growth and lower incomes for many years to come.

That is the problem from a social justice perspective, but it is almost every bit as bad from a policy making perspective. Apart from moneys going to the NHS in England and an unspecified amount eventually trickling through to social care in England, we still have only the sketchiest idea of what this resource will be invested in. There are significant whole-system problems in health and social care in England which predate covid. That is not to say things are great everywhere else, but I get absolutely no sense that the UK Government have started to embrace the systemic issues that cause the blockages and poorer outcomes that are there and that money will only go so far to solve, including the high levels of unmet need, staff shortages and poor workforce pay and conditions, as well as the fragile provider market. In that sense, the Government are doing what they routinely like to criticise others for and focusing on inputs rather than outcomes, and surely outcomes for people in health and social care should be driving the reform that is needed.

It is not in doubt that there was a pre-covid pandemic crisis in health and social care, let alone the post-covid one, but that will not be remediated either by this policy or by the Prime Minister’s utterly bogus repeated claims about building 40 hospitals. Reform requires thought as well as resource, but surely fairness demands that the resource for that reform comes primarily from those with the broadest shoulders and an economy that is able to and is growing sustainably and productively.

I support Scottish independence and want full tax powers for Scotland, and I have no doubt in my mind that an independent Scottish Government would not be using the equivalent of national insurance in such a way for this purpose. Until that changes, we are stuck with and reliant on the Conservatives—out of all character—prioritising the interests of those on lower and middle incomes over the most wealthy.

Finance (No. 2) Bill

Debate between Richard Thomson and Nigel Evans

Report stage
Wednesday 2nd February 2022 Commons Chamber

[Richard Thomson (Gordon) (SNP)]

rose—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. I can see two Members standing and I intend to call the Minister at 5.55 pm. I call you first, Mr Grant, and any time you do not use up before 5.55 can be used by your colleague—no pressure.

Business and Planning Bill

Debate between Richard Thomson and Nigel Evans

2nd reading & 2nd reading: House of Commons
Monday 29th June 2020 Commons Chamber

[Richard Thomson (Gordon) (SNP)]

May I take this opportunity to warmly congratulate the hon. Member for South Ribble (Katherine Fletcher) on her fantastic maiden speech? The Business and Planning Bill was perhaps not the most auspicious starting point for a maiden speech, but she gave us an industrial, geological and historical tour de force of the constituency. She follows a distinguished predecessor in her constituency, and I am sure I will not be alone in saying that I look forward to hearing more from her throughout this Parliament.

I will keep my remarks comparatively brief, as the Bill only really affects Scotland in respect of three clauses: clauses 12, 13 and 14. However, it would be remiss of me to miss the opportunity to say, on some of the licensing aspects, that the picture painted by the Minister of pavement cafés opening up the length and breadth of England presented a very—what’s the word?—European picture of England, which my party certainly, and I am sure others too, very much looks forward to seeing.

I turn to clauses 12, 13 and 14. The changes in the Consumer Credit Act are welcome. I hope that they lead to more instances of loans being given to the businesses that require them. I must say, though, that I am somewhat sceptical that that will lead to the transfer of cash that we need in that respect. The right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband) was absolutely right that we are really only at the start of our response to this crisis, and we are going to have to revisit this.

It is extraordinary that we have not heard from the Chancellor about his coming back to deliver what should be an emergency Budget. Much more still needs to be done as the crisis and our response to it evolve. In that respect, I very much commend the 10-point plan announced earlier today by Scotland’s First Minister, who talked about a major fiscal stimulus for the economy, VAT reductions for hospitality, investment in low carbon and digital, and of course changes to increase flexibility in the Scottish fiscal framework.

I will now deal with the other clauses that affect legislation in Scotland. The changes to the Road Traffic Act 1988 regarding driving licences and vehicle certifications are reasonable, proportionate and risk based, and we support them. It would be sensible to keep those measures under regular review, along with other aspects of the Bill. However, I make this plea to the Minister: we must return to the status quo ante as soon as reasonably possible, once it is possible to clear the backlog of testing of drivers’ continued fitness to drive and of vehicles themselves.

The Bill is a narrow one and a necessary one, but what we should really be hearing about is the emergency Budget that we need as we plot our way out of this crisis economically.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I call Paul Howell to make his maiden speech.

Testing of NHS and Social Care Staff

Debate between Richard Thomson and Nigel Evans

Wednesday 24th June 2020 Commons Chamber

[Richard Thomson]

I thank the hon. Member for that intervention, and I will come to that, if he is patient.

I am not privy to the scientific advice that the Prime Minister has access to, but the apparent ease with which some have been prepared to prioritise short-term economic considerations or individual liberty ahead of the need for collective wellbeing and avoiding a potentially disastrous second wave makes me glad that the rules being followed in Scotland are being decided in Scotland. I very much hope to be wrong, but the potential for a second wave of infection in parts of England seems very real right now, and I get the growing impression that if that is to be avoided, it may be more by luck than by judgment.

It is precisely because of the dedication of NHS and care staff, clear advice and the selflessness and self-discipline of millions of people that progress has been made. In Scotland, Test and Protect is fully in place, and without the boastfulness of saying that it is world-beating, it works and is in place. That has allowed Scotland to enter phase 2 of the route out of lockdown, which will allow NHS boards to begin moving out of a crisis response into the recovery phase, in line with the framework. That means that health boards will be able to start prioritising cancer surgery for those most in need of that treatment and to restart wherever possible urgent elective surgery that had previously been paused, as well as IVF treatment, following the necessary approvals. It means implementing the remobilisation plans for health boards and integrated joint boards, which deal with social care, to increase the provision in order to address the backlog of demands, to handle urgent referrals and to triage routine services. It will also see the reintroduction of some chronic disease management, including pain and diabetes services.

Inevitably, there will be a backlog to be dealt with, but due to the professionalism of the staff, I think we can have confidence that it will be dealt with as we begin the process of recovery. I know how difficult it has been for people who have had procedures or treatments postponed due to the pandemic, but the message is clear: Scotland’s NHS is open, as it always has been, for those who need it. Anyone with medical concerns should not hesitate to contact their GP or NHS 24 or attend hospital if their illness merits it.

Patient and staff welfare must be at the heart of the plan, as it has been through the emergency stage, and testing will be at the heart of that. The routine testing of the NHS workforce in Scotland will be extended from 8 July, as more services resume. That means that staff who work in specialist cancer services, provide long-term care for the elderly or work in residential mental health care will be offered weekly testing from 8 July. That builds on the routine testing, which is already offered to care home staff and aims to protect staff and patients by reducing the spread of the virus in hospitals and other healthcare settings. In addition, Healthcare Improvement Scotland will be resuming its inspection programmes.

We have seen the value of the public services and the ethos of public service. We have seen it in those who have helped to keep our NHS and care settings open, saving lives and providing care for those who have needed it. Many of those who have made the greatest sacrifice are those who have come here from other countries to work in our NHS and our care services. Because of economic and social circumstances, many have been at far greater risk from the virus than it was reasonable for anyone to expect, and we have particularly seen the worrying outcomes of coronavirus in the black, Asian and minority ethnic community. There is likely to be a number of intersecting factors in that, but it is important that they are properly understood and that the measures that come out of that are acted on. I am pleased to say that the Scottish Social Justice Commission will look at the figures that have come out in that respect to look at how we can change to address those issues.

In conclusion, there are things that it would be valuable for us to do. First, we need to value our public servants. It is nowhere near enough to clap: we need to care for our carers and families in life, as well as, sadly, sometimes in death. We should pay them what they are worth, provide them with the equipment that they need, show them that they are valued and give them reasons, whether financially or just in terms of plain decency, to believe that they have respect and that they are valued in what they do.

We need to value the contribution that many from our immigrant communities make to our health and care services. Getting rid of the immigration health surcharge is a very welcome step. The commitment of those workers to the NHS in the country that they now call home is not in doubt, and it is time that the Government considered in what other ways they could work to remove any doubt that there might be about our commitment to them.

Secondly, lest there be any doubt, for all the massive contribution of the private sector in overcoming supply chain challenges, it was a publicly owned, publicly operated, free-at-the-point-of-need health service and public services that rose to the challenge of caring for us in these times, often acting as the carer of last resort. That lesson has never been forgotten in Scotland. I wonder if it is time for this Government to remember that.

Thirdly, the virus has not gone away. There is no vaccine in immediate prospect. If we go too quickly, too far and too fast with easing restrictions, we risk very much undoing the good work that has been done. We need to honour the sacrifices that have been made by so many people by not rushing back to normal too soon. It would be a very bitter pill indeed if we were to do that, if we were to see a second wave and if the work done to date counted for less than it ought to.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

As Members can see from the call list, this is a well subscribed debate. We will start with the Chair of the Health and Social Care Committee with a six-minute limit, and every other contribution will be four minutes.