European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill

Debate between Roger Mullin and Drew Hendry

2nd reading: House of Commons
Wednesday 1st February 2017 Commons Chamber

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

The hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen), who is not in the Chamber at the moment, spoke about the future. The Bill will have huge impacts on future generations, affecting the prosperity of our children and our young men and women. That is thrown into particularly sharp focus in the highlands. For generations, young people left the highlands to seek further education and to seek their future, until we had a Scottish Parliament and benefited from the engagement of the European Union.

The University of the Highlands and Islands is celebrating 20 years of EU co-operation, which has allowed us to have that much-needed symbol in the Highlands—a physical university campus in Inverness. Among other things, our co-operation with Europe has helped to reverse the decline that I mentioned. So, too, have EU nationals, and I was struck by the words of the hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq), because I agree that these people who come to our country to add to it are our friends and neighbours, and they deserve to be treated as such.

However, with the direction that the UK Government are taking, that all changes. The UK is scrabbling about for deals—any deals—with no stone unturned, no matter who is underneath it. Holding hands with Trump, legitimising his symbolic exclusion, his walls and his rising xenophobia, and shaking hands with Erdogan—all this is clearly saying that it is weapons before weans, dogma before doctorates. The alternative to a rock-hard Brexit is a change of course, if not for the UK, then for our universities, for people who will be put in a really difficult position, such as those in Gibraltar, and, of course, for Scotland, where 62% of people and 100% of council areas voted to remain. There is a choice for this Parliament.

[Roger Mullin (Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath) (SNP)]

Has my hon. Friend noticed a shiver running along the Labour Front Bench looking for a spine to run up?

[Drew Hendry]

I thank my hon. Friend for his contribution. I hope Labour Front Benchers and other Labour Members will follow the example of some of those I have referenced tonight and vote against article 50.

If there are exceptions on borders for Ireland, and exceptions for Nissan and the City, this is a matter of choice—it does not have to be a rock-hard Brexit. People in the highlands and elsewhere in Scotland want hope for the future. They want future conditions to reflect our nation: they want a big-hearted, open-minded, co-operative future where all who contribute to a better society, wherever they come from, are valued. They want an enlightened future, not an insular little Britain hand in hand with those who would drag us into the darkness.

Transport and Local Infrastructure

Debate between Roger Mullin and Drew Hendry

Thursday 19th May 2016 Commons Chamber

[Roger Mullin]

Absolutely. That adds to my point about how this is about not merely the simple issue of travel, but people’s health and wellbeing and their ability to engage with their friends, to engage in the community and to contribute more to the life of that community.

[Drew Hendry]

It is worth underlining the mental health benefits of concessionary travel. The scourge of loneliness comes with an ageing population and more people being isolated, and the ability to get out and travel on the bus network and to socialise is a real boon. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is something we should foster and encourage to reduce that scourge of loneliness?

[Roger Mullin]

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. Indeed, perhaps the Government could consider making their disabled companion programme for those on disability benefits a national programme, not something available only on a regional basis. That would bring it into line with what is happening Scotland. It is of great benefit to people who otherwise face considerable disadvantages.

I am aware of the time, but I wish to mention something that concerns me greatly about the Government’s infrastructure plans. I have to say that the way in which some of them have been undertaken leaves a lot to be desired, particularly when it comes to how some so-called major national infrastructure projects are being funded and managed. I wish to highlight what some might consider to be the financial shenanigans that are going on in relation to the Thames Tideway Tunnel project. The funding model of this rather controversial multi-billion pound project comprises conventional equity—made up of about 40% pure equity and 60% subordinated debt with interest tax deductible—and medium-term bank debt to be refinanced with bonds issued over the six-year build period. However, if market conditions prevent bonds being issued, the UK Government provide a £500 million loan facility as contingent support. The liability associated with the £500 million support is unrecorded in UK Government accounts. This Parliament has never been informed of the details of this type of contingent support. It is a dodge. It exposes customers, and it should be thoroughly examined by this House. We need to have proper methods of financial management of major infrastructure projects.

My hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Drew Hendry) mentioned the Queensferry Crossing—the new bridge being built across the Forth—which is very close to my constituency. Using the new Scottish Futures Trust, which was developed when we got rid of the horrendous private finance initiative, this major new bridge is coming in quicker than planned and £1 billion under budget. How many other major infrastructure projects in the UK have come in quicker than planned and significantly under budget? The answer is very few. Perhaps we should look again at the Scottish Futures Trust model of investment.

We face many transportation and infrastructure challenges in this country, but, above all, we face major productivity and economic challenges. They should have all featured much more strongly in this Queen’s Speech. We need to focus on them not just for our benefit but for that of future generations.

Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership

Debate between Roger Mullin and Drew Hendry

Thursday 10th December 2015 Commons Chamber

[Roger Mullin]

Yes, like Brigadoon. I marvelled at his utter certainty and faith in the European Union as he read a letter to us for two and a half minutes. We can be comforted by the fact that we received assurances from the UK Government, and from Government Members, on a negotiation that is not complete, and unlikely to be completed for a considerable time.

I am in favour of international trade—it would be surprising if I were not, as the Member who represents the constituency that was home of Adam Smith. It would be wise of Government Members, had there been any here, to read some of his writings and see what leads to free trade and effective markets. My concern is that much of what is being proposed takes inadequate account of small and medium-sized enterprises, for example. We will be faced with a costly, bureaucratic and legalistic international court system.

[Drew Hendry]

Given the historically important factors for Scotland, such as shellfish and wild salmon, does my hon. Friend agree that it is vital that the Scottish Government understand the implications of the details of any TTIP agreement before it is implemented?

[Roger Mullin]

Absolutely. That is a particularly important reason why it is not only this House that needs fully and properly to debate any final settlement; it also needs to come to the devolved authorities, and not only in Scotland, but in Northern Ireland and Wales—I assume that Members from Northern Ireland and Wales would welcome that opportunity. If there is anything that new Members, who have been here for a mere six months, have come to understand, it is that this Government have no interest whatsoever in the concerns of the Scottish economy, and it is matched only by their complete ignorance of it.

HMRC Office Closures

Debate between Roger Mullin and Drew Hendry

Tuesday 24th November 2015 Commons Chamber

[Roger Mullin]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. There are many hon. Members on these Benches who could say similar things about their colleges and the way in which they are served.

The Minister claimed that part of the reason for the proposed changes was to create greater efficiency. Well, that would be clever! As many Members have said, we currently have a rather inefficient way of gathering taxes. There are telephone calls that cannot be answered and letters that sometimes cannot even be opened, let alone responded to, yet the way we are supposed to solve this problem is to cut, cut and cut again. That does not make any sense.

The Minister also indicated that some of the closures would happen in such a way that it would be viable for the people affected to move from their current location to a new one.

[Drew Hendry]

Try that in Inverness!

[Roger Mullin]

My hon. Friend has just stolen my line. I was about to say, “Try that in Aberdeen.”