Spending Review 2025: Scotland

Debate between Stephen Gethins and Christine Jardine

Wednesday 2nd July 2025 Westminster Hall

[Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

It is an honour to serve with you in the chair, Sir John. I congratulate the hon. Member for Dunfermline and Dollar (Graeme Downie) on securing this debate. I apologise to you, Sir John, because I appreciate that it is frustrating that every debate about Scotland, and about this or the previous Government’s spending in Scotland, comes back to the Scottish Government. The debate is rarely about the Scottish people—about my constituents in Edinburgh West, or our constituents across Scotland. It always comes back to the Scottish Government. That is not necessarily the fault of the Labour party, the Conservative party or the SNP, but it does not seem to matter how much money the UK Government invest in Scotland, what projects they undertake, what the spending review promises or how much money there is in Barnett consequentials—it gets squandered. As my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) said, it never seems to reach the people of Scotland. It never seems to do anything about our crumbling NHS, our schools, which are in trouble, and the housing crisis that we face.

Although the specific subject under discussion is the spending review announced by the Labour Government, for us in Scotland the debate is about the frustration that we may not get the benefit that any UK Government intend for Scotland, with any policy, because it gets blocked in Holyrood. I hate to mention that again, but £9.1 billion, however one might contest it—it might not be quite £9.1 billion—is a lot of money for the SNP Government to squander, because squander it they will. We have only to look at the evidence of the infamous and now even later ferries, which seem to fail at every turn. The money wasted by the SNP on that fiasco could have paid for around 11,000 nurses or 3,000 GPs in our NHS. That is why we are so frustrated, and why we turn again and again to the Scottish Government, and their failure to use the resources given them by Westminster.

The hon. Member for Arbroath and Broughty Ferry (Stephen Gethins) says that this place continues to have a huge impact—so it should, but that impact is undermined at every turn by the Scottish Government.

[Stephen Gethins]

Given that we sit in the UK Parliament, does the hon. Member concede that the numbers she mentions are absolutely dwarfed by the billions on Brexit, the hundreds of millions on Rwanda, and the billions blown by the Truss Budget, all of which will have had a material impact on the amount of money that the UK Government have to give up to Scotland? Furthermore, does she agree that the Scottish Government offsetting welfare cuts, the bedroom tax, and child poverty, as they have done—and I believe the Liberal Democrats backed that—was a good use of money?

[Christine Jardine]

No, I do not, actually. I agree fundamentally that the UK Government, whether Conservative or Labour, have not got everything right. But the Scottish Government have done nothing to mitigate any of the, if you like, failings of Westminster. They have done nothing to mitigate them, and have exacerbated every problem in Scotland. There is not a single area of the Scottish economy, or of Scottish education, health, or public services that one can look at, over the past two decades, and say, “Wow, didn’t the Scottish Government make a good job of that? Didn’t they spend the money well?” Just ask the constituents who I spoke to on Sunday night in Edinburgh West, who told me that they are sick to the back teeth of the SNP wasting their money—two decades they have had of it.

[Stephen Gethins]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Christine Jardine]

No, sorry. I am running out of time.

It would be churlish of me not to recognise that there have been benefits from the spending review for my constituents. I welcome the £750 million investment in the exascale supercomputer, because a lot of my constituents work at the University of Edinburgh. The investment in defence spending will help my constituents who work in the defence industries in Edinburgh. I hope that the £9.1 billion—or however much—that will be invested in Scotland over the next few years helps by investing in the projects that the Liberal Democrats in Scotland have managed to get into the budget for the coming years. The investment in the Princess Alexandra eye pavilion in Edinburgh is one that is particularly close to my heart, because my constituents have suffered from the SNP’s lack of investment there.

In brief, we welcome a lot of the aspects of the spending review in Scotland. We welcome the extra funding, but we view with frustration and some trepidation how the Scottish Government might waste it.

Leaving the EU: Customs

Debate between Stephen Gethins and Christine Jardine

Wednesday 16th May 2018 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Gethins (North East Fife) (SNP)]

Today’s debate reflects the seriousness of the situation in which we have been left. We still have no idea about the Government’s plan for what is next on customs. The hon. Member for Redditch (Rachel Maclean), who is no longer in her place, mentioned groundhog day. It is certainly groundhog day when, two years on, we are still asking: what is the customs plan? We are still asking questions about what the Government plan to do next. This issue is not about this place and it is not about openness; it is about businesses being able to plan, it is about universities being able to plan, it is about individuals being able to plan.

At the moment, we are left with a form of Kremlinology, whereby we have to read between the lines to try to figure out what might be coming next. We have a stale Government with a past-her-sell-by-date leader. She is rolled out to paper over the cracks of a Government infighting behind the scenes. To be fair to the Foreign Secretary, he makes Kremlinology slightly easier by describing the Prime Minister’s own plans as “crazy”. Astonishingly, he is still in post.

What is not crazy are the challenges facing businesses. We know the economic analysis tells us that tens of thousands of jobs will be lost. GDP will be devastated, which means that income for public services will be devastated. We have so many outstanding questions, and not just on customs. What happens to immigration? What happens to research from which we all benefit? What happens to EU nationals?

It is clear that this is not going very well for the Government. If it is not going very well for the Government, then unfortunately it is not going very well for Scotland or any other part of the United Kingdom, including Northern Ireland where this means so much and should be taken so much more seriously.

[Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

Does the hon. Gentleman share my hope that the Conservative MPs from Scotland who were elected by hugely remain constituencies might respect that today and vote for the customs union?

[Stephen Gethins]

Yesterday, the Government and the Tories were left isolated over their current plans.

When they have been questioned about the analysis, the Government apparently told BuzzFeed News that it was not being published because it is a bit embarrassing. I am not surprised it is a bit embarrassing. This is all a bit embarrassing. The situation in which the United Kingdom as a whole has been left is a bit embarrassing.

This matters: it matters to business, it matters to researchers, it matters to EU nationals. Parliament has a role and a responsibility. It deserves to have as much information as it possibly can. Back the Opposition motion and publish!

Department for Exiting the European Union

Debate between Stephen Gethins and Christine Jardine

Monday 26th February 2018 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Gethins]

If only the good people of England would vote for a Government who believed in getting rid of tuition fees. What an argument by the hon. Gentleman! The University of St Andrews is a fine educational establishment, despite his best efforts to prove otherwise. Twenty-five per cent. of its funding comes from funding for research on issues like kids who have learning difficulties or treating dementia. It does this because it pools its resources with other European universities and with some of the finest EU nationals who have made St Andrews their home—if this Government gave them certainty, they could continue to call it their home. The hon. Gentleman’s argument is one of the weakest I have heard in this place, given the huge amounts of benefits that the University of St Andrews, like the entire education sector in Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom, derives from our being part of the European Union.

[Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

Apart from the financial implications, and regardless of having tuition fees or not, there is a cultural element. We could be facing damage to educational quality throughout the United Kingdom if we lose the students who bring that cultural element from other parts of the EU and provide us with the ability to learn from other cultures. When I went to university, the word “university” meant “universal”. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we are in danger of losing that?

[Stephen Gethins]

The hon. Lady makes an excellent point. I benefited personally from our membership of the European Union through being able to study at the University of Antwerp. The educational experience is the richer for having students who come from elsewhere, as well as the opportunity that students have to go elsewhere. I urge Ministers to look at this, because the cost of these programmes is not that much, especially given the benefits that they bring. Building on her point, I think we should all be ashamed of the fact that right now, as things stand, this Parliament will be one of the first that we do not leave with young people having more opportunities than at its start. That is something we should reflect on and that is quite shameful.

Going back to DExEU, the Public Accounts Committee’s recent report on exiting the EU said:

“DExEU has identified 313 areas of work, or work streams, that departments need to complete as a consequence of the UK leaving the EU…However, we are concerned that DExEU has been too slow to turn its attention to how departments will put those plans into practice and that the plans may not be sufficiently developed to enable implementation to start quickly.”

Despite the cash, the Department is being held back because of the Government’s lack of plans. I hope that the Minister will touch on that. In January, the National Audit Office released a verdict that the International Trade Department is struggling to meet deadlines, recruit enough specialist staff or retrain its existing workforce as we start from scratch after losing all the trade relationships that we have built up as a part of the European Union. That means jobs, investment, and cash for Departments to spend in the future.

None of this has stopped the Chancellor giving the Department an increase of almost £30 million for preparations. And there is more: the number of times that the Chancellor will have to spend out money. The UK Government will have to spend out money as we lose the European Medicines Agency from here in London. The Government have allocated £250 million of spending for Departments to prepare for a Brexit with no deal. As I said, they have spent £1 million fighting the case to stop this place from having a say, after the Brexiteers told us how much they wanted democracy to return to the House of Commons. Is it right that this Government are blowing money on stopping Parliament from having a say? They are preventing us from analysing and publishing their own statistics, and the extra money they are having to spend will hit public services. This shows how little confidence this Government have in their own plans, and rightly so.