Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between Patrick Grady and Philippa Whitford(5 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP)
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
European Union (Withdrawal) Act
Debate between Patrick Grady and Philippa Whitford(5 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dr Whitford
Sorry, I thought the right hon. Gentleman was trying to intervene. He is confusing me. It is a bit late at night.
One of the other industries in my constituency is fishing, which is always held up as the great beneficiary of Brexit, but in my constituency the catch is dominated by langoustine and lobster, 85% of which goes to the EU, and every few hours of delay decreases its value. The problem for the industry is that fishermen from Northern Ireland, much as they do not want the benefit, will be able to fish in the same waters and have direct and swift access to the single market through the south of Ireland. They also will not face tariffs on processed fish. That will hit smoked salmon, which is not just Scotland’s biggest food export but the UK’s biggest food export. We are talking about tariffs ranging from 5% to 16%. We will lose our advantage over Norwegian salmon.
Yet the real problem of the fishing industry, which is that the vast majority of quota is held tightly by very few companies, will not be fixed by this. In Scotland 80% of boats share 1% of quota, and in England 77% of boats share 3% of quota, while a handful of firms own the majority. An additional issue in England is that huge amounts of quota have been sold to Dutch and Spanish companies. It is not Europe doing that, and it is not the common fisheries policy; it is because this place has never cared about fishing. Up until now, fishing has always been expendable, but it has always been a very useful ploy around Brexit.
One other thing that has been missing for us, coming up to making this decision, is that the Government analysis claims that the economic impact will be minimal if there is no change to immigration. That is funny, because the Prime Minister has put all her effort into creating a hostile environment, just to drive European immigration down. The Government’s own economic assessment shows that European immigration contributes at least 2% to GDP and the migration report showed that these people contribute more than £2,300 a head more to public finances. They help our economy, as well as our public services and our communities. In Scotland, we need people, for our demographics and our economic growth, and we welcome them. That is why we need control of immigration, because if the Government’s plans to set a threshold of £30,000 go ahead, three quarters of the European citizens here now would not qualify, and the impact across public services would be immense. The failure in 2016 was to fail to talk about the benefits of Europe and what these people contribute to our workforce in public services, particularly health. Health is not delivered by machines in hospitals; it is delivered by people—healthcare workers and social care workers. They do not earn more than £30,000. Junior nurses, careworkers and even junior doctors do not earn more than £30,000. Some 150,000 of them look after us when we are sick.
We have also had the opportunity to carry a European health insurance card that has allowed even people on dialysis to travel to Europe. You tell me: what is the price of health insurance that will cover that? The card has allowed our pensioners to retire to the sun, where they have paid no tax but they have been able to transfer their rights. The European Medicines Agency has not increased bureaucracy; it decreased it, by creating a single licensing system. The Government talk about replacing research money, but research is not just about funding; it is about collaboration. You cannot sit in a muddy field on your own and call it collaboration. We are only going to lose. We lose the public health drive and pressure that we have had from Europe. We lose that collaboration, and we lose both the academic and medical research. Earlier, one MP, perhaps it was the right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson), was dismissing concerns about radioisotopes. It is funny that the president of the Royal College of Radiologists is concerned about access to radioisotopes. The UK does not manufacture them. Molybdenum has a half-life of 66 hours and we have to import it from elsewhere. Until now, since the loss and crisis in 2009, the Euratom Supply Agency has managed that supply. It will be diminishing as these old reactors go offline and we will be outside begging to have the chance, “Can we please have enough technetium for our patients?” These are the things that we are going to lose.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
Of course we are already starting to lose these things. Are the academic institutions and the health institutions my hon. Friend talks about not already having to make plans? People are not coming to this country, goods are not coming to this country and academic research is not coming to this country, and that is before Brexit even hits.
Dr Whitford
We already know that there has been a 90% drop in the number of European nurses coming here, and 14% of European doctors in Scotland and 19% of them in England are already in the process of leaving, with many more considering it. So people right across the spectrum are already considering leaving or are already leaving. The problem is that we are the losers, given what they have contributed.
My constituents and I voted clearly to remain, as did voters across Scotland, and we still wish to remain and we will still fight to remain. The Prime Minister kept saying, “It is my deal or no deal”, but now she has changed her tune. She now says, “It is my deal, no deal or no Brexit.” We will take no Brexit thank you very much. But as my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East (Tommy Sheppard) pointed out, what we have seen in the past two and a half years, when the Prime Minister refers to the precious Union, is actually the utter contempt she holds for Scotland. I can tell the House that that has been seen from Scotland. What has been shown is the democratic deficit and the fact that the only way to control your own future is to be in control of your own future. Scotland will be making that decision, as well as supporting staying in the EU.
Treasury Spending: Grants to Devolved Institutions
Debate between Patrick Grady and Philippa Whitford(5 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Patrick Grady
I was watching the parliamentary private secretary passing notes around the back of the Chamber earlier, so I will take no lessons on internal group communications from the hon. Gentleman.
I have spoken in estimates day debates before and been called out of order for daring to actually discuss the estimates, so it is very helpful indeed to be able to have this discussion on Government spending. The reason that we have these debates is that the SNP questioned the estimates process in the context of the English votes for English laws process. We were told by the then Leader of the House, who is now the Transport Secretary, that if we wanted to have a say and a vote on spending as it affected Scotland, the estimates process was the way to do so. As we have been so ably encouraged by Conservative Members to take that opportunity this evening, I am sure that they will look forward to that happening at 7 o’clock and in the time that follows.
In summing up, it would be only fair to address the points that have been raised by Conservative Members. The hon. Member for Angus (Kirstene Hair) was interested in health and in the Barnett consequentials that will allegedly come as a result of the £20 billion increase in expenditure for the health service. It is great to know that they are coming, and the Scottish Government have consistently said in successive manifestos that they will pass on all the Barnett consequentials that they receive for health. The question is: where is the funding coming from? It was supposed to be coming from a Brexit dividend, but it now appears that it will come from increased taxation or perhaps from cuts to other Departments. However, if other Departments are cut to fund health spending, there will be cuts to the Barnett consequentials as well.
Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP)
To give the House an example, the NHS in England got £337 million for winter pressures last year, but what finally made it over the border was not the expected £32 million but £8.4 million, for exactly that reason.
Patrick Grady
Exactly. I do not know how many Scottish Tories took part in the health estimates debate last night, but I know for a fact that my hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford) did so. Again, we will take no lessons on attendance in this Chamber.
I say to the hon. Member for Moray (Douglas Ross) that if he is so keen to debate the Scottish national health service, perhaps he should go back to where he came from: the Scottish Parliament, which makes the decisions about health. And if he is concerned about the payroll vote, he might want to take note of the fact that the current Prime Minister has the largest Government since 1979. I will take no lessons on bloated Government from Members on the other side of the House.