Covid-19: Future UK-EU Relationship

David Linden Excerpts

Wednesday 15th July 2020 Commons Chamber

[Ian Blackford]

I could read out statistics from all sorts of business organisations that are, quite frankly, scared stiff about what ending the transition will mean.

A survey by the Institute of Directors tells us that three out of four business leaders believe that their organisation is not ready for the end of the transition period and that one in seven says that dealing with the pandemic has taken up bandwidth that would have been devoted to preparing for Brexit. The Institute for Government says that in normal circumstances meeting

“the 31 December deadline would have been heroic: doing so in the midst of an international health crisis, with the energies of governments across Europe focused on their handling of the outbreak, seems out of reach.”

Jimmy Buchan, chief executive of the Scottish Seafood Association, said:

“We are within six months of Brexit and we still do not know what the future holds for us.”

That is the uncertainty that businesses are facing. For many businesses that manage to survive the coronavirus crisis, this second, Brexit shock would hit them at their weakest and could be the final straw that puts them out of business—more jobs lost, more households in desperate situations, and all because of the intransigence of the Tory Government.

It does not have to be like this. We on the SNP Benches welcome the EU’s openness to extending the transition period for negotiations. Six political parties from every nation of the United Kingdom wrote to Michel Barnier calling for the UK and the EU to agree a two-year extension. In a letter to me, representing the SNP, along with the Lib Dems, Plaid Cymru, the Social Democratic and Labour party, the Green party and the Alliance party, the EU’s chief negotiator confirmed:

“an extension of up to one or two years can be agreed jointly by the two parties. The European Union has always said that we remain open on this matter.”

Mr Barnier said that any extension decision should have been taken by the Joint Committee “before 1 July”. We have been given an olive branch—a get-out-of-jail-free card—but the Prime Minister has failed to grasp it. The UK Government have set themselves to crash out of the EU with a devastating bad deal or a catastrophic no-deal.

All the while, EU leaders have highlighted the lack of progress in negotiations. Angela Merkel recently said:

“To put it mildly, progress in the negotiations has been very limited. I will continue to press for a good solution. But we in the EU and also in Germany must and should prepare for the event that an agreement is not reached after all.”

That should deeply worry all of us.

There is still time to change course. The Institute for Government has made it clear that there are mechanisms for an extension. It cites four legal options for extending the transition period: amend the end date of the transition period in the withdrawal agreement; create a new transition period to begin on 1 January 2021, which would mean striking a new agreement alongside future relationship negotiations; include an implementation phase as part of the future relationship treaty; or create an implementation phase to prepare for a potential no-deal exit.

The Scottish Government have set out the evidence to back up the arguments for an extension to the transition. Their analysis has revealed that ending the transition period in 2020 could remove £3 billion from the Scottish economy in just two years—£3 billion in just two years. Are our colleagues from Scottish Tory constituencies prepared to sit back and see that self-harm take place against their constituents, or for once, are they going to stand up for us, stand up with us and stand up for Scotland?

The Scottish Government’s analysis revealed that ending the transition period will be calamitous—a £3 billion hit to Scotland made in Westminster and delivered by this Prime Minister and his Government. A no-deal Brexit scenario has greater economic implications and could see the economy 8.5% smaller by 2030 compared with the scenario of continued EU membership. That is the price that Scotland will have to pay if we stay in the Union of the United Kingdom. Those are eye-watering numbers, but behind the statistics is the human cost: unemployment, hardship, poverty—Scotland paying the price for Tory dogma.

I take no pleasure in saying that UK relations with the Scottish Government are worse than ever under this Prime Minister’s leadership. We have been increasingly concerned at the lack of any meaningful consultation with the Scottish Government and other devolved nations on the Brexit talks and at the growing threat of a Tory power grab in devolved areas, including agriculture and food standards—all for a Brexit fantasy that Scotland never gave its consent to and that is now being used as a power grab from the Scottish Parliament, and for a future that we never voted for.

It is worth reminding folk in Scotland of the promises that were made in 2014 during the independence campaign. If we stayed in the UK, we would be staying in Europe. Well, we stayed in the UK, and we have been taken out against our will. All the way through this process, the Scottish Government have sought to achieve a compromise to best protect jobs. [Interruption.] We talk about compromise, and the Tory MPs laugh at Scotland. That is the way that Scotland is treated by the Tories in this House. They ought to be ashamed of themselves. Carry on, because people in Scotland will be listening.

We have said that staying in the single market and the customs union is the least worst option for jobs and our communities. At every turn, we have been shut out, shouted down and disregarded. It is little wonder that so many who voted to stay in the UK in 2014 now recognise the UK they voted to remain in no longer exists. It is little wonder that poll after poll shows a majority for independence. So many see our future as an independent country in Europe—an outward-looking Scotland, working constructively with others—and see this as a choice of a progressive future with independence, or one of staying with an increasingly inward-looking UK. [Interruption.] The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (David Duguid) keeps chuntering away from a sedentary position. If he wants to say something, I will allow him to get in. [Interruption.] Well, perhaps he would not continue to shout and chunter; it is most disrespectful to everybody, including his own constituents.

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

My right hon. Friend speaks about the polling, which shows that we are only going in one direction as support for independence has gone up. Does my right hon. Friend agree with my analysis that the UK Government are clearly carrying out polling on a regular basis—we know that the Cabinet Office is carrying out that polling—and does he, like me, want to see the UK Government publish the polling analysis that is being paid for by taxpayers, which will show that support for Scottish independence is on the rise?

[Ian Blackford]

Indeed, let us have transparency. Let us have some openness. The UK Government should indeed publish that information.

Where does power lie today in the United Kingdom? The Prime Minister has invested political and Executive oversight in an unelected adviser, Dominic Cummings. We know that a Green Paper is to be published tomorrow, ahead of a joint ministerial meeting with the devolved Governments, that is nothing more than a blatant power grab under the guise of the establishment of a UK internal market. When this Tory Government said they wanted to take back control, they did not mean just from Brussels; they meant from Edinburgh, they meant from Cardiff and they meant from Belfast. This Tory Government’s contempt for devolution has always been known. They fought against devolution in 1997, and they lost.

Of course, the covid crisis has seen the Scottish Government give effective leadership to the people who live in Scotland. The success of that leadership is reflected in the high standing of our First Minister not just with the public in Scotland, but elsewhere—[Interruption.] Again, I hear the laughing and the chuntering. Meanwhile, the Prime Minister and his team have dithered and given out mixed messages. Rather than recognise and applaud the success of the Scottish Government, the Tories want to attack them. The Tories cannot come to terms with our Scottish Government providing effective leadership, so they want to constrain our Parliament—that is the reality—and not just our Parliament, but the Parliaments in Wales and in Northern Ireland.

I am grateful that the Welsh First Minister is standing shoulder to shoulder with us, and I am asking our colleagues in the Labour party—

--- Later in debate ---

[Penny Mordaunt]

When I came into office I spent a considerable amount of time working with the central office of information and all Government Departments to improve our communications with business. An enormous number of meetings and forums take place not just with me and the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster but with every single Department across Whitehall. Our officials continue to have those discussions and consultations, as do Ministers.

I would say to the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber, who mentioned one or two sectors: you have not spoken about any of the Government schemes. You have not spoken about the phased approach. You have not spoken about free services that are available from Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs and how they can be improved. You have not called for any of that.

The right hon. Gentleman began the debate calling for leadership and for the Government to adapt. Indeed, the past few months have been an inflection point for nations and individuals. I call on the SNP to adapt: try co-operation; try finding some common ground for the sake of all our businesses and citizens. I would say that to you at any time but now more than ever, against the backdrop of this unprecedented time that we face.

[David Linden]

The Minister talks about the need for the SNP and the Scottish Government to compromise. She is in the Cabinet Office and will be aware of the document, “Scotland’s place in Europe”. Can she name any part of that document, which contains a raft of proposals and compromises from the SNP on the single market and the customs union? On which of those would the United Kingdom Government compromise?

[Penny Mordaunt]

There are many things that I could talk about, but one of the first meetings I held was to put together our negotiating position: we listened carefully to all the devolved Administrations on some of their concerns, particularly on programmes, and we changed our negotiating mandate accordingly. We do listen, and I have taken great pains. I gently point out—I am not going to repeat the vast number of meetings I have had, as I have done that frequently at the Dispatch Box—that as someone who has, in quite difficult circumstances, made sure that I could attend every single meeting that I had planned with the devolved Administrations and the Scottish Government, as I am happy to do, I was stood up by the Scottish Minister. I have shown up for every meeting—the Scottish Minister has not shown up for every meeting.

To conclude, I call on the SNP to adapt—to find common ground—for the sake of all our citizens and businesses, because that is what leadership looks like, and it is what Scotland deserves.

Financial and Social Emergency Support Package

David Linden Excerpts

Wednesday 25th March 2020 Commons Chamber

[Jesse Norman]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for the question. I was not aware of the attack—I am afraid I have been focusing on our response to the coronavirus—but of course I share his concern and send our deep sympathy and condolences to the families of those involved. He has registered in this conversation in Parliament his point about the Home Office. We will, of course, provide support to them in the usual way in reaction to the coronavirus, as we would to any person living in this country.

Let me press on. As the Leader of the Opposition has rightly pointed out, the action of distancing one from another runs counter to human nature. We value our relationships with our friends and our family more than anything else. Communities thrive through social interaction. He rightly spoke of our interdependence, and this bears that out. Of course, businesses also rely on their physical as well as online connections to consumers in this country and overseas. When we think of people co-operating, let us not forget that business and, indeed, markets are often forms of human co-operation themselves. However difficult and painful this may be, at the present moment it is nevertheless essential. We must all play our part in this gigantic collective effort. Only through discipline, patience and community spirit can we turn the tide together. Now is the time for the country to come together behind this goal. As Burke said, the nation is a moral idea. It is the legitimacy of the nation that underwrites our capacity to intervene in people’s lives, and it is only by believing in each other that we will succeed in doing so.

The response from across the United Kingdom has already been magnificent—from the thousands of former medical staff now returning to the frontline alongside student nurses who have opted to begin their NHS careers early, to the world-class engineering firms working with us to ramp up production of ventilators, to the men and women of our armed forces, both regular and reserves, stepping up once again to serve their country. Coming from Hereford, I cannot think of them without paying them a special tribute.

I also pay tribute, as the Leader of the Opposition has done, to the thousands of key workers—shop assistants, pharmacists, delivery drivers, cleaners, police, firefighters, teachers and many others—who are keeping essential services running at this critical time, and of course to the legions of volunteers who are mobilising to support the elderly and vulnerable in their community. I have myself signed up for the NHS volunteer programme—it was a very straightforward process—and I would encourage any Member of this House who feels so inclined to do the same thing.

The whole country is united in common cause. We are a nation and a people with strength in depth, yet this pandemic represents a deep shock to the global economy. In this country, many of the restrictions now in place go even beyond some of those seen in wartime. There is concern among business for the future, among people for their jobs and wages, and among all of us for our loved ones and our neighbours. We in Government recognise all those concerns.

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

I am immensely grateful to the Minister for giving way. It is right that he talks about key workers, but over the last 24 to 48 hours my inbox has been overflowing with messages from constituents who are being required to attend work, including people who work in home furnishings and as sales staff in call centres. I understand the need to be bipartisan in these times, but may I say very gently to the Minister and the Health Secretary that the messaging from the Government on this particular issue has, by and large, been pretty poor? We have a situation where, frankly, workers are being exploited and called into work when they do not need to be there.

[Jesse Norman]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for registering that point and putting it on the record. I will come to the question of communications, and perhaps I can include that point when I do.

As I have said, we stand ready to do whatever it takes to protect our society and economy. The first task has been to buttress our frontline public services. In the Budget, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor announced a package of support for the public sector—notably a £5 billion covid-19 response fund. Those investments will save lives here and now, and will also fund the research, diagnostic testing and surveillance that will bring the virus to heel over the longer term.

Meanwhile, the Government are working with the business community to bring our nation’s scientific, industrial and commercial expertise to bear behind the public health effort. We are seeing examples of this “can do” attitude all the time, as red tape is slashed, timeframes are condensed, and the public and private sectors pull together as one. Let me give one example. Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs is fast-tracking applications to authorise the production and use of denatured alcohol. That means that Scottish distilleries and others can turn the ethanol that they have over to the production of alcohol-based hand sanitiser. The usual turnaround time for such requests is 45 days. Since the beginning of March, HMRC has cut that to five days. This has resulted in an additional 2.5 million litres of alcohol for sanitiser being authorised in the last three weeks. We have now gone even further; as announced on 23 March, licensed distillers and gin producers operating in excise warehouses may now use their stocks to produce hand sanitiser without HMRC approval, provided that it is made to World Health Organisation standards or the alcohol used is denatured to the prescribed formulations.

Here, as elsewhere, we see a common approach: decisive action as soon as we can take it; feedback, often from colleagues across Parliament; and improvements as we go. We now have excellent consolidated information on coronavirus available through a single link on gov.uk, and there is specific guidance for businesses from the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy on a new web page. I had a text message myself from the Government yesterday and the Prime Minister’s broadcast was watched by 27 million people, so I think it is fair to say that the message is getting out there. We have even had Ministers leaving behind their red boxes in order to work online. We know that we must be in the grip of a national crisis when Ministers leave behind their red boxes.

Oral Answers to Questions

David Linden Excerpts

Tuesday 24th March 2020 Commons Chamber

[John Glen]

My right hon. Friend the Chancellor has set out clearly not only the range of measures that we have taken but our determination to come up with an enduring solution that addresses the range of challenges. The whole Treasury team is fully aware of how distressing and challenging people are finding it out there and we are working as fast as we can to come up with a solution that works for everyone.

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

If the current coronavirus and financial crisis has taught us one thing, it is that we need to look again at zero-hours contracts and the difficulty that they put many of our constituents in. I very much welcome the measures that have been brought forward on support for businesses and employees, and I very much hope that we will hear about support for the self-employed in the response to the urgent question this afternoon, but there is a lot of concern among zero-hours workers. Will the Minister outline what support the Government are going to bring forward for zero-hours workers in Glasgow East?

[John Glen]

If they are on pay-as-you-earn, they are eligible for the job-retention scheme, but the hon. Gentleman makes a fair point about the range of concerns that exist, and we continue to look carefully at what we can do to enhance the measures that have already been announced. He will be aware of the enhancements to the welfare package—my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has announced that an additional £6.5 billion has been put in so far—and we will continue to look at what more can be done.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Glen]

The Chancellor and I have had dialogue with individual heads of high street banks. I have been speaking to the head of UK Finance this morning and will be convening a meeting of bank representatives later today. We anticipate that the banks should be taking the most sympathetic forbearance measures possible, and we have set out very clearly, as my right hon. Friend the Chancellor did, that the loan scheme is interest-free for the first 12 months, with no fees or repayment penalties. I expect the banks to step up to the mark, as I know they will. We have to remember that many of the people actually delivering this service in high street branches or in call centres are not very well paid and are working flat-out to deliver a key service to our nation at this time.

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

The message from the Prime Minister last night for our constituents to stay at home could not have been clearer, but many of our constituents who are staying at home will have increased energy bills as a result. The hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) is co-ordinating a cross-party letter to the Government asking for a reduction in VAT on energy bills. Are they willing to look favourably upon that to support our constituents, who will have higher energy bills as a result of staying at home?

Coronavirus: Employment Support

David Linden Excerpts

Thursday 19th March 2020 Commons Chamber

[John Glen]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, who has unrivalled experience in this area. He makes some very reasonable points, and we are looking very carefully at all the options. As I said earlier, when we have decided—very imminently—the Chancellor will make announcements to this House first.

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

In recent days, the Chancellor has already outlined support for business, which the SNP has welcomed. In Scotland, that support has been passed on in full by our Finance Secretary, Kate Forbes. However, I remain concerned that not enough support is being mobilised for sole traders, freelancers and the self-employed. Today though, our focus is rightly on people, many of whom are already self-isolating or moving to work from home, if indeed they can. But bills are still coming in and rent payments are being sought, and so I welcome the news that some support will be put in place, for example, for payment for energy bills. The question is who is eligible for that, and will that go far enough. Will the Government use the tax system to put thousands of pounds in people’s pockets by way of an emergency universal basic income? Will the Government extend statutory sick pay to the 2 million people who earn less than £118 a week and benchmark it to at least the real living wage?

Firms are already starting to make staff redundant, but we need to stem the flow of that immediately, and today. The Government should introduce a statutory retention scheme to provide firms with financial support to keep staff in employment during this uncertain time.

Now more than ever, our social security system needs to kick in. To protect families impacted by hardship and strengthen automatic stabilisers that support demands in the economy, does the Minister agree that the main adult rate of out of work support in universal credit and other benefits, including carer’s allowance, should rise by a third to £100 per week?

We are in the midst of a national emergency the likes of which I have never seen before. How this generation of politicians responds to the crisis will be how history judges us. During the financial crisis of 2008, no expense was spared to bail out the banks, so today with the coronavirus outbreak we must similarly be prepared to bail out household budgets at this time of economic crisis. It calls for us all to rise to the occasion.

[John Glen]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. It is important that the Government do whatever it takes in these circumstances. He raises a number of specific points. He will be familiar with the changes we have made in terms of access to statutory sick pay and eligibility starting much sooner; that commenced from 13 March. He will be aware that, to make that easier, there is now no need to have a GP note. He makes number of points on universal credit and changing the eligibility there. Advances are available online; the minimum income floor has been temporarily released. He also makes a number of points about freelancers and the self-employed, which the Government are clear about.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned the universal basic income. The Government are looking at that, but the question whether it will help the most affected most urgently is one we have to consider. Many of us in this House, for example, would not require such support. We have to ensure that we target it at the most vulnerable.

Economic Update

David Linden Excerpts

Tuesday 17th March 2020 Commons Chamber

[Rishi Sunak]

Measures to help those who are self-employed and in the gig economy are already taking effect as a result of the measures taken last week. The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government is working at pace to deliver these cash grants to businesses in the coming days and weeks.

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

Sole traders in my constituency work as driving instructors and personal trainers. They are watching their bookings evaporate before their eyes. What support is the Chancellor providing for sole traders?

[Rishi Sunak]

Again, the measures that we took last week to strengthen our security net will benefit those who are self-employed and sole traders. Those with properties that qualify for business rate relief will benefit from that and cash grants will also flow to those people.

HMRC Tax Office: Cumbernauld

David Linden Excerpts

Tuesday 14th January 2020 Commons Chamber

[Stuart C. McDonald]

My hon. Friend has made a powerful point, and I shall say more about it later in my speech. The experience so far of similar changes in other parts of the United Kingdom seems to be that it is harmful to the collection of taxes, rather than helpful to the work that HMRC employees are trying to do.

As some Members may know—my hon. Friend certainly does—the proposal to close the Cumbernauld tax office forms part of a massive programme of reform to the HMRC estate, which has been given the title “Building our future”. Members on both sides of the House—including, obviously, my hon. Friend—may have seen similar offices close in their own constituencies, or may be battling similar proposals.

The scale of the changes and cuts faced by HMRC has been extraordinary. When it was formed in 2005, HMRC had 96,000 full-time equivalent members of staff in 593 offices; less than a decade later, staff numbers had fallen to below 60,000 based in fewer than 190 offices. “Building our future” set out to close 137 of those remaining offices, and to centralise even fewer workers in just 13 large regional hubs with between 1,200 and 6,000 staff. It seems that HMRC will shed many thousand more jobs during this process, with tens of thousands having to move location.

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

l commend my hon. Friend for the campaigning work that he is doing in his constituency. We often hear the Conservatives talk about going after benefit claimants. Is it not the case that in shedding these HMRC jobs, they are not going after people who should be paying their tax, but focusing on the more vulnerable in society who are just trying to get on with it?

[Stuart C. McDonald]

I agree with my hon. Friend. As I have said before and will say again, this is detrimental not only to the workforce and the town of Cumbernauld, but to the work that we require these people to do in collecting the tax that we need to fund our public services.

It is also fair to say that “Building our future” has been the subject of huge controversy since its launch. The National Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee, among others, have made very critical comments. In Parliament, my party has devoted Opposition day time to opposing tax office closures. There have been Backbench Business debates, one of which I was able to secure and one that was secured by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens), who chairs the PCS parliamentary group. Numerous other Members on both sides of the House have tabled questions or secured Adjournment debates on specific site closures.

I make absolutely no apology for bringing this issue to the House once again, because the “Building our future” programme was flawed from the start. It remains flawed and, given the seismic changes that have happened between its initial design and now, there are strong reasons to pause, to look at what has happened so far and to consider whether it is really still worth pursuing these plans. Serious issues have been thrown up even where regional hubs have already opened. For example, in Norwich, despite emphasis being placed on proximity to universities for recruitment purposes, recruitment has apparently proved incredibly difficult. Not only are many existing staff choosing not to make the switch to the new hub, but the hoped-for recruitment of new graduates has not materialised, quite simply because they have better options in the private sector. For all these reasons, the Scottish National party manifesto again made the case for, and committed to, reconsidering these closure proposals.

My first call on the Government is simply for them to take responsibility for what is going on. That in itself is long overdue. In contrast to my colleagues, the Government have been rather less keen on bringing this issue to the House for scrutiny and debate. Even when the original list of sites to be closed was decided, no announcement was made to the House. That basically sums up how Ministers appear to see their role. Ministers hide behind HMRC’s status. Too often in these debates and question sessions, the issue is simply palmed off as one for HMRC to get on with. I recognise that Ministers cannot interfere in the day-to-day operation of tax collection, but that is not what this is about. These strategic decisions will have an impact for decades to come.

I recently joined Jamie Hepburn MSP, PCS union reps and the leader of North Lanarkshire Council, Councillor Jim Logue, in writing to the Financial Secretary to the Treasury and the chief executive of HMRC to make the case for retaining the site in Cumbernauld. We ask them to come to Cumbernauld and to meet us and the staff. We got a typically bland response from HMRC, but at least it was a response, because all we got from the Treasury was nothing at all. That sums up the total lack of interest that the Treasury has taken in the whole issue of reform of HMRC’s estate and workforce.

Let us remember that these are not trifling changes. We are talking about turning 190 offices into 13. Along the way, thousands of jobs are being cut, and huge sums of money are being thrown at new buildings, refurbishments, relocation costs and all sorts of other expenses. Morale and job satisfaction among the HMRC workforce remains among the lowest in the civil service. Both the Public Accounts Committee and the National Audit Office have raised serious concerns with the programme, so it is no longer sufficient for Ministers to wash her hands of the issue and just leave HMRC to carry on regardless.

The Economy

David Linden Excerpts

Thursday 24th October 2019 Commons Chamber

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

I rise to speak in favour of the amendment in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford). Ordinarily, the Queen’s Speech is the set-piece occasion for the British Government. It normally outlines the Government’s domestic priorities and legislative proposals for the year ahead. Instead, this Queen’s Speech is a total charade. In fact, it is nothing more than a fantasy wish list from a Government who have lost their majority and are now completely out of control.

To be frank, even if the Government did have a majority with which to plough ahead with the proposals in the Queen’s Speech, the legislative programme is still bereft of ideas and ambition for Scotland. All of us who undertake weekly surgeries know the priorities of the people whom we seek to represent in this place. Those priorities should be reflected in the Government’s legislative programme, but they are not. In Glasgow, people tell me that they want to see justice for the WASPI women, and this Queen’s Speech has failed to deliver that. In Glasgow, people want to see universal credit fixed and the most punitive measures removed from it, and this Queen’s Speech has failed to sort that out. Put simply, this Queen’s Speech fails Scotland and it demonstrates why we need to be a normal independent state.

Let us look at the proposed initiatives in the Government’s legislative programme that will have an impact in Scotland. The Government’s immigration Bill will end free movement, which has been critical to growing a strong and diverse economy in Scotland. Put simply, ending freedom of movement could cost Scotland £2 billion in tax revenues. That is why, since December 2018, the Scottish Government have been making the case for permanent membership of the single market and customs union. That has been deemed to be fine for Northern Ireland, but not for Scotland, which is a pretty peculiar approach for a supposed Union of equals.

We know that Scotland’s population growth over the next 25 years is predicted to come from migration. This makes the case for continuing freedom of movement, which, sadly, the immigration Bill will put an end to. That comes at an economic cost. When we do an analysis of the tax taken from EU citizens in Scotland, it shows that there will be a 4.7% reduction in Scotland’s revenue by 2040 if EU migration falls by 50%, as is projected following Brexit. So there is a hit to the economy from the immigration Bill, which will be bad for Scotland.

I want to turn to the consequences of Brexit, which continues to cast a dark shadow over these islands and our economy in particular. This week we have seen the introduction of the withdrawal agreement Bill, which, among other things, makes provision for Northern Ireland continuing to have access to the single market and customs union. It is an inescapable fact that this puts Scotland at a competitive disadvantage, which is bad for jobs and bad for our economy. But Brexit does not just pose a future threat to our economic prosperity, because Scotland’s economy is already £3 billion smaller than it would have been had the Government not pushed ahead with a damaging Tory Brexit.

If this Queen’s Speech and the Brexit process have done one thing, it has been to crystallise things for people in Scotland who are beginning to consider an alternative future and pathway. Throughout the Brexit negotiations, we have seen a tale of two Unions. In the European one, the small, independent Republic of Ireland has been shown immense solidarity from the European Union, which treats it as an equal member state and listens to its needs and sensitivities. In this British Union, Scotland and its people have been shut out and ignored by an intransigent Westminster Government, who are obsessed by the politics of little England. This Queen’s Speech simply makes the case that Britain has nothing more to offer Scotland. It makes the case that we must have the right to choose our own future and take our own path away from Brexit Britain and failed Tory economics.

Oral Answers to Questions

David Linden Excerpts

Tuesday 1st October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Sajid Javid]

I thank my hon. Friend for drawing the House’s attention to this issue. I am aware of that. I know, for example, that the investment the Government have made through Border Force, including the extra officers, is helping, and I am confident that in all circumstances we can keep trade flowing.

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

22. We know that a no-deal Brexit would cost up to 100,000 jobs in Scotland and cost each family £2,300 a year. Is that really a price worth paying for the Prime Minister to break the law and go out with no deal?

[Sajid Javid]

We do not know that at all. That is just scaremongering from the Scottish National party. We know that businesses throughout the UK, including in Scotland, want this uncertainty to end and want us to leave on 31 October.

No-deal Brexit: Short Positions against the Pound

David Linden Excerpts

Monday 30th September 2019 Commons Chamber

[The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Mr Simon Clarke)]

It is not appropriate for the Government to comment on specific currency market movements, or on market positioning—

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. We cannot hear what is being said.

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. My advice to the Minister is simply to project. I know he will do so unfailingly.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Clarke]

As I said in my opening statement, the Treasury keeps these issues under review and is always working to ensure that we regulate this area in a way that is appropriate and proportionate.

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

In the interest of transparency, will the Minister agree to publish details of all call logs and meetings between every Minister and Crispin Odey?

[Mr Clarke]

The Government do not comment on meetings with individuals, and the hon. Gentleman would not expect me to do so now.

Oral Answers to Questions

David Linden Excerpts

Tuesday 21st May 2019 Commons Chamber

[Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab)]

5. What assessment the Government have made of the effect of the annual tapered allowance on the (a) recruitment and (b) retention of doctors in (i) hospitals, (ii) primary care and (iii) the armed forces.

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

6. What recent discussions he has had with Cabinet colleagues on the NHS pension scheme tapered annual allowance.

[The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr Philip Hammond)]

The NHS pension scheme and other public service schemes are among the most generous pension schemes available in this country today. The tapered annual allowance is focused on the highest-earning pension savers to ensure that the tax relief that they receive is not disproportionate to that of other savers. However, I do accept that there is some evidence that the annual allowance charge is having an impact on the retention of high-earning clinicians in the NHS. I am in discussion with my right hon. Friend the Health Secretary about how to provide additional pension flexibility for NHS doctors affected by the annual allowance tax charge, and he will make an announcement as soon as possible.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hammond]

I think I have answered that question, but it is good to hear Labour MPs focusing on the disincentive effect of high taxation, particularly on professionals in our public services. Someone has to be earning £150,000 a year before the tapered annual allowance affects them. I would suggest that perhaps Labour Members who do understand the detrimental effect of very high marginal tax rates on professionals in our public services make those representations to their right hon. Friend the shadow Chancellor, who is intending to raise tax for everybody earning more than £80,000 a year.

[David Linden]

One of the constituents I have in Barrachnie is a consultant who has told me that there are concerns about recruitment and retention. Given that a recent survey shows that 40% of doctors have retired early as a result of pension tax changes, I would urge the Chancellor to look again at this and make as strong a case as possible to the Health Secretary so that he can make sure that we have the staff in the NHS to serve our communities.

[Mr Hammond]

As I have already said, both the Treasury and the Health Department wish to address this problem. We have to find a mechanism that does it in a way that is fair and appropriate. The right way to do it is through increasing flexibilities within the NHS and, potentially, other public sector schemes. My right hon. Friend the Health Secretary will make an announcement as soon as possible.