Cost of Living and Brexit

Debate between David Linden and Brendan O'Hara

Wednesday 14th June 2023 Commons Chamber

[Brendan O’Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)]

I would like to begin by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford) for the way she opened the debate. In her time in Parliament, she has deservedly gained a reputation as being one of those Members people listen to when she speaks. Across this House, she is recognised as speaking with authority, experience and great knowledge of her subject. I am delighted that she upheld her own very high standards this afternoon.

My hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire was absolutely right when she said that the cost of living is the No. 1 issue for all of our constituents and that regardless of how often the Leader of the Opposition says it, it is simply impossible to “make Brexit work”. I have the vision of the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) saying to King Canute, “No, you cannae hold back the tide, but I can; I’ll show you how to do it.” This is utterly delusional because, as she says, we cannot make this work. She laid out brilliantly the case as to why this House should have a dedicated Select Committee, one that will be able to investigate all matters relating to the soaring cost of living and of the contribution made to that cost of living crisis by the UK’s disastrous exit from the European Union.

It is not often I will say this, but I am looking for a Lib Dem—

[David Linden]

Why?

[Brendan O’Hara]

The hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) intervened earlier to complain bitterly that his party was not to be represented on this Committee and that that would be the Lib Dems’ excuse for not supporting this motion. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow East (David Linden) said, this is an amendable motion and if the hon. Gentleman felt that passionately about it, he could table an amendment. I wish he was here so that I could remind the Lib Dems that when they proposed the creation of the EU withdrawal Committee, their proposal awarded the SNP precisely zero seats, despite our having the vast majority of Scottish seats. Perhaps the Lib Dems do not want to address this issue and are throwing smoke bombs right, left and centre because they do not want to be reminded that they are where they are because of the dirty deal they cut with the Tories in 2010. I just wish the Lib Dems were here to stand up and face the consequences of it.

No one can deny the detrimental impact that increases in the cost of living are having on businesses and families across Scotland and the United Kingdom, and only the most blinkered Brexiteer would deny the role that leaving the EU has had in driving those increases. Unfortunately, the powers available to the devolved Administrations in Edinburgh, Cardiff and Belfast mean that it is this place that must find a long-term solution to this crisis. As much as I commend the work done in Edinburgh, Belfast and Cardiff, it is this place that has to find those solutions.

That is why we must, with some urgency, establish this Committee. We must put in motion a process whereby the people of these islands can see and understand why food price inflation is through the roof and why mortgages are becoming increasingly unaffordable for so many. The evidence that will come to this Committee and the reports that will come from it will, we hope, furnish this hapless Government with the facts and evidence they need to see where they are going wrong and perhaps allow them to do something about it.

Let us be clear: the economic disaster of Brexit has not just fallen out of the sky. It has not just miraculously appeared. I am reminded of an exchange I had with the right hon. Member for North East Somerset (Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg) almost exactly a year ago, when he was Minister for Brexit Opportunities—I try to get through that title without laughing. I took the opportunity to remind him of his 2019 promise that the “broad, sunlit uplands” of Brexit were just around the corner for the British people and British business. Last year, I described the case of a small Scottish cosmetic company, Gracefruit, whose owners had told me that, because of red tape, soaring costs and loss of markets, they no longer had the mental or emotional strength to make a success of what had been a thriving business. Gracefruit was emblematic of so many small and medium-sized enterprises across the islands whose business had been destroyed by Brexit. In his reply to me, the right hon. Member for North East Somerset said:

“We are freeing people in this country from red tape because we look at the United Kingdom playing a global role—trading with the globe, being as economically productive as anywhere in the world…That is why the EU is a failing economic option and why we sing hallelujahs for having left it.—[Official Report, 9 June 2022; Vol. 715, c. 933.]

That was the Minister for Brexit Opportunities. I thought at the time that his reply was vacuous and glib. Twelve months on, I see it as deluded, arrogant, negligent and dangerous. If there is one reason why the creation of this cost of living Select Committee is essential, it can be found in that single reply. It was he and his well-heeled City chums who sold the people of England a pup in 2016. They sold it as a dawn of a new era of freedom and prosperity and of taking back control, but, instead, we live in a time of uncertainty and grave economic hardship, suffered, ironically, by those who bought into the fantasy that Brexit would be good for them and who have been left with the grim reality that Brexit has been a major driver of spiralling food costs, soaring mortgages and lower wages.

The pain of Brexit has been felt most acutely in our rural communities—communities such as my Argyll and Bute constituency, which had benefited from decades of EU membership and the support that it gave to our agricultural sector and the market that it provided for our outstanding seafood and shellfish sector. All of us who represent rural constituencies such as Argyll and Bute know that incomes are lower and costs are higher. Nearly 70% of households in my constituency are at risk of fuel poverty or extreme fuel poverty. As the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown) said, 56% of my constituency are off gas grid. To avoid fuel poverty, an average all-electric household would need an income of £72,200. To avoid extreme fuel poverty, they would require an income of £39,600. This is in the context of a median household income of just £33,000. Anyone can see the crisis of fuel poverty that is coming down the line, as indeed there will be with so many of my constituents.

The Royal Society of Edinburgh released a paper, “The cost of living: impact on rural communities in Scotland”, which recommended that any piece of legislation related to the cost of living should be “rural-proofed” and I heartily agree. It also recommended that the UK Government recognise the contribution of rural communities—whether it be through their whisky, tourism, timber or fish farming. In areas such as Argyll and Bute, the contribution made by my constituents to the UK Exchequer through whisky production alone is gargantuan compared with what they receive.

Rural Scotland has been hit hard by the cost of living crisis, which is why the people of these islands need the Committee to be set up. They need to have confidence that the decisions that we make here are done with all the available evidence that we can possibly muster. That is what the Committee would do. I say to Members, whether they be from the Labour party, the Liberal Democrats or the Conservatives, to vote this motion down on the minutiae—[Interruption.] The Minister may laugh, but this was an amendable motion, which his party, if it had any real commitment to the cost of living crisis, could have amended. To vote down this motion on the minutiae would be disingenuous in the extreme, because this is a genuine attempt on behalf of our constituents to address the biggest crisis in their lives at the moment. The Government and, sadly, the other opposition parties are playing political games with what should be a motion that unites all in the House.

Government PPE Contracts

Debate between David Linden and Brendan O'Hara

Tuesday 6th December 2022 Commons Chamber

[Brendan O’Hara]

It is remarkable—we can always spot when a Tory is sinking beneath the waves when they start shouting “ferries” at us. Let us remember that this is a Government who awarded a ferry contract to a company with no boats.

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

Is my hon. Friend aware, as the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Dr Mullan) perhaps is not, that the Seaborne Freight ferries contract cost £13 million? Is it not the case that people in glass houses ought not to throw stones from Crewe?

[Brendan O’Hara]

One would have hoped that people in glass houses, having thrown the first stone, would have realised that it was not the best idea.

Let me put on record that the NHS in Scotland used emergency procurement provisions to award PPE contracts without competition during the first wave of covid-19 but, crucially, the auditors are completely satisfied with the procurement arrangements in place and said that there was

“No evidence of preferential treatment or bias”

in the awarding of contracts in Scotland. I believe that that is the significant reason why our overall costs of pandemic procurement were less than a third of the UK’s, and it perhaps explains why the Government are now paying £770,000 every single day to store PPE in China. The Minister will be aware that I have tabled a series of questions today to ask how much of that PPE is still usable, how much of it meets the standards required for the UK, what quality control methods were used in securing it and the proportion of PPE that did not meet the standard required.

Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill

Debate between David Linden and Brendan O'Hara

2nd reading
Tuesday 25th October 2022 Commons Chamber

[Brendan O’Hara]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. This is about consent, because the Scottish Parliament has never agreed to this. I am sure I speak for future Scottish Parliaments, while the SNP are in government, when I say that we will never consent to having our rights taken away by a Government we did not elect.

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

In answer to the point made by the right hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson), the difference in how the European Union treats its members is that, in our current Union, Scotland has 59 out of 650 MPs, so we do not have a proportionate say. The European Union’s members are equal, so a country with the population of Malta has the same say as Germany.

[Brendan O’Hara]

Again, I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention, and I could not agree more with what he says. He is right to say that the way Scotland has been treated by this Government is disgraceful and it cannot continue, and this power grab will be called out for what it is.

Let me ask the Minister this: what would happen if the Scottish Parliament decides that we will remain aligned to the European Union and we ban the sale of chlorinated chicken, but this place decides that cheap, imported, chlorine-washed chicken is acceptable? Exactly what power will the Scottish Parliament have to stop lorryloads of chlorine-washed poultry crossing the border and appearing on our supermarket shelves? Similarly, what happens if the UK agrees a trade deal that sees the UK flooded with cheap, factory-farmed, hormone-injected meat but our Scottish Parliament decides to protect Scottish consumers and Scottish farmers by adhering to existing standards and protections? Can he guarantee that the Scottish Government will be able to prevent that inferior quality, hormone-injected meat from reaching Scotland’s supermarkets? What happens if the Scottish Parliament decides that it will stick by long-established best practice in the welfare and treatment of animals but Westminster chooses to deregulate? Can he give a cast-iron guarantee that the Scottish Parliament will be able to prevent animals whose provenance is unknown and whose welfare history is unaccounted for from entering the food chain?

Can the Minister guarantee that should this Government decide to “relax” the regulations on the labelling of food packaging but the Scottish Parliament decides to remain aligned to the EU’s rules, that this place, using the provisions in the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020, will not force labelling changes on Scotland and have Scottish consumers unwittingly subjected to chlorine-washed chicken, hormone-injected beef, genetically modified crops and animals of questionable provenance?

There is a genuine fear that this Bill and the power it confers on this place is a potential death sentence for the Scottish agricultural sector, which in my constituency requires a hefty subsidy to in order to manage the land, keep the lights on in our hills and glens, provide employment and stem the tide of rural depopulation, while producing high-quality, high-value beef, lamb, and dairy products. My Argyll and Bute farmers know that the lowering of food standards, the relaxation of rules on labelling and animal welfare, and the mass importation of inferior-quality products will be an unmitigated disaster for Scottish agriculture.

I know, as the Minister does, that Angus Robertson, the Scottish Cabinet Secretary for the Constitution, External Affairs and Culture, has already raised these serious concerns directly with the Government. The Minister knows that if the UK Government choose to act in policy areas that are wholly devolved, they will do so without the consent of Scottish Ministers or the Scottish Parliament, and that that will represent a significant undermining of the devolution settlement.

This Bill is the starting whistle on a deregulatory race to the bottom; one in which individual citizens will surely lose out to the spivs and the speculators and, no doubt, to the “politically connected”, who will be fast-tracked into making a quick buck at our expense. Because despite the Government’s assurances, which we heard earlier, that the UK will have the opportunity to be bolder and go further than the EU in securing consumer and environmental protections, there are clauses in this Bill that will prevent Ministers from imposing any new “regulatory burden” on anyone. To me, that suggests strongly that this is headed in one direction only: to deregulation. That deregulation will make it easier to circumvent our existing legal obligations on labelling food for allergens; to row back on safe limits on working hours; to change those hard-won rights on parental leave; or to avoid paying holiday pay.

The Government will be aware of the fury that will follow should they move to weaken the existing controls on polluting substances being released into the air or to lower existing standards for water and in any way dilute the protections and defences of our natural habitats and our wildlife. It seems that for some Conservative Members there is no price too high in their desperate, deluded pursuit of the mirage of Brexit. They are prepared to put at risk our natural environment, food quality, animal welfare standards, consumer protection, workers’ rights and even our natural environment in order to achieve it.

As I said earlier, this is not a road that Scotland has chosen to go down—rather, this is a road that Scotland has been dragged down. Our nation rejected this Tory Brexit fantasy, but our democratic wishes have been ignored at every turn. This is not Scotland’s doing, but because of the constitutional straitjacket in which we find ourselves, we are having this done to us by a Government we did not elect. Thankfully, Scotland has a way out and will, as soon as possible, rejoin the European Union as an independent nation. I sincerely wish the people of the rest of the United Kingdom well in finding their way back, too.

The Government should be under no illusion that SNP Members will oppose the Bill every step of the way. Not only are the Government coming for the rights and protections that we have all enjoyed for decades, but they are coming for our Parliament as well. I urge them, even at this late stage, to perform another of their trademark, almost legendary, U-turns and abandon this disastrous Bill. Not only does it undermine the devolution settlement, but it diminishes the role of MPs, with a plan to deal with everything via secondary legislation, conveniently avoiding scrutiny measures by Parliament. A former Secretary of State said that this was taking back control, but we have to ask who is taking backing control. It is not Parliament, as the Government have gleefully announced to the press that

“the amount of parliamentary time that is required has been dramatically reduced.”

Taking back control for this Government appears to mean finding a group of a hand-picked party loyalists and putting them on a Delegated Legislation Committee, which has a built-in Government majority, so that they can bulldoze through change after change after change, as required. In the history of DL Committees, in the past 65 years, only 17 statutory instruments have been voted down—and that has not happened since 1979. While there is a role for such Committees, it is not to make wholesale and fundamental changes to vast swathes of the law, covering everything from the environment and nature to consumer protection.

As we have heard, parliamentary scrutiny is being avoided because, in their desperation or fervour to rid themselves of any European influence, the zealots at the heart of this collapsing Government have arbitrarily included a sunset clause, meaning that 2,500 laws will be removed and not be replaced. Unless the Government grant themselves an extension, those laws will simply disappear from the statute book.

Dissolution and Calling of Parliament Bill

Debate between David Linden and Brendan O'Hara

Committee stage & 3rd reading
Monday 13th September 2021 Commons Chamber

[Brendan O'Hara]

I do not believe it was my hon. Friend’s speech, Mr Evans, but if it was, it was a perfectly good one and I thank him for it. The points he makes are absolutely valid.

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

I guess that, like me, my hon. Friend finds it a bit perplexing, when sitting in this debate and looking at Conservative Members, who advocated for Brexit in their constituencies and for Parliament to take back control, that they will walk through the Lobby tonight to neuter Parliament. Do he and his constituents who voted against Brexit see the irony in what the Brexiteers will do tonight?

[Brendan O'Hara]

I am sure I am not the only person in this House who can see the irony of how taking back control supposedly has led us to a position where Parliament is being neutered by the Executive, and the people who were most loudly proclaiming “Take back control” are the people holding the scissors and doing the neutering—if that is not too much of an image, Mr Evans.

If the Bill passes, as well as there being no parliamentary or legal scrutiny, an active debate will still rage about whether the monarch’s prerogative powers would return to exactly as they were in 2011. I notice that, in her letter to the Chair of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, the Minister acknowledged that

“there remains a role for the sovereign in exceptional circumstances to refuse a Dissolution request.”

But the monarch’s prerogative powers are now being enshrined in statute, having been removed by statute; they are now being restored by statute. So what exactly are the exceptional circumstances in which the monarch can refuse a Dissolution request? How can the Lascelles principles, which we heard earlier were prerogative powers, now be statutory powers? I cannot see how this returns us to the position we were in in 2011.

Therefore, we have been and will continue to be extremely uneasy about the insertion of the ouster clause making the Government’s action in relation to the dissolution of Parliament non-justiciable. As I said, we share the concerns of many Members across the Chamber that the repeal of the Fixed-terms Parliaments Act would not automatically take us back to the position of 2012 and we need a lot more clarity about exactly what legal position we would be in.

The Chair of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee pointed out in a letter to the Minister:

“The Fixed-terms Parliaments Act was passed and the consequences of this cannot simply be wished away.”

I note that, in her response to the Committee Chair, the Minister accepts that there is an academic debate about the issue, but she seems to believe the opinion of her academics that the courts

“will be required to act as if the Fixed-term Parliaments Act had never been enacted”

and that they will be

“required to pretend that it never happened.”

It is a ridiculous situation and an extremely unsatisfactory position in which we find ourselves. For years, as my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow East (David Linden) said, we have heard this Government talk about taking back control and the importance of parliamentary sovereignty. This is an early test of how this Parliament takes back that control, and the Executive are legislating to prevent it from happening. If the Bill is passed as it stands, Parliament and the judiciary, and arguably the monarch’s traditional role, will no longer be in play, and the decision to dissolve this place and call a general election will be entirely in the hands of the Prime Minister, who may call one when it is politically expedient so to do. That is not how a modern liberal democracy should function, and that is why we will not be supporting the Bill.

Back in January, both Lord Sumption and Baroness Hale were unequivocal in their evidence that the minimum safeguard required in the event of an ouster clause being put in place was the inclusion in the Bill of a time limit on the moving of writs for parliamentary elections. However, as it stands, there is no such provision in the Bill; six months on, the Government have not produced anything of the sort, and the original clause remains. In effect, that allows the Government to decide the length of a period of Prorogation, the gap between the Dissolution of Parliament and an election, and indeed the gap between an election and the first sitting of a Parliament. That is deeply worrying. The Government had an opportunity to take the advice of many learned people and improve the Bill. They refused to take that advice, and I fear that it is sinister and troubling that they did not.

Football Attendances: VAR

Debate between David Linden and Brendan O'Hara

Tuesday 17th March 2020 Westminster Hall

[Brendan O'Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)]

I was not planning to intervene, but my hon. Friend is doing an impersonation of a footballing Luddite. Does he agree that these decisions can cost millions of pounds and a club’s future can be mapped out on such decisions? It is not that VAR is wrong in and of itself, but its implementation should be improved, rather than chucking the whole deal or experiment out, as he is suggesting.

[David Linden]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I believe he is a global Celt in my constituency.

[Brendan O'Hara]

A proud global Celt.

[David Linden]

He and I are very good friends but, unusually, on this point I disagree with him. I tend to take the position of the hon. Member for Chesterfield of being quite keen to see the back of VAR altogether, but I appreciate that my hon. Friend takes a slightly different view.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Linden]

I am glad that my hon. Friend put that on the record. That point is well made.

Coming back to the interpretation of the handball rule, the rules around handball have been reviewed and changed in recent years, which in many respects accounts for some of the stranglehold on the game. A few weeks ago, alongside my hon. Friends here and my hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Drew Hendry), I watched the Hearts-Hibs game. There was a whole bit of commentary towards the end of the game that focused on whether Hearts had handled the ball. What actually happened was that a player was going down for a slide tackle to try to get the ball and put his hand down behind him to try to break his fall, and the ball came off his arm. Clearly, that was not a deliberate handball, but depending on their interpretation of the rules, some might say it was, so we need to review the handball rules. I appreciate that that decision is not necessarily within the gift of the Minister, although one day he might be that powerful; he can certainly aspire to that.

I also want to see a review of the offside rule. I agree with the hon. Member for Chesterfield that this microscopic analysis is absolutely killing the game. We now see situations where a referee might decide that something was a goal, but the VAR decides, after two minutes of consultation and with 10, 11 or 12 different camera angles, that somebody’s toenail—that was the hon. Gentleman’s example—might have been offside, which is clearly nonsense. I guess it comes back to his point that we call football the beautiful game for a reason. We do not call it the forensic game or the legalistic game, which it is increasingly becoming.

Before I conclude, I will address what is actually the biggest threat facing our game, which is obviously coronavirus. Most professional clubs—certainly my own—do not have a lucrative sponsorship deal or big TV deal. Indeed, many are not sitting on big reserves. In the case of Airdrieonians, something like 45% to 50% of its revenue comes from gate receipts. It is probably a bit of a nonsense to expect the football season to resume in April—I think most of us probably appreciate that no football will be played this side of the summer, although a decision will be taken about that later in the week—so the Government should definitely give more clarity about what will actually happen, in terms of sport being played and the safety around that.

There is also a question of what should happen to the football season. Will it be declared null and void? Are we in a situation where we just say that whoever is top of a particular league should be designated as champions?

[Brendan O'Hara]

Hear, hear.

[David Linden]

I see that my hon. Friend approves. However, my club is five points off the top of the league with eight games to go. I certainly take the view that we should restart when it is safe to do so in the summer, and perhaps have a truncated season, although I appreciate the difficulties owing to players who might be out of contract in May. However, I fear that I might be diverging slightly from the topic of debate.

The overarching point that I want to leave with the Minister and all of Government is the idea that these are challenging times for football clubs. Most of us in this Chamber appreciate that football clubs are not just a business. For so many of us football is a part of our culture, our community and our history, and it must be supported during these immensely difficult times.