Cost of Living in Scotland

Debate between Drew Hendry and David Linden

Tuesday 9th January 2024 Westminster Hall

[David Linden]

Absolutely. My hon. Friend is absolutely spot on, and that is the reason, I believe, why when the general election comes the best opportunity to make Scotland Tory-free is to vote SNP. That includes in his constituency in West Dunbartonshire, because his constituents, who are paying higher mortgage prices, will know that the cost of living crisis that they face at the moment has been made in Westminster.

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

rose—

[David Linden]

I see that my hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Drew Hendry) is seeking to catch my eye as well.

[Drew Hendry]

On the subject of reserved matters, energy policy is entirely reserved. The current cost of energy and electricity is particularly painful for people in the highlands. It is exceptionally galling in an area that produces six times more electricity than it needs to use. Highlanders pay a higher unit price, we have to use more electricity to heat our homes, because of the climate, and we have the highest level of fuel poverty. This Government should have taken the opportunity to do something to help people in the highlands and yet they did not.

[David Linden]

I absolutely agree. As somebody who represents the highlands—I think the constituency he is seeking to contest at the next election is even more rural than the one that he represents at the moment—my hon. Friend is right to make reference to the challenges in relation to energy, particularly for constituents who are off-grid. Fundamentally, he is right to highlight the fact that Scotland is an energy-rich nation but that far too many of our constituents are living in fuel poverty, particularly those in his constituency and that of the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone), to whom I am happy to give way.

Social Security (Additional Payments) (No. 2) Bill

Debate between Drew Hendry and David Linden

Committee stage
Monday 6th March 2023 Commons Chamber

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

My hon. Friend makes a telling point about the universal credit uplift. Does he not think that, when it was made, it was a welcome admission that universal credit was not enough to live on, whereas the removal of the uplift has re-established that deficit for people and their families?

[David Linden]

I agree with my hon. Friend. I tend to take the view that if the British Government concluded in March and April 2020 that social security was inadequate for the then economic climate, social security is indeed inadequate in the current economic climate. I welcome the fact that the Select Committee is looking at benefit provision. The all-party group on poverty, which I co-chair with Baroness Lister, is taking evidence on this separately tomorrow.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey has outlined, it was a huge disappointment when the British Government decided against retaining the uplift. Since its removal, I have heard anecdotally that many people have struggled with the sudden loss of income—the largest drop in support in the modern welfare state. Any of us who interact with our constituents can outline how challenging that has been.

Similarly, new clause 5 would require the Secretary of State to produce an assessment of the impact on household incomes— as well as on fuel and food poverty—of the Government’s failure to extend the equivalent uplift to legacy benefits. As with the previous iteration of the Bill relating to cost of living payments, it is welcome that the British Government have included Scottish payments for disability in the eligibility criteria. Although I wish sincerely that the London Government would look towards Holyrood as a guide for more of their social security policies, I appreciate that Ministers have been working with my colleagues in Edinburgh and have ensured that people in receipt of Scottish disability payments will also get the additional payment.

It is widely acknowledged that disabled people are far more likely to live in poverty than non-disabled people and are particularly vulnerable to the rising cost of living. For instance, I have heard testimony in my constituency, in the Lilybank area, of vital medical equipment—not something that can be turned off or turned down a wee bit to take cognisance of energy prices—leading to extortionate electricity bills. Despite that knowledge, legacy benefit claimants, many of whom are long-term sick or disabled, were unjustly denied that uplift during the pandemic. That was a monumental injustice, and it certainly adversely financially impacted many people throughout the pandemic, which was already causing heightened health anxiety. It is only right that an assessment be made of the failure to extend the uplift to legacy benefit claimants.

We must also consider where inflation will be at the time that payments are made. In January this year, the consumer prices index was still in double digits and near the highest levels in about 40 years, at 10.1%. However, we know that the poorest often experience a high rate of inflation; according to the Resolution Foundation, the poorest tenth of households experienced an inflation rate of 11.7%. What is more, recent Office for National Statistics stats show that food and drink inflation remained close to the highest rates since the 1970s, with the soaring price of milk, bread and other basic essentials pushing prices up by almost 17% in a year.

Recently, the British Government rightly increased social security benefits and the state pension in line with the CPI, so it seems only logical that that should apply to the cost of living payments that the Bill makes provision for. Therefore, our new clause 6 would ensure that

“all payments due under this Act are increased by the rate of inflation as measured by the latest Consumer Prices Index at the time of payment, if that is higher than the original amount.”

We do not know what the economic landscape will be later this year, so the new clause was tabled as an insurance policy in the event that inflation does not fall as has been forecast. It is unfortunate that some of the amendments are not in scope; the money resolution was so restrictive that it prevents our bringing forward amendments that would assist our constituents in a more meaningful way.

However, I have highlighted some of the inadequacies in the UK’s social security system, mainly the punitive sanctions regime. Instead of providing a robust safety net for millions of households, the surge in sanctions demonstrates the uncaring approach of a Westminster Government who Scotland did not vote for and who are pushing people further into poverty during a cost of living crisis. People across Scotland are paying a very steep price indeed for poor economic decisions made in this Palace of Westminster.

It does not have to be like this. We can make better policy if the Government accept that they do not have a monopoly on wisdom. I have tabled the amendments in good faith and I believe they would vastly improve the Bill. I hope the Minister can come to the Dispatch Box later and confirm the Government’s support for amendment 2, which I believe can make this legislation much better for not only the people that I represent, but the people that we all represent in this House.

Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Bill

Debate between Drew Hendry and David Linden

Committee stage
Monday 30th January 2023 Commons Chamber

[David Linden]

My hon. Friend is spot on with that question. That point has been made throughout the debate by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West, when she makes the case that if we looked for countries that do that, we would find ourselves in with the unholy club of Russia and Hungary. Perhaps the policy of global Britain has changed and the Government are seeking to emulate the policies of Hungary and Russia. That would be a courageous electoral strategy if they are, but none the less my hon. Friend makes that point.

I wish to say one more thing about international comparisons before moving on to deal with the amendments. Many Government Members suggested on Second Reading that the Bill enjoyed the support of the ILO, but it has since clarified that that is not the case. So that nullifies that line from the British Government, which, when scrutinised, is found wanting on just about every clause in this tawdry Bill.

I am conscious of the fact that there are well over 100 amendments in 50 pages on the amendment paper, as well as multiple new clauses, so I will seek to confine my remarks solely to those that stand in my name, and I will start with amendment 21. Many of us know that this legislation is only the thin end of the wedge; I do not think that Ministers will stop here. For many on the Tory Benches, this is an ideological war. It is a blatant attempt to finish what Margaret Thatcher started: bringing the unions to heel. We have heard it tonight, with language such as “union barons” “the paymasters” and so on. Fundamentally, the Bill is about the victimisation of trade unions and working people, and it is all about creating a wedge issue for the next election.

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

My hon. Friend is making a fantastic point about who is being victimised here. Instead of attacking working people and families, should this Government not be going after those who are not paying their taxes, so that we can get some more money? We could also go after those who are wasting billions of pounds as well.

[David Linden]

My hon. Friend seeks to lead me into an area that could probably land me in a lot of hot water, in terms of naming Members and breaching “Erskine May”, so I will avoid straying into the area of affairs of taxation for the Conservative party. He is right to put that on the record and I am sure it will be ringing out in Stratford-on-Avon.

On amendment 21, the Bill already makes provision for six wide-ranging sectors that the British Government have identified for restrictions at a time of industrial action. Quite apart from the fact that “life and limb” cover is already provided for in statute, the list is already incredibly far-reaching. My amendment seeks to tighten up this part of the Bill, making it harder for Ministers to add further sectors of service provision. I am thinking specifically of Royal Mail, where our trade union colleagues in the Communication Workers Union are currently engaged in a dispute.

I have no doubt that this is not about “life and limb” cover, which unions already negotiate in advance of strike action. Ministers’ language has already evolved in recent weeks and months to “lives and livelihoods”, which gives them carte blanche to add in whatever sectors they fancy later on. I firmly believe that they will draw in other industrial disputes to be covered by this Bill and use it as a signal to bad bosses, the likes of Royal Mail’s Simon Thompson, who seems to be content with being at war with trade unions. The effect of amendment 21 would be to prohibit any addition to or any reinstatement of the six categories of service to which the Bill applies, while facilitating the ease of removal of any of these categories.

Amendment 22 relates to the devolved nature of employment law in Northern Ireland. As hon. Members will be aware—although perhaps not those who think it is impossible to devolve employment legislation to Holyrood —Northern Ireland already has legislative competence for employment law, so the territorial application of this Bill is not extended there. However, with no functioning Assembly or Executive, my amendment 22 would provide that this anti-worker power grab from Ministers could not be imposed on workers in Northern Ireland in any circumstances, including in the event of direct rule. In short, no devolved consent means no anti-strike legislation in Northern Ireland. However, for a party that purports to be so passionate about the Union, it is somewhat bizarre that, by passing this legislation, it is essentially engineering a situation whereby UNISON’s health service members in Northern Ireland would be exempt from the legislation that would directly infringe their very peers on this island. Perhaps we could call this particular amendment the anti-strike protocol.

Management of the Economy and Ministerial Severance Payments

Debate between Drew Hendry and David Linden

Tuesday 15th November 2022 Commons Chamber

[David Linden]

That is very helpful, and over the course of that drink I will explain to the hon. Gentleman that the behaviour of his colleagues in the Scottish Conservative party during Opposition day debates is quite something. It reminds me of that biblical verse about removing the log from your eye before removing the speck from your neighbour’s.

There are two parts to the motion before the House. The first aspect of it is how interest rates are rising. A theme has been developed throughout the course of the debate that that is to do with what has happened in Ukraine and the covid pandemic. I would not dispute for a minute that what has happened in Ukraine has had an impact on the economy and that the global pandemic has had an impact on the economy. However, as I said to the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Paul Howell), there is a third aspect that has also had an impact on the economy, and that is the nature of the Brexit that we took. I think most people and most respected economists would argue that Brexit has had an impact on the economy, and the cherry-picking—to use the Minister’s term—that the hon. Member for Sedgefield was indulging himself in, to try to ignore the fact that Brexit has had an impact on the economy, does a disservice to the debate.

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

My hon. Friend is making a very important point. People are struggling to make ends meet just now because of a number of factors. A key one is food price inflation, which has rocketed due to the costs of Brexit. We have seen prices double, and the price of basic foodstuffs has gone up 60%. It is a price that people cannot afford to pay and should not have been forced into paying, especially in Scotland, where we voted resolutely against Brexit.

[David Linden]

Absolutely. I do not intend to rehash the debate on Brexit, though I am tempted to do so and feel that I would be on pretty strong political ground, but my hon. Friend is right to talk about the impact on food prices. In his constituency in particular, it is not just food prices that are crippling people; it is the fact that many of his constituents are off the gas grid. The paltry £100 that has been offered by the UK Government is not acceptable, as I think my hon. Friend is about to explain.

[Drew Hendry]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way once again; he is being very generous with his time. This is another vital point. The energy price guarantee does nothing for those people who are already paying an average bill of £4,000, which might rise to £6,000 a year, and for those off the gas grid, the £100 put forward by the UK Government has been described as “derisory” by Energy Action Scotland. These costs are crippling for people in constituencies like mine, where many people are off the gas grid.

[David Linden]

Absolutely. I am conscious that the motion focuses specifically on mortgages, so I will move away from energy and deal with the issue of mortgage interest rates.

The general theme that Government Back Benchers are developing today is that Ukraine is to blame, and covid is to blame, and that is why interest rates have risen. I would not want to indulge in a whole lecture on the Phillips curve—[Interruption.] The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office tempts me. A number of people, including me, would question whether the Bank of England holding interest rates at the historic low levels they have been at relative to unemployment is something that merits a debate. Whether today’s Opposition day debate is that, I am not sure.

There has been a rewriting of history in the course of the debate. A number of Members seem to be suggesting that this is the fault of covid and Ukraine, and the mini-Budget had nothing to do with it. The reality is that the mini-Budget did spook the markets. The UK was put on a watch list by the IMF. Members have been falling over themselves with excitement to say, “What would have happened if the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) had become Prime Minister?” I am not sure that even they would have imagined that under the right hon. Gentleman’s leadership the UK would have been put on an IMF watch list, as it was after the antics of the right hon. Member for Spelthorne (Kwasi Kwarteng).

Over the course of the debate, Members have said that this is to do with covid and Ukraine, but the Scottish housing market review for quarter 3 of 2022—which we must bear in mind is written not by politicians but by economists and civil servants—says:

“There was a substantial increase in the number of high LTV products offered by mortgage lenders after the Covid-19 pandemic, with the number of 95% LTV mortgages products increasing from 14 in September 2020 to 274 in September 2022. However, after the UKG Plan for Growth/mini-budget on 23 September 2022, the residential mortgage market saw a dramatic fall in the number of deals available to new borrowers over the month. The total number of residential mortgage products dropped to 2,258 in October.”

I am not going to do a “woe is me”, as a highly paid politician, but I am one of the people whose house was on the market at the time of the mini-Budget. We had an offer in, and then the mortgage product was pulled, so the sale of the house has fallen through. I am also one of the people who took sound financial advice and was told to fix my mortgage rate for two years, because most of us expected—quite rightly—that, given relative levels of unemployment, mortgage rates would start to rise. That is why a number of people fixed for two years. As I say, I am not saying “woe is me”, because I am a politician, and I am very highly paid; I am far too overpaid, in my view. However, as a result of the changes to mortgages that happened in an accelerated fashion as a result of the mini-Budget, the vast majority of my constituents will now have to go back to the position of many of my constituents in the 1980s—the people who live in the Mount Vernon area—who saw interest rates of 14% and 15%. We are not there yet, but I would not be surprised if we ended up in that place, because this is not going to be fixed overnight. The harsh reality for the Government is that, yes, interest rates have been rising and should have been rising, but everybody in the Chamber knows that the mini-Budget spooked the markets, and there was a run on the pound and a run on pensions. That was a direct result of the actions of Government Ministers.

As for the second part of the motion, most of us would accept that if somebody started working at, for example, Tesco on a Monday, and they were in charge of the frozen foods aisle, and in the three days that they were in work, they did not turn on the freezers and all of that supermarket’s stock was lost, the chances are that they would be given their jotters—they would be sent home from work, and they would be fired. The Government have conducted some sort of economic experiment based on the Thatcherite economics of the gruesome twosome of the right hon. Members for Spelthorne and for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss). They have crashed the economy—the equivalent of ruining all the frozen goods—and they have got off scot free. The thing that really sticks in the craw of Members of this House and, most importantly, of people outside the House is the fact that not only have they walked away and left absolute economic carnage behind them but they have been given a severance payment.

Far too often, watching Conservative Members and Opposition Members fighting with each other is like watching two bald men fight over a comb. Conservative Members say, “Oh well, in 2010, you took this much by way of ministerial several payments,” but we are not living in normal times: it has been calculated that a Minister resigned every four days over the last year. The Conservative party has the audacity to lecture people about sound money and sound government when, at one point, Ministers were resigning on average every four days as a result of complete incompetence. Some of the people we saw at the Dispatch Box, particularly over the summer, are folk I never dreamed would have a red box—people who I would not put in charge of tying shoelaces—but they are all walking away with ministerial bungs.

As far as I am concerned, there is a legitimate debate to be had by the Government and His Majesty’s Opposition about severance payments. As luck would have it, last month, I introduced a private Member’s Bill, the Ministerial and other Pensions and Salaries (Amendment) Bill, which seeks only to bring Ministers into line with mere mortals outside of this House. If someone has not been with their employer for two years, they are not subject to a statutory redundancy payment.

We are in a ridiculous situation. Granted, the right hon. Member for Chippenham (Michelle Donelan), who was Education Secretary for, I think, a day, did the right thing and said, “I’m not taking my severance payment,” but under the current legislation, Ministers and Secretaries of State who are in post for literally hours or a couple of days are entitled to vast severance payments. That needs to change. We can have the what-aboutery in the Chamber about Labour or Conservative Ministers taking payments, but for goodness’ sake, let us fix the legislation to ensure that Government Ministers are subject to the exact same regulations as those we in this place seek to represent.

[Drew Hendry]

rose—

[Drew Hendry]

I will be brief. My hon. Friend is making a powerful point. Earlier, he reflected on the cost for people and their households. How does he think that the vast payments that Ministers are walking away with after a matter of days resonate with people who are struggling to pay their bills?

[David Linden]

I am always keen to use the local Glasgow vernacular, but I am mindful that if I used it to explain how angry my constituents are, I would probably get chucked out of the House for unparliamentary language. That gives my hon. Friend a flavour of how my constituents feel about the grotesque sight of failed Government Ministers coming into the Chamber, playing with their little Tufton Street economic strategies and using my constituents, who are incredibly economically vulnerable, as lab rats, then walking away with thousands of pounds in a pay-off. That is absolutely outrageous and most of my constituents would not stand for it.

The motion before the House talks about severance payments. In reality, I would like to amend the legislation. Given the disgusting behaviour that we have seen from Conservative Governments, however, I would be keener to see Scotland severed from this Union altogether.

Benefit Cap

Debate between Drew Hendry and David Linden

Tuesday 1st March 2022 Commons Chamber

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

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[David Linden]

I will give way first to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady).

[David Linden]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to put that on record, because he is right to identify the point that destitution ultimately comes at a cost to the state. I am incredibly proud that the Scottish Government have a focus on a preventive spending agenda. The Government should realise that if we push people into debt and financial insecurity, we end up with a situation, as my hon. Friend will have seen in Glasgow, where people are essentially made homeless because they do not have enough money, and that then results in a section 5 referral to the local authority and the state still has to pick up the costs as a result. My hon. Friend is exactly right to make that point, and I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Drew Hendry) will be just as eloquent.

[Drew Hendry]

My hon. Friend has been talking about the impact that people face from the benefit cap across the piece, but there is an even greater impact for those who live in rural areas—particularly those off the gas grid—where, for example, petrol costs are higher, travel costs are higher and incomes are often lower across the piece, so families will struggle together. The benefit cap is punishing those people even more than those in cities with lower costs.

[David Linden]

Absolutely, and I pay tribute to my hon. Friend on that, because he presented a 10-minute rule Bill on this issue in the Chamber last week. I know it affects his constituents and those of my hon. Friend the Member for Argyll and Bute (Brendan O'Hara). In a lot of these rural constituencies, people are off-grid, and it means they will have increased energy costs. Having some sort of arbitrary benefit cap in place will not help them, so I ask those on the Treasury Bench to reflect on the Bill of my hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey and to bring forward the opportunity for it to get its Second Reading and for him to give his constituents a voice.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Linden]

Absolutely; my hon. Friend makes that point eloquently. The issue is that the Government are making policy in their ivory towers in Whitehall without any understanding of the real-life impact that it has on many families, including in Kilmarnock.

Some nine out of 10 single parents with children are women, which adds another layer of discrimination to an already incredibly cruel policy. We have heard testimonies from women who have left relationships due to domestic abuse only to find their benefits capped and the threat of financial hardship looming. That is the reality of the policy. Every effort should be made to ensure that those women, who are often fleeing desperate situations, are supported. Instead, the heartless British Government have capped the benefits that they can receive.

On top of that clear discrimination against single parents, specifically single mothers, a 2018 report by the excellent charities One Parent Families Scotland and CPAG in Scotland revealed that most families whose benefits had been capped were unable to seek or undertake work. The report highlighted that almost four in five lone parent households affected by the cap were claiming income support because they had young children and were not expected to seek work. Some one in six were claiming employment and support allowance, which suggests that they had been assessed as not fit for work. Families across Scotland are being pushed into financial hardship when they are not expected, and indeed are not deemed fit, to find work.

The Joseph Rowntree Foundation found that the benefit cap also disproportionately affects minority ethnic households. In England, eight in 20 households affected by the cap are minority ethnic, while minority ethnic households represent only three in 20 of the total. The Poverty Alliance has shown that the benefit cap discriminates against larger families as well, as my hon. Friend the Member for East Renfrewshire (Kirsten Oswald) said. In Scotland, 96% of capped households have children and of that number, 75% have three or more children.

According to a recent Resolution Foundation report, the low level of core social security benefits, which were affected by the various real-terms cuts to benefit levels in the 2010s, has been exacerbated in the past decade by policy changes such as the benefit cap and the two-child limit and associated rape clause that have undermined the idea that those with extra needs should be supported. That has resulted in rising poverty, particularly among families with three or more children.

The SNP has put forward clear policies to tackle poverty across Scotland. For example, my colleagues, SNP Ministers in Holyrood, have doubled the game-changing Scottish child payment, rolled out 11 new benefits and extended free school meals, and are working to actively reduce poverty and inequality. All the while, this place—Westminster—undermines those efforts.

With limited tax-raising powers, no serious borrowing powers and 85% of welfare spending still controlled in London, however, those policies can only go so far. They are being continually undermined by a Tory Government that Scotland did not elect; indeed, we have not elected a Tory Government since the 1950s. The benefit cap is just another cruel policy implemented by the Tories that leads to the extreme austerity and poverty that blight the lives of far too many of our constituents.

In addition to the benefit cap, the British Government must also scrap other poverty-inducing Tory policies such as the two-child limit and the bedroom tax. We face a perverse situation where the Scottish Government have to use between £60 million and £80 million of their budget every year to mitigate the bedroom tax. Again, devolution is almost being used as a sticking plaster for bad social security policy. Quite simply, I am sick and tired of standing up in this Chamber and making endless pleas to intransigent Tory Ministers while trying to demonstrate how my constituents in Wellhouse, Easthall and Cranhill are suffering from their cruel social security squeeze.

[Drew Hendry]

My hon. Friend is being generous with his time. He is about to make a point about people suffering. Does he agree that either there is no recognition from the Government Benches of the hardship and suffering that people are going through and facing more of, or they are willing to let it happen by not taking the actions that they need to take?

[David Linden]

It is a question on which I find myself reflecting an awful lot. We all come into politics for different reasons. As I outlined at the beginning of this debate, the Minister and I have very different ideological views on the merits of the social security system and perhaps, even in his case, on what role the state should have in people’s lives. We are all constituency MPs, and on Friday morning we will go back to our constituencies and sit in those cold, draughty community centres and talk to people who are impacted by these policies. I find it very difficult to believe that the Minister, who represents Macclesfield, does not have constituents coming to him and saying that the benefit cap is putting them in a very difficult position. This may be a case of Ministers focusing too much on policy, but in this instance I think it is a case of Ministers, and indeed the Government, not focusing enough on their day job or on the correspondence that they receive from their constituents, which overwhelmingly says that the benefit cap must go.

Cost of Living Increases

Debate between Drew Hendry and David Linden

Monday 24th January 2022 Commons Chamber

[David Linden]

It is on the record that the SNP supported a number of those schemes. For example, the furlough scheme was hugely important, certainly at the beginning of the pandemic; about 13,000 of my constituents were involved in that scheme and it was something the SNP called for. However, we profoundly disagreed with the Government winding the scheme down too early, and there was such a lack of clarity on that; I know personally many constituents who lost their job in the intervening period from the Government saying it would be wound down to then extending it. The Government could have continued with a number of other schemes, too. We know fine well that as we come out of the teeth of this pandemic the economy is incredibly fragile, and my criticism, which I would reflect back to the hon. Gentleman, is that so many of these schemes were wound down far too early and that has led to the difficult financial pressures many of our constituents feel right now.

I was telling the House about some of the rising costs our constituents are facing in their average supermarket shop. Canned spaghetti was 13p and is now 35p, a price increase of 169%. These price changes will force more people towards food banks, and more people towards having to make that horrendous decision between heating and eating.

On top of the increasing price of food bills, energy prices are surging, delivering yet another devastating blow to families who are already struggling. Household energy bills were the biggest driver of inflation after Ofgem, the energy regulator, lifted the price cap on domestic gas and electricity. That meant that gas bills rose by 28.1% in the year to October, while electricity climbed by 18.8%. National Energy Action estimates that there are already 4.5 million fuel-poor households in the UK, which is nothing short of a disgrace, and if the cap rises, as is predicted, the number will rise to 6 million. Only two weeks ago there was an Opposition day debate in this Chamber and I was highlighting the rising cost of energy to Ministers, yet still, two weeks on, no action has been taken; indeed, if press reports are to be believed, a meeting between the Chancellor and the Prime Minister on this issue was cancelled last Wednesday because they were both so busy courting Tory backbenchers. When I met with Age UK and Age Scotland after their snap survey, it was revealed that 96% of their respondents were worried about their energy bills.

Again, these statistics have real-life consequences. I have heard far too many stories of people in my constituency moving their beds into their sitting room so they will only have to heat or light one room over the winter months. That an image not of Victorian Britain but of 21st-century global Britain.

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

My hon. Friend is making a very powerful point about the poverty faced by people in this current cost of living crisis. The all-party parliamentary group for terminal illness last year produced a report that pointed out that the energy costs for people diagnosed as terminally ill double when they are at home. When people are struggling anyway, that is an absolutely damning statistic for people with a terminal illness, yet the Government have failed to move on bringing forward faster access to benefits to support them. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is just a disgrace from this Government?

[David Linden]

It is. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend, who very ably chairs the all-party group for terminal illness. It is one of the things that really sticks in the craw of many of us. My hon. Friend highlights some of the very real struggles facing people with a terminal illness. The idea that the biggest issue of the day—the cost of living crisis and spiralling energy bills, which people who are terminally ill are struggling with—is being overlooked at the expense of things like “Fizz with Liz”, and the Chancellor and the Prime Minister courting the Tea Room really is an absolute disgrace.

Universal Credit and Working Tax Credits

Debate between Drew Hendry and David Linden

Wednesday 15th September 2021 Commons Chamber

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

I want to begin by describing the importance of this debate:

“There are plenty of times where I’m getting such bad hunger pains that I can barely move.

I can last for a while without eating. I’ve been trying to put my mind off the hunger by either doing exercise, or maybe doing a bit of work on my computer.”

That is a quote from Morgan. He is 23 and has spent six months sleeping on friends’ sofas and occasionally on the street. He is currently suffering from severe depression that impacts on his ability to work. As a universal credit claimant, Morgan has stated that the proposal to cut the £20 uplift is

“literally like taking food off my table.”

That is the reality of life in Tory Britain—the reality of a decade of austerity measures and cuts to social security. Morgan is just one of 5,917,053 people, because that is the number of people who are relying on the £20 uplift to universal credit. Throughout this debate, when we inevitably get drawn into the hurly-burly of parliamentary politics, I want us all to keep in mind Morgan and the nearly 6 million people we are talking about, because it is their livelihoods that are on the line and their financial security that is at risk.

We are not talking in hypotheticals. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation’s report lays it bare: cutting the universal credit uplift will plunge 500,000 people into poverty overnight. We all know the impact that the universal credit uplift has had on claimants. The additional £20 per week has been monumental in helping families get by. Audrey Flannagan, who runs the Glasgow SE food bank in my home city, recently told the media:

“If you look at the impact it”—

the universal credit uplift—

“has had on the food bank, last year in the first three months from January to March we saw 601 single people pre the £20 uplift. January to March this year, we saw 151 single people. That’s a massive difference, not all because of the £20 uplift, but a lot will be because of the £20 uplift.”

The uplift to universal credit was desperately needed before the pandemic, and its impact can be seen right across the voluntary sector.

The British Government now have the opportunity to address the failures of universal credit and truly help those who are most vulnerable as we seek to recover from the pandemic. The first step should be to make the £20 uplift to universal credit permanent; indeed, it should also have been extended to those on legacy benefits, who have been so cruelly overlooked and left behind by this Government.

I have heard Ministers defending removing the uplift by repeating the line that it is best for people to get back into work rather than rely on benefits. In fact, the Chancellor himself has said that

“going forward, my view and the government’s point of view is the best way to help people is to help them into work and make sure those jobs are well paid”.

That only goes to show just how little Tory Ministers know about the benefit that they pontificate on. For their benefit, I will explain.

Universal credit supports both those unemployed and those employed on a low income. More than a third of people claiming universal credit are in employment. Of the nearly 6 million people on universal credit, 2.3 million are actually employed. On top of that, a great number of those employed claiming universal credit are parents. The latest figures show that roughly 1.9 million families with children will see their benefits cut at the end of this month.

The Child Poverty Action Group has stated that the number of poor children in working families is on the rise. Even before the pandemic, there were 4.3 million children growing up in poverty in the UK. That is nine children in a classroom of 30—a shocking indictment of Tory Britain. The proposed cut to universal credit will put a further 200,000 children into poverty, including those in working families. It is simply unthinkable.

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

My hon. Friend makes a powerful point about the impact on families of low-paid workers. We heard this morning that inflation has now gone up to 3.2%. Workers in my constituency now face an increase in national insurance and higher food costs. They are already facing higher heating costs, and let us not forget that many people in rural constituencies are off the grid for electricity and gas, so it is more expensive for them anyway. This cut to universal credit, according to the Government’s own advice, will cause a catastrophe. Does he agree that, for families in constituencies such as mine, the catastrophe will be even bigger?

[David Linden]

My hon. Friend’s constituency was one of the earliest areas where universal credit was rolled out, so he is familiar with it, and as a highland MP he is acutely aware of the much higher energy bills. The universal credit cut will probably mean a choice between heating and eating this winter for people in his Inverness constituency. He is right to put that on the record, and I hope that Members who represent constituencies in other parts of rural Scotland will bear that in mind, particularly on the Conservative Benches. It is simply unthinkable that the UK Government are even considering this policy. All MPs must consider whether they want it on their conscience when the Division bell rings tonight.

Whether or not someone claiming universal credit is in employment, the £20 uplift is vital to their income. To quote Morgan again:

“We should not have had to have gone through a pandemic just to get that increase”.

Morgan is right. The most vulnerable people in our society had been suffering for decades, long before the pandemic hit these shores. Years of austerity have deepened the inequality and poverty in our society, and the pandemic has only magnified those pre-existing inequalities. Years of austerity have deepened the inequality and poverty in our society, and the pandemic has only magnified those pre-existing inequalities in our welfare system.

A decade of Tory rule has left workers, on average, £l,000 a year worse off. Analysis by the Office for National Statistics shows that, when inflation is taken into account, the average wage is worth less in 2021 than it was in 2010. Despite the continual Tory mantra that getting people into work is the best route out of poverty, wages continue to fall, and austerity continues to deepen inequalities. The pandemic has only served to bookend the decades of cruel welfare cuts and truly highlight how inadequate support has been.

Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership

Debate between Drew Hendry and David Linden

Thursday 24th June 2021 Commons Chamber

[Drew Hendry]

There is an entire continent in Europe that we could be doing trade with. This is the thing: we have had a 33% drop in trade with the EU in the first four months since Brexit was implemented in January, and CPTPP membership would be a literal drop in the ocean in trying to replace that trade.

As I was saying, palm oil is notorious for causing deforestation, leading to increases in greenhouse gas emissions. Will the Minister therefore confirm for the House that the UK will enforce a ban on palm oil? What climate change assessments have been made of the impacts of the deal on the UK’s climate change commitments?

Currently, 85% of the UK’s exports to CPTPP members are to Australia, Canada, Japan and Singapore, and the UK already has free trade agreements with seven of the 11 members through agreements made while the UK was a member of the EU. The only real driving force for Brexit Britain to join a trade alliance on the other side of the world is political. It is not economic. Scotland has been dragged out of the EU against its wishes and, as I have said—I will repeat it again—in the first four months of leaving that single market, UK trade exports to the EU have plummeted by 33%, trade for businesses has been hammered, and the costs of goods for industries, including distilleries, have shot up by 20%.

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

My hon. Friend made the point earlier about welcoming—it would be churlish not to do so—the dropping of tariffs on Scotch whisky. He will be aware that I am the chair of the Scotch whisky all-party parliamentary group. Will he join me in calling on the Government to respond to the alcohol duty review that they have been sitting on for six months? The Scotch whisky sector will need as much support as possible to get back on its feet, so will he join me in calling on the Treasury Bench to get on with it and give the sector more support?

[Drew Hendry]

I absolutely concur with my hon. Friend the chair of the Scotch whisky all-party parliamentary group. The past four months have been devastating. In that same period, Scottish fishermen have been sold out, Scottish farmers have been betrayed, and powers to protect our regulations and standards—and even our NHS—have been steamrollered by this Government. The agreement does nothing to rectify that. That is why more people every day are realising that Scotland needs to be an independent country to make the right choices to protect our food and drink industry, our farmers, our crofters, our NHS and our people.

United Kingdom Internal Market Bill

Debate between Drew Hendry and David Linden

Consideration of Lords amendments & Ping Pong & Ping Pong: House of Commons
Monday 7th December 2020 Commons Chamber

[Drew Hendry]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I could have come back with a different response, but I appreciate you intervening.

The hon. Gentleman tries to say that this is not a power grab—not taking back powers from the Scottish Parliament. What I am quoting is not SNP folks saying this, and not even the Scottish Government—it is other people, as we have heard from around the different parties, including his own, right across the nations of the UK, and across the world. What he says really does not hold any water.

On clause 49, the Lords amendment removes the UK’s Government’s attempt to re-reserve state aid. Lord Thomas noted that

“unashamedly, the Government want to use this legislation to alter the devolution settlements…They are trying to make state aid a reserved matter by the device of expanding or extending the competition policy reservation.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 25 November 2020; Vol. 808, c. 317.]

Lord German confirmed:

“Blunting and reducing the power of the devolved authorities is deemed to be a price worth paying so that the UK Government alone can determine the route they wish to follow in directing the new regime. Yet we do not know what this regime will look like.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 25 November 2020; Vol. 808, c. 319.]

Leading for the Government in the Lords, Lord Callanan confessed that

“Clause 44 reserves to the UK Parliament the exclusive ability to legislate for a UK-wide subsidy control regime.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 25 November 2020; Vol. 808, c. 325.]

I can tell the House that the SNP will not accept this brazen power grab. State aid must remain a devolved competence.

Lords Amendment 11 means that devolved Governments must either give their consent to regulations within a month, or the Government could continue but would have to explain to Parliament why they were proceeding without agreement. Lord Bruce noted that it

“takes the need for consultation but adds to it by saying that there must be a requirement to secure consent.”

That is absolutely what is required. He went on to say:

“That draws on the common frameworks principles, which suggest that every sinew should be bent to secure consent.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 23 November 2020; Vol. 808, c. 50.]

I stress: not consultation but consent.

On Lords amendment 57, Lord Thomas noted that

“the composition of the CMA should now reflect its different position and role under this Bill...it is critical that it commands the confidence of all the people of all the nations of the United Kingdom and therefore that it has representations from them.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 23 November 2020; Vol. 808, c. 103.]

Lords amendment 1 seeks to protect the role of the common frameworks from the Bill. When moving his amendment on Report, Lord Hope summarised:

“Not only does the Bill ignore the common frameworks process but it destroys one of the key elements in that process that brought the devolved Administrations into it in the first place: it destroys policy divergence. It destroys those Administrations’ ability through that process to serve the interests of their own people, and to innovate.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 18 November 2020; Vol. 807, c. 1432.]

Baroness Finlay warned that the Bill

“is not based on warm support for devolution but rather on hot resentment of the fact that the devolved Governments and legislatures can innovate at speed and take their populations with them.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 18 November 2020; Vol. 807, c. 1434.]

That is something that this Government cannot do.

Lords amendment 8 removes sweeping Henry VIII powers that allow the Minister to alter the definition of key requirements for the Bill and in each case rewrite those principles substantially in secondary legislation. In the Lords proceedings, the Government accepted the argument and removed the Henry VIII powers from clause 3, but refused to remove them from clause 6. Under clause 6, the Secretary of State can act without the need to introduce new primary legislation or to obtain the consent of the devolved Governments, taking power away from them. As I have said before, the UK Government’s offer to consult is meaningless. “Consult” is not the same as consent, which is what is required.

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

The truth is that the Bill is an absolute abomination and drives a Trojan horse through the devolution settlement, but my hon. Friend is right to put his finger on that very issue. Brexit was supposed to be about Parliament taking back control. How does he reconcile the idea that Parliament is taking back control with granting these sweeping Henry VIII powers to the United Kingdom Government?

[Drew Hendry]

Indeed, it is the UK Government who are seeking to take back control from Scotland, and from Wales, with the Bill, which is a clear and utter power grab.

Parliamentary Constituencies Bill

Debate between Drew Hendry and David Linden

2nd reading & 2nd reading: House of Commons & Money resolution & Money resolution: House of Commons & Programme motion & Programme motion: House of Commons
Tuesday 2nd June 2020 Commons Chamber

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

I am glad to see that the Lord President of the Council is back in his place, because I want to put this on the record in relation to this afternoon’s conduct. We were told we were coming back to the House so that we would have more time for parliamentary and legislative scrutiny, but rather ironically the time we have for this debate has been curtailed by chewing up the best part of two hours to vote. I want to let the Leader of the House reflect on that.

Coming into the Chamber today gave me a sense of déjà vu. That is not because it is the first time I have been back in Parliament since lockdown started, but because I feel that we have been debating boundaries for many years now.

It is genuinely a delight to be Front-Benching today alongside the Minister and the hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Cat Smith), because in the last Parliament the three of us spent what felt like a huge portion of our lives on the Public Bill Committee that considered the Parliamentary Constituencies (Amendment) Bill, which was brought forward by the hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Afzal Khan). I would be willing to wager that it is the only Bill in parliamentary history where all three Front Benchers went away and had children during the consideration of the Bill. However, little Rosamund, Eli and Jessica now have the dubious title of being children of the Parliamentary Constituencies (Amendment) Bill.

While the Bill of the hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton fell during not one, but two Prorogations—one of which was deemed unlawful—it was certainly helpful in setting down a marker for where we are at today. His Bill sought valiantly to fight off plans from the Government to reduce the number of seats in this House from 650 to 600. As many of us argued back then, reducing the number of MPs, particularly with new legislative powers coming back from Brussels, would have been a bonkers proposal and flies in the face of the argument about cutting the cost of politics, particularly given the ever-expanding House of peers along the corridor.

I genuinely welcome the U-turn made by the Government to stick to 650 seats, although I say again to the Government that if they are genuinely interested in constitutional reform and want to slim down the size of the UK legislature, some of us would be very glad to see 59 fewer seats in the House when Scotland becomes independent.

I am glad that the Government have seen sense and abandoned the proposal to cut the number of MPs with the implementation of new boundaries. The boundaries do need reviewing and on that the Minister will find cross-party support. Indeed, my current constituency boundaries have been in place since I was 15 years old, and the constituency has seen significant house building since then. One street in my constituency—Sword Street—has three Members of Parliament. Like the hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood, I disagree profusely with elements of the Bill, and for that reason the SNP will support the reasoned amendment in the name of the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer).

My first and immediate concern with the Bill relates to Scottish representation in the House. As I alluded to earlier, Scotland currently is entitled to 59 seats in Parliament. Although many of us would not wish to see Scotland being governed from London at all, that is the current constitutional reality for now. Based on the proposed electoral quotas, we would probably see Scotland going down by two or three seats to the advantage of England, which strikes me as being wholly unfair.

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

Does my hon. Friend agree that the electoral quotas proposed in the Bill risk reducing representation in rural Scotland even further, particularly in the highlands? I already face a 110-mile round trip to conduct my advice surgeries. My colleagues have to travel on small boats and go to overnight stays to conduct their duties in their constituencies. The quota proposals are a real risk for the representation of people in Scotland, particularly in rural areas.

[David Linden]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point. He has put that on record, and it rather serves to reinforce the view that when legislation is drafted up in the Cabinet Office by Ministers, they take no cognizance at all of the situation in rural Scotland, from where Members of Parliament, such as him and my right hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford), have had to travel for probably the best part of a day to get here—some of that just within their own constituencies. It is a point well made and something that the Government would do well to reflect upon.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Linden]

The one flaw in that argument is that in the last Parliament the Government started with a majority, and the majority disappeared. I do not think it happens to be a bad thing that we put things in front of Parliament, and if Parliament does not want them, it rejects them. I think all of us who served in the last Parliament remember the inconvenience of that and the stress that it caused the Government. I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman, who I understand is a Brexiteer, cannot have his cake and eat it. He cannot say that Parliament is sovereign and Parliament should be taking back control, and then bring forward legislation that removes the role of Parliament. That, I am afraid, is a massive contradiction.

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

I thank my hon. Friend for giving way once again. Under these proposals, the reviews will only be carried out every eight years. That would take no account of cities such as Inverness, which I represent, where we have had exponential growth in the estimated total of population. It is now sitting at 64,000, and only today it has been highlighted in The Inverness Courier as the fastest growing city in Scotland. If that is given away, there is no ability to adjust those things.

[David Linden]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. Again, the Government must go back and look at this matter.

I want to come back to that point about the size of constituencies, because the Bill does not address the fact that it still allows for constituencies of up to 12,000 square kilometres. That is about eight times the size of Greater London, which has 73 MPs, with much more challenging transport links. We will seek to amend that in Committee. I hope the Government will not just use their majority to ram the Bill through, because a majority in Parliament does not mean a monopoly on wisdom.

This Second Reading debate provides an opportunity to comment on the principles of the Bill, which I have now dealt with, but, while we are on this topic, I want to speak more broadly about electoral reform. We have the opportunity now to look again at some of the injustices within our political and electoral system—perhaps we could even call it levelling things up. A new Parliament means another opportunity to test the will of the House on votes at 16, leaving behind the broken first-past-the-post voting system, which, although it has benefited me, is morally wrong and something that we need to look at again. We also need to look at abolishing the tainted House of Lords. These are issues that fall within the remit of the Minister at the Dispatch Box, for whom I have great personal respect. Although we have had disagreements about the merits of reducing the number of seats from 650 to 600, I genuinely believe that she is someone who listens and considers an argument on merit. When she had clearly done that, she came back to the House with a revised number of 650 seats.

Although I accept that the Bill will probably pass Second Reading, I very much hope that, when it goes upstairs to Committee, we can make the necessary changes to ensure that Scotland has proper representation and sensible, up-to-date boundaries that are fit for purpose for so long as we need to be here.