Sir David Amess Summer Adjournment
Debate between Gavin Newlands and Margaret Ferrier
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind)
I thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for the opportunity to speak in this afternoon’s debate, and all the Chairs for the many times they have called on me this year. I thank all the House staff who keep this place running day to day, whether that is the Library, the Table Office, or the kitchen staff who provide sustenance over the long sitting days—we are all grateful. It is hard to believe that this is the second year that we are holding this debate without its now namesake and star contributor, Sir David Amess. He was certainly a hard act to follow, and even in his absence today, that remains the case. He was an exceptional MP, someone who showed me great kindness, as I know he did for many colleagues.
There are lots of things I want to speak about. The first is a case that was opened by my office in August 2021 following the withdrawal from Afghanistan. My constituent was desperately trying to help his young wife leave Kabul—I spoke about this case many times in the Chamber. She is the daughter of a translator who worked for the allied troops, and was in immeasurable danger. There are some cases that you cannot help but form an emotional attachment to, and for my team, this was one of them. As such, when we found out last month that the young woman had finally reached Scotland after almost two years, countless letters to countless Ministers and hundreds of calls to UK Visas and Immigration, there was enormous relief.
I have taken many an opportunity in this place to criticise the Home Office and its processes, but today I want to give some praise. The change to an account management system for Members has transformed the relationship my team has with the Department, with open and honest dialogue about cases now being the norm. I am grateful that the majority of cases my team takes to the Home Office these days are resolved within a reasonable timeframe.
The thing about casework is that Members never know what is going to land on their desk next. Some cases are straightforward, some are frustrating to resolve, and some are a little bizarre, but every single one of them relates to a real person facing a real problem that is having a detrimental effect on their life. Even during the busiest periods, it is so important that we do not start looking at casework as a numbers game. That, I am proud to say, is something that my team and I are always keenly aware of. There are some cases where we do not even know where to start in order to resolve it, such as the one that had my chief of staff calling around registry offices in Mexico to track down a marriage certificate on behalf of a couple who contacted me with a visa issue when they were moving overseas. Despite having a very short timescale to work on, we managed to pull off a great result for them.
Some cases seem like they should be straightforward but getting the right result is harder than it should be. My office and I do not admit defeat easily, though, which is how one of my team managed to secure £4,173.28 in backdated pension credit for a constituent, along with a £100 goodwill payment.
Some cases are complex by nature, because we are limited by the provisions of Government policy, and only a change in policy and legislation will provide the support a constituent needs. There is no better example of that than the green deal mis-selling scandal, which was widespread in Scotland and has had long-lasting, hugely devastating effects on many households, impacts that were worsened tenfold by the soaring cost of energy over the past year or two. I still have open casework relating to that scandal, but very little recourse is available to those constituents. I have written to Ministers and met with a number of them, but unfortunately there is little appetite to reopen the cases. The ones left, those that were not resolved by the initial response to the scandal, are the ones that will not be easy to fix. Instead, some victims have had to take their case to tribunal, and my constituents now have to wait for the outcomes of those cases. I will continue to advocate on their behalf, though; I will not accept that there is nothing Ministers can offer.
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
Does the hon. Member share my disgust that, years after I was told by Ministers in this place that they were quite willing to accept that all Helms customers had essentially been ripped off and should be recompensed, we are still waiting for compensation for our constituents?
Margaret Ferrier
I could not agree more. A lot of us have been fighting for those affected by green deal mis- selling. Unfortunately, Helms did not get its comeuppance.
Child Maintenance Service-related casework has also dominated a lot of time in my office this term. A short while ago, I was delighted to bring two of my constituents to an all-party parliamentary group meeting, where they spoke about their experiences with the system and the difficulties it has caused them. Letting someone explain in their own words how the system has failed them can be very powerful. Some CMS cases have been open with my office for two years or so, and not for lack of effort to get them resolved. I am pleased to say, however, that the longest standing case was recently resolved, with a constituent finally being allowed to move to collect and pay after years of her ex-partner refusing to keep up with payments. Perseverance is key in many of these cases—never taking no for an answer—because I recognise that ultimately it is the children who lose out.
There is another kind of inquiry that every Member gets from constituents—often hundreds every month, spanning a broad spectrum of issues. I am of course talking about lobby emails. I have always been clear that any constituent who writes to me will get a response, so every one of these emails relating to any policy is read and gets a personal answer—over 1,200 since the start of this year alone. No matter the issue, be it the cost of living, the minimum wage, pensions, or perhaps the sale of live lobsters on Amazon, or new classifications and restrictions on imported reptiles, wherever possible I take my constituents’ concerns and turn them into action. Sometimes I send a letter to the Minister responsible; sometimes, if the opportunity presents itself, I raise it here in the Chamber, as I did the “Boys Need Bins” campaign, which aims to improve the provision of sanitary bins in male public toilets and to remove the stigma around male incontinence.
When a constituent asked me, following her father’s bicycle accident, to raise the importance of wearing a helmet on the roads, I did so during a recent session of business questions. Constituent requests dictate the majority of my diary even when I am down here in London, attending specific debates at their request or dropping in at parliamentary events to hear more about particular issues. They elected me to make their voice heard, and that is what I strive to do every day I am here.
One of the most rewarding aspects of this job is seeing the impact our work has on real people and spending time with our local communities. I had a lovely time at two big constituency events recently, starting with Landemer day in Rutherglen. A long-standing traditional gala day, it was wonderful to see young Rutherglen High School student Ruby crowned the Landemer queen, supported by her court and the many attendees on the day. I also enjoyed Summerfest in Cambuslang earlier this month, although, sadly, it looks as though that may be the final one, after a quarter of a century. Organisers Liz and John and the event committee have done their community proud, and I know that I am not alone in my appreciation of their hard work over the years.
There was set to be another community fun day event in Hillhouse this year, but unfortunately, thanks to a group of youths, the community council now has a mountain to climb to make it happen. The youths broke into the storage unit where donations for the local food bank and equipment for the fun day were being stored and set it on fire—a deliberate act of destruction, just for the sake of destroying something. Thousands of pounds-worth of equipment used for the benefit of the community now needs replacing. The community council has my full support, and I hope it can reach its fundraising target. Unfortunately, antisocial behaviour seems to be an issue in many parts of the constituency at the moment. That has been voiced to me by many small businesses in the area. It is not abnormal to see a rise in that behaviour over the summer months as schools break up and good weather pushes more people outside. I find myself speaking to local police officers about it often, and I place on record my thanks to the local inspectors for my area, who have engaged openly and regularly with me and my team. I also wish to place on record my thanks for the hard work of the Royal Burgh Of Rutherglen, Cambuslang, Halfway, Hillhouse, Blantyre, Burnside and Meikle Earnock Community Councils, which do so much work for the residents in the local area. It is very much appreciated by me and many of my constituents.
I have five more thanks to give today, and I have saved the best for last. As Members of the House, we all know how important it is that every member of our staff cares about our constituency as much as we do. After all, we could not do our jobs effectively without their support behind us. I can say with absolute confidence that every member of my staff has the same passion for the work and the people we serve as I do, so I take this opportunity to thank Kim Glendenning, Natalie Burgess, Gillian Mair, Hannah Nicol and Rowan Clark for their continued dedication, loyalty and hard work for the constituents of Rutherglen and Hamilton West. I will come to a close now. I am surprised I was called so early, so thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I wish every colleague across this House, members of staff and House staff a restful summer break.
Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation
Debate between Gavin Newlands and Margaret Ferrier(1 year, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind)
Welcome measures in the Budget include enhanced tax relief rates for some life sciences research and development-focused SMEs, to help incentivise investment in R&D, and the extension of the reduced fuel duty rate has been welcomed by the logistics and haulage industries. Among the not-so-welcome measures is the 10.1% tax hike on Scotch whisky, meaning that on the sale of an average £15.22 bottle, £11.40 will be taken to the Treasury through tax. This is an enormous blow for the spirits industry, significantly reducing its already tight profit margins in a move that the Scotch Whisky Association has noted breaks previous ministerial commitments to review alcohol duty to ensure that the tax system supports Scottish whisky.
In a post-Brexit context, protecting businesses and positioning them in the best possible way is of vital importance when it comes to successful trade deals. We need trade deals that will allow UK industries to prosper and thrive for the benefit of the economy and the public, but that cannot happen if domestic policies are strangling industries. On that note, I welcome the addition of several new sectors to the shortage occupation list, which will help with managing labour shortages in those areas, but reform is still needed to the scheme if it is to be as effective as we need it to be. The hospitality sector, for example, is crying out for support and it needs to be included in the scheme.
For my constituents, though, the cost of living remains the No. 1 concern. The Chancellor’s fiscal policies are still not going far enough to provide households with the support they so desperately need. While he is extending the price cap guarantee, the actual practical financial support is being withdrawn. That means that average households will see a £400 a year increase in their energy costs, which is an increase that many cannot afford. Nationally, around 30% of households could not afford to put the heating on over the winter months; in my constituency it was 45%. Someone who has not lived in poverty and faced these struggles daily cannot truly understand what that means day to day, or what worrying about how they will pay the bills, feed their children and put a roof over their heads does to a person. Statistics cannot paint the picture entirely, but they give a flavour. Nationally, 41% of people said that their mental health had worsened as a result of the cost of living crisis, and in my constituency it was much higher at 55%.
Pensioners, too, were left behind in this Budget. What is essentially a hefty tax cut for a very small number of very wealthy retirees is not enough. Although the state pension is being uprated in line with inflation, it is still not keeping up with living costs. Our main concern, though, is that the Government are considering increasing the state pension age again. Against the backdrop of all this, life expectancy is stagnating, and even falling in deprived communities. We are still waiting for justice for the Women Against State Pension Inequality Campaign, which is a perfect example of why now is not the right time to be making this change, as I hope Ministers will recognise.
We all know there is not an unlimited pot of money to finance everything we would like the Chancellor to announce in an ideal world. However, with living standards so low and with so many households struggling across Scotland and the UK, the Budget could have done more to support the public this Government serve.
Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between Gavin Newlands and Margaret Ferrier(7 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (SNP)
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between Gavin Newlands and Margaret Ferrier(7 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (SNP)
Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between Gavin Newlands and Margaret Ferrier(7 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
2. What assessment the Government have made of the effect of the single-tier state pension on gender equality.
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (SNP)
3. What assessment the Government have made of the effect of the single-tier state pension on gender equality.
Immigration Bill
Debate between Gavin Newlands and Margaret Ferrier(8 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
On Second Reading, I described the Bill as heinous. My experience as a member of the Bill Committee has not altered that impression. The Bill is divisive and disproportionate, and it ultimately lacks a credible evidence base.
The evidence sessions were embarrassing for the Government because the vast majority of the oral and written evidence the Committee received was damning of their proposals. Witnesses from the private, public and third sectors sent the underlying message that the Bill lacks a proper evidence base, is not necessary and is merely being brought about to appease the right wing of the Conservative party and UKIP.
I take issue with part 5, which, among other things, proposes to remove support from those whose asylum applications have been refused. That blanket approach does not allow for the consideration of personal circumstances, nor does it protect families with children. We heard evidence from a number of organisations that voiced concern, shock and deep disgust over part 5, particularly in respect of how it might affect the welfare of children.
In giving evidence, Ilona Pinter of the Children’s Society said:
“We think the risks for children from this provision are very serious indeed. Essentially, it would see families becoming destitute—they would no longer have accommodation and financial support under asylum support. That obviously brings with it a whole range of risks, from families being street homeless to families having to move around, potentially for short periods of time, to stay in potentially unsafe accommodation.”––[Official Report, Immigration Public Bill Committee, 20 October 2015; c. 72, Q165.]
Even Lord Green of Deddington from Migrant Watch, with whom I disagree on almost everything else, agreed that asylum seekers with children whose claim has been refused should be treated differently.
Part 1 sets out ambitions to reduce the exploitation of migrants. However, when individuals and, in particular, parents with children are pushed into a vulnerable situation, they are forced into making rash and desperate decisions that only increase their vulnerability and the dangers they face. Most reasonable people would accept that we have a responsibility towards those who have had their asylum application rejected. Amendment 29 seeks to ensure that we continue to uphold that responsibility.
Amendment 29 seeks to omit all the changes to support that have been made by the Government by removing clause 37 and schedule 8. Assuming that the Government are not minded to accept such a wholesale change, amendment 40 would ensure that some protection exists for the children of the families affected.
The Government have attempted to simplify the support that is provided in the immigration system by moving from two sets of regulations whereby asylum seekers can claim support to four sets of regulations dealing with support by local government and central Government. That is not simplification as I understand it. Under the Bill, local authorities will be legally prevented from providing support to families, including those with young children, when there are
“reasonable grounds for believing that support will be provided”
by Home Office provisions. In practice, that might create dangerous gaps in the system where support is not provided to vulnerable families.
It is worth repeating the horrendous story of the one-year-old boy, EG, who died in 2012, followed two days later by his mother, when they were left in limbo between two different types of support. In responding to that example, the Minister stated that the gap in provision was between support from two different Departments. I accept that, but can he guarantee with absolute certainty that his proposals will result in no gaps whatsoever between the support people receive from central Government and local government?
The changes that are proposed by the Government will create a significant financial and administrative burden for local authorities. The Government claim to have consulted widely, but the Scottish Government and Scottish local authorities were not content with the level of consultation from the Home Office before the introduction of these provisions.
The underlying reason for removing support from failed asylum seekers is to allow the Government to expedite the removal of affected parties.
Margaret Ferrier
As my hon. Friend says, the Bill proposes the removal of support from those who are due to be deported. That will obviously have an impact on the children of the families who are affected. To give some context, is it not the case that this support amounts to just over £5 per day? Removing that bare minimum amount of support will not lead to refused applicants being removed from the UK any quicker. We should support families until they are deported from the UK.
Gavin Newlands
I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. In Committee we tabled an amendment to try to ensure that support was pegged at 60% of income support, which would have increased support by just over £1 a day. It is not a massive amount of money—I am not sure that many Members of the House could survive on just over £6 a day.
Nuclear Warheads (Transportation)
Debate between Gavin Newlands and Margaret Ferrier(8 years, 9 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (SNP)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the matter of transportation of nuclear warheads.
I thank the Minister for being here, and I hope that she can answer some of my questions about the transportation of nuclear warheads. It may come as a shock to many, but nuclear weapons are regularly driven past the homes of millions of people as they snake their way across Britain. Nuclear warheads were transported through my constituency at least three times in the last 18 months: in January and July 2014, and in January 2015. They were moved in large convoys of more than 20 vehicles on the M74 through Rutherglen and across the centre of the city of Glasgow.
On each occasion, they were travelling around midnight. Driving in the dark involves particular risks; the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents has pointed out that drivers are far more likely to fall asleep at the wheel at night. Although only a quarter of all journeys take place between 7 pm and 8 am, 40% of all injuries sustained in accidents occur during this time period.
For several years, the convoys avoided the centre of Glasgow and skirted around the city. Now that restriction has been lifted, and they travel openly on the M74 and M8 through the heart of Scotland’s largest city. Until 2005, nuclear convoys took their time on the long journey from Berkshire to Coulport. Each trip took three days, with two overnight stops. Now the convoys’ journey is continuous, with a crew change halfway and no overnight stops. That means longer stretches on the road, driving at night, driving through urban areas and driving for longer, which all make the dangers of an accident even greater than in the past.
I am aware that the Ministry of Defence will be able to cite numerous safety procedures that are adhered to. I am also aware that the MOD carries out regular safety exercises and will consider its emergency plans to be robustly tested. But accidents can and do happen. In January 1987, in the county of Wiltshire, two nuclear warhead carriers, each transporting two nuclear warheads, came off the road after sliding on ice. One of the carriers suffered damage after rolling on its side. Fortunately, the containerised weapons were not damaged in the incident, but it took 18 hours to recover the damaged vehicle.
The MOD has failed to learn lessons from that accident. It continues to move nuclear weapons in the middle of winter, in icy conditions. At 11 pm on 11 January this year, a convoy drove past a sign on the M74 at Hamilton that said “Winter weather, take care”. It then went through my constituency, across Glasgow and over the Erskine bridge, 45 metres above the River Clyde.
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
Does my hon. Friend agree that there is no better example of the MOD’s blatant disregard for public safety in transporting nuclear warheads than when that convoy crossed the Erskine bridge in my constituency? The Erskine bridge, high above the Clyde, had been subjected to gusts of nearly 100 mph, and high-sided vehicles had been advised not to use the bridge. I cannot imagine a more ridiculous decision, made solely for convenience rather than safety. It is a completely wrong-headed approach to dealing with such a cargo.
Margaret Ferrier
I concur with my hon. Friend. The convoy proceeded despite the high wind warnings flashing on approaches to the bridge. For several days the Met Office had been issuing warnings across the country of high winds or snow. It would not have been possible for the convoy to complete its journey that week without driving at some point through an area where there had been an extreme weather warning.
In addition to the accident in Wiltshire, there have been other accidents: warhead transporters have crashed into each other, a nuclear lorry has been involved in a fatal head-on collision and a convoy has been stranded for hours following a major breakdown. In August 2014, the Sunday Herald newspaper reported that more than 70 safety lapses had occurred on nuclear convoys in the five-and-a-half-year period ending in December 2012. Like many others, I was shocked to learn that such safety incidents have occurred more than once a month on average. In 2012 alone, 23 incidents happened, raising fears that the safety of nuclear convoys might be deteriorating.
In 2005, the same newspaper also revealed an internal MOD report warning that nuclear warheads could accidentally explode if involved in a major crash, because a bomb’s key safety feature could be disabled, leading to what the MOD terms an “inadvertent yield”. That is a rather abstract way of saying that a burst of incredibly lethal radiation would be unleashed. The consequences of an accident could be catastrophic. If there were a major fire or explosion, lethal plutonium would be scattered downwind. Plutonium-241 has a half-life of 24,000 years and is difficult to detect. An accident in my constituency could leave it and neighbouring constituencies a wasteland.
Now it looks as if more convoys than ever will be travelling to and from Scotland. The MOD has a plan to overhaul and upgrade the entire stockpile of Trident nuclear warheads, the Mk4A refurbishment project. Successive Ministers have been coy about telling Parliament about those upgrades. Surely taking all the warheads down to Berkshire and then back to Scotland will mean that we can look forward to an increase in the frequency and size of convoys over the next few years.