Nolan Principles
Scott Arthur Excerpts(1 day, 8 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Seamus Logan
I thank the Member for his intervention, and I will address his point later in my speech.
The Committee on Standards in Public Life noted that
“standards regulators in government are not sufficiently independent”
and that
“government needs to take a more formal and professional approach to its own ethics obligations. To address this, we recommend a number of stronger ethics rules; that standards regulators in government are given a basis in primary legislation; and that government develops a formal compliance function. The arrangements to uphold ethical standards in government have come under close scrutiny and significant criticism in recent months. Maintaining high standards requires vigilance and leadership. The Committee believes our recommendations outline a necessary programme of reform to restore public confidence in the regulation of ethical standards in government.”
Those words, written in the teeth of one of the most corrupt regimes in Downing Street that the country has ever witnessed, still hold true today, more than four years later.
In Scotland, the seven principles have been extended further with two additional requirements:
“Public Service: Holders of public office have a duty to act in the interests of the public body of which they are a board member and to act in accordance with the core tasks of the body.
Respect: Holders of public office must respect fellow members of their public body and employees of the body and the role they play, treating them with courtesy at all times.”
I recommend those additions for wider consideration.
Interestingly, just this summer the former Prime Minister John Major intervened again, telling the current Prime Minister that he needed to crack down on misconduct in politics and citing examples of scandals in political funding, the award of honours, lobbying, “unsavoury” behaviour, bullying and “Partygate”, as well as whole Governments breaking or bending the law and shielding their own colleagues from censure. His suggestions for improvement included asking the House of Lords advisory commission to scrutinise the suitability of political peerages as well as their propriety, about which I shall say more in a minute or two; giving statutory powers to the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments so it can impose sanctions on former politicians and officials who flout time-limited lobbying bans; ensuring that the Government respond swiftly to recommendations from the Committee on Standards in Public Life; new protections to prevent wealthy foreign interests from influencing politics through mega-donations—I understand that a cap on individual contributions is under consideration, which will be of interest to certain Ministers who have already received extensive donations from organisations directly supplying to sectors within their portfolios; and returning the Electoral Commission to its former status as an independent body free of Government guidance.
Labour promised an ethics committee in its 2024 manifesto, and has now, I understand, established an Ethics and Integrity Commission. One might hope that this body will make a significant contribution, ensuring the proper and full application of the Nolan principles. They are intended to apply not only to Members of this place but to those in the other place, and, in fact, to all public servants. But, as Harold Macmillan famously said, “Events, dear boy, events.” I give you the current civil war in the boardroom at the BBC, an organisation for which I have tremendous respect and remain a critical friend. Many feel that this almighty mess may be traced back to the appointments process, which cannot be said to be as we would like it to be.
As for this place, when things go wrong, Government spokespersons tell us that their Ministers do the right thing in these circumstances, but it seems to me that they only do that when they are found out. We have seen an example on this very day. What hurts the most—this is relevant to the point made by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), and I will explain towards the end of my speech why it matters so much—is that this Labour Government have been mired in scandal almost from day one. They have accepted expensive glasses, suits, accommodation and clothing for relatives from wealthy donors. A peer has been allowed privileged access to 10 Downing Street and been involved in appointing advisers. The Prime Minister and the Chancellor have used costly freebie tickets from lobbyists to attend football games or concerts.
Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)
Will the hon. Gentleman give way, on that point?
Dr Arthur
It will be very brief. The hon. Gentleman has mentioned tickets. As he will know, a Scottish Government Cabinet Secretary used a limousine to attend football matches. Surely that does not sit easily with him. Let me also point out that his party’s Government are running Scotland via Holyrood, and things have not always been above board there. I am thinking particularly about very senior members of his party deleting text messages relating to the covid inquiry, which was an absolute disgrace. Will he join me in condemning that action?
Seamus Logan
It always strikes me as very strange that Labour MPs from Scotland who are keen to be elected here spend most of their time talking about events in Holyrood. Why do they not go up the road to the Parliament there?
I was talking about the Prime Minister and the Chancellor. Furthermore, three junior Ministers have been forced out of office as a result of conflicts of interest in housing and entanglement in an overseas corruption case. [Interruption.] Members are chuntering from a sedentary position. They are not watching enough Parliament TV. No one can hear you at home—I beg your pardon, Madam Deputy Speaker; no one can hear them at home.
I can also cite the former Deputy Prime Minister’s resignation over underpaid tax on a second home purchase, and the forced sacking of the former United States ambassador, Lord Mandelson, over his close personal involvement with the late Jeffrey Epstein. What are we to make of the fact that Lord Mandelson still sits in the other place, while the former Duke of York has been stripped of his peerage? Meanwhile, the self-proclaimed invincible Baroness Mone—who, despite admitting to conducting herself in a less than totally honest way in her dealings with the media, and in other ways that, at the very least, fell well below the standards of conduct that we might expect—still has her seat in the other place.
Trust in politics is at an all-time low. In June 2024, four in five Britons said that they were dissatisfied with how they were governed, according to the British social attitudes survey. Other opinion polls show this Government to be the most unpopular in history, with the Prime Minister’s personal ratings at an all-time low—after only 16 months. The Nolan principles are now clearly integrated into the new Public Office (Accountability) Bill, exemplified by the new duty of candour. Duties and obligations are all very well, however, until you are the only person in the room doing the speaking or demonstrating candour.
Sadly, there is still a culture of fear across the public sector, and even in the BBC, in relation to speaking up. Unless the Nolan principles are backed up by proper protection for those who speak up—including a confidential and anonymous reporting platform—whistleblowers will be confronted with a choice: to speak up and potentially lose their career or their job, or to stay silent and potentially fall foul of the law.
An office of the whistleblower would relegate those choices to history and help to reduce or bring an end to the harm to the public. Such an office would be the very embodiment of the Nolan principles. So many of the scandals we have seen could have been prevented or limited if an office of the whistleblower had existed. I hope to join the hon. Member for Wells and Mendip Hills (Tessa Munt) when she meets the relevant Minister in the near future on this point.
To conclude, why does all this really matter, beyond the obvious need for high standards in public office?
China Spying Case
Scott Arthur Excerpts(2 weeks, 2 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Alex Burghart
My right hon. Friend is right: the National Security Adviser showed a great reluctance to attend. I understand that he has now agreed to attend, although the report I read said that he was going to attend in camera. If that report is correct—the Minister has the opportunity to say it is not true—I am not sure that that is the best level of transparency that this House might expect.
The second instance of inconsistency and inaccuracy that we draw attention to is from 7 October, when the Prime Minister told journalists that what mattered in this case was the designation of China as it had been in 2023, when the offences were alleged to have occurred. However, last week, on 24 October, the Director of Public Prosecutions said that that was categorically not the case. He said:
“The test was…positively not what the then Government was prepared to, or did, say in public about China…but rather whether China was—as a matter of fact—an active threat to national security.”
This is a most important point, and one that was revisited yesterday. There is a very serious question about why the deputy National Security Adviser believed that he would
“need to be in line with government policy at the time”,
when the Crown Prosecution Service said that it did not need to know about policy, but about the facts. The Minister should explain to the House why the deputy National Security Adviser chose to ignore the CPS in this case. He should also tell us whether he thinks the deputy National Security Adviser complied with civil procedure rule 35, which requires him to assist the court and overrides any other obligation.
Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)
Perhaps the hon. Gentleman can clarify what is happening here. Is the issue that the Government thought that China was a threat to national security but did not declare it, or that they declared it but China was not a threat? I am quite confused about the point he is making.
Alex Burghart
The hon. Gentleman will have a perfectly good opportunity to question the people responsible in a few moments’ time. The point is that the Government have been unclear, inconsistent and inaccurate, and we are giving them an opportunity to clear this up right now.
Alex Burghart
The previous Government were clear on a number of occasions that China was a threat, but if the hon. Gentleman had been listening to what I just said, he would have heard that the Director of Public Prosecutions said last week that it was categorically not a question of what the last Government said. Now that I have the hon. Gentleman’s attention, I will repeat for his benefit what the DPP said: that the question was
“whether China was—as a matter of fact—an active threat to national security.”
It was not a question of policy; it was a matter of fact. [Interruption.] I am not going to go through it a third time.
Security Update: Official Secrets Act Case
Scott Arthur Excerpts(1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dan Jarvis
Of course, the hon. Lady has a very close personal interest in this case, and it will be well understood by Members across the House why she has expressed concerns today and previously. I am sorry that she does not feel that the Government’s response is adequate, but I assure her that I will endeavour to ensure that this Government do as much as we possibly can to work with her and the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) on this issue, so that she can have confidence that these matters are not able to happen again.
The hon. Lady specifically asked about the démarche I referenced in my statement—it was not an urgent question—on 15 September. As she will know, that was done through the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, but I will come back to her with more details should she wish.
Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for his statement and for introducing some facts to the debate—I can see that some alternative realities have come crashing down.
I want to focus on the future and the Minister’s commitment to protecting democratic life in the UK, particularly through the cyber-security measures. He knows that this will rely, at least in part, on the Computer Misuse Act 1990—if my memory serves me right, the 386 Amstrad was then the best computer we could get. As he knows, many people think that that Act fails to distinguish between malicious actors, state or otherwise, and cyber-security professionals working in the public interest, and perhaps the democratic interest. Will he commit to looking at that anomaly?
Dan Jarvis
I am grateful to my hon. Friend, not least for saying that facts matter—they really do. That is why I have come to the House today, to set out facts so that Members can make a judgment on how they wish to proceed.
My hon. Friend also makes an important point about cyber-security and the ongoing review of the Computer Misuse Act. I can assure him that we take these matters incredibly seriously. In fact, I will have more to say about it shortly.
Official Secrets Act
Scott Arthur Excerpts(1 month, 4 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dan Jarvis
I am grateful to the hon. Member, as I aways am, for the very sensible and reasonable way in which she has made her comments. She raises a number of important observations, many of which I agree with. I do have to say to her what I said to the shadow Home Secretary, which is that it would be completely inappropriate for me to speculate about the reasons why the CPS sought to make this decision. I completely understand why right hon. and hon. Members would ask me about it, but I hope they also understand that I am not able to talk about why the CPS has decided to make this decision. That is very much a matter for it, not for the Government.
On the other points the hon. Member raised, let me give her an assurance that the Government do everything we possibly can to ensure that the UK is a hard target to guard against those malign forces, wherever they may come from, that seek to infiltrate or interfere with our democratic processes. We will ensure that our security and intelligence services and agencies and law enforcement have the necessary tools and resources they need to do the difficult job of guarding against the threats we face. Obviously, as she understands very well, there is also a legislative framework for that, and that is why, I understand, she asked the question about Jonathan Hall KC and the recommendations that she has made recently. As she knows, we have made an absolute commitment that we will legislate as soon as we can, and I give her an assurance that that work continues at pace.
Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for his statement. I think we have a duty—all democracies have a duty—to protect democracy from its enemies. I do not doubt that our allies face exactly the same challenges, so I would be interested to know what discussions we have had with our allies about this very challenge. The Minister mentioned that MPs and their offices would get new guidance. Can he commit to a date for that being issued?
Dan Jarvis
My hon. Friend raises an important point about our allies. Many of the threats and challenges we face are shared ones, which is precisely why the UK Government convened the five countries ministerial conference last week. We were proud to host our allies from the Five Eyes nations, with which we work very closely, along with other important international co-operation arrangements. We do work very closely with our allies to ensure that, collaboratively and collectively, we are best able to guard against the threat we face.
I can give my hon. Friend an assurance that we will seek to ensure that the new guidance is in place as soon possible. I also point to the fact that I wrote to all Members of this House just before the recess with advice on protective security and other matters. However, should any Member feel that they need additional support, we will work very closely with you, Mr Speaker, and the Parliamentary Security Department to ensure that they get it.
National Security Strategy
Scott Arthur Excerpts(4 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Pat McFadden
I have great respect for the right hon. Gentleman, and I thank him for his question. He is absolutely right to draw attention to the importance of technology, which I mentioned in my opening remarks. It is why we have put such stress on having an AI action plan to make this country as strong as possible in this field, and why we have made the investment in the supercomputer at Edinburgh and this time put the money behind it. Such technology is a critical part of our strength as a country and we have significant advantage and expertise in it. One aspect of the document is about ensuring that, where we have an advantage, we invest in it and we make sure that it deepens our capability in those crucial ways.
Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)
I have Dreghorn and Redford barracks in my constituency, so I can only welcome the biggest uplift in defence spending since the cold war. However, many people will be concerned about the cost. I wonder whether there is an opportunity here: if our NATO allies are increasing spending along with us, is there an opportunity for our defence sector to benefit from that, generating jobs and helping to grow our economy?
Pat McFadden
My hon. Friend is right. Decisions to increase defence expenditure are not just about direct spending on the armed forces, but about the supply chain, industrial capability, defence suppliers and, critically, the skills to meet our defence needs. That is why the Prime Minister has referred to a defence dividend. This is not just security policy; it is industrial and skills policy, too.
UK-EU Summit
Scott Arthur Excerpts(5 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister
That is a very good question that the right hon. Gentleman should put to Boris Johnson.
Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)
I absolutely welcome this deal, which puts us on the map as an outward-looking nation again. Above all, the benefits that it brings young people in Edinburgh South West are absolutely worth noting. We know that the deal will bring lower bills for people shopping for food and buying energy across the UK. Based on that, can the Prime Minister understand why the SNP is uniting with Reform and the Conservatives to take an isolationist approach on international trade?
European Union: UK Membership
Scott Arthur Excerpts(7 months, 2 weeks 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
Seamus Logan (Aberdeenshire North and Moray East) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under you, Mr Mundell. I congratulate the petitioners on securing this debate, and I thank the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Paul Davies) for his eloquent and passionate speech.
I fear that I am in danger of picking at the scars and wounds referred to by the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy)—a very learned Member—but I must reflect on these past nine years. On 23 June 2016, the people of Scotland voted to remain within the European Union by 62% to 38%. There was a majority for remain in every single one of Scotland’s local authorities. In anyone’s terms, that was decisive, and if the vote were rerun today, I suggest it would be even more decisive.
It is almost nine years since the disastrous misleading of the electorate by Gove, Johnson, Farage et al., and we might want to consider the extent to which this failure of democracy has increased support for Scottish independence—from 45% to 54% and rising. But still and all, democracy has been undermined in Scotland, because the imposition of the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 restricted the previously agreed powers of the Scottish Parliament and ignored the Sewel convention by proceeding with UK legislation without the consent of the Scottish Parliament.
As a result of Brexit, we are a much poorer nation, at a time when we cannot afford to be poorer. That poverty equates to £3 billion in lost public revenues for Scotland each and every year since we left Europe.
Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)
The hon. Member is of course right to talk about the economic impact of Brexit, but would it have been different if the vote had been won on our joining the customs union—a vote that the SNP abstained on?
Seamus Logan
I cannot comment, as I was not here at the time, but we will come back to the issue of the customs union in a moment.
The UK has endured the highest rate of inflation in the G7 for many months. Brexit has exacerbated the cost of living crisis, driving a £250 increase in annual household food bills. Food and drink inflation in 2023 was at a 45-year high, with food prices up by almost 25 percentage points between 2019 and 2023. Analysis suggests that a third of that increase is due to Brexit, meaning UK households have paid out almost £7 billion to cover the extra costs of overcoming trade barriers that make importing food from the EU harder.
No community has escaped, but inevitably it is our poorest families who are hurting the most. Our business community is also enduring increased costs and damaged trade. According to Scottish Government analysis, 44% of businesses in Scotland face difficulties trading overseas, and named Brexit as the main cause. They face significant additional costs and bureaucracy at a time when their margins are already being squeezed at home by decisions made here in Westminster. Our prized seafood industry has been hit with an estimated 50% increase in the cost of packaging items sent to the EU, and new export health certificates are costing the salmon sector alone approximately £1.3 million per year.
Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under you today, Chair—I notice that you have got younger just in the last few minutes. [Laughter.] I hope it is orderly to flatter the Chair.
Dr Arthur
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Paul Davies) for opening the debate so ably, and the many people in Edinburgh South West who signed this petition. I will speak briefly because what I was going to talk about has been well trod. Brexit has been an absolute tragedy for the UK, both economically and culturally. The Conservatives have taken a share of the blame today, along with Reform and its predecessor parties, but I have to be honest and say that when I think about how close the Brexit result was, I think about my party’s leadership at that time. More could have been done, so some blame should certainly be shared there.
I came to this place last July from higher education, so I want to speak about the impact of Brexit on that sector. I do so in the context of my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I should also mention that Patrick Thomson from the University of Strathclyde is shadowing me today—which so far has largely involved drinking coffee when I drink coffee. In higher education, Brexit has been problematic. Fewer students now come from the EU to Scottish universities. That is primarily not a money issue; it is about the diversity of thought within the classroom. It is a real problem and it leaves us all poorer. It is harder for universities to attract staff from the EU now. If we are serious about growing the economy, we need the best staff from around the world in our universities, and we should not be ashamed of that. I remember when we were going through the Brexit process, EU nationals were leaving universities and going back to Europe. That is a tragedy, and we should be ashamed of it.
Research funding from within the EU has got harder. I know it has improved slightly recently, but during the process it was difficult to build consortiums with a UK lead, and some partners were even worried about having UK universities within their consortiums, so we should not overlook the impact of that. Those problems only amplify the wider economic problems that Brexit has imposed on our economy, and they are felt more inside our university sector. I am pleased that the current Government are trying to rebuild relationships and get as close as possible with Europe. If we are doing that work and looking for trailblazers, that should be done within our universities, because there is much more that can be done to rebuild those relationships.
I support this petition on rejoining the EU as soon as possible, but what does “as soon as possible” mean? My hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy) explained that it could take many years of harmonisation, which is a real challenge for us; however, the bigger challenge is the division and acrimony that comes with referendums, because we would need a referendum to go back in. I have lived through the Scottish independence referendum and the Brexit referendum, both of which divided our communities and were toxic in many respects. They divided families, workplaces and even households, which is incredible. We have to start building the case right now if we are to avoid that situation happening again, and we must make the positive arguments for rejoining the EU. We should start making them from within universities, because that is where international collaboration works best.
I also think that people were not wrong to vote for Brexit, but they were misled, so we have to be honest with them about that. We must explain why things have not unfolded as they were promised by people not in this room today, who should be owning up to the tragedy that they created. We have to be honest, frank and transparent with people, and we have to lead this debate. Hopefully, after the next election, we can build up to that referendum to rejoin.
Pete Wishart (Perth and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John.
I have listened very carefully to all the speeches today. Some were fine; some were perhaps not so fine. And I have to say that I am not entirely sure where we are. I do not know what to make of this debate. I am really confused, and I hope the winding-up speeches will help me to get a better understanding of where the House is.
I say that because I heard Labour say throughout last year’s general election campaign that the only important thing are the red lines. It was all about not joining the single market or the customs union, and that was about it. As the months passed, we started to hear about this reset, and I thought, “Okay, let’s examine this. What does it mean? What are we going to get from this reset?” We have found that it is not very much. For this Government, a “reset” is the EU doing this Government some sort of favour to mitigate some of the impacts of Brexit without the Government giving anything back in return.
People have raised the issues of touring musicians and the youth mobility scheme, with both of which I am particularly associated. I do not know if I have mentioned it before, but I was a rock musician back in the day and toured Europe extensively. These two issues are related, because a negotiation started to happen within the EU. There was a sense that, in return for offering a youth mobility scheme to Europe, we would secure the rights for our artists to tour freely within the European Union once again, and that some sort of creative passport and visa would be given to our bands so they could once again have the pleasure of playing within the European Union. However, that was rejected out of hand. The Government were not interested, and these are their last words when it comes to a youth mobility scheme:
“We do not have plans for a youth mobility agreement.”
I say to Labour Members and colleagues in the Chamber today that I am encouraged by their enthusiasm for the European Union. I take heart from the fact they are starting to talk again about the single market and the customs union. And I say sincerely to them, “Go for it! Please, go for it! You’re our only hope.”
Pete Wishart
I cannot believe we are still debating that. What happened that day, and this is my final word on the issue—the hon. Gentleman was not there, but I was—is that the vote was on a customs union, not the customs union. That proposition was unacceptable to us and other colleagues across the House.
Now I have dealt with that myth, and now it is out of the way, let us get back to the beginning. That was a disappointing intervention, because I am actually praising Labour Members. I am saying that there is hope at last for those of us who want to return to the European Union, and that is great.
Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John. I congratulate Robert McMaster on creating this petition and I thank the 330 residents of my constituency who signed it—putting us in the top 5% in the country.
Five years ago, I gave my final speech in the European Parliament as leader of the Liberal Democrat group of MEPs. In that speech, I described Brexit as “a backward step” and as
“a vanity project that has no basis in reality.”
The fact that none of the four current Reform Members or any Conservatives—apart from the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Fylde (Mr Snowden), who is bravely sitting on his own—is here in the Chamber to defend Brexit speaks volumes.
Leaving the European Union was a significant moment. We left a union of nations that was established to promote peace on our continent, that had seen the dismantling of barriers between nations, and that had enabled trade and cultural ties to flourish. In terms of international co-operation, what the European Union has achieved is second to none in the world. I still believe that we are stronger together and that, as a small island nation, we played a much bigger part on the international stage as one of the key members of that union.
Nobody wants to revisit the division and toxicity of the Brexit debate, which dominated our national discourse for years. I understand the hesitation of the Government even to go there, but we must not forget that that debate was fuelled by misinformation and outright lies about what leaving the European Union would mean for the UK. Ultimately, it was a playground rivalry between two of our now former Prime Ministers that played out on the national stage, with one side never really believing that they would win and the other not preparing the ground for what would be a seismic shift in the way we do business and trade with our nearest neighbours.
I still believe that leaving the EU was one of the worst decisions that this country has made, and it is what brought me into politics. Having sat in this Parliament as a Member for almost exactly the same amount of time as I sat in the European Parliament, I can honestly say that the democratic deficit is not in Brussels. As an Opposition MP in this place, I believe I have less influence over decisions that will affect the people and the economy of my constituency than I did as a Member of the European Parliament. A Government elected by just one in three voters in this country have secured the biggest majority—aside from 1997—since the second world war, and yet they have chosen to set themselves red lines around our relationship with the European Union that continue to thwart growth, hamper economic development and curtail the opportunities of our young people, all of which are unnecessary and deeply damaging to the standing and prosperity of the UK.
There is a fundamental misunderstanding—possibly, a wilful ignorance—by those in Government as to what the British public really want now. I will use the example of Brixham in my constituency. Brixham is one of the major fishing ports in the UK, a place where the community believed the lies that they were told about what Brexit would mean for the fishing industry. When campaigning in Brixham over the past couple of years, I lost count of the number of people who told me that they had been lied to and who felt cheated by Brexit. People who would never have wanted to elect a Liberal Democrat wore the yellow T-shirt with the “Stop Brexit” slogan back in 2019, and they went out to vote for me last year, because they are so angry at what they see as a betrayal of their trust.
Caroline Voaden
I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. People vote Lib Dem for lots of reasons—but maybe they do not think that we will betray them in the same way that the Conservatives did.
Only last week, with many colleagues, I returned to the European Parliament as part of the Parliamentary Partnership Assembly. While there, I heard the Minister for the Cabinet Office, the right hon. Member for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds), refer to research by Aston University that showed that exports to the European Union have fallen by 27% since Brexit. For a Government who want growth, that figure alone should be enough to change their attitude.
That figure is no surprise, however, to anyone who talks to some of the businesses in my constituency. One shellfish exporter tells me that they have to have 17 pieces of paper signed by a vet for every consignment of mussels they export to the EU, making it impossible to trade efficiently with their biggest customer and hampering growth in their business. A small household product retailer has had to end trade with all EU customers because of the new GPSR—general product safety regulation. Delicatessens struggle to cope with the red tape involved in importing smaller shipments of wine and food for the UK, which is the kind of regulations that only big suppliers are able to manage—I am sure that is repeated right across the country. A precision engineering company’s exports have also been badly affected by Brexit red tape—on and on it goes.
Apart from the impact on trade, the opportunities for our young people are being severely curtailed by Brexit. I will not revisit all the arguments that several Members have put forward in this debate, except to say that it is a tragedy that our children and grandchildren will not have the chances that we had—that so many of us had—to go to Europe to develop skills, including cultural understanding and language skills, and to bring all that experience back to the UK. It is high time that the Government agreed a youth mobility scheme with the EU. Last week, I welcomed the PPA agreement that said that the Government understood the need to establish a youth opportunity scheme, including apprenticeships. We all understand the need; let us hope that the Government will go further than that and address it.
Our country has been impoverished by Brexit in so many ways—economically, culturally and politically. I am sure that I am not the only one to be absolutely demoralised by the millions of hours of negotiations that took us out of the European Union, and now, potentially, the millions more that will go into negotiating the piecemeal, bit-by-bit replacements for all the benefits that we lost.
Oral Answers to Questions
Scott Arthur Excerpts(8 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ian Murray
Indeed. The First Minister is all over the place on defence. He has suggested that we should increase the of 2.5% of GDP by scrapping Trident, but that is already included in the 2.5%, so it would make no difference whatsoever. The SNP are not credible at all when it comes to defence in Scotland, and I urge every member of every party in the House to get behind the Prime Minister in our national interest.
Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Kirsty McNeill)
The Employment Rights Bill represents the biggest upgrade of workers’ rights in a generation, banning zero-hours contracts, ending unscrupulous fire and rehire practices, providing day one protections for paternity leave and against unfair dismissal, and improving access to statutory sick pay. With International Women’s Day fast approaching, we should remember that it is working women who will benefit disproportionately from this groundbreaking legislation. That is what change looks like, and that is the difference that a Labour Government make.
Dr Arthur
Residents throughout my constituency welcome the improvements in workers’ rights, but parents are greatly concerned about the impact of the growing gap in attainment in Scottish schools between the richest and the poorest, and what it means for their children’s ability to find their first jobs. This week I have been inundated with comments from parents who are worried about the recent Audit Scotland report on support for children with additional needs; it is a disgraceful report. Can the Minister assure me that she will use whatever influence she has to ensure that the Scottish Government make education a priority?
Kirsty McNeill
My hon. Friend is right to raise the concerns of parents who are worried about how their kids will get good jobs. The SNP has said that a zero- hours contract is “a positive destination” for a school leaver, but this Labour Government will ban such exploitative contracts. Labour’s Budget delivered an extra £4.9 billion for Scottish public services, but after 18 years the SNP still does not see Scottish kids as a priority. It should stand aside, and give Scotland the chance of the new direction that it deserves.
Covid-19 Inquiry
Scott Arthur Excerpts(9 months, 4 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Pat McFadden
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his service to the public during the pandemic, and anybody who worked or volunteered in the NHS or in other ways for what they did. Of course, MPs and the Government must have access to the best information they can, but I remind him of something else I said in my opening statement. In the end, the accountability for policy and resource allocation decisions lies with the Government of the day. I do not say that in a partisan way. It is important to establish it as an understanding of how we deal with these things in future.
Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)
I pass the national covid memorial wall every day on my way to this place. It and the inquiry are a reminder of what happens when Governments get things wrong. I absolutely welcome the announcement of a national pandemic response exercise later this year, but the inquiry found that a similar exercise took place in Scotland under the control of the Scottish Government before the pandemic, and that they failed to implement its conclusions. First, can the Minister reassure us that any outcomes from such an exercise will be reported to this House and that we will have oversight of the implementation of any recommendations? Secondly, I know it is outside the remit of the Minister’s statement, but can he give us an update on the recovery of any money lost through dodgy contracts to the mates of the previous Government?
Pat McFadden
Let me repeat the praise I gave to the volunteers who maintain the national covid memorial wall. Hon. Members may not be aware of it when they look at the red hearts, but over time they fade—they fade to pink. The reason they are kept red is that there is a group of volunteers down there overpainting the hearts to make sure that the wall does not fade away and that the memory of the names recorded does not fade away. The conclusions of the national pandemic exercise will be reported. Predictions are a dangerous game, but let me make one: there will be things that go wrong. Shortfalls will be exposed and not everything will go right, but that is part of the purpose of doing an exercise like this. I am happy to assure him in terms of learning from it and the conclusions.
Plan for Change: Milestones for Mission-led Government
Scott Arthur Excerpts(11 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Pat McFadden
The goals in this document can make a real difference to rural communities. We know that many people in rural communities are worried about rural crime, so more neighbourhood policing can help them. We also know that many young people in rural communities are wondering how they will ever have a home of their own. That is why we support more house building, as well as shorter hospital waiting lists and neighbourhood policing teams, as set out in the document.
Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)
I am the last Member to be called, but I will try not to take too long. I welcome the scale of the ambition in the Secretary of State’s statement, but I challenge what he said about there being only one millstone in the UK. My residents in Edinburgh South West increasingly feel held back by our incoherent Scottish Government. Yesterday was a fine example of that. In the Scottish Parliament, the SNP Government set their Budget—one largely funded by the hard work of Scottish Labour MPs in this place, who secured the biggest ever settlement for Scotland. Meanwhile, SNP MPs in this place voted against our money-raising measures. They want to eat their cake and have it.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. Supplementary questions should be short and not a speech. Perhaps the hon. Member would like to come to the conclusion of his question.
Dr Arthur
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is always good to be guided by you. The Secretary of State set out how living standards will increase right across the UK, and Scotland is part of that. How will he work with the Scottish Government and the incoherent SNP Government to do that?
Pat McFadden
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to point out that the recent devolution financial settlements were the biggest in real terms since devolution was introduced, as a consequence of the announcements made by the Labour Chancellor at the Budget. That provided the funding, and it is completely incoherent to welcome that funding—in fact, to run around saying that it will be spent on this and that—but then to vote against the revenue measures that contribute to it. If we want increased investment and boosted services, we must support the revenue-raising measures that make that possible; and then we have to combine investment with the reform necessary to deliver. That is the next step.