UKPOL.CO.UK

Tag: Kirsty Blackman

  • Kirsty Blackman – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills

    Kirsty Blackman – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Kirsty Blackman on 2016-06-15.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, what discussions he has had with the devolved administrations on implementation of the Apprenticeship Levy.

    Nick Boles

    We are working closely with the Devolved Administrations and Territorial Offices, regularly meeting with officials and Ministers on levy implementation. The last Skills Ministers meeting was in February.

    We want to ensure the levy works for employers wherever they are in the UK and will be publishing further information later this month.

  • Kirsty Blackman – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Scotland Office

    Kirsty Blackman – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Scotland Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Kirsty Blackman on 2015-11-09.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to the Answer of 9 November 2015 to Question 14925, what for reason his Department’s quarterly report of transparency information from July to September 2014 took four months longer to prepare than the report on that information from January to March 2015.

    David Mundell

    I refer the hon Member to my answer of 9 November 2015 (UIN 14925).

  • Kirsty Blackman – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Scotland Office

    Kirsty Blackman – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Scotland Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Kirsty Blackman on 2015-11-09.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to the Answer of 9 November 2015 to Question 14925, on publications, what deadlines his Department places on its publication of transparency information.

    David Mundell

    I refer the hon Member to my answer of 9 November 2015 (UIN 14925).

  • Kirsty Blackman – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Scotland Office

    Kirsty Blackman – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Scotland Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Kirsty Blackman on 2015-11-25.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to the Answer of 4 November 2015 to Question 14206, when he first saw draft copies of his Department’s accounts for (a) July to September 2014, (b) October to December 2014 and (c) January to March 2015.

    David Mundell

    This Government publishes an unprecedented range of data. This represents a significant task for Departments. We remain committed to publishing data in a timely fashion, and further transparency data will be published in due course.

  • Kirsty Blackman – 2022 Speech on Scotland’s Future

    Kirsty Blackman – 2022 Speech on Scotland’s Future

    The speech made by Kirsty Blackman, the SNP MP for Aberdeen North, in the House of Commons on 14 December 2022.

    I am sorry, Mr Deputy Speaker; I was slightly distracted. I was clearly listening to everything that was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands), but unfortunately I missed the last few sentences.

    We are here talking about Scotland’s future, because we are stuck in a constitutional conundrum. We are in a situation that we cannot get out of, because there is no way out of it. That was proven by the Supreme Court judgment, which effectively said, “There is no current democratic way for the people of Scotland to get out of this Union, even if they want to.” Even if the people of Scotland vote for parties that support an independence referendum, as they continually do, there is no way out of the situation without the UK Government’s granting a section 30 order. There is no way out of this voluntary union of nations. We are stuck in this voluntary union whether we like it or not.

    The opposition—that is, both Labour and the Conservatives—seem to think that it is some sort of oddity—an unusual situation—when people in this place are keen to talk about constitutional reform. In some odd way, apparently, SNP Members are the only ones in this House who have any interest in constitutional reform. We have a party in this place that passed the recent Elections Act 2022, which changed the way in which people vote, and is changing the parliamentary constituencies, reducing their number. We have a party that is desperate to abolish the House of Lords—we have heard that before—and a party that previously said that it would abolish the House of Lords. These parties have spent decades tinkering with the constitution, making changes to it, and they are still doing so; they are still talking about the Bill to repeal EU law, and about Brexit and what a wonderful bonus it has been. Those are all constitutional changes.

    The only difference between our party talking about constitutional change and their parties talking about constitutional change is that we are doing so consistently, pointing in the same direction, with all of us standing up and fighting for independence for the people of Scotland. That is the constitutional change we are speaking for with one voice. The fact that we can consistently do so is very different from the warfare that is happening within Better Together about the best way forward for the constitutional future. That is why it riles them so much that we are able to come here and speak with one voice, because we on the SNP Benches act together in supporting Scotland’s right to choose.

    The reality is that, under the UK constitution, Parliament is sovereign—that is the way that it works. That has never worked for us, as colleagues have said; that has never been Scotland’s constitutional set-up. Our set-up is that the people of Scotland are sovereign. The people of Scotland are the ones who have the right to choose our form of government; the people of Scotland are the ones who should be making this decision, and we should not continue to be stymied by Westminster.

    I want to talk about ducks. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) for mentioning the duck test. He has said that there is a duck test in relation to the referendum, which is apparently the position of the Conservative Front-Bench team: if it looks like it is time for a referendum and it sounds like it is time for a referendum, it is time for a referendum. I hope Mr Deputy Speaker will not mind my saying that the Conservative party does not have a very good track record on determining whether or not something is a duck, because if it looks like a party and it sounds like a party, it is in fact a work event. If it looks like a drive to Barnard castle and it sounds like a drive breaking covid rules, it is in fact completely legitimate and perfectly normal for people to do that—[Interruption.] An eyesight test, indeed, and definitely not against covid rules.

    I have some questions for the Minister about his plan for how Scotland could choose to determine its constitutional future, and exactly what he has said about this issue. To move away slightly from the duck test, he has said that we need all of the parties and civic society in Scotland to come forward in order to have a referendum. Thinking back to the Brexit referendum, is it possible that not all of the parties supported having such a referendum? Is it possible that that dramatic constitutional change was not supported by every single party in this House? I think it is possible that that was the case—that every party in this House did not come together and support constitutional change. I assume that prior to the Scottish Parliament election in 2011, the Scottish Conservative and Unionist party did not put in its manifesto that it would support an independence referendum. It is incredibly odd for the Minister to suggest that there should be support from every party. Does he mean the Labour party, the Conservatives and the SNP? Does he mean the Labour party, the Conservatives, the SNP and the Lib Dems? Does he include Plaid, the SDLP and the DUP? Would every party across the UK need to have a referendum on Scottish independence in their manifesto in order for that referendum to happen? What does he mean by “every party”? Does he really mean it? It would be great if he could provide some answers. Does he mean every party that gets over a certain percentage of the vote? If so, what is the threshold? Would they have to have it in their manifestos or simply have to make the agreement afterwards?

    Douglas Ross

    Will the hon. Lady give way?

    Kirsty Blackman

    I am not going to give way.

    On the Scottish Parliament, the Scottish Government and the decisions made by them, I was confused to hear Front-Bench Government Members talking about devolved matters, given that they have chosen to be elected to Westminster. They put themselves forward as Westminster parliamentarians when they knew that such issues were devolved. It got even more bizarre when the hon. Member for Moray (Douglas Ross) stood up. Does he realise that he is in the wrong Parliament? Does he realise that he could ask those questions in his other job?

    Douglas Ross

    Will the hon. Lady give way?

    Kirsty Blackman

    Absolutely.

    Douglas Ross

    I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way; I have been trying to intervene for some time. I want to take her back to her point about what things look like and what they are in reality. Can she tell us what it looks like when the chief executive of her party gives a personal donation of £107,000? What is that in reality?

    Kirsty Blackman

    The Conservative party talking about donations! We have seen £29 million go to somebody who took the VIP covid lane—people in that lane have private jets. The Conservative party agrees that the taxpayer can pay the bills for the former Prime Minister’s defence against allegations of having a party during covid, so I do not think it has any ground to stand on.

    There has been talk about the powers of the Scottish Parliament and how it is managing. The reality is that we do not have all the flexibility over our finances that we should have. Even the Labour party is not suggesting devolving workers’ rights, which seems most bizarre given the continued attack on workers’ rights and trade unions by the Conservatives. If we devolve those rights to Scotland, we will not be doing that to trade unions.

    The Scottish Parliament has to subsist on the fixed budget given to us, over which we have no flexibility. As my hon. Friend the Member for Angus (Dave Doogan) said earlier, it is like trying to set a table when all we have is spoons. We cannot make all the decisions we would like to make if we continually have to mitigate Tory policies and exist on whatever budget the UK Parliament decides is relevant for Scotland when it is unwilling to give fair pay deals to public sector workers.

    We are stepping up and making the change—mitigating the bedroom tax and the rape clause and doing all we can in Scotland with our second anti child poverty strategy, which is making a massive difference. We have increased the Scottish child payment and widened the eligibility massively. All those things are making a difference to the lives of people in Scotland, but we do not have full control over them. The issue is about the democratic right of the people of Scotland to choose their own future. Westminster is doing everything it can to sink this ship and go harder and harder in support of policies that make Scottish independence all the more likely. We need that route out of this Union. This is a democratic trap that we are shackled in and we cannot get out of it. The UK Government have failed to give us that route. That is why we are here today arguing for the future for our constituents.

  • Kirsty Blackman – 2022 Speech on the Finance Bill

    Kirsty Blackman – 2022 Speech on the Finance Bill

    The speech made by Kirsty Blackman, the SNP MP for Aberdeen North, in the House of Commons on 28 November 2022.

    We have Schrödinger’s Finance Bill. For a while, there was no Finance Bill. Then yes, there was going to be one. Then, no, there was not going to be one. Now, finally, we have come to the decision that the cat is alive and the Finance Bill is here before us.

    I am old enough to remember Philip Hammond standing up and being very clear that there would only be one fiscal event in a year, that we would move to having an autumn statement and that would be the fiscal event, and that the spring statement would only be a statement and an update. I would be the first to admit that this year has gone somewhat wrong, so there are some excuses for having a different scenario this year, but I am keen to know what the intention is. Do the Government intend to have one major fiscal event a year, or are they planning to have more than one? If we are going to have a spring statement next year that will, presumably, from what was said earlier, have a Finance Bill attached, will we also be having one in the autumn next year? Will we have an additional one in September that will crash the economy? One would hope not. It would be good to know what the plans are.

    We heard from the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western), in quite a lot of detail, comparisons of the UK’s economy and economic state with that of many other countries. He laid out the figures nicely, which saves me from doing the same thing; I will not repeat what he said. What he said makes it clear that there is a unique issue here. Something is happening in the UK that is not happening in other places, apart from Russia, where there are sanctions, and it is understandable that the Russian economy is not in the best of states. What could possibly be happening to the UK economy? What is it—what uniquely is happening?

    I keep wondering what has happened to this Brexit bonus. If our economy is so much better as a result of Brexit—if that has massively helped our economy, and many Brexiteers have made it clear over many years how much of a good thing it would be for the UK economy —can the House imagine the state we would be in if Brexit had not happened? Can the House imagine how dreadful things would be if we had not seen this Brexit bonus, which has still left us somehow, unexplainably, in a worse economic condition than has happened with other countries? I am baffled by this scenario.

    We have been hit by a major number of issues. It is absolutely the case that the war in Europe—Putin’s illegal invasion—has had a major impact, and it has also had a major impact on other economies across the EU and the world. It has had an impact not just on energy prices, but on the price of food, for example. All those countries are seeing prices increase, yet none of them is struggling with growth in the way that the UK seems to be. None of them is seeing the level of recession predicted for here, and it is entirely down to Brexit and the decision-making processes of this UK Government. It is also down to the choices made earlier this year, which failed to take into account the scenario we are in. They failed to listen to the situation facing our constituents.

    It is all well and good for Government Members to stand up in the Chamber and talk about the importance of growth—I will not for one second deny that growth is important, but if growth means that rich people get richer and people in Aberdeen and our constituencies still cannot afford to buy rice and pasta, that growth is not worth it. It is not worth it to see people get unimaginable amounts of money. Some £29 million in profits from personal protective equipment is an unbelievable amount of money for somebody or a family to get. Most of my constituents and most people across the UK will never see anything like that money in their entire lifetimes, yet it seems to be acceptable to the Government—while the fact that my constituents and people in Aberdeen, across Scotland and across the UK cannot afford to pay for the very barest of necessities is not remarked upon, is not mentioned and does not seem to be happening.

    The Conservative Government keep talking about how much they care about vulnerable people—it has been mentioned a number of times—but that is not borne out and it is not what is happening on the ground. People’s lives are not being improved as a result of the decisions being made by those on the Government Benches. We are not seeing people better able to afford their energy bills; their energy bills are still significantly more than they were this time last year. The benefit cap still needs to grow massively to keep pace with its 2013 levels. The childcare allowance included within universal credit is at the same level it was when it was first introduced, when universal credit first started. It has never been increased. These are decisions that could be made that would make a difference to my constituents’ lives on a daily basis, but they are not being made.

    We will not get our way out of this with innovative jam. That is not how it will work. We need to ensure that those who need it most—the people who can afford the increases least—are the ones being targeted by Government support and receiving the funding to help them to afford the basic necessities: food, clothing for their children and energy to get them through this winter. That is why the decision-making processes of the Scottish Government have been the way that they have.

    As my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) pointed out, the UK Government have talked about the additional money from Barnett consequentials, but that does not assist people this year, because of the constraints on the Scottish Parliament’s budget and because of the decisions taken by the UK Government. It will not help us to work on our second child poverty action plan, which we are now in the process of doing. We have put tackling child poverty at the forefront of what we are doing in Scotland. The eligibility of the Scottish child payment increased again the week before last, so more children in more families can get it than ever before.

    We in the Scottish Government are targeting our support there, because that is where we feel that we need to make the most difference. We need to ensure that children are not living in poverty or in cold homes that their parents cannot afford to heat. We need the UK Government to step up, and not in an empty way by saying that there is an extra £1.5 billion—I do not know—in Barnett consequentials over two years, because that is not helpful. We need the money now—my constituents need the money now—to afford to get through the winter.

    Another thing that has been mentioned is that hon. Members regularly use the term “hard-working people”, which is one of my biggest bugbears. When Conservative Members talk about hard-working people, they are talking about people earning £40,000 or £50,000 a year; they are not talking about people working in minimum-wage jobs. When they say that hard-working people have to pay higher taxes in Scotland than the rest of the UK, they are failing to recognise that we have an additional lower-rate tax band that means that people on the lowest incomes pay less in Scotland, and they are denying that people on the lowest incomes are hard-working people. It is the case, however, that a significant proportion of people on universal credit are in work. Just because someone is in receipt of social security does not mean that they are not hard working or that they are less deserving than people earning an awful lot of money from dividend incomes or other sorts of unearned income.

    Stats came out earlier this year about the level of sanctions on people receiving universal credit, which said that there had been a monthly increase in the total amount of reductions being levied—money taken back from individuals who are claiming universal credit. Right now, the Department for Work and Pensions should not be trying to increase the amount of money that it is clawing back from people in receipt of universal credit.

    We already have the issue that, when the DWP decides to make debt reductions from people’s universal credit payments, it does that not on the basis of whether those receiving universal credit can afford it, but on the basis of an arbitrary 25% threshold. As a result of DWP actions and the failures of the UK Government, we will have a situation where people cannot afford to heat their homes or feed their children purely because of the reductions that are being made to their income.

    I have harped on about immigration several times. A number of years ago—I am a veteran of many Finance Bills—the former Chancellor George Osborne stood up and spoke about public sector net debt. In fact, his Red Book that year talked about it specifically and made it clear that an increase in net migration to the UK reduces public sector net debt. By trying to do everything they can to reduce immigration, therefore, the UK Government increase public sector net debt.

    The UK Government could decide that one of the best ways to do something about the lack of growth and the amount of debt, about which they are concerned, would be to encourage people to come and live here, and to make that easier. Instead, my constituent is going to move away from the UK because he cannot get a visitor visa for his family to come and visit, so he is fed up and has had enough. As a software engineer, he is somebody who we need to have and whom we should be encouraging to stay; we should not be as obstructive as possible in our decisions.

    The UK Government have also failed to tackle—in fact, they have gone out of their way to oppose—our climate change ambitions and targets in this Finance Bill. We are looking at issues in relation to electric cars, as was mentioned earlier, and allowances for oil and gas companies to extract more oil and gas, rather than the allowances that could be given to companies to develop renewable electricity. The electricity generator levy is also being levied on people who are producing renewable energy, which is the kind of energy that we need. We cannot talk about COP only once a year when it is COP26 or COP27—it should be threaded through every single decision that we make.

    We have heard about R&D credits and tax reliefs, which I do not have a problem with in principle, although I am concerned that we need to see whether they work. I do have a problem, however, with how decisions are made to give people R&D tax credits. When the UK Government created the Advanced Research and Invention Agency, why did they refuse point blank any amendments that would have put tackling climate change at the heart of its decisions? We said that it should be climate neutral and that the Government could lead the way with a brand-new Government agency working on a net zero basis, but they refused. We said that they could convince or ask it to focus on innovations and inventions that tackle climate change, but they refused to do that, too.

    We need to see an actual effort made—actual things done and decisions taken—to ensure that we tackle climate change and meet our net zero ambitions. If we could meet our net zero ambitions even earlier than we have proposed, that would be the best thing for the planet, rather than trying to push things until the last possible moment. We cannot just ignore climate change and pretend that it is not happening—it is!—so it should be in every Government statement, and the Government should talk about the effect on climate change of every spend that they decide to make. The decisions in the Finance Bill take us backwards rather than forwards.

    The Scottish Government are supporting a just transition in Scotland with £500 million of funding to ensure that we move away from the reliance on fossil fuels that we absolutely have in the UK, particularly in Aberdeen, where there are a huge number of jobs in oil and gas. We need to support a transition that is just and fair for my constituents and for people across the UK. We need to ensure that people in oil and gas are given, or have the opportunity to move into, high-earning jobs in the new industries of the future that do not cause an increase in climate change.

    Austerity has been levied on the poorest people for years. Conservative Governments have consistently made decisions at the expense of our worst-off constituents. I have never been less optimistic about the future for the poorest people in the UK than now—not even through the Brexit process and decision-making. The Government have shown no willingness to understand the genuine dire straits that people are living in, to take action on that, and to prioritise the most vulnerable people—not just to say it, but to actually do it—by looking at the universal credit system and the decision-making process to ensure that people can afford rice and pasta, and to heat their homes. How is it that we have to be asking that in 2022? How is it that we have to be living in a situation where the next generation are currently set to be poorer than our generation? We have that lack of optimism, and this Conservative Government continue to hammer that home, rather than attempting in any way to make it better.

    That outlines very clearly the difference between the two Governments. The difference is that the Scottish Government are doing everything they can, with their very limited powers and limited ability to do anything in-year with their budgets, to try to make life better for those struggling the most, and this UK Government are continuing to refuse to do so.

  • Kirsty Blackman – 2022 Speech on Social Security Support for Children

    Kirsty Blackman – 2022 Speech on Social Security Support for Children

    The speech made by Kirsty Blackman, the SNP MP for Aberdeen North, in Westminster Hall on 23 November 2022.

    I thank you, Sir Christopher, for chairing the debate today. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Ms Qaisar) on bringing forward the debate and I thank all hon. Members for taking part.

    My hon. Friend made some points about individual organisations in her constituency. I absolutely agree that we should thank those organisations for all the hard work they do, because they are absolutely necessary, but we can do that at the same time as saying they should absolutely not be necessary. It was good to hear about Paul’s Parcels and the work that my colleague is doing to support those organisations and the eradication of poverty in her constituency. I hope that all hon. Members are doing what they can in their constituencies, as well as putting pressure on the UK Government to try and ensure a sufficiency of social security.

    Social security is about security; it is about having a secure situation where people can have positive mental health—the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) talked about people’s mental health—rather than spending every moment worrying about whether they are going to be able to feed their children tomorrow, next week or next month, and whether they will be able to afford food. We need the social security system to work and provide the safety net that it is supposed to. After a decade of Tory Government, it continues to fail and it is not getting better.

    I have less optimism now for the futures of my constituents than I have ever had at any point in this job and in my previous job as a city councillor. In about 15 years in an elected role, I have never seen the levels of hardship that I see coming through the door in my constituency office, on the news and in our communities. This has not happened before.

    The problem is that there is no light at the end of the tunnel right now, no matter what the Government have announced in terms of inflationary upgrades, for example. As the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Margaret Ferrier) mentioned, that is a temporary measure; it is not permanent and does not provide the level of structural reform people need to afford to live. What could be more important than ensuring that kids are fed and warm? There is nothing more important.

    Our Scottish Government are now into their second child poverty action plan. We had “Every child, every chance”, which ran from 2018 to 2022; we now have “Best start, bright futures” from ’22 to ’26. These plans are about putting tackling child poverty at the heart of the decision-making processes of the Scottish Government. I do not think it is too much to ask that the UK Government replicate that, and say that they care about eradicating child poverty, and therefore will have a strategy to do that and make it a central aim of their plans.

    David Linden

    More fundamental to that, though, would be if the UK Government could even start measuring child poverty, which is part of the issue. Yes, it would be great if they had a strategy to deal with it—that would be absolutely fantastic—but does my hon. Friend agree that it is alarming that the Government do not even measure child poverty? They do not realise the scale of it, other than by measuring it anecdotally, as I am sure the Minister does in his Hexham constituency when people come through the doors at his surgery on a Friday morning.

    Kirsty Blackman

    I agree. The fact that the Government are unwilling to even measure child poverty shows the lack of importance they give to this issue. If they cared as much about it as they should, they should be willing to explain, “This is what the current situation is. This is the measurement. This is how bad it is. This is how many people are suffering and how many children are in poverty in the UK in 2022”—in the UK in 2022! How can we be saying this? The UK Government need to stand up, hold up their hands and say, “This is the current situation and this is how we are going to improve it.”

    I want to set out a few specific asks, some of which have been made already. As my hon. Friend the Member for Airdrie and Shotts mentioned, 87% of those affected by the benefit cap are families with children. The benefit cap would need to increase by £942 to reverse the loss since 2013. Despite the fact that the Government are looking to increase it, this is only the fourth time that social security payments have risen with inflation in 10 years. If we in Scotland can find an extra £25 a week in order to provide the Scottish child payment, the UK Government, with their far vaster budget and flexibility in dealing with their fiscal situation, can surely afford to do the same. They can afford it, but they choose not to match the payments we are making in Scotland.

    There is the issue of the sufficiency of social security. One in four people on social security skipped meals this summer. That was in the summer—before the additional price cap increase on electricity and gas; before the upcoming winter months when people will need to put their heating on; before people had to buy school uniforms for their children when school started again in August or September. That situation is set only to get worse, and the promise of a temporary increase in universal credit will not fix it. There is currently no way out of this. We have no certainty that there is not going to be a cost of living crisis next year. Certainly none of my constituents has that level of certainty.

    Let me turn to the issue of debt repayment deductions that are made from universal credit and other benefits. We have a situation where the UK Government can take 25% off the standard allowance to reclaim debts. Sometimes, those debts are caused by overpayments that are no fault of the person, but entirely the fault of poor decision making in the DWP or job centres. To be fair, that does not happen all the time; I am just saying that sometimes it is an issue.

    If the UK Government have done an assessment of social security payments and believe them to be sufficient—that people can afford to live on them—how can they justify putting in place a benefit cap or taking 25% off the standard allowance? They are saying, “This is what we believe is sufficient for people to live on, but we are just going to take a quarter of it away.” It does not make any sense. People already cannot afford to live on the social security payments they are receiving. When the amount people are getting each month is reduced because of those reductions or the benefit cap, it is even less sufficient. Again, the conditionality and sanctions in place reduce that basic minimum level of payment that people should be entitled to.

    Jim Shannon

    The hon. Lady makes an interesting point. There have been occasions where overpayments have been made to my constituents. The money has to be paid back, and they understand that. Reducing payments by 25% is very unfair. In the past, my staff and I have managed to negotiate a reduction of 10%. That option is more manageable and should be given to the person at an early stage. Does the hon. Lady feel that is the right way forward?

    Kirsty Blackman

    I am glad that the hon. Member has managed that on behalf of his constituents. That is actually not the preferred route that I would take. I would prefer to look at whether people can afford payments rather than coming up with an arbitrary percentage, which is the UK Government’s preferred choice. I would look at affordability. How much are their outgoings and incomings? Can they afford to make the debt repayments? That is what we do, and when organisations like StepChange are managing debt, they look at whether people can afford it.

    David Linden

    In my time working for Glasgow Credit Union before I was a politician, one of the things we regularly had to do when determining whether someone was eligible to borrow loans was calculate their debt ratio. Although that is required by the Financial Conduct Authority and imposed on things like credit unions, part of the problem is that the DWP does not routinely look at people’s income and expenditure. Does the hon. Member agree that the Minister should look at a debt ratio when making these decisions?

    Kirsty Blackman

    I absolutely agree. That is the way this should be taken forward, rather than setting an arbitrary percentage—whether it is 25%, 10% or whatever level. It should be done on the basis of affordability, and a debt ratio would be the preferred method; it would make sense.

    One thing that I do not think has been mentioned yet is those people with no recourse to public funds. They are not in receipt of social security payments or the vast majority of payments that are available to others. We are seeing the most drastic and extreme levels of poverty experienced by some of those families, particularly refugee and asylum-seeking families. We are seeing children and families who literally cannot afford any food, and I just cannot believe that the UK Government are unwilling to make any change to the system of no recourse to public funds, because what people are going through is horrendous.

    The UK Government stand up and say, “Oh well, it’s fine. They can just go home to whatever country they came from.” Generally, people who are here having made an asylum or human rights claim are here because it is worse in the country they came from and because their children are in danger if they go back. In fact, no recourse to public funds sometimes applies to people who are stateless—they have no country to go back to. It is a horrendous situation, and the UK Government need to fix it.

    Ms Qaisar

    My hon. Friend is making an excellent contribution. On that specific point, I recently visited Manston and saw harrowing scenes of a tent full of families with young children. Those kids should have been playing in nursery; they should have been in a safe area. Instead, they were with dozens of other children in one tent. Does my hon. Friend agree that the wider issue at play is that the UK Government are spending their time othering communities? They are pitting communities against one another—whether they are refugees, working class, gay, lesbian or trans—when in actual fact we should all be uniting and campaigning to get that lot of Conservatives out.

    Kirsty Blackman

    I absolutely agree; I could not have put it better. No matter where they were born, the colour of their skin, their religion, their sexuality or gender identity, those children and families deserve a basic level of human dignity and fairness. That point about dignity, fairness and respect was made earlier. The UK is, in all our names, failing to provide that. It is choosing to make a differentiation between those people who are in slightly different communities and to treat them differently, and it is therefore trying to make that okay.

    In Scotland, we are putting wellbeing at the heart of what we do. We are one of the founding members of the Wellbeing Economy Alliance. We are not choosing to levy austerity on the most vulnerable people in our society; we are choosing to provide respect, dignity and fairness. We are choosing to provide as much as we possibly can within our limited budgets. Our five family payments, including the Scottish child payment, can be worth over £10,000 by the time a first child turns six, and £9,700 for subsequent children. That compares to £1,800 for an eligible family’s first child in England and Wales, and under £1,300 for subsequent children. The difference is £8,200, and it highlights the Scottish Government’s major support in the early years for low-income families.

    This is an incredibly important debate. We need a social security safety net that works. I would rather our social security system accidentally pay the few people who are not eligible—who do not meet the criteria—than miss any one child who should be receiving those security payments and that Government support. The ideological choice that I and the SNP would make is to put dignity, fairness and respect at the heart of the decision-making process. We need to make sure that children are not in poverty, and that our guiding mission and our choices go towards eradicating child poverty.

  • Kirsty Blackman – 2022 Speech on Scottish Independence and the Scottish Economy

    Kirsty Blackman – 2022 Speech on Scottish Independence and the Scottish Economy

    The speech made by Kirsty Blackman, the SNP MP for Aberdeen North, in the House of Commons on 2 November 2022.

    When I joined the SNP more than 20 years ago, I did so because I wanted Scotland to become an independent country. I believe that the people of Scotland should be able to make the important decisions on the issues that matter to us. It was not all that long after the reopening of the Scottish Parliament, and devolution was still finding its feet. It was also not that long after we had managed to extricate ourselves from 18 years of Tory rule—18 years of Tory Governments, who Scotland had not voted for since 1955.

    In the time since I joined the party, we have had another 12 years of Conservative government Scotland has not voted for. I honestly thought that it could not get more damaging, and that we could not have a more damaging Government and a more damaging Prime Minister, than what we experienced during the Margaret Thatcher era. Then David Cameron said “Hold my beer”, and had the Brexit referendum. Then the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) said “Hold my beer”, demonised immigrants and put in motion the hardest possible Brexit. Then the right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson) said “Hold my beer”, and destroyed what little faith the public had left in politicians being honest. Then the right hon. Member for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss) said “Hold my beer”, and crashed the economy. If the current Prime Minister asks someone to hold his drink, I recommend running a mile. Scotland has not voted for any of this chaos. We did not vote for a Brexit referendum, we did not vote for Brexit, we welcome immigrants—and we do not vote Tory.

    Our Scottish Government are consistently having to mitigate Tory-inflicted hardships in order to offer some measure of protection for our constituents, and I will make no apology for making the wellbeing of the people of Scotland my ideological mission. Because of the decisions of the UK Government we did not vote for, four out of 10 on those on universal credit skipped meals this summer. Mortgage rates have soared £6,700 a year on average. Since last year, energy costs have gone up £1,200, while pasta costs 60% more and bread costs 40% more. The UK Government have capped benefits and reneged on the pensions triple lock—and we did not vote for this. The people of Scotland and the country of Scotland cannot afford to be part of this Union.

    Mhairi Black

    As my hon. Friend will be aware, during the last referendum campaign we were continually told that we were in a Union of equal partnership. As she has touched on, even if every single seat in Scotland—all 59 seats—was SNP, the city of London, for instance, has 73 MPs. Is that not ridiculous, and how can this ever be a Union of equals if the second largest nation of that Union can be outvoted by one city?

    Kirsty Blackman

    My hon. Friend is absolutely correct, and she lays out very clearly the democratic deficit facing Scotland.

    We cannot afford to continue having our resources squandered by Westminster. We cannot afford to go without energy market reform. We cannot afford trickle-down economics. We cannot afford the UK’s xenophobic immigration policy. We cannot afford to keep people having no recourse to public funds, which is making some of the poorest people in the UK even poorer still. We cannot afford a UK Government who refuse to increase the minimum wage. We cannot afford to keep having our workers’ rights stripped. We cannot afford locally—the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (David Duguid), who has just stepped out, mentioned this—to have a UK Government who refuse to match Scotland’s funding for our £500 million just transition fund.

    This UK Government are failing to tackle the issues that are facing our constituents. It is a joke that they keep mentioning the £37 billion support package. It is a joke that they keep mentioning people being £1,000 better off. For some unknown reason, the UK Government have included a freeze on alcohol duty in their £37 billion calculation. On what planet does that help people to pay their fuel bills or feed their children? People are not £1,000 better off as a result of the energy support provided. The average household is still paying double what it was paying last year. Where does the Prime Minister expect people to find the extra money?

    A quarter of people across these islands have got no savings. With borrowing costs rocketing, people are spiralling quickly into unmanageable levels of debt, and that is only set to get worse as the cold weather kicks in. We have consistently voted against that, yet the larger size of England means that we are consistently burdened with Westminster Governments who do not care. Owen Jones published a video that he made during the Tory party conference. He pointed out that mortgage rates are going to go up as a result of the mini-Budget. The Tory party member he was interviewing replied, “I don’t have a mortgage.” That is the attitude we are faced with in the Conservative party. Many Tory party members and donors are doing all right, Jack, so why bother taking action? Our constituents are scared, and the UK Government are refusing to provide adequate help or certainty. The Prime Minister will not even commit to the triple lock or to uprating benefits in line with inflation.

    My colleagues have spoken about Scotland’s potential. We have so many resources. We can lead the world in the deployment of renewables, and we can reach our economic potential. We have the best educated population in Europe. We have the talent and the potential, and we are not, as my hon. Friend the Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) said earlier, singularly unable to flourish as an independent country. An independent Scotland would use its potential to ensure minimum living standards. How is it that in 2022 we are having to say that? Why are we being approached by constituents who have nothing, and who are experiencing poverty that has not happened in this widespread way during my lifetime? Before this cost of living crisis, some people were living below the destitution line, despite being in receipt of social security. Other European countries have stepped up and provided far higher levels of support to ensure that people can live through this crisis.

    What are the people of Scotland doing about this? We are consistently exercising the democratic rights that we have to vote for the SNP. We have a majority of independence-supporting MSPs in the Scottish Parliament, and we had our best ever council elections this year. We have been the third largest party in Westminster for seven years, despite standing in less than one tenth of the seats. Yet the Westminster Government suggest that we have no mandate. I will say who has no mandate—the Tories. They have no mandate to inflict Tory economic policies on our population. They have no mandate for xenophobic immigration policies, and no mandate for cutting social security. If this is a voluntary Union of nations, why are the UK Government not respecting the mandate given by the people of Scotland to the Scottish Parliament to hold a referendum? Why have we had to go to the Supreme Court to assert our right to hold the referendum, and how can the UK Government justify arguing against that? This is not about identity; this is about democracy. Scotland has voted for the right to choose our own future, and we will do everything possible to ensure that happens.

  • Kirsty Blackman – 2022 Speech on the Genetic Technology Bill

    Kirsty Blackman – 2022 Speech on the Genetic Technology Bill

    The speech made by Kirsty Blackman, the SNP MP for Aberdeen North, in the House of Commons on 31 October 2022.

    We are concerned about the disadvantageous position that the Bill will likely put farmers in and about the knock-on impact on farmers in Scotland, despite the fact that the Scottish Government are not yet at the stage to approve the technology in Scotland.

    The regulation of genetically modified organisms is a devolved matter. There is no question about that, and the Scottish and Welsh Governments have made that clear in their responses. The Scottish Government have been clear in their opposition to the UK Government’s moves on this. We do not presently intend to amend the GMO regulatory regime in Scotland, as we want to await the outcome of the EU’s consultation on whether some gene-edited organisms will be excluded from the GM definition.

    According to the Office for Budget Responsibility, we are already suffering a 4% reduction in GDP due to this hard Tory Brexit. We do not need to see the introduction of further trade barriers caused by the UK’s rush to make this change. A delay to see the outcome of the consultation early next year would be far more sensible than passing the legislation now. This is relevant because of the impact of the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020, which tramples over devolved competencies, and prevents the Scottish Parliament from refusing the sale of these products.

    I wish to speak to new clause 9 in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Deidre Brock), which ensures that the democratic principle of devolution is upheld and that the Scottish Parliament still has the authority to legislate on the marketing of precision bred organisms. We have raised concern after concern about the implementation of the 2020 Act. If the UK Government intend to respect devolution, which the people of Scotland voted for, they must ensure that the Scottish Parliament can continue to take those decisions.

    There are both animal welfare and environmental concerns relating to precision breeding. We must ensure that those are properly considered and that all information and evidence is available before taking any decision. We strongly welcome more research into gene editing and new genetic technologies, but that must precede the wide-scale deployment of such technologies.

    The Scottish Government want to ensure that Scotland operates to the highest environmental and animal welfare standards, so that our world-class Scottish grown food continues to be outstanding. The impact assessment of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs for the precision breeding Bill acknowledges divergence from the EU approach, which could have implications for compliance costs and future trade. We must be able to export our produce and the Bill risks our farmers being further hamstrung—in addition to all the hardships they already face as a result of this Tory Brexit.

    David Duguid

    The hon. Member will be aware of the expression of disappointment from Martin Kennedy, president of NFU Scotland, that the Scottish Government have not become more involved in a UK-wide approach to this matter. None the less, she is absolutely right to say that this is a devolved competency. Does she agree that the UK Government have done nothing but be positive in terms of inviting the Scottish Government to be as involved in this matter as they possibly can be?

    Kirsty Blackman

    I cannot answer a question about the conversations that the Scottish Government and the UK Government have had on this matter, because I am not aware of exactly how those conversations have gone. What I am concerned about is the significant amount of produce that we export to the EU and the fact that the Bill poses a risk, for example, to the export of Scottish salmon. That is because the Scottish Government will lose some of their competency over this due to the internal market Bill and to the way that this framework is laid out.

    Should amendment 1 from the Green party be pushed to a vote, the SNP will support it. The paucity of evidence is particularly acute in relation to animals. The Bill also risks violating the intention and application of the Animal Welfare (Sentience) Act 2022, passed for England and Wales earlier this year. The RSPCA has highlighted the fact that the public would not and do not support that.

    New clause 8 relates to the labelling of food or feed produced by precision-bred animals. Eighty four per cent of people polled consider it important that all GE products introduced for sale in the UK are labelled as such, and only 8% do not consider that to be important. We are disappointed, therefore, that the UK Government no longer plan to consider requiring labelling for these products, despite the Minister saying in January 2022 that they would look at the matter. This will have a double impact in Scotland, because, even though the Scottish Parliament does not currently permit the marketing of these products, consumers will not be able to make an informed choice due to the lack of labelling requirements.

    Mr Deputy Speaker, now is not the time for this Bill to pass. The UK Government have failed to make the case for “why now?” and have failed to ensure that the devolved competencies of the Scottish Parliament are respected as they seek to push through this legislation.

  • Kirsty Blackman – 2022 Tribute to HM Queen Elizabeth II

    Kirsty Blackman – 2022 Tribute to HM Queen Elizabeth II

    The tribute made by Kirsty Blackman, the SNP MP for Aberdeen North, in the House of Commons on 9 September 2022.

    Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker, for affording me the opportunity to pay tribute on behalf of my constituents on this sad day.

    Aberdeen has had a long association with, and fondness for, the royal family. Beautiful granite statues of former monarchs can be found watching over many parts of our city. People across Aberdeen are feeling a profound sense of loss today. In 1964, Aberdeen suffered one of our darkest hours. A typhoid outbreak in the city hospitalised 500 people and led to three fatalities. Dr Ian MacQueen, our chief medical officer, described Aberdeen as a “sort of beleaguered city”. Our reputation as a centre for tourism was badly damaged. Hearing of our local issues, and at very short notice, Queen Elizabeth diverted a planned journey to Glasgow in order to visit Aberdeen. This thoughtful gesture, which expressed the Queen’s confidence in the safety of visiting Aberdeen, has been long remembered by our city.

    Throughout the years, Her Majesty has retained a relationship with our city. In 1970, she visited the VSA —Voluntary Service Aberdeen—children’s centre in Aberdeen’s Hardgate. The Association of Social Services, VSA, has been honoured to secure the patronage of every monarch during its 150-year history, from its founding patronage of Queen Victoria in 1870.

    In 1990, Queen Elizabeth II opened the Bon Accord centre in Aberdeen. The people of Aberdeen love to turn out for a public event and this one was no different, with crowds thronging to try and catch a glimpse of her. Even Aberdonians who were not present on that day will almost certainly have walked past the commemorative plaque that she unveiled.

    In 2017, the Queen again visited Aberdeen to open the Robertson family roof garden at Aberdeen Royal Infirmary. Like so many of my constituents, I have had occasion to seek solace in the roof garden while a loved one was in hospital. We very much appreciate that she came along to open that garden.

    I want also to mention Her Majesty the Queen’s long involvement with the Girlguiding movement. In 1953, she became the Girl Guides’ patron and remained a stalwart supporter for all her years. She first joined the guides aged 11, taking part in camping trips and earning badges for swimming. Over the years, thousands of girls and young women across the UK and overseas have worked hard to achieve the highest award in guiding: the Queen’s Guide award.

    I send my personal condolences to the Queen’s family. In 2011, my great-granny passed away—also well into her 90s. I well remember the devastation and sense of shock that we all felt. She had been there for so long that we had begun to think that she would be a constant presence in our lives and there would never be a day that we would be without her. I can therefore feel an echo of what the generations of the royal family who follow her must be feeling today, and I send out my heartfelt best wishes to them at this time for getting through this difficult moment.

    From the people of Aberdeen North, I thank Queen Elizabeth for her lifetime of service.