Tag: Speeches

Tommy Sheppard – 2022 Speech on Scotland’s Future

The speech made by Tommy Sheppard, the SNP MP for Edinburgh East, in the House of Commons on 14 December 2022.

I beg to move,

That this House believes it should be for the Scottish people to determine the future constitutional status of Scotland.

I start by referring to the Labour party report—it is a shame there are not more Labour Members here—published nine days ago on reforming the constitution. It is a document more remarkable in what it does not say than in what it does say, but it does do us one great service: it makes a compelling argument that constitutional matters should not be debated in the abstract and that there is a great connection between how we are governed and what happens as a result of that governance and the public policy that ensues. I am grateful to Labour for that, because I hope it means we can avoid jibes along the lines of, “Why is this the SNP’s priority, rather than talking about the cost of living crisis?”

This debate and this motion are absolutely about the real issues that face families in this country right here, right now. Tomorrow, throughout England and Wales, the nurses who saw us through the pandemic will be on strike for a living wage. But not in Scotland. Scottish Ministers have negotiated a settlement with the trade unions that allows the wages of those on the lowest pay to rise by 11%. There will be no strikes by nurses in Scotland tomorrow, and I am pleased about that. But let me be clear: we are not satisfied with the situation for our nurses and our health service. We want to do more. We want to do better by our nurses. We want more of them and we want more investment in our health service. We want to build a 21st-century health service based on the wellbeing of our people, rather than on fixing ill health. We want to have the choice over whether to raise revenue and borrow money to make that happen. To do that, we require the powers of a normal independent country.

Or take the absurd situation with energy supply in our country. We have people looking through the windows of homes they cannot afford to heat at wind turbines on the horizon providing abundant, cheap renewable energy that they cannot afford to buy because of the ridiculous system of energy ownership and regulation in this country. We want the power to turn that system upside down and change it forever. But to do that, we need the powers of a normal independent country.

Thirdly, take the debate we had yesterday in this Chamber about migration. We had, to my mind, the sordid and unsettling spectacle of the Conservative Benches rammed to the gunwales, as Members brayed and cheered on their leader’s anti-migrant rhetoric. They make the case that migrants are not welcome in this country. Well, not in my name and not in my country. Migrants are welcome in Scotland, because we need people to come and live in our country. We say that not just because we wish to discharge our international responsibility to provide security for those who flee persecution, but because we know that, if those people come to our country, they will invest in our economy and pay their taxes to sustain our public services. Every study that has ever been done shows that the net effect of migration is positive, and that is why we require the powers of a normal independent country.

Dr Luke Evans (Bosworth) (Con)

The hon. Gentleman is making an important point about immigration as a whole, but yesterday the Prime Minister was speaking specifically about illegal immigration. There is a massive difference between the two. We do need the doctors and the dentists of tomorrow, and there are pathways for people to come and bring those skills into the country The key point yesterday was the illegal aspect of immigration, and we on this side of the House do not want to see illegal immigration.

Tommy Sheppard

I know that that is the fig leaf that Conservative Members apply to the argument, but it would have more logic and rationale were it not for the fact that this Government have closed down every legal means of coming to the country. It is the Government who are creating illegal immigration to these shores. But that is something of a digression from the topic that I wish to talk about.

The point I am trying to make—I know the Labour party agrees with it, and I think that, in their hearts, so does nearly everyone else—is that the way we are governed and what we do with that government are two sides of the same coin. This debate about how Scotland is governed is critical to what Scotland’s future is. We desire self-government because it would improve our country and allow it to play a much bigger and more positive role in the world.

It is worth recapping how we reached this point. I know there are people who think, or who believe and assert—we may hear this during the debate—that the SNP never accepted the result of the 2014 referendum and that, from the hour when the vote was announced, we began campaigning for a second independence referendum. I see the nodding heads. It is a popular myth, but it is a lie. Members may want to look at what my colleagues and I said at the time of the 2015 general election, when we were first returned to this Chamber following a landslide victory in Scotland. It is clear from the content of our leaflets, and indeed from the content of our maiden speeches, that we did not come here to press the case for another referendum. We came here accepting a result that bitterly disappointed us, determined to try to protect those who had voted for us as best we could within the constraints that we were given. That was the mission we gave ourselves.

David Duguid (Banff and Buchan) (Con) rose—

Tommy Sheppard

I will take an intervention on that point.

David Duguid

On that point, I—uncharacteristically—completely agree with nearly everything the hon. Gentleman has just said. Those election leaflets in 2015 did indeed say, “This is not about independence; we are not going to fight for independence; we accept the result.” However, in that election, the SNP won 56 out of 59 seats in Scotland. What happened after that? Did the party continue its non-calls for independence, or did things change straightaway?

Tommy Sheppard

If the hon. Gentleman will bear with me, I am about to come to my next point. I have a number of things to say; it might be better for him to listen to them and then reflect on the totality.

When we came here in 2015, it was not in our minds to campaign for a second independence referendum, but something changed. What changed? What changed was not that the people who had lost a referendum cried foul and did not accept the result. The people who won the referendum broke the promises that they had made to win it, and the biggest promise of all that they broke was in relation to Brexit. When this Conservative Government took the United Kingdom out of the European Union, dragging Scotland along with it despite a popular vote to maintain our European citizenship, that began to turbocharge the arguments for having a re-look at the vote that was taken in 2014.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)

Order. I am sorry, but the hon. Gentleman keeps turning his back to the Chair. He should face in this direction.

Tommy Sheppard

I am sorry, Madam Deputy Speaker. In simple terms, the options that were presented in that 2014 referendum no longer existed. They had changed, and it was felt to be legitimate that we should have another look at Scotland’s future.

Now, I know opinion has been divided on this question ever since and there is a raging debate about whether it is legitimate to have a second referendum—I am surprised I have not already had a once-in-a-generation intervention, to be honest—but the truth is that there is only one group of people who can decide whether there should be a second independence referendum and that is the people who live in Scotland. It is not down to Nicola Sturgeon, the Prime Minister, me or anyone else—it is a matter for the people. If the people had given up on the idea, we would not even be having this discussion. But they have not. A majority of people want to look at this question again. You might say, “How can you be sure that that is their opinion? Is this an opinion poll, or what?” No, we had an election in May 2021.

You may remember, Madam Deputy Speaker, that six weeks before that election we had another SNP Opposition day debate speculating on what this Chamber’s response might be to the results of that election. That was a hypothetical discussion because the election had just started. This is our first chance to consider properly in this Chamber the results of that election just 18 months ago. Remember that, while it was taking place in the throes of covid and the pandemic, the central political question at that election was whether there should be a further referendum on Scotland becoming an independent country. I know that that is the case.

Douglas Ross (Moray) (Con)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Tommy Sheppard

I will give way in a second and the hon. Gentleman can correct me if I am wrong. I know that that is the case because not only was it front and centre of my manifesto and my leaflets, but the hon. Gentleman’s party put it front and centre on its leaflets. Conservative party leaflets, every single one of them, said, “If you vote SNP, you will get a second referendum.” Is that true?

Douglas Ross

Nicola Sturgeon said in that election that a vote for her and the SNP was not a vote for another independence referendum. Was she telling the truth, or was she lying to the people of Scotland?

Tommy Sheppard

It is quite clear that the First Minister and all of us gave a commitment during that campaign, and indeed after it, that the priority of that election would be dealing with the pandemic. But it was also absolutely the case that we said that, once that was dealt with and circumstances allowed, we would advance the case for a second referendum. That was clear. We can go back and look at exactly what was said, but I am very confident in what I say.

Dr Luke Evans

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Tommy Sheppard

No, I will not give way. I have already given way once. Let me try to make the point.

Let us consider, because we have not done so yet, the results of the 2021 general election in Scotland, where this was a central campaign point. I am sorry for those who perhaps have not been following it, but we won. Not only did my party win the election, but it won it with more votes than it has ever received in a Holyrood election.

Dr Luke Evans

The hon. Gentleman rightly points out that Scotland may well have managed the covid pandemic and used that as a No. 1 priority. A voter in Scotland could have quite happily voted for the SNP knowing full well there was no way of having a referendum because there was no mechanism to be able to do so. So they could support the SNP wholeheartedly, knowing full well that it was about your positive record on covid, the NHS or education, for example, with independence falling down that list. Is that not the case?

Tommy Sheppard

I appreciate the political skill of improvisation, but sometimes it is just not enough to make it up as you go along. What has just been said is completely at variance with what your party said during the election—

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)

Order. I am very keen that we do not get into a conversation down that end of the Chamber with everybody calling each other “you”. It has happened a few times, but I am now going to put my foot down and say it is important to speak through the Chair, as the hon. Gentleman knows very well because he is very experienced.

Tommy Sheppard

As I almost always do, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Let us move on. The results were quite clear: the SNP won that election in any normal terms. In fact, it was the best election result we have had in terms of the number of votes we received, and our colleagues in the Scottish Green party, who stood on an almost identical platform in terms of the referendum, did exceedingly well too. Together, the Scottish Green party and the SNP had 72 seats out of 129 in that legislature, and they have formed a governing coalition in order to discharge their mandate.

That is a bigger pro-independence majority than we had in 2011, when Alex Salmond had the first independence referendum. So the question arises, why was a response to that result from David Cameron that was good enough in 2011 not replicated in 2021 by the then Tory Prime Minister? I wonder why that could be. Could it be because back in 2011, they thought there was not a snowball’s chance in hell of us ever winning a referendum and that having one would be a good opportunity to humiliate the SNP and those who supported independence, whereas 10 years later, they fear that if there was another referendum, they would most certainly lose it? That is undoubtedly the case.

In any normal circumstances—in any normal democracy—that would have been the end of it. A party would have got elected, it would have formed a secure majority in the Parliament and it would have been allowed to discharge and implement its manifesto. That is how these things normally work, but not so in Scotland. In Scotland, the UK Government went out of their way to try to prevent the implementation of the desire to have a second referendum—so much so that, apart from not even granting the section 30 order that is required under the Scotland Act 1998, they also made it clear that, should the Scottish Parliament pass a Bill in order to have a referendum, the UK Government would take the Scottish Government to the Supreme Court, and we would be caught up in legal wrangles for a very long time. Rather than waste the time and money and then have to have the case examined in the Supreme Court, the Scottish Government rightly took the decision to refer the matter to the Supreme Court and have it adjudicated on first, before tabling the Bill.

I should say, in case there are people who have not been engaged in the debate, that it is not clearcut what the outcome of that judgment would have been. Opinion was divided on whether the Scottish Parliament had the competence not to legislate on matters to do with the Union but to consult people on what they thought the future government of the country should be. That did not always cut across party boundaries; it was not the case that everybody on this side of the debate was confident that they had the powers, and everybody on the other side was confident that they did not. In fact, one of the people who made a very eloquent case that the Scottish Government did have the power to organise a non-binding consultative referendum was no less than Adam Tomkins, a professor of law who until relatively recently was a Conservative Member of the Scottish Parliament. He judged that it would be within competence.

But we know what happened. The Supreme Court, in the end, decided that the Scottish Bill as written was not within the competence of the 1998 Act and it related to a matter that was excluded and reserved as defined in schedule 5 to that Act. I disagree. I would have come to a different outcome and a different judgment, but then I am not a High Court judge. I am disappointed by and do not like the judgment, but I accept it, and I accept that it is the Supreme Court’s role to make that adjudication.

It seems to me that the problem is not the judges but the law that they were considering. I say this in all candour to colleagues on the other side of the argument: the Supreme Court judgment presents a problem not just for those who advocate the cause of Scottish independence; it also presents a problem for those who believe in the integrity of a voluntary Union of nations within the United Kingdom.

I know that there are plenty on the Back Benches of both the big parties who know little and perhaps care even less about the historical nature of the constitution of this country we live in, but it is worth recapping that this is not a single central state. The polity that we live in of the United Kingdom is a multinational state based upon serial Acts of Union that have given it quite a unique character. It is something that, until very recently, we had assumed required the consent of the people in the component nations of the United Kingdom to be part of. It seems that following the Supreme Court judgment, we now have a situation where that is not the case—that it is not possible for one group of people in one nation of the United Kingdom to consider reviewing the relationship with the others without their consent. That means that the idea of it being a voluntary Union of nations is dead in the water, until such time as the law is clarified or fixed. It is in an attempt to clarify and fix the British constitution that we present this Bill to the House today, because if we pass this motion, it will then allow for the leader of my party to do what the leader of the Government ought to have done: bring forward amendments to the 1998 Act to allow the Scottish Parliament the power and competence to do the things that the Supreme Court ruled it could not do, which everyone previously thought it was able to do.

I know that there are people—perhaps in the Conservative party, perhaps in the Labour party—who pretty much regard Scotland as just another British county, much the same as Essex, Cornwall or wherever, and probably quite quaint. Those people do not have any understanding of the fact that Scotland is historically a distinct country—a distinct nation with its own history, tradition, culture, character and aspirations. That is not really part of their mindset, and I suppose that if I was not living there and did not grow up there, I might think the same way. But what those people need to understand is that this notion of Scotland being a partner nation within the United Kingdom is what most of the Unionists in Scotland believe. That is what they think they are part of; that is why they voted no in 2014. If that is removed, and we are now told that Scots live in a political system that they cannot change and cannot leave, we will very shortly see many people saying, “In that case, I do want to consider the prospects of Scottish independence, because this is not the partnership we were promised in 2014 and it is not what I voted for in 2014.”

Much of this is bound up with the notion of the claim of right for Scotland. As colleagues may remember, we had a big debate in 2018—again, on an Opposition day motion put forward by my party—where there was a surprising degree of support from all sides of the House for the claim of right for Scotland. The claim of right, by the way, simply asserts the right of the Scottish people to determine the form of government best suited to their needs. That declaration was formulated in its current form in 1989, and has been referred to ever since. The last time around, the then Secretary of State for Scotland, the right hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell), and the current leader of the Scottish Tories, the hon. Member for Moray (Douglas Ross)—I am glad to see that one of them is present—stood up in that debate and said that they endorsed and supported the claim of right for Scotland. Well, we cannot have the claim of right for Scotland and a situation in which we do not live in a voluntary Union and that claim of right can never be exercised.

Aaron Bell (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Con)

I am listening carefully to what the hon. Gentleman is saying. Obviously, a sizeable minority of the people of Scotland wanted to be independent. That number may or may not have increased—opinion polls go up and down, as we on this side of the House know very well—but in light of what the SNP is proposing through the modification of schedule 5, does the hon. Gentleman think that there should be a limit to the number of times that we can have such referendums? I am not trying to make the “once in a generation” point; I am trying to make the point that it is reasonable for the people of any country to have a period away from constitutional matters, focusing on the things that really matter to people—their lives, their education, and their health system.

Tommy Sheppard

That is a good point, and I will address it in just a moment.

On the claim of right, it is remarkable how uncontroversial its assertion has been over the years, from 1989 onwards. It underpinned the 1997 legislation that led to the referendum on devolution; it was asserted by the Calman commission that followed that; obviously, it underpinned the 2014 referendum; and it was asserted by the Smith commission that came about as a consequence of that referendum. We have never had it seriously challenged. In fact, I added it up the other day, and I have been debating these matters about the government of Scotland for 45 years since I was a student at Aberdeen University, campaigning in the first devolution referendum in 1979. In all that time up until now, it has been understood that the claim of right exists, so it is important that we reassert it.

Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)

Perhaps I can help the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Aaron Bell). Does my hon. Friend agree that democracy is not a one-time event? We cannot put limits on what happens in politics and in democracy. If the Conservatives or the Labour party decided that the mood in the UK was such that they wanted to have another referendum on, say, our EU membership, and they put that in their manifesto and won an election, they would be entitled to do that.

Tommy Sheppard

Indeed so. It has been said that during those 15 hours between 7 am and 10 pm on 18 September 2014, the claim of right was being exercised, because the sovereignty of the people of Scotland was in their hands as they went to the ballot box. The difference between us and our opponents is that we believe that that claim exists in perpetuity and should be exercised any time people want to exercise it, rather than existing for only one day.

John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)

As I understand it, the hon. Gentleman wants Scotland to pull out of the UK but join the European Union. How easy does he think that would be, given the EU’s stubborn attitude towards the Catalan claims and its support of Spain resisting even a referendum?

Tommy Sheppard

The difference, of course, between the EU and the United Kingdom is that Scotland can leave one but not the other. I can imagine how the right hon. Gentleman might have felt if he and his Brexit colleagues, who wished for Britain to leave the EU, had been told, “Well, you simply can’t do that. You have no right to do that,” because that is the situation that is being presented to Scotland with regard to the UK.

In my view, which I think is accepted, Scottish independence requires two things. First, it requires the majority consent of the people who live in Scotland, and they need to express a wish for that to happen. Secondly, it concerns a negotiated settlement with this place and it will eventually require an Act of this Parliament. Those two things were fused together in the 2012 Edinburgh agreement, but because of the UK Government’s reticence, we will have to decouple them and take them separately.

Our ambition now is to find some means to allow people in Scotland to express their view. It does not sit well for the UK Government to take a stance of actively trying to frustrate and deny that happening. This motion, if they were to vote for it today, fixes the problem, because it gives the Scottish Parliament the power to organise the first of those things—to determine the view of the people. We are asking for the Scottish Parliament to have the power not to legislate on the Union or on becoming an independent country, but merely to consult the people and to articulate on behalf of those who elected the Holyrood chamber. That is the opportunity that is offered by the motion’s proposed Bill, and I hope that hon. Members will take it.

The more that we tell people that they cannot have something, the more they want it. We have seen that in recent opinion polls with the surge in support for independence. Most significantly, in last week’s opinion poll, we saw a clear majority of people saying that there should be another referendum on this question before the end of the Scottish Parliament’s term in 2026—that is the first time that there has been a clear majority on the timing of the referendum.

All that is happening as a result of the UK’s obstinance, insistence and denial of the democratic mandate in Scotland is that the case for independence is being fuelled. If it comes to a situation where there is a conflict between the British constitution and the claim of right of the Scottish people, it is our responsibility, which we will not shirk, to make sure that the latter triumphs over the former.

16/12/2022
Alison Thewliss – 2022 Speech on Removal of Asylum Seekers to Safe Countries

The speech made by Alison Thewliss, the SNP MP for Glasgow Central, in the House of Commons on 14 December 2022.

At this time—in this moment when four people have died and 40 have been rescued in the channel—the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Jonathan Gullis) has chosen to introduce this offensive, grubby, dangerous wee Bill. He should be ashamed of himself, and if he had any sense or compassion he would have withdrawn it today.

I will take no lessons from him on immigration. Glasgow Central has the highest immigration caseload in Scotland, and I am proud that that is so. In Glasgow Central, I am proud to say, nearly 25% of its people were born outside the UK, and we benefit hugely from that. Stoke-on-Trent North has only 7%, as a matter of fact.

The Tories would have us ignore the European convention on human rights and the 1951 refugee convention. They would have us ignore the very humanity and compassion that human beings feel when recognising the plight of others—[Interruption.] I am being heckled with ridiculous comments from the Government Benches. The Tories have form in breaking international law in limited and specific ways, and they want to do so again with this Bill.

I can only assume that the hon. Gentleman has never met anyone who has fled war and conflict. He does not understand the desperation that drives those journeys. His Bill dehumanises others, fellow human beings, and the only way he can do that is by not having the compassion to listen or the imagination to feel what it must be like to stand in their shoes. I see that week in, week out at my surgeries.

This is not what Scotland wants to see. From the Glasgow girls, including my friend Councillor Roza Salih, to the Glasgow grannies, Jean Donnachie and Noreen Real, who stood up against dawn raids in Glasgow in the mid-2000s, to my constituents in Kenmure Street standing up for their neighbours and preventing their removal, we on these Benches understand the plight of our fellow human beings, and we know that we should treat them with the dignity that we would expect if we happened to be in their place.

The hon. Member talks about the Australia model. That model failed. Manus Island cost more than £1 billion a year to run, and it closed in 2017. The model failed and was hugely expensive. Talking tough and acting tough is no deterrent. They all said that the hostile environment would do it: it demonstrably failed. Then they said the Nationality and Borders Act 2022 would deter people, but the small boat crossings are still happening, as we have seen so tragically today. Apparently we need more, harder, tougher legislation. That will also fail: I can tell them that now. It will fail because the people making the journeys are desperate. They are desperate to get here for safety and for family ties, because what has happened to them has been so horrific that they will run and run, and keep running until they get to a place of sanctuary and safety.

The hon. Member talked about men. [Interruption.] The men on the Government Benches shouting should listen to this. Men are also vulnerable; men who are forcibly recruited and asked to fight, and men who are forced to rape their family and their neighbours, are vulnerable. They know that they do not want to do that. They are men who we have an obligation and a duty to in this country—men made vulnerable because they supported US and UK activity in Afghanistan. As the Afghan interpreters have told me, “We are here because you were there.”

In his statements on this matter, the Prime Minister refused to confirm his commitment to the European convention on human rights or the refugee convention. The Home Secretary is chuckling away, and she ducked this issue today as well. These are the international rules and norms that protect our right to ensure human rights and the safety of people. They have been hard-won. Their existence should be a source of pride to us all, not an inconvenience to be gotten around by the Tories to suit the headlines in the Daily Mail.

The SNP stands firmly against this diminution of rights and diminishing of humanity and this treating of the most vulnerable human beings as if they were some kind of mere cargo to be shipped off. An independent Scotland will take our place in the world, live up to our international responsibilities and ensure that those who do us the honour of coming to Scotland are welcome, supported, made safe and allowed to rebuild their lives. No one is illegal; this Bill just might be. Please object to it.

16/12/2022
Jonathan Gullis – 2022 Speech on Removal of Asylum Seekers to Safe Countries

The speech made by Jonathan Gullis, the Conservative MP for Stoke-on-Trent North, in the House of Commons on 14 December 2022.

I beg to move,

That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide that certain provisions of the Nationality and Borders Act 2022 relating to the removal of asylum seekers to safe countries shall have effect notwithstanding inconsistency or incompatibility with international or other domestic law; to require the Secretary of State to proceed with such removals regardless of any decision or judgment of any international court or body; and for connected purposes.

I want to start by saying that my thoughts and prayers are with those who have so tragically lost their lives while crossing the English channel, as well as with their families and our brave emergency service workers who have responded. Today’s awful news makes it clear how we in this place must do all we can to end the vile people smuggling and human trafficking gangs that trade in human misery.

I welcome my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister’s announcement in the House yesterday that we will begin to fast-track the removal of Albanians, speed up the processing of asylum claims, move away from hotels being used in places such as Stoke-on-Trent and bring in new legislation in the new year to mean that if someone comes here illegally, they cannot stay here, which will help to break apart the operating model of these cruel and heartless gangs.

The people of Stoke-on-Trent North, Kidsgrove and Talke and I find the number of migrants crossing the English channel from perfectly safe, neighbouring European countries such as France totally unacceptable and deeply concerning. It is a fact that about 70% of those making the crossings are young single men coming over on their own. Over 12,000 of these are economic migrants from Albania, of whom 10,000 are single adult males. We need to bring this national and European emergency to an end, as well as to fulfil our promise to the British people by taking back control of our laws and borders.

When we as a country voted to leave the European Union in 2016—the largest mandate in British political history—we did so to restore our ability to control our laws, money and borders. The people of this great country felt that too much power wrongly lay in Europe and that their voices were ignored. Leaving the European Union and restoring parliamentary sovereignty represented transferring power back to the people who elect their Members of Parliament to represent their views.

I strongly welcomed the Nationality and Borders Act 2022, which was brought to this House by my right hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel), as a landmark piece of legislation that was supposed to seize on our new-found freedoms post Brexit and implement the robust and decisive immigration system that the people of this country have been so urgently calling for. Along with my Conservative colleagues, I thought it was a welcome new approach to the issues of sovereignty and border control. I supported the Act because I saw it as a real opportunity to deter people crossing the English channel, and therefore to break the harrowing practices of the abhorrent people smugglers who operate not just in Europe, but around the world.

The cornerstone of the Act are measures to offshore to Rwanda illegal economic migrants coming from safe mainland Europe, copying the successful model used by Australia. Some 73% of my fine constituents in Stoke-on-Trent North, Kidsgrove and Talke support that, based on a survey I have conducted on this issue. Unfortunately, the extent to which we can make our own sovereign decisions has been brought into question, as immigration lawyers have been able to block deportations to Rwanda through appeals to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg.

As recently as July, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister wrote in The Sunday Telegraph that where the European convention on human rights is a problem

“I will tackle it. We voted to leave so that we could act as a sovereign nation. The ECHR cannot inhibit our ability to properly control our borders and we shouldn’t let it.”

According to the National Audit Office report on immigration enforcements, only 48% of enforced returns went ahead as planned, due to legal challenges emanating from the European Court of Human Rights preventing the other 52% from going ahead. I agree with the Prime Minister that the European Court of Human Rights should not use its political interpretation of our laws to undermine the will of the British people. The respondents to my local survey also agree, with 68% saying that we should ignore the European Court of Human Rights, as we did with the proposal to give prisoners the right to vote.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) introduced a motion back in 2010 on the right of prisoners to vote in general elections. The European Court of Human Rights at the time ruled that banning prisoners from voting was a breach of their human rights, contrary to decisions made in this House, but my right hon. Friend and this House forced the then Government to block it. The purpose of my Bill is to move a similar motion in relation to offshoring illegal economic migrants, giving us total control over our laws and borders and fulfilling the promises we made to the people of this nation in 2019.

Personally, I think we should seriously consider our position as a member of the ECHR. The Centre for Policy Studies report reflects that view, stating:

“As long as Britain remains a signatory to the Convention and bound by the jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, governments will be prevented from adequately enforcing immigration laws.”

Although we have left the European Union and restored powers back to this House, the democratically elected institution that the British people have put their faith in, it should not be blocked any further from being able to defend our borders and enforce our laws, such as those on processing illegal economic migrants in Rwanda.

While we may have freed ourselves from EU control, we still have a quasi-legislative supranational institution that fundamentally undermines decisions made in our democratically elected and sovereign Parliament. That is why I am introducing my Bill today. It would mean that we could get the migrants who have entered the UK illegally on to flights to Rwanda and, in the future, to other safe countries to have their claims processed there, by changing the law to explicitly prevent the European Court of Human Rights from meddling in our sovereignty on this specific matter. The Bill is about demonstrating that Parliament is on the side of the British public and restoring our great nation’s territorial integrity. I am steadfast in my belief that we can end the ECHR’s trespass on our parliamentary democracy and guarantee this House’s position as the ultimate lawmaking institution of our great country.

16/12/2022
Diana Johnson – 2022 Comments on the Small Boats Incident in the Channel

The comments made by Diana Johnson, the Labour MP for Kingston upon Hull North, in the House of Commons on 14 December 2022.

On behalf of the Home Affairs Committee, I express our sincere condolences to all those families who have lost loved ones. I pay tribute to the emergency services that were operating in such appalling conditions, and carry on doing so today, and I highlight the work of the RNLI and the fishing boats that came to the rescue of the dinghy. Many of us on the Committee have met Border Force officials, immigration officers and contractors who work at Western Jet Foil and at Manston, and we know how distressing these events must be for those people at those places.

Obviously, we need to wait for a full statement about what has happened, but I wondered whether the Home Secretary might be able to share whether she thinks there are any more actions that can be taken to pursue the evil individuals who facilitate and organise these trips across the channel in these dinghies. What more can the Government do to make sure those people are brought to book?

Suella Braverman

What more we can do forms part of the plan that the Prime Minister announced yesterday: focusing on the operational command and our resources at Dover, and working with the French. We want to investigate 100% of the small boats, and we want to arrest all of the pilots that we can identify. The Nationality and Borders Act 2022 brought in new offences designed specifically to deal with illegal arrivals, and there have been considerable numbers of investigations, arrests and prosecutions relating to those new offences. But of course, when there is a tragedy like this, it focuses all of our minds on what more we can be doing so that this does not happen again.

16/12/2022
Alison Thewliss – 2022 Speech on the Small Boats Incident in the Channel

The speech made by Alison Thewliss, the SNP MP for Glasgow Central, in the House of Commons on 14 December 2022.

I first thank and pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Stuart C. McDonald) who so ably fulfilled this role before me.

I and my SNP colleagues send our sincerest condolences to the families and friends of those four reported to have died in the early hours of this morning and hope that it will be possible for the rescued to make a full recovery. We give thanks to all those involved in the rescue efforts in such perishingly cold conditions and those still out searching in the channel.

We want to end these crossings; everybody does. The reality is, as it has always been, that while safe and legal routes do not exist, and while people wait years for applications for family reunions, desperate people will continue to take life-threatening journeys, because they feel that they have no choice. The Nationality and Borders Act 2022, despite the rhetoric, has not proven to be the deterrent that the Home Secretary expected. Will she finally recognise that safe and legal routes are essential to allow people to get here safely, and that they should be expanded now, beyond the limited Afghan, Syrian, Hong Kong and Ukraine routes, not at some vague point in the future?

If the Home Secretary truly wants to break the lucrative model of organised crime behind this, she should bring in Dubs and Dublin-style routes and allow people to apply from abroad and get on a plane rather than forcing them to get in a flimsy dinghy in the depths of winter. It is cruel to ignore the reality, and dangerous to keep repeating the same mistakes. People are paying not only with money, but with their lives. Will she listen to the evidence, and, instead of just talking tough, act to bring in safe and legal routes for everybody now, because sympathy is one thing, effective action another.

Suella Braverman

As I have said, I am incredibly proud of this country’s generosity and, in fact, of this Government’s track record on extending the hand of friendship to more than 300,000 people this year alone. Those people have fled persecution, conflict and have come through humanitarian routes to find shelter and safety in the United Kingdom. I strongly dispute the hon. Lady’s suggestion that, somehow, our system is inadequate. None the less, the Prime Minister has committed to going further and ensuring that there is a legitimised, capped, quota-ised system of safe and legal routes, which will be part of our measures after we have tackled the issue of illegal migration.

16/12/2022
Yvette Cooper – 2022 Speech on the Small Boats Incident in the Channel

The speech made by Yvette Cooper, the Shadow Home Secretary, in the House of Commons on 14 December 2022.

I thank the Home Secretary for advance sight of her statement.

This is truly tragic, deeply distressing news. All our thoughts and prayers are with those who lost their lives, and with the families and friends who lost loved ones in the icy waters of the channel. We are also thinking of those who are receiving support and medical assistance, and who may have been rescued, too.

We all give our thanks to the brave responders and rescuers from Border Force, the RNLI, the coastguard, the MOD, our emergency services and the French authorities. Not only did they respond to today’s awful, awful tragedy, but they do such heroic work every single day. It is only because of their brave work that more lives have not been lost.

It was barely more than a year ago that 27 lives were lost when a boat went down, and all of us have warned and all of us have feared that it was just a matter of time before more lives were lost. It is, of course, why the UK and France both need to act to stop these dangerous boat crossings. The brutal truth as well is that criminal gangs have made money from those lives that were lost today; they have profited as people have drowned. Day after day, week after week, criminal gangs are putting lives at risk for money. The other brutal truth is that, far from our stopping those criminal gangs, those gangs have grown and grown. The UK and French Governments and authorities have failed to stop the criminal smuggler and trafficking gangs proliferating around the channel. Those gangs have created a multimillion-pound criminal industry, with lives at stake, and the action against those gangs has been too weak. There have been barely any prosecutions or convictions, and barely any inroads into the smuggler gangs. We have seen just three convictions a month for people smuggling, at a time when tens of thousands of lives are being put at risk each month.

That is why we have long called for a major boost to the National Crime Agency, because we do need major action. Yesterday, the Prime Minister announced an increase for the NCA. I am glad that he has made some progress on this, but will the Home Secretary clarify what it means in practice? How much additional funding will there be in practice for the NCA and specifically for the action on the smuggler gangs? How many additional full-time staff will there be? What is the sense of scale on this? I fear, still, that this is too low and too little, given the scale of the problem we face. Yesterday, the Prime Minister announced a small boats operational command? How different is that from the previous clandestine channel threat command, led by Commander Dan O’Mahoney, which has been operation for some time? Will it still be led by him or will it be led by somebody else? Will the Home Office or the Ministry of Defence be in charge? Is it correct to say that the Navy has been told that it will be standing down on 31 January? Will the Home Secretary also update us on the French patrols and surveillance? Has the 40% promised increase in patrols started yet? When will it? Was this boat picked up as a result of increased surveillance? If it was not, what was the reason for that?

The Home Secretary has also referred to safe legal routes. She was pressed at the Select Committee on a lack of safe legal routes for children trying to unite with family in the UK. When will she be taking action to address that, to prevent children who are seeking to rejoin family in the UK from making desperate journeys? She referred also to the Prime Minister’s statement yesterday, so will she clarify something? We have also called for the fast track for safe countries and for the backlog to be cleared. The Prime Minister said that he had set a personal target of 117,000 cases to be cleared by the end of next year. No. 10 later said that that target was 92,000. Will she again confirm which of those it is?

The responsibility for the lives that have been lost in the channel lies with the criminal gangs. They need to be caught, prosecuted and jailed for the loss of life in the cold sea, and we need comprehensive action. We gathered in this House just over a year ago to lament the loss of 27 lives. None of us wants to do so again—none of us wants to be here again. That is why we need action, before more lives are lost in peril on the sea.

Suella Braverman

Today is a day to demonstrate our sympathy for the victims and the families involved in this tragic incident. It is a day to express gratitude to our hard-working emergency services, Border Force, search and rescue and MOD colleagues who at this moment are conducting an operation in the channel, in very difficult and challenging circumstances.

The right hon. Lady mentions a few points and I want to respond to some of them in detail. The small boats operational command is going to be a new operational command, which the Prime Minister announced yesterday, as part of our plan to go further on our action to stop the boats crossing the channel. This means we are setting up a new headquarters, the small boats operational command, in Border Force, with military support for specialist planning and operational advice. As part of that, we will bring in new air and maritime capabilities, including new drones, land-based radar and fixed-wing aircraft, and we will more than double our current permanent staffing levels, with 100 new staff at HQ and more than 600 new operational staff based at Dover. This is a sign that we are strengthening our resolve, strengthening our will and strengthening our efforts to do whatever it takes—as the Prime Minister has pledged—to stop the boats crossing the channel. It will improve our intelligence and information sharing with the French, and will improve and build on the co-operation that we have with our partners in France.

The deal that we signed last month with colleagues in France is a big step forward in our cross-channel co-operation, for we share a common challenge. That new arrangement will see more dangerous and unnecessary crossings being prevented. Last year our joint efforts prevented more than 23,000 unnecessary journeys, and this year, to date, the number is 31,000. That in itself is insufficient, but it is a step in the right direction, and the agreement that we have struck afresh with the French will go further to enhance our joint working.

The right hon. Lady mentioned safe and legal routes. Since 2015 we have made it possible for 450,000 people to come here via safe and legal routes, and that is a record of which I am immensely proud. These are people who have come from countries such as Ukraine, Syria and Afghanistan. They are people who have come from all over the world, directly from places of danger—for instance via the UK resettlement scheme, under which people have been selected by the UN Refugee Agency from countries including Ethiopia, Iraq, Sudan, Eritrea, Somalia, South Sudan and Yemen. We will extend safe and legal routes once we have dealt with the appalling people-smuggling gangs who are risking people’s lives, as we have seen this morning.

The right hon. Lady talked about our track record on this issue. The Government will not stop until we have seen progress—until people understand that taking this lethal journey is not safe, is not lawful, and will not lead them to a better life in the United Kingdom. Millions of people around the world are fleeing conflict and poverty and seek a better life elsewhere, and our capacity in this country is not infinite. We cannot accept everyone who wishes to come here. That is a reality of the world and a reality of life, although the Labour party would suggest otherwise. I hope the right hon. Lady will join us in our strength and resolve to stop this problem by supporting our measures and supporting our legislation next year.

16/12/2022
Suella Braverman – 2022 Statement on the Small Boats Incident in the Channel

The statement made by Suella Braverman, the Home Secretary, in the House of Commons on 14 December 2022.

With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement about an incident in the channel this morning. This is an ongoing search and rescue incident, but I can confirm that at the time of making this statement, tragically, there have been four fatalities. It would be inappropriate for me to go into further detail at this time.

There is a multi-agency response to this terrible tragedy. His Majesty’s Coastguard, the Royal National Lifeboat Institution, South East Coast Ambulance Service, the Ministry of Defence, police and Border Force, together with French vessels, a commercial fishing vessel and contractors at Western Jetfoil, have responded. This morning, I have spoken to Border Force officials based at Dover and Manston who were involved in the search and rescue effort. I have also spoken to my French counterpart, the Interior Minister Gérald Darmanin. A full statement will be provided to the House in due course, once the facts have been fully established and the necessary investigative work completed.

I know that everyone in this House and across the country will join me in expressing our profound sadness and deepest sympathies for everyone affected by this terrible event. I know they will also join me in offering our profound gratitude to those working on the search and rescue operation. That very much includes those who are responding to the incident. Commander Dan O’Mahoney and his team work tirelessly, with military colleagues and other partners, day in, day out, to try to prevent this type of tragedy. They are undertaking immensely difficult work and we should all be extremely grateful to them.

These are the days we dread. Crossing the channel in unseaworthy vessels is a lethally dangerous endeavour, and it is for this reason, above all, that we are working so hard to destroy the business model of the people smugglers—the evil, organised criminals who treat human beings as cargo.

As the Prime Minister told the House only yesterday:

“It is not cruel or unkind to want to break the stranglehold of criminal gangs who trade in human misery and who exploit our system and laws.”—[Official Report, 13 December 2022; Vol. 724, c. 885.]

He was right. This morning’s tragedy, like the loss of 27 people on one November day last year, is the most sobering reminder possible of why we have to end these crossings.

We recently agreed the largest ever small boats deal with France, with more boots on the ground patrolling France’s beaches and with UK and French officers working together in both countries. The Calais group of northern European nations works to disrupt trafficking and smuggling all along the migration route and has set an ambition for a UK and EU-wide agreement on migration.

Since 2015, we have welcomed 450,000 people here from across the world via safe and legal routes, making these dangerous crossings totally unnecessary, but it is evident that we have to go much further, which is why the Prime Minister announced a new package yesterday. The package includes a new, permanent, unified small boats operational command, bringing together the military, civilian capabilities and the National Crime Agency. It will co-ordinate intelligence, interception, processing and enforcement using advanced technology, including drones. We are adding more than 700 new staff and doubling the NCA’s funding for tackling organised immigration crime in Europe.

The Prime Minister announced a new agreement with Albania yesterday. For the first time, Border Force officers will be embedded in Tirana airport, helping to disrupt organised crime groups and people smugglers who risk people’s lives unnecessarily. Early next year, we will introduce new legislation to make it unambiguously clear that someone who comes to the UK illegally should not be able to remain here. Instead, they can expect to be detained and swiftly returned either to their home country or to a safe country, where their claim for asylum will be considered. Late or spurious claims and appeals will not be possible, and once someone has been removed, they will have no right to re-entry, settlement or citizenship. This will act as a deterrent, and it will save lives.

As we grip illegal migration, we will create more safe and legal routes, working with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees to identify those most in need, and we will introduce an annual quota set by Parliament. We will work closely with local authorities to determine capacity.

It is not true that our capacity is limitless. We are already spending millions on hotels every day. People do not need to seek asylum if they are already in a safe country. It is vital—literally vital—that we end the illegal crossings of the channel. I commend this statement to the House.

16/12/2022
Mark Spencer – 2022 Speech on the Cost of Food

The speech made by Mark Spencer, the Minister for Food, Farming and Fisheries, in Westminster Hall, the House of Commons, on 14 December 2022.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray. I thank the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Ian Byrne) for securing this debate and I congratulate all Members who have spoken passionately on the topic.

The rise in food prices is a result of global shocks, including a spike in oil and gas prices and the conflict in Ukraine. I certainly recognise the impact that rising food costs is having on households across the country. My Department is engaging closely with industry to understand potential pressures on our food supply chain, which has shown resilience in coping with unprecedented challenges.

As the hon. Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) said, we have had a number of debates in this Chamber. He has speculated about us running out of turkeys for Christmas, predicting Armageddon. I reassure him again today that no such Armageddon has taken place, and turkeys will be available for Christmas. Despite his gloom and doom, the measures that the Government have put in place are delivering against the challenges that he described some time ago.

We continue to monitor food prices using the ONS inflation figures. Recent pressures have been sustained, and food price inflation continued to rise to 16.5% in November, up from 16.4% in October.

David Linden

The Minister talks about monitoring food prices. How often does he monitor the increase in food banks?

Mark Spencer

We continue to monitor food prices across the country. The hon. Gentleman also said that Brexit was a huge challenge for food prices. Actually, food price inflation is greater in the eurozone and the EU than in the UK, so I do not think that that is the challenge. Consumer food prices depend on a range of factors, including agri-food import prices, domestic agricultural prices, domestic labour and manufacturing costs and the sterling exchange rates. Some of the factors are influenced by our trading arrangements with other countries, which a number of Members referred to. Change in food prices is dependent on changes in one or more of those factors.

Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)

I am glad that the Minister is monitoring food prices, but does he monitor the cost of infant formula? The all-party parliamentary group on infant feeding and inequalities has been doing so, and many groups are concerned that the cost of formula is now outpacing the amount of money that people are getting through the UK’s Healthy Start programme. People just cannot afford it, and are watering it down.

Mark Spencer

I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. The Government monitor all food prices. We are of course aware of the price of the grocery basket, so we are aware of the spikes in food prices across a range of products.

The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is taking action to maintain an efficient food supply chain by mitigating any potential burdens or friction that could otherwise drive up consumer food prices. In the UK, we are fortunate to have a large and resilient food supply chain. Our high degree of food security is built on supply from diverse sources, strong domestic production and imports through stable trade routes.

Tim Farron

Has the Minister assessed the impact on food prices and business profitability for farmers of the 20% reduction in the basic farm payment this month?

Mark Spencer

The reduction in the basic payment scheme is well advertised. Farmers are aware of it. We engage on a daily basis with farms up and down the country, as we are about to roll out the new environmental land management schemes. In fact, I have been engaging with farmers today on some of the new schemes that are coming, to give confidence in the marketplace that those farmers will continue to produce food, as well as improve our environmental footprint and biodiversity. There is good news there, which will give our farmers the confidence to continue to produce great food.

Dr Poulter

The Minister will recognise that we cannot protect the consumer from price rises without protecting the food producer. What specific support are the Government providing to help UK farmers with the unprecedented rises in input costs that food producers are facing, and to deal with some of the supermarkets’ cartel behaviour in fixing prices, which is having an effect on producers and consumers?

Mark Spencer

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. The honest truth is that a lot of support is going to primary producers to help them through the challenges they face. The energy scheme is helping producers, but a lot of the debate this afternoon has been diametrically opposed, with calls for lower food prices for our consumers and, at the same time, a rise in payments to our farmers who produce the food. We cannot have both. If farmers are paid extra at the farm gate—[Interruption.] Look at some of the margins in retail, production and manufacturing. For lots of those businesses, margins are being squeezed quite dramatically and there is a challenge. I would like to see more of the profit trickle down to primary producers. [Interruption.] We are absolutely in a place where we are engaging with primary producers to try to help them with that.

Daniel Zeichner

On that point, will the Minister give way?

Mark Spencer

I will take one more intervention and then I will have to conclude.

Daniel Zeichner

Will the Minister at least tell us what interventions he has made with retailers to make this happen, rather than just let it trickle down?

Mark Spencer

I have had lots of meetings with retailers and with many sectors. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the egg sector; we specifically had an egg roundtable last week, where we pulled together retailers, packers and primary producers to try to get some co-operation within the industry. The meeting was productive and conducted in a spirit of co-operation. There is clear willingness on the part of all parties to make sure the sector works, and we have recently seen improvements in both the supply of eggs and the sharing of costs across the supply chain. That is good example of where we as a Department recognised the challenge, pulled people together, got them around a table and made sure that we had a positive impact on the sector.

The Government are in regular contact with food and farming industries to ensure that they are well prepared for a range of scenarios. We continue to take all the necessary steps to ensure that people across the country have the food they need. Once again, I thank the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby for securing the debate and bringing people together.

Luke Pollard

Before the Minister concludes, will he address the issue of hunger, particularly child hunger, which has been raised by so many Members? I appreciate his focus on farming—as a farming nerd, I like that—but there are kids who are going to bed hungry tonight. Will the Minister address that before he sits down?

Mark Spencer

There is a huge package of intervention from the Government to help families up and down the country who are struggling with the cost of living. The Government recognise those challenges. That is why the current Prime Minister, when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer, invested £37 billion in supporting households who are facing such challenges, to ensure they can pay their domestic bills and have a level of support. We are also investing in our local authorities to help them to help those families. That is what the Government are trying to achieve, but there are huge global pressures at play that make that very difficult and challenging.

Claudia Webbe

On that point, will the Minister give way?

Mark Spencer

I cannot take another intervention as I have to give the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby the opportunity to conclude the debate. I thank hon. Members for their time today and for the spirit in which the debate has been conducted.

16/12/2022
Daniel Zeichner – 2022 Speech on the Cost of Food

The speech made by Daniel Zeichner, the Labour MP for Cambridge, in Westminster Hall, the House of Commons, on 14 December 2022.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Ian Byrne) on securing this timely debate. He is a hugely passionate and determined campaigner on this issue who speaks up for people across the country who are left hungry as prices soar. It is striking that, with one honourable exception—the hon. Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich (Dr Poulter)—the Government Benches are empty, while the Opposition Benches are overflowing with Members who have spoken passionately in this debate. I have been impressed by the contributions from my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Kate Osborne), my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), and my hon. Friends the Members for Salford and Eccles (Rebecca Long Bailey), for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard), for Leeds East (Richard Burgon) and for Swansea West (Geraint Davies). I am not going to repeat the points they made because time is short.

I will go straight to a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport, who observed the effect of food prices on primary producers. We have seen with rising egg prices that the issue has been well rehearsed but not resolved. Consumers pay more but producers do not cover their costs, so they stop producing, leading retailers to turn to lower standard imports. The excellent and widely reported research by Sustain last week shows just how fine the margins are for many producers, and how, when they are locked into fixed-term contracts, they are blown away by sudden and dramatic rises in costs.

For probably the third or fourth time in these debates, I ask the Minister for an update on the dairy code, the pork code and the fate of the Grocery Code Adjudicator. I do not expect any answers. I could not help smiling at the comments by Minette Batters of the National Farmers Union at the weekend, when she told The Times that the Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey), was “asleep at the wheel”. I thought that was a bit unfair; the Secretary of State does not even think she should be at the wheel. As my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea West will recall, she made clear it to the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee last week that she does not think it is the role of the Government to hand out free food or make price interventions.

That prompts this question: if it is not for the Government to intervene when people go hungry, then whose role is it? Ministers may be surprised to find that many people in this country do think that the Government have a role—just not this Government. My big question for the Minister is: what does he think his role is as the Food Minister? What is he for? It is almost exactly a year on from the Government sneaking out the food security review under the Agriculture Act 2020. Can he tell us what the situation is today? Farmers tell me that we are less food secure than we were a year ago. Growers are not planting, the sow herd is smaller and poultry farmers are not restocking. Are the Government concerned? Do they have a view? Can he even tell us whether we are more or less secure than we were a year ago?

I am grateful to the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds for pointing out in its briefing for this debate that the Government said the biggest medium to long-term risk to the UK’s domestic production

“comes from climate change and other environmental pressures like soil degradation, water quality and biodiversity.”

What have the Government done to address that challenge, other than miss their own so-called legally binding date to publish the targets promised under the Environment Act 2021?

Has there been any progress on the Government’s half-hearted food strategy from a few months ago? Although we all accept that there are big cost pressures, a more active Government would be using their convening power to make a difference. Will the Minister tell us how often he meets the major players in the industry? What are they telling him? What is he telling them? Is it down to just the big retailers to decide the nation’s food policy, or does anyone else get a say? Perhaps he can tell us how often the Food and Drink Sector Council meets and what it has achieved to tackle this crisis. Its website says that it last met in February, although I understand there was a more recent meeting. What did the Minister get from it? Can he tell us?

What assessment have the Minister and his colleagues made of the impact of the rising cost of food? What discussions has he had with Department for Education colleagues on the impact on children of real cuts in the nutritional value of school meals? Caterers try to provide meals, and yet they are handed just a few pence to make up the loss when costs soar.

What are the health consequences of the changing buying patterns, as people move to cheaper options? What discussions has the Minister had with colleagues at the Department of Health and Social Care; or has he succumbed to his Secretary of State’s clear intention to dump any plans to tackle the obesity crisis that Henry Dimbleby highlighted? There are plans to ban adverts for foods that are high in saturated fat, salt and sugar before 9 o’clock. Why, when type 2 diabetes is rising faster in children and young adults in Britain than anywhere else in the world, has implementation been delayed until 2025?

I doubt we will get any answers today. I wish the Minister and his colleagues a merry Christmas and a happy new year, but my sense is that on the cost of food—a very real issue facing every family in the country this Christmas—this Government have nothing to say, and frankly they show little interest. As always, their message is, “Leave it to the market; it is nothing to do with us. You’re on your own.” For too many this Christmas, that is exactly how it will feel.

16/12/2022
Patricia Gibson – 2022 Speech on the Cost of Food

The speech made by Patricia Gibson, the SNP MP for North Ayrshire and Arran, in Westminster Hall, the House of Commons, on 14 December 2022.

Thank you, Mr Gray. The premise of this debate, and all debates about food, is that everyone should have access to the food that they need. That ought not to be a controversial thing to say. The ONS today reported that food prices continue to rise, with annual food inflation hitting 16.5%—the highest rate for 45 years—and staple items such as tea, pasta and bread rising sharply. Alongside that, the UK is set to suffer the sharpest decline in economic growth of any European nation, with a drop in growth of 1.4% in 2023. That compares unfavourably with a small independent country similar to Scotland such as Ireland, which will see its economy grow by about 3%.

The Bank of England Monetary Policy Committee told MPs that Brexit added 6% to UK food prices—or £210, as the London School of Economics study indicated, which has caused real harm—and a real-terms cut of 2.6% to wages across the UK. I know that that is uncomfortable for the Brexit enthusiasts in the Labour party, but there it is. Add to that the inflationary pressure created by the exchange rate going down due to Brexit, mix it through with the consequential increase in interest rates—despite a recession, as explained by the former Bank of England Governor Mark Carney—and add it all together with the complication of the disastrous mini-Budget, which we are now supposed to pretend did not even happen, and which blew a £30 billion hole in the UK’s finances, and here we are.

My constituents in North Ayrshire and Arran and households across the UK are struggling to pay for essentials. Wages are eroded in the face of soaring inflation, with even buying food a challenge, not to mention heating the home. Where does this leave us? Food banks in Scotland experienced their busiest six months on record from April to September, providing 116,000 emergency food parcels during that period, with 40,000 parcels for children—a 29% increase on the previous year. That is the most parcels ever distributed for children in Scotland by food banks in the Trussell Trust network.

Alongside that, we have the issue of food security itself. We know that Ukraine has had an impact on food production, as have the soaring costs of fertiliser and energy. However, we need to take action now to better understand the full impact of challenges and disruption to our food supply chain and how industry and Government could work together to manage and mitigate the resulting impacts on the cost of food products.

The Scottish Government have established the food security and supply taskforce jointly with industry experts—the first of its kind in the UK. I hope that the UK Government will follow the Scottish Government’s example and the Good Food Scotland strategy. As my hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Steven Bonnar) has told us, the Scottish Government are doing all they can with the very limited powers they have. They have allocated almost £3 billion this financial year to help households face the cost of living increases, including £1 billion to provide services and financial support not found anywhere else in the UK. That support includes the Scottish child payment, which has increased by 150% in less than eight months to £25 per eligible child per week for those aged between six and 15 years old, as well as free school meals for all primary 1 to 5 children, which will be rolled out for all primary pupils soon.

Let us not kid ourselves. The real way to tackle inequality is to have control over the full range of tax and welfare powers. Anything the Scottish Government try to do to tackle inequality is done with one hand tied behind their back, with 85% of welfare powers reserved to Westminster. The hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard) pointed out how wealthy the UK is, but it is also the most unequal country in Europe. The UK Government must wake up and come to terms with the shocking reality that work is no longer a route out of poverty. Indeed, the Institute for Public Policy Research found that the chances of being pulled into poverty have doubled for households where two people work. That is a disgrace.

Doing nothing is not an option. For those who are really struggling, what is already being done is simply not enough; really, what we need to hear is what more will be done. I sincerely hope that the Minister will respond to the debate in that spirit. I hope that he responds from the starting point that everyone should have access to the food they need and that whatever he plans to say about what is already being done to support people needs to be built on, because it is not enough.

16/12/2022