Tag: Speeches

  • Kenny MacAskill – 2022 Speech on Scottish Independence and the Scottish Economy

    Kenny MacAskill – 2022 Speech on Scottish Independence and the Scottish Economy

    The speech made by Kenny MacAskill, the Alba MP for East Lothian, in the House of Commons on 2 November 2022.

    It is a pleasure to speak in this debate, which covers the two crisis issues of our time: the collapse of the British economy and the kick-on effects on our society, and the vital need for Scottish independence. That is encapsulated in the perversity that Scotland is energy rich, yet Scots will be fuel poor this winter. The economy is faltering as a result of the Truss experiment, but the rot started before that. It started with a hard Brexit forced upon Scotland, and the situation has worsened and the pace has accelerated.

    As a consequence, we have another perversity in that, as we have been taking part in this debate in this Chamber, the Deputy First Minister of Scotland has been speaking in Holyrood imposing swingeing public service cuts that will have an impact on Scotland’s poorest. What a perversity that that has happened. Of course, the responsibility rests with the budgetary situation in the UK and the Scottish Government’s limited ability to react, but it is why we should be moving fast for independence, and that is why we have to ask, “What has been done?”

    Mandates have come and mandates have gone, just as mañana follows mañana. We are now told there is to be a referendum next year, just as I was told there was going to be a referendum next year ever since I first went into the SNP group in December 2019. Maybe there will be a referendum next year, but I do not see a great deal of preparation by the SNP or the Scottish Government to ensure that it will actually take place or that we are going to win it. That takes away from the need for Scotland to be sovereign. All the preparation we have had has been a few papers.

    I will not go further on that, but the reference to the Supreme Court, far from being a wizard wheeze by the Scottish Lord Advocate, is frankly a counsel of despair. We will see what the outcome of that will be but, at the end of the day, it is the right of the Scottish people to choose their own destiny, and that cannot be usurped either by a UK Supreme Court or by a British Parliament.

    The situation has changed as a result of Brexit. We did lose the referendum in 2014, but we came remarkably close. The UK had to call in favours from all and sundry, including President Obama, and just about did it, but we can do it the next time. The risk has also changed, because in 2014 the risk was that we would lose our EU membership. The risk was that people would lose their pension or the NHS that is so dear to us. The risk was having an unstable currency. The risk was not being part of a British force for good. But the situation is that we have had Brexit and been ripped out of the EU, sterling is plummeting, the NHS and our pensions are being privatised and undermined, and Britain, far from being a force for good, is an international laughing stock. What is so great about being British when people can see the turbines turning from their home but will not be able to heat their house this winter?

    What is being done? Where is the action? That question is why I have to move on to what needs to be done. First, the Bill for a Scottish independence referendum should be launched in the Scottish Parliament. If the Lord Advocate is not prepared to do it, get a Minister or another member of the SNP to do it. Launch it forthwith, so that when it comes before the Supreme Court for a decision, it will not be a simple referral from the Scottish Government, but have standing behind it the sovereign will of the Scottish people, decided by their Parliament. The Scottish National party still has the time to get out of the fire and ensure that Holyrood passes that Bill.

    Secondly, let us call a Scottish constitutional convention. At the end of the day, the people of Scotland are sovereign. As we have heard from speaker after speaker, especially on the SNP Benches, they should be sovereign through the Government that they elect, not one that they have not elected since 1955. Why do we need our Scottish countrymen? Let us look around. How many people do we have on the Tory Benches? Five. How many are sitting on the Labour Benches? Four. Will that make any difference? What matters is that the people of Scotland’s elected representatives should decide.

    In February 2020, the First Minister of Scotland said that she would call a constitutional convention. Let us call that convention and make it clear that it is the Scottish people, through their democratically elected Scottish representatives whether in this Chamber or other Chambers or as senior members of local government—

    Mike Kane

    Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

    Kenny MacAskill

    No, I am running out time. I am the only speaker from my party. The hon. Member’s party has undermined the cause of independence and sided with the Tories, which is why it paid the electoral price.

    As I was saying, we need a constitutional convention. We need the First Minister to lead from the front and get active in demonstrations in support of Scottish democratic sovereignty and the legitimate right of our people. We need to pursue this through not just the UK Supreme Court but international courts and aspects. This is a position on which we have to make a stand.

    The Scots will struggle this winter. That an energy-rich Scotland will probably see people dying as a result of a fuel crisis is simply perverse. We have had enough mandates; it is time to have our choice, as is our right. That has to be delivered through a referendum. If the Government will not give us a referendum, another route needs to be chosen. The Scottish people will not get any satisfaction from the Government or the Opposition in this Chamber, which is why we have to make sure that there is a convention and that the democratic right of the Scottish people prevails.

  • Owen Thompson – 2022 Speech on Scottish Independence and the Scottish Economy

    Owen Thompson – 2022 Speech on Scottish Independence and the Scottish Economy

    The speech made by Owen Thompson, the SNP MP for Midlothian, in the House of Commons on 2 November 2022.

    A few weeks ago, Christine Grahame MSP and I co-hosted a cost of living support event in Gorebridge in my constituency. We invited along energy providers, community groups, food banks and suicide prevention charities. As constituents arrived and were able to access the help they needed, I started to think that it was a great success and that it was brilliant to see so many people there. But then I had to stop myself, because I started to think, “How did we get here? How did we become a society where food banks are normal and where we simply accept that poverty is growing and that suicide prevention charities face record numbers of calls?” The fact that we needed to hold that event at all is an alarming sign that the UK state has failed. When a country cannot guarantee its citizens a decent standard of living, with a roof over their head, heat in their home and food on the table, that country has failed to uphold its end of the social contract.

    The most shocking thing about this crisis is that so much of it is inflicted by the Government. For instance, the energy crisis is far worse in the UK than it is elsewhere, because the Government have kept the energy companies private, ensuring that the money from bills goes towards profit, not investment that could help to ensure security of supply. The severity of the cost of living crisis has been exacerbated by the Government’s incompetence, with a kamikaze Budget sending mortgage rates skyrocketing and the pound crashing, which means that there is less money in people’s pockets and that the money that remains is worth less.

    The truth is that the UK has been the poor man of Europe for years because the economy is set up to funnel wealth to the super-wealthy—to people such as the current Prime Minister—rather than to distribute it fairly to support those who need it most. Now, we are reaping what has been sown.

    There is no doubt that this is a global crisis, but while other societies have been ready to catch the poorest in their safety nets, the net in the UK is a glaring hole. Somehow, British exceptionalism has kept its grip on policymaking, and although we are no longer a particularly well-off society but one where a tiny number of people have immense wealth, the idea that we are exceptional has meant that the Government have refused time and time again to look abroad and follow best practices.

    To take the windfall tax, other countries have got serious about taxing the record profits that oil and gas companies have been making, but we have ignored the issue for months. Now we are left reeling from a failed Thatcherite experiment and looking down the barrel of austerity 2.0, with an economy so deliberately trashed that there is little option but to put money directly into people’s pockets, although the Government cannot even get that right. I recently met an 89-year-old constituent who cannot afford to heat her home because she, like thousands across Midlothian, relies on heating oil. The price of heating oil has skyrocketed to the point where she has spent £2,000 on it this year and expects to fork out at least another £1,000 over the coming winter. Yet the Government’s proposed support package for people using heating oil is £100—not even enough to get through a tenth of the winter.

    Angela Crawley (Lanark and Hamilton East) (SNP)

    Constituents in my area of Lanark have written to me about the fact that oil prices have continued to go up and that Government support is frankly woeful. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government must do more to support those who are off the grid, especially in rural communities, because they simply have no other choice?

    Owen Thompson

    I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. The support that is in place is welcome—I do not deny that, and I do not think anyone else here would—but we need much more, because far too many people, and especially those who are off the grid, have been left behind.

    At the moment, we are on a sinking ship. The UK’s future is not bright, and there is little reason to doubt that our children’s economic prospects will only become worse than ours. Therefore, the question is whether we look around the sinking ship, shrug our shoulders and say, “It’s been fine up till now. There’s no point trying to change it. We’ll be just fine,” or we try something different. We do not have to go down with this sinking ship. Certainly for those of us in Scotland, there is a lifeboat; it might be smaller than the boat we are currently on, but we get to be its captain, and the folk we share it with have the same direction in mind as us. Once we are out on the open water, we will realise that there are plenty of other wee boats out there that are the same size as us and that they are working together so that they can weather the storms far better than the lonely old SS Britannia ever could.

    That is what independence promises; it is not an instant fix, but it is the only reasonable path to a better future. Now, in a context where being part of the UK has left us with record inflation and soaring poverty, the idea that Scotland cannot afford independence is simply laughable. Norway was one of Europe’s poorest countries when it became independent in the early 20th century, and Ireland’s era of independence began with war and destruction. For them, however, independence was not the problem; it was the solution. Independence allowed them to grab hold of all the economic powers at their disposal and to respond to crises however they wished. Now, we look to both countries as models of stunning economic success.

    The truth is that we are in pretty dire straits as part of the UK. Even if we choose independence, we will inherit the mess that being part of the UK has left us with. That is not an argument against independence; it is a fundamental part of why we need it now. We can no longer afford to remain a part of this broken Union, and the people of Scotland need to be able to have that say, and have it soon.

  • Allan Dorans – 2022 Speech on Scottish Independence and the Scottish Economy

    Allan Dorans – 2022 Speech on Scottish Independence and the Scottish Economy

    The speech made by Allan Dorans, the SNP MP for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock, in Westminster Hall on 3 November 2022.

    Madam Deputy Speaker, you will have heard from many of my SNP colleagues this afternoon. They have spoken eloquently and brought to the attention of the House many reasons, backed by an impressive range of views, statistics, hard facts and reasoned arguments, why Scotland should be an independent country.

    I want to introduce a bit of history. It is fair to say that the history of Scotland and England has been marked by frequent periods of insurrection by Scots against English domination and frequent invasion of each other’s countries, resulting in ongoing wars of independence. From the late 13th century, those include Scottish victories at Stirling Bridge, with the Scots being led by William Wallace, who was tried here in Westminster Hall in 1305 and hanged, drawn and quartered for an alleged crime of treason—an offence for which he could not have been guilty, because he had sworn no allegiance to the English Crown. Following the battle of Bannockburn in 1314, in which the Scots were led by Robert the Bruce, King Edward III and the English Government recognised Bruce as King of an independent Scotland in the treaty of Edinburgh 1328.

    It is recognised that the basis for the current Union began with the Act of Union 1707, which is used by Unionists to justify the continuation of this form of government. What is less well known is that, at the time of the Act, the majority of people in Scotland opposed the Union. It was negotiated by a very small minority of wealthy and influential people widely regarded as acting for their own benefit rather than that of the people of Scotland.

    Rioting in Edinburgh and towns across Scotland was widely reported when the signature of the Act of Union was announced. Scotland—or the wealthy elite, at least—was also pressurised into agreeing with the Union by the introduction of the Alien Act 1705. That stated that, unless Scotland agreed to negotiate terms for union and accepted the Hanoverian succession by December 1705, there would be a ban on the import of all Scottish staple products into England. Scots would also lose the privileges of Englishmen under English law, thus endangering rights to any property they held in England. Many in Scotland considered themselves betrayed by their own elite. Christopher Smout, the eminent academic and historiographer royal in Scotland, argues that the Act of Union was able to pass only thanks to English bribery.

    The point was also recognised by Rabbie Burns, our national bard. He was born in my constituency of Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock, where he decried and condemned those Members of the Parliament of Scotland who signed the Act of Union. His poem “Such a Parcel of Rogues in a Nation”, which he penned in 1791, concludes with the declaration:

    “But pith and power, till my last hour,

    I’ll mak’ this declaration;

    We’re bought and sold for English gold—

    Such a parcel of rogues in a nation!”

    He was clearly referring to the wealthy elite of Scotland at that time.

    I turn to the 2014 referendum, when the people of Scotland were bombarded with anti-independence propaganda with the full weight of the United Kingdom Government and other Unionist-supporting politicians in what has rightly become known as Project Fear. During the incessant campaign by a Unionist-biased media, including the BBC, several Unionist-supporting newspapers and an army of clandestine trolls on social media, the Scottish voting public were essentially scared out of voting for independence.

    Pensioners were terrified and influenced by the false assertions and the prospect that their pensions would not be paid in an independent Scotland, that a number of large businesses would relocate to England, and that an independent Scotland would no longer be part of the European Union—we all know how that turned out, Mr Deputy Speaker. The people of Scotland are now wiser to this blatant pro-Unionist propaganda, including the discredited vow. The people of Scotland will not be fooled again.

    Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)

    I am sure my hon. Friend would agree that what the people in Scotland are now seeing, as they have been since 2014, is that the Tories and Better Together are absolutely in lockstep, hand in glove, working together, exerting every effort, and straining every sinew to keep the people of Scotland trapped in this rotten Union. In the next referendum they will continue going round chapping pensioners’ doors and terrifying them into voting against Scottish independence by telling them lies about losing their pensions.

    Allan Dorans

    I welcome the intervention of my hon. Friend and I totally agree with her.

    A significant reason for the need to be independent is the demographic deficit that exists in this United Kingdom. No matter how the people of Scotland vote, they will always be overruled by the Government of the United Kingdom. We are dictated to by a Government for whom the people of Scotland did not vote. This is clearly demonstrated by Brexit where 62% of the people in Scotland in all 32 local council areas voted to remain in the European Union, but, as we all know, Scotland was dragged out of Europe against our will.

    Ian Murray

    I thank the hon. Member for allowing me to intervene. I really take a great deal of offence at what he says about pensioners. While we are on pensioners, if he thinks that they were fearful about voting yes because of propaganda from the BBC and so on, can he tell us now, for the pensioners of Scotland, who will pay their pension in an independent Scotland?

    Allan Dorans

    The people of Scotland have paid into their pensions all of their working lives and will continue to be paid by the Scottish Government after independence.

    Scotland has a clear and unprecedented political mandate to be an independent country, as witnessed at the ballot box. This is shown by the number of SNP Members elected to the Westminster Parliament, to the Scottish Parliament and in the Scottish local authority elections.

    In the 2019 general election, the SNP won 49 of the 59 available Scottish parliamentary seats in Westminster. This is a clear and indisputable mandate for Scottish independence. Since the elections for the Scottish Parliament in May 2021, the SNP holds 64 of the 129 seats available, with the Conservatives achieving only 31 and Labour 22. That is an outstanding achievement with a voting system designed to prevent a significant majority by any one political party.

    In the Scottish local elections held earlier this year, the SNP won 453 of the 1,227 seats available across the 32 local authority areas. Again, this was more than any other single party. It must be emphasised that the SNP MPs, MSPs and councillors won the highest number of seats of any party in every one of these elections and were all elected on a clear manifesto commitment to Scottish independence. In short, Scotland has a clear political mandate to be independent and to hold a referendum on independence, and it intends to do so on 19 October 2023.

    Scotland has what it takes to be a modern, forward-looking, successful, welcoming independent country in the European Union, not tied to a Government in London whom they did not vote for and whose decisions and policies are not in the interests of the people of Scotland. We will always have a social and cultural relationship with our neighbours in England, but what we seek to change is the political relationship where decisions that affect the people of Scotland are best made by the people of Scotland. Decisions involving immigration, the economy, the environment, defence and foreign policy should be best suited to the wishes and needs of the people of Scotland.

    Some of the unique benefits introduced since the reintroduction of the Scottish Parliament, which are the envy of our neighbours in the British Isles and throughout the world, include enhanced childcare provision, free prescriptions and sanitary products, free bus travel for those over 60, disabled people and those under 22, the Scottish child payment—described as game-changing—and additional support for care experienced young people. They also include free university tuition based on the ability to learn rather than the ability to pay, which has enabled people to obtain university education, and many other outstanding initiatives that demonstrate that Scotland is leading the world as a more equal, caring and compassionate country.

    Scotland has a long history of contributing to the modern world. Winston Churchill commented, “Of all the small nations on this Earth, perhaps only the Ancient Greeks surpass the Scots in their contribution to mankind.” It was reported only last weekend in The Guardian that the University of St Andrews was assessed as the top university in the United Kingdom, beating Oxford and Cambridge. Scotland also had a further four universities in the top 18 in the United Kingdom.

    Most important to the country is our people. They are innovative, inventive people, who have contributed to developing all aspects of the modern world, including the previously mentioned Robert Burns, Adam Smith, David Hume, Alexander Fleming, David Livingstone, Sir Sean Connery, Sir Alex Ferguson, Charles Rennie Mackintosh, J. M. Barrie—

    Angus Brendan MacNeil

    Allan Dorans!

    Allan Dorans

    Thank you—James Watt, Andy Murray, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, Sir Chris Hoy and many more, and outstanding politicians including Keir Hardie, John Smith and, of course, Nicola Sturgeon, First Minister of Scotland.

    My hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Alyn Smith) memorably said in the European Parliament in 2019, prior to our having Brexit forced upon us, that

    “if we in Scotland are removed from our family of nations against our will—against our clearly democratically expressed view—independence will be our only route back…I am asking you to leave a light on so that we can find our way home.”

    There is much support in the European Union, which indicates that Scotland will be warmly welcomed back into the European Union as a free and politically independent country.

    Scotland has its own unique identity, history and culture and a diverse modern economy, with an abundance of renewable energy resources, a world-class food and drink industry, a booming tourism sector and advanced manufacturing, financial and business services. We are at the cutting edge of the industries of the future, such as life sciences, which are the envy of countries across the world.

    Mike Kane (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)

    On advanced manufacture, will the hon. Gentleman give way?

    Allan Dorans

    No, I am almost finished. I will not give way, because the hon. Gentleman has only been in the Chamber a few minutes and this debate has been going on for three and a half hours.

    In addition, Scotland has one of the most innovative, highly skilled, educated and resourceful people in the world. With independence, we will always get the Government we voted for; we will not have to waste money on Westminster priorities such as Brexit and Trident and we will be able to have economic and social policies fully tailored to Scotland’s own circumstances. Decisions affecting Scotland must be made by the people of Scotland. Our future should be in our hands, not those of a Conservative Government that Scotland—as we have heard many times—has not voted for since 1955.

    I confidently predict that Scotland will be a thriving, more equal, fairer, greener and more successful independent country and that we will find our way home and again be part of the European Union very soon. It is only a matter of time.

  • Greg Hands – 2022 Speech at the Chatham House Global Trade Conference

    Greg Hands – 2022 Speech at the Chatham House Global Trade Conference

    The speech made by Greg Hands, the Secretary of State for International Trade, on 3 November 2022.

    Thank you Alan, many thanks for that kind introduction.

    I’d like to thank Chatham House for inviting me here to discuss the future of global trade and the pivotal role the United Kingdom can play in helping to shape it.

    Great to see our former Permanent Secretary John Alty in the audience.

    I was here at the inception of the Department in the summer of 2016, and returned again in the lead up to the Trade Cooperation Agreement and leaving the end of the transition period 2020-21, and returned again as I see you today.

    Actually the last time I was here, I did so in my former role as energy minister. And one has certainly needed energy to keep up with events in Westminster over recent weeks, as you may have noticed!

    Last time I was here, there was actually a demo about energy – just sometimes thinking that the world of trade is sometimes more erudite than you might get in the world of energy.

    But what has remained unwavering throughout is this government’s fierce commitment to free trade and open markets as the key to unlocking the UK’s economic potential and kickstarting growth.

    And this is a cause I have championed during my three stints as Minister of State for Trade, during which I have witnessed the transformative power of global commerce at first hand.

    This is a commitment to trade that our new Prime Minister shares. I’ve had quite a few discussions with him over the summer recently about trade and so it’s a cause that I know is close to Rishi Sunak’s heart, as it is to mine.

    Because trade is the most powerful force for human progress we have at our disposal.

    A force that has lifted hundreds of millions of people out of poverty since the turn of the century.

    And that will drive the engine of global growth over the next decade too.

    Delivering enormous benefits for the United Kingdom and the global community alike, creating new jobs, fostering innovation and delivering prosperity worldwide.

    But trade as we know, is a truly global endeavour.

    And to deliver the greatest benefits it must be free and fair for all.

    That is why we are working with our global partners in Europe, Africa, Asia and the Americas to put in place the building blocks of this freer, fairer future.

    Calling out nations that don’t play by the rules and helping to build a global free trading coalition with Britain at its heart.

    I mentioned my recent return to the department, so if I had to outline my three immediate priorities I’ve identified in my work in trade policy (it’s not the whole of the department, we also have ministers for exports, investment and so on).

    But my three main priorities:

    The first is making sure the UK joins the CPTPP trading area as soon as possible. The Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership. 11 countries around the Pacific Rim, four continents, 5 million people, a GDP of around 9tn pound sterling.

    It’s a perfect deal, a great match for the UK. With really modern rules of origin, digital trade. I was interested to see a really good session earlier on digital trade. And it will help to set new rules and standards for trade across the world, encompassing many of the world’s great progressive nations, Japan, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Singapore. These are the countries that in my view are leading the debate on trade policy, and it’s a free trade area without a political union. It is in many ways everything that the UK has always wanted to join in my opinion.

    The second area is India, just the size and the prospect of India alone as a market is too impossible to ignore. And I think the UK’s traditional links and connections there are incredible, it’s not just the trade relationship but the investment we have with India, means that it’s an immediate priority for us to potentially be the first G7 country to do a trade deal with India.

    And the third area is to focus on the nitty gritty of trade work, the trade barriers, making sure we are focusing on removing trade barriers around the world, I’m talking anything from lot codes on Scotch whisky bottles to Taiwan through to German labour market rules, discriminatory Spanish customs practices – a whole host of different issues out there that prevent UK goods and services being sold and prevent them coming the other way.

    So those are my three priorities. And I’m going to return to each of those three throughout the course of this speech.

    So, first and foremost, we must work with our international partners to navigate a path through the economic storm unleashed by Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine…

    … which has of course sent shockwaves through the world’s financial system, unleashing rising prices for energy and commodities…

    …Bringing about let’s be frank about it scenes of destruction – and I studied history as an undergraduate at university, and my main focus was 20th century Central and Eastern European history, and that is a period of an enormous amount of human and material destruction. And I think the sort of scenes that we’ve seen throughout the course of this year have been all too reminiscent of the first half of the 20th century. Something which is happening here in the first half of 21st century.

    But Britain is helping lead the West’s response to this crisis by supplying military assistance to Ukraine.

    And we are using the power of trade to support Ukraine in its struggle for freedom economically too.

    By removing tariffs on all goods from that nation under the UK-Ukraine Free Trade agreement.

    And providing other economic support – including £1bn in loan guarantees.

    While working with our allies around the world to impose unprecedented trade sanctions on Russia.

    But we know that our work is far from done.

    The invasion has revealed the fragility of global peace and security. And there was a fascinating session you’ve just had on supply chains which after pandemic has revealed lots of global vulnerabilities which many of us thought or suspected were there but have been brought into sharp focus this year.

    A line has been drawn in the sand between liberty and tyranny.

    And as we look to the future we must ask ourselves what kind of country we wish to be.

    A nation that looks outwards to the world? An open, interconnected, truly global Britain that builds new bridges of trade and investment?

    Or a country that battens down the hatches and hides behind protectionist trade barriers?

    And we must decide what kind of world we wish to build.

    A world in which liberty, democracy and security are the norm – and in which free, fair, rules-based trade can come to the fore.

    I’m very much in that camp and this government is as well.

    Or a world in which authoritarianism, protectionism and corruption hold sway?

    It is clear to this government which path the United Kingdom must take.

    We must work with our democratic allies to help shape the international order of the future. With free trade forged at its heart.

    Britain and our allies must push hard for reform of the World Trade Organisation for example so that the rules underpinning global trade are fit for purpose.

    Strengthening the dispute resolution mechanism and holding states that break the rules to account.

    Standing with our partners to confront shared challenges.

    As we did earlier this year at the 12th Ministerial WTO Conference in Geneva – our first as a renewed independent member of the WTO…

    …Where we signed a joint declaration on trade’s key role in underpinning global food security.

    Strengthening our multilateral partnerships will be more important now than ever before as the global economic axis shifts eastwards.

    China’s increasing international assertiveness and the growing importance of the Indo-Pacific will be among the most significant geopolitical and geo-economic shifts this decade.

    And our response will help define our relationship with the world that emerges in the decades ahead.

    The UK’s future prosperity is dependent on deepening our economic relationships with countries in the Indo-pacific region in particular.

    Which is why we are concentrating on building new bonds of trade and investment with nations across this region.

    Opening up fresh opportunities for British business in the cutting-edge industries that are shaping the world of tomorrow.

    Crucial to that is the UK’s accession to CPTPP – and another of my highest priorities is agreeing a deal with India which promises to be a game-changer for Britain’s economic ties with the world’s largest democracy and fifth largest economy.

    India is set to become the world’s third largest economy by 2030, and we are committed to building upon the living bridge of people, businesses and culture that bind our nations together.

    A shared commitment with India that Prime Minister Modi underlined when he welcomed the appointment of Rishi Sunak as our new Prime Minister.

    And our governments are making good progress in negotiating an ambitious FTA which could boost trade between us by as much as £28 billion.

    Setting British and Indian businesses free to trade and invest in each other’s markets.

    An FTA with India is a key plank of our work to position the United Kingdom at the centre of a network of free trade agreements across the globe.

    We have signed deals with 71 countries plus the EU so far, accounting for over £800bn-worth of trade last year.

    Including far reaching and innovative agreements with countries such as Japan, Australia and New Zealand that go further in cutting edge sectors such as digital and data.

    And we are working alongside our biggest single bilateral trade partner and closest ally the United States at both federal and state level to remove barriers to business… again with a very strong focus on services and digital trade.

    …Strengthening a trade and investment relationship worth more than £230bn.

    Beyond these deals we are making it easier for British firms to sell their goods and services overseas in other ways… my third priority

    …by tackling often complex trade rules and practical obstacles that block their path to growth

    Over the past two years, my department has removed over 400 such barriers to business – we have a database of trade barriers that we are seeking to remove… opening the door to global markets for British exports of all kinds.

    Successes so far include:

    Opening the way for first shipment of Welsh lamb exported to the US in more than 20 years…

    second…Tackling banking restrictions for British firms in Colombia, worth an estimated £55 million over 5 years…

    …And lifting restrictions that enable British apples, pears, quince to be exported to India for the first time.

    A broad cross section of goods and services.

    And we are going further and faster by using intelligence gathered from industry to target a “most wanted” list of obstacles standing in the way of British exporters.

    Unlocking a potential £20 billion-worth of new opportunities for our economy.

    And as we look ahead at the opportunities emerging worldwide, we are determined to strengthen our ties in our own neighbourhood too.

    Building on our trade and investment relationships with our allies across Europe – which still accounts for around half [around – 45%] of our total global trade.

    These are relationships that I am leading the way in strengthening in my role at DIT – as I travel across the continent to meet with politicians and businesses to help smooth the path for British trade and investment.

    Inevitably Britain leaving the European Union has changed that relationship, we are outside the single market, outside the customs union. But we have the most comprehensive Free Tree Agreement between the UK and EU, so we need to continue to make sure it works well for British businesses and British exporters.

    Whether by addressing French customs procedures, Spanish labour laws or German business regulations. Flavour of the work we’re doing there.

    And this government is committed to using the power of trade to support global development too.

    Helping open the door to trade-led growth for nations across the developing world.

    This isn’t just right morally, it makes sense economically too.

    Because trade not aid is the path to long-term prosperity.

    And, if demography is destiny, then the future of the global economy surely lies in the developing world.

    Where the youngest, most dynamic and most rapidly diversifying economies are emerging.

    With developing nations offering the greatest trade potential on the planet.

    By the middle of this century alone, Africa is set to account for one in four of the world’s consumers.

    Which is why the UK has made tearing down barriers to business with developing nations central to our global trade policy.

    We’ve agreed Economic Partnerships with 33 African, Caribbean and Pacific countries so far, covering more than £20 billion-worth of trade.

    And we have removed almost all tariffs on goods from 65 nations through our Developing Countries Trading Scheme. Building on the situation we inherited from the EU but making sure we greened our tariff, lowered our tariff, simplified our tariffs to really benefit developing world.

    While using our position as a global finance hub to provide the investment developing nations need to build their critical infrastructure.

    We are making progress towards our goal of building a freer, fairer future for global trade with UK right at the centre of it as one of the most progressive trade policy countries in the world.

    A future that will develop for the UK but also for our friends and allies around the world.

    But we know there are many hard miles yet to travel on this journey – the department is six and a half years into its existence – and we’ve achieved an enormous amount in that time but there’s still a huge amount for us to do.

    The big decisions on trade we take today will help define the world of tomorrow.

    And we must have the courage to stand by our conviction that free trade and open markets hold the key to prosperity.

    So that millions more people worldwide can be set free to realise their economic potential.

    And embrace the bright future that lies ahead. That is the UK ambition, both for our own trade policy and for that globally.

  • Amanda Spielman – 2022 Speech at the National Children and Adult Services Conference

    Amanda Spielman – 2022 Speech at the National Children and Adult Services Conference

    The speech made by Amanda Spielman, the Chief Inspector of Ofsted, in Manchester on 3 November 2022.

    Good morning, it’s great to be with you here in Manchester and to be talking to people from across the sector on my visits to children’s homes, local authorities and schools.

    What is clear from those conversations, and from everything we have seen through the year, is that this is still a challenging time for education and social care.

    So, I also want to take the time to say thank you and your teams for the hard work you do, whether in education, social care or wider children’s and adults’ services.

    There are more than a few pinch points in our sectors including workforce shortages, capacity pressures, and places for children with the most complex needs. There are also the big external factors such as an increase in asylum seeking unaccompanied children and your work supporting Ukrainian and other refugee families.

    But despite this, we do know that you are un-deterred in your ambitions for children.

    And I want to reassure you that we are too.

    Our strategy

    So, what are we at Ofsted doing?

    Like you, we have continued with our work while adjusting to big changes in context. But we have also been looking to the future. We recently published a new five-year strategy taking us to 2027. This is a strategy that reflects on the last 5 years, especially the pressures the pandemic put on our sectors, but it does also look forward to recovery and beyond.

    The strategy has been designed to understand and meet the challenges I mentioned. It will also support your sectors while maintaining our distinct role and perspective.

    We have set ourselves 8 strategic priorities and I want to talk about 5 of them:

    • ‘inspections that raise standards’
    • delivering ‘right touch regulation’
    • ‘keeping children safe’
    • ‘keeping pace with sector changes’
    • and making sure children get ‘the best start in life’

    The best start in life

    I am sure that these will resonate with you, and I will talk through each of them, but I want to begin with ‘the best start in life.’

    Children only get one childhood. Each of us has a role in making sure we are getting it right from the start. We make no apology for prioritising the early years.

    Over the last year we have published reports highlighting the serious impact the pandemic has had on some of the youngest children. We, like you, have been very concerned about the harm to them.

    There are clear concerns about the impact on children’s social and wider development. Many have gaps in communication and language skills and are behind where they should be in personal, social, emotional, and physical development.

    There is also a challenging backdrop as the early years sector adapts to the post-pandemic landscape. Parents are struggling to find childcare that is flexible to their needs and at a price they can afford. Alongside this, many workers are leaving the sector and those who stay are often struggling on low wages, exacerbated by significant rises in the cost of living. Making childcare affordable, while attracting well trained and motivated staff is incredibly difficult. We are very aware of this.

    In the past, there has been a well-intentioned policy aim to treat childminders and nurseries alike. But part of what we are trying to do is to respect their different natures while maintaining high standards, wherever care is happening.

    A young child’s development and learning, wherever they are, is crucial. It is why Ofsted is emphasising the importance of early years curriculum; what children are learning.

    We are also going to extend specialist training for our early years inspectors; and we are continuing our early years research programme allowing us to share our insights quickly.

    Inspections that raise standards

    Which brings me on to our next strategic priority – ‘inspections that raise standards.’

    Coming out of the pandemic, schools and nurseries told us they wanted stability and continuity, including in the inspection model. That is why we are allowing the Education Inspection Framework (EIF) to embed properly rather than change it to focus on pandemic recovery.

    However, we have clarified how the EIF works for childminders. We updated the early years inspection handbook in September to include specific guidance for childminder inspections. It includes information on the practical process, how our inspectors gather and evaluate evidence, and how they come to a judgement.

    Inspection judgements are important because they inform parents, commissioners, and government about the standards being achieved. Our reports highlight good practice and areas for improvement.

    The inspection process itself is designed around professional dialogue. Good leaders are the main drivers of improvement in their services. Professional dialogue helps them to improve and us to recognise and report good practice.

    Joint Targeted Area Inspections (JTAIs)

    We also want our inspections to encourage cross-sector working.

    We have recently published our new guidance for Joint Targeted Area Inspections (JTAIs). We will look at how children’s social care, education, health, and the police, work together to reduce risks and harm to children and to give early help.

    We know that getting the right help at the right time can prevent longer-term intervention. All these agencies must contribute to this.

    Our JTAIs will also look at how early help works and how children move between the categories of early help and children in need.

    We hope that this work will make sure everyone in local areas thinks about their role in early support for families. We also expect that it will help the government as it considers children’s social care reform.

    Right touch regulation

    We know that our ‘right touch regulation’ strategic priority is so important to the sector right now.

    Proportionate and risk-based regulation is critical to ensuring good outcomes for children.

    The principles of good regulation are straightforward: * proportionality * accountability * consistency * transparency * and targeting

    There have been several recent reviews and reports with recommendations for Ofsted and for the sectors we work with. We welcome these contributions and the ongoing discussions that they bring. We’ll continue to support improvement based on the recommendations we and you have been making for a number of years to deliver the best possible outcomes for children.

    Where there are lessons for Ofsted to learn, we will take that on board. We constantly strive to improve and change where we can see it will help.

    We will continue to use our regulatory powers with careful thought and only where we have serious concerns. But, when we find care that is simply not good enough, it is right that we continue to act.

    We know this can contribute to pressures on supply, but we cannot and will not accept sub-standard care for children. We know that there is increased demand, but the solution to that is not lower standards. It is increased supply.

    But we are making changes that we believe will help you.

    I want to give you 3 examples of where we are doing this.

    Multi-building registration

    The first is multi-building registration.

    We recognised a need for more flexible and responsive provision for children, and an increasing demand for solo and specialised placements. Late last year we introduced the multi-building registration of children’s homes.

    It means that a provider can now apply to register a single home where the care and accommodation is provided in more than one building. This reflects the changing ways in which services for children are being delivered and should help increase system capacity. We know some providers are already benefitting from this.

    But I am worried about the growth in single child homes. They can isolate children, be very expensive, and create additional safeguarding risks. They can be right for some children but is not a trend we should uncritically welcome.

    Streamlining the application process

    The second example is our streamlining the application process for childcare to make it simpler and quicker.

    We are simplifying our GP health checks and making sure we have all the evidence we need to make informed decisions. We are also working on changes to the registration process to do more parts in parallel and get to registration visits sooner.

    All of this will help childminders and nurseries get registered more quickly.

    Inspecting local authority children’s services (ILACS)

    The third example I want to give is the work we’re doing to recognise the experiences of care leavers. We want to capture a child’s entire journey through the care system, and especially their experiences when they leave it. From January, our ILACS inspections will include a new judgement on the experiences and progress of care leavers.

    We’ve consulted you and the wider sector and received very strong support for this new judgement. We will be publishing the updated framework in December. The criteria will reflect the areas that you and young people who have lived in care think make the most difference to young people’s lives.

    We will look at young people’s relationships and participation; their health, both physical and mental; their learning and employment; and the local offer and support for care leavers as they transition to adulthood.

    Area SEND framework

    As part of our better regulation priority, I would also like to talk to you about the work we are doing on the new area SEND framework. Thanks to everyone who responded to the consultation on the framework.

    This work is a priority for me. I have long had concerns about the significant weaknesses in the system, backed up by the evidence from our inspections and research on the pandemic’s impact.

    I welcomed the government’s vision to reform the system set out in the green paper. But I have always been clear that it would not be right to wait until reforms are made to introduce a new inspection framework. Our aim is to promote improvement in the existing system, while helping areas prepare for further reforms.

    Our proposed changes include strengthening the accountability of local area partnerships by having more clarity about who recommendations are aimed at. Critically, we want to put the experiences and outcomes for children with SEND at the centre of our inspections.

    Keeping pace with sector changes

    As well as making changes at Ofsted, we want to continue to recognise changes and innovations in the sector.

    I do understand that you can sometimes feel blamed when things don’t work out, and that can hinder innovation.

    We understand that you can’t make an omelette without breaking eggs. It’s important to try new things to improve outcomes for children. But you should also make sure that when things don’t work, you learn from them and improve.

    So, we know the sector is changing and it is important not to overburden the system. As changes and reforms become clear, we will continue to be an intelligent regulator.

    In my conversations with Ministers, they have always been clear about the importance of changing things carefully and managing change well, while maintaining high ambitions. I couldn’t agree more, and I hope that this spirit will continue.

    Ofsted will do what it can to bring systems together, recognising a world where not everything is achievable.

    We are making sure that we are working with other inspectorates and regulators to hold the right organisations to account. It’s a complicated regulatory landscape and we are not the only people who inspect you.

    That’s why we have been working closely with CQC and HMI Probation so that we don’t all inspect at once. We want to give you the space to do what you do well and avoid simultaneous inspections that stretch your resources. This is good for everyone, including your staff, and lets us get to a better reflection of quality.

    Keeping children safe

    This brings me to the last strategic priority I want to talk about today – ‘keeping children safe.’

    It is vital through their whole journey – from childhood to adulthood. And there are aspects of safeguarding that have often gone under the radar but are getting more attention.

    Supported accommodation

    Supported accommodation is currently in the spotlight. We start registering these providers in April. Some of you are already planning and working to be ready for that, and we encourage all of you to do so.

    We recognise that supported accommodation is hugely varied – quite rightly, as it should reflect the diverse and changing needs of individual young people.

    So, we won’t have a one-size-fits-all, overly prescriptive approach.

    Unaccompanied asylum-seeking children

    We’re also seeing more asylum seekers, and particularly unaccompanied asylum-seeking children. Children who arrive at our shores have often travelled for months and may have endured hardships and harm along the way.

    These children need care and compassion, but we also have to be practical and plan for the increased pressures and extra demands.

    Unfortunately, many children are getting stuck in unsuitable accommodation such as hotels.

    Once in England, children should transfer to the care of a local authority and become a ‘child in care.’ This should happen swiftly. But we know that growing numbers, pressures on foster care, and the failings of some authorities to take ‘their share’ has led to unacceptable delays.

    We take this very seriously. We have already helped the Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration on their inspections of hotels housing these children. Their recent report highlighted safeguarding concerns, very limited education, and unclear or poor oversight.

    The Home Office’s reply committed them to eliminating the use of such accommodation as quickly as possible. You all have a part to play in achieving that.

    It is also vital that asylum seekers are in places which are appropriate for their age. Adults being in spaces for children raise obvious safeguarding concerns. We are also very concerned about increasing numbers of children being found in hotels, mistakenly identified as adults. We have raised this with the DfE (Department for Education) and have seen swift action from local authorities. But we are concerned that vulnerable children could be lost from sight and at risk of future exploitation.

    We know that many of you are working hard to develop local provision for these very vulnerable children and accommodating the increased quotas. When we inspect, we will recognise those making good efforts as well as where progress is too slow.

    Conclusion

    I know we all face an extremely challenging landscape. I want to finish by saying that the solutions to the challenges we face do not lie in the gift of any one of us. We must all continue to work on the areas where we can make a difference to improve the outcomes for all children.

    Thank you for all the work you are doing in this area and will continue to do.

  • Deidre Brock – 2022 Speech on Scottish Independence and the Scottish Economy

    Deidre Brock – 2022 Speech on Scottish Independence and the Scottish Economy

    The speech made by Deidre Brock, the SNP MP for Edinburgh North and Leith, in the House of Commons on 2 November 2022.

    We spend a lot of time in this place talking about the many faults of Westminster Governments and the constitutional arrangements that we and so many of our constituents object to. Indeed, I will be touching on some of those later, but I want to start by talking about the possibilities, the opportunities, that we can explore in an independent Scotland. It is the possibilities suggested by a fully independent Scotland that I find so exciting. It is not something to be viewed with dread but something to be welcomed as a new start, away from the crumbling ultra-conservative ways of this place. Imagine our small nation not being strapped to the disintegrating dreams of an imperial past, but as a country making its own way in the world, deciding what best suits the needs of its people and being able to act on that, looking outwards to the international community and playing its part in world affairs.

    Today, for example, the Scottish Government published their findings from interviews on establishing a feminist approach to foreign policy. This approach to international affairs not only seeks to improve women’s material positions around the world but embraces a reorientation of foreign policy based on cosmopolitan ideals of justice, peace and pragmatic security. With reserved matters returned to us and the powers of a normal, independent country at our disposal, we would be able to fully pursue innovative ideas and build on our reputation as a trusted and valued global citizen. We would no longer be held back by the dead hand of this place clamping down on change, or held back by successive Governments we have not voted for. We would be free from being at the mercy of Westminster Government decisions so often made against our best interests by a Government full of Ministers who just do not get Scotland, its needs or its people. We would be freed from investments made without our say-so on obscenities such as Trident, successive disastrous Ministry of Defence decisions on weapons that waste billions of pounds, and nuclear power with its toxic legacy. We could shift to life-affirming investments in our people, our renewables potential, our health and education systems, our social security, our infrastructure, our research and development, and so much more.

    The country I grew up in has flourished since it threw off, for the most part, the influences of mother Britain, although there is still unfinished business, and it has not looked back. If we asked Australians whether they want to creep back to the comfort of the UK’s arms, they would laugh at us, because nothing beats being free to make their own decisions for themselves, to suit their own needs. That is as true for countries as it is for individuals, and it goes for the many countries that have extracted themselves from Westminster’s grip. I do not recall any of them being incapable of deciding what currency to use, to the point that it stopped them wanting independence.

    Hannah Bardell

    My hon. Friend might have answered this question, but is she aware of any nation that has become independent from the UK and then gone back?

    Deidre Brock

    No, and many of the arguments around this are completely fatuous.

    The Tories seem to have forgotten the promises made during the last independence referendum to greatly strengthen devolution and Scotland’s powers, but many of us in Scotland have not forgotten. Those promises were as hollow as the promises made to the fishing communities before the EU referendum. We, like them, have been badly let down.

    I understand some of the fears we have heard expressed today by hon. Members from other parties about Scotland leaving the Union and regaining its independence. Surely they would welcome the example of a good neighbour to raise all our standards. We could set an example to the world in how we do such things. Should we not all be aiming to move away from the bad example of failed states and their disempowered Parliaments? There must be no more centralising of power in the hands of a very few Government Ministers without parliamentary say-so, and without the say-so of the people of Scotland.

    I have spoken before of the bizarre hankering for uniformity across these islands, which is seemingly at odds with traditional Tory thinking. I thought that lot were all for rugged individualism, but I guess this centralising instinct is the kind of thinking we might expect from a team who crushed dissent, removed or sidelined what was left of their talent and somehow still gaslighted the public into thinking the ship of Government sails on serenely.

    The United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020, for example, was pushed through this place with indecent haste and has sunk its claws into devolved responsibilities, despite objections from the devolved Parliaments. The Act made it clear that this Government seek to bring down Scotland’s standards rather than improving England’s standards. That poverty of ambition should haunt England for decades, but it must not be allowed to hold back the rest of us.

    Under the myth of removing barriers to trade, the UKIM Act ignored those objections and sought to force Scotland and, of course, Wales into a lockstep Union of diminishing standards and lessening protections, with a Government determined to rip away what they call red tape and the rest of us call sensible precautions. That is not respectful co-decision making. [Interruption.] It is interesting to hear the Minister getting a bit irate about these points.

    Despite all the many ministerial assurances otherwise, the UKIM Act was not introduced with the intention of aiming for higher standards. I have been told time and again in this place that legislation that appears completely disadvantageous to Scotland’s interests is not, in fact, disadvantageous and that we should simply trust in Ministers’ good intentions, and I was right not to believe it.

    After Brexit removed us from the protections offered by the EU, this Government began chipping away at even the limited powers of devolution. The UKIM Act, among many others, changed our constitutional arrangements without asking the people for their approval in a referendum, although they withheld their approval in the most recent Scottish parliamentary elections when, once again, the Tories lost.

    Surely higher standards, not lower standards, should be the goal. An independent Scotland could take back control of that, in consultation with our sister countries upon our return to the EU. We could go back to respecting higher standards, and protecting consumers, the environment, brand reputations, our farming and fishing communities, the business and investment sectors, our exporters and jobs.

    Following on from my question in Prime Minister’s questions today, another area that we would be able to look at once independent is the influence of organisations with opaque funding sources that have wormed their way into our politics. We have seen the recent spectacular crash of libertarian, ultra-right-wing ideas espoused by some of those organisations to gullible politicians just a few weeks ago. For a long time, UK politics has been dominated by a variety of so-called think-tanks, which are set up as a front, opaquely funded and which refuse to declare their financial sources. It is suspected that much of their funding could come from individuals and organisations based overseas, but it is very difficult to prove. Some may have been involved in the Cambridge Analytica scandal which may have contributed to the success of the Vote Leave campaign in the EU referendum. These are the kind of shadowy organisations we would have the powers to take action against in an independent Scotland—not to stop their voices, as the principle of free speech is something I would like to think we can all agree on in this place, but to make clear to the public the funding sources and possible vested interests at play, so that the Scottish public are fully informed and not played for fools.

    To ensure that, of course, we would need a genuinely independent body to regulate elections. In February, the Electoral Commission took the highly unusual step of writing a public letter to the Tory Government to say that the provisions in the Elections Bill were

    “inconsistent with the role that an independent electoral commission plays in a healthy democracy.”

    The Elections Bill, we might recall, sailed through this place regardless. That is extremely worrying and it is contrary to international norms, and I think we would do much better.

    We could take a much larger role in addressing the climate crisis and in fully exploiting our renewables potential. Clearly the existential threat of the climate emergency lies low on the new Prime Minister’s list of priorities. Even now, in the year the UK hands over the COP presidency, he demotes both the Climate Minister and the COP26 President from the Cabinet. In the meantime, new oil and gas licences are being issued, even as the Government must now come up with a new net zero strategy by March, after the High Court ruled that their previous plan was unlawful. The equivalent of almost 100% of Scotland’s gross electricity consumption is now generated from renewable sources, yet we remain locked in an energy market in which the price of electricity is tied to the price of gas.

    Our contribution to the international fight against climate change gives a further glimpse of what might be possible with independence. That is true in terms of not just our action to cut emissions at home, but our proactive role in convening efforts on the world stage. Many of the worst consequences of the climate crisis are being felt in some of the poorest regions of the world, by people least responsible for its causes. So it is very pleasing that young people and women from countries in the global south are being given the opportunity to attend COP27 in Egypt as part of Scottish Government-funded programmes. Scotland was among the first nations to put fairness and justice at the heart of our international climate action. The Scottish Government have trebled the climate justice fund, to £36 million, which includes a financial commitment of £2 million to address loss and damage—we are the first country in the world to do so. That will help to meet the costs that would otherwise be borne by island nations and low-lying developing states. The SNP Scottish Government have also led an international coalition resulting in the Edinburgh declaration, urging increased action to tackle biodiversity loss. It now has 244 signatories from Governments, cities and local authorities representing every continent.

    That ambition, innovation and pursuit of justice, which have characterised Scotland’s climate policy and international engagement, show us the potential and hope offered by independence. Hope—that is what this place finds so hard to crush in all of us who have that dream of a better Scotland. All we lack now is the final crucial faith in ourselves and our abilities to get there. I so look forward to shaking the dust of this place off our shoes and embarking on that fresh new path, with that wealth of talented people, resources, rich history and culture behind us, granting us fair winds and grasping the opportunities that await us very soon.

  • Eleanor Laing – 2022 Statement on the Result of the Chair of the Health and Social Care Committee Election

    Eleanor Laing – 2022 Statement on the Result of the Chair of the Health and Social Care Committee Election

    The statement made by Eleanor Laing, the Madam Deputy Speaker, in the House of Commons on 2 November 2022.

    Members will have noticed that there is something else going on today, and that various Members have suddenly appeared in the Chamber. The reason is that I am now about to announce the result of the ballot held today for the election of a new Chair of the Health and Social Care Committee. I can announce that 436 votes were cast, four of which were invalid. The counting went to four rounds. There were 401 active votes in the final round, excluding those ballot papers whose preferences had been exhausted. The quota to be reached was therefore 201 votes. Steve Brine was elected Chair with 253 votes. He will take up his post immediately and I congratulate him on his election. I know that he is unavoidably detained elsewhere and cannot be in the Chamber at this moment. The results of the count under the alternative vote system will be made available as soon as possible in the Vote Office and published on the internet. We will now proceed.

  • Toby Perkins – 2022 Speech on Scottish Independence and the Scottish Economy

    Toby Perkins – 2022 Speech on Scottish Independence and the Scottish Economy

    The speech made by Toby Perkins, the Labour MP for Chesterfield, in the House of Commons on 2 November 2022.

    I am pleased that the Scottish National party has decided to bring this debate to the Chamber. It is important that the case for an independent Scotland is re-examined. The points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray) will have been heard loudly both in Scotland and across the United Kingdom.

    This is a matter of great interest to my constituents in Chesterfield. It is a fact that people across England feel very passionately and strongly that the United Kingdom is better together, and that the success of Scotland and the success of England is assured by our being together in the United Kingdom. We gratefully remember the many contributions made by Scots to the United Kingdom in a whole variety of different ways. The successful Union we have had over hundreds of years has led to Britain being the successful country that it is.

    It was precisely because it matters to me and my constituents that, during 2014, I went up to Scotland and spent a considerable amount of time campaigning in the independence referendum, speaking to people in an array of constituencies.

    Angus Brendan MacNeil

    I hear the hon. Gentleman’s confession that he went up to Scotland for the 2014 referendum. Did he, on any doorsteps in Scotland, say to the people that voting to stay in the UK would guarantee their place in the European Union, or was he a Brexiteer by that point?

    Mr Perkins

    Clearly, I went up there to make the case for Scotland to remain in the United Kingdom. I absolutely recognised that that was a choice for the people of Scotland, but it was a choice that was going to affect England. The fact that we were to have a referendum on our relationship with the EU was already known in 2014, because the Conservative party had already committed to that and the people of Scotland voted to remain on that basis. Clearly, I was hopeful that the people of Britain would vote to stay in the European Union. In fact, I only wish that the hon. Gentleman’s party had put the same effort into that referendum as the Labour party. If it had, we might have seen a different outcome.

    Several hon. Members rose—

    Mr Perkins

    A number of people want to intervene. I will accept interventions, but I will not accept one from the hon. Member for East Renfrewshire (Kirsten Oswald), because she misrepresented me previously. She said that I had said that I had apologised for the Government’s record. I have not; I have done the opposite. [Interruption.] I will check the record very carefully. She misrepresented me and if she wants to correct the record I will let her, but if she does not want to correct the record I will hear from the right hon. Member for Dundee East (Stewart Hosie).

    Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP)

    The hon. Gentleman is perfectly entitled to make the case he is making, but given that in Scotland we voted to stay in the European Union and given that in his constituency 34,000 voted to leave and only 22,900 voted to remain, would it not have been better, instead of wasting his time in Scotland, if he had done his job in Chesterfield, instead of having that act of economic self-harm that is Brexit?

    Several hon. Members rose—

    Mr Perkins

    May I respond to the point that has just been made? I worked very hard during the Brexit referendum to make a case, but I accept that people across the coalfield voted in a different way. I return to the statistic that I put to the right hon. Gentleman’s leader, the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford). The Scottish National party spent a paltry £91,000 on the EU referendum. During the Scottish independence referendum, it spent £1,344,000. The truth is that the people committed to Scottish independence believed that the outcome they got was exactly the one they wanted. They wanted the rest of the UK to vote out while Scotland voted to stay in and that is why they did not lift a finger to get a result. Because of the limp effort it put in, the turnout in the Brexit referendum was lower in Scotland than in any other region or nation of the United Kingdom. That is the reality. The Scottish National party made it very clear to its voters that it was happy with that outcome. It knew there was a likelihood that that outcome would strengthen its case for Scottish independence.

    Kirsten Oswald rose—

    Mr Perkins

    If the hon. Lady is willing to withdraw the comment she made, I will give way to her.

    Kirsten Oswald

    I am grateful to the hon. Member. I am somewhat perplexed. I pointed out that his colleagues had made comments that clearly apologised for the UK Government’s economic mismanagement. I do not know why the UK Labour party would support that, but that is its problem, not mine. I absolutely stand by my concerns about the Labour party’s position on Brexit. It is unclear to me why Labour Members are so supportive of Brexit, considering the damage that it has done to Scotland, or why the hon. Gentleman continues to suggest that people such as me, with a 73% remain vote in my constituency, somehow were not marching the streets, as all my colleagues were. Scotland did not want to leave the EU and we want to be back in it. The hon. Gentleman might not like that, but he does not get to misrepresent it.

    Mr Perkins

    I hear what the hon. Lady says, and I repeat what I said: if the SNP was desperate to stay in the European Union, it had a funny way of showing it. Why is it—[Interruption.] I will respond to the points that have been made. Why is it—let SNP Members answer this—that the SNP spent just 7% of the amount of money on the Brexit referendum that it spent on the Scottish independence referendum? The only conclusion that I can come to is that the SNP did not care nearly as much about that.

    I accept that the people of Scotland—the majority of people who voted in that referendum—voted to remain in the EU. However, the turnout in Scotland was also very low and I believe that the SNP’s lack of effort was a major factor.

    Several hon. Members rose—

    Mr Perkins

    I will return to the subject—[Interruption.]

    Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)

    Order. I have to protect the hon. Gentleman. He has as much of a right to speak as anyone else. Let us give him a chance.

    Mr Perkins

    Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. During that Scottish referendum, I was in Edinburgh, Cumbernauld, West Dunbartonshire, Airdrie and Falkirk, and I spoke to people about the issues and about how much I hoped that they would choose to stay in the United Kingdom. The people I spoke to on the doorsteps were pleased to debate the subject. Lots of them voted to stay in the UK and lots voted otherwise. Virtually all those constituencies ended up voting overall to stay in the UK, but they recognised that not only was this a matter on which the people of Scotland would decide, but that the matter was of interest to people across the United Kingdom.

    The basic assertion that the Scottish National party made—that an independent Scotland would be part of the EU but that it would take the pound and, at some point in future, have a Scottish pound—has been absolutely blown to pieces by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South. That was clear for everyone to see, and the momentary quiet that descended among those on the SNP Benches when he was making his case spoke volumes.

    We have heard from SNP Members—

    Kirsty Blackman

    Will the hon. Member give way?

    Mr Perkins

    I will, because I was about to refer to the hon. Lady’s speech, so that is perfect timing.

    Kirsty Blackman

    I am very pleased that the hon. Member has given way. Is he aware that if all the 1 million people in Scotland who voted to leave the EU had voted to remain in the EU—if we had had a remain vote of 100%—we would still have lost the referendum?

    Mr Perkins

    That is an important point. I could make the same point about the response in Chesterfield. Of course, this was a vote for the entire United Kingdom. However, I want to respond to something else that the hon. Lady said; although I disagree with her conclusions, I thought that she made an excellent speech. On her point about the independence referendum, when I was up in Scotland for that, it was said very clearly by Alex Salmond, and it was very clearly understood by the people of Scotland, that that was a once-in-a-generation referendum. That was said strongly.

    The hon. Lady has spoken powerfully about the mandate that the SNP has won by getting Members of Parliament elected to this place. Is she making the case that we should have had another referendum after the 2015 election, another after the 2017 election and yet another after the 2019 election? Every time the SNP has a majority of MPs in Scotland, should we have another referendum? If not, how often should we have these referendums?

    We all know that if the 2014 referendum had had a different result and people had voted for independence, there would have been no second referendum. There might have been a 0.1% majority, but it would not have mattered: that would have been enough to say, “We have heard the voice of the people.” But the referendum was lost by more than 10%, and there was an immediate demand for a second one. How often do we have to have these referendums? If the independence campaign wins the next one, does the hon. Lady want the best of three?

    Kirsty Blackman

    I was talking about the different ways in which Scotland has given us a mandate for an independence referendum. When SNP candidates stood for the Scottish Parliament in 2021, the SNP committed explicitly in our manifesto to a referendum on independence. The Scottish people have chosen to have that referendum by voting for independence-supporting parties. If that is not the route for the Scottish people to have an independence referendum, what does the hon. Gentleman think their route to choosing a referendum should be?

    Mr Perkins

    I notice that the hon. Lady has answered my question with a question. My question was a very specific one: how often will we have this referendum? It is not for me to set the terms of a referendum, but I do think that things would be very different if opinion polls showed that the view of the Scottish people had massively changed since 2014. I could not ignore that, because this is a question for the Scottish people.

    When the opinion polls turned in 2020, showing more Scottish people in favour of independence, we heard about them all the time. Everyone was always saying, “Oh, the latest polls say this.” Then I thought to myself, “Everyone seems to have gone a bit quiet about the polls. Why aren’t they mentioning them?” I had a little look on my phone. Of the last 19 opinion polls, including the most recent one paid for by the Alba party, only one showed majority support for independence. Of the last 44 opinion polls, only four have shown a majority for independence. If there had clearly been an overwhelming shift in opinion that had not been reflected, things would be different, but there has not. The truth is that opinion polls suggest that we are broadly in a similar place.

    It is a shame that the hon. Lady did not respond to my question. If 2014 was not once in a generation, as the people of Scotland were clearly told at the time, when will be? When will enough be enough?

    Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP) rose—

    Mr Perkins

    Perhaps the hon. Lady would like to answer that.

    Deidre Brock

    I am grateful for the opportunity to respond to the hon. Gentleman. Will he accept the words of Ciaran Martin, the former constitution director at the Cabinet Office, who prepared the legal documents for the Edinburgh agreement? He said:

    “‘Once in a generation’ was not a legal commitment, believe me…It’s just a slogan.”

    Mr Perkins

    I accept that it was not a legal commitment. I am not suggesting that it was; I am not saying that there is not a legal right for the UK Government to decide that it is time for another referendum. However, we are talking not about the legal right, but about whether there is an electoral argument for another referendum. The question that I have asked three times now, but that no one has been willing to answer, is when the question will be settled. If losing the referendum in 2014 was not enough, let us say that we have another referendum next year: if SNP Members lose that, when will the next be?

    Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)

    I have some breaking news for the hon. Gentleman: democracy is not a one-time event. As we are talking about timescales, I would be interested to know something. If his party were to win the next general election on a manifesto commitment to have a referendum on taking the UK back into the European Union, would it not be within its rights to hold that referendum?

    Mr Perkins

    That is a great “gotcha”, but my point is that there is a question here: for people in Scotland, when is enough enough? No one has been able to answer that. Let me return to the point that I made a minute ago. If the referendum in 2014 had had a different result, there would not have been a second referendum; that would have been it. The SNP cannot consistently say, “Every time we lose, that is not the end of it, but the one time we win, that is the end of it”, but those are the rules that they want to play to.

    Several hon. Members rose—

    Mr Perkins

    Many of my hon. Friends are waiting to speak, and I want to make sure that they have that opportunity.

    I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South raised the subject of the SNP’s record on education, because it is a compelling one. For much of my lifetime the Scottish education system has been the envy of us in England, but that is not the case now; in fact, it has gone backwards. It is very noticeable that the SNP seems constantly to want debates about things that are not the responsibility of the Scottish Parliament, but runs away from the subject of its actual record.

    The hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Marion Fellows) suggested that the Scottish people were entitled to money from the UK Government and should not be expected to be grateful, and I entirely agree with her. I recognise that we are in a Union to which we all make contributions. It is the case that more money is spent per head in Scotland than in Chesterfield, as an SNP Member mentioned earlier; it is also the case that Scotland makes contributions to the United Kingdom, to defence through Faslane and through oil receipts, and that there are other respects in which its contribution is significant. That is why I think we are better together. I reject it when people in my constituency say that they resent the fact that Scotland does well out of the UK, and I also reject it when SNP Members suddenly say that they want to isolate oil revenues as if that were the only game in town.

    When the people of Scotland voted in that referendum in 2014, they clearly understood that there would be about 60 Scottish MPs in a Parliament of 650. To consistently suggest that somehow this is news to the people of Scotland who voted in that referendum is nonsense. Only once in the last 47 years have people in Chesterfield voted for an MP who was a member of the party represented by the Government. Quite often in their contrary way, they have voted in a different way from the country as a whole. That is how democracy works.

    I do think there is a real bit of cakeism among the members of the Scottish National party. The hon. Member for Angus (Dave Doogan) said bairns in Scotland were better off than bairns in Chesterfield and that was all about the Scottish Government, while the hon. Member for Glasgow East (David Linden) said there was a lot of poverty in Scotland and that was the fault of the UK Government. When it is good it is to do with Holyrood and when it is bad it is to do with Westminster, and I do not think that that is either helpful or sensible.

    The hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) posed the question, “Can Scotland be a successful nation?” He refused to define a successful nation, but he told us that every nation that was independent was successful, having signed a motion which said that the UK was failing. It is clear that, in the SNP’s eyes, the UK is failing. Every single country that is independent, in the SNP’s terms, is successful, and we are asked to say whether Scotland would be successful without any description of what that success would look like.

    I do not think that those who believe Scotland is better inside the United Kingdom have any less confidence in the people of Scotland, or any less confidence in the contribution of Scotland, the economy of Scotland, the business of Scotland, the geography and geology of Scotland, or the challenges facing Scotland. We recognise all of those just the same, but we also recognise that it is the strengths of Scotland and of the other countries of the United Kingdom that collectively make us as strong as we are.

    That is the case that we make, and it cheapens politics for people on the independence side to suggest that they somehow have a greater patriotism than people on this side. I have to say, having watched my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South when Scotland are playing football, that there is no greater Scottish patriot than him—and no more deluded Scottish football fan than him either. People on all sides in Scotland are passionate about Scotland and proud of being Scottish, but many of them also believe that Scotland’s contribution to the United Kingdom and to being part of one of the major nations of the world should continue. I am glad that this debate has taken place and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South for the compelling case that he has made today. I look forward to listening to the other contributions.

  • Amy Callaghan – 2022 Speech on Scottish Independence and the Scottish Economy

    Amy Callaghan – 2022 Speech on Scottish Independence and the Scottish Economy

    The speech made by Amy Callaghan, the SNP MP for East Dunbartonshire, in the House of Commons on 2 November 2022.

    While we hold this debate, a cost of living crisis continues to hit people the length and breadth of these four nations. Scotland has a chance to shelter our people from facing the brunt of Tory mismanagement of fiscal responsibility, and from the Tories’ disregard for people. I say that with confidence, because Scotland does not and will not vote Tory.

    I need not lay bare the many merits of independence for our nation in this speech. Successive Governments in this place have been covering that for us more than adequately, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford) covered a number of those merits in his usual fashion—at great length. I will, however, outline a vision—my vision for an independent Scotland. I see our role in this as being to win over the hearts and minds of those who are still undecided, but that happens on doorsteps and in our communities, not through a speech from these Benches.

    Like, I am sure, many of my colleagues, I am often asked why an independent Scotland will be better, fairer, and why it will make us happier. A straightforward answer is: we will get what we vote for—so, not the Tories. We have not chosen market upheaval; to close our borders; to ask women whether they have been raped before they can access welfare; to cut energy support; to crash the pound with unexpected borrowing; or to ship people—our people—off to Rwanda without considering the ramifications. It was mere days ago that the Home Secretary referred to groups of refugees who have come to our coast in search of a better life as an “invasion”.

    Anne McLaughlin (Glasgow North East) (SNP)

    I do not whether my hon. Friend, like me, has been contacted by many constituents about that. If she has, she will know that it is not just us, and that the people of Scotland are utterly horrified and ashamed about words such as “invasion” and “scourge” being used to describe vulnerable human beings who are fleeing conflict in other parts of the world. Does she agree that independence would give us a massive benefit as we would no longer have to be even partly responsible for shameful policies that treat human beings like they were worse than the dirt on the bottom of our shoe and that, once we are free of the UK, we can treat them like the human beings that they are?

    Amy Callaghan

    I welcome that intervention and agree that the language used by the Home Secretary is shameful. I think that my constituents agree as well.

    Every single one of those wounds has been inflicted on us by Tory leadership—leadership that the people of Scotland did not choose. We have a chance to be a much bigger player on the world stage. We have a chance yet again to stand shoulder to shoulder with a multitude of our closest allies at a time when the world has rarely seemed so unstable. But as usual, it is ordinary people who pay the price for decisions made by a Tory Government we did not vote for.

    The cost of living crisis continues to spiral out of control. The Trussell Trust handed out 2.1 million food parcels across the UK in 2021-22, yet the SNP must continue to call on the UK Government to develop comprehensive child poverty targets. The Government would clearly rather spend their efforts on protecting bankers’ bonuses than on investing in people.

    We can think about austerity no longer being imposed, poverty being no longer a political choice forced on our communities and Scotland having a Government—its only Government—elected by its people, for its people. Every child in an independent Scotland should go to school with food in their tummy because their family could afford that from a true living wage, not at the expense of their parent or guardian not eating—and definitely not from accessing a food bank. There should be no need for food banks in an independent Scotland. We are endlessly grateful for the service that they provide in our communities, but they are a by-product of the first round of austerity, not a long-term, sustainable solution to ending poverty. I dread to think what is coming with the Prime Minister’s and Chancellor’s austerity 2.0. That is why our vision for a better, different Scotland is so crucial at this time.

    We need only take one look at the legislation coming out of this place—the single market Bill, the Public Order Bill and the Nationality and Borders Act 2022—to see why people across the political spectrum are talking about another independence referendum. The majority of Scotland’s MPs are outvoted at every turn while the Government make up legislation as casually as if it were a shopping list. With an independent Scotland, we will get the Governments that we vote for and we will be rid of the economically irresponsible Tories for good. We have a bright future. We have the opportunity to gain powers that will allow us to rescue many Scottish children from a life of poverty. Very soon, I know that Scotland will grasp that opportunity.

  • 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.