Oral Answers to Questions
Brendan O'Hara Excerpts(5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Douglas Chapman (Dunfermline and West Fife) (SNP)
Brendan O’Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)
Mr Jack
Because we have a specific Scottish occupation list for shortages, which gives us flexibility. The salary rate is set at £20,960. We believe that the best way is for stakeholder bodies to make representations to the Home Office to add to the shortage occupation list.
Brendan O’Hara
Five years ago, the Migration Advisory Committee said that the current system was failing remote communities. Recently published figures show that my Argyll and Bute constituency is suffering further depopulation, with the town of Rothesay on the Isle of Bute particularly badly affected. Despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, the Government still insist that the current system delivers for all parts of the UK. Will the Secretary of State explain how a one-size-fits-all policy, simultaneous catering for the vastly different needs of densely populated urban areas and Argyll and Bute, can deliver equally for both?
Mr Jack
Argyll and Bute is a beautiful part of the United Kingdom, but what it lacks is infrastructure, public services and affordable housing, because the Scottish Government have failed in all those areas. What it also has, with the rest of Scotland, is the problem of being the highest-taxed part of the United Kingdom. That is the problem the Scottish Government have to address.
Cost of Living and Brexit
Brendan O'Hara Excerpts(10 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Brendan O’Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
I would like to begin by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford) for the way she opened the debate. In her time in Parliament, she has deservedly gained a reputation as being one of those Members people listen to when she speaks. Across this House, she is recognised as speaking with authority, experience and great knowledge of her subject. I am delighted that she upheld her own very high standards this afternoon.
My hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire was absolutely right when she said that the cost of living is the No. 1 issue for all of our constituents and that regardless of how often the Leader of the Opposition says it, it is simply impossible to “make Brexit work”. I have the vision of the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) saying to King Canute, “No, you cannae hold back the tide, but I can; I’ll show you how to do it.” This is utterly delusional because, as she says, we cannot make this work. She laid out brilliantly the case as to why this House should have a dedicated Select Committee, one that will be able to investigate all matters relating to the soaring cost of living and of the contribution made to that cost of living crisis by the UK’s disastrous exit from the European Union.
It is not often I will say this, but I am looking for a Lib Dem—
Brendan O’Hara
The hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) intervened earlier to complain bitterly that his party was not to be represented on this Committee and that that would be the Lib Dems’ excuse for not supporting this motion. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow East (David Linden) said, this is an amendable motion and if the hon. Gentleman felt that passionately about it, he could table an amendment. I wish he was here so that I could remind the Lib Dems that when they proposed the creation of the EU withdrawal Committee, their proposal awarded the SNP precisely zero seats, despite our having the vast majority of Scottish seats. Perhaps the Lib Dems do not want to address this issue and are throwing smoke bombs right, left and centre because they do not want to be reminded that they are where they are because of the dirty deal they cut with the Tories in 2010. I just wish the Lib Dems were here to stand up and face the consequences of it.
No one can deny the detrimental impact that increases in the cost of living are having on businesses and families across Scotland and the United Kingdom, and only the most blinkered Brexiteer would deny the role that leaving the EU has had in driving those increases. Unfortunately, the powers available to the devolved Administrations in Edinburgh, Cardiff and Belfast mean that it is this place that must find a long-term solution to this crisis. As much as I commend the work done in Edinburgh, Belfast and Cardiff, it is this place that has to find those solutions.
That is why we must, with some urgency, establish this Committee. We must put in motion a process whereby the people of these islands can see and understand why food price inflation is through the roof and why mortgages are becoming increasingly unaffordable for so many. The evidence that will come to this Committee and the reports that will come from it will, we hope, furnish this hapless Government with the facts and evidence they need to see where they are going wrong and perhaps allow them to do something about it.
Let us be clear: the economic disaster of Brexit has not just fallen out of the sky. It has not just miraculously appeared. I am reminded of an exchange I had with the right hon. Member for North East Somerset (Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg) almost exactly a year ago, when he was Minister for Brexit Opportunities—I try to get through that title without laughing. I took the opportunity to remind him of his 2019 promise that the “broad, sunlit uplands” of Brexit were just around the corner for the British people and British business. Last year, I described the case of a small Scottish cosmetic company, Gracefruit, whose owners had told me that, because of red tape, soaring costs and loss of markets, they no longer had the mental or emotional strength to make a success of what had been a thriving business. Gracefruit was emblematic of so many small and medium-sized enterprises across the islands whose business had been destroyed by Brexit. In his reply to me, the right hon. Member for North East Somerset said:
“We are freeing people in this country from red tape because we look at the United Kingdom playing a global role—trading with the globe, being as economically productive as anywhere in the world…That is why the EU is a failing economic option and why we sing hallelujahs for having left it.—[Official Report, 9 June 2022; Vol. 715, c. 933.]
That was the Minister for Brexit Opportunities. I thought at the time that his reply was vacuous and glib. Twelve months on, I see it as deluded, arrogant, negligent and dangerous. If there is one reason why the creation of this cost of living Select Committee is essential, it can be found in that single reply. It was he and his well-heeled City chums who sold the people of England a pup in 2016. They sold it as a dawn of a new era of freedom and prosperity and of taking back control, but, instead, we live in a time of uncertainty and grave economic hardship, suffered, ironically, by those who bought into the fantasy that Brexit would be good for them and who have been left with the grim reality that Brexit has been a major driver of spiralling food costs, soaring mortgages and lower wages.
The pain of Brexit has been felt most acutely in our rural communities—communities such as my Argyll and Bute constituency, which had benefited from decades of EU membership and the support that it gave to our agricultural sector and the market that it provided for our outstanding seafood and shellfish sector. All of us who represent rural constituencies such as Argyll and Bute know that incomes are lower and costs are higher. Nearly 70% of households in my constituency are at risk of fuel poverty or extreme fuel poverty. As the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown) said, 56% of my constituency are off gas grid. To avoid fuel poverty, an average all-electric household would need an income of £72,200. To avoid extreme fuel poverty, they would require an income of £39,600. This is in the context of a median household income of just £33,000. Anyone can see the crisis of fuel poverty that is coming down the line, as indeed there will be with so many of my constituents.
The Royal Society of Edinburgh released a paper, “The cost of living: impact on rural communities in Scotland”, which recommended that any piece of legislation related to the cost of living should be “rural-proofed” and I heartily agree. It also recommended that the UK Government recognise the contribution of rural communities—whether it be through their whisky, tourism, timber or fish farming. In areas such as Argyll and Bute, the contribution made by my constituents to the UK Exchequer through whisky production alone is gargantuan compared with what they receive.
Rural Scotland has been hit hard by the cost of living crisis, which is why the people of these islands need the Committee to be set up. They need to have confidence that the decisions that we make here are done with all the available evidence that we can possibly muster. That is what the Committee would do. I say to Members, whether they be from the Labour party, the Liberal Democrats or the Conservatives, to vote this motion down on the minutiae—[Interruption.] The Minister may laugh, but this was an amendable motion, which his party, if it had any real commitment to the cost of living crisis, could have amended. To vote down this motion on the minutiae would be disingenuous in the extreme, because this is a genuine attempt on behalf of our constituents to address the biggest crisis in their lives at the moment. The Government and, sadly, the other opposition parties are playing political games with what should be a motion that unites all in the House.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I am calling the wind-ups at 4 o’clock and there are three others wanting to speak, so I ask Members to do the maths and be generous to their colleagues.
Scottish Referendum Legislation: Supreme Court Decision
Brendan O'Hara Excerpts(1 year, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Jack
We want to work with the Scottish Government to show the people of Scotland the benefits of being part of the Union and to show that we can work together on delivering on growth deals, freeports and the cost of living crisis, and on delivering the £1.5 billion of extra funding that is coming as a result of the Chancellor’s statement last week. We want to show the people of Scotland the benefits of being part of the United Kingdom. Looking at the numbers, there seems to be an in-built majority for Unionist parties, so I think the people of Scotland recognise that.
Brendan O'Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
The Secretary of State has been struggling to answer the most basic questions from colleagues, so I have a simple question for him. On 13 November 2017, in a debate in Westminster Hall, I asked him if he agreed with the preposterous suggestion of Michael Kelly, the former Lord Provost of Glasgow, that Scotland should not have another independence referendum until every person who voted in the 2014 referendum was dead. In reply, the Secretary of State said that
“if I had my way, we would wait even longer.”—[Official Report, 13 November 2017; Vol. 631, c. 24WH.]
Is that still his position today?
Mr Jack
I will give the same answer that I have always given, which is that we believe a referendum is not the priority for the people of Scotland. We believe Scotland is stronger in the United Kingdom and benefits enormously from the United Kingdom, and that the rest of the United Kingdom benefits enormously from having Scotland in it. From renewables and oil and gas to cultural matters and many other things, Scotland is a very valued member of the United Kingdom, and that remains my position.
COP26: Devolved Administrations
Brendan O'Hara Excerpts(2 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Brendan O'Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the role and response of the devolved Administrations to COP26.
It is a pleasure to open the debate. May I put on record my gratitude to the Backbench Business Committee for allocating time for it?
Before I begin, Madam Deputy Speaker, may I seek your indulgence to mention, as a curtain raiser to COP26, that we are in the middle of Oxfam’s Second Hand September campaign? It encourages people to think about the 13 million items of clothing—95% of which are perfectly good, and could and should be reused and recycled—that we send to landfill every year. It will come as no surprise to my colleagues sitting behind me that today I am kitted out head-to-toe in clothes sourced from the wonderful charity shops across Argyll and Bute.
We are just 47 days away from the start of COP26, which will probably be the most important gathering of world leaders ever to take place. They will come to Glasgow with one job: to keep their promise to cut global emissions and limit global warming to 1.5°, and thus to give the world a fighting chance in the war against climate change. It will take courage, it will take determination, and it will take sacrifice. It will require all the developed countries to make good their promise to help others to move away from producing planet-warming emissions. They have no option: it has to be done, and it has to be done now.
Just last month, a report co-authored by 200 climate scientists and described as a “code red for humanity” was published by the United Nations. It makes harrowing reading. Those scientists were unequivocal in saying that global climate change is accelerating, and that human-caused emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are the overwhelming cause of that change. The UN Secretary-General said:
“This report must sound a death knell for coal and fossil fuels, before they destroy our planet.”
According to the report, global surface temperatures are reaching levels not seen in the past 100,000 years, and each of the last four decades has been the warmest on record.
Those scientists were simply confirming what we have all seen or experienced ourselves. We know that our summers are becoming hotter and drier, and our winters warmer and wetter. Flooding is increasing, as I know from my own constituency, where unprecedented levels of rainfall are causing the already unstable hillside which towers over the A83 at the Rest and Be Thankful to crumble on to the road with alarming regularity. This summer saw the highest recorded temperature ever on the planet: 54.4° in Death Valley, California. We also witnessed wildfires raging out of control across Europe, Canada and the United States, and down into Central and South America. It was the same in Africa, Australia, and Russia, where fires were raging out of control and more intense than ever before. Now, human habitation is no longer possible across great swathes of the world, because we in the developed world have created a climate emergency—one in which, as always, those who are least responsible for creating the problem are having to bear the biggest burden of sorting it out
The world’s largest economies all signed up to the 2015 Paris climate agreement, but most of them are set to miss those targets because of our continued over-reliance on fossil fuels. Although it makes grim reading, the UN report does provide a glimmer of hope, saying that it is still possible to avoid catastrophic levels of warming—but only if we dramatically and permanently cut our emissions now, and that will require unprecedented and transformational change. We have a very small and fast-diminishing window of opportunity in which to act, but act we must. This COP26 meeting is the most important meeting that any city has ever hosted, because the world has one last chance to deliver on what was signed up to in Paris, and we have to get it right.
Although it is the UK Government who will be officially hosting COP26, it is hugely important, given that it is the Governments in Edinburgh, Cardiff and Belfast who are designing and implementing their own policies to tackle climate change, that all the nations of these islands are given a fair voice at the meeting. It is also important to recognise that the nations of the United Kingdom are not necessarily moving at the same speed, or with the same priorities or the same degree of urgency, in addressing climate change. In that regard—and despite being the host of an event in Scotland—the Prime Minister does not necessarily speak for the whole United Kingdom on these matters.
Just last week, when the public in Scotland were asked who would better represent Scotland at COP26, the Prime Minister polled just 16% of the vote, while our First Minister, Nicola Sturgeon, polled well over 50%. That was not an accident. I believe that those figures reflect the fact that the people of Scotland trust their Government to make these difficult but important decisions—the ones that are required to save the planet—and that they are extremely sceptical about the ability, or indeed the commitment, of the Prime Minister to make those changes. Scotland knows that our Government were among the first in the world to declare a climate and biodiversity emergency, and that this conference will provide Scotland with a fantastic opportunity to showcase to the rest of the world our ambitious approach to tackling the climate emergency and achieving a net zero future.
I expect that Conservative Members will be primed with notes saying, “What about this target that was missed?” or “What about that goal that was not reached?” Of course, they may be factually correct, but it is a consequence of setting the bar so high, and having an ambition to achieve that goes far beyond anything that has been achieved before, that on occasion, unfortunately, things will not go to plan and targets will be missed. But I —and, I am sure, the people of Scotland—would not want our Government to have taken the path of least resistance and to have set low, almost meaningless targets. And what we are doing is working, with Scotland recently managing to produce 97% of its electricity requirements from renewable sources. In the decade to 2018, Scotland reduced emissions by 31%, faster than any other nation of the UK and ahead of any G20 nation. Transport, however, remains the largest source of emissions, which is why the Scottish Government are committed to reducing emissions by 75% by 2030, and have set a legally binding target of achieving net zero by 2045.
As we all know, the oil and gas sector is a significant and important player in the Scottish economy. That is why the Scottish Government are committed to a challenging but necessary “just transition”, to move away from fossil fuels and to a future based on renewable energy. We all understand that, while moving away from oil and gas is essential, and while it is important to do that as quickly as possible, it must also be done fairly. Those of us old enough to remember what happened in Scotland in the 1980s, when the Tory Government callously destroyed mining communities to such an extent that many have not fully recovered to this day, will understand why we could not possibly let that happen again. That is why, backed by £500 million, the Scottish Government’s Just Transition Commission will work with communities, businesses and trades unions to ensure that those in high-quality, highly skilled jobs are supported in transitioning away from traditionally carbon-intensive sectors.
While Scotland is doing everything it can to meet those challenges, there are areas in which, because of the current constitutional situation with power being held in this place, we will require the UK Government to assist Scotland in becoming net zero by 2045. Specifically, that relates to our ability to benefit from the world-leading tidal energy technology that has been developed by companies such as Nova and Atlantis, but whose growth is being stymied by the lack of a proper route to market via the contracts for difference options, which would allow this hugely important sector to grow and flourish.
It is a similar story for the development of carbon capture and storage. The Government will remember, as we all do, how they pulled the plug at the last minute on the Peterhead carbon capture and storage plan back in 2015. After all the work that had gone in to preparing it, that was a particularly cruel blow for the UK Government to inflict. The only silver lining is that Scotland now has the infrastructure in place for when the UK Government announce their preferred carbon capture and storage facility next month. That would mean all the emissions from the Peterhead power plant, from the hydrogen production facility at St Fergus and from Grangemouth—Scotland’s largest polluter—could be captured and stored in a basin deep under the North sea. Indeed, so vast is that basin that it is estimated that 6.7 million tonnes of carbon dioxide could be captured and stored each year by 2030, totalling half a gigatonne of C02 by 2050, with the ability to expand even further thereafter. As well as allowing Scotland to reach its net zero target, it is estimated that this one CCS project could create up to 20,000 green technology jobs. The Scottish cluster is ready to go, and if the UK Government fail once again to deliver this facility to Peterhead, it will quite rightly be seen as a political decision taken in this place, against the interests of Scotland.
In conclusion, the Scottish Government have repeatedly said that they are committed to working closely with the UK Government and others to deliver a safe, secure and, above all, successful COP26. However, they are also determined that this will be a people’s COP and that the communities and groups whose voices have been continually ignored and sidelined in climate discussions will be heard. Often vulnerable indigenous communities whose land has been devastated by soaring temperatures, a lack of rain, too much rain or rising sea levels, or destroyed by hurricanes or deforestation, must be heard and they must be heeded.
I am delighted that the Scottish Government have set up the world’s first climate justice fund to support vulnerable communities in Malawi, Zambia and Rwanda to address the impact of climate change. It would send a wonderful message to the world if the United Kingdom Government were to follow that lead and establish their own UK climate justice fund ahead of COP26. However, we should be in no doubt that in Glasgow next month the world’s leaders will be drinking in the last chance saloon. For all our sakes, they have to get it right. Will be watching closely what they do.
Craig Williams
Clearly that is being phased out, but the hon. Member will know that her constituents expect a fair energy price. We need to transition carefully to new technologies—[Interruption.] I am sure she will have an opportunity to make a speech soon.
I want to bring my remarks to a conclusion, because I know that other Members want to talk in this important debate. Hopefully, to change the tone from some of what Opposition Members have said, this is about bringing together communities, businesses and third parties such as the Centre for Alternative Technology. Rather than have a fuzzy, politically charged constitutional debate, the UK Government have taken COP to Scotland, which is brilliant. There is no doubt a role for the Scottish Government, as the Prime Minister has said, but these international negotiations are clearly led by the UK Government. We must work together as a family of nations, but we cannot have a constitutional debate on the sidelines as it would distract attention and not help with the important matters at hand.
I implore SNP Members that, if they really want to put their mouth where these issues are, the next couple of weeks are critical. They should get behind the negotiation process and the communities that want to see real action. It is incredibly clear that politically charged comments such as “We want our First Minister to be at the head of the queue” add nothing.
Brendan O’Hara
I fear the hon. Gentleman may have written his speech before I gave mine.
Brendan O’Hara
That probably says a lot. Where in my speech did I suggest anything of the sort? I thought I was being collegiate from beginning to end, while pointing out areas of difference. Differences do exist, and to pretend that they do not is to deny reality.
Craig Williams
I will check Hansard, but I am absolutely sure that the hon. Gentleman mentioned a politically charged poll, to which I alluded. By implication, he was trying to undermine the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. I realise that his speech was written way before he came into the Chamber and I am merely retorting, but that seemed to be the charge. I finish by reiterating that I think such comments add nothing to this debate, and if there is any Opposition rhetoric saying, “We’re good, you’re bad,” I ask why. What does that achieve today? [Interruption.] There will be plenty of time for the hon. Member for Cardiff North (Anna McMorrin) to speak, and I look forward to intervening on her.
Brendan O’Hara
I put on record again my thanks to the Backbench Business Committee for finding time for the debate. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Deidre Brock), the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts), the hon. Members for Montgomeryshire (Craig Williams), for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Gerald Jones), for Burnley (Antony Higginbotham), for Cardiff North (Anna McMorrin), for Hastings and Rye (Sally-Ann Hart), for Don Valley (Nick Fletcher), for Bath (Wera Hobhouse), for Clwyd South (Simon Baynes) and for Greenwich and Woolwich (Matthew Pennycook) and the Minister for a useful and thoughtful debate.
Although I am the Member of Parliament for Argyll and Bute, where I have lived for the past 20 years, I am Glaswegian to the straps of my second-hand boots. I would burst with pride if Glasgow’s COP26 becomes a turning point for the world, but we know that that is not a given. World leaders have the future of our planet in their hands. They have an onerous responsibility, but it is one that they must rise to and meet. They cannot let us down. I thank all Members and you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for the debate.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the role and response of the devolved Administrations to COP26.
Oral Answers to Questions
Brendan O'Hara Excerpts(2 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Jack
Again, I say that the hon. Lady should be at Cabinet Office questions asking the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster to answer for his Department. Again, I have spoken to the Cabinet Office about this. It does not engage in political polling, and it is very clear about that.
Brendan O’Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
It seems to me that this Government’s plan to strengthen the Union is to first sell out the fishing industry and then betray Scotland’s farmers. Can the Secretary of State explain how the Australia trade deal, which allows the UK market to be flooded with thousands of tonnes of cheap, factory- farmed, inferior-quality beef and lamb, is the golden opportunity the Prime Minister promised? How will it help Scottish farmers’ business?
Mr Jack
I am going to answer the question very clearly. The SNP voted against or abstained on all trade deals in the European Parliament and the one we have just done with the European Union. It is an isolationist party. The reality on the Australia trade deal is that it is upholding animal welfare standards. Under the World Organisation for Animal Health, Australia gets five out of five. We have safeguards in place to stop the market being flooded with beef or any collapse in price. We are very clear that we will protect our farmers, and this leads us into the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership, worth £9 trillion. That will be a huge win for our farmers, and all the members of the farming community I have spoken to understand that. The SNP should see the big picture and understand that we are not going to reduce our animal welfare standards, that we are not going to flood the market, and that it will be seen very clearly in a few years’ time to have cried wolf.
Oral Answers to Questions
Brendan O'Hara Excerpts(4 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mhairi Black (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Brendan O’Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)
David Mundell
To give the hon. Lady some context, David Cameron made it very clear in 2013 that there would be an EU referendum. The SNP and the former First Minister’s assertion was that Scotland would automatically stay in the EU if it became independent. That was not correct. The question for those advocating a yes in 2014, as it is now, is how an independent Scotland would become a member of the EU.
Brendan O’Hara
Many of us in Argyll and Bute have been trying for a long time to pin down the Secretary of State on this question. Will he now take the opportunity to spell out exactly what he believes the economic benefits will be, specifically for my Argyll and Bute constituency, of ending freedom of movement?
David Mundell
We are engaged in a year-long consultation on the immigration White Paper. I am happy, as part of that consultation and engagement, to come to Argyll and Bute, just as the Home Secretary went to Aberdeenshire last week, to hear what businesses and people there have to say.
Sewel Convention
Brendan O'Hara Excerpts(5 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Brendan O’Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
I rise as one of those law-abiding, taxpaying Scots that the hon. Member for Gordon (Colin Clark) so clearly has such disdain for.
Regardless of what Government Members would have us believe, it is now clear to everyone that, following last week’s unprecedented power grab on the Scottish Parliament and its powers, the Conservative party and this Government have finally abandoned any pretence of having even the remotest commitment to devolution. That a power grab of this scale can be enacted by one Parliament over another demonstrates once and for all that the Tories have not the slightest interest in respecting the fundamental principles of devolution.
The contemptuous way in which Scottish democracy was dismissed by this place last week, with a 15-minute lecture from the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Minister for the Cabinet Office, the right hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr Lidington), was simply further proof that Scotland has no future in this United Kingdom and that the sooner we are free from it, the better. The Tories’ disgraceful disdain for the will of the Scottish people as expressed by the democratically elected Members of the Scottish Parliament shows the Tories in their true colours—anti-democratic, narrow-minded, backward-looking and insular. Let us never forget that these are people who, as devout British nationalists, were vehemently opposed to the creation of a Scottish Parliament from the outset.
For a century or more, the official Conservative party position was to oppose even the slightest devolution of political power from London to Scotland. Only when confronted with the inevitable, and in the face of overwhelming public opinion, did the Conservatives—publicly, at least—embrace the idea of a devolved Parliament in Edinburgh. They may have changed their tune but, like the leopard, they have not changed their spots, so it should not come as a surprise to anyone that, at the first opportunity, they are using Brexit as an excuse to roll back on the devolution settlement—a settlement that they never believed in—to try to claw back to London as many of the powers and competencies of the Scottish Parliament as possible.
Last week, the Secretary of State made the excuse of these not being “normal times”, as if these circumstances somehow justified him carrying out this power grab. What he of course failed to mention was that the UK Government’s own lawyers, when they recently went to the Supreme Court, said:
“Whether circumstances are ‘normal’ is a quintessential matter of political judgment for the Westminster Parliament.”
There we have it. The UK Government will decide what is and is not normal. They alone will decide what powers the Scottish Parliament has and what powers will be restricted for up to seven years, without that Parliament’s consent. Is there anyone so naive that they really believe that, having grabbed those powers for themselves, the UK Government will return them to Scotland after seven years? Not a chance.
No one should be in any doubt what is at stake here. Once the precedent is established that Westminster can overrule a majority vote in the Scottish Parliament whenever there is disagreement, a standard will have been set and the ground rules will have been established. It is my genuine fear that if we allow this to happen, it will be used by the Tories as a pretext to seize powers again and again and again, whenever it suits them. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford) said, this is not about the SNP versus the Tory Government, because the SNP, the Labour party, the Greens and the Liberal Democrats in the Scottish Parliament all recognised that what the Tories were planning was nothing less than a power grab—an outrageous attack on the democratically elected Parliament of Scotland. Let me be clear: this is Scotland against the Tories. If that does nothing else, it should send a message to Downing Street and Dover House that their Tory power grab on our Parliament will not be tolerated by the people of Scotland.
Let no one in in this House be in any doubt that the people of Scotland are furious at what is taking place. We have heard much about how these 87 powers are to be returned directly to Holyrood, and only 24 are to be appropriated by Westminster. To me, that is akin to a burglar being caught breaking into someone’s house and defending himself by saying, “You should be grateful that I only nicked your telly.” It is an absolute nonsense of an argument. A power grab is a power grab is a power grab, whether it is one power, 24 or 111. The precedent will have been set, and that is why it has to be opposed. The theft of just one of Scotland’s powers is one too many.
European Union (Withdrawal) Bill: Sewel Convention
Brendan O'Hara Excerpts(5 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
David Mundell
I hope that in my statement I clarified the constitutional position on the Bill. I would advise the hon. Gentleman that the EU White Paper he refers to will be published in July.
Brendan O'Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
This week, the Secretary of State’s Government abandoned any pretence of a commitment to devolution. By refusing to recognise and respect the sovereign will of the Scottish people and the will of the Scottish Parliament, his Government decreed that only he will control the powers of the Scottish Parliament, it can have only what he says it can have and it will be this place that will decide. Yet just last week, his Tory colleague the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) said:
“if we allow devolved areas only to make decisions with which the Westminster Parliament agrees, there is not much point any more in any form of devolution”.—[Official Report, 7 June 2018; Vol. 642, c. 458.]
Was he right to say that?
David Mundell
Again, the question is based on a premise that does not accept the current constitutional arrangement. I respect the fact that the current questioner and the likely remaining questioners will all have that position. They are entitled to it; they are entitled to argue for independence for Scotland. But they are not entitled to misconstrue the current constitutional arrangements within the UK. The Government have operated entirely within the Sewel convention in the actions they have taken. I want to see the devolved Parliaments doing thing differently—doing the things in Scotland that are right for Scotland. What disappoints me is how little time the Scottish Parliament, at the behest of the Scottish Government, actually spends legislating for Scotland and bringing forward different and new arrangements that would be specific to Scotland’s needs.
Referendum on Scottish Independence
Brendan O'Hara Excerpts(6 years, 5 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Douglas Ross (Moray) (Con)
Thank you very much, Mr Bailey. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. I say not as a point of order but perhaps to put it on the record that I am extremely disappointed that in 26 minutes the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Martyn Day), speaking on behalf of the Petitions Committee and looking at two petitions, spent most of that time on the petition for a second independence referendum, which was supported by 38,000 people, and almost ignored the 221,000 people who supported the petition against a second independence referendum. I hope that after the debate the Petitions Committee will reflect on who it nominates to speak in such debates to ensure that petitions discussed together get equal merit.
In Moray in 2014, as in many parts of Scotland, people were engaged and encouraged to get involved in the independence referendum, but they did so in the clear knowledge that it was a once-in-a-generation event—a once-in-a-lifetime event. Indeed, as I said in my intervention, both the current leader and previous leader of the Scottish National party said there would be one opportunity—one opportunity for people to say whether they supported independence or opposed the separation plans of the SNP. In Moray, there was a 58% vote saying “No, thanks” to independence. I was proud to be part of the campaign, but I was immediately disappointed by the SNP’s continued campaigning, and its continuing with the separation narrative despite the conclusive result of the 2014 referendum.
Because of that, the party that apparently governed Scotland was so obsessed with separation and independence that it took its eye off the ball in doing the day job. The SNP has had a continued central belt bias in the Scottish Parliament, moving towards centralising a number of issues. For example, Police Scotland is currently without a chief constable. The Scottish Police Authority has been without a chairman since June, and now they want to integrate the British Transport Police into Police Scotland. Already the organisation of Police Scotland is under significant strain, yet the SNP wants to centralise further.
Brendan O'Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Could the hon. Gentleman expand on the idea of central belt bias? Argyll and Bute takes in everything from Campbeltown to Tiree, and we have an SNP MP, and an SNP MSP. If there is such central belt bias, why does rural Scotland vote SNP in the west?
Douglas Ross
It certainly does not vote SNP in the north-east, where I overturned an SNP majority of more than 9,000 to gain a Scottish Conservative majority of 4,000.
Bill Grant
It is there to be seen. I am sorry if the hon. Gentleman cannot see the comparison I am making, but it is clear.
Given that we are going through the process of Brexit, we would do well to be a cohesive United Kingdom instead of sniping from the wings, which is constantly done by the SNP. One of the phrases coined during the referendum was, “Proud to be Scots. Delighted to be united”. It is as sound today as it was then. That sums up patriotism in Scotland, which is about the land of our birth or our adopted homeland and being a constituent part of a larger entity—namely, the United Kingdom. That is what we voted for, and that is what we have achieved. We have only just commemorated the tragic loss of lives in various wars where military personnel from all over the United Kingdom and beyond came together to fight for a common goal of peace, with the aspiration that we would live harmoniously together in the future. I will not let them down.
The SNP Government in Scotland are not the Government of yes; they are actually the Government of no. They say no to nuclear power and a nuclear deterrent, but they will hide behind the NATO shield. They say no to fracking, but they will import to the INEOS site in Grangemouth. They say no to child chastisement. They say no to parenting, because they will do it through the named person scheme. They say no to school progress—Scotland comes in at number 27 in the PISA league, behind Lithuania. They have no chief constable and no chair of the Scottish Police Authority. There is no success for Police Scotland or for my former occupation, the fire service, with fire stations closing. They say no to lower taxes.
Mr Jack
Yes, I do agree—[Laughter]—as hon. Members will not be surprised to hear.
Before becoming a Member of Parliament, I spent 30 years working in business, and I can tell hon. Members from my own experience and from speaking to many businessmen and women across Scotland that the business community will not thank anyone if Scotland is dragged into another divisive referendum, creating uncertainty. That would be calamitous.
Much of my argument today is about uncertainty for businesses wanting to decide on their capital expenditure projects, on resourcing themselves and on their future investment. All that is very difficult when people are wondering all the time whether we are going to be doing the extraordinary thing of heading into another independence referendum that would lead to so-called independence within Europe. We cannot be independent within Europe. I would argue that this is not about Brexit. It is not in any way a route that Scottish business should go down, outside the United Kingdom, on the basis that we do four times more trade with our United Kingdom partners than we do with our EU partners.
I say to the SNP that the legal, fair and decisive referendum was held on 18 September 2014. Polling day was preceded by two years of debate and discourse, and the people of Scotland then rejected independence. The question has been decided. To quote the former First Minister, although I will not do so in Russian, that vote, as has been said many times in this debate, was a once in a generation, once in a lifetime opportunity.
Brendan O’Hara
In the spirit of “Better Together”, which is very much in evidence this afternoon, does the hon. Gentleman agree with the former Labour Lord Provost of Glasgow, Dr Michael Kelly, who just last week confirmed his belief that Scotland has to wait until every single person who voted in the 2014 referendum has died before it should get another referendum?
Scotland Bill
Brendan O'Hara Excerpts(8 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Angela Crawley (Lanark and Hamilton East) (SNP)
It is worth noting early in the debate that so far we have had 100% participation of male speakers. However, the Labour party also has 100% male representation in the Chamber, and I thank the hon. Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray) for raising the topic of equality. Before I address the amendments in detail, it is worth noting that the Committee has not agreed to a single proposal that the Scottish National party has tabled to the Scotland Bill. I need not remind anyone that the SNP won all but three seats in Scotland only a few weeks ago. The Scottish people gave the SNP a mandate to speak on their behalf, and this Parliament should take account of that.
Amendment 134 delivers a more explicit reference to the devolution of competence over gender quotas in respect of public bodies in Scotland, but ensures that it is “not limited to” gender quotas, as agreed in the Smith commission report. Amendment 162 creates an exception to the reservation that will clearly cover gender quotas in respect of public bodies in Scotland. One of the most frequent questions that this Government ask is, “What would you do with the new powers proposed, and why do you want additional ones?” The answer is simple: in terms of equalities the Bill does not go far enough. If the amendments are accepted, the Scottish Government could go much further.
The SNP manifesto contained an extensive range of proposals to reduce gender inequality. Scotland’s First Minister, Nicola Sturgeon, has signalled clearly the need for a more equal representation of men and women in public life, and she has led by example. The Scottish Cabinet is one of only three Cabinets in the developed world to have an equal number of men and women—something that has yet to be replicated by the Conservative or Labour parties.
If these amendments are accepted, the Scottish Government will take action and introduce proposals to ensure 50% female representation on public boards, and press for the same to happen across the United Kingdom. They will encourage this Government to work with the private sector to increase the number of women represented at the most senior levels in major companies. They have called for early action on equal pay audits for larger companies, ensuring that women get the salaries they are entitled to. They have called for regulations to compel employers of more than 250 people to publish annual gender pay gap information, starting in 2016-17.
Brendan O'Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Does my hon. Friend share my dismay at Scottish Labour’s record in local government on equal pay, which is nothing short of appalling? Will she join me in urging Glasgow City Council to settle its 5,000-plus outstanding claims as quickly as possible?
Angela Crawley
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention—South Lanarkshire, North Lanarkshire and Glasgow councils are in much the same situation, with a Labour administration that has failed to take action on equal pay. There are still a number of outstanding claims.
The Scottish Government will introduce an equal pay Bill to deliver equal pay law that works for women in Scotland. They would consult on how new regulations or structures can be created by the Bill to expedite the equal pay claims process, and ensure that settlements are enforced quickly—something that Labour administrations in Scotland have failed to do. They will seek to maintain the protections provided by the Equality Act 2010, and will ask the Government to engage with key stakeholders on potential improvements. They will support calls to establish a race committee to advise the work of the Equality and Human Rights Commission.
I welcome new clauses 56 and 66 on devolving abortion laws to the Scottish Parliament—we welcome powers for Scotland. I hasten to remind Members that I will focus on the substantive subject of who has the power to make laws, rather than on the views of individual Members on this matter. The SNP remains absolutely clear: the Scottish Government have no plans to change the legislation, but we will support and welcome the devolution of further powers to the Scottish Parliament under the Bill.
Together with our colleagues in the Scottish Government we will demand that section 78 of the Equalities Act 2010 is commenced. Under the Bill, however, it remains reserved, and to see real change we need to go further. The amendments have been tabled for a simple reason: it is unacceptable that 45 years after the Equal Pay Act 1970, the gender pay gap remains. Urgent action needs to be taken, and the Scottish Government have proven that where they have power, they take action. They have extended childcare provision and made it more flexible. They have funded campaigns to promote family-friendly working in Scotland, including an investment of £100,000 in the working families initiative that supports a range of activities to promote flexible working. They have ensured that public authorities with more than 150 employees publish their gender pay gap, and they have provided continued support for CareerWISE, which encourages girls and young women to consider careers in science, engineering and technology.
The Office for National Statistics showed that in Scotland the gender pay gap sits at 8.9% for full-time employees compared with 9.4% for the UK and 9.9% for England. On part-time employment, it sits at minus 7.2% in Scotland, compared with minus 5.5% for the UK and minus 5.6% in England. Although the SNP welcomes the fact that Scotland is leading the way on gender equality, we recognise that more has to be done. I therefore support the amendments and new clauses, and urge us to continue discussing these issues. If the Government will not act to reduce inequality, they should not stand in the way of the Scottish Government.
Mr Allen
Those who feel that they are being referred to should take that upon themselves, but surely they would not wish to injure the rest of the Union. Surely that is not a price that anyone would pay. A body that could analyse what happens as Scotland evolves would benefit its near neighbours, and it could be of great use as we continue the discussions on Scottish devolution.
Brendan O'Hara
Will the hon. Gentleman reflect on his terminology and on “bitter separatists”? Much of what he said was of great interest to many of us, but the spirit of it was perhaps lost by his use of those words.
Mr Allen
I seem to touch a nerve every time I use the word “separatist” to describe those people who wish to separate. [Hon. Members: “ You said ‘bitter.’”] Well, there may be bitter separatists and there may be lovely, generous warm separatists—I am sure there are; perhaps I am looking at many of them now. If people are pursuing a project so enormous that they might get offended at the word “separatist”—[Hon. Members: “You said ‘bitter!’”] Oh bitter—forgive me. In that case, so as to carry on in the right spirit I withdraw the word “bitter”. People of all temperaments who are separatists may wish to consider how they make their case, and they should not be too worried if someone refers to people who, for genuine reasons want to separate from the other countries in the Union, as “separatists”. That word has had a good outing now—hopefully, separatism and separatists will not cause such a problem now we have burst that bubble.