Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Bill

Debate between David Linden and Alan Brown

Committee stage
Monday 30th January 2023 Commons Chamber

[Alan Brown]

I think that was a rhetorical question. It was, unfortunately, Labour that led the charge against devolving employment law. Interestingly, the Scottish Trades Union Congress has made it clear that it supports devolving employment law to Scotland, so I urge the Labour party to reconsider its approach.

[David Linden]

I missed what my hon. Friend said. Did he say which party blocked the devolution of employment law?

[Alan Brown]

Just for the record, unfortunately it was the Labour party that blocked the concept of devolving employment law to Scotland—although, to be fair, it was also the Labour party that devolved employment law to Northern Ireland. If it is good enough for Northern Ireland, it should be good enough for Scotland.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between David Linden and Alan Brown

Monday 9th January 2023 Commons Chamber

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

3. What assessment he has made of the strength of the Union.

[Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)]

5. What assessment he has made of the strength of the Union.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Felicity Buchan)]

When we work together as one United Kingdom, we are safer, stronger and more prosperous. We are better able to tackle the big problems—from supporting families with the cost of living, to leading the international response to Russia’s war in Ukraine and to being a world leader in offering the vaccine to all our citizens. We are taking specific action in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, including putting local voices at the heart of decision making.

State Pension Triple Lock

Debate between David Linden and Alan Brown

Tuesday 8th November 2022 Commons Chamber

[Alan Brown]

I agree wholeheartedly with my hon. Friend. The £100 payment to those off gas grid is almost an insult, because it does nothing to help them fill their oil tanks.

In a similar vein on inflation, petrol prices are still massively up compared with recent years. I drive an Insignia, which is not a huge car, but last week it still cost me over £100 to fill the petrol tank. That is clearly unaffordable for those on a fixed income, and it would account for 55% of one week’s full pension.

When we look at the UK in the round, we see that it is one of the most unequal countries in the world. Unfortunately, that inequality continues during retirement. The Gini coefficient shows that the UK is 14th out of 14 north-west European countries. It is the same for the S80:S20 quintile share ratio; when we compare the ratio of the poorest to the richest, the UK has by far the worst ratio and is again 14th out of 14. Scandinavian countries—all small, independent countries—lead the way on these measures.

Poorer pay and lower incomes for those struggling also means that later on in life they are less likely to have private pensions and so are reliant on the UK state pension. Again, the UK state pension fails in comparison with those of other countries. When we look at the proportion of earnings derived from state pensions, the UK sits 30th out of 37 OECD countries. I understand that there is an argument that it can be good to move away from dependence on state pensions, but the UK is clearly among outlier countries near the bottom of the pile, and way below the OECD average. Many people are using occupational pensions and capital as sources of income, but that increases inequality in pension age for those without access to such means.

If we look at the UK’s flat pension rate and compare it with other countries that pay a flat rate—Ireland, Denmark and the Netherlands—we see that the UK rate is again lower and fails in comparison. If we look at state pension expenditure compared to a country’s GDP, we see that the UK is again way below the OECD average and is ranked 28th out of 38 countries. Ministers might say that those measures can be somewhat subjective, but the UK trails in each one, so there is a common theme. One other measure is the replacement rate that compares all sources of pension income versus previous earnings. On this measure, the UK, with an average over 10% less than those of the EU27 and the OECD, is ranked 19th out of 37, so still in the bottom half of the table.

As I have stated, this means that inequality in the UK continues into retirement and the UK has the 12th highest pensioner poverty rate out of 35 countries measured by the OECD. What that means, if we turn that around, is that in terms of disposable income to support a standard of living for those aged 66-plus, the UK is ranked 24th out of 35 countries, while Iceland, Denmark and Norway occupy the top spots. Ireland is in eighth place. And those statistics are based on comparisons before the UK broke the triple lock and the link to earnings last year. It is absolutely critical that the triple lock is restored. Independent Age emphasises that:

“With more than 2 million pensioners already living in poverty and the cost-of-living crisis hitting hard, we know people are being forced to make impossible choices on how to cut back to be able to afford heating, electricity and food”.

One additional income support measure is pension credit, but we know that take-up levels are still too low—the Secretary of State acknowledged that. Previous research commissioned by Independent Age estimated that full take-up of pension credit could lift 440,000 older people out of poverty. So when will that be tackled by the Government? The unclaimed £4 billion in pension credit could make the lives of hundreds of thousands of pensioners more bearable. It is also money that would then be recirculated within local economies as it is spent on vital household needs.

[David Linden]

Does my hon. Friend think that banks have a role to play? Given that the vast majority of pensioners receive their pension payments from the Department for Work and Pensions into their bank accounts, banks have the ability to identify where payments are coming from and the amount. Does he agree that there is an opportunity for banks to play a role in promoting pension credit?

[Alan Brown]

That is a very good point. I agree with my hon. Friend that that is an ideal way of managing that. I urge the Secretary of State to take heed of that intervention and work with banks and other organisations to try to increase pension credit take-up.

In terms of pension policies, of course I have to refer to the WASPI—Women Against State Pension Inequality Campaign—scandal and the fact that the Government are still not moving forward on fast and fair compensation, given that the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman found there was maladministration. The PHSO made it clear that the Government do not have to wait for the end of its investigation to take action to remedy this injustice.

There is also the frozen pensions scandal, whereby whether your pension gets uprated or not is arbitrary, depending on which country you reside in. It is also scandalous that the UK Government have yet again rejected offers from the Canadian Government to enter into reciprocal arrangements. I urge the Secretary of State to reconsider that and engage in meaningful talks with the Canadian Government.

All those aspects show that the state pension in the UK is not the safety net we are told it is. It shows clearly that the Better Together mantra of staying in the UK to protect pensions in Scotland was a cruelly false premise. Indeed, with private pensions nearly collapsing after the Tory mini-Budget, that claim looks even more ridiculous. It also shows that when Gordon Brown, at a Better Together event, said:

“Our UK welfare state offers better protection for pensioners, disabled and the unemployed”,

he was, frankly, lying.

Energy Prices Bill

Debate between David Linden and Alan Brown

Committee stage
Monday 17th October 2022 Commons Chamber

[David Linden]

We can normally get through a Chancellor in 28 days, so it is ample enough time for the Government to come forward with a review.

[Alan Brown]

It is a fair point and, as my hon. Friend pointed out earlier, Labour Members also have a new clause, which they want to push, calling for a report to Parliament in 28 days, so it seems to be a timeframe that we can all agree on.

New clause 18(2) would mandate the Government to assess what average household bills will look like when the pledged support scheme ends next April. I appreciate that estimating future energy bill increases is not an exact science, but the Government should be able to come up with an indicative price range, which should also give a look-ahead at the supposedly two-year support period of the so-called energy price guarantee. This is an important exercise, because it was the Prime Minister who told us that the two-year policy would stop average bills hitting £6,000 a year. As I said earlier, the explanatory notes for the Bill state that these mitigations will prevent so-called average bills of £2,500 from rising to £4,200. That means that, without further support, average household energy bills will, on the evidence before us and according to this Government, rise to something like £4,200 to £6,000 per annum. How on earth is that affordable? Clarity is required urgently.

New clause 18(2)(b) is all about analysing fuel poverty statistics. Now, when I mention fuel poverty statistics, we need to remember that these are not statistics but real people we are talking about—people who cannot afford to heat their homes; people who might not even be able to turn on their cooker and heat their food; parents skipping meals; people with health conditions that are made worse because they are having to live in a damp house; terminally ill people who are having to move out of their homes and are unable to die in dignity in their homes because they cannot afford to heat them; people on prepayment meters who are building up their standing charge debt because they cannot afford to put money in them. That is the reality of fuel poverty. That is why I want the Government to assess and report on the reality of their policy decisions during this cost of energy crisis.

Fuel poverty statistics lag behind real time: it takes time to analyse the statistics and then bring them through. The cost of energy has gone up so quickly that past fuel poverty statistics are effectively meaningless. National Energy Action estimates that, even with a £2,500 average bill put in place, some 6.7 million households will end up in fuel poverty. We need to understand how much worse that will get across the United Kingdom. I suggest that if the Government wish to make an informed decision about what future support packages will look like and how they will actually support the most vulnerable, they should be the ones to undertake the assessment.

That feeds directly into subsections (2)(c) and (2)(d), which are about, first, assessing the merit of extending the universal scheme as it was originally intended and, secondly, looking at a more targeted approach. The key to subsection (c) is ensuring that we have no further increases in fuel poverty. Given that we are still saying that 6.7 million households will be in fuel poverty, that is an extremely tame target. The real target should be the eradication of fuel poverty, which is why I am willing to support many other amendments on the Order Paper, particularly from other parties, on energy-efficient installations and the upgrading of homes to EPC band C, which is a UK Government target. There should be greater investment in energy efficiency measures, and truly upgrading homes will reduce bills, reduce the energy demand and of course create additional green jobs.

Given how damaging fuel poverty is, and that the Government have not made clear what future support will look like, I cannot believe that the Labour party is not willing to support manuscript new clause 18 and try to force the Government’s hand to provide information to Parliament so that we know the real impact of the cost of energy crisis.

Amendment 16 is about support for off-grid homes. Earlier, I highlighted that a one-off payment of £100 for alternatively fuelled properties is insufficient. Liquid fuels have increased in price from 30p a litre to more than £1 a litre, which is three times more expensive. People cannot afford to fill their fuel tanks. They have to lay out a minimum of £500 to £600 for a delivery. If they do not have that cash, they do not get it—they do not get credit. Filling a tank costs about £1,200 once VAT is included. Why do the Government think that a one-off £100 payment is sufficient?

One of my constituents lives in an off-gas grid property. He rightly observed that the energy price guarantee is being paid for by the general taxpayer, because it comes out of borrowing or taxpayers’ money. That means that off-grid customers are effectively subsidising people on the gas grid who are getting a bigger support package. Four million households are effectively subsidising 28 million households, which actually have cheaper fuel bills. It is an incoherent policy, which is why we brought forward amendment 16, but I would also support any other proposals that would make the Government support those who live in off-gas grid properties.

I wrote to a previous energy Minister about regulation of off-grid fuels for properties. The answer I got was that we do not need regulation; the market will take care of itself. That in itself shows a complete lack of understanding of what it is like for people in rural properties who cannot shop around. Generally, there is only one supplier in the area, so it gets to set the terms and conditions and the prices of the fuel that people buy. The Government need to look at regulation of those fuels as well.

Amendments 10, 11, 14 and 15 are about giving Parliament a greater level of scrutiny and approval. It is about ensuring that proposals are implemented under the affirmative rather than the negative procedure, which puts all the powers into the hands of the Secretary of State. I tried to point this out to the Secretary of State who, as a Back Bencher, was all about Parliament sovereignty, but now that he is in the Cabinet he is yet another hypocrite who is quite happy to take Henry VIII powers and other unparalleled powers for himself. [Interruption.] I said hypocrite, yes.

Benefit Cap

Debate between David Linden and Alan Brown

Tuesday 1st March 2022 Commons Chamber

[David Linden]

Absolutely. That is an issue I will perhaps touch on a little later in my speech. My hon. Friend is absolutely right to challenge the Government on that point, because I sometimes wonder how a policy like this could have got through the Government’s so-called family test. I am sure she will not hesitate in challenging her constituency MSP, the Conservative MSP Jackson Carlaw, to stand up for his constituents, many of whom have larger families.

[Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)]

On that point, is it not key that we are talking about families and children? Whatever the Tories’ ideological views on people having too many children, the reality is that the benefit cap is affecting children who have no say in the matter, and it is evil.

[David Linden]

Absolutely; my hon. Friend makes that point eloquently. The issue is that the Government are making policy in their ivory towers in Whitehall without any understanding of the real-life impact that it has on many families, including in Kilmarnock.

Some nine out of 10 single parents with children are women, which adds another layer of discrimination to an already incredibly cruel policy. We have heard testimonies from women who have left relationships due to domestic abuse only to find their benefits capped and the threat of financial hardship looming. That is the reality of the policy. Every effort should be made to ensure that those women, who are often fleeing desperate situations, are supported. Instead, the heartless British Government have capped the benefits that they can receive.

On top of that clear discrimination against single parents, specifically single mothers, a 2018 report by the excellent charities One Parent Families Scotland and CPAG in Scotland revealed that most families whose benefits had been capped were unable to seek or undertake work. The report highlighted that almost four in five lone parent households affected by the cap were claiming income support because they had young children and were not expected to seek work. Some one in six were claiming employment and support allowance, which suggests that they had been assessed as not fit for work. Families across Scotland are being pushed into financial hardship when they are not expected, and indeed are not deemed fit, to find work.

The Joseph Rowntree Foundation found that the benefit cap also disproportionately affects minority ethnic households. In England, eight in 20 households affected by the cap are minority ethnic, while minority ethnic households represent only three in 20 of the total. The Poverty Alliance has shown that the benefit cap discriminates against larger families as well, as my hon. Friend the Member for East Renfrewshire (Kirsten Oswald) said. In Scotland, 96% of capped households have children and of that number, 75% have three or more children.

According to a recent Resolution Foundation report, the low level of core social security benefits, which were affected by the various real-terms cuts to benefit levels in the 2010s, has been exacerbated in the past decade by policy changes such as the benefit cap and the two-child limit and associated rape clause that have undermined the idea that those with extra needs should be supported. That has resulted in rising poverty, particularly among families with three or more children.

The SNP has put forward clear policies to tackle poverty across Scotland. For example, my colleagues, SNP Ministers in Holyrood, have doubled the game-changing Scottish child payment, rolled out 11 new benefits and extended free school meals, and are working to actively reduce poverty and inequality. All the while, this place—Westminster—undermines those efforts.

With limited tax-raising powers, no serious borrowing powers and 85% of welfare spending still controlled in London, however, those policies can only go so far. They are being continually undermined by a Tory Government that Scotland did not elect; indeed, we have not elected a Tory Government since the 1950s. The benefit cap is just another cruel policy implemented by the Tories that leads to the extreme austerity and poverty that blight the lives of far too many of our constituents.

In addition to the benefit cap, the British Government must also scrap other poverty-inducing Tory policies such as the two-child limit and the bedroom tax. We face a perverse situation where the Scottish Government have to use between £60 million and £80 million of their budget every year to mitigate the bedroom tax. Again, devolution is almost being used as a sticking plaster for bad social security policy. Quite simply, I am sick and tired of standing up in this Chamber and making endless pleas to intransigent Tory Ministers while trying to demonstrate how my constituents in Wellhouse, Easthall and Cranhill are suffering from their cruel social security squeeze.

Social Security and Pensions

Debate between David Linden and Alan Brown

Monday 7th February 2022 Commons Chamber

[David Linden]

The Government are not just giving overseas pensioners the right to vote but changing legislation to allow overseas pensioners the right to donate to election campaigns. So the Government are quite happy to take those pensioners’ money, but they are not happy to give those pensioners the money that they paid in.

[Alan Brown]

That is a valid point that highlights the Government’s complete hypocrisy. We can only hope that enough overseas pensioners use their vote the right way and send the Government a message. It is kind of absurd. Not only is it demeaning when people living abroad do not have enough money to live on, potentially after giving service in the armed forces, but some are forced to sell their homes and move back to the UK. The irony is that that brings increased health costs. If the Government are being purely financial about it, not giving people the standard of living that they are due does not even save them the money they think it does.

One other aspect of that, in terms of reciprocal agreements on overseas pensions, is that the Canadian Government have offered to work with the UK Government to get a reciprocal agreement to resolve that issue in Canada. So why are the Government not moving forward on that and working with the Canadian Government?

There is one other key policy that the SNP has long been campaigning for. It is calling on the UK Government to establish an independent savings and pensions commission to ensure that pension policies are fit for purpose and reflect the demographic needs of different parts of the UK. One aspect of pensions that raised its head over the weekend was the Better Together rehash of 2014, and how the UK will not honour its commitments to pensioners in an independent Scotland. It seems extraordinary to me that we are in a so-called Union of equals, yet threats are being made about pensions. It is shameful that Scottish Labour once again want to be all over this. It seems that the UK Government want to argue that they can ignore all those contributions from Scotland in terms of income tax and national insurance, and will withhold pension obligations, yet they expect an independent Scotland to take on a share of the debt that the UK Government have built up—that has never been built up by any Scottish Government. That is a complete paradox and it makes no sense.

Household Energy Bills: VAT

Debate between David Linden and Alan Brown

Tuesday 11th January 2022 Commons Chamber

[Alan Brown]

The right hon. Gentleman seems easily confused, but of course he is a climate change sceptic. If Scotland was in charge of its own energy policy, there would be more investment in renewables and greater hydrogen development, and we would not be paying for nuclear power. I have already said that the nuclear power stations will put up to £63 billion on to our bills; that is the estimate. We would have a much better energy policy that we could implement as an independent country and we would not have the highest grid charges in the whole of Europe.

[David Linden]

I am looking on with a degree of bemusement—the hon. Member for South Thanet (Craig Mackinlay) is engaging in a debate about Scottish independence. Does my hon. Friend welcome the fact that the Government are finally engaging in the debate about Scottish independence? Perhaps the hon. Member for South Thanet will come up and campaign in the coming referendum.

[Alan Brown]

I welcome that intervention. It is good that people recognise that Scottish independence through a referendum is going to happen, and we look forward to a continued debate about the nuances of what will happen in an independent Scotland that has control of its own policies and can choose to go back into Europe.

As I said, we need to understand that the warm home discount is actually paid for by other bill payers. I am uncomfortable with the fact—the Chief Secretary did this earlier—that the Tories brag about the warm home discount as if it is a Government-funded measure. The reality is that, as a stand-alone tax measure, the warm home discount is actually regressive, because the people who can least afford it pay the same levy as those that can afford to pay more. So while the warm home discount does help people that require help, it is actually a regressive tax measure. If Labour’s proposals were implemented in the way the scheme operates just now, that would add £200 per annum to the bills of those who are left paying for it. It is inferred that Labour’s proposals would be funded from £3.5 billion of additional Treasury receipts, but that needs to be made clear. We also need to make sure that the Tories are not allowed to do a fudge when they raise the warm home discount, but by making other bill payers pay for it, giving them a free pass to pretend they are doing something. Similarly, there has been a call for policy levies to be removed from our electricity bills. I have argued this for a while because state levies on bills are also regressive, so we need to come to a fairer taxation measure to pay for our transition to net zero.

I have another concern about current Labour rhetoric about tax rises. It is as if all tax rises are bad. That plays to the Tories’ narrative and encourages them to make tax cuts ahead of the next election. So yes, the national insurance rise is an unfair tax on workers, and it is correct to highlight that, but we need to debate fair taxation. The Chancellor shied away from setting capital gains tax at the same rate as income tax. Had he done that, it would negate the need for a national insurance rise.

In Scotland the Scottish Government have shown that this can be done differently with a low starting rate of income tax and incremental increases across the bandings so that those can afford to pay a bit more do so. This is a model that Labour should be espousing. It should be demanding that the UK Government match our £20 per week child payment and reinstate the £20 per week universal credit cut.

It has been highlighted that tax burdens are the highest in peacetime since world war two. If this were to create a fairer society as part of a genuine levelling-up agenda, it could be managed. But we have right now in the UK the worst levels of poverty and inequality in north-west Europe and the highest levels of in-work poverty this century. The UK has one of the worst pensions in the world, made worse by the Government’s cap on the triple lock, so the Chancellor is balancing the books on already hard-hit pensioners struggling to heat their homes. How is it credible to reduce pensioners’ income by over £500 a year on what it otherwise would have been this year? The UK has one of the lowest sick pay rates in the OECD with the current rate of £96 per week. That is wholly inadequate, especially if people still need support in self-isolating.

Small independent countries continue to demonstrate that they can create a fairer, more equitable society. It is time Scotland had these powers rather than having to continually tinker around the edges and have decisions imposed on us. The debate has started today. I look forward to continuing the debate in that form.

Exiting the European Union

Debate between David Linden and Alan Brown

Tuesday 24th November 2020 Commons Chamber

[Alan Brown]

I agree wholeheartedly. That is the problem with the silo approach that the UK Government have taken sometimes. They talk about the fishing industry and fishing quotas and, sure, the fishing quotas are important, but for the Government they have become the symbol of Brexit, so fishing quotas seem to be getting looked at at the expense of everything else and that includes shellfish. We also rely on the free movement of people at the moment coming from the EU to do the processing of the fish and different things, so we might end up with bigger fishing quotas without the ability to process the fish and then export them. It is hugely ironic, and that is why the Government need to always have their eye on the big picture and to join up the dots, rather than making headline announcements, looking for the headline in The Daily Telegraph. They need to understand what this means for ordinary people up and down the UK.

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

I am sure my hon. Friend is just clearing his throat to get started, but on the issue of the free movement of people, is the issue of immigration not a red herring—if Members will pardon the pun—in the context of fishing? The UK Government said that this was all about reducing migration, but in order to do most of these trade deals, they will probably have to do a lot of visa-free travel for countries such as India?

[Alan Brown]

Absolutely. It is about looking at the big picture but, instead, the Government make big headline announcements to get some plaudits. It might help them to win an election in the short term, but what does that mean in the long term for the UK? That is something that the Tory party needs to consider.

I was speaking about divergences. I hope that the Minister will clear up how the divergence process will work and how it will be transparent, because we need to ensure that no divergences are given to some cronies who shout the loudest, because that again might have a wider impact on other businesses. So far, there have been allegations of cronyism in how covid has been dealt with, in terms of supplies of personal protective equipment. I would never accuse the Government of cronyism in giving contracts to people they know and who might favour the Tory party, but other people have done that, so I hope that the Minister will give us assurances that, going forward, any divergences from the EU will be done with the best interests of UK businesses at heart and, again, done with the wishes and agreement of the devolved Administrations.

[David Linden]

I would be so bold as to put on the record that this Government have been guilty of cronyism. But that is not just in the context of Brexit or the pandemic. For example, there is also the cronyism in terms of Richard Desmond and the Westferry scandal. So I would caution my hon. Friend. It is not just in terms of the pandemic that the Government have been guilty of cronyism; it goes much wider than that.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Order. As the hon. Gentleman said, the point he has just made goes very wide, and very much wider than the particular statutory instrument before us. So I am sure that the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun will stick very strictly to the terms of the SI, which he has done very well so far in his long speech.

[Alan Brown]

Hopefully, I will not be too much longer—these notes might be deceiving.

A key point, as I said, is divergences and this is all about the movement of goods. Where are we with regards to the movement of goods in terms of a no deal? Are we still reliant on the EU making concessions, just because the UK is not in a position to check in common goods? If we are going to look at diverging, we have to be able to manage what we have got just now, never mind changing things going forward.

This was raised yesterday. The Minister at the Dispatch Box was not able to answer it but, on checking goods and the movement of goods, how many custom agents will be required? How many have been trained? Yesterday, the hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) highlighted that the Cabinet Secretary estimated that 50,000 customs agents are needed, but that it is also estimated that only 10,000 have been trained to date. The Minister could not clear that up. This Minister has been taking lots of notes, so although she has not intervened, I am expecting a lengthy response. I hope that she can tell us where we are with training and employing customs agents and whether there will be enough in place on 1 January 2021.

[David Linden]

My hon. Friend has been incredibly generous in giving way. On the point about customs agents, Brexit was sold on the premise of us taking back control. Does he share my concern that “taking back control” was just something on the side of a bus and that when we look at the greater detail, we find that the Government have done very little preparation, which is worrying?

[Alan Brown]

Yes, it is very worrying. There has been very little preparation—all last-minute stuff. That is also why the Government are unable to engage with the devolved Administrations and businesses. They have not planned or done enough to get us to where they want to be—not where I or my hon. Friend want to be—in time for 1 January 2021.

The reality of Brexit preparations, as described by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow East (David Linden), was illustrated yesterday by the passing of the Kent borders regulations, which allow the police to stop lorry drivers entering Kent because of the fear of the utter chaos at the border in January. That shows how the UK Government have not done enough and that more work needs to be done. Clearly, all those issues matter in the immediate short term and need addressing in the long term before we start looking at divergences of standards.

Is there any planned divergence for agricultural standards? That has been touched on and is important. The UK Government resisted protecting those standards for future trade deals in the Agriculture Act 2020. What does the SI mean regarding the UK’s ability to diverge from the EU? While the UK wants to avoid challenge, what does that mean for the devolved nations in terms of the UK Government protecting themselves? Will they impose their will on the devolved nations? I mentioned the point earlier, but on divergences, will the internal market Bill become the kicker through the back door by allowing divergences to be forced on the devolved nations against their will?

We do not accept that the UK Government have any legitimacy in imposing divergence from the EU acquis on Scotland’s behalf as a member of the UK. On democratic principles, we do not consent to allow any withdrawal of Scotland from the EU. That applies to the withdrawal agreement and any subsequent legislation used to enforce the unwanted and undemocratic divergence from the EU, which Scotland voted overwhelmingly to remain a member of.

We do not accept the economic impact of diverging from EU rules, and that also applies to leaving the transition period, particularly because, as we discussed, the economy faces unprecedented challenges as we try to recover from the covid pandemic. We do not support or accept the need for the UK internal market Bill, which potentially allows divergences to be forced on the devolved Administrations against their wishes. We really need better co-operative working from the UK Government.

It would be ironic, when there seemed to be consensus from the Opposition that they would not oppose the SI, if, unless we start to hear decent responses from the Minister, there was a vote on it after all.

European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill

Debate between David Linden and Alan Brown

Committee stage & Committee: 2nd sitting: House of Commons & Committee: 2nd sitting
Wednesday 8th January 2020 Commons Chamber

[David Linden]

It is an honour to follow the hon. Member for Belfast South (Claire Hanna). I agreed with much of what she said.

I refer Members to my new clause 56, entitled “Implementation period negotiating objectives: annual celebration of Europe Day”. Unfortunately it was not selected by the acting Chairman of Ways and Means—[Interruption.] The Minister is chuntering, which is unusual for him. Members of the European Research Group, in their infinite wisdom, talk of Big Ben chiming away on 31 January, but if the Minister and the Government are serious about a strong future relationship with the European Union, it is important for them to consider our suggestion that an oral statement should be made on Europe Day, and that European flags should be flown above Government buildings.

[Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)]

I thank my hon. Friend for giving way so early in his speech. He has made a good point. His new clause is about celebration and recognising what we had in Europe, as opposed to the triumphant attitude of the ERG and the Brexiteers who talk of Big Ben chiming on the 31st. I was contacted by a constituent, Paul from Kilmarnock, who requested the Government not to organise a triumphant celebration because of the fear felt by so many other people about what they are losing. Does my hon. Friend agree that those who want Big Ben to sound should recognise what EU citizens will feel like on that night when we exit Europe?

[David Linden]

Absolutely. My hon. Friend’s constituent Paul has made a fair point. Brexit should not be about the narrow nationalism of the European Research Group and inward-looking “little Britain” attitudes. My new clause suggests a way of expressing a more outward-looking view of the future relationship. I am sure that when the Bill goes to the other place, the Government will be able to table an amendment to that effect. However, I want to stay in order, so I shall now speak in favour of new clause 8, tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford), and new clauses 50 and 51 and new schedule 1, tabled by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry).

I will not detain the Commitee for too long, but will confine my remarks to amendments relating specifically to membership of the single market and the customs union and, subsequently, those relating to workers’ rights. First, however, let me say that it is important to reflect on the new reality of where we are following the general election. Like it or not, the Conservatives must accept that their Brexit message failed in Scotland. They lost more than half their seats, and the SNP now holds 80% of the Scottish seats in the House; but, in the most undemocratic manner possible, the Tories are choosing to ignore Scottish voters by pressing ahead with their hard Brexit plans. To put it simply, we are being dictated to by a minority party in Scotland. During the election campaign, one of the Prime Minister’s more bizarre media stunts saw him drive a JCB digger through a polystyrene wall to deliver his “Get Brexit Done” message. It is now very clear that that wall represents Scotland, and that this Tory Government intend to forge ahead with their “Bulldozer Brexit”.

Like so many people in Scotland, I distinctly remember leaflets being delivered during the Scottish independence referendum campaign, imploring people to accept that a No vote was a vote to protect our rights as EU citizens and to maintain our membership of the European Union. Understandably—although it was not how I voted—many of our fellow citizens voted No in good faith, believing that that truly was the best way of protecting our EU membership. Five years on, having voted to stay in the United Kingdom, the people of Scotland now face the harsh and sad reality of our country being dragged out of the European Union by a British Government we did not vote for and by an intransigent Prime Minister who has no mandate from Scotland for this utterly reckless move.