Leaving the EU: Impact on the UK

Kirsten Oswald Excerpts

Wednesday 17th March 2021 Commons Chamber

[Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP) [V]]

East Renfrewshire was one of the areas of Scotland—a proudly European nation—that voted most strongly to remain in the EU. Nearly 75% of people in my community wished to remain and yet here we are having been shunted over the Brexit cliff edge, and now my constituents are paying the price.

While tradespeople and professionals are fighting to overcome barriers to working in the EU that they were promised would not be there, Make UK has found that seven in 10 leading manufacturing companies face delays with EU imports and exports, and Scotland’s creative sector, which has strong links with Europe, sees these links destroyed. The UK Government rejected special arrangements for the creative sector, and then negotiated so incompetently that they retrieved nothing from the wreckage. Whether it is artists or actors, architects or accountants, or those in the service sector, they have been badly let down.

Students in my constituency enthusiastically embraced opportunities offered to them by Erasmus, benefiting themselves and the wider community in the process. Just last year, the Prime Minister said that would continue, but instead current and future students have been failed yet again, with the UK Government chucking out Erasmus with no credible replacement in place—and, no, the Turing scheme absolutely does not do the job and will leave many of our young folk out in the cold.

Among my constituents are also many EU citizens, who play a vital part in making East Renfrewshire such a vibrant and rewarding place. They thought they were welcome, and they are—they are very welcome and our wider community feel that strongly—but they do not feel welcomed by this UK Government. Their needs come as an afterthought at best to the UK Government with their increasingly hostile environment. Is it any wonder that half a million EU-born citizens left the UK last year, undermining workforce plans in sectors as diverse as social care and advertising?

My constituents are deeply concerned about the impact of Brexit on food and consumer standards, and the actions of the UK Government give them every right to be concerned. Time after time—on trade and agriculture Bills, and the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill—Government Members voted to sign standards away and overrule the devolved settlement. The question is no longer whether this Government will sell out our standards; it is just how and when. There is no doubt whatever that the Prime Minister’s so-called oven-ready deal was half-baked at best.

In October, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster said,

“there are many areas in which we can co-operate more effectively to safeguard our borders outside the European Union than we ever could inside.”—[Official Report, 19 October 2020; Vol. 682, c. 761.]

This prompted the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) to mouth “utter rubbish”. For once, I believe she spoke for all of us. This Brexit, the deal and the consequences are all, as she said, frankly rubbish. No wonder so many proudly European residents of East Renfrewshire are looking afresh at the opportunities that an open, outward-looking, independent Scotland will bring them.

LGBT Conversion Therapy

Kirsten Oswald Excerpts

Monday 8th March 2021 Westminster Hall

[Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP) [V]]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray, and it is a pleasure to have heard such impassioned and important speeches. The stories that people have told have highlighted the damage that has been done and the lasting consequences for lives. That is well understood, so it must be time for action.

When I looked into the background to the debate, I was struck by the number of signatures on the petition that closed in September last year, compared with two previous petitions on the same subject in 2017 and 2018. Across the UK, the number of signatures increased over sevenfold from 2017 to last year’s quarter of a million signatures. In my constituency of East Renfrewshire, the 2017 petition attracted 33 signatures, but almost 400 of my constituents signed last year’s petition, and I have heard from a great many of them by email. That upswing in signatures tells us two things. The first is that there is a growing and welcome recognition of the need to tackle the wholly unacceptable practice of conversion therapy, which we know is not only hugely discriminatory, but so very damaging to those directly affected. The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Elliot Colburn) spoke very powerfully about that.

The second reason for the upswing in support for the petition could very well be a growing frustration that action is taking so long, which results in people who are potentially directly affected feeling that we are not listening to them. A similar frustration was expressed by the hon. Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Mike Freer) when, over five years ago, he sponsored a debate on conversion therapies. In that debate, he wondered why we are struggling to get conversion therapy banned, when there is such significant agreement on the issue. Let us be clear: LGBT people do not need their identities debated nor do they need to be converted. That is fundamental. Nobody’s identity should be subject to debate or to change by other people.

When we get to the end of this debate and hear the Minister’s response, I hope that is what she will say. I hope she will accept these concerns about delay, and respond to them by telling us what is the hold-up. As my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Alyn Smith) has just said, let’s get on with it. Is there a reason for the delay? Are the Government experiencing some push-back on this? Who would be doing that? What has prevented action from being taken before now? It is difficult to comprehend. My hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Hannah Bardell) described in vivid detail why it matters and the horrific impact it has on many lives.

I accept that the UK Government have been clear that they are committed to banning conversion therapy. I welcome that, but it is nearly three years since they laid out the plan to ban it across the UK. Since then, it looks like inactivity and prevarication to me. It looks like they are kicking the can down the road. Meanwhile, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ochil and South Perthshire (John Nicolson) so eloquently described, more and more human tragedies occur.

In July 2017, the UK Government launched what would become, with over 108,000 respondents, the largest national survey of LGBT people undertaken anywhere in the world. As the hon. Member for Arfon (Hywel Williams) has told us, almost a thousand days after publishing the results and an accompanying action plan informed by its findings, it seems that the Government are still at the research stage. What exactly are they researching?

In July last year, the Prime Minister said his Government would do a study on where conversion therapy was happening and its prevalence, and then bring forward plans to ban it, but that information is already there. It is contained within the survey that the Government already did, with over 7,000 people among the respondents who had either undergone conversion therapy or been offered it. That surely provides a clear picture of the geographic spread and the demography of conversion therapies across the UK. This determination to do more research, three years on, does not look like a process of implementing change; it looks more like an attempt to stave off change, and that is not okay.

The UK Government have also said they will take a UK-wide approach to this. The Scottish Government have expressed their support for action by the UK Government. There is already cross-border co-operation on the issue. For instance, NHS England and NHS Scotland both signed up to the 2017 memorandum of understanding, along with other stakeholders, to record their commitment to ending conversion therapy in the UK. Commitments like these, from health groups, counselling groups, psychotherapy groups and many religious groups, are welcome, but we need to do our bit now. We need action.

If we look at the July 2018 action plan, the UK Government said that they would bring froward these proposals, but their correspondence in May 2020 with the all-party parliamentary group on global lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT+) rights, of which I am a member, raises some serious questions about what progress we are going to see.

There are examples of attempts to implement a holistic ban on conversion therapies, starting with Brazil, which acted on the issue over 20 years ago; that is something we could ponder. Action has also been taken by Canadian cities and by Spanish cities and provinces, including Madrid and Andalusia, which adopted a broad definition of conversion therapies as

“all medical, psychiatric, psychological, religious or any other interventions that seek to change the sexual orientation or gender identity of a person”.

Given these widespread examples, and the widespread understanding of good practice, it is concerning that in her response to the chair of the APPG, the Minister for Women and Equalities, the right hon. Member for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss), mentioned Germany and Albania as countries that she is reaching out to in order to gain an understanding of the way forward. What is proposed in Germany looks like it could be a prohibition on conversion therapies only on minors and on adults whose participation was secured by coercion or deception. That would absolutely not

“end the vile practice of so-called conversion therapy”

that she says is her intention in her letter. There is a real danger that going down a road like that would legitimise conversion therapy, and we are absolutely not prepared to support that. To be clear, and to echo the very sensible words of the right hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell), this is not therapy; it is very unfortunate that that is the phrase that people use to describe the practice.

I want to hear from the Minister a response that tells me whether the Government are actually thinking about introducing a more narrowly defined Bill. I certainly hope not, but if that is the intention, when did that change of policy take place and why? The Minister for Women and Equalities’ mention of Albania raises some serious questions about the Government’s commitment. In Albania, every therapist has to be a member of the Order of Psychologists, and it is that body, not the state legislature, that has banned conversion therapies. There seems to be little that we can learn from the Albanian approach that has not already been implemented in the 2017 memorandum of understanding, so why is it raised as an example?

When I look at all those things, I am concerned that the UK Government are potentially finding diversions along the way to avoid confronting the difficulties they now face due to changes on their Back Benches. I hope I am wrong about that. The LGBT community cannot be held hostage by right-wing politics or changes in political personnel. I say that, but I am mindful of the powerful speeches that we heard today from Members from across the House, including very powerful speeches by Conservative Members. I take some heart from those consistent and clear words.

In that context, and thinking about the people who are directly affected by this practice, I urge the Minister to do the right thing. We have a responsibility to take action to right wrongs. This practice needs to be made illegal. Nobody should be subjected to that kind of assault on their identity. It needs to stop, but it will not until we move this from being a debate to being a reality. It is time to make progress, and I really hope the Minister tells us that will happen.

Ministerial and other Maternity Allowances Bill

Kirsten Oswald Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Monday 1st March 2021 Commons Chamber

[Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con) [V]]

Let me briefly try to set the context in which these amendments are being considered. This is an issue that goes to trans and women’s rights. It is a year since I was elected as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on global LGBT+ rights, which is the only LGBT rights APPG. While the title of the group is not meant to exclude the domestic LGBT rights agenda, it is a statement about where the focus should be, given our astonishing legal and societal progress for LGB people in the UK over the last two or so decades—progress of which I am a personal and fortunate beneficiary.

When I put it in the language of my first profession, the war on these issues had been won, and we were really in the business of rounding up the prisoners—tidying up. Much of that tidying related to the complexities generated by enabling trans people also to be able to enjoy the freedom to live their lives as they wished. The trans agenda understandably became the dominating issue for the British LGBT rights lobby in our civil society. By 2018, with the publication of the LGBT action plan and the consultation on reform of the Gender Recognition Act 2004, the direction of travel looked set fair for trans people to be able to enjoy those rights and live their lives as they wished.

However, to say that there has been a change of climate for trans people since my right hon. Friend the Paymaster General, who is guiding this Bill through the House, lost her responsibilities for equalities is something of an understatement. There is going to be no change to the Gender Recognition Act; self-identification, which is the global gold standard for rights in this area, is going to have to wait; and gender identity services, now acknowledged to be grossly underfunded, with enormous demand on them, are now under well-funded legal assault as well.

We currently face a situation where trans people feel under a full-on attack, yet if one listened to their lordships who were making the case for this amendment, one would have thought it was the other way round. The proponent of these amendments said in the other place:

“We are currently faced with a full-on attack on women’s sex- based rights—a misogynistic and bullying campaign which seeks to diminish women’s rights in the name of the rights of trans people.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 25 February 2021; Vol. 810, c. 962.]

I want to gently suggest that my noble Friend Lord Lucas turn the board around and see what the perspective is from the other side. The context is wild and exaggerated threats about the position of women’s rights from trans people. For example, his colleague in the other place, the noble Baroness Fox of Buckley, said:

“What is a threat to women is a particular brand of trans identity ideology. That does threaten women, but that is not the same as trans people.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 25 February 2021; Vol. 810, c. 945.]

I look forward to hearing the explanation of that, because what trans people are seeing is The Times newspaper —the newspaper of record in the United Kingdom—carrying 250 stories of this kind, generally without satisfactory supporting evidence.

We have this amendment in a Bill that deals with the maternity leave arrangements of one woman who happens to be the Attorney General. A debate in this House and the other place suddenly came out of nowhere, generating the most extraordinary amount of interest and passion for an entirely technical correction of an anomaly in ministerial maternity leave arrangements. Sitting behind the passion engaged on this are agendas, which are in public for those who are taking an interest—principally the trans community—of the Heritage Foundation and the LGB Alliance, which, if one examines its followers on Twitter, does not seem to have a huge wider interest in the subject of LGBT rights. They are hearing an agenda being used, which we heard only yesterday from Donald Trump in his address to the Conservative Political Action Conference, exploiting the issue of a potential threat to women’s sports, which need to be rescued from this threat. We know that, under the Equality Act 2010 in the United Kingdom, it is for sports administrators to make reasonable decisions to protect the integrity of their sports. These threats, in reality, do not exist.

What I want to say to trans people and their supporters is that today is not the ground on which we should stand. An innocuous sounding amendment in a tiny, technical Bill aimed at resolving the Attorney General’s maternity leave is not the place to have the fight around the principle. But there is a principle engaged here about gender-neutral language, and we have work to do to make it clear that trans rights do not come at the expense of women’s rights. We can perfectly well have both. Women’s rights must be protected, and reasonable provision must be made to protect women from threats that are real and evident. In reality, trans women pose no threat to women, but we do have those issues to address.

I therefore support the Government in accommodating this amendment, which has, to a degree, been forced upon them. But this necessary compromise must not undermine the position of the Government and what I believe to be the decent, caring majority in both Houses of Parliament who want to see trans rights properly established.

[Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP) [V]]

I am mindful that the Bill is in front of us today because the Attorney General is about to have a baby, and I wish her and her family all the best. Maternity leave is a right—it should not be a discretionary benefit—and that should no different for Ministers or MPs. More broadly, though, we are not in the best place on maternity either in this House or, more importantly, outside it. Many of us have spoken at length about the issues that the Bill does not tackle but ought to. None of that has anything particularly to do with the Attorney General’s leave, so I would not suggest putting any barrier in the way of that, but it is my firm intention to secure from the Minister some clear commitments as to what she will do next.

It is absolutely right, and not before time, that Ministers are able to go on maternity leave. Despite the protestations from those on the Government Benches when we discussed this before, I still think it is unacceptable that the Prime Minister of the day is the ultimate arbiter of whether this can actually happen. I have said it before and I say it again: it should never be necessary for women to seek the potentially grudging consent of a boss to take maternity leave. If it is beyond our wit in 2021 to find a more satisfactory way of dealing with things like that, it is a poor show.

That is because what we do here and what we do with this makes a difference to how other people deal with their maternity leave, be they MPs, where the status quo is not much use, either to MPs or to their constituents; our staff, and perhaps the Minister can say something about what changes could be made to Short money to support proper maternity provisions for staff members; or all the people outside the political world, who are just trying to get by and will rightly wonder why we can manage to press ahead with such haste in this situation—again, I am pleased to get this sorted for the Attorney General; it is right that we do that—but have not been able to make such progress, and at such speed that would make all the difference, for ordinary families.

The statistics from Pregnant Then Screwed say it all. Its survey of 20,000 women in July last year found, among other things, that 61% of women believe that their maternity leave was a factor in a redundancy decision, and self-employed women who have taken maternity leave in the last three years saw their Government support cut by a third, or even by two thirds, if they have taken two maternity leaves, compared with dads, who are not impacted at all financially by maternity leave.

Let me touch on the amendments to language that have emerged from the Lords. The Minister gave a pretty concerted defence of gender-neutral language previously, so I am interested to see the change of tack here, given that it is perfectly normal to draft in gender-neutral terms. I am not convinced that this change is either progress or progressive. That is relevant, first, because the Bill is far too narrow in scope and deals with only this one issue and, secondly, because our representation here is just not reflective of who we are more broadly; we are far less diverse as a political group than the people we represent, and the lack of proper provisions for maternity leave illustrate that well. The Bill, as far as it goes, only makes provision for maternity leave for birth mothers. It does not make provision for all the different types of leave we have talked about—parental leave, paternity leave, adoption leave, shared leave and so on. So I ask the Minister to reflect further on the fact that everyone should have access to decent parental leave, not just some new parents.

On that note, I would be grateful if the Minister could say exactly when she intends to come back to the House with concrete proposals to deal with all these other pressing issues, so that we can see improvements to maternity, paternity and parental leave provisions far more broadly. That is particularly important as we move beyond the lockdown phase of the pandemic and caring and work responsibilities need to work together, rather than against one another. For example, the right to request flexible working from the start of employment would help so many people, with women bearing the disproportionate burden of caring responsibilities being particularly in need of that kind of progress. That is often an issue post maternity leave.

While we are dealing with this one narrow Bill, we need to appreciate that the status quo is far from good enough. The UK has the second lowest payment rates for maternity leave of OECD countries, with less than a third of gross average earnings replaced by maternity payments. Despite lengthy maternity leave entitlements, full-rate equivalent paid maternity leave lasts for only 12 weeks and a maternity allowance of just £151.20, which is worth about half the national minimum wage for a full-time worker, is obviously completely unacceptable. The fact that that is increasing by a grand total of 77p a week in April is shockingly inadequate. The Minister has to recognise that. She also has to recognise that we really need legislation to expand eligibility for statutory maternity leave and pay for workers who still do not qualify, including people on insecure contracts such as agency workers or zero-hours contract workers.

Much needs to be done. We need action on those insecure workers, maternity leave, parental leave and paternity pay, and we need policies that take account of the different shapes of families and different kinds of support that will be necessary. All these matters have to be addressed with some urgency. I realise that they are not the specific issues in front of us today, but it all fits together into a lack of care and direction from the UK Government.

Although the SNP supports the Bill, there is no getting away from the fact that the UK ranks very poorly in terms of maternity provision, and the very particular narrow nature of the Bill does nothing to remedy that. In fact, it just demonstrates how archaic Westminster can be. It is worth reflecting that an independent Scotland could do so much better on maternity and parental leave—not just for Ministers, but for everyone.

Covid-19: Ethnic Minority Disparities

Kirsten Oswald Excerpts

Monday 1st March 2021 Commons Chamber

[Kemi Badenoch]

My right hon. Friend is right to point out that we should not assume that community organisations, which might be male-dominated, are reaching female members of ethnic minority groups, and I will ensure that we continue to work on that. I will check with officials to ensure that the groups she has mentioned are included in the ones we are providing advice and guidance to and are liaising with.

[Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP) [V]]

There is clear evidence of both higher covid-19 infection and higher mortality rates among people from ethnic minority backgrounds, as well as greater pandemic-related economic damage affecting these diverse groups. I also know from my own constituency that the no recourse to public funds policy locks many people, including children, out of vital support. Will the Minister urge her colleagues in the UK Government to review this damaging and discriminatory policy, which has such a disproportionate impact on BAME families?

Debate on economic inequality is often undermined by a lack of reliable data. Will the Minister follow the recommendations of the Women and Equalities Committee and publish proposals for the introduction of ethnicity and disability pay gap reporting? Will she also back calls for equality impact assessments to be published for the coronavirus job retention scheme and the self-employment income support scheme, as well as the introduction of redundancy pay gap reporting by protected characteristics?

[Kemi Badenoch]

With regard to the support that the Government are providing to those who have no recourse to public funds, many of the wide-ranging covid-19 measures that the Government have put in place are available to migrants with no recourse to public funds, such as the coronavirus job retention scheme, the self-employment income support scheme and support allowances that are not classed as public funds. In addition, we temporarily extended free school meals to include some groups who have no recourse to public funds. As I have said to the hon. Lady’s Scottish National party colleagues, and probably to her as well, it is really important that we do not conflate ethnic minorities with recent migrants; they are two completely distinct groups and it is wrong to mix them up in this way. We are ensuring that we are providing support to those who are most vulnerable and who need it most.

Ministerial and other Maternal Allowances Bill

Kirsten Oswald Excerpts

Committee stage & 3rd reading & 3rd reading: House of Commons & Committee: 1st sitting & Committee: 1st sitting: House of Commons
Thursday 11th February 2021 Commons Chamber

[Kirsten Oswald [V]]

I beg to move amendment 3, in page 1, line 5, leave out “may” and insert “must”.

The intention of this amendment is to make paid maternity absence mandatory for qualifying Ministerial office-holders.

[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 15, in page 1, line 5, leave out “a person as”.

Amendment 16, in page 1, line 14, leave out “person” and insert “minister”.

Amendment 18, in page 1, line 14, leave out “person” and insert “woman”.

Amendment 17, in page 1, line 16, leave out “person” and insert “minister”

Amendment 19, in page 1, line 16, leave out “person” and insert “woman”.

Amendment 4, in page 2, line 1, leave out “6” and insert “12”.

The intention of this amendment is to extend the period of paid maternity absence from 6 to 12 months.

Clause 1 stand part.

Amendment 5, in clause 2, page 2, line 7, leave out “6” and insert “12”.

The intention of this amendment is to extend the period of paid maternity absence from 6 to 12 months.

Amendment 6, in clause 2, page 2, line 10, leave out “6” and insert “12”.

The intention of this amendment is to extend the period of paid maternity absence from 6 to 12 months.

Amendment 7, in clause 2, page 2, line 19, leave out “6” and insert “12”.

The intention of this amendment is to extend the period of paid maternity absence from 6 to 12 months.

Amendment 1, in clause 2, page 2, line 20, at end insert—

‘(4A) Within three months of the passing of this Act, the Paymaster General must lay before both Houses of Parliament a draft of regulations to make provision for continuity of any paid maternity leave in the event of a Minister on Leave ceasing to hold the designated ministerial office whilst on maternity leave.”

This amendment would require the Paymaster General to act to ensure a commitment to continuity of provision of maternity pay which a Minister on Leave would be entitled to in the event of ceasing to hold the designated ministerial office whilst on maternity leave, or in the event of being moved to a position which results in monies being recouped.

Amendment 8, in clause 2, page 2, line 21, leave out “6-month period” and insert “12-month period”.

The intention of this amendment is to extend the period of paid maternity absence from 6 to 12 months.

Amendment 9, in clause 2, page 2, line 21, leave out “6 months” and insert “12 months”.

The intention of this amendment is to extend the period of paid maternity absence from 6 to 12 months.

Clause 2 stand part.

Clause 3 stand part.

Amendment 10, in clause 4, page 3, line 20, leave out “may” and insert “must”.

The intention of this amendment is to make paid maternity absence mandatory for qualifying Opposition office-holders in the House of Commons.

Amendment 11, in clause 4, page 3, line 22, leave out “may” and insert “must”.

The intention of this amendment is to make paid maternity absence mandatory for qualifying Opposition office-holders in the House of Lords

Amendment 12, in clause 4, page 3, line 24, leave out

“may be made only at a time”

and insert “must be made”.

The intention of this amendment is to make paid maternity absence mandatory for qualifying Opposition office-holders.

Amendment 13, in clause 4, page 3, line 32, leave out “6” and insert “12”.

The intention of this amendment is to extend the period of paid maternity cover from 6 to 12 months.

Amendment 14, in clause 4, page 3, line 38, leave out “6” and insert “12”.

The intention of this amendment is to extend the period of paid maternity cover from 6 to 12 months.

Clause 4 stand part.

Amendment 2, in clause 5, page 4, line 6, at end insert—

‘(2A) Within three months of the passing of this Act, the Paymaster General must lay before both Houses of Parliament a draft of regulations to make provision for continuity of any paid maternity allowance in the event of an Opposition office-holder ceasing to hold an opposition office whilst on maternity leave.”

This amendment would require the Paymaster General to act to ensure a commitment to continuity of provision of maternity cover which an Opposition office-holder would be entitled to in the event of ceasing to hold an opposition office whilst on maternity leave, or in the event of being moved to a position which results in monies being recouped.

Clause 5 stand part.

Clause 6 stand part.

Clause 7 stand part.

New clause 1—Equalities impact assessment—

‘(1) Within three months of the day on which this Act is passed, the Prime Minister must complete and lay before Parliament an equality impact assessment of the provisions of this Act.

(2) The equality impact assessment must include consideration of the implications of this Act for participation in public life.

(3) Within three months of the date on which the equality impact assessment is laid before Parliament, the Prime Minister must make an oral statement to the House of Commons on the action which the Government intends to take as a consequence of the assessment.

[Kirsten Oswald]

I am pleased to move the amendments that stand in my name, and also to confirm my support for new clause 1 in the name of the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) and others.

In the time available to us—which, as I think has been acknowledged many times from those in all parts of the House, does not allow for full consideration of the Bill’s defects and omissions—it is important that the Committee sets out clearly what it believes the direction of travel should be on this issue. The general principle of the House addressing issues of maternity leave is important, although the devil will clearly be in the promised detail, and we will all be watching for the progress that has been discussed by so many Members.

As it stands, this halfway house of a Bill provides for maternity leave in specific circumstances, but as the Minister herself noted, only with the by-your-leave of the Prime Minister, and only for a maximum of six months. That is not really what we should be endorsing as a long-term solution to the present inadequate situation. Indeed, it should not even be a medium-term solution. That is why the SNP tabled these amendments, and why we are happy to support new clause 1 in addition.

It is inconceivable that if an equalities impact assessment had been done, the Bill would have seen the light of day in its current form. I look forward to such an assessment being completed before we return to this issue. As the hon. Member for Walthamstow said, we have barely scratched the surface of the issues that we need to address if policy is to deal with the proper engagement of those in public life with family life.

Amendment 2 was tabled because the approach adopted in the Bill is wrong. It is unhelpful to those of us who want to address the significant structural issues that exist. I know that there are many on the Government Benches who would like us to revise our approach, who see the international standards on human rights as inconvenient and who perhaps hanker after days when this House and the Government it supported decided who deserved which treatment or benefit and who did not. But we have moved beyond that, as is recognised in the European convention on human rights statement at the head of the Bill. As a matter of principle, we recognise that women should not be discriminated against in the workplace, including on the grounds of pregnancy or maternity.

The Bill, as drafted, envisages that the Prime Minister would—in theory—be entitled to withhold maternity leave from a woman even when she was within 12 weeks of the expected week of birth or within four weeks of having given birth. As a matter of principle, that is wrong. No appeal to how reasonable Prime Ministers would deal with this is satisfactory enough for us to accept such a defect in the Bill. The right to maternity leave is important because it shows the value that society places on our right to family life. That is more fundamental than the role we play in the workplace, no matter how important or exalted our role may be.

There is a macho view that seems to value the idea that we should all work right up until the days of giving birth, particularly if we are in high-powered jobs, and the understanding is that we should return just as quickly. That is to misunderstand the importance for most families—for parents and children—of that vital transitional period from pregnancy through to early parenthood. As one Member said earlier, it also misunderstands the colossal impact of pregnancy and parenthood on life more broadly. I echo what my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) said about the importance of supporting new parents in the early years, and this House has a role to play in setting an example.

While there may be mothers and families for whom a speedy period of maternity leave works, and they are entitled to choose that route if they wish, it is absolutely not our job here to put into place or to perpetuate policies that make that seem the norm. That can only be detrimental to families across the country. We really need to look forward. We need to accept that things are simply not good enough here for Ministers, MPs or, as we have heard, members of staff.

More broadly—this cannot be emphasised enough—we cannot leave this debate thinking that maternity leave is all working well away from this place. I mentioned earlier the terrifying statistic that over 60% of women who took part in the Pregnant Then Screwed survey last year believe that their redundancy is because of their maternity leave. That is a shocking statistic, and it should cause us to reflect seriously on the situation affecting these women.

The poor state of statutory pay must not be left behind in this discussion either. We cannot just deal with one person, however sensible it is to put this provision in place, and leave everyone else hanging on by their fingertips because of the impossible financial provisions that they have to deal with. The effect of that kind of financial pressure and the lack of support can be seen in how many women do not take up their full entitlement to maternity leave. In its recent report, “The impact of Covid-19 on maternity and parental leave”, the Petitions Committee noted:

“It appears then that current entitlements are only generous to those who can afford to use them.”

We should reflect on that point. Covid and the precarious nature of so many employment relationships at present bring into sharp focus the need for proper provisions for maternity leave, parental leave and the support that families need at this particularly difficult time, which will also be so vital as we move forward out of the pandemic.

The Petitions Committee also highlighted research commissioned by the Department for Work and Pensions in 2008, which suggested that less than a quarter—23%—of mothers taking maternity leave took the full 52 weeks. Only 45% took 40 weeks or more, and I suspect it is unlikely that the situation has improved significantly since then.

The reason for tabling amendment 3 is that an organisation of the scale of the UK Government should not add to that pressure by adopting a standard that says to women, “Your maternity leave is a benefit that may or may not be conferred by your boss,” who in this case is the Prime Minister. Through legislation, we should aim to reflect the standard that we expect Government to meet, which is that women are entitled to their maternity leave and organisations need to put in place proper mechanisms for supporting that.

On the wider front, this House needs to act on the continued abuse of pregnancy as an opportunity to disadvantage in the workplace, whether financially or even by removing people from their posts. That issue also affects those taking parental leave and those with family and caring responsibilities, particularly for young children, which Members on all sides have called on the Minister to look at.

That brings me to the second issue raised in the amendments tabled by the SNP, which is the duration of leave. A simple click on the gov.uk website would have told the drafters of the Bill that statutory maternity leave in the UK is 52 weeks, split into two chunks of 26 weeks. It is not clear to me why the starting point for the arrangements for designating a Minister on leave was taken to be six months instead of 12 months, and it does not speak well of what we are saying to the outside world.

Perhaps the only way to solve that mystery is to notice that there might be a pattern to the Government’s behaviour. In order to win support, they talk about the new freedoms that the UK apparently now enjoys, casting them as an opportunity to set our own standards, free from outside interference, and to set them standards higher. However, when a choice needs to be made as to whether to go for higher or lower standards, the instinct of the UK Government is to go low—to reduce standards, or to fail to act as they should.

That has been clearly shown by the dither and delay following the Government’s defeat in the High Court on the subject of personal protective equipment and health and safety protection for limb (b) workers. That growing part of our workforce, who find themselves with significantly fewer rights than their directly employed colleagues, now find that the Government are failing to act. Many of these precarious workers may find it even more challenging to deal with issues of maternity.

Those of us who are committed to maintaining high standards, whether in the field of employment, the environment or consumer rights, need to be on our guard here, or slowly but surely, hard-won protections we have enjoyed for many years will be reduced or swept away in pursuit of the so-called flexibility that we are now being told is what the UK needs as it pursues life beyond Brexit.

The amendments are about setting a marker. We can see, working from the most vulnerable members of our workforce right up to the Cabinet table, that change can be seen as an opportunity to roll back the clock and reduce and reset established rights. The Scottish National party does not consent to that process.

I will comment briefly on the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Walthamstow. Her amendment 2 seems to offer appropriate clarification of an aspect of support for Opposition Members. It addresses the issue of someone being disadvantaged as a result of change in circumstance while on maternity leave, which strikes me as an important principle. While on maternity leave, we should not be concerned about the impact of changes at work, so I am happy to support that amendment. I ask the Minister to look at embedding the principle of no detriment in future action in this area.

There is no doubt that an equalities impact assessment is a vital way of dealing with some of the issues with the Bill. The recent Petitions Committee report that we have spoken about highlights some of the issues that need to be addressed when introducing reforms in this area. Recognising that the eyes of the country will be on the changes, we need to avoid creating a two-tier system. We cannot have a good system for Ministers and holders of other high-powered posts and a second-rate system for everyone else.

An equality impact assessment might have thrown up the need to address some of the wider issues in order to avoid that two-tier perception. It would also have highlighted that parental leave more broadly is vital to shattering the glass ceiling, and that too many barriers are still in place relating to caring responsibilities. When this Bill comes back, as the Minister has promised it will, it needs to address those issues.

If we had the equality impact assessment, we might also have noted that wider action is needed to increase the uptake of maternity leave to closer to the one-year statutory limit, because so many parents cannot afford to take the leave to which they are entitled. To address that gap between entitlement and uptake in the wider workforce, it is clear that maternity pay needs to increase, with the SNP proposing 100% of average weekly earnings for the first 12 weeks, then 90% or £150 for 40 weeks, whichever is lower.

Ministerial and other Maternity Allowances Bill

Kirsten Oswald Excerpts

2nd reading & 2nd reading: House of Commons
Thursday 11th February 2021 Commons Chamber

[Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP) [V]]

I also welcome this Bill in principle and as far as it goes, which is not far enough, but perhaps it is a sign that this House and the UK Government recognise that they have some way to go to begin catching up with the world around them.

On issues of equality and of acknowledging and breaking down barriers, this House deservedly has a reputation for making progress very slowly. Today we are discussing something that should surely already be in place, not simply because elected office should not be a barrier to a family, but because attitudes and practices here have a material impact on the lack of proper treatment and the prevalence of issues such as maternity and pregnancy discrimination outside this place.

It was not until 1975 that statutory maternity leave was introduced in the UK through the Employment Protection Act 1975—later than in most countries in Europe. Indeed, with this Bill, welcome though it is, progress continues to be too slow. Here, the perplexing basis for maternity leave is that the Minister must seek permission from the Prime Minister to take such leave, the implication being that the Prime Minister retains the power to say, “No, the maternity leave is not granted.” How very Edwardian in 2021.

The rest of the world has long since moved on to the position that maternity leave should be a right rather than a discretionary benefit. How we can expect people to appreciate that and act in that way if this place is so backward-looking? It should not be necessary for women to seek the potentially grudging consent of a boss to take maternity leave.

I was fortunate when I twice took maternity leave to have a supportive and encouraging boss. It was clear to me that I had the right and, importantly, the support to take the leave that was right for me and my family. I wonder how I would have felt if the ability to grant my leave was in the gift of my boss, given that we cannot always be guaranteed the supportive boss that I had. For me, that happened well before any involvement in politics.

Our representation is clearly not reflective of who we are. We are far less diverse as a political class than those we represent, and the lack of proper provision for maternity feeds into that. We cannot expect that lack of representation to improve unless we improve the structures that we work within. I wonder whether I would have wanted to stand for election to this place as a younger woman starting a family, considering the various challenges, including gaps in provision for MPs and Ministers.

We have heard about heavily pregnant MPs being wheeled through the Lobby recently, against all logic and surely against advice, because the arcane processes of this House were simply not set up to accommodate their needs. This House can and should be better than that. We have a duty to be better. We cannot simply go along with the make-do-and-mend approach that the UK Government have had for so long.

The posts of Ministers on maternity leave have been left vacant, and their responsibilities have been carried out as best as possible by colleagues who are also carrying out their own responsibilities. The one thing that has saved all that from crumbling is that no one fulfilling a Secretary of State role in the UK Government has ever tried to take maternity leave. That fact reveals a great deal about the relative importance of the issue in the minds of those at the very top.

We have rightly heard comments about the contrast between arrangements in the House and those outside it. That is important. The contrast between the speed at which the Bill has been progressed and the shocking delays in dealing with the pressing needs of pregnant women in the pandemic is stark and just not good enough. The fact that maternity allowance is just £151.20 a week, which is about half the national minimum wage for a full-time worker, is deplorable. The fact that it will increase by only 77p a week in April is frankly an insult. Those issues must also be addressed. I realise that they are not before us today, but they all fit together into a lack of care and direction from the Government.

The mechanism that the Bill identifies for repairing the current crumbling edifice of ministerial maternity cover should be uncontroversial. Any organisation needs to provide for such events, which routinely happen, so I hope that no one would seriously suggest that, in a large ministerial team, there should not be contingencies to support maternity leave. However—I repeat myself in case we lose sight of the point—it is incredible that it has taken until 2021 for the UK Government and the House to address the matter.

The explanatory notes describe provision for maternity leave as problematic or “particularly difficult to apply” to a Minister in a very senior office, such as a Secretary of State,

“because the legal exercise of functions of such roles cannot be ‘covered’ by another Minister.”

I am afraid that I do not buy that. That is just a cop-out. It sounds like exactly the kind of excuse that has been used by backsliders on this issue ever since the idea of maternity leave in employment entered our thinking. It is followed by the statement:

“The result is that a Minister in such a role who wished to take extended maternity leave would need to resign their office.”

It is breathtaking to see that kind of language. It makes us check our calendars to make sure that we are in 2021. How can we expect improvements and proper treatment outside this place if that is how we run things here?

The explanatory notes reveal exactly the kind of thinking that we all know still goes on in recruitment to senior jobs, and that results in the glass ceiling for women in so many institutions. They display the unconscious bias that underpins so much systemic discrimination in the UK and around the world.

To signal that that kind of thinking has no place at the centre of political and economic power, the SNP has tabled an amendment to remove the notion that prime ministerial discretion should have effect in relation to maternity leave. Ministers, MPs—all of us—should feel secure in the knowledge that we work for an organisation where no guilt will be piled on us if we take time off for maternity or, in fact, for family reasons. We have to be clear that there is a need to look more broadly than this very narrow issue, that this long-awaited progress does not go far enough, and that the scope of the Bill is not great enough.

These things matter, not only because the arrangements put in place by this House for the UK Government are important for the proper operation of the Government, but because they act as a signpost to other companies and organisations in the UK as to what approach they are expected to take. We do not have to look far to see the issues out there. A survey of 20,000 women by Pregnant Then Screwed last summer found that 61% believed that their maternity leave was a factor in their redundancy decision. Given the example set by this House and the UK Government today, that is perhaps not surprising.

It is also unsurprising that the UK ranks poorly among OECD countries for how it deals with maternity. The UK has the second lowest-paying rate for maternity leave, with less than a third of gross average earnings replaced by maternity payments; despite lengthy maternity leave entitlements, full-rate equivalent paid maternity leave lasts just 12 weeks. That is why, as a statement of principle, we have tabled amendments that would extend Ministers’ maternity leave from six to 12 months.

Let me be clear that that does not mean that we support one rule for Ministers’ maternity leave and another for the general public; the amendments set out what the direction of travel must be for the whole workforce. I hope that as part of the preparation for the wider review that I talked about, including the broader area of parental support provision, the Government will look carefully at that and ensure that equalities impact assessments are carried out before this business returns—quickly—to the House, so that these things can be addressed in the round.

That should include an examination of the challenges facing Members in their constituencies and their legislative roles when they become new parents. It is interesting that the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority this morning seemed to recognise that it, too, needs to look at that. When the Minister looks further, I urge her to look at the words of the all-party parliamentary group on women in Parliament, which said:

“The lack of formal maternity and parental leave for MPs is entirely out of step with wider society and gives the impression that the work of a Parliamentarian is not appropriate for those with caring responsibilities.”

That is the crux of the issue. It is completely unacceptable that this House and the UK Government have got to 2021 without putting in order their own arrangements for properly supporting maternity leave.

On the basis that we need to make progress on this issue today, the SNP is supportive of what the Minister has brought forward, but if the Bill is to pass largely as drafted, I will be keen to hear from her significant commitments to returning to this issue before the summer to correct some of the glaring omissions and the lack of principle, so that we can fix this issue and send the important messages that we must send beyond this place.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

With a four-minute limit, I call Cherilyn Mackrory.

Spending Review 2020 and OBR Forecast

Kirsten Oswald Excerpts

Wednesday 25th November 2020 Commons Chamber

[Rishi Sunak]

My hon. Friend of course knows about this particularly well from his own experience, and he is right. One of the implications of the lockdown and what we have done in the past is that we have this backlog now. He rightly says that it makes a difference to people’s day-to-day quality of life, which is why we have provided £3 billion, of which £1 billion is to tackle exactly that elective backlog. It will enable 1 million more scans and treatments to happen, and, as he says, it is something we should stick with.

[Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP) [V]]

More than 1 million 1950s-born WASPI—Women Against State Pension Inequality Campaign—women remain in the workforce, including in front-facing roles. Many had planned to retire but cannot do so because the Chancellor’s Government hit them with a lengthy delay in accessing their pensions. WASPI women have asked me why the Chancellor cannot sort out their pensions, allowing them to retire and freeing up their jobs for others. That would be a win-win for the Chancellor and WASPI women, so will he look to do it?

[Rishi Sunak]

The case has been settled in the courts and there is not much further I can add, but today we have announced an uplift of 2.5% for 12 million pensioners on the state pension, which I know will make a difference to many.

Covid-19: Economy Update

Kirsten Oswald Excerpts

Thursday 22nd October 2020 Commons Chamber

[Rishi Sunak]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. In the face of something we have never seen before—we are all grappling with how to deal with it—it is right that we remain pragmatic and flexible; it is not right to be wedded to dogma and be unwilling to change when the facts change. We will always do that, as we grapple with the health crisis and the economic crisis. We will remain flexible and nimble, but always with the same values and principles underlying what we do, which is to try to protect as many people’s jobs and livelihoods as we can.

[Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP) [V]]

The UK Government wax lyrical about a flexible labour market as a strength of the UK economy, but the Chancellor’s support packages have excluded millions and so many will continue to be excluded from support. So will he again look at provisions for the millions who still fall through the holes in his schemes? If he will not do the right thing by these excluded groups, will he please release the resources to devolved Administrations to allow them to do so?

[Rishi Sunak]

Our support for the self-employed remains among the most comprehensive and generous anywhere in the world, and is now approximating almost £13 billion for almost 3 million people. Barnett consequentials of more than £13 billion or £14 billion have been provided to the devolved nations and, if the Scottish Government choose to do something different with that, that is of course up to them.

Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme

Kirsten Oswald Excerpts

Thursday 17th September 2020 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con)]

At the start of my remarks, I place on record my appreciation of and gratitude to the Government for the coronavirus job retention scheme. In Wimbledon, it has meant that 12,500 people have a chance of their livelihoods and their futures.

Inevitably, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Laura Trott) has already said, as this country returns to work and the economy starts to revive, we are likely to see a very different economy from that which we saw pre-covid. We are wrong to try to pretend anything other than that. While some say, “Let’s extend furlough, but in a targeted way,” the questions to whom, how much and for how long remain unanswered.

In July, surely the Chancellor was right to say,

“I will never accept unemployment as an unavoidable outcome.”—[Official Report, 8 July 2020; Vol. 678, c. 974.]

As we look to the future, instead of a blanket extension of the furlough, is the Chancellor not right to ask for new, innovative, creative and effective ways to support the economy and people’s livelihoods? It is not a question of whether we are supporting jobs, but of how we do it.

On the protection of jobs, I have spoken about the arts sector many times. I say to my right hon. Friend on the Front Bench, the Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman), that I welcome the recent package for the arts sector, but he will know that most of that is going to the institutions rather than the workers. May I suggest that, particularly for those in the theatre sector, he looks at a wage subsidy scheme that allows them to continue so that when theatres reopen, they will be there? Much the same applies to the events industry, which is a huge industry with a lot of jobs in Wimbledon.

The Government have made much of targeting infrastructure, and they are right to do so, but they must look at the economic activities and train people for those activities in the future. Economic development zones are not a new idea but, armed with investment and training incentives, they would be zones of opportunity, investment and employment. Those zones could be aligned to, for instance, a new technologies adoption fund: 3D printing will be the tool-making of the future, and for people to have those jobs, we need to skill them for the future.

For young people, the prospect of securing a foothold in the labour market as they transition from education to employment should be a realistic ambition. This Government’s plan for jobs—£100 million for 18 and 19-year-old school leavers—is clearly a step in the right direction. It is also right that the Government are looking at how they can support the people who have taken those courses into jobs. I welcome the support for apprenticeships and for new trainees being taken on, but may I suggest to my right hon. Friend one way of embedding that? We all know that work experience gives rise to permanent jobs, and I encourage him to look at ways of supporting people coming off those courses into work experience and into permanent jobs.

History also teaches us that downturns and recessions often temporarily remove that step into work for young people, but the over-40s, who find their jobs being eradicated, also need help. While I commend the work being done by the Government in doubling the number of job coaches and in some of the retraining schemes, I ask my right hon. Friend, when the Government are looking at support for jobs, to embrace those schemes and make them and the flexible support fund available to the over-40s as well.

Finally, the Government acted with extraordinary speed and effectiveness to create the coronavirus job retention scheme. That scheme was the right scheme at the right time, and 50% of those people have now returned to work. That does not make it the right scheme for all time.

[Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)]

HMRC estimates that the level of fraudulent or incorrect claims under the CJRS to be 5% to 10%— between £1.75 billion and £3.5 billion—so even at the lower end, that money would be useful in extending the benefits of the scheme. When I asked about this, only five individuals had asked for the data that is held about them and about who has actually secured the funds that have come to them under the scheme. Does the hon. Member agree that further transparency would allow more of this money to be, as my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson) has said, available to people to extend the scheme?

[Stephen Hammond]

I am not aware of those numbers, but I thank the hon. Lady for making them available to me. I am sure that the Minister on the Front Bench will have heard her words. I want to make sure that the scheme has not been operated fraudulently, because we need all the money to go to people and to some of the great retraining schemes that the Government are introducing now. As I have said, the investment in future prosperity and the commitment to look at new and innovative ways of protecting and creating jobs is the key, and it is the right approach for the future.

Covid-19: Future UK-EU Relationship

Kirsten Oswald Excerpts

Wednesday 15th July 2020 Commons Chamber

[Lee Anderson]

No, I am not giving way.

But four years later, the Brexit blockers are still at it. The majority of people in Ashfield and the first-time voters are not happy with them. Even the remain voters are not happy with them. We are all democrats and we should respect that. My voters were not happy with the Labour party last December when the people of Ashfield voted me in, and many of my colleagues across the midlands and the north. Just after the election, Labour started knocking on doors in Ashfield to ask why its voters had left it. I was sort of hoping that there would be more Labour MPs here today, but perhaps they have some extra guidelines on social distancing—that is probably why they are not here. Imagine ignoring your core voters for four years and then telling them that they did not know what they were voting for, or that we should have a confirmatory second vote, and then telling them that no one voted for a hard Brexit, a no-deal Brexit or any other type of Brexit. The people of Ashfield voted for Brexit, deal or no deal. The fact that the SNP is now using covid as another excuse to prolong the agony just shows how low it is prepared to sink. But we still do not know what the Labour party’s policy is on this—perhaps in a couple of years’ time Captain Hindsight will tell us all.

The good news is that I have some oven-ready advice for the Labour party. It needs to start knocking on doors before an election and actually asking people what they want rather than telling them what they should want. It was easy for me: I asked the voters, “What do you want?”, and they answered, “Get Brexit done.” I promised to get it done, they voted for me, and here I am, eight months later, after decades—

[Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Lee Anderson]

No, I am not giving way.

Here I am, after decades of Labour MPs in Ashfield and after four years of Labour telling the people of Ashfield they did not know what they were voting for. Yes, I am here, and I am sticking up for people in Ashfield. The same Opposition parties keep ignoring my people, but that will not go on for much longer. The Labour party still does not get it. It does not understand its own voters in the midlands and in the north. The SNP is a bit smarter than the Labour party: it does not really want to be a part of the EU, but sees continued membership as a way of forcing independence and splitting up the Union. But have no fear—I will be waving my Union Jack at midnight on 31 December to celebrate the United Kingdom finally getting to make its own way in the world, and I hope that the SNP will be joining me.

[Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)]

I must say to the hon. Member for Ashfield (Lee Anderson) that I think that is highly unlikely.

It is clear that the path being steered by the UK Government is compounding the economic uncertainty caused by covid, and is at odds with the interests and the wishes of the people in Scotland. It is certainly at odds with the interests and the wishes of the people in my constituency, who rejected Brexit by three to one. I am really confident that as an independent country Scotland would not be on this path. People in Scotland see through the spin, the bluster and the deceit that are at the core of this Government and the strategy they are pursuing.

Scotland’s Government are taking a considered and cautious approach to getting us out from under this dreadful pandemic. There is no way the same could be said of the UK Government’s response. That is not a party political point: 70% of Scots who voted Labour or Conservative in 2019 approve of the Scottish Government’s handling of the pandemic. With the full powers of independence, we could have made different choices reflecting our different circumstances. It is notable that across the UK fewer than half the people think that the UK Government have handled the pandemic well—a figure that bumps along the bottom of international rankings alongside their pal Trump’s shambolic Administration. This lack of planning and structure bodes very poorly for Brexit.

This is as much about the way that the UK Government consider the needs of all our communities. To borrow a phrase, “lions led by donkeys” is a not unreasonable description of the relationship between the UK’s Government and its citizens. Ironically, the donkeys of yesteryear and those of today, some of whom sometimes lounge on the Government Front Benches, share a remarkably similar outlook: dismissive yet underprepared, and uninterested in experts but well-schooled in Latin soundbites—not of much practical use given the circumstances we are dealing with.

Why would anyone think that this Government—a Government who are all over the place on this pandemic and whose mismanagement of it has affected all four nations of the UK—are capable of rebuilding the economy in a sustainable and fairer way, while they say nothing at all on issues such as child poverty? Why would anyone think that that kind of Government are capable of negotiating an exit from the EU other than by crashing us out, which many on the Government Benches appear to want to do, no matter the harm it does?

It may be late in the day, but it is not too late to do the right thing by delaying the end of the transition. The problem is that leading members of this Government and their advisers have no interest or track record in doing the right thing. It is not just in their dealings with the EU that that is the approach. Inability to negotiate is often associated with a domineering culture. That is how the UK Government conduct their relationship with the devolved Administrations. Having failed to get their way through the four-nation approach to the pandemic, the UK Government simply wandered away down a path of U-turn and confusion. In typical domineering style, their solution is not to improve their ability to work with others, but planning to use the powers of this place to undermine those they should be working with.

Brexit, as it is now appearing from under the desk of Dominic Cummings, will not come quietly. The devolved Administrations tried to work with the UK Government on a post-Brexit settlement that respected the democratically expressed wishes of the people of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. But when the UK Government’s proposals emerge, they will represent a power grab on the devolved Administrations on a grand scale. Having seen the chaos that this Government have presided over in recent months, few voters in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland will welcome these proposals.

The best recruiting sergeants for the cause of Scottish independence are those who are wilfully charging on with their plans for Brexit and riding roughshod over our votes in Scotland once again, while the rest of the world watches in disbelief as they put at risk the wellbeing and economic future of their citizens. My message to the UK Government is clear, as they set about pushing down this road that Scotland expressly voted to avoid: as you set out to shake the Union to its foundations, do not be surprised if it is not left standing when you are finished.