Debate on the Address

Mhairi Black Excerpts

Monday 14th October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Ian Blackford]

I have to say—I take no joy out of this—that my hon. Friend is absolutely correct. We should be discussing Nazanin. We are glad that Nazanin’s daughter has come home, but where is the Government intervention? There is no question but that our voice will be diminished internationally by the fact that we will not be around the table with our European partners.

I have taken a number of interventions and I must move on. Nothing in the Government’s speech is designed to enhance the rights of Scotland, our Parliament or the voices of the Scottish people. Most notable is the fact that this Government plan to reintroduce the Agriculture Bill and the Fisheries Bill, showing contempt for our devolution settlement and seeking to sideline and silence the voices of Scotland. Under the Prime Minister’s predecessor, powers over fisheries and agriculture were removed from Scotland without the consent of the Scottish Parliament—powers that the Scottish people had voted for back in our devolution referendum in 1997. They were taken back to Westminster without the consent of the people of Scotland. I want firmly to put on the record that the Scottish National party, while here in Westminster and in Scotland, will do all that we can to resist the downgrading and dismissal of our devolved rights and powers. When Westminster talks of taking back control of fishing and agriculture, it means taking back control not from the EU but from Scotland.

The day is coming, and coming fast, when the people of Scotland will have their say on Brexit Britain and on whether they wish to be an independent country in Europe. Let me remind the Prime Minister, who is not in his place—he seems to have gone, despite the protocol that he is supposed to be here for two speeches after he finishes—of the words of Parnell:

“No man has a right to fix the boundary to the march of a nation.”

Prime Minister, you must heed those words.

Not satisfied with the hostile environment, this Tory Government want to legislate to end freedom of movement once and for all. That is not only morally deplorable, but economically nonsensical. In Scotland, our economy relies on immigration to support key public services—not least our health service. EU citizens from outwith the UK living in Scotland make up 3.9% of our population and 5% of our workforce. They enrich our culture, strengthen our society and boost our economy.

Leaving the EU and ending freedom of movement could cost Scotland up to £2 billion in lost tax revenues. Restricting the rights and freedoms of citizens to come to Scotland will risk the delivery of key public services. But what do we expect from the Tories? Closing up borders is driven not by fact or reason, but by an ideological, fundamental position from the governing party: that immigration is bad. We have recently seen that fundamentalism in practice, as the Government refused automatically to guarantee permanent residence to all EU nationals in the UK, along with their families. The Government are risking leading us into another Windrush scandal, making life impossible for thousands of EU nationals. The UK Government should be working to keep citizens here and enable a fairer immigration system to deal with sectoral needs across Scotland and the UK, rather than focusing on forcing people to leave their homes here. The Conservatives need to stop playing with people’s lives and drop the hostile environment once and for all.

[Mhairi Black (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (SNP)]

Is my right hon. Friend as confused as I am? I listened to the Queen’s Speech and heard the Prime Minister talk about the economic opportunities and how the economy is thriving under this Conservative Government. How, then, can they still somehow not find the money for women born in the 1950s who paid in for their pensions but have not received a penny back? Does my right hon. Friend agree that that is completely unjustified and that the Prime Minister would do well to remember that all those women have votes in the election that he seems so desperate to get?

[Ian Blackford]

My hon. Friend is correct. Some 3.8 million women are affected by these pensions changes. We have been over this time and again: the lack of notice given—in some cases, only 14 months. Some women have lost years of pension entitlement—in some cases, tens of thousands of pounds. The callousness, the lack of consideration! The fact that many of these women are suffering is absolutely disgraceful, and they have had nothing but contempt from this Government.

--- Later in debate ---

[Angela Crawley (Lanark and Hamilton East) (SNP)]

I will endeavour to be a tad briefer than some of my colleagues on both sides of the House.

This Queen’s Speech was delivered against a backdrop of chaos and a political crisis that we have never seen before. It was nothing more than an expensive distraction from the shambles that is Boris Johnson’s premiership. While I am more than happy to pay tribute to the hon. Members for North East Derbyshire (Lee Rowley) and for Truro and Falmouth (Sarah Newton), who opened the debate, I think it is clear that, as was said, the Government are desperate to hold on to the Union of this Kingdom. Perhaps a more apt choice of Fleetwood Mac lyric than “Don’t stop thinking about tomorrow” would have been “Chain, keep us together”, because that is what they are hoping for. The fact is that, despite the pomp and ceremony, none of the announced Bills will be implemented before a general election, and I think that the Government know that.

The right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) outlined his ambitions to scrap the benefit freeze, the rape clause, the two-child tax and the bedroom tax. I was pleased to note that he had a copy of the 2017 Scottish National party manifesto. We have been espousing those policies for the best part of five years, and it is good that he has finally caught up with our programme. It was good of the SNP to help him out by writing his manifesto; I know that he needs a bit of inspiration.

Sadly, the Queen’s Speech cannot be delivered by this Government. In their current form, they would be lucky to do so. The hon. Member for Southend West (Sir David Amess) said that he was praying for miracles. Let me say with the greatest respect: the Government need a miracle to get this Queen’s Speech passed.

Not only did the Prime Minister lie to the Queen about Prorogation, but he has now brought her to this place to launch his election campaign. If we hear the words “Get Brexit done” one more time—perhaps someone will tell me, and the rest of the UK, exactly what that means. In fact, it is meaningless, and it detracts from the real problems that we face across the UK, and with which the Government have to deal. We have heard vague promises of hospitals, police on the streets and better education. We in Scotland know exactly how to deliver an education system, a police system and a justice system, because we in Scotland have been doing that successfully. In the crisis that is Westminster, it is the SNP Government who are delivering for Scotland.

Ironically, the Government appear to be putting law and order front and centre of their ambition to return to power. That would surprise most people, given that the Prime Minister was recently found to have broken the law by the highest court in the land, and consistently says that he will do the same again at the end of the month. We have a Parliament in turmoil, a Government without a mandate and a Prime Minister with no power, yet we find ourselves in the House delivering the election manifesto of the Conservative party through the vehicle of the Queen’s Speech.

The Government are cutting taxes for the rich while cutting services for the rest of us. Rather than using the Queen’s Speech to address the glaring inequalities across the country, the Prime Minister used it to announce a crackdown on our European neighbours entering the country, a move that would be devastating for my constituency and for Scotland. In Scotland we have a problem with emigration, not immigration, and this proposal proves how out of touch the Government are with the wishes of the people of Scotland. It does not need to be said again, but I will say it again none the less: Scotland voted to remain in the EU, and the Government have shown a flagrant disregard for the will of the Scottish people. [Interruption.] I am happy to take an intervention, if the hon. Member for Corby (Tom Pursglove) would like to make one. No? Then I will carry on.

[Mhairi Black]

As you were.

[Angela Crawley]

As I was saying, EU citizens from outwith the UK who are living in Scotland make up just over 3% of our population. They enrich our culture, strengthen our society and boost our economy. Leaving the EU and ending freedom of movement could cost Scotland up to £2 billion in tax revenues. I would like to understand how MPs who also represent Scotland on this side of the House intend to answer to their constituents when the general election comes. For Scotland that is not a price worth paying, and Scotland is not willing to pay it.

In my constituency, thousands of EU nationals are anxious about their future. I recently held a surgery specifically for those who are concerned about their future in the UK post Brexit, and the response was heartbreaking. Women in their 80s are planning to leave the place they have called home, families fear that they will have to return to a place that their kids will not recognise because they have never lived there, and young people are angry about the fact that their opportunities are being removed by this Government. Their anxiety was not relieved when the Minister for Security threatened EU nationals with deportation from the UK if they did not apply for settled status. We all know that the Government’s response has been woeful.

Europeans who work in our health service, support local businesses and help to grow our economy now face the full force of the Tories’ hostile environment. As if it were not bad enough to be happy to target anyone who does not look like a British citizen, they now want to target EU nationals who contribute to healthcare, contribute to the economy and contribute to Scotland. They are happy to tell us that those people must apply for settled status in a home in which they have lived for most, if not the entirety, of their adult lives.

I cannot support a Queen’s Speech that is inward-looking and ignores the problems that my constituents face. Rather than focusing on blocking EU nationals entering the UK, the Government could have used today’s events to announce a halt to universal credit, a failed policy that has been wreaking havoc in my constituency, causing people to turn to food banks and crisis grants just to feed themselves. That is this Government’s record. That is the record that we are not hearing about from the Prime Minister, but that is the record that the Government will face at the ballot box: a policy that is leaving local authorities out of pocket by millions of pounds, and picking up the pieces for a private sector that is increasingly reluctant to accept universal credit claimants.

The Prime Minister could also have announced compensation for the 1950s women whose pensions were removed from them with no consultation, or he could have called an end to the benefits freeze—another policy that has been in our manifesto for quite some time. Instead, in a room full of lords and ladies, the Queen, sitting on a golden throne, read a party political broadcast written by an unelected Prime Minister with no working majority, announcing the continuation of punitive policies that have harmed the most vulnerable in society.

Today has proved again how out of touch this place is. Scotland deserves the choice of a better future than the one that is being imposed upon it. It is clearer than ever that the only way to protect Scotland’s interests properly is for it to become an independent country.

Prime Minister's Update

Mhairi Black Excerpts

Wednesday 25th September 2019 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I really think that my hon. Friend puts her finger on the issue. This has been an opportunity, in this crucible of the nation, this intellectual forcing house, for hon. Members to suggest any solutions or ideas, if they had any, for how to take forward a deal between us and our much-valued European Union friends and partners. If they had a single notion about how to do it, or if they thought I was missing a trick or they had some idea, this would have been their moment, but we have not heard anything—nothing remotely positive, not a single idea, zilch—from Opposition Members, and I think that will have been noted by people watching.

[Mhairi Black (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (SNP)]

In 2014, as has been pointed out, Scotland voted to remain in the UK, and it did so on the promise that the only way to ensure our EU membership was through voting no to independence. When 2016 came, we had another referendum and Scotland—including my constituency and every other constituency in Scotland—voted to remain in the EU. Since the Prime Minister has brought us towards this no-deal chaos, I was going to ask him if he had stocked up on enough Brasso for his neck, but it seems that he does not need it. So, what I will say is: just where does he even begin to justify the absolute hell he is about to put on my constituents; and, more so, just how gullible does he think they are?

[The Prime Minister]

Obviously, if the hon. Lady really disagrees with the course we are embarked on, she is at liberty to table a no confidence motion or to go for an election. Curiously, she is desisting from that and refusing to do so. I remind her that what we are trying to achieve is a deal—she is smiling—and I hope that she supports that outcome and that we will be able to count on her presence in the Lobby if we are lucky enough to get one.

Oral Answers to Questions

Mhairi Black Excerpts

Wednesday 19th June 2019 Commons Chamber

[Ronnie Cowan (Inverclyde) (SNP)]

6. What progress the Government have made on their review of inter- governmental relations.

[Mhairi Black (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (SNP)]

7. What progress the Government have made on their review of intergovernmental relations.

[Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)]

12. What progress the Government have made on their review of intergovernmental relations.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Mundell]

I believe that progress is being made, and I am hopeful that next week’s meeting of the JMC(EN) will provide an opportunity to discuss the principles that would underpin the new IGR agreement. That was discussed with Welsh Government Ministers and Mr Mike Russell at the last meeting of the JMC(EN).

[Mhairi Black]

The current frontrunner to become Prime Minister has previously written that

“government by a Scot is just not conceivable in the current constitutional context.”

Does the Secretary of State agree? Does he believe that such an opinion is helpful to intergovernmental relations?

[David Mundell]

I do not agree, and I am sure that the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson), should she lead her party, will aspire to the office of Prime Minister. No, I do not agree with that analysis.

Votes at 16

Mhairi Black Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd April 2019 Westminster Hall

[Alex Chalk]

I will give way to the hon. Gentleman in a moment; let me just develop the point a fraction.

That acknowledgement of the age of majority at 18 is, in fact, reflected across the overwhelming majority of countries that are signatories to the United Nations. We could be forgiven in this place for taking the view that, “Well, actually, the world is moving towards 16,” but that is simply not the case at all. The United States, France, Germany, Italy, Portugal, Spain—in all those countries, the voting age is 18. In other parts of the world, things differ; for example, in Singapore the voting age is 21. It is true that some countries are moving in the direction of allowing voting at 16, Austria being one, but they remain overwhelmingly in the minority.

If we want to take the view that adulthood begins at 16, it is critically important that our country does so consistently. Otherwise, we would have the very odd situation where someone would be perceived to be old enough to vote in an election, but when they came out of the polling station they would not be entitled to walk across the road and go into a betting shop to “vote” on the outcome of that election; that would be odd. Alternatively, what about the situation where a 16-year-old, having voted in a general election, would not be entitled to sit on a jury to decide whether or not one of their peers was guilty of a serious crime, such as murder, manslaughter or rape?

My final point about inconsistency is that under the proposals, someone might be old enough to vote but not mature enough—so the law says—to use a tanning booth or buy fireworks. I am not saying for a second that there is not a legitimate argument to be had, but I think the electorate would find it extremely curious if we were to say that a person has the maturity to decide who should be the Government of a country that spends collectively £842 billion every year, yet does not have the maturity to decide to use a tanning booth.

[Mhairi Black (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (SNP)]

Does the hon. Gentleman think that it is okay that 16-year-olds can join the Army?

[Alex Chalk]

Of course, they can join the Army, but they are not entitled to serve on the frontline in a way that might put them at risk of losing their life. In some ways, I respectfully suggest that the hon. Lady’s point makes the argument for me. Part of the reason why 16-year-olds cannot serve on the frontline and be at risk of losing their life is that under the UN convention on the rights of the child, child soldiers may not serve on the frontline. That is in recognition of the fact that we take the view that children are children and adults are adults.

I am not suggesting for a second that this is not a legitimate argument to have, but people watching this debate might take the view that there is a broad consensus in Parliament to move towards votes for 16-year-olds. I do not sense that there is such a consensus and, critically, that view is not echoed in the court of public opinion. Polling tends to suggest that there is not a majority in favour of reducing the voting age.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mhairi Black (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (SNP)]

I thank everybody for coming, and the hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton (Jim McMahon) for securing such an important debate.

Like most Members, I regularly meet youth organisations and youth representatives from different areas in Renfrewshire, including people from the university and local Members of the Scottish Youth Parliament. Two things always come out of any conversation. The No. 1 complaint is: “Why can’t 16 and 17-year-olds vote?” The second one is adults asking me, “How do we get young people involved in politics?” That is the one question that I am asked everywhere. It is very simple: we do it by accepting that politics affects them just as much as it affects us.

Surprisingly, I agreed with the hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont) that party politics should not have anything to do with this debate. Do not worry—we parted ways very quickly in his speech. I was unsure whether he wanted to lower the smoking age limit or abolish it altogether. All I knew was, as is always the case with Tories, it is all about personal responsibility until the rich are the ones breaking the rules.

Ultimately, I have to ask: why would any functioning democracy fear more people having the vote? The whole point of a democracy is that we have different perspectives. The same argument applied when I stood in this Chamber not that long ago to speak about the minimum wage. We talked about the fact that it is totally unjustifiable that, even though two people have the same tasks and responsibilities in a job, purely because they were born in different years they do not get paid the same wage. That does not make sense, and is in complete opposition to the idea of personal responsibility, which we are always hearing about from the Government. It is exactly the same when it comes to votes. If someone is allowed the responsibilities of life, they should have the same rights.

The hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton correctly said that there is no age test when it comes to participation. In many ways, I serve as an example of that. After we lost the independence referendum, suddenly lots of people were encouraging me to put my name forward to stand for Parliament. My first reaction was: “Don’t be stupid—I’m 20. What a ridiculous idea.” What changed my mind was that so many older people who I respected, and whose views throughout their lifetime I respected, said to me, “If Parliament’s supposed to reflect society, why is nobody young in it?”

What has been normal for us has to change. I thought that I could not do this job. I thought, “No—politics isn’t for me; it’s for the adults. All we get is a little pat on the head, and told to go away to the Youth Parliament if we want to get involved.” We need to change that, because the decisions that are made in this House daily have drastic influences on the paths open to people in their lives.

Ultimately, politics is about perspective, and trying to understand as many different perspectives as we can. We cannot understand someone’s perspective if they are not even part of the debate. We have seen living, breathing examples of that, and heard about them throughout this debate. In the 2014 Scottish independence referendum, 75% of young people used their vote. The quality of that debate was phenomenal, and it was wide-ranging. Honestly, I could not go anywhere without hearing people talk about the referendum—people of all different viewpoints, backgrounds and ages.

I was on the losing side of that referendum, and I am still banging on about the great influence it had because young people were involved. Compare that with the EU referendum, where roughly 1.5 million 16 to 17-year-olds were denied a vote. They are now seeing their opportunities to work and live abroad snatched away right in front of them. Fundamentally, if someone is old enough to get married, have sex, join the Army, leave home, work full time and pay tax, frankly they are old enough to hold a pen at the ballot box.

--- Later in debate ---

[Cat Smith]

The hon. Gentleman is confusing two different issues. One is about our rights as citizens; the other is much more about society, welfare and protection. Basically, there are some things that a person can do that will kill them; however, voting is not known to lead to death, at least not directly. When people make such arguments regarding the right to buy alcohol, cigarettes or fireworks, it confuses two different issues.

It is fair to say that we agree across the House that there is no magic age at which someone becomes an adult; it is a spectrum. The majority of people of a particular age might be of a certain maturity, but we all know fine well that an 18 or an 80-year-old might lack the maturity to do many of the things they are legally able to do.

[Mhairi Black]

In the hon. Lady’s experience, has she—as I have—met many 16-year-olds who have more life experience and understanding in their pinky than half of the people in this place?

[Cat Smith]

The hon. Lady makes the point that life experience is different for everyone, and all of us come here with very different life experiences. Many 16, 17 and 18-year-olds have experienced far more in their lives than a 40, 50 or 60-year-old, and she is right to make that point.

I must make some progress, because I am aware that I need to leave time for the Minister’s response, which we are keen to hear. It is fair to say that there is no silver bullet for improving participation in politics. The way that people come into contact with politics in their formative years is a crucial part of it, but that is not the only thing that we should focus on. Evidence from the Scottish referendum and the 2017 Scottish council elections demonstrated that turnout rates among 16 and 17-year-olds were much higher than among 18 to 24-year-olds. That point was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Danielle Rowley), who also highlighted that 16 and 17-year-olds were more likely use a broader range of sources to research how to use their vote, arguably using it in a much more mature way than older voters.

We know that an individual who has voted once is more likely to vote in future elections. The young people I mentioned were aided by the encouragement of their families and schools to become politically engaged, which should be a lesson for us throughout United Kingdom.

“Voting is a habit that is formed early, and we ought to treat it as such…It is important that we take…a progressive stance on these matters.”—[Official Report, 18 June 2015; Vol. 597, c. 527-532.]

I hope the Minister agrees with those words, not least because she said them in this House in 2015. For that reason, I am optimistic that we will find there is a great amount of consensus between the two Front Benches.

The recent school strikes that my hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) highlighted demonstrate that young people are aware of the world around them and are trying to take part in the democratic system, despite not having the right to vote. They have been inspired by a 16-year-old from Sweden, Greta Thunberg, who has risen to international fame for her work on the issue.

I believe that change is imminent. Across the United Kingdom, politicians have begun to recognise the changing tides. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North East (Mr Sweeney) mentioned the situation in Scotland, which has left us in the bizarre position where 16-year-olds living there can vote in local elections but are denied the right to vote in a UK general election. My hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Chris Elmore) mentioned the Welsh Labour Government, who are seeking to extend the franchise in Wales to 16 and 17-year-olds. There is now a fundamental inequality of rights in this country, because the right to vote has effectively become a postcode lottery—a situation that is morally and politically unsustainable for this Government. It is time that 16 and 17-year-olds had equal rights across our country for all elections.

A cross-party consensus has emerged. I acknowledge the great work of the all-party parliamentary group on votes at 16, chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian, which is about to publish a report highlighting the consensus across many of the political parties that have taken part in the debate. It is important for Conservative colleagues to realise that this idea is not a threat to their party. After the Scottish referendum, Ruth Davidson, the leader of the Scottish Conservatives, described herself as

“a fully paid-up member of the ‘votes at 16’ club”,

having witnessed its positive impact. Since then, various Conservative politicians, including George Osborne, have claimed that there is widespread support for the policy among Conservative MPs and have called on the Government to lower the voting age to 16 or risk losing the support of younger generations.

It is our duty as politicians to catch up with the modern age. It was only in 1970 that the voting age was lowered from 21 to 18, allowing teenagers to vote for the first time in the UK, and exactly the same arguments were prevalent then that are used today to prevent 16 and 17-year-olds from voting. The Government are quickly finding themselves on the wrong side of history. Our past is littered with bold actions, proud speeches and even lives lost to win and defend the right to vote. Given the Minister’s personal support for the issue, I hope she will have the courage and determination to convince the rest of her colleagues to do the right thing and give all young people the vote.

Civil Service Compensation Scheme

Mhairi Black Excerpts

Tuesday 19th March 2019 Westminster Hall

[Chris Stephens]

The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point, because that is exactly what happened. I will come on to that later.

Gus O’Donnell, the then head of the civil service, echoed Francis Maude’s comments, stating:

“It was important that we achieved a scheme which is sustainable, affordable and fair.”

However, those were hollow words, as just five years later the Conservative-majority Government elected in 2015 decided to proceed with further cuts to the civil service compensation scheme. On 8 February 2016, the Cabinet Office launched a consultation on reforming the scheme. During the consultation, it took the extraordinary step of debarring the trade unions that refused to agree cuts as a pre-condition for talks.

PCS balloted its members on the final offer and it was overwhelmingly rejected. Unsurprisingly, PCS again took the matter to the High Court. The primary argument was that, by debarring the union from talks, the Cabinet Office had breached its obligation to consult the trade unions with a view to reaching agreement. Mr Justice Sales and Mrs Justice Whipple agreed. They held that:

“The Minister could not lawfully exclude the PCSU from the consultation which ultimately mattered in terms of his statutory duty”.

They added that he

“was not entitled to impose additional entry conditions above and beyond those stipulated in the 1972 Act for participation in that consultation, in the form of the pre-commitments he required the unions to make.”

Accordingly, the Court quashed the changes. That was a significant victory for civil servants, which forced the Government to restore the terms of the scheme so that many members achieved higher payments and the pace of job cuts in some Departments slowed.

Not content to leave it there, the Government announced in September 2017 a further consultation on reforming the scheme. It is believed that the consultation is another attempt to make cuts. The Government’s position will worsen even the proposed 2016 scheme terms that PCS members overwhelmingly rejected in a ballot and that were overturned by the High Court. Nevertheless, the trade unions engaged in talks with the employer.

PCS has been clear that there is no case for changing the terms of the scheme that were reinstated by the High Court. Notwithstanding that, it is engaging to protect its members’ interests, as would be expected. It is participating in talks alongside other unions—the GMB, the Prison Officers Association and Unite the union, which have also adopted the position that there is no case for cuts in the scheme. Those unions represent the overwhelming majority of trade union members affected by the scheme, and they have been in detailed discussions with the Cabinet Office since late 2017. The objectives of the negotiations are fair: to secure maximum protection for the lowest paid; to secure maximum protection for the greatest possible number of members—more often than not they are the lowest paid—and for those who want to remain in a job, thereby prioritising compulsory redundancy terms over voluntary exit and voluntary redundancy terms; and to eradicate the age discriminatory aspects of the current scheme.

I was sent a note by the Prison Officers Association, and I will reiterate its concerns. After prison officers are injured in the line of duty, how they are treated appears to be a lottery. In some cases, if the injury is judged severe enough—by outsourcers and privateers, naturally—they will be issued with a medical retirement, at which point they are entitled to their accrued pension. However, they can instead be issued with a medical inefficiency, which can have severe financial consequences. To be clear, we are talking about the same scenario: officers being so severely injured by prisoners that they cannot return to work. In one case they can retire and keep their pension, sometimes along with permanent injuries, while in the other they are often left in a position where they cannot even afford the urgent medical care they need.

The Prison Officers Association believes that the planned cuts to that scheme threaten to make an unfair situation even worse, by limiting further the number of weeks that critically injured prison officers can receive pay. That literally adds insult to injury, and this Government must act to make sure those brave men and women are not further penalised for working in such dangerous conditions while they diligently protect the public.

[Mhairi Black (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (SNP)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the problems that runs alongside this and most pension issues is a total lack of communication? A constituent who is affected by the changes contacted me; once my office got involved, it took four months to get any clear answers, excluding the amount of time that my competent constituent had spent trying to fix the problem on her own. There is a complete blame game between Departments, rather than an attempt to resolve things.

[Chris Stephens]

That is certainly my experience from some of my casework relating to the scheme. I hope that the Minister takes cognisance of my hon. Friend’s remarks about how we should try to fix these issues.

The Minister should be under no illusion that the crisis unfolding in our prisons is anything less than a health and safety emergency, with violence against staff not only at a record level but rising at a record rate. According to Ministry of Justice figures, there were more than 10,000 assaults against officers in England in the past 12 months—an average of 28 each and every day.

It is perfectly reasonable to argue that these days many roles and professions, from shop worker to firefighter, unfortunately involve some exposure to violence, and that there is nothing unique about prison officers facing assaults at work. That is true, and I wish to see proper pension protection for those workers too, but prison officers work in a uniquely violent environment. According to their trade union, which will hold a march and a rally on this issue at Westminster tomorrow, it is the most violent and dangerous workplace in western Europe.

Beyond the chaos and carnage that the Government unleashed by sacking 7,000 prison officers, which opened the gates to unseen levels of violence, we must accept that prisons are inherently violent institutions. They are places where hundreds of criminals, many of them guilty of violent crimes, are held against their will using the threat—and sometimes the application—of force. That makes prisons unique workplaces. We expect the brave men and women who serve inside them to confront violence when necessary. When prison officers are injured in the line of duty, protecting the public from dangerous criminals, we as a society have a special responsibility to protect them. Quite simply, if they are too badly injured to return to work, we must not add insult to injury by leaving them in financial as well as physical peril.

I turn to the current talks and the counter-proposal that the trade unions have sent the Government. After a year of talks, during which the 2010 terms remained in place, to the benefit of civil servants, the Government took the position that they could bring the negotiations to a close unless the unions made a counter-proposal. The trade unions agreed to submit a counter-proposal to the Government’s plans, in line with their negotiating objectives.

The unions’ proposal seeks to redistribute the scheme so that those affected by office closures and other redundancy situations—those who require the compensation the most—receive the most from the scheme. In other words, they argue that people being forced out of their jobs against their wishes should be prioritised. The trade unions met the Minister on 6 February to present their counter-proposal. He undertook to consider those representations and then to respond formally. As I am sure he will tell us, a further meeting is scheduled for next week.

The onus is now on the Government. It is expected that the Minister will soon come to a conclusion about his approach. I ask him to take cognisance of the following key factors before he does so. First, the commitments given by Francis Maude following the 2010 changes should hold firm. Reneging on those commitments now would only lead people to conclude that the commitments of Conservative Ministers count for nothing.

Secondly, there is no majority in the House in support of the Government’s proposed changes; all parties, bar the Conservatives, oppose them. That includes the Democratic Unionist party, which—unsurprisingly, given the dangers that loyal, hard-working civil servants have been exposed to in its part of the world—supports the trade unions in this campaign and recognises that those workers should not be treated with contempt.

Thirdly, the counter-proposal put forward by the trade unions delivers the Government’s stated objective of producing significant savings for the taxpayer, while ensuring that those most in need of the scheme derive the most benefit from it. That is in line with the Government’s stated objectives of helping those who are just about managing and preventing excessive pay-outs at the top.

Fourthly, low-paid civil servants who work in towns and cities subjected to office closures will find it harder to obtain work. Take, for example, the office closure programme of Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs. In many towns, HMRC is the largest employer. The highest-paid civil servants will be able to obtain other employment in the public sector, but it will be more difficult for those at the lower end, who will see the largest employer move out of the area, to obtain other work.

We call on the Minister to hold good to previous commitments and not to proceed with cuts to the civil service compensation scheme. Failing that, we call on him to adopt the counter-proposal put forward by the trade unions. I look forward to his response.

UK’s Withdrawal from the European Union

Mhairi Black Excerpts

Thursday 14th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mhairi Black (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (SNP)]

After sitting through the entirety of this debate, I think that the UK is about to get a rude awakening as to what the consequences of this Prime Minister’s irresponsibility are going to be. The reality is that even if we do come to a consensus to extend article 50, any one of the 27 countries in the EU could veto that extension. We already know that Farage and his pals have been going around and lobbying different countries like Italy, Hungary and Poland; it is ironic that he wants other countries to block the will of the very Parliament that he apparently wants to have so much control. Like I say, all it takes is one country out of 27 and we are out on 29 March with no deal, because the EU is a nation of equals.

Now that we can see the no-deal train coming down the tracks towards us, all these new suggestions are coming out of the woodwork, including rumours of a cross-party consensus for an EFTA-type deal, or to stay in the single market or the customs union. We proposed this two years ago and it was ignored. The people of Scotland will be watching this, and despite being told to vote no to independence to stay in the EU, despite voting to remain in the EU, despite sending back a majority of MPs on an anti-Brexit manifesto twice and despite the Scottish Government putting forward compromise proposals, here we are anyway—still ignored.

I challenge one Unionist Member in this place to tell me what more SNP Members could do that we have not done to prevent Scotland from being dragged out of the EU and into no-deal chaos. [Interruption.] I can hear their voices saying, “You should have voted for the deal”, but they just make my case for me, because even if every single Scottish MP had supported the Prime Minister’s deal, she would still have lost. It makes no sense. This is not a Union of equals.

A good friend of mine and a former Member of this place, Jim Sillars, summed it up best when he talked about Scottish independence. He said that, between the hours of 7 am and 10 pm on 18 September 2014, Scotland was in control of its own future, and that the question was whether, at one minute past 10, we handed back that power or kept it for ourselves. Now, we chose to hand that power back to this place. And look what has happened. I tell you, Mr Speaker, if this is a Union of equals, the next time that Scotland is asked whether we want to be part of this Union, I’ll bet my money that the answer is different.

Oral Answers to Questions

Mhairi Black Excerpts

Wednesday 13th February 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

The hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar looks very happy. We do not need to hear from him further at this time. I remind him that he also has cerebral status as the Chair of a Select Committee and should behave with due decorum to reflect the very high standing he enjoys, possibly in Scotland but certainly in the House.

[Mhairi Black (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (SNP)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. This is something that has been troubling me for a few weeks now. When I first came here, I was told that the protocol of the Chamber is that hon. Members must never cross the line of sight between you and whoever is speaking. However, on multiple occasions this Chamber has emptied when my right hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford) has stood up, to the point at which people cut off your line of sight when you are in the middle of speaking to Members. Could you advise us on how that can be corrected?

[Mr Speaker]

What I would say to the hon. Lady is twofold. First, it is a breach of the conventions of this House for a Member to walk past a Member who has the Floor on that side of the House. That is unseemly and discourteous behaviour, and it falls into the category that the hon. Lady is helpfully deprecating.

Secondly, I hope the hon. Lady will not take it amiss if I say that it is regrettable that her prodigious efforts on behalf of her party leader have not been witnessed by the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber himself, for the simple reason that he has already exited the Chamber. However, the saving grace for the hon. Lady is that her efforts have been observed by no less a figure than the Chief Whip of the Scottish National party, the hon. Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady). That probably bodes well for her in the future. We will leave it there for now.

No Confidence in Her Majesty’s Government

Mhairi Black Excerpts

Wednesday 16th January 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mhairi Black (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (SNP)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is appalling that this Government have slipped out, among all the Brexit news, the news that they are making further changes to pensions? Pensioners with a partner below the pensionable age will have to claim universal credit instead of pension credit.

[Ian Blackford]

My hon. Friend is correct to highlight that this Government have been sneaking out those kinds of announcements. She is a doughty fighter for pensioners, as she is for young people, and we will stand up in this House for those who are affected in that way.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mhairi Black (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (SNP)]

As we appear to be in a political twilight zone, I feel the need to say a few home truths. I have never had confidence in this Government. Whether on Brexit, social security, immigration or pensions, I have no confidence in them, and I cannot believe anyone does.

I have no confidence in the Prime Minister, because she knew what the outcome of the vote on her deal would be, so much so that she delayed the vote, and then she came back and acted like it was a surprise that her deal failed. All that happened is she wasted a month, and she did so in the full knowledge that time is running out.

Regrettably, I have to say the same about the Leader of the Opposition, and I do say this sincerely. I cannot get my head around how the right hon. Gentleman has delayed calling for a vote of no confidence. He delayed it in the initial farce, and he failed to support the motion of no confidence from the Scottish National party and other parties. I find myself left asking the same question: what good did it do? All that happened is that this lot have had another month in power. I find myself questioning his logic of, “I am waiting for the perfect moment, the opportune moment.” I think we will find at the end of this debate that that moment has passed.

I sincerely hope that the Leader of the Opposition will eventually come clean about whether he thinks this should be taken back to the people or not, because this deadlock evasiveness cannot last—it cannot continue. People deserve better. To be honest, we all deserve a better Opposition. The only thing I have any confidence in is the people of Scotland: the wealth of talent, intellect and compassion that we have to offer the world. I have no doubt that people in Scotland will be watching this entire farce back home and reaching the conclusion that the only thing they can have confidence in is the ability of our country to look after ourselves a damn sight better than this place ever has. If the Government and the Prime Minister truly mean that she wants to reach out and have cross-party support, a good start would be listening to the will of the second largest nation in this United Kingdom and giving us the respect that we are due.

Exiting the European Union: Meaningful Vote

Mhairi Black Excerpts

Tuesday 11th December 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mhairi Black (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (SNP)]

I want to start by recognising the amount of time you have spent patiently and diligently in the Chair, Mr Speaker, doing your best to defend the integrity of this place. It would appear, however, that the Government could not care less about the integrity of this place.

Some 97% of all constituents who contacted me about Brexit were against it. Scotland as a whole voted to remain. That was ignored. The Scottish Government then produced a sensible plan with a reasonable compromise. That was ignored. This UK Government have been held in contempt of Parliament for deliberately trying to conceal facts, yet there is not a hint of embarrassment on the Government Benches. There is not a hint of regret or even of awareness of the damage they are doing.

For the Government to set a date for this meaningful vote and say that they would not pull the vote, only then to pull the vote and use the archaic processes of this place to prevent a vote on whether to have the original vote pulled, shows just how much of a fankle this Government have got themselves in. To top it all off, the day finished with a woman with a sword chasing after a guy stealing a big stick. Is it any wonder that the rest of the world are looking at this and laughing? They are looking at this and wondering what could be going on, and is it any wonder—I will say it again—that Scotland has the option to get better than this? We have another option on the table.

My friend and former colleague, Miriam Brett, summed this up perfectly:

“This entire farce is emblematic of Britain’s broken democracy. A referendum held to appease an Etonian boys club was won on the back of financial corruption of elites, and when half of the countries involved vote remain, it makes sod all difference.”

I join the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford)—otherwise known as Ian—in calling on the Leader of the Opposition to bring forward a no-confidence motion at the earliest opportunity, because if we are genuinely to look at ourselves and say that this display that we have seen for the last two years, never mind the last week, is the best that we can do, then by God, I cannot blame Scotland for taking the opportunity of independence.

Oral Answers to Questions

Mhairi Black Excerpts

Wednesday 17th October 2018 Commons Chamber

[Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)]

6. What discussions he has had with the Scottish Government on the devolution of powers to the Scottish Parliament upon the UK leaving the EU.

[Mhairi Black (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (SNP)]

9. What discussions he has had with the Scottish Government on the devolution of powers to the Scottish Parliament upon the UK leaving the EU.

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

12. What discussions he has had with the Scottish Government on the devolution of powers to the Scottish Parliament upon the UK leaving the EU.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Mundell]

I make no apology for making it absolutely clear that the integrity of the United Kingdom is a red line for me and my Scottish Conservative colleagues in any deal on leaving the EU, and the position is exactly the same for our Prime Minister. I know that the preference of SNP Members would be a Brexit of the most disruptive kind, which they see as best able to take forward their cause.

[Mhairi Black]

The Migration Advisory Committee accepts the dangers to Scotland’s labour force and economy under the current UK system. Sixty-four per cent. of Scottish voters now want to see immigration policy devolved to the Scottish Parliament. Given that we have seen the reality of the cruel system that the UK Government have implemented, why not give the Scottish Parliament the right to do things differently?

[David Mundell]

I made it clear in my earlier response that, when these matters were considered in depth by the Smith commission, it was agreed that immigration would not be devolved. At the recent Confederation of British Industry Scotland dinner, which was attended by the First Minister of Scotland, the director general of CBI Scotland made it clear that business did not support the devolution of immigration and having a separate immigration policy in Scotland.