Scottish Independence and the Scottish Economy

Debate between Alan Brown and Ian Blackford

Wednesday 2nd November 2022 Commons Chamber

[Ian Blackford]

My hon. Friend is correct. Not since 1955 has Scotland voted for a Conservative Government, yet we face Conservative Government after Conservative Government. The difference between me and the hon. Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray) on the Labour Front Bench is that I would rather have an independent Labour Government in Scotland than a Tory Government in London who demonstrate their contempt for the people of Scotland through their policies. That is the reality. Unfortunately, he would rather have a Tory Government in London than an independent Scottish Government over whom he may have influence.

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

Again on the intervention of the right hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Alun Cairns), is it not the case that, although there are high global oil and gas prices, Norway has a sovereign wealth fund of $1 trillion—the biggest in the world—that can be used to support its citizens, whereas Westminster has squandered our oil and gas revenues all these years? Even then, the McCrone report from the ’70s, which was buried for 30 years, showed the wealth that would have accumulated to Scotland had it been independent. Both Labour and the Conservatives held that information from the Scottish population.

[Ian Blackford]

My hon. Friend is correct. I think the taxation receipts for North sea oil over the period that he is talking about have been north of £350 billion. What a missed opportunity to ensure that we could invest for future generations, eradicate the poverty that has been talked about and deliver hope for future generations. I will come on to the opportunities from green energy. My message to him and other hon. Members on both sides of the House is that a green industrial revolution could come to Scotland, so we need to create the jobs that will drive up productivity and investment and give people hope—but we are not going to do that while we are part of Westminster.

There are plenty of intelligent people in this place—I am especially looking at Labour Members—and we can see the damage that Brexit has done. They see it, but they will not say it. The reason they will not say it is that they are frightened that they will lose votes in the north of England, and to hell with the consequences in Scotland and everywhere else. I am sorry to say that that is one of the most shameful examples of politics replacing principles that this place has ever witnessed—that is really saying something in Westminster.

Tidal Energy Generation: Ringfenced Funding

Debate between Alan Brown and Ian Blackford

Thursday 25th November 2021 Commons Chamber

[Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP)]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for the opportunity to bring this critical issue before the House this evening. I have been passionate about the tidal marine industry’s potential for some time. I am glad that now, only a few weeks after the conference of the parties in Glasgow, it is finally getting the focus and attention that it deserves.

Ahead of this debate, as we all know, the Prime Minister announced at Prime Minister’s questions yesterday that there will finally be some ringfenced funding for tidal energy: £20 million in the forthcoming contracts for difference auction. I wish I had known that securing a debate in this House is all it takes to get some movement out of the Government and the Cabinet. I must really start securing adjournment debates much more often.

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

It was my PMQ.

[Ian Blackford]

Of course—I congratulate my hon. Friend on his Prime Minister’s question yesterday.

While my party colleagues and I were glad to see some movement yesterday, we have also been very clear that it amounts to only a partial U-turn. The Government have a way to go yet. Every little may help, but if we are serious about the scale of the opportunity, we need to go further.

In securing this debate, our ask was for a £71 million ringfenced fund. The ask remains for £71 million, which we genuinely believe is the level of investment that will allow the industry to fulfil its potential to provide green baseload energy that is so critical to our situation, and will support a sector that has massive potential not just at home but as an export industry. The level of investment that we put in now will ultimately determine whether the industry will reach its potential on these shores or we miss the chance and let it slip through our grasp.

Let me put the issue in context. The Royal Society report published this month refers to tidal marine contributing 11.5 GW of electricity. That is 15% of UK generation capacity.

[Alan Brown]

May I go back to the pots of money? As my right hon. Friend says, £20 million is clearly welcome compared with where we were, but would a bigger pot of money not unlock greater investment and create a better jobs return? A £70 million pot could unlock £140 million of private investment and create 400 jobs, whereas £20 million would unlock only £20 million and create 100 jobs. A bigger pot would get a better return for consumers.

[Ian Blackford]

My hon. Friend is right. We are, essentially, at ground zero today. This is about how we kick-start the industry. The modest Government support for which we are asking would unlock that private investment, and when we think about the 11.5 GW that I talked about—that 15% of UK electricity—

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Blackford]

I must say to the hon. Gentleman that my support for this is not just for the short term; I was at the port of Nigg when the MeyGen project was launched many years ago, so the subject has been dear to my heart for a long time. I do, however, agree with him about the scale of the opportunity. Of course the £20 million of investment that was announced yesterday is important, because it will allow us to develop the industry, but the question at the heart of today’s debate is about the scale of our ambition.

I respectfully ask the Minister, as I would ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, for a recognition of the scale of this opportunity. Phase 2 of the MeyGen project has already been permitted to go up to 80 MW, and in the Pentland Firth it could ultimately reach as much as 400 MW, but the ability to expand from the current 6 MW installed in MeyGen phase 1 is restrained by the investment that has been put in place in this round. We would certainly not be looking at deploying the 80 MW; it would be a much reduced figure. I would simply say to the Minister and to all Members: let us have that ambition. Let us have that desire to see this green energy source get to 15% of UK electricity production. To do that, however, we have to show more ambition than is being shown today. I do not wish to be seen as ungrateful for what has happened; all I am asking the Government to do is to recognise the scale—

[Alan Brown]

Will my right hon. Friend give way one more time?

[Ian Blackford]

Let me make a little bit of progress. At this rate, I am going to use up all the time myself, but I want to be respectful to the Minister.

My message to the Minister is to reassess what has been done and to do all that he can to ensure that we develop this green potential. The funding of £71 million that we have asked for would have resulted in 100 MW of capacity deployed in the very near term from what we know from planned projects. Let me ask him this specific question. With a funding pot of £20 million, what specific assessment of capacity deployment have the Government made? I genuinely ask him not to duck this question, as it is critical to revealing what assumptions the Government have made in relation to their lower level of investment. I am sure that they will not have made this announcement without making such an assessment, and I look forward to the Minister addressing that question when he responds.

It is important to set out just how obvious an opportunity investment in the tidal marine sector is, and why it is important for us. First and foremost, we should remind ourselves of how deeply fortunate we are that this world-leading technology is already located in the United Kingdom and particularly in Scotland. We have a chance to grow this sector exponentially, but we have to take it. It is estimated that the tidal stream industry could generate a net cumulative benefit to the UK of £1.4 billion and support at least 4,000 jobs by 2030. Additionally, although wave energy is a less mature technology than tidal stream, it could add a further net positive contribution to the UK economy of £4 billion and support 8,100 jobs by 2040.

This industry is not alone as an emerging opportunity; there is also emerging evidence of just how big this opportunity can be for our present and future energy needs. A recent report for the Royal Society, led by Daniel Coles at the University of Plymouth in collaboration with the Universities of Aberdeen, St Andrews and Highlands and Islands, has found that the UK can get 15% of its electricity production from tidal stream power. That would be a massive contribution to the work that needs to be done to get to net zero by 2045 in Scotland and by 2050 in the rest of the UK. Achieving this would require around 11.5 GW of tidal stream turbine capacity to be installed.

Just to put that in context, we currently stand at 18 MW. This takes us to the nub of the issue regarding the support required from the Government to create the investment in the industry that my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun mentioned. To meet those ambitions means installing a least a further 124 MW by 2031. That would put tidal stream on a trajectory to install the estimated 11.5 GW needed to generate 34 terawatt-hours a year by 2050.

The recent research for the Royal Society also indicates that if we build up this targeted support for the tidal industry, it will drive down the levelised cost of energy to below £150 per megawatt-hour. This would make tidal stream cost-competitive with other technologies such as combined cycle gas turbines, biomass and anaerobic digestion. So, from the current position where there is no route to the domestic market, it is now clear that if this sector gets the investment it needs, it will quickly become a key component in meeting our energy needs.

[Alan Brown]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that another thing the Government could do that would not cost them or consumers any money would be to set an interim date and target for hitting 1 GW of tidal stream? That would send a signal to investors about how seriously the Government are taking this.

[Ian Blackford]

Absolutely, because it is about that ambition. I hope the Government share our ambition to see this sector generate the level of electricity we believe it can generate. It is about creating the circumstances, by kickstarting the sector with modest Government investment, so that investors come in. We have developed an opportunity for green energy, but let us also think about the opportunities for manufacturing and for a global success story, given the technology that has been developed on these islands.

A proper level of investment will allow existing developments such as the MeyGen project to take off. This project, the world’s largest tidal array, is already exporting significant amounts of electricity, and it has significant capacity to grow. This presents a transformational opportunity for the tidal sector and would once again demonstrate Scotland’s commitment to a green recovery. It could also create thousands of new full-time roles in the Scottish supply chain, helping to achieve its full potential.

We also need to think about the opportunity for our industrial base in Scotland, because the ability to tie in green energy to the powering of data centres, for example, would be an enormous opportunity throughout Scotland, particularly in my area of the highlands and islands. From this ability to generate green energy, we can develop a wider industrial strategy to create the job opportunities and the wealth that we all want to see.

Afghanistan

Debate between Alan Brown and Ian Blackford

Wednesday 18th August 2021 Commons Chamber

[Ian Blackford]

My goodness, my goodness, my goodness. I do not think the hon. Gentleman has been listening to anything we have been saying over the past few days. I will talk about this in more detail, because I have been asking for the resettlement scheme to work on the basis of the Syrian scheme that we had in the last decade. I tell the House that the Scottish Government stand ready to work with the UK Government—[Interruption.] We are talking about people who are facing extreme risk, and that is what we get from the Government Benches. They should be careful, because people in the United Kingdom, and perhaps people in Afghanistan, are listening. Perhaps a bit of dignity from the Government Benches would not go amiss.

I want to make sure that every local authority in Scotland has the opportunity to take refugees from Afghanistan, and that is precisely the position of the Government in Scotland, but is has to come with the Government in London and the devolved Administrations working together. There has to be a summit of the four nations to discuss exactly how this will work.

[Alan Brown]

Just to correct the record, my local authority, East Ayrshire Council, has resettled Syrian refugees.

[Alan Brown]

The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Jack Brereton) should correct the record.

[Ian Blackford]

My hon. Friend is correct, and my area of the highlands has refugees from Syria, too, and they were made most welcome by the community. In view of the hostile environment that we are seeing once again from the Conservative party, let us reflect on the fact that these are people who came here to receive sanctuary and who have gone on to make a contribution to our life. They were welcome, refugees are welcome and Afghans are certainly welcome in every part of Scotland.

Covid-19: Contracts and Public Inquiry

Debate between Alan Brown and Ian Blackford

Wednesday 7th July 2021 Commons Chamber

[Ian Blackford]

I am afraid to say that the lack of dignity in the Conservative Government is what is at stake here. The Scottish Government’s processes on procurement were open and transparent—that is the difference with what has taken place in this place.

Let me give a couple of other examples. A company run by a former business associate of the Tory peer Baroness Mone was awarded a £122 million contract seven weeks after the company was formed—my goodness, who has ever heard of such a thing? Another company, owned by a Tory donor, that supplied beauty products to high street stores was awarded a £65 million contract to produce face masks. Public First, which was awarded a £560,000 contract by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster to conduct polling on the Union, was run by a former employee of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. Colleagues, right hon. and hon. Members, there is a thread that runs right through this. Incidentally, we have yet to see any of the research into support for Scottish independence: perhaps the Government did not like what they found.

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

My right hon. Friend is making a valid point. Is he aware of the recent report from openDemocracy that another person who helped to run Public First was Rachel Wolf, who was also a non-executive director at the Department for Work and Pensions at the time? Not only are Tory cronies getting contracts, but they have placemen who are supposed to challenge the Government but are actually helping to get contracts.

[Ian Blackford]

My hon. Friend is quite correct. I am delighted that we have an opportunity today to shine a light on all this, but it demonstrates that we need to get on with the public inquiry. The public deserve to know what has been happening with this Government as we have come through the pandemic.

We have heard excuses from the Prime Minister and the former Health Secretary that some of these contracts were fast-tracked because there was no time to be wasted in such urgent circumstances. Well, some basic due diligence might have been useful. Perhaps unsurprisingly given the lack of expertise of some of those securing the covid procurement contracts, there have been numerous issues with the orders.

As reported by the BBC, 50 million face masks bought in April 2020 could not be used by the NHS because they did not meet its specifications. The use of 10 million surgical gowns for frontline NHS staff was suspended because of how the items were packaged. Millions of medical gowns were never used, having been bought for the NHS at the end of the first lockdown for £122 million. A million high-grade masks used in the NHS did not meet the right safety standards and have been withdrawn. What a waste of taxpayers’ money. What a shambles. At the same time, 3 million of our constituents have been left with no financial support. Those are the warped priorities of the Government.

European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill

Debate between Alan Brown and Ian Blackford

2nd reading: House of Commons & Programme motion: House of Commons
Tuesday 22nd October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Ian Blackford]

The right hon. Lady is absolutely correct. The Bill was published only last night. Effective scrutiny takes time. I can see many Government Members who, if this was happening with the boot on the other foot, would be screaming like mad that this House was not being able to express its democratic obligation to look at things carefully.

The transition period will end at the end of 2020. If the Government wish to seek an extension to transition, they have to apply for it by the summer of next year. Does anybody in this House really think that the United Kingdom will be able to conclude a complex trade arrangement with the European Union by the summer of next year, giving us the security of knowing that we do not need that extension? Quite frankly, they are living in a fantasy land if they do. On that basis, I say to Members all around the House, but particularly to Opposition Members who are tempted to vote with the Government this evening: be careful, because you are writing a blank cheque to the Prime Minister and the Vote Leave campaign that runs this Government to drive the United Kingdom out of the European Union on a no-deal basis at the end of next year—and, friends, there is nothing you can do to stop it.

[Alan Brown]

My right hon. Friend makes an excellent point, but I want to go back to what he said about the ridiculous timescales whereby, even if this Bill passes, all this stuff has to be done by the summer. Yesterday evening, I was in a Delegated Legislation Committee considering a technical paper on railway safety. Even then, the Government transition period was two years. As I said in the Committee, we have two years for railway safety transition, but this lot think they can get a free trade agreement and future arrangements done in a few months. It is a joke.

[Ian Blackford]

My hon. Friend is quite correct.

It simply is not feasible that the Government can negotiate from scratch—because let us remind ourselves that none of this has yet started; it cannot start yet. They have not started that trade agreement process. When we look at the years it has taken for Europe to conclude trade deals with other countries, we can see that this is a fantasy. Anybody who thinks that that is possible is quite simply deluded.

European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018

Debate between Alan Brown and Ian Blackford

Tuesday 29th January 2019 Commons Chamber

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

Going back to the intervention of the hon. Member for Stirling (Stephen Kerr), is it not insane to say that agreeing to the Prime Minister’s deal will lead to an orderly Brexit? All it would do is put stuff into a transition period, during which time we would not know what is happening. Even the Prime Minister is now arguing that she needs to go back and change the backstop. There is no orderly Brexit, and there is no deal to agree.

[Ian Blackford]

The Government like to talk about an implementation period, but what are they implementing? They only thing they have come forward with is a deal to leave the European Union. The relationship between the United Kingdom and the European Union is to be left to the future, and there is no knowing how long that will take. According to the papers in front of us, it will supposedly happen within a two-year period, but many believe that it could take five years or perhaps even longer. There is no certainty with what the Government are bringing forward.

We have still not seen any economic assessment of the Government’s deal. Either the Prime Minister has not instructed her Government to conduct one, or they will not publish it due to the reality of the hardship that her deal will bring. We are being asked again to vote for a blindfold Brexit and to sleepwalk into the future without facts and analysis from the Government about what the deal means for our economy. It is an insult to this House and each and every Member in it.

I wish to ask the Prime Minister a question—I hope she reads this in Hansard, as she is not here. Will she publish the details of the impact of her deal on the economy and contrast it with the status quo? The Government are refusing to end the shroud of secrecy and publish an economic analysis, but let me remind the House of the facts. Analysis by Scottish Government officials found that by 2030, under a free trade agreement, GDP would be £9 billion lower than it would have been if we had stayed in the EU—equivalent to £1,600 per person in Scotland. The Bank of England has warned that crashing out of the EU without a deal would be worse than the 2008 financial crisis, with house prices plummeting by as much as 30% and the Bank of England rate being hiked to 4%. Brexit uncertainty is already damaging our economy to the tune of £600 per household per year. Jobs and investment are at risk, and our economy is set to be weaker and smaller. How can any Member of this House countenance that?

We were elected to protect our citizens, not punish them, but Brexit will inflict undue pain across all parts of the United Kingdom. With this deal or no deal our constituents are set to suffer, and we cannot allow that to happen. Some Brexiteers argue that we will be okay without the internal markets of the EU. They are in cloud cuckoo land, harking back to the past. I say this to them: it is over.

Let us look at the facts. The UK’s trade with County Cork is worth almost as much as its entire trade with South Africa. Trade with Ireland is worth more to the UK than trade with India, Japan, New Zealand and Australia put together. As “Scotland’s Place in Europe” demonstrated, even if the UK signs agreements with the 10 biggest non-EEA single country trading partners, including the USA, China and Canada—a process that would take many years—that would cover only 37% of Scotland’s current exports. By contrast, 43% currently go to the European Union. The idea that we will be better off outside the European Union is a fallacy.

EU Withdrawal Agreement

Debate between Alan Brown and Ian Blackford

Tuesday 18th December 2018 Commons Chamber

[Ian Blackford]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. As I was saying, that is why our voice must be heard. This House should vote this week before the recess.

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

Is my right hon. Friend aware that during last night’s Fisheries Bill Committee sitting an amendment proposed setting an end date of 31 December 2020 for leaving the common fisheries policy, and the Tories voted it down? That is their real commitment to the fishermen.

[Ian Blackford]

I am not surprised, because the Conservatives have form: when Ted Heath took us into the European Union, he sold out Scotland’s fishermen and every Tory Administration since have done exactly the same—and, guess what, they are still selling out Scotland’s fishermen.

Running down the clock to threaten a no-deal Brexit is neither acceptable nor realistic. There is no majority in this House for such an outcome. It is crucial that a no-deal Brexit and the Prime Minister’s deal are ruled out now. The Government must start listening to the Scottish Parliament, stop wasting time on their deal, which is going to be rejected, and pursue a better way forward. The SNP is clear that that means there should be an extension to the article 50 process, and we will join those from other parties in trying to secure such an extension.

We have always argued that the best option is to retain EU membership. We support a second EU referendum. Failing that—the best option of continued EU membership—we must stay in the single market and the customs union. I repeat that there are options that this Government are ducking and diving. [Interruption.]

National Policy Statement: Airports

Debate between Alan Brown and Ian Blackford

Monday 25th June 2018 Commons Chamber

[Alan Brown]

Obviously, 200 slots are preferable to 100 slots. The thing is that only the UK Government can provide the protections. Heathrow has always said that it is willing to work with the Scottish Government, and with the UK Government, but it is only the UK Government who have the powers to provide the guarantees and protection.

[Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP)]

My hon. Friend is making some very important points; what he raises here is a real issue. Let us put this into context. One hundred flights means 50 arrivals a week—seven flights a day. We are talking about Edinburgh, Glasgow, Dundee, Aberdeen, Prestwick and Inverness. It is simply not enough. Is it not the case that Prestwick has held out its hand to the Scottish Government, but it is the UK Government who have not stood up to protect Scotland’s interests? That is the point.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alan Brown]

I have also spoken up for other regional airports, because I would expect them to want the same protections that I am asking for when it comes to Scottish airports. It is up to the Secretary of State to give these guarantees and satisfy us on these points.

Paragraph 1.62 of the Government’s response to the Transport Committee’s recommendations explains that the Crown dependencies are also included in the 15% of additional slots. How will the figure actually break down between the Crown dependencies and all the various regional airports?

[Ian Blackford]

There has been a dereliction of duty by the Secretary of State. The language being used is “up to 15%”. The harsh reality is that Scotland has lost slots in recent years, and we have lost connectivity. The Secretary of State should guarantee connectivity, but he has failed to do so time and again.

[Alan Brown]

I think that my right hon. Friend was making a rhetorical intervention.

I raised my concerns about slot protection when the Secretary of State came to the Dispatch Box and made his statement about the NPS. He will be aware that I followed up in writing to seek clarity and assurances, including on the fact that Scotland could have several PSOs if necessary. I asked him how many slots would be protected and what the reality of “up to 15%” would be. I also asked him whether there would be an absolute minimum that the UK Government would seek agreement on, and what percentage of the 15% would be for new routes rather than just additional slots. Just prior to that, a few days after giving the statement, the Secretary offered me a meeting. I stated I was happy to meet him and work with him, but I was instead left with last-minute phone calls with the aviation Minister, who is an unelected peer—not accountable to this place and not even able to come to the Dispatch Box tonight.

Following that there was a letter and DFT public announcements, which were pre-planned anyway. I acknowledge that there has been welcome movement in terms of airport-to-airport PSOs, and the Government have set out the fact that Scotland can have more than one PSO. But I repeat: there is no clarity or assurances regarding how these can or will be implemented. We do not even know whether any money has been set aside or whether there has been any cost analysis of the Government saying that they will provide these PSOs.

If the Heathrow expansion goes ahead and the airlines do forgo their domestic slots for more lucrative international slots—in, say, eight years’ time—what actual obligation is there on a UK Government at that moment in time to act and bring in PSOs? I would suggest that there is none. We cannot bind a future Government, especially given how the provision is set out just now, and that is a critical concern.

Pensions Uprating (UK Pensioners Living Overseas)

Debate between Alan Brown and Ian Blackford

Wednesday 11th May 2016 Commons Chamber

[Ian Blackford]

I thank my hon. Friend for that news—I did not even know that I was up for election. He is absolutely right: we are talking today about frozen pensions, but women born in the 1950s also face injustices. Many of us on both sides of the Chamber have engaged in the debate about that, and the fight goes on. Given the importance of these issues, I have suggested to the Minister that we should take some of them out of the Chamber and have a pensions commission that can look holistically at them. We can then make sure that we get them right and accept the obligations we all have to look after our pensioners, whether that is the women born in the 1950s or the frozen pensioners who are suffering.

I acknowledge that there is a cost to the Government in unfreezing pensions, but the resulting increased migration would offer them savings to help pay for doing that. In 2010, an Oxford Economics study using Government statistics showed that a pensioner who permanently leaves the UK saves the UK £7,700 a year in NHS usage and other age-related benefits, while the lost income in relation to such a pensioner would amount to £3,900—a net saving to the Exchequer of £3,800 at 2010 prices or £4,300 at today’s prices.

Many people living in the UK today perhaps came from the Caribbean or the Indian subcontinent and worked here all their lives, but those who want to go back to their country of origin cannot do so, because they risk being penalised by a frozen pension. We must help those who want to do that, as well as UK pensioners who live overseas. This is, therefore, not just about the gross cost of increased pension spending; there is an element of potentially reduced commitments to pensioners who seek to leave the UK to be with loved ones abroad or to return to their country of origin.

Those subject to frozen pensions have waited long enough to see this matter debated in the House. We must not let them down. We need to speak up for those pensioners living in the UK who want to move abroad to be with loved ones who have emigrated and those who came to work here and who wish to return to their country of origin, but who are fearful of the impact. There is a host of reasons why a pensioner may choose to move abroad in later life; it is simply wrong to punish them for making such a choice.

Pensioners who have paid the required national insurance contributions during their working lives, in the expectation of a decent basic pension in retirement, will find themselves living on incomes that fall in real terms year on year. Paying national insurance contributions to qualify for a state pension is mandatory. All recipients of the British state pension have made these contributions, and it is clearly unfair to differentiate payment levels.

Pensioners will now face ending their days in poverty because they chose to live in the “wrong” country—in most cases with no knowledge of the implications of their choice for their pension. Some people are being forced back to the UK—away from the family they love—just to secure an income they can survive on.

Reform would bring the UK in line with international norms, as most other developed countries now pay their state pension equivalents in the way I propose. We are, I am sad to say, the only country in the OECD that does not pay pensions irrespective of domicile. That should shame us all. Why are we the only country that does not accept our moral responsibility to our pensioners? That must change.

We know the statistics—that 550,000 people are affected—but behind those numbers are 550,000 human stories. Let me take three examples of the human cost of freezing state pensions. Abhik Bonnerjee, now 73, moved from India to Glasgow in 1960. He worked in the UK for 38 years—in shipbuilding, steel manufacture and the food industry. He also owned a restaurant for six years.

Abhik returned to India in 1997 and reached the state pension age in 2008, when it was paid at £87.30 a week. He made all the required national insurance contributions, and if he was still in the UK today, he would be getting not £87 but the full UK state pension. The decline in his real-terms income has left Abhik concerned about losing his home. He now feels he may have to move back to the UK. Why are we putting such a gentleman in such a position?

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

My hon. Friend gives a very good personal example. Is there not also a paradox? Abhik faces the dilemma of returning to the UK, but if he does return, not only will his pension be uprated to the full amount, but he will be able to access health and social care, so, as well as the disruption to this person’s life, there would also be a further cost to the UK Government.

[Ian Blackford]

My hon. Friend is absolutely correct. This is not just about someone who comes back to the UK to live. Oddly enough, if such individuals came back to the UK for a holiday, they would collect their full UK state pension when they were here. The whole thing is just daft; we need to normalise it and accept our full responsibilities.

Let me give the example of Rita Young. She is 78 and lives in Peterborough, in the UK. She retired in 2002, aged 67, having enjoyed a long career in market research and as a community volunteer. Rita’s son moved to work in Australia some time ago and now has a family there. Since being widowed, Rita has wanted to join her son and grandchildren, but she has felt unable to do so because of the prospect of a frozen pension.

As Rita gets older, she finds daily life increasingly difficult, especially as she does not have a family around her to rely on. She is deeply saddened that she is not able to be with her family during the later stages of her life. She said:

“I have worked and contributed to my state pension all my life. It doesn’t seem fair that the government can just stop uprating it because I want to be with my family.”

That is the human cost of frozen pensions.

Lastly, there is former college lecturer Anne Puckridge, now 91. She lived and worked in the UK all her working life, paying mandatory national insurance contributions throughout. In 2002, aged 77, she finally retired and decided to move to Canada to be with her daughter and grandchildren, who had moved to Calgary. Fourteen years on, Anne, who served as an intelligence officer in the Women’s Royal Naval Service in the second world war, is struggling to live on a frozen pension of £75.50 a week.

Fuel Poverty

Debate between Alan Brown and Ian Blackford

Tuesday 24th November 2015 Westminster Hall

[Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hamilton.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Drew Hendry), which is the neighbouring constituency to mine, for securing this important debate. It is important, as other hon. Members have said, with millions of households around the United Kingdom being affected by fuel poverty. As I look around Westminster Hall on the day when the Scottish National party has its Supply day and a number of SNP Members are heavily engaged in the main Chamber, I am glad to say that there are seven SNP MPs here out of a total of 12 MPs. One has to ask the question, “Where is the Labour party?” It is missing from the debate in Scotland, having let the people of Scotland down, and its MPs cannot even be bothered to discuss this important subject, which affects constituents throughout the rest of the UK. It is no wonder that the people of Scotland have fallen out of love with the Labour party in our country.

I will deal specifically with fuel poverty in the highlands and islands. I am grateful to Changeworks, which has estimated the percentage of households in fuel poverty in that region. It bands each locality in the highlands into groups, and by its calculations there is no district in my constituency that has less than 47.9% of households in fuel poverty. In a number of districts, fuel poverty is evident in at least 73.5% of households. The Highland Council states that the context is that

“the Highlands and Islands of Scotland experience the harshest climatic conditions in the UK and record levels of fuel poverty”—

levels that are unprecedented. It goes on to say that

“there is far greater, area-wide dependence on the use of electricity for heating as well as lighting but the standard unit price charged is 2p a kw/hr more than in most other parts of the UK and 6p and more for the various ‘economy’ tariffs on offer”—

a point that my hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey made earlier. The council continues:

“On top of all this there is also a far greater reliance in off-gas areas on using domestic heating oil and solid fuel which pushes up household heating costs further still.”

As someone who lives in a rural area, I can say that it is one thing to rely on electricity coming through the grid, but having to check the oil tank frequently and ensure that there are adequate supplies of solid fuel is a different matter. According to the council:

“As a result, domestic energy bills in off-gas areas are, on average, around £1000 more per annum than the £1369 pa dual fuel national average (2014)”—

that is the cost of living in many of our rural areas, and wage levels in rural areas are often considerably lower than in more affluent parts of the country. It continues:

“To cap it all, customers on prepayment meters (often the least well off) not only have to pay additional standing charges but also discover that their notional right to change to a cheaper electricity supplier has become impracticable.”

Those statistics should shame us all.

Let us put the highlands and islands in context with the rest of Scotland. The fuel poverty level in Scotland in 2013 was 39% of households. A key driver for the rate of fuel poverty has been the rise in fuel prices. The fuel poverty rate for 2013 would have been only about 11% if fuel prices had risen in line with inflation between 2002 and 2013.

One of the most fundamental questions that we must ask the Minister is: why do we have to accept that there are 14 regional energy markets in the UK, with consumers in the highlands and islands, who are some of the greatest users of energy in this country, paying that premium of 2p per kilowatt-hour? We must have a universal market throughout the UK. If it is good enough for postage stamps, we should have one for electricity distribution too, and that is in the gift of the current Government. I asked the Secretary of State a written question to that effect not so long ago, and I was amazed that the response was that consumers in other parts of the country would have to pay more. The point that that answer seems to ignore is that such a market would introduce fairness, and no more would consumers in the highlands and islands be discriminated against by a Government who want to penalise them for living there.

That is not acceptable, and it must end—it should end tomorrow. Why do folk in my constituency have to accept higher rates of fuel poverty? The Government can act, must act and should act, and they should do it now. Why do the Government not invest in greater measures to deliver effective insulation and ensure that we can cut energy bills and fuel poverty? We can find the money for Trident, but not to allow folk to live in properly insulated, warm, fuel-efficient homes.

[Alan Brown]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. We all came out of the Trident debate this afternoon disappointed by the vote. Home efficiency is a serious matter. Home efficiency measures bring people out of fuel poverty, but they have the added effect of wider benefits, because less energy usage drives down the market cost. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government should rethink their strategy regarding the £12 billion subsidy they are creating for the right to buy? That money would be better invested directly in new build housing and home efficiency schemes for existing owners, which would also help our constituents by driving down market costs, and the Barnet consequential would allow the Scottish Government to continue their excellent work.

[Ian Blackford]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. I must contrast the Government’s performance and behaviour with that of the Scottish Government on house building and home insulation over the past few years. It really is about time that the Government in Westminster stepped up to the plate. In light of the upcoming climate change talks, we have a responsibility to cut our energy consumption as far as possible, and we can do that if we invest more in insulation.

Research by Turn2us graphically shows the kind of challenges that those in fuel poverty face. The research found that one in two low-income households struggle to afford their energy costs, despite being in work. Those are people who will be disadvantaged by the cuts to tax credits that my hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey mentioned. Turn2us states:

“Amongst the hardest hit are people with disabilities, with over two in three (67%) reporting their struggles, and families, with almost two-thirds of working parents (65%) unable to meet these costs. Worryingly, of those households who are struggling with energy costs, nearly half (48%) have done so for more than a year”—

this is a long-term, not a short-term, problem. Turn2us continues:

“The knock-on effect is severe, with a third (33%) forced to skip meals and over a fifth (21%) experiencing stress and other mental health problems.”

Is it a price that we as a civilised society are prepared to pay, that people in this country have to make the choice between food and fuel? There is something wrong with our country if that is the case.

Some of the comments made by people who participated in the Turn2us survey are stark. They include, “The bills are killing me, sometimes I have to contemplate paying all the rent or heating my home”; “There are many pensioners like myself who don’t qualify for any help but still have to decide whether to eat or heat”; “We have stress, debt, arguments and a low mood at home”; “Starve or freeze? Either way you get ill and can’t work, eat or pay any bills”; “No lights, only candles, only hoover once a week, only use washing machine once a week, no heating, meals that cook quickly.” Those are the consequences of the high levels of fuel poverty we suffer from in this country.

The Scottish Government have used their powers to intervene to mitigate some of the effects of rising energy costs, but it has been the failure of Westminster, and of the regulator, to properly protect consumers that has led to marked deterioration in the level of fuel poverty. The Scottish Government are committed to tackling fuel poverty head on and ensuring that everyone in Scotland lives in a home that is warm and affordable to heat. However, those measures are undermined by austerity made in Westminster and delivered by a Conservative Government who are having such a huge impact on low and medium-income earners. That goes to the heart of the issue. There is evidence that families have to make the choice between heating and feeding.

There is not just a moral and ethical impact of that but a cost to society, with increased health costs as a consequence of the mental health issues that arise. Also, children are being sent to school in less than ideal circumstances because of family pressures, and our young people are not flourishing to the extent they should, which increases the burden to close the attainment gap. That is the social cost of fuel poverty, and the Government in Westminster have to accept responsibility for it. The proposed cuts to tax credits and other welfare cuts have caused concern that low-income, hard-working households’ finances could be harder hit. The Government must change tack in the autumn statement tomorrow.