European Council
Alex Salmond Excerpts(8 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister
Ever closer union has been mentioned in a series of judgments by the European Court of Justice, and there are two things in what we have agreed that I think will have an impact. Obviously, the most eye-catching of those is in paragraph 1 on page 10, which states that the substance of the agreements
“will be incorporated into the Treaties at the time of their next revision”
and will
“make it clear that the references to ever closer union do not apply to the United Kingdom.”
That is obviously a carve-out for us, but just as significant—and this is something that many other countries did not want—is the content of the next paragraph, which states:
“The references in the Treaties and their preambles…of creating an ever closer union…do not offer a legal basis for extending the scope of any provision of the Treaties or of EU secondary legislation.”
That redefinition of ever closer union is a fundamental change to the way in which the organisation has worked. One way to think of it is that there have been two threats to our sovereignty. The first came from treaty change passing powers from Britain to Brussels, but that cannot happen now because of our lock. The second is the use of terms such as “ever closer union” to make sure that the EU grows its powers, but that cannot be done now that we have that change. One of the reasons why the deal took 40 hours of all-night negotiations is that not everybody likes it. The deal is not meaningless words; it is words that mean something, that matter and that make a difference. That is why I was so determined to secure it.
Alex Salmond (Gordon) (SNP)
The Prime Minister was elected on 37% of the vote. Even if half those people were to vote in, the referendum can be won only on the basis of people who voted Labour, Scottish National party, Liberal, Plaid Cymru and Green. Is it not a reasonable supposition to make that those people will be more interested in a positive articulation of the case for Europe than in the factional arguments of the Conservative party, entertaining though they are? When will the Prime Minister put forward that positive case for Europe?
The Prime Minister
I do not want to upset the right hon. Gentleman, because I am hoping that he will be supportive. In the speech that I made today, I set out a positive case. Yes, it is the case of someone who is Eurosceptical in the genuine sense: I am sceptical about all organisations and about all engagements. We should always question whether organisations work for us, and we should be doubtful about such things. That is what being sceptical means.
I come at this as someone who has their doubts about Brussels and doubts about the EU, but I have an absolutely clear eye about what is best for Britain. If others want to argue from a more positive stance about the nature of the EU, fine—go for it. It is up to everyone to make their own case, but I am going to make my case in a clear-eyed determination of what is in Britain’s interest, and I think I did that today.
ISIL in Syria
Alex Salmond Excerpts(8 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister
Mr Speaker, I will take dozens of interventions in the time that I have. I am conscious of not taking up too much time as so many people want to speak, but I promise that I will give way a lot during my speech. Let me make a bit of progress at the start.
In moving this motion, I am not pretending that the answers are simple. The situation in Syria is incredibly complex. I am not overstating the contribution our incredible servicemen and women can make; nor am I ignoring the risks of military action or pretending that military action is any more than one part of the answer. I am absolutely clear that we must pursue a comprehensive strategy that also includes political, diplomatic and humanitarian action, and I know that the long-term solution in Syria—as in Iraq—must ultimately be a Government that represent all of its people and one that can work with us to defeat the evil organisation of ISIL for good.
The Prime Minister
In a moment.
Notwithstanding all of that, there is a simple question at the heart of the debate today. We face a fundamental threat to our security. ISIL has brutally murdered British hostages. It has inspired the worst terrorist attack against British people since 7/7 on the beaches of Tunisia, and it has plotted atrocities on the streets here at home. Since November last year our security services have foiled no fewer than seven different plots against our people, so this threat is very real. The question is this: do we work with our allies to degrade and destroy this threat, and do we go after these terrorists in their heartlands, from where they are plotting to kill British people, or do we sit back and wait for them to attack us?
The Prime Minister
I will make some progress, and then I will give way.
In answering this question, we should remember that 15 months ago, facing a threat from ISIL in Iraq, the House voted 524 to 43 to authorise airstrikes in Iraq. Since then, our brilliant RAF pilots have helped local forces to halt ISIL’s advance and recover 30% of the territory ISIL had captured. On Monday, I spoke to the President of Iraq in Paris, and he expressed his gratitude for the vital work our forces were doing. Yet, when our planes reach the Syrian border—a border that ISIL itself does not recognise—we can no longer act to defend either his country or ours, even though ISIL’s headquarters are in Raqqa in Syria and it is from there that many of the plots against our country are formed.
Alex Salmond
The Prime Minister is facing an amendment signed by 110 Members from six different political parties. I have examined that list very carefully, and I cannot identify a single terrorist sympathiser among them. Will he now apologise for his deeply insulting remarks?
The Prime Minister
I have made it clear that this is about how we fight terrorism, and that there is honour in any vote.
We possess the capabilities to reduce this threat to our security, and my argument today is that we should not wait any longer before doing so. We should answer the call from our allies. The action we propose is legal, necessary and the right thing to do to keep our country safe. My strong view is that the House should make it clear that we will take up our responsibilities, rather than pass them off and put our own national security in the hands of others.
Alex Salmond (Gordon) (SNP)
“We cannot do nothing”, said the hon. Member for South West Devon (Mr Streeter), but that is not an argument for doing anything; it is an argument for doing something that works, as part of an overall strategy that has some chance of success.
I find myself in the unusual position of complimenting some Conservative speakers. We have heard some fine speeches thus far, but some of the best have come from Conservative Members dissenting from the Government line. The right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) did the House a service by reminding us of the proportionality of what we are discussing. We are discussing adding perhaps an extra two Tornadoes and a segment of Typhoons to the bombing campaign in Syria. We make up 10% of the current flights in Iraq. As the right hon. Gentleman said, we will not make any conceivable difference to the air campaign in Syria, where there are too many planes already, chasing too many targets.
Alberto Costa
Does the right hon. Gentleman not agree that the RAF has the capability to destroy Daesh’s supply and funding lines without causing any civilian casualties of note? If the RAF is capable of doing that, why is he opposing this?
Alex Salmond
I cannot tell the hon. Gentleman the number of times I have heard the argument about minimising the civilian casualties from a bombing campaign. I bow to no one on the skill of our pilots and the sophistication of weapons, but if he actually believes we are going to engage in a bombing campaign in a concentrated urban area such as Raqqa without there being civilian casualties, he is living on a different planet. As the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden said, there is no conceivable balance of difference that we are going to make to the campaign in Syria.
The Prime Minister said that we must not be haunted or hamstrung by past mistakes, by which he meant the war in Iraq. I am more interested in far more recent mistakes in terms of this House and its decision making and this Government and their decision making. First, we had last night’s mistake of describing opponents of the Government’s action as “terrorist sympathisers”. A hugely demeaning thing for a Prime Minister to do when he should be engaged in attempting to unite the country is to concentrate on accentuating divisions within the Labour party. Goodness knows, I have spent a lifetime in politics attacking the Labour party and replacing it, but I have not attacked its divisions on this issue because this is a matter of war and peace—it is about sending people into conflict. For a Prime Minister to demean himself in that way indicates that although he might be successful in dividing the Labour party, he will fail in uniting the country, and he should have apologised when given ample opportunity to do so.
The right hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis), the Chair of the Defence Committee, reminded us in his speech that only two years ago the same Prime Minister came to this House asking to bomb the other side in the Syrian civil war. That can be called many things by right hon. and hon. Members but it is not the sign of a coherent military or political strategy. Another mistake, which is less thought of, was spending 13 times as much on bombing Libya as we did on reconstructing that country after the carnage, and the total disarray and dysfunction of society that resulted.
Mr Burrowes
Let us bring this on to more recent history. On 26 September 2014, the SNP’s parliamentary leader, the right hon. Member for Moray (Angus Robertson) voted against the bombing of ISIL in Iraq. Would the right hon. Gentleman have joined in that position? Does he maintain the opposition to operations in Iraq against ISIL?
Alex Salmond
The SNP has been demonstrated to be correct, not least in Iraq, in being cautious about military interventions. The difficulty is that once we get in, it is hugely difficult to get out. What I will concede to the hon. Gentleman now is that there is in one part of Iraq a logical reason for having an assisted bombing campaign, whether by the US or by the 10% contribution of the UK; the peshmerga forces on the ground, probably our only reliable ally across the region, have had some success in pushing back Daesh. The Prime Minister referred to that earlier, but he did not develop the argument in response to my question about why we do not accent our action in Iraq as opposed to diverting to Syria. What he did not address was the second part of the question I asked at closed security briefings: why have we not given the peshmerga heavy armour and heavy weapons, and why do they have to dominate the road between Mosul and Raqqa using only machine guns? I suspect that the answer—I was not given the true answer—is because it would offend our NATO allies in Turkey, who spend as much time, if not more, bombing our allies in the Kurds than they do in pursuing the campaign against Daesh.
The hon. Member for South West Devon wanted something to be done, so we must consider what can be done. First, if we as a western liberal democracy cannot pursue a successful campaign of propaganda against a death cult, we should have a very good look at ourselves. I accept that, at last, we have made progress in calling these people for what they are. Daesh is a mocking term that mocks their claims to be a state and to represent the great religion of Islam. Much, much more can be done in carrying that forward. Infinitely more can be done by interrupting and dislocating the internet strategy that they pursue. For one of our fast smart bombs, we could have a whole squadron of people taking down their websites and stopping the communication and the contamination of the minds of young people across western Europe, and across the rest of the world.
I very much agree with the leader of the Labour party that, above all, we need to interrupt the financial resources of Daesh without which this evil cult could not function. Whenever I ask the Prime Minister about that, he tells me that he is sitting on a Committee. For two years, we have heard nothing. Little or nothing has been done to interrupt the flow of funds and to identify and stop the financial institutions without which Daesh could not have lifted a finger against us or anyone else.
Finally, we are being asked to intervene in a bloody civil war of huge complexity without an exit strategy and no reasonable means of saying that we are going to make a difference. We should not give the Prime Minister that permission.
Jim Dowd (Lewisham West and Penge) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston). She says she is from an RAF family; my father served in the Royal Air Force for 15 years, including all the years of the second world war, so we have that in common. In fact, I was born at the RAF base in Gütersloh in Germany.
When Bill Clinton was first elected President of the USA, the slogan was, “It’s the economy, stupid.” That was thought to be the primary reason for people voting as they do in elections. I do not disagree with that entirely, but I believe that people have a higher consideration as well. It is the primary duty of any Government, or any party purporting to form a Government, to do anything and everything necessary to protect the people, their families and their homes. If any party, Parliament or Government do not do that, they will pay a terrible price. That is what people expect the Government to do. I am sure that everyone in the Chamber agrees with that. Perhaps the only question we have to answer is how best we can protect our citizens and communities.
Hon. Members have said that we should accept the genuine depth of feeling on this issue on both sides. I am grateful to the many constituents who have contacted me with their views. Many have sent formalised messages given to them by other organisations, but I do not dispute their belief in what they were saying and doing. I am particularly grateful to the constituents who said, “Even if you don’t agree with me, I hope you will do what you think is right,” and that is what I intend to do this evening.
Others have said that the debate is out of all proportion, because we are not talking about a new engagement. We are talking about a variation on the commitment that the House overwhelmingly endorsed not so long ago. There will of course be complications. Actually, I have some sympathy with those who have said that the effect will be only marginal. That might well be true, but the question is: is it worth doing or not? We need to decide which side of the argument to come down on.
I will certainly not vote for the amendment, for a number of reasons, not least because of the weasel words and sophistry it employs to suggest that the case has not been made. That is the kind of thing the Liberals used to say before 2010, when they had to face up to genuine responsibility. It is like when people say, “I take a principled stand on this.” They seem to be suggesting that they are principled and that anyone who opposes them is unprincipled, but that is not true. The fact is that people can have genuine, deeply held views on this matter, and we should respect their views—
Alex Salmond
For the hon. Gentleman’s information, the wording of the cross-party amendment is exactly the same as that of the amendment that tried to stop the war in Iraq. A lot of people think that it would have been a better thing if that amendment had been carried that day.
Jim Dowd
I do not dispute that for a moment, but I am not sure what point the right hon. Gentleman is making, so I shall move on.
People set up barriers. They say, “We must have a UN resolution.” Then, when the UN comes forward with a resolution, they say, “Oh no! That’s not good enough. We want a better-quality UN resolution. Tell it to go do its homework. Tell it to do better.” It is ridiculous. These are weasel words in the amendment; they are euphemisms. It is almost as though those who say that the case has not been made think they have a higher moral standard, a transcendent judgment superior to that of those who disagree with them.
I just want to say this to the Prime Minister: the Brimstone missile about which we have heard so much is known as a fire-and-forget weapon—[Interruption.] Well, it is known by some as that; maybe not by Conservative Members. It has been described as a fire-and-forget weapon, but the motion, which I find comprehensive and persuasive, is not a fire-and-forget motion. If we pass it tonight, we will have to come back to it and address all the issues raised in it. We must make sure that nobody is pretending that airstrikes alone will solve the problems in the middle east. There is much more to be done, and we will need dedication, effort and application to ensure that we do as much as we can to bring peace and a degree of stability to that troubled part of the world.
G20 and Paris Attacks
Alex Salmond Excerpts(8 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister
This morning we have seen some reports that the Russian security services are now making it clear that they believe that it was a bomb that brought down that aircraft, tragically, after it left Sharm el-Sheikh. I discussed this issue with President Putin yesterday. We need to work with others to look at the most vulnerable locations around the world and work out how we can make them safer. There is no 100% security you can deliver, even in the most advanced airport, but there are some basic things about scanners, about the way luggage is handled, about the way passengers interact with their luggage, and about what happens at the gate—best practice that can be introduced right across the world. That is what we are going to work on.
Alex Salmond (Gordon) (SNP)
If a broad international coalition is not just possible but necessary on Syria, what is the obstacle to a Security Council resolution? On the subject of financial flows, will the Prime Minister answer this question directly: what are the obstacles to disrupting and degrading the financial flows and the financial institutions without which Daesh could not function?
The Prime Minister
The obstacle so far to a Security Council resolution has been the fact that one of the permanent members, Russia, has threatened to veto meaningful Security Council resolutions that would perhaps provide the overarching permission for the action that we believe is necessary in Syria. I will answer the question very directly in my response to the Foreign Affairs Committee in saying that the action I believe we should take is legal under international law. I know that should be spelled out clearly, and of course I will spell it out clearly.
In terms of disrupting Daesh’s financial flows, we are part of the committee that is looking at all the action that can be taken, including against financial institutions. As I said, one of the most important things we can do is to stop its funding through the oil trade, some of which it is selling directly to Assad.
Debate on the Address
Alex Salmond Excerpts(9 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Emily Thornberry
Will the hon. Gentleman give me a moment in which to answer, because I only have two minutes left? The fact is that within our constitution—our unwritten constitution, which we play with at our jeopardy, if we do not think through what we are doing—we have different pillars. We have the Executive, the legislature and the judiciary, and of course there will always be tension between them. If we all agreed all the time, what would be the point? In what way would we be a democracy? There will be times when we disagree and, in the end, human rights is about protecting minorities. It is about protecting the weak against the strong. Yes, there will be times when people whom we wish to have no truck with at all will rely on basic rights and we must give them to them. That is the British way, and it is one that we are proud of and should remain proud of, and we should never allow it to be undermined.
Alex Salmond (Gordon) (SNP)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. In response to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart), the Prime Minister hinted, and then the right hon. Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) blurted out, that there might be afoot an attempt to change the Standing Orders of this House to restrict the voting rights of some Members of this House. Surely such a change would fundamentally breach the principle that all Members of this House are equal before the Chair, and would such a change, if conceived itself as an Order, have to be considered by you or the Procedure Committee, or undergo some thorough investigation? Otherwise, as you will understand with your experience, Mr Speaker, any majority Government could change Standing Orders to restrict the voting rights of any Member without so much as a by-your-leave.
Mr Speaker
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving me a few minutes’ advance notice of his intention to raise this point of order. He has raised an extremely important point, on which I shall take appropriate advice, and which, as he would expect, I will give the most serious thought. I hope he will understand that it would not be appropriate for me to say anything beyond that this afternoon. Perfectly legitimately, he has raised it, and that is my response today.
Mr Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Southend West (Sir David Amess) and to hear him speak so passionately on behalf of his constituents. Many comparisons have been made with 1992 when a Tory majority Government were elected despite the odds and the predictions. Of course, the hon. Gentleman was the 1992 election personified—on that night, his election was the indication that the Conservatives would be returned.
I congratulate the right hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr Burns) and the hon. Member for South East Cornwall (Mrs Murray) on proposing and seconding the Gracious Speech so appropriately and well.
Alex Salmond
I am trying to recall Basildon man and the 1992 election. What on earth happened to that 1992 Tory Government? How did they get on?
Mr Dodds
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, and I join others in congratulating and welcoming him on his return to the House. I remember him here before he went back to Scotland to serve as First Minister. I will leave it to others to judge the record of the 1992 Government. In this Queen’s Speech debate, we will look to the future.
Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)
I believe that this is a watershed Parliament for a watershed election. The question that will predominate throughout this Parliament will be the question of who governs us and how. That applies not only to the European issue, to which I will return in a moment, but to the Scottish question and the human rights issue, because each contains seminal questions—constitutional issues of a kind that have not been addressed properly for far, far too long. Now we have a Conservative Government who will address them.
I pay tribute to the Prime Minister for his victory, and I pay tribute to the small C conservatives of this country, from every home and every part of the regions of this land, who not only decided that they wanted the security and the stability with which the Conservative party with a big C was able to provide them, but whose common sense led to the pulverisation of the Liberal Democrats and at the same time the rejection of the potential alliance of the SNP and the Labour party, which, certainly from what I saw on the doorstep, scared people witless.
The bottom line is this: we now face very big challenges. I look at the right hon. Member for Gordon (Alex Salmond); he will present us with a challenge, I have no doubt, and so will Members around him. He would be under a misapprehension, however, if he thought, as I did, in the light of a potential coalition, that it would be like the days of Parnell, because the House of Commons has changed very substantially since then. We have a solid phalanx of a majority of 12—[Interruption.] Yes, we do, and it will prevail in relation to the matters that the right hon. Gentleman has in mind.
On the Scottish question, we also have the issue of the Standing Orders. As I said earlier in an intervention, the legislation that devolved the functions has already been passed, so it is a matter not for legislation but for the Standing Orders of the House. I believe strongly that we will get that through. I know that we will have points of order and all sorts of shenanigans from the SNP, but this is an internal matter reflecting the legislative change that was made in 1997—
Sir William Cash
I will certainly give way to the right hon. Gentleman, but he may not remember that in the debate in 1997—when the Labour party held the majority of the seats in Scotland—I actually proposed the idea of solving the West Lothian question by making changes to the Standing Orders.
Alex Salmond
If in that 1997 Parliament some nefarious members of the Labour Government had decided to restrict the hon. Gentleman’s voting rights by means of amending the Standing Orders, would that have been legitimate?
Sir William Cash
The question has been dealt with by legislation and the functions have been devolved. I was intrigued by the nuanced approach taken by the right hon. Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds), but it must be conceded that because the Scottish Parliament has control over health and education it is unfair for Scottish Members of Parliament—it cannot be denied that they won a great victory in Scotland—to interfere in matters that belong properly and exclusively to English Members of Parliament.
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a great pleasure to follow my colleague and friend, my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton South West (Rob Marris), although I confess that I do not completely concur with his economic analysis. I will come to that later.
I congratulate the hon. Members for Argyll and Bute (Brendan O'Hara) and for North East Fife (Stephen Gethins) on their excellent speeches, which I greatly enjoyed. Moreover, I compliment the SNP on being here in such large numbers. I feared that no one would be listening to my speech, and now I have a very large audience. I remember that when I made my maiden speech, I had the great pleasure and privilege of following the Speaker, who spoke only for a very short time—less than Winston Churchill, who spoke for one and a half hours, I think. [Interruption.] To be fair, it was a short speech—less than 40 minutes, I seem to remember.
Moving swiftly on, the key tests for the Queen’s Speech are these. Does it promote freedom? Does it promote equality? Does it bring unity to Britain? Does it bring strength? I would say—I will run through the arguments—that on all those counts it fails. The reality is that the Britain we are living in today is more divided than it was five years ago. It is more divided economically. I represent part of Wales. That is where the whole series of cuts has taken effect, be it in welfare, be it in the public services that many of our regions and nations depend on. Where has the investment been? It has been in London and the south-east. So we have seen imbalances. We have seen disproportionate attacks, with the bedroom tax and other severe cuts. Now, as I mentioned earlier, some Oxford University research is basically saying that, with £12 billion of welfare cuts in the pipeline, we will see another 1 million people relying on food banks. Already 1 million people do so. That is not the sort of country that many Opposition Members want to live in.
Nationally, we are seeing division. We are seeing division over Scotland. Scotland has risen and voted the way that it has for reasons that we can understand and need to discuss and debate and appreciate and respect.
There are also divisions over Europe. We are now talking about severing ourselves from Europe, and even renouncing the human rights and other great values that came from these proud islands. I think the Queen, in uttering her Speech today, will have thought that she has given much better speeches in the past, if I may put it that way.
There has been some suggestion that the economy is in great shape, but there are 800,000 fewer people earning over £20,000 now than there were five years ago, because the Conservatives have chopped up full-time jobs into zero-hours jobs, part-time jobs and low-paid jobs. They can say, “Look, we have created all these jobs,” but when we look at the overall amount of production, which is also indicated in productivity, we see that they have dismally failed because they have not invested in skills and they have flattened consumer demand. It is a complete nightmare.
I do not agree with the analysis of my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton South West. I would point to the fact that, in the 10 years to 2008, the British economy grew by 40%. In 2008 we had a banking crisis, not of our making—[Hon. Members: “No!”] Look at Iceland; look at Greece; look at the United States—are Conservatives Members blind or just plain stupid? We had a global crisis. [Interruption.] Please be quiet. We had a global crisis, and Obama and Brown intervened with the fiscal stimulus. They stopped a world depression and they got Britain growing by 2010.
In 2010, the Tory Chancellor arrived and he announced that 500,000 people in the public services would be sacked. Those people stopped spending and started saving. Consumer demand flatlined and we have had a flatlining economy since. Debt, as a share of the economy, has grown from 55% in 2010 to 80% now. The Tories have borrowed more in five years than Labour did in 13—and we had to bail out the banks. Is that success? No, it is absolute failure. So why did the Labour party do so badly in the election? We should put our hands up: we did not explain the economic narrative effectively enough, but that does not change the fact that we are in an appalling mess thanks to what the Tories have done.
What would be the prospects for future growth if we did not stay in the EU? The EU is a platform for international companies from India, China and elsewhere to enter the biggest economy in the world—Europe. We will have a referendum. The Labour party has now said that it wants a referendum, because the nation has decided we should have one, but international businesses are thinking, “Hold on, all bets are off. We are not going to invest in British production. We will go to France or Germany because we do not know whether Britain will stay in the EU.” Tata Steel, Airbus and Ford—in Bridgend in my constituency—are saying, “Hold on, we do not want to face tariffs of between 5% and 100%.” The Conservatives say that we will renegotiate and then we will have a vote, but the reality is that the Prime Minister will support staying in Europe without reform. To a certain extent, he is dithering around to pacify right-wing Tories and UKIP, putting the tactical interests of the Conservative party before the strategic interests of Britain, and that is disgraceful.
We see the same pattern of disgraceful short-termist political activity with human rights. We are part of the human rights convention, and we have a proud record on human rights, democracy and freedom as a beacon of hope in an uncertain world. Now we are saying, “We don’t like those human rights, so we will have our own.” If we do not agree with universal human rights, how do we think Vladimir Putin feels? He passed a law on Saturday that stops people saying things that might undermine the values of Russia. He is focusing on foreign-funded organisations, such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, and saying they are dodgy people saying unhelpful things. Their workers could face imprisonment for up to six years. Putin is looking at us and saying that Britain appears to think that human rights are not universal, but culture-relative. We can have one set of human rights, Putin can have another and China yet another. Is that what we want? Of course not, and it is outrageous to suggest it.
In any case, learned lawyers have pointed out that the human rights changes will not happen because the Human Rights Act underpins the constitutional settlement in the devolved nations. It is also underpinned by international treaties, so the proposal is ridiculous and has been kicked into the long grass. But it says a lot about the Conservative party.
Other proposed Bills include the enterprise Bill. What does that have to do with improving productivity and infrastructure, and increasing skills? Nothing. All it says is that the Government will cut red tape by £10 billion. What does that mean? Normally it means that health and safety will be cut. The strike Bill is another example. The Conservatives say, “You have to have 40% of the workforce to have a legitimate strike.” In my constituency, the turnout was 62% and my vote was 42%, so 25% of my constituents voted for me—
Geraint Davies
I know it is low by SNP standards. It certainly would not be enough for a proper strike under these proposals. In reality, it is very difficult to achieve 40% and it does not happen in local government. It is an attempt to change the balance of power in the workplace, another aspect of which is the creation of all those zero-hours jobs without any rights.
The way forward for Britain is greater productivity, high-wage jobs, high skills and a high-value, export-driven focus. It is not through hobbling people, taking away their wealth and making them work for a pittance.
The Queen has seen us through a world war and seen Britain emerge from the fire of war to create a health service, a welfare state and housing, out of a state of virtual bankruptcy. Now, we have ended up with penny-pinching Tories hobbling Britain. I hope that in our discussions we can think about growth instead of cuts to get down the deficit, and that we can work together to build a stronger, better, fairer Britain for all our children to share.