European Union (Future Relationship) Bill

Debate between Charles Walker and Ian Blackford

2nd reading & 2nd reading: House of Commons
Wednesday 30th December 2020 Commons Chamber

[Ian Blackford]

Really? I am amazed that the right hon. Gentleman, who of course comes from Scotland, seems to be threatening the people of Scotland with lack of access. Is that really the message the Conservatives want to deliver to the people of Scotland? Shame on him, shame on him, shame on him.

For all the Tory talk of levelling up, the deal is blatantly preparing the ground to level down on standards. Only in the last few days, the Institute for Public Policy Research has warned of what many of us have suspected all along: that the deal leaves workers’ rights and environmental protections at

“serious risk of being eroded.”

Another Brexit bubble that badly needs bursting is the myth that leaving the EU will somehow make it easier for businesses to trade. This is literally the first trade deal in history that puts up barriers to business instead of removing them. In 2016, the leave campaign’s assortment of lies included the claim that Brexit would remove red tape for business. Huh—since then, plenty of Brexit red lines have disappeared, but none of the red tape. This bad Brexit deal means that businesses will be burdened with mountains more bureaucracy and more costs. If the Prime Minister wants to disagree with that, I will certainly give way to him.

Presumably the Brexiteers think that that is okay, because the tape will now be coloured red, white and blue. [Interruption.] I hear the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster say, “It’s how they tell them.” He should tell that to the fishing businesses that all of a sudden will have to fill in customs declarations. He should tell them why, at his behest and based on his narrow ideology, that is the answer. The deal means more delay, paperwork and checks—[Interruption.] If he wants to deny that, he should rise to his feet. He knows that fishing businesses will face additional costs as a consequence of what his Government have done.

The deal means more delay, paperwork and checks, all of which will burden business, slow trade and cost jobs. This deal not only inflicts economic self-harm; it ignores economic reality. There is barely a reference in the deal to the service sector, which is 80% of the entire UK economy. Services have been left in complete limbo. Where there is any mention, it is not good news. The deal confirms an end to the financial passporting rights that have been relied upon by financial services firms across the United Kingdom.

Let me turn to the biggest betrayal of all: the broken promises to Scotland’s fishing communities. There are no Scottish Tory MPs in the Chamber. If there were, they would now be squirming. We know that the Brexit deal means a drop in key fishing stocks. For cod, haddock, whiting and saithe, the deal means less access to fish than under the existing arrangements. Let me say that again: less access to those fish than under the common fisheries policy.

One thing that is missing from the deal—I would have thought better of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster—is the special privileges, the so-called Hague arrangements, that gave additional fishing rights to Scotland. They were not even negotiated as part of this deal. We have lost them, one can only assume, through the incompetence of the UK negotiators.

The Scottish Tories said that

“tying fishing to a trade deal”

was a red line that must not be crossed, yet here we are: it is exactly what has been done. Every single Tory promise—every red line—has been blown out of the water. Countless broken promises, but not even one resignation—yet. Not even one apology; not a hint of humility, or of regret.

I take no comfort in saying that this was predicted because this deal represents a history of bitter betrayal. Our fishing industry—our Scottish fishing industry—was sold out by the Conservatives on the way into Europe in 1973, and as the United Kingdom leaves, it has been sold out all over again. The Scottish Fishermen’s Federation knows that it has been conned, stating that the deal

“does not restore sovereign UK control over fisheries, and does not permit us to determine who can catch what, where and when in our own waters.”

[Interruption.] I hear the Prime Minister muttering, “Rubbish.” This is fishing organisation after fishing organisation in Scotland, Prime Minister, that knows exactly what you have done to them. For Scotland’s fishing communities, lightning might not strike twice, but the Tories definitely do.

The latest Scottish Tory leader, the hon. Member for Moray (Douglas Ross), gave one of the more graphic promises: he said that he would drink a pint of cold sick rather than vote for a deal that gave EU vessels access for two years. Well, this deal gives them five years’ access, and potentially much more. Let us just say that there will be plenty of Scottish voters in the north-east who will be very interested in what he is drinking after he and his colleagues break every single promise and walk through the Lobby with the Prime Minister.

In later speeches, my colleagues will attempt to cover and scrutinise as much as we possibly can, in the limited time, of the effect of this Bill in Scotland. It has to be said, though, that this lack of scrutiny is not helped by the stance taken by the Labour party. I am sad to say that the official Opposition have been missing in action. There was a time when Labour had six tests that it said needed to be passed in order for it to support any deal. Labour’s Brexit tests have disappeared as quickly as Tory promises. I can understand that this might be politically pragmatic for Labour, but it definitely is not politically principled. But I suppose political principle is hard to manage when you cannot even get a coherent position between Scottish Labour and its UK bosses. Unfortunately, when it comes to a position on this Brexit deal, Labour is literally all over the place. Today in the Scottish Parliament, Labour will join with the Scottish National party in refusing to grant a consent motion to this Bill. I am grateful for that. Labour will not only join us but the Greens and the Liberal Democrats standing with us: our Scottish Parliament united against the Tories, united against this Bill.

It is ultimately for others to explain their own actions and the litany of broken promises that will stay with them at the next election, because, in the end, this is not so much about the Brexit promises of political parties as about its impact on people. It is about respecting the democratic decisions that voters make. Both England and Wales voted to leave the European Union. They have decided that their future lies elsewhere. Let me make this clear: I may not agree with that decision, but I, and my party, respect it. This legislation respects it, and it forms a pathway to the future. The people of Northern Ireland voted to remain in the European Union. Due to the efforts of both Michel Barnier and the Irish Government, the protocol protects the peace process. It means that Northern Ireland avoids a hard border and stays in the European single market. I support that protocol and its protection of a hard-won peace. This deal respects that. That being said, the Scottish Tories, including Baroness Davidson and the former Scottish Secretary, the right hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell), threatened to resign if Scotland was not offered the same deal as Northern Ireland. I say to both of them now that there is still time—we are still waiting.

The only democratic decision that has been ignored is the voice and vote of the Scottish people. None of this deal respects the choice that we made. I genuinely ask Members to reflect on that reality. Imposing this Brexit, imposing this deal means imposing a future that Scotland’s people did not vote for and do not want. Let us not forget that one of the central claims of the Better Together campaign in 2014 was that if we stayed in the UK, we would stay in the European Union. That is the promise that was made.

We were also told that if we stayed in the United Kingdom, we were to lead the United Kingdom. On the day after the referendum, that all changed: Scotland was told to get back in its box. Right through the Brexit process, Scotland’s voice has been ignored by Westminster, our attempts at finding compromise rebuffed at every opportunity, tossed aside on the premise that Westminster is supreme, locking Scotland out of the key decisions affecting our future and ignoring our desire to retain our European citizenship.

[Sir Charles Walker (Broxbourne) (Con)]

Despite the right hon. Gentleman’s gloom, he knows that I adore and love his country. Does he not believe that Scotland has the character to succeed? Despite his misgivings, Scotland is a great country. Why is his speech so full of gloom and misery when Scotland has the character to prosper and succeed now?

[Ian Blackford]

I thank the hon. Gentleman. May I reciprocate and say that I love England and its people? I want us to maximise our opportunity, but this deal limits our opportunity. I want to unleash Scotland’s potential. That potential will be unleashed with an independent Scotland at the heart of Europe.

The Prime Minister’s broken promise on Erasmus has been such a totemic issue in the last few days. He will remember standing in this House and promising us that we will stay in the Erasmus programme. That betrayal denies our young people the opportunities that European citizenship has given us. It denies them the European freedoms that we cherish—living, working and studying abroad. Around 200,000 people have taken part in Erasmus, including around 15,000 UK university students each year. It is also important to say that Erasmus is not solely about university students but about supporting youth workers, adult education, sport, culture and vocational training. That is why the Scottish Government are so committed to exploring every opportunity to keep Erasmus in place for our people.

Even the very name Erasmus signals our long-established European links. That long tradition of connection comes right into the modern day with our own Winnie Ewing, Madame Écosse herself. Winnie, a former mother of the European Parliament, was Chair of the EU Education Committee that brought in the Erasmus scheme. [Interruption.] People at home will be watching this, and we have the Prime Minister and Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster laughing about the success of the Erasmus scheme. Utterly, utterly, utterly pathetic—utterly pathetic.

All that history between Europe and Scotland, all those links and all these opportunities are now at stake. Scotland’s story is European, and that story does not end today. Our past is European, and our future must be European. As a nation, that is a choice that we made in 2016, and I am confident that it is a choice we make now. We cannot support this legislation because it does not respect that choice and it does not provide for our future. Scotland’s course is now set, and it is a very different course from the decisions being taken in the Westminster Parliament. We know that the only way to regain the huge benefits of EU membership is to become an independent state at the heart of Europe once more. That is the decision that the Scottish people will make. We begin that journey today. There is now an empty seat at the top table in Europe. It will not be empty for long.

Pensions Uprating (UK Pensioners Living Overseas)

Debate between Charles Walker and Ian Blackford

Wednesday 11th May 2016 Commons Chamber

[Ian Blackford]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. I agree that an anomaly exists. There is no logic whereby pensioners living in the US, for example, can benefit from their pension, but those in Canada cannot. It is a question of justice. That is why I am asking all Members across the House to unite on a matter that should concern us all. It is about doing the right thing, and I hope that today the Minister and the Government will respond correctly.

The pensions legislation provided for the additional state pension to be uprated at least in line with earnings. It also provided for the current policy on state pension uprating overseas to continue. Thus pensioners who would have been entitled to upratings if they retired in the UK are no longer entitled to that increased payment simply because they live in certain overseas countries. Pensions will be uprated only in a European Union country or one with which the UK has a reciprocal agreement. There are 16 such non-European Union countries, including the USA, Israel, Turkey and the republics of the former Yugoslavia. The agreements with Canada and New Zealand and the former agreement with Australia do not provide for uprating. Between them those three countries account for around 80% of overseas residents who do not get their full pension entitlement.

We are talking about individuals who have paid national insurance in anticipation of receiving a full UK state pension. We often talk about a postcode lottery; in this case it is a national lottery, with 550,000 pensioners paying the price—entitlement to a full pension based not on their national insurance contributions, but on the country they live in. How can that be fair? If they live in the US Virgin Islands, their pension rights are protected, but if they live in the British Virgin Islands, those rights are not protected. The debate today is about fairness. It should not be about where pensioners live.

Pensions, after all, are a contract. They are not a benefit. It is only fair and just that a British pensioner who chooses to enjoy their retirement overseas should receive the same amount as a British pensioner who chooses to remain in the United Kingdom. Either they have an entitlement or they do not.

[Mr Charles Walker (Broxbourne) (Con)]

If people pay in, the pension should pay out, regardless of their address.

[Ian Blackford]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that very succinct comment. That is exactly the point. This should be about what are often called British values of fairness. If people have paid into a pension, they should get their entitlement with the annual uprating. There is no excuse for us not to do that. Why do we seem to have different classes of pensioners? It is morally unjust and truly unfair for the Government to strip pensioners of their right to equal state provision. Overseas pensioners are entitled to fairness. The state pension is a right, not a privilege.

I look forward to the Minister responding later in the debate, but I hope that we do not hear what we have heard before—that it is all about cost. It is about doing the right thing and recognising that all pensioners deserve to be treated fairly. We should focus today on the 550,000 pensioners who are losing out, but there is a topical dimension to this debate as well. What are the implications for the 400,000 UK pensioners living in EU countries if there is a Brexit vote in a few weeks’ time? In the other place, Baroness Altmann, responding on 3 March to a parliamentary question of 23 February, stated:

“Of course there is uncertainty about how a vote to leave the EU could impact on access to pensioner benefits for UK pensioners living in other parts of Europe.”

What are we to make of that? There is no clarity at all in that answer from the Government. Are the 550,000 pensioners with frozen pensions likely to be joined by others if there is a Brexit vote?

The Government could say today that irrespective of that vote, those living in EU countries will have their pensions protected. Will the Minister do that today? Will he assure our pensioners living in EU countries that their pension will not be affected by a Brexit vote? That is a simple request. It is easy for the Minister to respond appropriately and remove the uncertainty for UK pensioners living in Europe.

The Government want to lift the limit on the period that UK citizens living abroad can vote from 15 years to their entire lifetime. Why would the Government want to confer voting rights on UK pensioners, but deny them full pension rights? What drives the decision-making process of this Government? Is it cost savings, or will they accept our obligations to meet our commitment to paying pensions, regardless of country of residence? I appreciate that the Minister will no doubt have been told by the Treasury to offer nothing. The Minister is a loyal Government servant and I understand his position, but let me help him to strengthen his case with the Treasury.

The present Chancellor of the Exchequer, during a debate on the Pensions Bill in the 2003-04 Session, when shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury, said:

“If the system worked in the way that most people think, it would not matter where a person lived”––[Official Report, Pensions Public Bill Committee, 18 March 2004; c. 256.]

I have not said this before, but on this occasion I agree with the Chancellor: it should not matter where a person lives.

I appeal to the Minister to reflect on those words from his colleague, the present Chancellor. He spoke those words while in opposition, but each and every one of us should be judged by our deeds in government. It is not good enough to say the right thing when in opposition, and then, when in government, claim that it is all about cost. Let us today do the right thing. Let us unite in the House, standing up for all our pensioners, regardless of domicile.

I look forward to hearing voices from all sides of the Chamber. I look forward to hearing the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner) speaking from the Labour Front Bench. She said at a meeting of the all-party parliamentary group on frozen pensions on 2 February this year, “The situation is unfair, illogical and doesn’t make sense.” I agree with those sentiments. If the House divides on the motion, I hope Members on both sides of the Chamber will stand shoulder to shoulder with all the pensioners who are seeking their full pension rights.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Blackford]

We have had a great debate and there is unity on both sides of the Chamber that the situation shames us all. Members on both sides of the House want the Government to take action. As many have said, it is about fairness. I thank the Front Benchers who have spoken, my hon. Friends the Members for Motherwell and Wishaw (Marion Fellows) and for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Mhairi Black), and the hon. Members for North Thanet (Sir Roger Gale), for Broxbourne (Mr Walker) and for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley).

This is a matter of considerable importance. The hon. Member for North Thanet has led the all-party parliamentary group with support from many others, including the hon. Member for Worthing West. We will not let this go, because we have a duty to stand up for the John Markhams of this world and all the others who have been mentioned.

I purposely did not mention the partial uprating but other hon. Members did. The Government could make a start by acknowledging the partial uprating. I say this to the Minister: please go away and talk to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who spoke in 2003 about the injustices taking place at that time. The Government should accept the moral responsibility that we have for pensioners everywhere. To take the logic of the hon. Member for Worthing West, if we as Members of Parliament decided to go and live in the British Virgin Islands, we would get our pension. If it is right for us, it is right for everybody else. Let’s do the right thing.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House notes with concern that the pensions of 550,000 UK pensioners residing in a number of overseas countries will no longer be uprated; is further concerned that this unfairness will lead to hardship for overseas pensioners and that this measure will discourage many UK citizens living in the UK from returning to their country of origin as many wish to do in their retirement; regrets that the Government has taken this action which will lead to loneliness and anger among UK pensioners living abroad; and calls on the Government to withdraw this measure and pay UK pensioners at home and abroad their due state pension with the same uprating adjustment in the interests of fairness and equity.

[Mr Charles Walker (Broxbourne) (Con)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. May I seek your urgent advice? I and others are very concerned about the plight of licensed black cab drivers in London, many of whom are my constituents—I believe many are your constituents. How can I bring my concerns best to the attention of the new Mayor of London?