Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill

Ian Blackford Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 18th January 2023 Commons Chamber

[Ms Ghani]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There has been a lot of misinformation about the environment. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has committed to maintain or enhance standards. He is right that we had very little say over positions taken in Brussels, but now, in the Bill, those decisions are taken by the devolved authorities. That will remain devolved and they will have a say, so why would they want to give away that power?

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

The Minister spoke of taking back control, but the harsh reality is that the Government are taking back control from the Scottish Parliament. Yesterday we heard about the UK Government enacting section 35 to strike out a Bill of the Scottish Parliament. The Scotland Act 2016 contains the Sewel convention, which requires the UK Government to obtain the consent of the Scottish Parliament when they are acting in devolved matters. The Scottish Government are not giving their consent. What is good for the goose is good for the gander. Why should the Scottish Government not have the right to veto this Bill, which tramples over devolution and our laws in a way that we do not consent to?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)]

Order. Could I gently say to the Minister that in order to facilitate Hansard and hon. Members seeking to hear, it would be helpful if she could address the microphone rather than the Back Benches?

--- Later in debate ---

What this Bill does is give power to the devolved authorities. They will be able to take retained EU law and do with it as they please. They can keep it, they can revoke it, they can amend it, but they cannot extend it. Why can it not be extended? That is a point that has been raised, and it is one about which people have some concern, because this is technical. This is turning the status quo into domesticated law. If people want to make the political argument for extending laws, they have the ability to do that where it is devolved. They have the power to do it, but it is not this Bill. Likewise, in this Parliament, if we wish to extend the regulations, we have the ability to do so. That brings me to an entirely spurious point that is being made.

[Ian Blackford]

I hope the right hon. Gentleman will understand this point. Of course there is a difference: we wish to be back in the European Union as an independent country, but by dint of this Bill we are going to have to introduce legislation to make sure that we remain aligned with the European Union. We have no desire to do that, because we are already closely aligned. These measures are going to be forced on us, against our will, by this Parliament.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The right hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. There will be some work for the Scottish Parliament to do to maintain the status quo. That is a policy decision for the Scottish Parliament, resulting from a decision that was taken by the whole United Kingdom. That is how devolution works, and that is a proper and fair working of devolution. That, actually, is what gives the Scottish Parliament the power to do what it wants to do. It flows from our constitutional settlement, and from the overarching decision made by the British people, as one people, to leave the European Union.

I now come to the entirely bogus point about the threat to rights. In his opening speech on Second Reading, my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Dean Russell) made it clear, on the Government’s behalf, that the environmental rights would be maintained. The Government have been and are committed to that. But they will maintain them in UK law. We have been able to that before. I believe Henry Brooke was the Home Secretary who introduced the Clean Air Act 1956. The Conservative party has a pretty good record on that. It turns out that the Sale of Goods Act 1893, to which I earlier referred the Minister, was one of the last Acts of Gladstone, so the Liberals should be proud of their history of doing things in a British way rather than needing the European Union to do it. The Conservatives introduced the Holidays with Pay Act 1938—again, the protection of workers’ rights. That is before we go back to Lord Shaftesbury and the Factory Acts. We do not need to go into the mists of time to see that we can do it ourselves.

Finally, I must mention amendment 36. This is the man upon the stair. We all know about the man upon the stair:

“Yesterday, upon the stair, I met a man who wasn’t there. He wasn’t there again today. I wish, I wish he’d go away.”

If we do not know what our laws are, how are people supposed to obey them? If the laws are unknown, mystic and possibly imaginary, surely they should not be laws in the first place. They have made the best argument for getting rid of the man upon the stair who was not there in the first place.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir John Hayes]

The great constitutional theorist A.V. Dicey declared:

“The principle of parliamentary sovereignty means neither more nor less than this...that Parliament has the right to make or unmake any law whatever”.

When we joined the EU, despite the promise at the time of Europhilic politicians like Edward Heath that it was an economic community, what happened in practice was that this place paradoxically used the very sovereignty it had inherited from generations before to give up sovereignty and surrender parliamentary authority. The promise of Brexit was a repudiation of such international law making. I know that it discomforts the globalist liberal elite that that promise will and must be delivered, but that is how it is and how it will be. The people’s will must be seen and must be seen to be done, and that is precisely what this Bill is all about.

The journey since 2016 has not been easy. The doubters and deniers—the schemers and plotters—unable to let go of their Euro-federal fantasies, have conjured every trick imaginable to try to stymie Brexit. However, this Government are clear: we will deliver on the promise made in 2016 and restore parliamentary sovereignty to this country. In doing so, we will re-empower the people to whom we are answerable.

I will pick up a couple of points made by Opposition Members. I enjoyed the rhetoric of the SNP spokesman, the hon. Member for Stirling (Alyn Smith), which was as elegant as ever. I particularly enjoyed his criticism of hyperbole, which was immediately followed by a hyperbolic list of all of the things that are now at risk. Do any Opposition Members really believe that the Government or Government Members want less safety for our workers, dirtier rivers and less protection of the environment? If they do, they cannot have listened to what Members on the Tory Benches have advocated and fought for, in many cases, for years.

It is an absurdity that, six years on from the referendum, we remain shackled to thousands of articles of retained EU law. I accept that whether we keep, amend or discard those articles needs to be a thorough process, but there must be a single means of delivering that process, which is precisely what this Bill is. Some claim that this is a power grab, but this process—this business of secondary legislation; this use of statutory instruments —was how these regulations found form in the first place. It is a well-established practice that Governments through time have used to deal with such matters, and will again.

That detailed practice requires a Bill of the kind that has been drafted. Without such impetus, we risk wallowing in the malaise and self-doubt that can too often infect those tasked with grand undertakings. After six years, the British people deserve a deadline by which they can know for certain that Britons will live exclusively under British law, free from the interference of foreign powers. This Bill delivers the very certainty that those who criticised it have called for today. Such self-confidence is anathema to the hon. Members who still balk at the audacity of the 17 million Britons who believed in Britain enough to vote for Brexit.

To hon. Members who have signed amendment 36, I say that it is, by definition, an attempt to dilute, delay and obfuscate. Such efforts must be resisted. There are those who remain unreconciled to the decision of the British people to leave the EU, but any device to perpetuate our legislative connection to the EU is incompatible with our national interest and the common good. The unamended Bill facilitates the removal of our EU hangover through all the necessary, democratic mechanisms.

The Bill is a decisive and unequivocal declaration of self-confidence in self-governance. At last, we have a Government who display such self-confidence, free of the doubt and guilt that has infected politicians on both sides of the House for far too long. Edmund Burke said that what matters

“is not what a lawyer tells me I may do, but what humanity, reason and justice tell me I ought to do.”

What we ought to do now is deliver what the British people missioned us to do in 2016: to ensure that the laws and regulations that affect their lives are made in this House and that their Government are free to lead that process.

I enjoyed the speech of hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders), which was rather like a Russian novel—very long but with good bits—but he must know that there are any number of ways in which Ministers are accountable to the House. For example, they can be questioned orally and in writing, and they can be challenged through Opposition day debates, Standing Order No. 24 debates and urgent questions. Ministers should and will be held to account by both sides of the House in all kinds of formal and informal ways, but we could never hold to account those foreign powers that dictated our laws for far too long.

Now, we escape.

[Ian Blackford]

The right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) described the Bill as a pig in a poke. I think it is a pig in a poke that the Government have put lipstick on. We have heard about taking back control many times this afternoon, so I am at a loss to understand why Government Members would go through the Lobby in support of this Bill. In effect, a whole range of legislation will be wiped out, but they do not know what it is or what authority they are giving to the UK Government. They do not even know whether it will be 3,000, 4,000 or more pieces of legislation. It is extraordinary that a group of people who want to take back control are giving authority to the UK Government to do what they like without any scrutiny in this House—that is exactly the point of the Bill.

We have heard that we should not worry, because we will have statutory instruments and the ability to hold the Government to account, but the last time that the Government were defeated on a statutory instrument was in 1979—my goodness. Those who want to take back control talk about parliamentary sovereignty and the lack of democracy in the European Union, but all that they are doing is giving untrammelled powers to Ministers to do what they like. There is nothing that the Opposition or Government Back Benchers can do to effectively hold the Government to account. What an extraordinary set of circumstances.

SNP Members have always accepted that it is the right of others in other parts of the United Kingdom to determine their future. They want to leave the European Union, but we reject that—of course, we do not want to leave. As my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Alyn Smith) said, according to a recent opinion poll, 72% of the public of Scotland want to stay in the European Union. We have a tale of two different Parliaments moving in different directions. It is clear that Scotland is on a journey to independence and we will rejoin the European Union as a member, hopefully soon. To do that, however, we need to remain aligned with the European Union.

This is about democracy. We have referred to the Scotland Act 1998 on many occasions, as we did yesterday in the debate on section 35, and it is worth reflecting on the difference between what happened there and what is happening today. We have a Parliament in Edinburgh that we are proud of. There was a majority in that Parliament for legislation that was passed before Christmas, yet this Government in London can bring in legislation under the Scotland Act that strikes out an Act of the Scottish Parliament and there is nothing we can do about it. In this particular case, the legislation impinges on domestic legislation and devolved legislation in Scotland. The principle was established in the Scotland Act that in order to do that the principle of consent stood—the so-called Sewel convention. That means the devolved Government in Edinburgh, and in Cardiff and in Belfast, have to give consent for matters that affect domestic legislation. Yet we are told to go and stick it—the view of the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government that this is not in our interest and we do not consent to it.

We saw yesterday that a UK Government can strike down a Bill of a Scottish Parliament. Why does not the Scottish Parliament have the right to say to this Government that they are doing that without our consent? That demonstrates to the people of Scotland that devolution as it works at the moment means Westminster continues to call the shots. Westminster determines what happens in devolved legislation. It is a wake-up call to the people of Scotland in the debate we are having on independence that, if we want to secure the right to determine areas such as the economy, the environment and consumer protection, we cannot rely on the Westminster Government to protect our rights and we cannot stop a UK Government interfering in what are devolved matters. If we want to secure that protection, if we want to secure our rights, if we want to celebrate the joys we had of European membership from 1973 until now, we need to take the final steps.

Look at what has happened in this House this week: there has been the threat to the right to strike, the threat to democracy in Scotland yesterday, and the threat to the values and protections we have built over many years in the European Union. All are being swept away. This is a United Kingdom turning the clock back, moving backwards. We want to move forwards as a member of the European Union. That is why today we will push our amendments and reject this Bill.

[Mr David Jones (Clwyd West) (Con)]

The measures in the Bill are wholly necessary and greatly welcome. The retention of EU law after our departure from the European Union was certainly necessary in order to maintain temporary legal equilibrium and avoid gaps in the UK’s statute book. However, as time has passed, it has become increasingly anomalous for the United Kingdom to have a large body of foreign-derived legislation that is accorded supremacy over our own domestic law.

After almost half a century of EU membership, the United Kingdom has automatically absorbed a vast amount of EU legislation, which was either directly imposed or created by domestic subordinate legislation. Much of that legislation is probably obsolete. It was telling that around 1,400 items of EU law that everyone had apparently forgotten about were recently discovered in the National Archives. It seems self-evident that those pieces of legislation could not possibly have been of much practical utility if everybody had forgotten about them, but despite the fact that those items of law had been forgotten, they continue to have special status in our domestic legal system. Not only do they have supremacy over our domestic legislation, but they are interpreted in accordance with the general principles of EU law, rather than those of our own indigenous systems. They are a kind of EU cuckoo in the nest of the common law and Scots law.

It appears there are in total about 3,800 items of retained EU law, and the Government are entirely right to have decided to review them as quickly as possible and remove or assimilate them as appropriate. Furthermore, the Government are right to set out an ambitious timetable for the completion of that exercise through the sunset provisions of clause 1. Amendment 36 would hamper that process. The sunset provisions of clause 1 are of course intended to encourage and incentivise Government Departments to press on quickly with the exercise of identifying and reviewing individual items of retained EU law that affect them. Those Departments will then make a decision as to whether those items of law should be revoked, pursuant to clause 1, or assimilated into the domestic legal system, pursuant to clause 6. That is an entirely sensible process, which will ensure that those items of retained EU law that are not revoked pursuant to clause 1 become subject to the ordinary processes of the domestic legal system. That will be beneficial to businesses and citizens in that the well-understood principles of common law or Scots law, with their nimbleness and certainty, will apply to assimilated law rather than the unpredictable purposive approach of the EU legal system.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ms Ghani]

I must make some progress; I am worried about time running out. I must also speak in particular to amendment 36, mostly because my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Andrew Jones), who chairs the European Statutory Instruments Committee, made some fantastic interventions. The amendment states that we need greater transparency on how the process will continue. There are opportunities to be on Committees and to scrutinise legislation, but my hon. Friend made it clear that Labour MPs have not even turned up to take their places on the European Statutory Instruments Committee.

EU law that will be amended or repealed will go through the usual channels. Business managers and the Leaders of both Houses will take decisions. The European Statutory Instruments Committee will be involved, and the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee will be involved in the House of Lords, and we have the dashboard. Nothing could be more transparent, and it will involve colleagues from across the House.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford mentioned consumer rights. I want to put on the record that core consumer protections, as set out in the Consumer Rights Act 2015 and the Consumer Protection Act 1987, will continue to apply and remain unaffected. Furthermore, I reiterate my commitment that the dashboard, as I said earlier, will be published this month.

Turning to devolution, the Government recognise the importance of ensuring that the Bill is consistent with the devolved arrangements and remain committed to respecting the devolution settlement and the Sewel convention. The Bill will allow the devolved authorities to look at devolved law and take a decision on what they wish to assimilate, amend or revoke—decisions that they never had when we were a member of the EU. I would hope that those authorities would embrace that with both hands, not reject it.

[Ian Blackford]

Will the Minister give way?

[Ms Ghani]

I am reluctant to give way, because the intervention will end up being, “But we just don’t want to be here.” If it is on a different topic, I will give way to the right hon. Gentleman.

[Ian Blackford]

Will the Minister respect the right of the Scottish Parliament not to give consent to this Bill?

[Ms Ghani]

I find this extraordinary. The devolved authorities have the right to make decisions on devolved laws. Why would that not be embraced, instead of being rejected?

I must comment on the Bar Council’s evidence. Barrister Tom Sharpe KC noted that the Bar Council

“is our trade union, and it does not speak on my behalf on this political matter…obviously”.––[Official Report, Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Public Bill Committee, 8 November 2022; c. 24, Q43.]

An issue about deregulation was raised. It is not enshrined in any of the clauses, but the Bill says that overall burdens must be reduced.

Tidal Energy Generation: Ringfenced Funding

Ian Blackford Excerpts

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 ---

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Andrea Jenkyns.)

[Ian Blackford]

That 15% is equivalent to the contribution that nuclear makes. When we put into context the relative level of funding we are asking for, the scale of the opportunity is huge. We are talking about an industry in which Scotland and the UK lead the world in terms of technology. The ability to create green baseload electricity is there 24/7, 365 days a year, along with the capacity to use that technology and that ingenuity to export to Canada, Thailand, France, Japan and so on. There is a massive opportunity for us to benefit from that first-mover advantage, to get behind an industry where we can make sure that we control the entire supply chain and have the potential to navigate away from fossil fuels and create the jobs referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown).

[Ronnie Cowan (Inverclyde) (SNP)]

My right hon. Friend has talked of an opportunity. We have known about tidal energy for a long time. We should have invested in it 20, 30 or 40 years ago; if we had done so, we would have a much more mature industry today. If this Government do not invest now, we will look to the future and see nothing more than negligence.

[Ian Blackford]

We are where we are at the moment. My point to the Government is this. We know that the technology is there. We know that relative costs are already coming down dramatically; we can see that from the MeyGen project in the Pentland Firth, for example. Here is the opportunity to get behind something that could be revolutionary, in terms of providing clean energy—baseload energy, as I mentioned—but also the ability to create a manufacturing industry. We can perhaps learn from the mistakes that were made with wind turbines, and ensure that we are not relying on other countries to provide the infrastructure that we need, because we can do this ourselves. There is a responsibility that we have here, now, today, to get behind this industry.

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Ian Blackford]

I will give way one more time.

[Richard Graham]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, and I much appreciate his relatively new-found enthusiasm for the marine energy sector. I pay tribute to his colleagues, the hon. Members for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown) and for Inverclyde (Ronnie Cowan), for the help that they have given the all-party parliamentary group on marine energy, which I founded in July 2016. The group has 25 members, two of whom are from the Scottish National party, and their support is greatly valued. However, this is a great British success story, which has an impact on opportunities from the Isle of Wight, along the coast of Cornwall, up through Wales and into Northern Ireland.

As the right hon. Gentleman will know, this wonderful decision by the Government has been greeted by the chair of RenewableUK as a

“major step forward for the…tidal energy industry.”

The chair of the Marine Energy Council has said:

“The impact of this support cannot be overstated.”

Furthermore, Nova Innovation has said that this will be

“turbocharging the delivery of tidal energy”.

This is a pivotal moment, and I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will agree that it is a huge leap forward for marine energy.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Order. It is not customary to read out very long interventions.

[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.

[Douglas Chapman (Dunfermline and West Fife) (SNP)]

My right hon. Friend mentioned supply chains, and 25% of Nova’s supply chain spend is in Shetland, with 98% of its spend being in the UK. If the UK Government are serious about levelling up manufacturing, is this not a golden opportunity for them to get behind it fully, instead of the partial funding we have seen in the last 24 hours?

[Ian Blackford]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. Actually, 90% of the Nova project’s supply chain comes from the UK, but let me put that into context. For a traditional wind turbine, the UK contribution is some 30%. We lost the opportunity to command the supply chain for the traditional wind industry, and here is an opportunity to make sure we do not make the same mistake again. It is important the Government recognise that.

We have an opportunity to have a green future driven by green jobs, but it will happen only if the opportunity is matched by the ambition of Government investment. In truth, the ask from the industry is modest compared with the support offered to other sectors. The ask is for a £71 million ringfenced fund from the UK Government so the sector can flourish. Although the Government’s offer of £20 million in yesterday’s contracts for difference auction is a step in the right direction, it is not the full stride that the sector deserves.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun has repeatedly stated on the Floor of the House, £71 million is a drop in the ocean compared with the billions that have been offered to the nuclear industry. There was seemingly no problem in finding £1.7 billion to further develop and design the Sizewell nuclear power station. There can be no reason, no logic and no excuse for failing to find the £71 million needed to support this vital industry.

Let us remind ourselves of the potential. This is an industry that can grow to 15% of the UK’s electricity production. If we look at a typical day over the last few weeks, on 16 November nuclear contributed 14.6% of the UK’s electricity. We do not need nuclear in Scotland. We can provide the baseload we need from this clean source of energy. We have the potential to deliver safe green energy and to provide jobs and energy security for a fraction of the cost of nuclear.

There are many other favourable comparisons, too. The predictability and stable power output of tidal stream energy offers additional benefits over other technologies for our future energy supply. For instance, this predictability and stability even compares positively with floating offshore wind, which secured a £24 million ringfenced budget in the draft budget for the fourth-round allocation.

The ask is modest and the picture for investment is clear. If we do not grasp this opportunity, other countries will. Countries including Canada and France have already put in place financial mechanisms to capitalise on tidal energy. Canada has a feed-in tariff equivalent to £300 per megawatt-hour, with many multi-megawatt projects in the pipeline. Nova, based in Leith, has an order to ship 15 turbines to Canada. The Canadians would love to have our technology, and they are enticing companies such as Nova to relocate. The French Government are about to announce a feed-in tariff for tidal energy backed by the EU green deal. Japan and Indonesia are piloting projects and negotiating power purchasing agreements to accelerate tidal energy deployment. We need a domestic market for the industry to grow and thrive. It is a case of use it or lose it. It is that stark, it is that simple. The grim reality is that if the UK Government fall short and short-change this sector, the industry could be lost to other countries that are willing to invest in this technology. We are back to where we were with wind and, in many cases, where we were on oil and gas. We must make sure that we do not lose the full extent of this opportunity. We must make sure that tidal stream cannot be lost to Scotland and the UK—it will certainly not be lost to the world, and we need to make sure that we fully play our part .In case that all sounds familiar, we should remember exactly what happened to the wind industry in the 1980s and 1990s. As I have mentioned, only 30% of the UK supply chain for UK wind is domestically generated.

If we are to reach net-zero and have a just transition, we simply cannot repeat those mistakes of the past. Let us just think of the job opportunities through developing the Scottish, UK and global markets. There are expectations of a global market of 100 GW, an industry that will be worth £126 billion by 2050. We have a choice: lead this emerging green energy sector or sit back and watch our sector-leading companies move wholesale to overseas markets. We can embrace the opportunity for green jobs, for base-load energy and for transitioning to that green energy future. We can lead the world in tidal marine or we can walk away from the opportunity to develop and deepen the sector leadership that has been developed in Scotland and the UK.

It will come as no surprise to Members from across this House that I am not the biggest cheerleader or supporter of the UK Government. Normally when I walk into this Chamber, I do so to firmly oppose those on the Government Benches. Today, though, I walked into this Chamber with a different intention, because this is an issue where we have a chance to work together; here is an area, an industry and an opportunity where we can genuinely work together in our common interests. With a modest amount of support in terms of the overall intervention in energy—of £71 million—the industry can reach its potential and we can all benefit. I hope the Government see it that way too, and I hope that yesterday was only the first step and that there are bigger and better strides to come. I hope the Government are listening, and I very much look forward to the Minister’s response.

--- Later in debate ---

[Greg Hands]

I gladly accept my hon. Friend’s invitation to meet. He does a brilliant job as the chair of that APPG and he does an amazing job as the Prime Minister’s trade envoy to Indonesia. He mentioned one or two of the warm words of congratulation on the announcement yesterday. RenewableUK said it was “a major step forward” and that it

“puts us in pole position to”—

lead—

“the global market in due course.”

RenewableUK also said it would

“unlock private investment and secure green jobs”,

while Neil Kermode of the European Marine Energy Centre on Orkney said:

“This support for the marine energy industry is absolutely pivotal”.

I appreciate the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber having brought this topic to the House. He perhaps might have left one with the impression that just he had made representations to the Prime Minister, but I checked back and found representations from my right hon. Friends the Members for Portsmouth North (Penny Mordaunt) and for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Stephen Crabb), and from my hon. Friends the Members for Meon Valley (Mrs Drummond), for Rother Valley (Alexander Stafford), for Rugby (Mark Pawsey), for Banff and Buchan (David Duguid), for Isle of Wight (Bob Seely), for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie), for Moray (Douglas Ross), for Ynys Môn (Virginia Crosbie), for Truro and Falmouth (Cherilyn Mackrory), for Gloucester (Richard Graham), for Sedgefield (Paul Howell), for Blyth Valley (Ian Levy), for Workington (Mark Jenkinson), for North Cornwall (Scott Mann), for St Austell and Newquay (Steve Double), for North Devon (Selaine Saxby) and for Barrow and Furness (Simon Fell).

I heard some doubt from the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber as to whether the £20 million per annum is a substantial-enough sum to put the tidal stream sector on its best footing. Indeed, the right hon. Gentleman suggested that £71 million is the minimum required for the job. I am afraid I cannot agree with him on that, because £71 million would mean the awarding of a contract to virtually every developer who shows interest in the auction as long as they bid at a level just a single penny under our stated maximum price. He and I worked together in the City of London in our time. He will know from his knowledge of financial markets—I know that he has since rebranded himself as the simple crofter—that there is no way to run an auction of that sort in that way.

[Ian Blackford]

I hope that we can dispense with the silly gibes.

What I explained to the Minister was that £71 million would justify 100 MW of output. Perhaps he can explain what he expects to see from the £20 million. Crucially, I did point out that MeyGen has consent for 80 MW and that, within the envelope of that £71 million, it could have been fully exploited and ultimately ramped up to 400 MW. As things stand, MeyGen 2 cannot be fully exploited and that is the impact of not going to the £71 million.

[Greg Hands]

The right hon. Gentleman is mixing up funding with the process of an auction. It is a contract for difference auction. The idea of £20 million being available is that it allows us to have a competitive process between all of the different parties that may be interested, and then to make sure that at least £20 million goes towards these projects. It is not the same as granting funding, which is what I think he is looking for, of £71 million. It is a competitive auction process. The purpose of the CFD scheme is to support and push for—

UK Internal Market: White Paper

Ian Blackford Excerpts

Thursday 16th July 2020 Commons Chamber

[Alok Sharma]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right: that is precisely what I want to do. This is a consultation; we are consulting and we want to get people’s views. My door is very much open to having a dialogue and discussion with anyone who wants to come forward.

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

I thank the Secretary of State for his statement.

What we have seen put forward by the Tory Government is the biggest assault on devolution since the Scottish Parliament reconvened in 1999. It is clear that the Government either do not get Scotland or cannot even be bothered to get it, so let me remind those on the Government Benches that in 1997 more than 75% of Scots voted to establish the Scottish Parliament. The Tories at the time were hostile to the establishment of that Scottish Parliament; they were out of step with Scotland. Plus ça change. Today, the Tories want to strip our Scottish Parliament of its powers.

Let us myth-bust some of the lies that have been circulated this morning. Scotland is not getting 70 new powers. The UK Government say that new powers are coming on animal welfare, energy efficiency and land use; has the Secretary of State not heard? The Scottish Parliament already has those powers: just last month the Scottish Parliament passed a Bill on animal welfare; last year, the Scottish Parliament passed a Bill on forestry; and energy efficiency was part of the Climate Change (Scotland Bill) in 2009, more than a decade ago. We have these powers.

The Secretary of State’s proposal will impose what is being called a mutual recognition regime. The only recognition here is that it is a plan for a race to the bottom on standards. It will mean a reduction in standards in one part of the UK driving down standards elsewhere, even if that is in direct contradiction of the devolved Administrations and their rights and powers.

We all know how desperate this Tory Government are to sell out food standards in return for a US trade deal. There we have it: no new powers and a plan to destroy Scotland’s world-class food and drink standards—not a Parliament in Edinburgh of equals, but one where we legislate only with the approval of Westminster. I have to say to the Secretary of State: this is not a good look. Will he guarantee to the House that these plans will not be imposed on Scotland and that he and his Government will respect, as the Prime Minister often says, the Scottish Parliament’s decisions on them as an equal?

[Alok Sharma]

The right hon. Gentleman talks about understanding Scotland; the one thing that is clear from the statements he has just made is that he certainly does not understand business in Scotland and he certainly does not understand the people of Scotland on this issue. The UK internal market—[Interruption.] The UK internal market is about—[Interruption.]

Points of Order

Ian Blackford Excerpts

Monday 27th March 2017 Commons Chamber

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

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I would like to raise the issue of correspondence between me and the offices of the Minister of State responsible for universities and the Minister responsible for energy, who is in his place. I first wrote to the Minister of State to request a meeting for a business in my constituency—the Underwater Centre—on 14 November. It took some time to get a reply from the Department. I finally received one on 22 December, with an apology for the lack of a response. There was an unwillingness to meet and a suggestion that I take the issue up with the Minister responsible for energy and industrial supply. I did so on 22 December last year. I have chased his office on several occasions, by email and by phone, and we have yet to receive an email. We indicated to the Minister’s office by email last Friday at 12.33 pm that, given the unsatisfactory nature of the situation, I would be raising it as a point of order. I would like advice on what a Member can do when a Minister’s office wilfully seeks to ignore a request from a Member for a meeting with a company in his constituency.

[Mr Speaker]

Persist, persist, persist, I say to the hon. Gentleman. That is the advice I give him. His attempted point of order has opened an interesting window into his life, the administrative support he enjoys and the diary commitments—not least around lunchtime last Friday—to which he was subject, for which I am sure the House is immensely grateful, but I do not think we can take the matter any further. He knows that my advice will always be to persist—he himself is nothing if not a dogged terrier.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Jesse Norman)]

Further to the point of order raised by the hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford), Mr Speaker. I am afraid that I did not have notice of it, and I was not clear from what he said whether it was me to whom he referred. If it was, I would of course be delighted to meet him to discuss the issue he raised.

[Ian Blackford]

I am grateful for that clarification, but just to be absolutely clear—

[Mr Speaker]

No, no, no—no additional clarity is required. The hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford) is a very cheeky fellow. A simple nod of the head would suffice, which he has provided. In my experience, the Under-Secretary for Business, Industry and Industrial Strategy is as courteous as Members in this place come, so I think we will leave it that the hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber and the Minister will get together, possibly over a cup of tea, and discuss these important matters.

Fuel Poverty

Ian Blackford Excerpts

Tuesday 21st March 2017 Commons Chamber

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

I welcome this debate. I hope the Minister, in summing up, will reflect on the impact of high energy costs and high energy demand on the highlands and islands of Scotland in particular. As a highlands MP, I know that fuel poverty is a massive issue.

We need the Government to listen to our story, appreciate our particular situation and work with all of us to deliver fairness in energy charging that can offer hope that, working together, we can drive consumers out of fuel poverty. According to Scottish Government statistics, 34% of Scottish households are in fuel poverty, while for the highlands the figure is 56%; for the western isles, it is 59% and for Orkney it is 65%. Those are shocking statistics. More than half of households in much of the highlands and about two thirds of households in Orkney are in fuel poverty. Can we in this House accept those statistics?

I have to say that there have been times in the past when the House listened to the legitimate grievances of highlanders and islanders, and took action to improve our situation. Just over 100 years ago, in 1886, the House passed an Act that for the first time gave security of tenure to crofters. The clearances and the removal of people, often in a brutal way, was stopped by the crofting Act’s coming into force. In 1965, the Government established the Highlands and Islands development board, now known as Highlands and Islands Enterprise—a venture instrumental in reversing decades of economic decline in the highlands and islands.

I ask the House today to recognise the unfairness in the market for electricity costs that penalise highlanders and islanders. I am asking for the same consideration that was shown when the highlands required Government intervention in the past. We need it now to create fairness in electricity pricing. I accept that those of us from these areas live in some of the most beautiful parts of not just Scotland and the UK, but the world. But we cannot heat our homes with the breath-taking scenery. It is perhaps an enchanting landscape, but often there are biting winds, driving rain and long dark cold winter nights. The aesthetic beauty of the highlands can gladden the heart, but it will not deliver warmth to a pensioner at an affordable cost over a long winter.

We hear repeatedly that the Government want to help those who are just about managing. In many cases in the highlands, the cost of heating means that too many of our people are having to make the choice between putting food on the table and heating their homes. I mentioned that 56% of highland households are in fuel poverty, but 74% of our elderly population are in fuel poverty, of whom 34% are in extreme fuel poverty. I ask the House to dwell on these statistics and then consider what we can do to challenge this situation.

On the island of Skye, electricity came with the construction of the Storr Lochs hydro scheme in the early 1950s. The facility, apart from a small upgrade over the last few years, will now be virtually fully depreciated. It will be producing very cheap, almost free electricity on to the grid: cheap electricity that islanders then have to pay a premium to get back. It is simply an injustice that in an area of the highest levels of fuel poverty, where we produce cheap electricity, we are being overcharged. That is the reality.

There is the broader point that Scotland is an energy-rich country, whether from fossil fuels or our ability to deliver renewable energy today and in the future. Our unique characteristics as an energy producer should not be trapping our people in fuel poverty. Let us not forget that Westminster has extracted a bounty of £360 billion in taxation receipts from North sea oil since the 1970s. Where is the long-run benefit of this dividend? Why is it that the citizens of an energy-rich country such as Scotland, which has produced a bonanza for the Government, suffer fuel poverty to such an extent? We need to take into account the human cost of this failure to tackle head on the root cause of fuel poverty—high and unfair pricing through the lack of a universal market as one issue.

The charity Turn2us has found that one in two low-income households are struggling to afford their energy costs, despite being in work. Among the hardest hit are people with disabilities, with more than two in three of them, 67%, reporting their struggles. Families are also hard hit: almost two thirds of working parents, 65%, are unable to meet these costs. Worryingly, of the households that are struggling with energy costs, nearly half have done so for more than a year.

The knock-on effect is severe, with a third forced to skip meals and over a fifth experiencing stress and other mental health problems. Some of the comments made to Turn2us included these:

“The bills are killing me, sometimes I have to contemplate paying all the rent or heating my home…There are many pensioners like myself that don’t qualify for any help but still have to decide whether to heat or eat…Starve or freeze? Either way you get ill, 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.”

This is not an abstract discussion. These are comments from real people who are struggling on a daily basis. I remind Members that 70% of elderly highlanders are in fuel poverty. That is why people get angry when they see a lack of action. When we hear hon. Members questioning the retention of the triple lock on future rises for the state pension, many of us proclaim that this will not happen in our name. I became an MP to stand up for my constituents and I cannot accept that so many highlanders are in fuel poverty. There is a debate on Scotland’s constitutional future, and we will have a vote on our independence. Let me say that in an independent Scotland, we would recognise our responsibilities to those in fuel poverty and would take action to eradicate it.

The UK has a universal market for postal delivery, as for many other services. People pay the same price whether they live in Skye or Somerset, in Ardnamurchan or Avon, in Gairloch or Gloucester. Why is that not the case for electricity distribution charges? Why are highlanders and islanders facing a premium in electricity distribution charges just because of where they live?

The right hon. Member for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom) said in her capacity as energy Minister in 2015:

“It is not right that people face higher electricity costs just because of where they live.”

I commend the right hon. Lady for those remarks, but if they are to mean anything they have to be matched by actions from this Government. The issue is not just about the highlands and islands; there are 14 regional markets throughout the UK with different levels of network charges. It is not about price competition either, but about a regulated charge varying from region to region through a price control framework. The reality is that if people live in the highlands and islands, they will pay for the privilege—courtesy of the UK Government.

Electricity distribution charges for the north of Scotland are 84% higher than they are for London. Fuel poverty is exacerbated by the lack of a universal market. Westminster calls the tune; highlanders and islanders pay the price. We pay a high price for transmission charges, but we also have a high rate of energy consumption. The highlands and islands are noted for windy and wet conditions. It is not unusual for people in the highlands to have their heating on all year round. Ofgem noted in a study on the matter that households in the north of Scotland would benefit from a cost reduction of about £60 a year if there was a universal network charge. Sixty pounds would make a significant impact on someone on a low income or a pensioner.

In the highlands and islands, not only are people faced with high transmission charges, but many consumers suffer from a lack of choice in energy provision. Most households cannot benefit from a gas grid connection; the choice is often between electricity and domestic heating oil. The hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards), who is no longer in his place, noted that prices will go up substantially because of currency movements in the recent past. With such limitations, the last thing we need is price discrimination—for that is what it is—being foisted on us.

Where people live should not result in their being penalised by having to pay higher network charges. Where is the “one nation” that the UK Government speak of so fondly? [Interruption.] I notice that the Under-Secretary of State is laughing. I will happily give way to him if he wants to explain why he thinks this is a laughing matter; it is no laughing matter to people in the highlands and islands.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Jesse Norman)]

I am delighted to intervene on the hon. Gentleman to ask how he can seriously invoke the principle of “one nation”, to which my party has been an adherent for 100 years, when he is a Scottish National party Member who is campaigning to remove his country from this nation.

[Ian Blackford]

I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has risen to explain that, but he cannot get away from the fact that he sat there and smugly laughed when I made my point about the one nation. The point I am making is that it is your Government—I apologise for using the word “your”, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is the Government who are responsible for over-charging highlanders, because they will not recognise that we should have a universal market. It is the Government of the United Kingdom who should address that. Laughing, which is what the hon. Gentleman did, at highlanders and islanders is not acceptable. I hope people in Scotland were watching what happened on the Government Front Bench just now.

[Michael Tomlinson (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (Con)]

As ever, the hon. Gentleman is standing up to make an impassioned, eloquent and compassionate speech, but may I pick him up on one point? He mentioned “one nation”, and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary intervened. Earlier in the hon. Gentleman’s speech, he mentioned the triple lock. Is that not something for which to thank the Government, rather than castigate them? Will he acknowledge when the Government get things right, as well as challenge them when he perceives there are errors?

[Ian Blackford]

I will happily do so, and I have spoken about the triple lock on many occasions, but we have had debates here in the recent past in which many Members have questioned continuing with the triple lock. I am asking the Government to commit to retaining that triple lock in order to drive pensioners out of poverty. I commend the Government because they did the right thing in that particular case, but I hope that their commitment to the triple lock will be sustained so that it continues to drive pensioners out of poverty.

When they are right, I happily give credit to the Government, but I do not take kindly to Front-Bench Members laughing when I am standing up for my constituents in pointing out that the definition of “one nation” that the Government talk about is inappropriate when highlanders and islanders are not being treated fairly. There should be equity and fairness, but they do not exist in the UK today.

The highlands and islands of Scotland experience the harshest climatic conditions in the UK and record levels of fuel poverty. 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 per kilowatt-hour more than in most other parts of the UK, and 6p or more for the various “economy” tariffs on offer. Perhaps 2p per kilowatt-hour does not sound much, but it is a price premium of 15%. That is what this Government are doing to people in the highlands and islands. They are punishing people there on the basis of where they live, despite the fact that, in many cases, we produce the cheapest electricity, as we do in Skye. The Government are culpable over that, which is why I am asking the Minister to address the point when he sums up later this afternoon. That price for living in the highlands and islands is set by the Government, and it is not acceptable.

On top of all this, there is far greater reliance in off-gas areas on using domestic heating oil and solid fuel, which pushes up household heating costs further still. As a result, domestic energy bills in off-gas areas are, on average, £1,000 more per annum than the £1,369 dual fuel national average for 2014. Figures from the Lochalsh & Skye Energy Advice Service in my constituency suggest that the average total heating bills in Skye and Lochalsh amount to an eye-watering £2,218 per annum; for those whose primary heating is from oil, the average is as high as £2,519. To cap it all, electricity customers with prepayment meters, often the least well off, not only have to pay additional standing charges, but are discovering that their notional right to change to a cheaper supplier has become impracticable.

The Government must also accept that having 14 regional markets in the UK, with consumers in the highlands and islands paying a premium, is discriminatory. Many Members claim that responsibility for fuel poverty is devolved, which of course it is, but we have no control over the pricing or the regulatory environment; we can deal only with the consequences of fuel poverty that are symptoms of a market that is wholly under the jurisdiction of Westminster.

Our Government in Edinburgh have taken a range of actions to mitigate the effects of fuel poverty, but we need the tools that would come with having greater powers—notably through independence—to be able to deal fully with the circumstances that lead to fuel poverty. We are having to clear up the effects of the lack of a universal market and the pricing regime. Tackling fuel poverty has been a priority for the SNP Government, and by 2021 we will have committed over £1 billion to making Scottish homes warmer and cheaper to heat.

The financial support to tackle fuel poverty is increasing. The Scottish Government’s budget for fuel poverty and energy efficiency measures in 2017-18 will be £114 million, an increase of more than 11% on the previous year. An independent review of the way in which fuel poverty is defined has been undertaken by a panel of four academic experts in the light of concerns that current definitions may be impeding efforts to target those most in need. In the meantime, there is a new pilot programme in rural areas offering targeted support to cut energy bills.

Although fuel prices are beyond our control and fuel price moves can militate against our efforts to reduce fuel poverty, it is welcome that, owing to relatively stable market conditions, the number of people in fuel poverty in Scotland has fallen by 100,000. That reduction was heavily influenced by the measures that we have introduced. However, it is worth noting that fuel poverty in Scotland would be at only 8% if fuel prices had only risen in line with inflation between 2002 and 2015. High and rising pricing is our biggest enemy—and I use that word advisedly.

Scottish Government action has been commended by, among others, the Scottish Fuel Poverty Strategic Working Group in a recent report, but more needs to be done in a holistic manner to tackle the scourge of fuel poverty. New affordable homes are part of that mix, and this year the Scottish Government will invest £590 million to increase the supply of affordable homes in Scotland. Targeted financial support of £1,900 for low-income families through the Best Start grant also helps—support, incidentally, that is £1,400 higher than what is on offer from the UK Government.

We are taking our responsibilities seriously. Through those measures, through such initiatives as supporting a real living wage and through the recently published Child Poverty (Scotland) Bill, we will use our powers to improve the conditions of many of those who are suffering fuel poverty in Scotland.

Finally, I want to reflect on the recently announced 14.9% increase in electricity pricing by SSE and on the fact that a 5% increase in prices pushes an additional 46,000 people in Scotland into fuel poverty. In the past, I have commended SSE for its customer service and the astonishing way in which its staff respond when bad weather leads to power interruptions, as it sometimes does during the winter months in the highlands. The speed of the response of the company and its customer service have been exemplary. Notwithstanding that commendation, however, it should be recognised that being effectively a near-monopoly supplier in the highlands and islands also brings a duty to act in a spirit of social responsibility. After all, in many respects SSE is a public utility in all but name. A price rise of this magnitude is simply not justified; the company has let itself down.

We await SSE’s financial results for the year to March 2017, but its interim statement forecast a year of growth and dividend increases. In the year to March 2016, its dividends to shareholders increased by 18.3% to £708 million. I would caution the company to ensure that it behaves in a socially responsible manner at all times. Increasing rewards to shareholders so generously does not sit well with the reality of so many of its customers being in fuel poverty, and now being pushed further into fuel poverty by this price increase. I am not against the company’s making a reasonable return on its investments—it must generate sufficient cash to invest in future electricity generation—but it must also balance the needs of all its stakeholders. In particular, affordability and the ability to pay bills must be at the heart of its thinking when it is addressing executive pay and shareholder rewards.

I welcome today’s debate, but we need action from the UK Government, most notably on the creation of a universal market. People should not be penalised because of where they live. Equity and fairness must be introduced, and it is time for the Government to take appropriate action.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jesse Norman]

I have just covered that. I am embarrassed that my remarks should be so ill-attended. The regulations for the new scheme, which launches on 1 April 2017, represent an increase from £310 million to £450 million a year. Combined with the warm home discount, that gives £770 million of support for low-income and vulnerable customers in 2017-18.

We have also taken steps to improve targeting. The eligibility criteria for the ECO scheme, which is proposed to run from April 2017 to the end of September 2018, will improve the targeting rate to 34%. We do not believe that is enough. The targeting rate can go higher, and the Digital Economy Bill, which the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough mentioned, is currently going through Parliament and will enable greater data sharing and give the Government the opportunity to improve the targeting of the next generation of fuel poverty schemes, including the warm home discount.

When the regulations were made last summer, the Government stated that there is more to be done to target the schemes at those who most need them. That is still true, with the current targeting rate of fuel poor households at around 15%. However, Members should note that increasing that proportion in the current scheme, which is committed to 2021, would be at a cost to other low-income households. We will be mindful of that factor when making decisions on the future direction of the scheme.

The hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Marion Fellows) criticised the Government, whom she regarded as presiding over stagnant real incomes. All I can do is direct her to the fact that, last year, full-time pay grew by 0.7% in Scotland, whereas it grew by 1.9% in the UK as a whole. According to Scottish Parliament numbers, it fell for the three years following 2012.

I yield to no one in my admiration for the hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford), and I was grateful for his support in being elected Chair of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee. He also comes from a nation I deeply revere and whose history I greatly respect, but I am afraid that he has embarrassed himself in this debate with an unworthy attempt to personalise a very serious set of issues. Mine was a response to the gap, which the stricture on unparliamentary language prevents me from describing as anything more than disingenuous, between his words and his deeds. The fact of the matter is that these matters are devolved. Even so, the Government have offered support, as I described, through the ECO, the warm home discount and a hydro benefit replacement scheme of £58 million to reduce energy distribution charges. Were network charges made universal across the country, as he desired, 1.8 million people in Scotland would face higher bills, and only 0.7% would see reductions. Does he really wish to add to the bills of 1.1 million Scotsmen and women?

[Ian Blackford]

It was the predecessor Minister who made the point that people should not be penalised because of where they live—nobody should pay more. It is a matter of fairness that there should be a universal market, as exists in many other European countries. We have such things in other areas in the UK. Why do we not have a universal market for electricity distribution?

[Jesse Norman]

I am grateful for the respectful nature of the hon. Gentleman’s question. The answer is simple: it would increase charges to an additional 1.1 million people in his country, and no responsible Government should look on that with favour.

Finally, the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough referred rightly to the health effects of fuel poverty, and we, correctly, recognise that issue. She suggested that fuel poverty in homes had risen; I have explained how, in fact, it has fallen broadly since 2010—from roughly 2.49 million to 2.38 million homes. She invites the Government to tackle the root causes of fuel poverty, but that is exactly what we are doing.

Further to my comments about the last Labour Government, it should never be forgotten that the real wages of the bottom third of the population of this country stopped growing in 2003, not in 2008—it was a function not of the financial crash but of a whole series of factors and of bad government, and we should recognise that.

The hon. Lady said the Government need to be more ambitious, and we are being extremely ambitious. We have a transitional arrangement that runs through until September 2018. We then expect a further supplier obligation, on which we will consult later this year, to take us through to 2022.

We know that households living on low incomes are all too often left to live in the coldest and least efficient homes. We know that living in a cold home can have negative implications, to say the least, for health and wellbeing. The official 2016 fuel poverty statistics showed that, despite progress towards the 2020 milestone, with 88% of homes rated E or above in 2014, there remains a significant challenge if we are to make progress to the 2030 fuel poverty target.

The statistics show that only 7% of fuel-poor households were rated B, C or higher in 2014, which clearly shows that the fuel poverty target we have adopted, which was set in 2014, is ambitious, and rightly so. That legal target makes it clear that the Government do not accept the situation. [Interruption.] If I may respond to the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr Whitehead), who is chuntering from a sedentary position, it also shows that we are committed to providing support to those households that need it most. Undeniably, that means there is a lot of work to do to ensure that the energy-efficiency of low-income homes is improved. We cannot now, in 2017, prescribe exactly which policies, regulations and innovation will be required to meet the 2030 target—we will consult next year on work to a target until 2022—but we can ensure that we continue as a nation, as a country, together to move forward and take action.

Parliament will, of course, continue to play an invaluable role in holding Government to account against this objective over the next decade, and I thank the hon. Members who have spoken today for their contributions to this worthwhile and useful debate.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered fuel poverty.

Nissan: Sunderland

Ian Blackford Excerpts

Monday 31st October 2016 Commons Chamber

[Greg Clark]

As the hon. Lady knows, the Chancellor has already made a commitment to continue that European funding that has already been committed to but, of course, much of the support that we have given to training and skills development in the automotive sector is from our own resources, and one of the things that I was able to say was that we regard that as important and continuing.

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

We know that there are attempts to do a deal for the City of London and we now know there is a deal for Nissan. At the same time, however, the Fraser of Allander Institute tells us there is a threat to 80,000 jobs in Scotland. Why is it that, when our First Minister comes down here, she is shown the door? There is a deal for Nissan, but there is no deal for Scotland from this Government.

[Greg Clark]

I have had the pleasure of meeting the First Minister at least twice since I took up this job. What I have said to her, personally and directly, is that, as we develop our industrial strategy, Scotland will have a big place in that. Of course it is important that all parts of the United Kingdom need to benefit from our industrial success in the future. The hon. Gentleman may know that, in terms of the city deals that have been negotiated between the UK Government, the Scottish Government and the various councils, we have, and I personally have—I think he would acknowledge this—a track record in making those discussions work.

BHS

Ian Blackford Excerpts

Thursday 20th October 2016 Commons Chamber

[Jeremy Quin (Horsham) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the wise words of the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr Wright), and it was a pleasure to serve with him on the joint Committees. May I associate myself with the remarks that he and the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Frank Field) have made about our hard-working Committee Clerks throughout the process?

When the news of BHS broke, I felt bad about the loss of a high street icon, desperate for the employees affected—including those in my constituency—and very concerned about the pensioners involved. I have a confession to make to the House, however. My gut reaction was that a Committee inquiry would simply rake over the ashes of a sad event, with little to be gained. I was initially not convinced that the inquiry would be productive, but I was persuaded to take part. I am glad that I did, and I am glad that this inquiry has taken place, because we can lay concerns before the House.

The largest concerns, for me, are not particularly about the trading circumstances leading to the demise of BHS—although it seems, as the hon. Member for Hartlepool has said, as though there was little magic around the revitalisation of BHS’s margins in the early years of its ownership by Sir Philip Green. Dividend payments, generous as they were and exceeding profits as they did, may or may not have undermined BHS through underinvestment. That would be hard to prove, but it is a perfectly sensible question to pose.

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

Should we not be raising questions if any company pays out dividends in excess of its free cash flow? That should ring alarm bells, and perhaps there should be a test that companies need to meet if they behave in such a way.

[Jeremy Quin]

The hon. Gentleman, as so often, reads my mind. If he is a little patient, he will hear me make a similar point later in my speech.

On the period during which very generous dividends were paid, directors cannot be expected to have the gift of prophecy, but they can be expected to understand the fundamental trends driving the underlying profitability and sustainability of their business. I am far from convinced that that was the case in this situation. The most serious questions, as raised by the hon. Members for Hartlepool and for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds), are about the corporate governance of large private companies with millions of employees and pensioners.

Unlike my feisty friend, my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Richard Fuller), I intended not to refer to the individuals directly concerned in the sad demise of BHS, but to focus on the more general lessons to be learned. I am afraid that I have been drawn back to the circumstances of BHS after reading the joint legal opinion produced for Taveta Investments Ltd by learned counsel last night. As the right hon. Member for Birkenhead said, the two lead QCs make a point of saying that they are friends of the chairman of TIL. I hope that their report, which is considerably longer than the report of the joint Committees that it analyses, was not unduly costly. The report basically starts by saying, “Let’s pretend this is not a parliamentary inquiry, but some other kind of inquiry. Would that type of inquiry be set aside by the courts?” Having set up an irrelevant question, the opinion produces an irrelevant answer.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

This debate has been called in several of our names, and I take particular pleasure in following the speeches of many earlier contributors, but especially those of the Chairman of our Select Committee, the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Frank Field), and my colleagues on the joint Committees, the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr Wright) and my hon. Friends the Members for Bedford (Richard Fuller) and for Horsham (Jeremy Quin).

I will start by saying what the debate is not about. It is not an attempt to suggest that the deficit of any pension scheme in this land is entirely the fault of one individual, or, indeed, the responsibility of the owner of any sponsoring scheme. It is also worth noting that, of the some 6,000 defined-benefit pension schemes in the United Kingdom, about 1,000 are in difficulties of various kinds and very few indeed have surpluses. The situation of the BHS pension scheme is not particularly unique, but the circumstances around it are.

That brings me to my second point. The deficits of pension funds go up and down. They do so particularly quickly at a time when interest rates are moving fast. The value of assets is driven by bond yields; when those are depressed, and that is exacerbated by quantitative easing and monetary policy, pension deficits will clearly rise. All sorts of people are responsible for that, including the scheme’s investment policy makers and investment managers; the costs of all those involved make a significant difference to the scheme deficit as well. I totally accept the argument in the 80-page report by Sir Philip Green’s lawyers that longevity and the macro-economic environment make it difficult for schemes to improve their funding situation.

[Ian Blackford]

I agree with every comment that the hon. Gentleman has made, but does he not accept that part of the difficulty we are in with defined-benefit schemes has been the Government’s policy of giving responsibility to the Bank of England in the quantitative easing programme, which is now at £435 billion? If we look at what has happened recently, the 50 basis point reduction in yields means about £120 billion on the defined-benefit pension deficit. The Government have created that by refusing to balance fiscal and monetary policy.

[Richard Graham]

I do not remotely accept the argument in that intervention. This is not a debate about the Bank of England’s monetary policy. The hon. Gentleman would be well advised to read the transcript of the Work and Pensions Committee’s hearing with the Bank of England Deputy Governor three days ago, which I chaired in the absence of the right hon. Member for Birkenhead—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford) is not paying attention, as usual. He would be well advised to read that evidence. Getting rid of quantitative easing will not solve the pension scheme problems, and, in particular, will not solve the problems of the BHS pension scheme. With his approval, I will return to the subject we are discussing.

Before the hon. Gentleman intervened I was remarking that the circumstances of the BHS pension deficit were extraordinary, and that is what I want now to come on to. The BHS scheme went from surplus to large deficit in about 10 years, without any clear plan or any really significant action by the sponsor, without decent relationships between the trustees and the sponsor, with conflicts of interest between some of the trustees appointed by the sponsor that they largely did not recognise during our inquiry, and with contribution holidays in the years when Taveta Investments, the owner of BHS, was taking out large dividends. All that cannot, by any stretch of the imagination, be described as best practice. The plan put forward to resolve the deficit—a staggered series of injections over 23 years—without any evidence of a long-term commitment by the owners to the company, is also not best practice. Our report highlighted that there was an issue with the regulator approving very long-term solutions.

Then we come to the moment of the sale of BHS, when information was withheld both from trustees and from the Pensions Regulator. There was a certain amount of dispute between the seller and the buyer about pressure on the buyer not to communicate with the Pensions Regulator at all, which was reiterated in further evidence submitted to the Select Committee only yesterday by RAL, the buyer. Most significantly, there was no attempt whatever at pre-clearance of the sale with the Pensions Regulator. Most shocking of all to many of us is the concept from both the buyer and the seller that in effect BHS was being sold debt-free, yet it had such an enormous pension deficit. That is at the very least disingenuous. It was naive of the buyer and cynical of the seller.

That brings us to Sir Philip Green himself. He said on 15 June:

“I want to respond to Mr Graham…We want to find a solution for the 20,000 pensioners. We still believe that money into the PPF does not resolve it. Without getting into it…the schemes are quite complex…We will sort it and we will find a solution. I want to give an assurance to the 20,000 pensioners—I am there to sort this in the correct way.”

With that, none of us could disagree. The question, of course—and this is why today’s motion and debate are important—is what has happened in the four months since. There has been some dialogue with the Pensions Regulator. That is absolutely clear. But the public want to know when this is going to be resolved. They are worried that after our report nothing is really going to happen and that an important and powerful man will not be held to account. Today is an opportunity for this House to stress our commitment to holding Sir Philip Green to account.

--- Later in debate ---

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

It is a privilege to speak in the debate. I thank the Committees for the report and the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Frank Field) for securing this important debate.

The issue of quantitative easing has come up, and I have to say that the powers of analysis of the hon. Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham) have somewhat deserted him today. He cannot get away from the fact that having had a quantitative easing programme of £435 billion, there is no underlying investment in the real economy. The only conclusion we can logically draw is that business does not have confidence in the economy, and that is why the interrelationship between fiscal and monetary policy is important. We need to get back to a balanced scenario in which interest rates reflect a normal economy. That is what the Government have to take responsibility for and that is what the hon. Gentleman seems to ignore.

The UK Government need to see the work of the Select Committees and the outcome of the debate as a lesson, and to acknowledge that we need to take action now that protects us all from outcomes that we have seen with BHS. The BHS pension scheme, representing 20,000 past and present workers, is in deficit by perhaps more than £500 million, meaning that scheme members face reduced entitlements. That is what should be at the heart of this matter. The reduced pensions of the workers and all those who lost their job should be what concerns us today. Why should pensioners be put at risk and fail to be protected from what is now fully acknowledged as corporate greed? As legislators, we all have to look at ourselves and ask what we could have done differently to have ensured that this situation did not arise in the first place.

This issue highlights the fundamental need to address the regulation of the pensions industry. Approximately 11 million people rely on a final salary pension scheme run by a private sector company. Schemes have come under increasing pressure as funding has become stretched, with about 5,000 private sector defined-benefit schemes now in deficit to the tune of more than £900 billion, according to Hymans Robertson. Despite the view that the hon. Member for Gloucester takes, we cannot escape the impact of quantitative easing and the lack of a balanced response from the Government. It defies logic not to have that.

As I highlighted on Second Reading of the Savings (Government Contributions) Bill, the previous Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the right hon. Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Stephen Crabb), said in this House:

“there is a very real systemic issue with DB pension schemes that we need to look at, and my Department will be discussing it further in the months ahead.”—[Official Report, 11 July 2016; Vol. 613, c. 10.]

Since that statement, despite questions from the SNP, there has been silence from the UK Government. Where is the response to the fundamental challenges facing pensions today and what some might argue is a crisis for defined-benefit schemes? When will the Government face up to the challenges and threats to many who are beneficiaries of those schemes? When will the Government respond in detail to what the former Work and Pensions Secretary said was “systemic risk”? That was no throwaway line; a senior Cabinet Minister was admitting what we know to be the case. Does the Minister agree with that assessment given to this House and will she address the point this afternoon? What are the Government doing to deal with their own analysis of systemic risk? Sadly, I suspect the answer is still nothing.

Nothing is being done. The Government have been caught like a rabbit in the headlights—caught doing nothing in the face of systemic risk that threatens the interests of pensioners up and down the country. In the light of the Government sitting on their hands, I welcome the recently announced Select Committee inquiry to examine the adequacy of the Pension Regulator’s powers. That must be welcomed, but why should we be reliant on the Work and Pensions Committee? Why are the Government not doing their job and addressing this issue?

Scottish National party MPs will work to strengthen the powers of the regulator to ensure that the Philip Greens of the world are dealt with effectively when they seek to avoid their pension responsibilities. It is, however, a duty of government to protect citizens from undue pensions risk and the systemic risk to which the Secretary of State referred. Ultimately, defined-benefit pension schemes need to be placed on a sustainable footing and employees must be protected. I look forward to seeing whether the Minister responds to this when she makes her speech, but perhaps I should not hold my breath. More likely, she will have a Government briefing of handwringing, and then she will wait for the debate to end and scurry for cover. After all, we do not expect real answers from this Government.

Brexit means that pension disasters such as BHS and Tata Steel will be much more likely challenges for UK companies. Only when companies are able to afford to keep their promises to employees can pension funds be regarded as safe. Even large and successful companies can fail. The Pension Protection Fund offers help in such cases, but Cass Business School forecasts that up to 1,000 pension schemes could end up in the PPF over the next few years. There are more BHS disasters to come if that is correct. There will be a combined deficit of £45 billion, which would be overwhelming.

Let us try to take this out of politics. The SNP has long called for the establishment of an independent pensions commission to ensure that employees’ savings are protected and a more progressive approach to fairer savings is considered as we move to a period in which defined-benefit schemes are becoming a thing of the past. Why will the Government not do that? Why do we not establish a pensions commission that can consider all these issues in a holistic manner?

Let us come back to BHS—[Hon. Members: “Yes.”] Well, of course Government Members do not want to talk about the Government’s responsibilities, because they have run away from them. They can scoff and laugh, but 20,000 pensioners at BHS are going to suffer and thousands of people have lost their job while the Government looked on from the sidelines. That is the reality of this Tory Government.

Let us come back to BHS, perhaps this time without the laughter from the Government Members. I hope the BHS workers are watching the response of Government Back Benchers. How disgraceful; how contemptuous of people in this country!

[Richard Graham]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Andrew Bingham]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Ian Blackford]

I will make some progress and then perhaps I will give way—[Interruption.] I will give way in a second.

Philip Green’s weak apology is a case of too little, too late. He lined his pockets and did not stop to think about his employees. On Tuesday 18 October, Philip Green decided to say he was “sad and very sorry” for the hardship caused by the BHS collapse and that he still wanted to sort out the pension deficit. Green has still tried to defend the indefensible and duck his duties to workers by shifting the blame.

[Jeremy Quin]

I am grateful for being allowed to intervene on the hon. Gentleman. The point that Government Members are making is simply that we have heard a very long speech about systemic pension risk. That may be an issue, but it could be an issue for another occasion. The Select Committees produced a worthy report of more than 60 pages specifically about BHS. I am relieved that the hon. Gentleman is actually addressing BHS, the employees who have lost their jobs and the pensioners who have been left with less benefits than they should rightly have expected. I am delighted he is finally getting to that part of his speech. We look forward to the rest of it.

[Ian Blackford]

I thank the hon. Gentleman. I am aware of the time and I am about to sum up. The point I was making is that we have been put in a situation whereby workers have suffered as a consequence of the actions of Philip Green, but the Government must not think that they can walk away from their responsibilities to regulate business and pension schemes in this country effectively.

I recognise that Sir Philip owes it to the BHS pensioners to find an urgent resolution, but we need to look at corporate governance in the UK to see what can be done to offer protection from the kind of corporate excesses that have taken place with BHS. The Prime Minister has talked about doing that, so she should bring forward the proposals. While Philip Green’s hands are filthy, the Tory Government’s paws are not so clean either. After a lifetime of shying away from an effective crackdown on the corporate irresponsibility of the likes of Green, we are beginning to catch up in the United Kingdom. It is about time that the UK Government took action and the Minister gave us some answers.

--- Later in debate ---

[Margot James]

I am not aware of the specifics, but I thank the hon. Lady for raising that important point. I assure the House that neither the Government nor the regulator is complacent when it comes to the regulation of schemes or the powers needed to tackle and deter this sort of misbehaviour.

[Ian Blackford]

Will the Minister give way on that point?

[Margot James]

No, I am going to continue.

If we need to bring forward further legislation in light of all the evidence, including that emerging from the BHS investigation, we will do so. In the meantime, we must allow the independent regulator the time it needs to prepare any case and to follow the statutory process wherever it goes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Clive Lewis (Norwich South) (Lab)]

First, I thank the Backbench Business Committee for organising this debate on such a timely subject. I also thank the combined Select Committees for their report, as that work has brought us here today. They deserve great credit for having so patiently and thoroughly investigated this whole sordid, shabby affair. I also thank colleagues who have participated in today’s debate, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr Wright) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Frank Field), both of whom, through their fantastic chairmanship of their Select Committees, have shone a light on some of the systematic abuses by Sir Philip Green and his accomplices. I should also mention the suggestion made by my hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Middleton (Liz McInnes) of stripping Sir Philip Green of his knighthood and awarding it to one of his former employees, a self-confessed cynic—how could we blame him for being a cynic after what has happened in the past few years?

I have referred to contributions made by hon. Members today, and it is clear that this issue cuts across party lines. There is a great deal of anger in the House, which reflects the anger that many of those who elected us are feeling. Sir Philip Green treated BHS as his own personal plaything. He failed to invest in the company’s branches, he neglected the brand and he ran down the pension scheme. In effect, he used the company to line his own pockets and then jumped ship like the proverbial rat from a sinking ship. Despite that woeful, even wilful, neglect of this historic company, he still retains his knighthood for “services to retail”.

The House has rightly expressed widespread incredulity at that state of affairs, a view that I share entirely. All human societies have found ways of honouring those who have acted with great distinction. We recognise those who receive such honours as people who have enriched all of our lives—people whose lives challenge us all to try to emulate theirs. Although it is clear that Sir Philip Green has, by his actions, tarnished the honour that we, as a society, have given him, he has tarnished his own good name far more gravely. Stripping him of his knighthood will not create jobs for the 11,000 who lost them. It will not fill the £571 million deficit in the pension fund. It will not fill the hole left on high streets up and down the country. It will not pay back the £6 million owed to Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs. Nor will it ensure that firms in BHS’s supply chain, many of which are small businesses, the foundation stones of our economy, are paid what they are owed.

Our first priority is to save the pension fund. As far as I am concerned Sir Philip Green can keep his honour, provided he pays back the pension deficit in full from his own ample wealth. He should make good his wrongs with deeds, not just the good intentions that he offered the Select Committee. But if all we do today is posture in condemnation of one man, we are doing little except indulging in competitive scapegoating. I am sure I speak for many people in this country when I say this: the most extraordinary thing about this whole affair is that legally, Sir Philip Green has done nothing wrong. Had he broken the law, and were he just a criminal caught with his hands in the till, it would have been up to the courts to act, but he is not a criminal, and there is no suggestion that he is. This House can rightly condemn the actions of the man, but we cannot escape our own responsibility for this affair. Where are our laws made? Here. Who makes them? We do. Who is responsible when powerful men shamelessly rip off the weak, and yet they have not broken the law? We are.

[Ian Blackford]

I am very heartened to hear the hon. Gentleman’s remarks. Does he not share my disgust that the Government have failed to learn lessons from this debacle, and have failed to put any proposals forward so that we ensure that we do not have any other situations such as BHS again?

Oral Answers to Questions

Ian Blackford Excerpts

Tuesday 13th September 2016 Commons Chamber

[Greg Clark]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. It seems essential to me that we should have a strategy for the whole country, but place is incredibly important, and the challenges of places such as Greater Manchester are different from those of Cornwall. We should reflect more clearly the different strengths and opportunities of different places in how we do business as a Government.

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

Does the Minister accept that the changes to subsidy for the biomass combined heat and power plants have been brought in too quickly, and that a longer grace period should have been granted before implementation? BSW Timber in my constituency, which is doing what the Government want by investing in renewable technology, stands to lose up to £3 million in support. Will the Minister meet me to discuss these changes and talk about what—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Let me say in all kindness and charity to the hon. Gentleman that he was at his best at the end of the first sentence. A blue pencil should thereafter have been applied.

Draft National Minimum Wage (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2016

Ian Blackford Excerpts

Thursday 8th September 2016 General Committees

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Wilson. I welcome the Minister to her place.

The UK national living wage is not a living wage; it is simply a further tier of the national minimum wage. The real living wage is calculated according to the basic cost of living, and therefore takes account of the adequacy of household incomes for achieving an acceptable minimum living standard. We can all remember the debates that we had in this House over the past year about tax credits, and I think we all want to get to a situation in which there is dignity in work, in which everyone can earn a decent living, and in which people do not have to look to the state to top up employees’ wages for employers because people are not paid at the right level. The Government have missed an opportunity to introduce the real living wage.

Why did the UK Government decide to set an arbitrary rate for the national living wage? That fundamentally challenges the value of having an organisation that provides independent advice on wage levels across the UK. Where is the Government’s analysis that suggests that their new minimum wage—that is what it is—is set at the right level? I contrast the behaviour of the Government in London with that of the Scottish Government, who support the payment of a real living wage of £8.25 an hour, and who became an accredited living wage employer in 2015. When do the UK Government expect to be an accredited living wage employer? I am proud of our record in Scotland of implementing the living wage across the public sector, but we recognise there is much more to do.

The Scottish Government appointed an independent Fair Work Convention, which published its Fair Work framework on 21 March 2016. The convention recognises that fair work is work that offers security, opportunity, fulfilment, respect and an effective voice. Our Government have taken action to promote fair working practices through procurement. For example, the Procurement Reform (Scotland) Act 2004 took every opportunity to tackle the need to ensure that people had a living wage through procurement. What action are the UK Government taking through procurement to make sure the living wage is adopted?

On 6 October 2015, we published statutory guidance addressing fair work practices, including ensuring that public contracts provided for the living wage. This goes further than any other Administration, and makes it clear that the Scottish Government consider payment of the living wage to be a significant indicator of an employer’s commitment to fair work practices. Furthermore, the Scottish Government require public bodies to consider whether a question on fair work practices, including paying the living wage, can be included as part of any procurement competition. Will the UK Government do the same?

[The Chair]

Order. The statutory instrument is about the national minimum wage, not the national living wage.

[Ian Blackford]

I am making the point that the Government should address the disparity between the minimum wage and the living wage, and I am asking what actions the Government will take. We will support the Government’s regulations today, but we are saying that they do not go far enough. What will the Government do over the months ahead to strengthen the legislation to make sure that there is full dignity, as far as the real living wage is concerned?