Scottish Independence and the Scottish Economy

Debate between Ian Blackford and Mhairi Black

Wednesday 2nd November 2022 Commons Chamber

[Ian Blackford]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman. I think he is genuinely trying to be helpful, so I will respond in kind. We are suffering from an enormous increase in energy costs. I applaud the fact that we have the energy cap, but let us remember the harsh reality that for people up and down these islands, energy costs have doubled in the last year. People will face genuine hardship. [Interruption.] I can see him shaking his head, but the harsh reality is that our energy market is determined by the wholesale gas price. For those of us in Scotland, 14% of our electricity consumption comes from gas and we actually produce six times as much gas as we consume. We are being affected largely by the failures of UK energy policy and, yes, by global issues as well, but the fact that energy costs are so high in energy rich Scotland is an absolute disgrace.

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

On the intervention of the right hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Alun Cairns), of course the last few years have shown how unpredictable the world can be and how many unexpected challenges we can face, but does that not just hammer home how important it is for Scotland in particular to get the Governments it votes for? Given that Scotland has not voted for a Conservative Government since 1955, does my right hon. Friend not agree that by far and away the best way to protect ourselves against the unpredictable is to be independent and in control of our resources?

[Ian Blackford]

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

Debate on the Address

Debate between Ian Blackford and Mhairi Black

Monday 14th October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Ian Blackford]

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

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

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

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

Prime Minister, you must heed those words.

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

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

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

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

[Ian Blackford]

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

No Confidence in Her Majesty’s Government

Debate between Ian Blackford and Mhairi Black

Wednesday 16th January 2019 Commons Chamber

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

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

[Ian Blackford]

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

European Union (Withdrawal) Act

Debate between Ian Blackford and Mhairi Black

Tuesday 15th January 2019 Commons Chamber

[Ian Blackford]

My hon. Friend is correct that it is the most vulnerable in our society—those who are disabled and those who rely on our public services—who will pay the biggest price for Brexit, because there is no question but that our public services will be poorer. We know that economic growth in the United Kingdom will be reduced by Brexit. Why are we punishing people to that extent? The Government have a responsibility to be honest with people and to reflect on what happened in 2016.

An economist, Dr Samuelson, said, “When events change, I change my mind.” Why has the Prime Minister not reflected on the situation we are in? I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s intervention, and I am delighted to announce to the House that all 35 SNP Members have spoken out in this debate about the risks we see to our constituents and to our industries across Scotland. Of course, we are particularly alarmed by the issue of freedom of movement. We have benefited enormously from those who have come to work and live in our country, to add to the diversity of our communities and to make a contribution to our economic growth. EU citizens who have chosen to make their lives here are now being told that they will have to register to sustain the rights they have.

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

Disgusting.

[Ian Blackford]

It is, as my hon. Friend says, disgusting. This is about people who are a part of us: our friends, our neighbours and our relatives. We are now saying to them that they are going to have a different status as a consequence of what we have done. But it is not just about EU citizens who have chosen to come to live and work in this country; it is about our rights as EU citizens as well. If the Government get their way and Brexit takes place on 29 March, whereas today each and every one of us has the right to work in 28 member states, we will be automatically restricted to the right to live and work only in the UK. I was lucky enough to work in the Netherlands. My son worked in the Netherlands. Why should my grandchildren not have the same rights that my generation had? It is abhorrent that we are treating the people of these islands like that.

State Pension Age for Women

Debate between Ian Blackford and Mhairi Black

Wednesday 5th July 2017 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. I was going to congratulate the hon. Member for Easington (Grahame Morris) on bringing this subject to the House again, but I actually find myself wishing that he had not, because I cannot believe that we are still debating it. I am absolutely scunnered with banging on about the injustice to this group of women. The fact that we have to have another debate is an absolute disgrace and says a lot about the Government and their priorities.

We are at the stage where these debates are almost scripted for me. I know exactly what is going to come back from the Government Benches and, like most people here, I know what I am going to say. We have heard the Government argue, “Well, the 1995 Act gave 15 years’ notice. That is exactly what the Turner commission recommended, so what is the problem?” Let me say it as clearly as possible: the problem is that nobody knew about these changes. The first letters were not sent out until 2009—14 years after the changes. To put that in context, I have been alive only eight years longer than that. That is 14 years in which consecutive Governments sat on their backside and did nothing, and the Government are now complaining that women are—quite rightly—angry that they never knew about the changes.

The thing is that the Government did not tell us about this issue with their hands in the air and say, “Aye, you’re right, sorry. We got that a wee bit wrong.” The information came from the hard-working women behind me in the Gallery through freedom of information requests and constant letters to the Government. The Government have been nothing but obstructive and downright stubborn the whole way through this campaign and since the issue was raised—so much so that the SNP actually went away and re-did its own work. We used our own money to commission our own report, which shows that this issue could plausibly be sorted and the legislation could at least be amended a wee bit.

All it would take is £8 billion spread across five years. That is a substantial amount, but as was said by the hon. Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham)—I had the pleasure of serving with him on the Work and Pensions Committee—the idea that the Government will genuinely stand in front of everyone here and say, “We can’t afford it,” is quite frankly laughable. It has been pointed out many times that they found £1 billion for a deal to cling on to power, but they say they cannot find the money to give women the pensions they are due.

[Ian Blackford]

My hon. Friend is a very reasonable person; let us see whether we can help the Government. We know that the national insurance fund has a surplus of £30 billion. Let us lay to rest the myth that there is a black hole. The Government Actuary’s Department’s own figures suggest that that fund will remain in surplus until at least the mid-2030s. May I suggest to the Government that they use that surplus? Women have paid in to the fund; let us make sure they get their pension, and let us do it today.

[Mhairi Black]

Not surprisingly, I agree with that statement. I heard some muttering from the Government Benches about how that is a lot of rubbish. Let me just say this: if that is a lot of rubbish in their heads, they should bring their plans forward. They do not get to criticise other parties’ plans when they have not even bothered to come up with their own.

Like I say, the debate is almost scripted, because I know that the Minister will say at some point, “We did look at this in 2011 and we did make the concessions at the time.” I guarantee that the Minister will say that. Let my reply be this: that is not how the world works. That is not how society works. If citizens come to them with a time-sensitive problem and say, “This still isn’t working,” it is the Government’s job to listen. It is not the job of the Government to look back and go, “We talked about that a couple of years ago, so I’m afraid there’s no movement there whatsoever.” If that is the case, I am looking forward to the next time the Army needs new funds, the next time this Parliament needs doing up, and so on. The idea that we cannot afford it is ridiculous.

Fundamentally, the worst part of this whole issue is that these women are targeted. The Government like to sit back and act as though these women are just unfortunate casualties of austerity and say, “Our hands are tied; we can’t do anything.” That is not the case; they are targeted. These are women who have suffered pay inequality and social inequality all their lives. We even heard earlier that women were told to use their husbands’ pensions. Society has changed a lot since then. What are we doing for these women now? And what about lesbian couples—women who are in equal marriages with other women? Are they just expected to bear the brunt? [Interruption.] It is not even a double whammy; it is a quadruple whammy at this point.

I am amazed that I feel the need to point this out. These women are blameless. They are guilty of nothing. They have done nothing wrong other than, for instance, not reading the back pages of the Financial Times in 1995. The only other two things they are guilty of are being born in the ’50s and being women. The Government do not get to plead that this is all in the name of equality; when only women are suffering under their definition of equality, it is time for them to reassess that definition.

Fundamentally, Governments should look after their people. When their people are coming to them and saying there is problem, it is their job to fix it. Let me put a little reality into this. I got an email today from a WASPI woman. I cannot remember where she is from—it is somewhere in England. She told me that her friend committed suicide after seeing the general election result because she could not face what would happen to her. Citizens are committing suicide over an issue that could be solved just like that—an issue that the Government could do a U-turn on at any given moment.

The Government managed to fork out a magical £1 billion to cling on to power; they must really want the job of having to fix these things. When they can find £1 billion for self-interest, they do not get to claim that money is the reason they cannot help.

The Government quite rightly dropped their manifesto pension plans—two of them in total, I think—because they saw how damaging, unworkable and unpopular they would be. That was wise. In actual fact, I have a bit of respect for them for being able to go, “Aye, we got that wrong, guys, so we’re pulling back. We’re listening to you.” I say, I hope for the last time: just drop one more plan. Realise that this issue is cross-party and affects people from different backgrounds and different areas. These are people’s mothers, aunties, sisters and cousins. Please do the right thing. Do the job of the Government—fix the problem and start looking after people.

Pension Schemes Bill [Lords]

Debate between Ian Blackford and Mhairi Black

Wednesday 22nd March 2017 Commons Chamber

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

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is because of such examples as he has touched on of unincorporated businesses at risk of losing personal assets that it is so pertinent that the Government bring forward the solution right now rather than wait for the opportunity to pass?

[Ian Blackford]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who is absolutely right. These are complex issues. That is why we make the suggestion that we are willing to work with the Government on this. We have to find a solution to this because at the end of the day ordinary people who have done the right thing could now be faced with losing their house, and that cannot be right. This issue has to be resolved.

There are a number of options for the UK Government to consider but each one has complications for the pension schemes, employers and scheme members. We urge the Government to weigh up the interests of employers with the need to protect benefits for pension scheme members. The former Pensions Minister in the other place, Baroness Altmann, indicated that she would look closely at how a solution could be reached to this complex issue. We need the same assurances from the Minister that he will work to find a solution for the industry and use this Bill to bring forward a solution.

SNIPEF’s four objectives are to achieve an amendment to section 75 debt legislation, as its main concern is for those involved in the unincorporated businesses that my hon. Friend mentioned who are at risk of losing their personal assets including their homes. It wants the Government to conduct a review of the actuarial methods used to value pension scheme liabilities, as it believes that the calculation of section 75 employer debt on a full annuity buyout basis is inappropriate and detrimental to non-associated multi-employer schemes given current economic conditions. It argues that orphan debt in any non-associated multi-employer scheme should be excluded from the calculation of section 75 employer debt. It suggests that provided the scheme is deemed to be prudently funded, the PPF acts as guarantor of last resort for orphan liabilities. It also believes that any changes in legislation should apply retrospectively to all employers from 2005. It would be helpful to get the Government’s view on this request. SNIPEF recently met the Minister, and it has advised SNP MPs that he confirmed that the objectives may have been incorporated within the Green Paper. We are now interested to hear the Government’s view as to whether they have identified a solution.

I want briefly to make passing reference to my two new clauses that have not been selected for debate, and signal my disappointment about that. New clause 10 would require the Secretary of State to identify support for women affected by the changes to the timetable for state pension age equalisation. We are disappointed that a pensions Bill has not been brought forward to deal with the pressing injustices within the pensions system.

[Mhairi Black]

Does my hon. Friend agree that by missing this opportunity the Government are wilfully ignoring it, much like they are ignoring the WASPI women themselves?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. We do not discuss new clauses that have not been selected. We have to deal with what is before us and that is the new clauses on the selection list. I know that the hon. Gentleman wants to stay in order by dealing with those, not those that have been omitted.

State Pension Age: Women

Debate between Ian Blackford and Mhairi Black

Wednesday 30th November 2016 Commons Chamber

[Ian Blackford]

I hope that the Government are beginning to get the picture. For each month that passes, women’s pensionable age is increasing by as much as three months. We should just dwell on that—a three-month addition to pensionable age for each month that someone was born later than their neighbour, friend or colleague.

I spoke about a woman born in March 1953 who retired this year at age 63, but a woman born a year later, in March 1954, will not retire until September 2019, when she will be aged 65 and a half. [Interruption.] Conservative Members seem to think that this is funny, but we are talking about women who are being significantly disadvantaged over too sharp an increase in women’s pensionable age. Those Members might find that acceptable, but I am afraid that I, my colleagues and many millions of other people in the country certainly do not. A woman born six months later, in September 1954, will have to wait until she is 66 in September 2020. Over an 18-month period, a woman’s pensionable age will have increased by three years.

As we keep saying, we are not against equalisation of the state pension age—[Interruption.] My colleagues and I have said that in every speech we have given in this House. We have made it crystal clear, as have the WASPI women, that we agree with equalisation. It is the pace of change that is the problem, and Conservative Members are burying their heads in the sand over it and are refusing to face the reality.

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

I must echo the very clear position that my hon. Friend has outlined. Does he agree that anybody who believes that, purely because someone is a woman and happens to have been born at a certain time they should lose out, is advocating a very warped and strange definition of equality?

[Ian Blackford]

Absolutely. Of course we have to face the gender inequality that has been with us, with women paid less for such a long time and women gaining less access to occupational pension schemes, but Government Members just seem to want to make things worse. As we keep saying, we are not against equalisation of the state pension age; it is the pace of change and the lack of appropriate notice that are the real issues.

Guaranteed Income for Retirees

Debate between Ian Blackford and Mhairi Black

Tuesday 17th November 2015 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford) on securing a debate on such an important issue. It is fair to say that I am a fair bit further away from this issue than most of my colleagues; nevertheless, I appreciate this opportunity to speak.

I am sure that most Members present will agree that the current Government—any Government, for that matter—have a responsibility to ensure that all members of our elderly population have a secure form of income upon retirement to enable them to live comfortable, healthy and fulfilling lives, as well as a responsibility to continue efforts to end pensioner poverty. Any move by the Government to encourage and enhance the prospects of people saving for retirement and to ensure that all our citizens maintain a decent standard of income must be welcomed. It is for that reason that, in the context of pension freedoms, the Scottish National party supports auto-enrolment. We look forward to taking part in the debate on how it can be strengthened, based on the inclusion of the individual and the employer and Government incentives to engage in pension saving.

With that in mind, we must pay close attention to the scrutiny and constructive criticisms that have been made of the pension freedom reforms. First, there clearly needs to be an increase in data collection. The Work and Pensions Committee inquiry into the changes asked whether people are adequately supported in making good and informed decisions, and concluded that appropriate information and monitoring arrangements are not in place to provide the answers. Criticising the Government’s failure to publish adequate statistics on the pension freedom policy, the report said:

“The Government’s reticence in publishing statistics on the effects of its pension freedom policy, a full six months after the reforms, is unacceptable. The scarcity of information regarding Pension Wise in particular is not conducive to effective scrutiny. It is also not conducive to effective policy: it would be fortunate in the extreme if such radical change operated as hoped without any need for adjustment.”

Many bodies in the pensions policy area have made similar observations. If we are to be able to make informed decisions and adequately respond to the changes the reforms are making to people’s lives and the decisions they make, we must be watching closely and at least attempting to collate in-depth and satisfactory data. That way, we will be able to form a real-life picture and idea of what is going on and to respond appropriately.

Secondly, more effort needs to be put into educating people so that they are equipped with the information and knowledge to make informed decisions. The potential for negative consumer outcomes arising from disengagement, low awareness of retirement risks and poor financial capability is likely to be compounded by supply-side failures. The FCA thematic review and retirement income market study identified continued failures: 60% of defined-contribution pension customers did not switch providers when they bought an annuity, despite the fact that 80% could get a higher—in many cases, significantly higher—income on the open market. The FCA found that 91% of those purchasing enhanced annuities could have got a better deal by shopping around. It also found that consumers are highly sensitive to how options are presented to them. Savers reaching retirement face a much more complex landscape than previous generations, and they will need support to make sense of their options and to make sensible choices that match their needs and preferences.

Even before the announcement of the pension reforms, the pensions industry was still working through many issues, despite seven years of heightened scrutiny and regulatory oversight. As many will know, lack of information has been a problem for some time. Given the lack of data on how pensions are being affected now, it is important to look at some of the few statistics that we do have.

[Ian Blackford]

Does my hon. Friend agree that one issue consumers face in the landscape of choices she eloquently describes is that they often do not consider their own life expectancy—that they might live for another 30 or 40 years or even longer? When people look at their experience of annuities, that is often part of the problem: they might consider they are getting a poor deal from their annuity, but that is because they are not taking into account how long they might live and how long they might have to fund their lifestyle for.

[Mhairi Black]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention—I was actually about to get on to that point.

In terms of the few statistics we do have, the Social Market Foundation has looked at the lessons the UK can learn from overseas experiences. My hon. Friend spoke about the different stereotypes in terms of how people engage with their pensions—the cautious Australian, the quick-spending Australian and the typical American. One of the report’s key findings was that UK retirees are at risk of pension pot exhaustion specifically because they underestimate how long they will live. In fact, those who follow the typical American path or the quick-spending Australian path would, on average, exhaust their entire pot by retirement years 17 and 10 respectively.

Retirees are at risk of low replacement rates. Retirees who over-consume in the early years of retirement might well enjoy a decent income for a good few years, but if they live a lot longer than they predicted, they find themselves on much lower rates later on in life and may completely exhaust their pension, putting the responsibility on to the state to fill the gap.

We should also consider the fact that the number of income drawdown contracts sold by ABI members during 2015 increased by 64% over the previous year, from 6,700 to 11,500. The number of annuities sold has continued to fall, with 20,600 sold during that quarter, compared with 28,700 the previous quarter and 74,100 in the same quarter in 2014. There was an 80% increase in provider call volumes during the first six months, compared with the same period in 2014. As has been mentioned, £2.5 billion was paid out as cash to customers in that period. Some 60% of all cash lump sums have been paid out to people younger than 60—those who have a considerable time left to live, given that life expectancy is now 80-plus. In 80% of cases, those who have taken out cash lump sums were under 65. In 95% of cases where cash lump sums have been accessed, the entire fund was withdrawn. As for evidence that people have engaged with Pension Wise, whether face to face, over the phone or by email, the reality is that fewer than one in 10 of those accessing their pension pots have used the service. It is clear that more can be done to educate people adequately.

My last point relates to the Government’s position. Concerns about rates of exhaustion of pension savings and the subsequent impact on retirement income led the Australian Government, which we look to for at least some idea of where pensions are going, to commission an independent review of their retirement system. The resulting Murray inquiry published a range of recommendations for the Australian financial system, including that schemes set in place a default comprehensive income product for retirement. On 20 October, the Australian Government announced their intention to implement the inquiry’s retirement income default recommendation, and a consultation is expected later this year.

It seems only reasonable and responsible, therefore, for the Government to tell people, “Look, the choices are there for you. It is not for us to tell you how to spend your money, but we recommend that you use your pension for the exact purpose it was created for and that you consider how long you will live for and how much money you will have, so that you engage with your pension appropriately.”

I welcome the debate, and I hope the Government take heed of some of the concerns that have been raised by myself, my colleagues and the relevant independent bodies.