Debate on the Address
Debate between Kevin Foster and Ian Blackford(5 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers), and indeed to be called to speak on the King’s Speech. It is probably worth putting it into context: this is 13 years into a Tory Government, but there is a new Prime Minister, and we know that we are going to be facing a general election at some point over the next few months. Given those circumstances, where is the vision and where is the hope? They are sadly lacking from this King’s Speech.
We should remember that each and every one of us who has been sent to this House is here, individually and collectively, to show responsibility and leadership, and to do that at times of challenge both at home and abroad. I am glad that so many Members have made reference both to Ukraine and to the situation in the middle east. We should remember every single day the responsibility that we have to our friends in Ukraine. We should recognise the unity of purpose we have had across this House in relation to those who are in Ukraine, those who are fighting on the frontline and those who have given so much to defend their freedom and democracy. With everything else that is going on, we need to remain absolutely resolute in relation to the people in that country, and to recognise that, for however long it takes, we stand with President Zelensky and the people of Ukraine and that that illegal invasion has to be defeated. Putin can never win, and whether it is today, tomorrow or after the next election, that resolve to support Ukraine must remain.
Of course, much of the attention over the past few weeks has rightly been on the appalling events that unfolded in Israel on 7 October. It is right that each and every one of us in this House should call out that act of terrorism, that attack on the people of Israel that took place, and that slaughter of men, women and children. Yes, we call out Hamas as the terrorist organisation it is, and yes, Hamas must be destroyed—it must be defeated—but we also need to recognise that, sadly, what we have seen over the past few weeks is the inhumane slaughter not just of the Israelis, but of those who live in Gaza and are casualties of a war that is not of their making. We must remember the responsibility that we have, yes, to support Israel, but also, yes, to support those who desire peace on the Palestinian side.
We must recognise that for far too long many of us right across this Chamber have been calling for a two-state solution. To get to that prize, where Israelis and Palestinians can live in peace together, yes, we must ensure that those who are held hostage by Hamas are returned to their families and loved ones, but we must also recognise that we cannot have the slaughter of innocent civilians—the children who have given their life. All of us across these islands, and across the western world, have a responsibility to ensure that the case for a humanitarian solution to protect innocent lives must be at the forefront of our minds.
The international situation must be front and centre, but we must also think about the circumstances that all our people face across these islands. The right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) went through some of the major geopolitical events that have taken place over the past 25 to 30 years. One event that has not been reflected on today, but that had a huge influence on us, was the financial crisis of 2008. Rightly, we had the quantitative easing programme that has been reflected on by many Members, but the biggest mistake made in the United Kingdom was the disconnect between monetary and fiscal policy. In particular, the poor have paid the price for the failures of financial markets, and the austerity that we have lived with in the period since then. We must reflect on the fact that the decade that has passed is the first decade in 200 years in which people have become poorer in real terms and real wages have declined.
When we think about the pressures on our public services today, we rightly talk about the debt that we have, and a desire to get that down. We heard in the King’s Speech about the desire for economic growth. I welcome that. Of course we must deliver sustainable economic growth, but I say to colleagues on the Government Benches, where are the plans? Where are the concrete plans to drive investment into the economy, to drive up productivity and living standards, to make people wealthier, and to deliver the tax receipts that allow us to invest in our public services? Frankly, there is no detail; there is nothing of any substance. That has to be seen in context of the fact that on a relative basis in the world, the UK has been going backwards. Let us not forget that the UK is no longer a major manufacturing economy. It is a trading economy, and that fact, together with the damage that was done to us by Brexit and the removal of our largest trading partner, is something we should reflect on.
I want to give the Government some credit, perhaps unusually—I see some friends on the Government Benches smiling at me—because there are certain things that the Government are good at. They are very good at soundbites: long-term economic plan, northern powerhouse, levelling up, get Brexit done. We can go through those, and others—
Ian Blackford
Better together—don’t start me on that one. I heard High Speed 2 mentioned as well. To be serious for a second, those slogans have been rolled out in election campaigns, and they have seduced people perhaps to vote for the Conservatives and put them into power. But as we would say in certain parts of Scotland, it’s all fur coat and nae knickers. The result is that these 200 years have come to an end with a fall in real living standards. There is an absence of confidence in the economy to drive investment, and that is before we get to the cost of living crisis. We need investment, we need growth, and we need it for a purpose. We need to show the people of this country that we can get through this economic crisis.
I asked the Government where the plan is, and I want to refer to some of the work that the SNP Westminster group has done over the past year. We have published two papers, and I commend them both to colleagues. One is “The Economic Opportunity for Scotland from Renewable Energy and Green Technology”, and the other is the “Roadmap for a Scottish Green Industrial Strategy”. We have done the hard work in terms of where opportunities for growth, prosperity and jobs will come from. We have heard a lot today about oil and gas, but the Government must be careful about the signalling that is taking place. Whether they like it or not, we have to get to net zero, whether we are talking about Scotland’s aspiration of 2045, or Westminster and 2050. We need to drive that investment in green energy to come to this country.
In response to the King’s Speech, the Institute for Public Policy Research said:
“By far the best way to improve energy security, cut bills and support workers is through investing more into renewables. New oil and gas fields would only cut fossil fuel imports by 2-4%. Alternatively, faster renewable rollout would cut them by 12-17% respectively.”
That is the reality. We either recognise the importance of driving faster to deliver that green energy revolution, and doing so will give us an industrial advantage, or we face the wrong way by prioritising oil and gas, which will not fundamentally make a difference to us or anyone else. Let me just expand on that because in the report that I referred to, which was published last year, we considered the green energy output of Scotland at that point, which was 12 GW. Based on what we know from plans that already exist—there is no fantasy and I challenge anybody to refute the numbers we have published—in Scotland alone we can increase our green energy output to 80 GW by 2050, a fivefold increase.
When we start to think about that, we start to think about all sorts of things. How do we create grid connectivity? Some reference was made to that in the King’s Speech, which I welcome. Where is the plan to ensure that we develop the grid capacity we need to deliver that green energy? For goodness’ sake, let us think about—and let us be honest about—some of the mistakes we have made in the past. We never benefited to the fullest extent from the opportunities for the supply chain in oil and gas, and we certainly have not done that with the first generation of green energy. This is not just about plans on paper to increase green energy production; it is about how we ensure that we benefit from that. How do we ensure that we have the planning and consent, and that the energy revolution, whether onshore, offshore, wind, tidal, solar, or pump storage, actually happens?
I commend my colleagues in the Scottish Government, because just a few weeks ago it was announced that Sumitomo would be building a cable manufacturing facility in the highlands. Reference was made earlier to the opportunity of tidal. We lead the world in tidal energy, but the UK Government have not got behind that to the fullest extent, and are not thinking about the fact that we could deliver 15% of our energy from tidal. This is not just about delivering 15% of our energy; we can deliver the investment, deliver the jobs, and have turbine manufacturing. Where is the industrial strategy? Where is the joined up thinking that will lead to the creation of jobs? Those things are in our report. I know some reference was made to jobs in oil and gas. Yes, we need a proper transition and to support the workers in the oil and gas industry today, but in that Skilling report we highlight the potential of delivering up to 325,000 jobs. That is the prize, but where is the ambition? Where is the potential? Where is the hope? How do we drive up living standards?
There is more I could say, but I recognise that others wish to speak so I will stop here. We have a choice in Scotland of two futures. The United Kingdom is in long-term relative decline. I am saddened that when I look at my country, the country of Scotland, our relative population in the United Kingdom has declined every decade since 1850, and I want to change that. The only way we will change that record is if we drive investment into the Scottish economy. What an opportunity we have with green energy. So I say to the people of Scotland that there is a choice. We can stay where we are, or we can recognise that if we want to drive up our economy and productivity, and create better paid jobs and the resources to invest in our public services, then come with us. Ultimately, Scotland’s future will be as an independent country and away from this place. There is not a single mention of Scotland in the King’s Speech, and people in Scotland need to reflect on that.
Privilege (Withdrawal Agreement: Legal Advice)
Debate between Kevin Foster and Ian Blackford(5 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)
It is pleasure to be called in this debate, following so many learned, right hon. and hon. Members. I enjoyed some of the contributions from the Scottish National party Members on the idea of Parliament being supreme, given that they will remember the famous case of MacCormick v. Lord Advocate, where it was said that complete parliamentary supremacy is an English concept and not necessarily one of Scots law. So it is great to see their conversion now that they have come here.
I shall turn now to the matter of substance. I sat through a lot of that debate on 13 November and I noted the numerous points that were picked up about how the motion passed then had various queries raised about it.
Ian Blackford
I wish to assist the hon. Gentleman by giving him the exact quote, which is that parliamentary sovereignty is a purely English concept that
“has no counterpart in Scottish constitutional”
history. Of course this House endorsed a motion, pushed by the SNP some months ago, that sovereignty does rest with the people of Scotland, through the Claim of Right. I trust that if this Government seek to try to take us out of the European Union and the only way we can protect our interest is by becoming an independent nation, they will endorse our right to call a referendum.
Kevin Foster
I very much thank the right hon. Gentleman for that intervention and for, yet again, reminding people in Scotland that the SNP’s focus is indyref2 and separation of this Union. It is always ironic to hear SNP Members calling for an end to borders in Europe, given that they want borders on this island. I am genuinely grateful for that intervention and I know that my Scottish colleagues will be even more grateful for it, as they will be able to put it in their next leaflet.
I turn back to what we are discussing today, which is the motion on contempt. Like previous speakers, I find it interesting that, even before the Attorney General had managed to sit down, some people had concluded that he was already in contempt. The Opposition do not strike me as short of the ability to find senior and experienced lawyers to analyse the withdrawal agreement, its implications and what it might mean for the future. To see that, we have only to look at their Front Bench, where we see a very eminent Queen’s counsel. So it is bizarre that they are, in effect, arguing that they are not able to make a reasoned judgment on this without the legal advice. We are not talking about the legal position of the Government, as it is right that this House should always be able to demand that the Government set out the legal basis of their actions in this Parliament. We are a country defined by the rule of law, which is why it is right that legal positions can be requested and demanded. The Opposition, however, are saying that we need the Government’s lawyer to tell us what the legal implications are and what the legal advice is on this area. For me, this is not an area in which they are going to be short.
My hon. Friends the Members for Cheltenham (Alex Chalk) and for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Michael Tomlinson) made excellent speeches and made clear the key points on what the motion is about. I particularly enjoyed the speech from my hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Robert Courts), who made the distinction between disclosure, which is a strong point of criminal law—indeed, it is important in civil cases, too, to make sure that evidence is not concealed—and privilege around legal advice.
When I used to give legal advice in the run-up to cases in places such as Solihull magistrates court, there was no forum in which to ask what my advice was. Clearly, I could not conceal evidence, and I could not run a line of argument in court that I knew to be untrue. Many Members, including the Attorney General, will have heard the adage about what happens if a client tells a lawyer they are guilty. That means that the lawyer cannot run a defence. They can test the prosecution’s case, but they cannot run a defence in court or mislead the court. A lawyer cannot be required, though, to overturn their legal privilege and put their legal advice out there. To be blunt, it is quite a worrying trend that Government Members want to attack the right to legal privilege.
UK's Nuclear Deterrent
Debate between Kevin Foster and Ian Blackford(7 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Kevin Foster
Before the proposal for independence was rejected in the referendum, there was a debate about whether we would have the nuclear weapons in the south-west, and I think most people said, “Yes, of course we will.” Other MPs representing the south-west have spoken in the debate, and we would certainly welcome the jobs and investment involved.
Let us be clear about the choice before the House today. It is whether to have a deterrent. I have listened to some of the alternatives that have been put forward today, and I think the hon. Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr Godsiff) would find it useful to visit Coulport and see what is actually there. That might help his knowledge. It has been suggested that we might put something on an Astute-class submarine. I think it is safe to say that no nation, seeing a cruise missile coming towards it, is going to wait until the thing detonates to find out whether it is a conventional missile or a nuclear missile. That proposal would also involve far more risk to the submariners, because they would have to get much closer to the country that we were deterring. The operations would also have to become more sneaky. People might think that a submarine might want to act sneakily in order to remain hidden, but that is not the case. The idea behind a ballistic missile capability is that it assures people that we can provide a credible deterrent and a credible response to a nuclear attack, either on ourselves or on our allies, but also that it provides other nations with an assurance that we are not planning a sneaky first strike. If we had the kind of technology that some have suggested, it would simply undermine the situation and provoke worry and fear in others.
It is also worth looking at what we have done to reduce our own nuclear weapons. The RAF no longer has strategic bombers, and we have also removed the weapons from Royal Navy shipping. I think that we are the only one of the declared nuclear powers that has nuclear weapons on one platform only. That is the real way to reduce the nuclear threat, not through some gesture towards disarmament.
Is the nuclear deterrent still needed? To answer that question, we need to look at the alternatives. One of the alternatives put forward is to rely on article V of the north Atlantic treaty—that is what the SNP proposes. NATO is not just a conventional alliance but a nuclear one, yet the SNP would wish to join it. I find it interesting that the SNP wants a nuclear-weapons-free Scotland, yet when I enjoyed all 670 pages of “Scotland’s Future”—the White Paper for independence—I found that it contained the classic comment that the SNP would still allow NATO vessels to visit without confirming or denying whether they carried nuclear weapons. In effect, the SNP’s own version of “don’t ask, don’t tell.” A big ballistic submarine could still pull up, but that would be all right, because the SNP would not have asked the question.
Ian Blackford
What the SNP wants is to be a member of NATO and for NATO to be nuclear-free. That would be the best solution. There is a choice between investing in Trident and extra investment in conventional arms, because the reality is that no conventional surface warships are based in Scotland. We heard about the Falklands earlier, but there are no warships in the Falklands. We are not taking up the responsibilities that we should be. Should we not fix that rather than waste £200 billion on weapons of mass destruction?
Kevin Foster
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention, because it gives me the opportunity to expose some of the holes in his defence knowledge. The Royal Navy regularly bases a capital ship around the Falklands when the needs demand it, and there is also an offshore patrol vessel down there.
We have heard in today’s debate that nuclear weapons do not deter Daesh, but a battle tank will not deal with a cyber threat and an infantryman will not shoot down a high-altitude jet aircraft. The reality is that we need to consider the spread of current threats and possible future threats and then look at what we put into them. Could we, as a NATO member, realistically face nuclear blackmail? Yes we could. Vladimir Putin is not revamping Russia’s nuclear capability because he wants it to appear at an air show.
Equitable Life
Debate between Kevin Foster and Ian Blackford(8 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ian Blackford
I strongly agree. I can hear my hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (George Kerevan) commenting in the background—he made that same point in the debate, as did the hon. Member for Reigate (Crispin Blunt). There is unity in the House on wanting a savings culture. We want people to retire with decent pensionable income, but we will create that confidence only if we show that we are prepared to stand behind the Equitable Life consumers. They were let down by the company and the regulator, and the Government have that moral and ethical responsibility to step in. That should not be underestimated.
Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that this is partly about building intergenerational confidence? We want people to start saving for pensions in their late 20s and their 30s. They need to have confidence that that money will still be there in a pot in future, and that there is a proper system of regulation. This is about building confidence for those who will save in future, and not just about the Equitable Life policyholders who have been affected in this instance.
Ian Blackford
I strongly agree with the hon. Gentleman and am happy to associate myself with his comments. It is about creating that long-term stability in the financial services industry and ensuring that we have the right regulatory regime. We must have the right architecture for both private and public pension provision in this country. I hope all in the House have a shared interest in doing that. That is why the debate is so important, and why the Government must respond in the correct manner. How we deal with the long-running saga of Equitable Life is important in the context of his intervention.
Let us remind ourselves of the background. Equitable Life was a major provider of with-profits pension plans. A minority of policyholders invested in policies that offered a guaranteed annuity rate. That rate was set below the normal historical rates, but towards the end of the 1980s, that “normal” changed. Increasingly, the guaranteed annuity rate was over-generous and ultimately unaffordable to Equitable Life in the long run. In response, Equitable stopped sales and reduced the capital value of the pension pots by reducing discretionary bonuses. Guaranteed annuity rates were thus maintained only because the capital sum was far lower than had been expected.
Ultimately, GAR holders took legal action to stop Equitable from rigging pension payouts and won in the House of Lords in 2000, as my hon. Friend the Member for Angus mentioned in his speech. That judgment increased the financial burden on Equitable by about £1.5 billion, a sum that threatened its solvency. Equitable Life hoped to fill that gap by suspending distributions to policyholders and by selling the business, but it was unable to find a buyer. It ceased all further business and became a closed fund. It also had to reduce policy bonuses, and hence the ongoing pensions of investors. Pensions reductions of up to a third were common. It was a perfect storm.
Policyholders have long tried for compensation. Two ombudsman reports concluded that there had been maladministration and that injustice had been suffered. We should remind ourselves of what was said in the second ombudsman report. The conclusion stated:
“the Government should establish and fund a compensation scheme, with a view to assessing the individual cases of those who have been affected by the events covered in this report and providing appropriate compensation.”
I emphasise “appropriate compensation”.
ISIL in Syria
Debate between Kevin Foster and Ian Blackford(8 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Kevin Foster
We stood with the Kurds a year ago. This Parliament voted to intervene when the murderous thugs of Daesh were on their way to overrun the Kurdish Autonomous Region, which could have resulted in a massacre on the same level as that of Srebrenica. Members of my party—and, to be fair, members of other parties—wanted to do something about that. Some of the arguments we have heard today have been in favour of pulling away the air support that has helped to prevent Daesh from massacring the Kurds. It is the air support—not warm words—that represents solidarity.
In approaching the motion, I have asked myself a number of questions. What specific objectives do we have for our involvement, along with our allies? Is there a clear legal basis for the action? What will a post-civil war Syria look like? Who or what will be the Government there, and how will our intervention assist in bringing that about? The question of legality is now much easier to answer. There is a pretty clear UN Security Council resolution. Had that resolution not been passed, we would have been hearing today about how we needed such a resolution. Now we have one, we are hearing that it is not quite enough. The reality is that no resolution would be enough to satisfy some in this Chamber, despite the clear wording of the one that we now have. The action is definitely legal.
What are our specific objectives? The ultimate objective is to clear Daesh away from the territory it controls, which gives it its power base.
Kevin Foster
The hon. Gentleman has had plenty of interventions. I will not take this one.
This is about ensuring that we can assist our allies. It would be ludicrous if our allies were fighting a Daesh unit and they reached an invisible line in the sand that happened to be the Syrian border—which Daesh does not recognise—and our allies had to say, “Sorry, you’ve gone one foot over the border. We’re not going to do anything more.” This is about being part of a coalition. [Interruption.] It is ironic that I am being shouted at by Opposition Members for not doing enough. The present situation is an argument to do more, not less.
I want to talk about what a post-war Syria would look like. That is what the Vienna process is there for. It is a negotiated agreement to deliver a stable Government in Syria for the future. [Interruption.] I must say that I always love having—
Tax Credits
Debate between Kevin Foster and Ian Blackford(8 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ian Blackford
Will the hon. Gentleman enlighten us on how the Chancellor’s forecast for budget and debt reduction worked out in the last Parliament?
Kevin Foster
We have an economy moving forward, and we have increased health spending, unlike in Scotland. According to last Thursday’s Daily Record—one of my favourite reads over porridge, obviously—our failing NHS is the SNP’s fault. I am happy to get talking about politics any day of the week.
Returning to the key issue—[Interruption.] It is always lovely to have an accompaniment from these Benches. The key part for me is not the e-mails I have received or the stuff in the media; it is thinking about the thousands of families I now represent in this Chamber who are like the family I came from. Whatever we may think of the destination of this policy area, we should ensure that the journey we travel to get to it does not impact unduly on people who are trying to do their best in life.
I listened with interest to the speech of the right hon. Member for Birkenhead, but it is important to have alternatives that do not make things worse or create the wrong incentives. The hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Neil Gray) made a point about what the Library figures mean for the right hon. Gentleman’s initial proposals. However, if that model were adopted, there would be an effective taxation rate of nearly 100%—higher than virtually anyone at the highest levels of income is paying anywhere in the world, so it would be strange to have such a system applying in this country to those earning just under £20,000. I can appreciate the sentiment of those proposals, but at that sort of level it would provide a clear disincentive to work, just as tax rates of 88% or 98% were back in the 1970s.
I look forward to seeing what the Government will bring forward, and I look forward to continuing engagement with Ministers on the Treasury Bench. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Chris Skidmore), the Chancellor’s Parliamentary Private Secretary, who I see in his place, for the engagement so far. It is right that we should not oppose without offering up alternatives. I hope that there will be clear engagement with Members and Parliament about what things can be done to mitigate the impact within the envelope of an affordable and deliverable financial settlement that allows us to achieve our overall fiscal goals, which were so strongly endorsed in the UK general election not very long ago.
It has been a pleasure to sit through and speak in this debate, and it will be even more of a pleasure to welcome the Government’s proposals that will come forward in the near future to mitigate the impacts on the lowest paid, as is called for by the motion.