Devolution (Immigration) (Scotland) Bill

Kirsty Blackman Excerpts

Friday 25th April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Gethins]

I see a number of Members want to intervene. I am glad to give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) because she wanted to come in earlier and I did not take her intervention then.

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

My hon. Friend is making an important case about Scotland’s unique needs and the way that our democracy differs. To go back to the economic point, the founding mission of this Labour Government is about growing the economy, so will my hon. Friend explain the impact of increasing migration? What is the impact on the economy of bringing more people in to do more jobs in the economy?

[Stephen Gethins]

I am not an economist, but any economist would say that the impact of that is growth—it is positive. In the aftermath of leaving the EU, we saw a surge in migration under Boris Johnson’s Government. Members have talked about that and criticised the Conservative Government, as I have done. However, what struck me about that migration to date was that at the same time as we saw a surge in migration to grow the economy—I am not saying anything against that—we saw a reduction in the rights that we ourselves enjoyed as UK citizens and a devaluation of the British passport. I may no longer wish to hold a British passport—that might not be something that I want—but its devaluation has impacted each and every one of us because of the loss of those rights.

Before I finish, I will take one more point from the hon. Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Kevin McKenna), who I know has been trying to intervene.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Quigley]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I wish I had all the answers to his questions, because I am sure it would have saved us time. It is now six minutes to 11, and I could have had a longer breakfast.

Duplicating things for one part of the country does not solve a problem; it creates one. If the SNP cannot manage a shipbuilding contract without going £260 million over budget, what makes us think it would manage immigration efficiently or affordably?

[Kirsty Blackman]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Mr Quigley]

I will make slightly more progress and then give way.

The Bill proposes the devolution of immigration powers to the Scottish Government, under the argument that economic migration could support rural and island communities. Let me be absolutely clear: I agree that migration, when done properly, can be a lifeline. It can bring new energy to struggling areas, provide vital workers and enrich our communities. But this Bill, with all the good will in the world, fails to offer the security, clarity or accountability needed to deliver those outcomes.

[Kirsty Blackman]

When I came into this debate, I did not expect the main thrust of the Labour party’s argument to be a concession that it will not win the next Holyrood election. Labour Members have consistently said that this is about handing powers to the SNP. Do they understand how democracy works? Or are they looking at the polls and saying, “Oh my goodness, we are totally in trouble before 2026, so it’s got to be an SNP Government next year”?

[Mr Quigley]

That is a bit of a reach.

How will the Scottish Government manage border security between England and Scotland? How will they ensure consistency with UK immigration policy? How will they safeguard against misuse or confusion about legal status? These questions remain unanswered, and regrettably this Bill would create far more uncertainty than solutions.

--- Later in debate ---

[Pete Wishart]

This is helpful, and I think my hon. Friend the Member for Arbroath and Broughty Ferry was hoping for such positive contributions. I am very much aware of the work that the Migration Advisory Committee does, and I commend it for that, but its list of occupations required in Scotland is not nearly enough—it does not even touch the sides of our difficulties. If the hon. Lady has some thoughts on how that could be beefed up and made more effective and useful, we are all ears—come and serve on the Committee and help us. We need positive solutions to identified problems. That is the territory we want to get into.

We have long-term population decline in Scotland. When I started to engage in this debate in the early 2000s, there was a real fear that, for the first time since the 19th century, Scotland’s population would drop below the iconic 5 million mark. That was only reversed because of the imagination of the previous Labour Government and their generosity when it came to immigration policy—something that the current Government would never even think about. The vision of Tony Blair about how Europe would work and how the single market would develop helped Scotland to address some of the issues.

[Kirsty Blackman]

Around the turn of the millennium, I remember hearing Lord Jack McConnell, the First Minister of Scotland at the time, talking about that iconic 5 million mark. I was only 13 or 14, but I remember it being so important, and it was so important to Labour that immigration happened in order to keep that population. Why does he think Labour has changed its position so drastically in a relatively short space of time? Why is immigration now apparently bad?

[Pete Wishart]

That is such a profound question. I do not know how Labour has got itself into this situation. I suspect it is some sort of fear of Reform, whose Members are not here today, and Labour is probably right to be frightened. I think I saw an opinion poll showing that Labour is now behind Reform across the United Kingdom. Labour Members think—and this will only exacerbate the problem—that if they somehow pander to Reform’s agenda, that will help them beat it. Nothing could delight Reform more than going on to its agenda. That is why we in Scotland take Reform on and tackle it.

I was so pleased and impressed that the First Minister of Scotland this week got together a summit to take on these very challenges, and I was delighted that the Scottish Labour leader attended that summit and took it seriously, because this is the sort of thing we have to do when there is a challenge from the right. We do not go on to their agenda—that is what they want. We take on their assumptions, we take them on politically, and we beat them.

That is why the SNP has not been so impacted by the rise of Reform in the United Kingdom: because we take it on. Labour is starting to experience difficulties at the hands of Reform because it is looking to pander to Reform’s agenda and move on to some of the uncomfortable territory. We take Reform on; we do not pander to it. That is the lesson of history.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Murray]

Can I just say to my hon. Friend, as someone who has a 12-week-old daughter and a four-and-a-half-year-old daughter, that we are very much—

[Kirsty Blackman]

Doing your bit!

[Ian Murray]

Indeed, we are; perhaps the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire (Pete Wishart) should try doing his bit a bit more. [Interruption.] There is no need to confess now, Pete. But my hon. Friend is right; the biggest consideration for many families is childcare. Government Ministers are highly paid, and my wife works as well, but getting access to proper childcare that is flexible enough to ensure people can stay in work is a real challenge. Again, that is something the Scottish Government do not want to talk about.

We have talked about the economy, public services, housing and childcare. The First Minister made a growth speech a few weeks ago, and his only conclusion on growth in Scotland was that we need access to visas. There was nothing else. There was no ambition. There were no solutions to how we get planning sorted in Scotland. There was nothing about making sure we win the global race to green power. His one recommendation was getting something that has no control over, so that he does not have to take responsibility for the things he does have control over.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Murray]

I agree with my hon. Friend. Look at the money that was wasted for the national care service—again, just another headline in the newspapers that the SNP required in the run-up to an election. It also wasted £680 million setting up Social Security Scotland and wants to put in place a new immigration system that will not require checks, any money, or a border between Scotland and England. The key thing here, which SNP Members do not want to admit and which they voted against, is that this UK Labour Government just gave the Scottish Government the largest settlement in the history of the Scottish Parliament—£4.9 billion more—and there is still a social care crisis in Scotland. That tells us all we need to know about where they spent the money. If SNP Members want to pop up and tell us where they have spent it, I am sure that the Scottish people watching this debate would be pleased to hear from them.

It is important to address the underlying issues in a sustainable way and investigate other levers to encourage people to stay, such as boosting attractive job opportunities, affordable housing, which we have discussed, local services, transport link connectivity and suitable local infrastructure. This could include investing in the area or offering taxation incentives to individuals and businesses to do so, as we are seeing with some of the initiatives going on in Scotland at the moment.

I acknowledge the consideration that the hon. Member for Arbroath and Broughty Ferry has given to Scottish visas and his views on them, but a separate Scottish visa or a separate immigration system are not things that the Government are currently considering, nor have we asked the independent Migration Advisory Committee to consider them. That is a straightforward Government policy.

[Kirsty Blackman]

The Secretary of State is laying out that the Government are not considering this—that, basically, it is not Government policy for Scotland to have control of migration or for there to be a specific Scottish visa. I assume therefore that he is happy for there to be a vote, and that he is going to encourage a vote, so that he can walk through a Lobby opposing this Bill. If he feels so strongly about it, why is he not pushing for there to be a vote?

[Ian Murray]

Let me turn to what the Government are doing, which might answer the hon. Lady’s question. We are not going to set up a separate Scottish visa; and I refer her back to a previous intervention from the hon. Member for Arbroath and Broughty Ferry, in response to which I mentioned exactly what the deputy leader of the Scottish Labour party actually said in the quote that SNP Members so often misquote. However, we have commissioned the Migration Advisory Committee to review key sectors, and the existing visa system makes provision for shortages specific to Scotland. Our long-term plan will see Departments working across Government, partnering with agencies and experts to build our skills base, tackle our labour market issues and reduce our reliance on migration.

The system does actually work. I have the shortage occupation list in front of me. That list features 20 or so different occupations, and Scotland has its own list, which includes occupation shortages that are not UK-wide. For example, “Boat and ship builders and repairers—all jobs” is a shortage occupation in Scotland, but not across the rest of the UK. “Managers and proprietors in forestry, fishing and related services” is on the list for Scotland, but not for the rest of the United Kingdom. Those are just two examples of big industries where Scotland does have specific entries on the shortage occupation list, as recommended by the Migration Advisory Committee.

The long-term plan has to be for us to work together to resolve those skills-based issues, tackling other labour market issues and reducing our reliance on migration for workforce planning. It is also clear that different visas for different parts of the UK would restrict movement and rights and create internal UK borders. Creating internal UK borders has been proposed by colleagues of the hon. Member for Arbroath and Broughty Ferry in the Scottish Government. The now Minister for Parliamentary Business—we have mentioned him before— who was then Minister for Independence suggested that there would have to be a hard border and border checks in the event that we had a different immigration system. That is all we need to know.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Murray]

The hon. Gentleman asks why and I will tell him. The number of college places is at its lowest level in a decade, with more cuts on the way; the attainment gap between the richest and poorest continues to grow; and, disgracefully, thousands of pupils left school last year with absolutely no qualifications, as I have said. That cannot be allowed to continue.

This is nothing new. Was it not the current First Minister who lobbied for tax breaks for private schools, whereas this Labour Government ended tax breaks for private schools?

[Kirsty Blackman]

Immigration!

[Ian Murray]

SNP Members keep shouting “Immigration!”, but as the Migration Advisory Committee has said, the immigration issue is complex, because it is about housing, health, education, skills, work and employment, and this is the First Minister’s record on that.

That is not all that the First Minister did as Education Secretary. We all remember the disgrace of working-class kids being marked down by the First Minister and the Scottish Qualifications Authority during the pandemic. Under him, poorer kids were penalised by postcode—penalised by their poverty. Poorer kids could not be getting the results that they were getting, so they were marked down. Bright and from a working-class area? The First Minister did not believe that you deserved the grades that your teachers decided you should have got.

Oral Answers to Questions

Kirsty Blackman Excerpts

Wednesday 4th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

We are delivering on our commitment to bring railways back under public ownership, putting passengers first. Today, we have announced that South Western Railway services will be the first to transfer into public ownership next year, so that we can turn the page on decades of delay, fragmentation and failure.

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

Q15. Veteran Anne Puckridge is in the Gallery, and I urge the Prime Minister to meet her to talk about her frozen pension. Yesterday, the Daily Record reported that Scottish Labour MPs are very “upset”. Apparently, that upset is caused by their Scottish leader’s diktat that they now have to support the very winter fuel payment that they voted against in this place. As the Prime Minister comforts his upset MPs, will he remind them that the only people with the right to be upset are the 900,000 Scottish pensioners who were left in the cold by Labour’s cuts?

[The Prime Minister]

I work very closely with Scottish Labour in a harmonious way. We ran a fantastic campaign earlier this year, which is why the hon. Lady is sitting on the Benches at the back, not the Benches at the front.

Oral Answers to Questions

Kirsty Blackman Excerpts

Wednesday 4th September 2024 Commons Chamber

[Brendan O'Hara (Argyll, Bute and South Lochaber) (SNP)]

8. If he will make an assessment with Cabinet colleagues of the potential merits of devolving the power to introduce a Scottish work visa scheme to the Scottish Government.

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

13. If he will make an assessment with Cabinet colleagues of the potential merits of devolving the power to introduce a Scottish work visa scheme to the Scottish Government.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kirsty McNeill]

We are committed to ensuring that there is effective Scottish representation on the Migration Advisory Committee, and I look forward to working with the Home Office and engaging with sectors on ensuring that immigration works for all parts of the UK.

[Kirsty Blackman]

The skilled worker salary threshold and the skills list are simply not working. Will the Minister ensure that the skilled occupation list is fit for purpose in Scotland, and that it works for our energy transition?

[Kirsty McNeill]

Fixing the foundations of our economy is the key to long-term prosperity. That includes future-proofing the economy for all, whether that is long-established families or new arrivals. The Chancellor will set out plans to fix the foundations in the Budget on 30 October.

Scotland Act 1998: Section 35 Power

Kirsty Blackman Excerpts

Tuesday 17th January 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Jack]

I entirely disagree. We are supporting the Union. The Scotland Act is what we believe in. Section 35 was democratically put there and we believe we must take the legal advice we have. People are telling me to read out the statement of reasons: the statement of reasons and my order have been submitted to the parliamentary authorities, and they will be available within the timeframe that those authorities decide to release them this afternoon. Hon. Members will be able to read everything they want to read there about the reasons behind the decision, but essentially it is about protecting and safeguarding women and children where we believe there are adverse effects.

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

Against a background of rising hate crime, my trans siblings will be horrified and terrified at the level of misinformation and lies in this Chamber today. Given that the Secretary of State has had a lot of legal advice on this, presumably he has also had briefings. Can he tell us what is the effect of a gender recognition certificate? What does it entitle someone to do?

[Mr Jack]

We believe, as the hon. Lady will see in the statement of reasons—I have made this point very clearly—that there is a reduction in safeguards for women and children. She will have plenty of time to read that today.

Points of Order

Kirsty Blackman Excerpts

Tuesday 17th January 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

If the Minister does not want to respond, I will answer it for him. Of course, you can ask any question. That is the whole idea of topicals—to keep the Minister alive and on his feet. It is not for me to apologise when a Minister cannot answer. Let us leave it at that.

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

[Mr Speaker]

Is it on something I have already ruled? If so, I want to make progress, but if it is completely different, I will make a judgment in a second.

[Kirsty Blackman]

It is a different question. Given that we are going into this debate without having seen the statement of reasons, will you give us a measure of flexibility by still allowing us to speak if we need to nip out to get a copy, even if we miss a few seconds of the debate?

[Mr Speaker]

I am sure we could bring copies in for you—in fact, I see that Mr Hosie is already doing due diligence in delivering them, and quite rightly too.

Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill: Section 35 Power

Kirsty Blackman Excerpts

Tuesday 17th January 2023 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (John Lamont)]

A short time ago, the Secretary of State for Scotland made a statement to the House regarding the Government’s decision to exercise a power under section 35 of the Scotland Act 1998 with regard to the Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill. For the benefit of Members who were not present at that statement, I shall summarise what action this Government are taking and why.

Today, the Secretary of State is making an order under section 35 of the Scotland Act 1998 preventing the Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill from proceeding to Royal Assent. As the Secretary of State said, this is the first time the power has been exercised, and it is not a decision that has been taken lightly. However, it is a decision based on the legislation’s consequences for the operation of reserved matters across Scotland, England and Wales, including on equality legislation.

The Scottish Government’s Bill would introduce a number of changes around gender recognition in Scotland. They include reducing the minimum age at which a person can apply for a gender recognition certificate to 16, and removing the need for a medical diagnosis and evidence of having lived for two years in their acquired gender.

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Is it acceptable for the Minister to read out the statement that has already been made, changing the order of some of the sentences?

[Mr Speaker]

It is up to the Minister what he wishes to say.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

Let me start with an apology to all the trans people in Scotland who were hoping that they would be able to get the gender recognition certificate that they cannot currently get because they cannot provide thousands of pages of evidence, because they cannot go in front of a panel, and because they cannot obtain the medical diagnosis of gender dysphoria, which the World Health Organisation has said should not be necessary for a certificate. I want to apologise for the fact that we gave them that hope and the UK Government have dashed it again.

We are in a room full of cis people talking about the lives of trans people. That is what we are doing in this room: we are talking about the lives of other people, and about rights that do not affect us in our privileged, entitled position here. I want to know why the UK Government have suddenly decided that they are going to try to protect vulnerable women and children. They did not think like this when they were talking about the implementation of the rape clause, or when they were demonising migrants and refugees. They did not want to protect women and children until today, when it seems that they can suddenly use this wedge issue to attack trans people, and to demonise the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government for the decisions that we have taken to try to improve the lives of our trans constituents.

Earlier, when I asked Secretary of State what a gender recognition certificate does, he did not have the faintest clue, yet he has the power to veto this legislation from the Scottish Parliament. I have looked at the statement of reasons, and it contains no reasons for any impact on the lives of women and girls who are not trans. There is no such impact on their lives, because this is a manufactured grievance—the Labour party is absolutely correct about that. It is a grievance manufactured by the Conservatives, who are cynically using the lives of trans people to create this conflict.

A gender recognition certificate does not allow people access to bathrooms or changing rooms, and it does not allow them to change their passports or driving licences; they can do that without a gender recognition certificate. All the certificate does is allow people to live and die in dignity. It allows them to have the correct gender on their death certificates, and it allows their gender to be recognised by pension providers. It is something that trans people need and cannot currently obtain because of the massive barriers erected by the current Act. I am devastated that Conservative Members sitting over there are suggesting that we should even row back on that Act. What we should be doing is making life better for people and improving human rights, not dismantling them.

Scottish Referendum Legislation: Supreme Court Decision

Kirsty Blackman Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd November 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Jack]

Okay, so we have resorted to quoting Monty Python, which does not surprise me. I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave earlier.

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

The Secretary of State says that in order for there to be democracy, there needs to be cross-party support, and that there needs to cross-support in order for us to have an independence referendum, but there was not cross-party support for a Brexit referendum, austerity or the demonisation of immigrants. Why does the Conservative party get to be the arbiter of what does and does not require democratic support?

[Mr Jack]

As the hon. Lady knows, and as I have made very clear, we believe that the priority of people in Scotland is for the two Governments to work constructively and collaboratively together, in partnership.

Scottish Independence and the Scottish Economy

Kirsty Blackman Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd November 2022 Commons Chamber

[Ian Murray]

Let me make some progress. The time that I am taking is making you agitated, Mr Deputy Speaker.

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Ian Murray]

I would prefer the hon. Lady to tell us about the SNP’s proposals rather than talking about the Labour party, but I am happy to give way if the SNP wants to continue this nonsense and charade.

[Kirsty Blackman]

The shadow Secretary of State is making the case, as a Labour politician would, for why Labour should be in charge. For two thirds of my lifetime we have had a Conservative Government for which Scotland has not voted. How does the hon. Gentleman expect the next 36 years to be any different from the past 36?

[Ian Murray]

As for the other third of the hon. Lady’s life, the UK Labour Government transformed it. That is why we want to create a UK Labour Government who can do things for the whole United Kingdom.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

When I joined the SNP more than 20 years ago, I did so because I wanted Scotland to become an independent country. I believe that the people of Scotland should be able to make the important decisions on the issues that matter to us. It was not all that long after the reopening of the Scottish Parliament, and devolution was still finding its feet. It was also not that long after we had managed to extricate ourselves from 18 years of Tory rule—18 years of Tory Governments, who Scotland had not voted for since 1955.

In the time since I joined the party, we have had another 12 years of Conservative government Scotland has not voted for. I honestly thought that it could not get more damaging, and that we could not have a more damaging Government and a more damaging Prime Minister, than what we experienced during the Margaret Thatcher era. Then David Cameron said “Hold my beer”, and had the Brexit referendum. Then the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) said “Hold my beer”, demonised immigrants and put in motion the hardest possible Brexit. Then the right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson) said “Hold my beer”, and destroyed what little faith the public had left in politicians being honest. Then the right hon. Member for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss) said “Hold my beer”, and crashed the economy. If the current Prime Minister asks someone to hold his drink, I recommend running a mile. Scotland has not voted for any of this chaos. We did not vote for a Brexit referendum, we did not vote for Brexit, we welcome immigrants—and we do not vote Tory.

Our Scottish Government are consistently having to mitigate Tory-inflicted hardships in order to offer some measure of protection for our constituents, and I will make no apology for making the wellbeing of the people of Scotland my ideological mission. Because of the decisions of the UK Government we did not vote for, four out of 10 on those on universal credit skipped meals this summer. Mortgage rates have soared £6,700 a year on average. Since last year, energy costs have gone up £1,200, while pasta costs 60% more and bread costs 40% more. The UK Government have capped benefits and reneged on the pensions triple lock—and we did not vote for this. The people of Scotland and the country of Scotland cannot afford to be part of this Union.

[Mhairi Black]

As my hon. Friend will be aware, during the last referendum campaign we were continually told that we were in a Union of equal partnership. As she has touched on, even if every single seat in Scotland—all 59 seats—was SNP, the city of London, for instance, has 73 MPs. Is that not ridiculous, and how can this ever be a Union of equals if the second largest nation of that Union can be outvoted by one city?

[Kirsty Blackman]

My hon. Friend is absolutely correct, and she lays out very clearly the democratic deficit facing Scotland.

We cannot afford to continue having our resources squandered by Westminster. We cannot afford to go without energy market reform. We cannot afford trickle-down economics. We cannot afford the UK’s xenophobic immigration policy. We cannot afford to keep people having no recourse to public funds, which is making some of the poorest people in the UK even poorer still. We cannot afford a UK Government who refuse to increase the minimum wage. We cannot afford to keep having our workers’ rights stripped. We cannot afford locally—the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (David Duguid), who has just stepped out, mentioned this—to have a UK Government who refuse to match Scotland’s funding for our £500 million just transition fund.

This UK Government are failing to tackle the issues that are facing our constituents. It is a joke that they keep mentioning the £37 billion support package. It is a joke that they keep mentioning people being £1,000 better off. For some unknown reason, the UK Government have included a freeze on alcohol duty in their £37 billion calculation. On what planet does that help people to pay their fuel bills or feed their children? People are not £1,000 better off as a result of the energy support provided. The average household is still paying double what it was paying last year. Where does the Prime Minister expect people to find the extra money?

A quarter of people across these islands have got no savings. With borrowing costs rocketing, people are spiralling quickly into unmanageable levels of debt, and that is only set to get worse as the cold weather kicks in. We have consistently voted against that, yet the larger size of England means that we are consistently burdened with Westminster Governments who do not care. Owen Jones published a video that he made during the Tory party conference. He pointed out that mortgage rates are going to go up as a result of the mini-Budget. The Tory party member he was interviewing replied, “I don’t have a mortgage.” That is the attitude we are faced with in the Conservative party. Many Tory party members and donors are doing all right, Jack, so why bother taking action? Our constituents are scared, and the UK Government are refusing to provide adequate help or certainty. The Prime Minister will not even commit to the triple lock or to uprating benefits in line with inflation.

My colleagues have spoken about Scotland’s potential. We have so many resources. We can lead the world in the deployment of renewables, and we can reach our economic potential. We have the best educated population in Europe. We have the talent and the potential, and we are not, as my hon. Friend the Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) said earlier, singularly unable to flourish as an independent country. An independent Scotland would use its potential to ensure minimum living standards. How is it that in 2022 we are having to say that? Why are we being approached by constituents who have nothing, and who are experiencing poverty that has not happened in this widespread way during my lifetime? Before this cost of living crisis, some people were living below the destitution line, despite being in receipt of social security. Other European countries have stepped up and provided far higher levels of support to ensure that people can live through this crisis.

What are the people of Scotland doing about this? We are consistently exercising the democratic rights that we have to vote for the SNP. We have a majority of independence-supporting MSPs in the Scottish Parliament, and we had our best ever council elections this year. We have been the third largest party in Westminster for seven years, despite standing in less than one tenth of the seats. Yet the Westminster Government suggest that we have no mandate. I will say who has no mandate—the Tories. They have no mandate to inflict Tory economic policies on our population. They have no mandate for xenophobic immigration policies, and no mandate for cutting social security. If this is a voluntary Union of nations, why are the UK Government not respecting the mandate given by the people of Scotland to the Scottish Parliament to hold a referendum? Why have we had to go to the Supreme Court to assert our right to hold the referendum, and how can the UK Government justify arguing against that? This is not about identity; this is about democracy. Scotland has voted for the right to choose our own future, and we will do everything possible to ensure that happens.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Perkins]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. During that Scottish referendum, I was in Edinburgh, Cumbernauld, West Dunbartonshire, Airdrie and Falkirk, and I spoke to people about the issues and about how much I hoped that they would choose to stay in the United Kingdom. The people I spoke to on the doorsteps were pleased to debate the subject. Lots of them voted to stay in the UK and lots voted otherwise. Virtually all those constituencies ended up voting overall to stay in the UK, but they recognised that not only was this a matter on which the people of Scotland would decide, but that the matter was of interest to people across the United Kingdom.

The basic assertion that the Scottish National party made—that an independent Scotland would be part of the EU but that it would take the pound and, at some point in future, have a Scottish pound—has been absolutely blown to pieces by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South. That was clear for everyone to see, and the momentary quiet that descended among those on the SNP Benches when he was making his case spoke volumes.

We have heard from SNP Members—

[Kirsty Blackman]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Mr Perkins]

I will, because I was about to refer to the hon. Lady’s speech, so that is perfect timing.

[Kirsty Blackman]

I am very pleased that the hon. Member has given way. Is he aware that if all the 1 million people in Scotland who voted to leave the EU had voted to remain in the EU—if we had had a remain vote of 100%—we would still have lost the referendum?

[Mr Perkins]

That is an important point. I could make the same point about the response in Chesterfield. Of course, this was a vote for the entire United Kingdom. However, I want to respond to something else that the hon. Lady said; although I disagree with her conclusions, I thought that she made an excellent speech. On her point about the independence referendum, when I was up in Scotland for that, it was said very clearly by Alex Salmond, and it was very clearly understood by the people of Scotland, that that was a once-in-a-generation referendum. That was said strongly.

The hon. Lady has spoken powerfully about the mandate that the SNP has won by getting Members of Parliament elected to this place. Is she making the case that we should have had another referendum after the 2015 election, another after the 2017 election and yet another after the 2019 election? Every time the SNP has a majority of MPs in Scotland, should we have another referendum? If not, how often should we have these referendums?

We all know that if the 2014 referendum had had a different result and people had voted for independence, there would have been no second referendum. There might have been a 0.1% majority, but it would not have mattered: that would have been enough to say, “We have heard the voice of the people.” But the referendum was lost by more than 10%, and there was an immediate demand for a second one. How often do we have to have these referendums? If the independence campaign wins the next one, does the hon. Lady want the best of three?

[Kirsty Blackman]

I was talking about the different ways in which Scotland has given us a mandate for an independence referendum. When SNP candidates stood for the Scottish Parliament in 2021, the SNP committed explicitly in our manifesto to a referendum on independence. The Scottish people have chosen to have that referendum by voting for independence-supporting parties. If that is not the route for the Scottish people to have an independence referendum, what does the hon. Gentleman think their route to choosing a referendum should be?

[Mr Perkins]

I notice that the hon. Lady has answered my question with a question. My question was a very specific one: how often will we have this referendum? It is not for me to set the terms of a referendum, but I do think that things would be very different if opinion polls showed that the view of the Scottish people had massively changed since 2014. I could not ignore that, because this is a question for the Scottish people.

When the opinion polls turned in 2020, showing more Scottish people in favour of independence, we heard about them all the time. Everyone was always saying, “Oh, the latest polls say this.” Then I thought to myself, “Everyone seems to have gone a bit quiet about the polls. Why aren’t they mentioning them?” I had a little look on my phone. Of the last 19 opinion polls, including the most recent one paid for by the Alba party, only one showed majority support for independence. Of the last 44 opinion polls, only four have shown a majority for independence. If there had clearly been an overwhelming shift in opinion that had not been reflected, things would be different, but there has not. The truth is that opinion polls suggest that we are broadly in a similar place.

It is a shame that the hon. Lady did not respond to my question. If 2014 was not once in a generation, as the people of Scotland were clearly told at the time, when will be? When will enough be enough?

Sewel Convention

Kirsty Blackman Excerpts

Monday 18th June 2018 Commons Chamber

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

I thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting this debate, and I thank the SNP group leader, my right hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford), for applying for it, but it comes too late, because Government MPs have already voted through clause 15 and it cannot now be amended, because of the way the procedures of this place work.

In Scotland, we believe that the people of Scotland are sovereign. In Westminster, this place, they believe that Parliament is sovereign, but that idea is currently being attacked. Only at the weekend, the Prime Minister said that Parliament cannot tie the hands of Government, but surely that is Parliament’s job. If Parliament cannot tie the hands of Government, it means that power is being so far removed from where it should be. It should be with the people. The fundamental difference between the two countries is that we in Scotland believe in democracy and that decisions should rest with the people, not in the power of the Executive.

It is impossible to overstate the fundamental shift in the relationship between the Westminster and Scottish Parliaments caused by the UK Government’s actions last week. The Government talk about the Scottish Parliament being the most powerful devolved Parliament in the world; if it is the most powerful devolved Parliament in the world, yet its powers can be removed at the whim of the UK Government, I dread to think what the other Parliaments’ powers are like if they are less powerful than ours in Scotland.

Since I came to the House, I have been shocked by Westminster’s attitude to Scotland. As a Scottish nationalist Member, I was under the impression that Westminster did not care very much for Scotland and tended to overrule the will of the Scottish people; I then came here and discovered that the Government do not even think about Scotland. They put forward legislation like the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill, we say, “What about Scotland,” and they look at us like a rabbit in headlights—like they are thinking, “What are you talking about?” They do not even consider the people of Scotland and the fact that we are a separate country with different views. We did not support Brexit.

What do the UK Government imagine that people outside this place think of their behaviour? Are they proud of their legacy? Are they proud of the fact that in years to come people will look back at the behaviour of this UK Government last week—at the fact that they did not even allow a debate on this matter—and see that in the face of the Scottish Parliament refusing legislative consent, they have pounded on anyway and taken powers away from the Scottish Parliament? This will go down in history.

Oral Answers to Questions

Kirsty Blackman Excerpts

Wednesday 24th January 2018 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

My right hon. Friend is right in drawing attention to the impact of infrastructure when it is developed in various parts of the UK. On the specific point of the lower Thames crossing, I know that is going to unlock opportunities and economic growth for the region and the country, and will offer better connections, new connections and better journeys. It is, of course, part of the biggest investment in England’s road network in a generation.

As my right hon. Friend knows, Highways England has announced the preferred route; it did that last year. I recognise this has raised some concerns in affected constituencies, but may I assure him and other Members that there are going to be further opportunities, for both those who support these proposals and those who do not, to give their views and to have their say? But he is absolutely right: new infrastructure developments such as this can make a huge impact not only on jobs during the development of that infrastructure, but on the economy, locally and nationally.

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

Q2. Outside a customs union with the EU, many UK businesses would face, in the Brexit Secretary’s own words, “complex and punitive ‘rules of origin’ tariffs”.Given the Prime Minister’s aim for frictionless trade post-Brexit, will she confirm whether she intends to pursue a customs union with the EU?

[The Prime Minister]

I have said this on many occasions and I am very happy to repeat it: leaving the European Union means that we will be leaving the single market. We will no longer be members of the single market or the customs union. We want to be able to sign and implement trade deals with other parts of the world, as part of an independent trade policy. We are looking forward to the negotiations for a bespoke deal—a comprehensive free trade agreement—between the UK and the European Union for the future. We will be looking for as tariff-free and frictionless a trade agreement as possible.