Backing Business to Create Economic Growth
Debate between Kirsty Blackman and Seamus Logan(3 weeks, 3 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
Madam Deputy Speaker, may I give you a heads-up? I am going to mention a number of hon. Members, all of whom I have contacted in advance to let them know that I will be mentioning them.
There has been an awful lot of talk about regulation in the debate. I remind the Conservatives that the vast bulk of regulation that businesses are labouring under was created during or prior to their 14 years in office. A huge amount of the regulation affecting businesses that transport things abroad or sell things overseas is because of Brexit. There are many reasons why regulation has come in, and not all of them are down to this Labour Government. I agree that it is important to listen to businesses—something that the Labour Government are singularly failing to do—when they ask for easy, small changes to be made that will make their lives significantly easier. The Labour Government—all Governments —should listen to those businesses and consider making those changes.
Since 2024, the Government have been mired in stagnation. They do not seem able to do or achieve anything. Some of the pre-consultation draft Bills that were suggested in the last King’s Speech never made it to Parliament—we never saw them—so even putting aside the current chaos, how can we believe that all the things in the King’s Speech will come before this Parliament for us to make decisions on?
On regulation, the Office for Tax Simplification was started and cancelled by the Conservative Government. If we need a simpler tax system, then surely an Office for Tax Simplification would be the sensible route to take, but that is not the only burden that is faced. I agree that to keep people safe, keep businesses profitable and ensure that businesses can export to wherever they want, we need simpler regulations that make sense and have a purpose—not regulations that are there just because they are what we had 100 years ago, 50 years ago or 20 years ago.
On the red tape around regulation, there is more to be done on pension funds. Despite the Pension Schemes Act 2026, which I largely support, there is still more that can be done to free up some of the money in pension funds. For example, I would love to see more pension fund money going into building more social housing. We know that we will get a return on social housing, as people pay rent on those social houses. I would love to see flexibility introduced, so that the Government can create pipelines for smaller-scale energy projects, such as renewable energy projects for communities, and social housing. Pension funds could then invest our money in them. We must remember that it is our money in those pension funds, but that money is not being invested in ways that will ensure growth, in both living standards and the economy.
Touching on my constituency and jobs in Aberdeen, I recently met a business in my patch called Lows Tradional Fish & Chips. Lows is an excellent chipper; we call them chippers in Aberdeen, but everybody else seems to call them chippies. Lows talked to me about the increase in its energy costs, which have more than tripled. It is important that the UK Government consider that seriously. They claim that they have targeted support for businesses. It should not be just for high-energy businesses that have to use significant amounts of electricity and gas to make ceramics and other goods; that support should extend to smaller businesses that use significant amounts of heat—for example, in order to cook fish and chips. In Aberdeen, the fish is generally haddock, not cod. The Chancellor needs to keep those businesses in mind when making her announcement later this week—potentially on Thursday—about energy costs.
Oil and gas jobs in Aberdeen are disappearing like snaw aff a dyke, which means “very quickly”. That is the legacy of the Conservative Government, who created the energy profits levy, and the result of this Government not listening to people. The Conservatives can talk about drilling all they want, but if they cancel renewables, there is no future for our energy industries. The Labour Government can talk about renewables all they want, but unless we fill the gap in between, all those folk from my constituency and across the north-east—the engineers, and the people who are innovating and creating amazing products that ensure we can exploit energy and provide energy security—will go away. They will go to Malaysia to work, and they will not be here, paying taxes and inventing those things. We need both types of energy generation, and neither of the two main parties are offering that.
Seamus Logan (Aberdeenshire North and Moray East) (SNP)
Does my hon. Friend agree that it was folly for this Government to cancel the Ming Yang project at Ardersier?
Kirsty Blackman
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. Local jobs would have been created. We have rural population decline; we need to encourage people to move to rural areas by creating those jobs. This UK Government, and past UK Governments, have failed the people of north-east Scotland who work in the energy industries. We need change, or those jobs will continue to disappear.
Scottish National party Members have tabled amendment (c) to the King’s Speech. The amendment says,
“having lost confidence in your leadership”—
Oh no, sorry, that is not our amendment—that is what the right hon. Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting) said. I will try again. The amendment says:
“It is clear that the Prime Minister no longer has the trust or confidence of the public to lead this change.”
No, apologies; the hon. Member for Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy (Melanie Ward) said that. I will try again to find the amendment that we have tabled about the Prime Minister and our confidence in him. What about these?
“It is in the best interest of the country and the party that the Prime Minister sets out a swift timetable to ensure that a new leader is in place to regain the confidence of the public.”
No, that was the hon. Member for Hexham (Joe Morris). I am sure I have got our amendment here somewhere, so let me try again.
“It’s clear that the Prime Minister no longer has the trust or confidence of the public, or large swathes of the Parliamentary Labour Party”.
No, that was the hon. Member for Glasgow South (Gordon McKee).
“The Prime Minister has…failed to instil confidence in his leadership”.
No, that was the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell). Sorry, I will find the amendment—it is somewhere here, I am sure of it. Does it say,
“the public across the UK has now irretrievably lost confidence in you as Prime Minister”?
No, that was the hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Dr Ahmed). I am sure I have the amendment somewhere. Does it say,
“it’s clear from countless doorstep conversations that my constituents have lost confidence in him”?
No, that was the hon. Member for Halesowen (Alex Ballinger). I am sure it is here. Does it say that
“you, Prime Minister, have lost the trust and confidence of the public”?
No, that was the hon. Member for Peckham (Miatta Fahnbulleh).
Our amendment says:
“At end add ‘but respectfully regret to inform Your Majesty that the Prime Minister does not have the confidence of this House.’”
Given my amazing confusion about the similarity between what a significant number of Labour Members have said in public and our amendment—it is almost the same wording—I assume that our amendment will be by far the most popular amendment tabled. It clearly has significant cross-party support. I have not yet heard any Member talk in the Chamber today about their confidence in the Prime Minister.
Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between Kirsty Blackman and Seamus Logan(6 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
Seamus Logan (Aberdeenshire North and Moray East) (SNP)