Charlotte Nichols
MP for Warrington North · Labour · United Kingdom
“Does the Minister accept that although people co-infected with HIV and hepatitis C represent only around 7% of those on infected blood support schemes, they make up roughly 14% of those receiving special category support, because of the disproportionate harm caused by early hepatitis C treatments?”
“I completely agree with the hon. Gentleman’s points, and those of the victims whose voices he is bringing to the fore. Does he agree that both the proposals by the Government and the amendment to the Victims and Courts Bill that was agreed to in the other place, which says that victims will have the right to access a transcript of the jud…”
“In the spirit of cross-party consensus, I commend both the hon. Member on securing this debate and the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) on her campaigning work in this area.”
“The violence against women and girls sector has not had the opportunity to come together to discuss it, and the Government’s framing and narrative has been to pit survivors and defendants against each other in a way that I think is deeply damaging.”
“I thought long and hard about speaking today. I will allow right hon. and hon. Members from the legal profession to make the legal arguments better than I can, and will allow Members who rightly have procedural or rights-based concerns for defendants, which I share, to raise them. I trust that those points will be satisfactorily covered.”
“Shamefully, the tariffs have not been uprated in line with inflation since 2012 and have no eligibility for non-contact sexual offences, which can cause significant and lasting harm.”
The complete record
Every one of 600 lines we hold for Charlotte Nichols, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 11 of 12.
“I beg to move amendment 32, in clause 1, page 2, line 20, at end insert— “(7A) The objective under subsection (2) does not apply to any person or body that— (a) has made any statement in public that amounts to the denial of genocide; or (b) intends to make any statement that amounts to the denial of genocide within the premises of the provider or to any students of the provider.” This amendment ensures that the objective of securing freedom of speech within the law does not cover those who make statements that amount to a denial of genocide.”
“However, there must be a limit. Professor Goodwin made it clear that, if the Bill were enacted, he could invite someone such as Nick Griffin on to his campus. That is why it needs to be explicit in the Bill that, if he were to do so and his university provider tried to cancel the event, that is not something for which Mr Griffin would be able to seek damages against the university.”
“When we consider the academic rigour of courses and the benefit of what students are being taught, I am not sure that any of us could argue that there was academic rigour in a debate between an Islamic fundamentalist and an out-and-out renowned Nazi. Mr Griffin has engaged in holocaust denial on a number of occasions, including at the trial for his 1998 public order offence, where he said: “I am well aware that the orthodox opinion is that six million Jews were gassed and cremated and turned into lampshades. Orthodox opinion also once held that the world is flat.” Over the course of our debates on the Bill, we have heard a lot about the need to challenge certain orthodoxies: that such debate is healthy in an academic setting and improves academic rigour, allows students to develop their critical thinking and debating skills, and so on.”
“However, I am not sure that assurances will be enough, and that is why it needs to be explicit. One of the witnesses who came before the Committee, Professor Goodwin, stated that he would invite a speaker to address his students “from the British National party or the National Front”. –– [ Official Report, Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Public Bill Committee, 13 September 2021; c. 91, Q187.] Mr Griffin has a degree from the University of Cambridge, so he could potentially argue that he would be covered by academic freedom when promoting his views. Clearly, this is not an extreme hypothetical; this is someone who has been invited to address a number of universities, including my own, the University of Liverpool. He has also addressed the Cambridge Union society, taking part in a panel debate with Abu Hamza.”
“It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Cummins. The amendment would make it clear and explicit in the Bill that the legal protections afforded to academics for their freedom of speech would not cover denial of the holocaust or other genocides recognised by the UK Government, namely the subsequent genocides in Rwanda, Darfur, Cambodia and Bosnia. As I have previously explained, I feel that my concern is justified by the Minister’s comments on the radio about how holocaust denial constitutes lawful free speech, however objectionable everyone in this room would find it. There was a swift back-pedalling on that, with the newly sacked right hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Gavin Williamson) saying in the Chamber that freedom of speech would not protect holocaust deniers.”
“Sometimes, such people bring along heavies with them, who will cause problems, start fights with students and make students on that campus fundamentally less safe while they are there. Of course, they are there to radicalise people and bring them round to their far-right cause. They are there to recruit, so the idea that it is an academic exercise is for the birds—these are people coming on to campuses to radicalise young people. We expect a vote shortly and we want to discuss a lot of other things, but I want to ensure that the amendment is given proper consideration and that those safeguards are put in the Bill to make sure that the well-meaning, I am sure, assurances of the Government do not turn out to be meaningless in effect.”
“Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington, clarify some of the technical points throughout the Bill to ensure that amendment 32 can stand. I think that any right-minded person would want to ensure that protections are in place. It is something in which there is a clear public interest, because it is objectionable that universities might have to spend money to fight legal cases against genocide deniers who demand a right to a platform on their campuses. There is also a really important public order point, because when people from the far right are invited to speak on university campuses, there is often, naturally, a reaction from the student body, who protest their presence. Nick Griffin turning up on various campuses over the years has meant skirmishes.”
“If there are no limitations on free speech, what message would it send to students from places such as Rwanda, Darfur, Cambodia and Bosnia? What would it say to students from Germany, where they have much more robust laws in place to ensure that holocaust denial and denial of other genocides—which is of course a disgusting desecration of all those who lost their lives and who suffered in those genocides—is not perpetuated within higher education institutions? The duty of care that institutions have towards their students is incredibly important, and it is something that we need to ensure is not lost as a result of the unforeseen consequences of passing a Bill that does not have the limitations that I have set out in amendment 32. The following amendments, which are in the name of my hon.”
“Clearly, other pieces of legislation that are in place—not least libel law, the limits that are set out in the Prevent duties that universities have to abide by, and the limits set out in the Equality Act 2010—must be read alongside the Bill, but none of those is sufficient to prevent holocaust denial. I am particularly keen to expand the definition of holocaust denial to genocide denial. Just as we not only commemorate the Nazi holocaust of Jews, disabled people, Roma and Sinti, LGBT people, trade unionists and other minority groups within Europe on Holocaust Memorial Day every year, we also commemorate the subsequent genocides in Rwanda, Darfur, Cambodia and Bosnia. We have spoken about universities trying to appeal not only to a market within the UK, but to a global market.”
“I thank my hon. Friend for that really important contribution. As we have heard from a number of witnesses, holocaust denial—as I said, I am sure that everyone present finds it objectionable—is, in fact, lawful free speech that could be protected under the regulations currently in the Bill, unless we ensure that the limitations of free speech and academic freedom are spelled out explicitly on the face of the Bill. As we have talked about a lot over the past couple of days, it is really important that speakers, academics and students have academic freedom.”
“As we have heard about the broad range of individuals and organisations covered by the Bill, any student society that sought to invite a holocaust denier or genocide denier on to campus could technically have protection under the Bill as drafted. For example, if a free speech society wishes to test the absolute limits of what its university would tolerate regarding free speech and decided, as the Oxford Union did, to invite Abu Hamza and Nick Griffin along, I think it would be irresponsible of the university to allow such events to go ahead. There is nothing to say that the university has to invite them, but clearly there is nothing to say that a society or the students union could not invite them, or what would that mean for the university if it chose to intervene accordingly.”
“It strikes me, talking again about complexity, that the OfS, which already has certain principles that it must abide by in respect of freedom of speech, as Nicola Dandridge was saying, will now have a specific condition of registration, so this is the time to include a condition of registration in respect of discrimination. That then enables the OfS to look at the whole picture, ensuring that the complexity is properly reflected. Rather than it waiting for a non-legislative fix on discrimination, we have the balance brought all the way up. This is where I would do it, if I were putting the Bill together.”
“My view was, “Wouldn’t it be helpful if the OfS had a condition relating to discrimination?”, so that students could look to a regulator and see whether there were particular things that their proposed institution was doing—or not doing. In the end, that was not included. The first ministerial guidance to the OfS suggested that it looked at discrimination. Since that point, it has been consulting on a sexual abuse and harassment procedure. It has put out a statement, which has gone to institutions, and institutions have had to respond on whether they comply—I assume that they have all said that they can comply.”
“Q I will direct my questions to Mr Stone. Earlier, Professor Goodwin said in evidence that he would happily have invited someone from the BNP or the National Front to speak to students, if they were available. He also spoke about the need for academics to feel welcome, safe and secure, but that does not seem to apply to students, in particular those from minority groups, including Jewish students. Under the proposals in the Bill, the OfS will have a specific condition of registration relating to the promotion of freedom of speech. Should it also have a condition in relation to discrimination? Danny Stone: This is something that I wrote about when the OfS was first established.”
“If you remove that, the problem is not fixed, because in the past other academics have spoken in an antisemitic way when those particulars are not their area of expertise. Yes, that needs looking at, and those complexities need bringing out in the Bill. I do not necessarily have a particular suggestion, but I worry about it.”
“If an academic has the right to protest that they have not got a promotion or have been passed over for a job because of free speech they have used in their area of expertise—well, hold on, the area of expertise here is Israel, Zionism and racism. David Miller, however, has talked about Jewish students “being used as political pawns” by “a violent, racist foreign regime engaged in ethnic cleansing.” Everyone, I think, recognises that that is an antisemitic statement. Certainly, as you say, across Parliament it has been recognised as such. There will be other examples of academics who have a particular area of expertise and that area of expertise will potentially give cover for them saying particular things.”
“Q You referred to this earlier, so I am interested to know what you think that the Bill, if enacted, would mean for cases such as that of Professor David Miller at the University of Bristol? He has been widely condemned by the Union of Jewish Students, the Board of Deputies and more than 100 parliamentarians across both Houses of Parliament and all political parties regarding allegations of antisemitism. Would the Bill protect him? Danny Stone: Before coming here, I had a look at the expertise that David Miller’s professes on the Bristol website, which is the Zionist movement, the Israel lobby and racism. One can see, using the Miller case as an example, why that might present an issue in the future.”
“Q Hillary, is there anything you would like to add? Hillary Gyebi-Ababio: It is important, especially in reference to your first question and whether we think about discrimination and what the Bill could allow for. First and foremost, the Bill needs to give stronger reassurances that will not allow for free rein on discrimination, especially of vulnerable groups. However, it is also really important that we recognise that there are students who are made much more vulnerable by different types of speech than others, and unless the Bill recognises that they need protections and unless it can work alongside existing Acts and duties, it is going to make a lot of those students feel unsafe on campus—even more so than they do now with just their general experiences.”
“Q I am interested in two of the points that we have come back to a few times today. The first is around the distinction between academic freedom and freedom of speech. You referred to your view that in that context there is no such thing as harassment. I wonder, in relation to remarks made by the Secretary of State when the Bill was first announced, whether you think there is a limit to academic freedom versus freedom of speech and where that limit should be drawn. Holocaust denial was given as an example. To declare an interest, I am Jewish, so that is something that I am interested in. Professor Stock: To clarify, do you mean the tension between academic freedom, freedom of speech and the rules against harassment?”
“Like many people, I think that the law in this country is overly restrictive. Obviously there are some things, for instance to do with court proceedings, confidentiality of applications and so on, where it is proper that there are restrictions. But short of such things, we could be a lot more liberal than in fact we are. That, however, is a separate question from the content of the Bill.”
“There is a defensive tendency for universities to leap to the most extreme example. If we adopt entirely or orient our attitude towards those examples, and if we are extra cautious because of these possibilities, we really lose a lot in the middle ground. These things are always difficult. You could not possibly sort it out in 30 minutes. Dr Ahmed: I agree with almost everything that Kathleen says. There is a distinction between what the Bill says and what I think needs to happen with regard to free speech. With regard to the first point, the Bill as I understand it says free speech within the law, and therefore makes reference explicitly to existing legislation. The Bill therefore does not protect anything that is already illegal. With regard to my own view, I am close to being a free speech absolutist.”
“Q And if you think there should be a limit in the Bill, or are you saying that in an absolutist context there should be absolute freedom of speech? Professor Stock: I am not saying that, and I do not think the Bill says that, as I understand it. I think this sits within wider sets of laws about speech. I am not a free speech absolutist. The vast majority of the instances that we are talking about are perfectly within the law but are still being censored and having adverse consequences. I acknowledge that there are some kinds of speech that are criminal and should not be allowed in universities. I think the law is quite well set up to deal with things like that. I understand there is already a legal precedent on holocaust denial. I understand your concern—I really do.”
“The second thing would be that since the Joint Committee on Human Rights report in 2018, which has been cited I believe by members of the Opposition, I could think of about 45 cases that have come up since then—documented cases—of disciplinary action against harassment of students, staff and so on for things that they have said that were legal and those are all public, so a second measure of success would be a decline in those cases.”
“Q If the Bill goes through, what would the measure of success be? You have talked about academic freedom, the chilling effect and self-censorship; these are things that exist in a very abstract way. You have referred to the UCU research. What would success look like to you? Dr Ahmed: One thing would be that we could do self-reported self-censorship. That would be something that one could measure and that has been credibly measured. One could work out whether that was declining.”
“I said to them that I have a relative who is a senior person in one of the Cambridge colleges; Cambridge University said that if someone were to call her a rude name in Trumpington Street in Cambridge, they could do something about that because she is a member of the university, but if they were to call my wife, who is a Cambridge graduate but not a member of the community, the same filthy word, they could not do anything about that. My point is very simple: if the university authorities were doing their job, you would not be having this session. But they are not, and the truth is that people are losing their jobs. I come back to my point—I am sorry to reiterate it— that the spirit of intellectual inquiry, which is what makes our higher education sector attractive and successful, is essentially being trashed. That has to be stopped.”
“To give you an example, Cambridge has been mentioned several times. A couple of years ago, I appeared on television. I will not bore you with what it was, but afterwards, a member of the Cambridge faculty tweeted that I was a racist. I wrote to the pro-vice-chancellor, who is responsible for discipline, and said, “Is it okay for people from Cambridge to say this kind of thing about people they do not know and have never met, and to put it all over social media?” In summary, the response I got was that the university could not really do anything to control or deal with such behaviour.”
“Trevor Phillips: Point one is that I do not think one ought to value legislation by the weight of pages. I was partly responsible for the Equality Act and, before that, the Greater London Authority Act, which are two gigantic pieces of legislation. I would not say that either carried the same weight as some rather slimmer pieces of legislation. Secondly, I think your point is, why are we bothering? The answer is that, to go back to what I said earlier, if we could depend on the university authorities to do their jobs to protect the rights of their staff and students, I would say that, on balance, you guys have better things to do. However, it has been demonstrated again and again in the last four or five years that, by and large, university authorities are abdicating that responsibility.”
“Q My question is to Mr Phillips, and is particularly around some of what we discussed about the porter you mentioned. Fundamentally, this is a very thin Bill. As Professor Biggar mentioned, there are clear implications for its interaction with other existing legislation, not least the Equality Act. Where it talks about being within the limits of lawful free speech, that does not extend the existing rights particularly. We have heard about all sorts of potential unintended negative consequences, but do you believe that the Bill, as it is written as a thin piece of legislation, is actually just about moral panic about the Equality Act and young people being too woke for the Government, as opposed to a genuine issue that needs tackling in this way?”
“Q To go back to your point about a Cambridge academic accusing you of being a racist on Twitter and universities not doing their job, a lot of the evidence we have heard seems to suggest that universities should have some sort of control over what random people on the internet say. Professor Stock mentioned the idea that she was not being sufficiently promoted, in her view, by the university. This legislation does not actually do that.”
“I am glad to see her here today. Question put and agreed to . Ordered , That Charlotte Nichols, Lilian Greenwood, Huw Merriman, Alan Brown, Jim Shannon, Jamie Stone, Florence Eshalomi, Bell Ribeiro-Addy, Paula Barker, Kim Johnson, Ian Byrne and Navendu Mishra present the Bill. Charlotte Nichols accordingly presented the Bill. Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 3 December, and to be printed (Bill 157).”
“A single document would also expose where there are currently irregularities, gaps in provision or other anomalies that can be addressed. This may involve differences between providers or concepts that are not universally recognised, such as quiet areas for people with autism. Codifying a charter for disabled passengers would help operators as well as travellers. I hope that the Government and Members across the House will agree that this is a simple, inexpensive step that we can take to improve the quality of life of disabled people across the country. Before I finish, I want to thank Scope for its research and tireless campaigning for these measures, and my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood), whose excellent work on preparing and championing this Bill was halted only by her well-deserved promotion.”
“According to Scope’s survey, one in six disabled people said they had not complained about a problem because they did not know if they had the right to do so. Disabled people deserve better. This is why my Bill would bring together the pre-existing rules into a passenger charter for disabled people. This would be a simple, accessible document covering all modes of land transport and setting out exactly what disabled passengers can expect, no matter where or how they are travelling. Taking this step would bolster the confidence of disabled passengers in their rights, and signpost how to get recompense if they deserve it. Adding such transparency and accountability should also improve the services required.”
“If it were not for their kindness, then we wouldn’t have gotten home, or been able to attend important appointments. Quieter stations understandably have less staff, but they’re often more efficient when assistance is needed. It’s the bigger and busier stations that need to look into why some disabled people are not receiving a positive experience when assistance is required.” Problems or distressing circumstances can arise across all sorts of types of transport, including fear of being overcharged for a taxi journey, not knowing whether a parent with a pushchair will make space for a wheelchair on the bus, or pre-booked assistance not turning up to help a disembarkation from a train. In each case it is more difficult than it needs to be for a disabled traveller to look up their rights or indeed to lodge a complaint.”
“The Office of Rail and Road’s annual rail consumer report 2019 stated that an average of a quarter of disabled passengers had not received all the assistance they had booked, which had left them frighteningly stranded, or humiliatingly relying on asking for assistance from fellow passengers. However, we deserve to know the accurate numbers to improve this unacceptable situation. Let me give another example of testimony. Here is Ami’s story, again courtesy of Scope. She said: “There have been countless times, when my mum has booked assistance and yet they don’t turn up until the last minute, causing me a great deal of anxiety. On two occasions, other passengers have had to lift me in my wheelchair on and off the train because assistance never arrived. This is dangerous, not only for me, but for the passengers that are lifting me too.”
“It is worth emphasising that the survey was pre-covid, so did not even take into account the additional fears that disabled people will have faced in travelling on public transport over the past couple of years—not least those unable to wear masks, who have often been unreasonably challenged about this. There has been much legislation and regulation to improve disabled people’s rights over the past quarter-century, but many of those well-intended rules have added up to a patchwork of rights across different modes of transport, both for accessing travel and for raising complaints when disabled people have been let down. If complaints are not made, we cannot know whether existing regulations are being properly followed or enforced.”
“Not to mention, having to leave almost an hour early in case of the usual delays or cancellation of services.” Beyond the necessities of using public transport, for many disabled people, it is a point of pride to be able to do so, a demonstration and unlocking of their ability to lead independent lives. We should be determined to make our transport as accessible as possible. However, according to a 2019 survey of disabled people for Scope, 30% said that difficulties with public transport had reduced their independence, and as many as four in five said that they felt stressed or anxious when planning or carrying out such a journey.”
“Travelling can be a frustrating part of my day, especially as someone who has a limited amount of vision remaining. I’m the proud owner of a guide dog called Carlo. He's very excitable and eager to be outside for walks and adventures. Carlo fundamentally gives me my freedom and ability to visit new places, but without public transport, we’d both be stuck. I was brought up using public transport and try not to depend on anyone to drive me places, so I’m quite confident and independent. My biggest challenge with public transport is the amount of time involved with planning. A trip can take me double, or even triple the time to travel.”
“Disabled people deserve every opportunity to live their lives to the full, but they face particular challenges simply getting around, for the purpose of work, socialising or everyday necessities. Our public transport system is poorly integrated and can be a frustration for many of us, but far more so for disabled passengers who may take longer at interchanges, and may need help or support in embarking or disembarking or to recognise destinations. For disabled passengers, predictability is at a premium and up-to-date information is essential, as they may need to plan well in advance for even a relatively simple journey. To provide a snapshot, here is the experience of Charles, as related to Scope, the disability equality charity. He said: “Like many disabled people, I rely on public transport.”
“I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to establish a passenger charter for disabled land transport passengers setting out their rights, the legal obligations of transport operators, complaints procedures, passenger assistance schemes and accessibility requirements; and for connected purposes. This week, our Paralympic heroes return from Tokyo, basking in glory and adorned with medals after a stunning fortnight of gruelling competition and thrilling battles, yet amid all the cheers that they arrive home to, many will also be greeted by the same barriers that disabled people face day in and day out. More than one in five of our constituents live with a disability—more than 14 million in total.”
“Today it was announced that Australia and New Zealand have withdrawn from autumn’s rugby league world cup, which we are proud to be hosting, citing safety concerns given the shambolic pandemic response by the UK Government. The New Zealand rugby league chief executive has said: “The tournament organisers have moved heaven and earth to make this work, so it is not an easy decision, but the Covid-19 situation in the UK shows no sign of improving, and it’s simply too unsafe to send teams and staff over.” Will the Minister therefore commit to meet rugby league MPs and officials to ensure that a safe and competitive tournament can take place with appropriate measures to protect and reassure team and fans alike?”
“Considering that the proportion of Scottish pensioners stuck in persistent poverty has increased under the SNP and is now higher than levels elsewhere in the UK, and that more than one in four of Scotland’s children are officially recognised as living in poverty, it should be a priority—not a fantasy to put off for some other day.”
“However, the SNP’s Social Justice and Fairness Commission, which suggests a land of milk and honey in a separated Scotland, seems not to recognise the choices that the SNP has made with the devolved powers that it already has. Labour is the party of devolution. In 2016, we helped to ensure that social security was devolved to the Scottish Parliament, but it has treated it like a hot potato. SNP Ministers twice asked the Department for Work and Pensions to delay the devolution of the benefits in 2016 and in 2018. Now full devolution of the benefits has been pushed back further, to 2025. Why should people have to wait for a supposedly kinder and better system that they deserve now?”
“Marie Curie and the Motor Neurone Disease Association estimate that about 7,000 people may have died while waiting for a decision on their benefits claim—utterly appalling. We have called for the benefits cap to be scrapped, for free school meals to be extended over holiday periods, and for personal independence payments and work capability assessments to be replaced with a personalised, holistic assessment process. In short, we believe that the Tories are letting down the public, particularly those most in need, with their mismanagement of the social security system and demonisation of those who need to claim from it, a majority of whom, let us not forget, are in work.”
“Rather than cutting that lifeline, the Government should recognise that that uplift was an implicit recognition that universal credit was too low to begin with. They failed to give proper support to legacy benefits, income-based jobseekers allowance, income-related employment and support allowance, income support and child tax credit. Those should have been uplifted all along. It was discriminatory and unfair not to do that, and after stalling for so long, the Government now intend to have parity for all at the inadequate level. Labour would keep the uplift and extend it to legacy benefits until a new, fairer system can be put in place. The delays to scrapping the rule of certifying that a terminally ill claimant has less than six months to live caused indecent anguish to too many people.”
“Member for Glasgow East (David Linden) said that the Scottish people’s aspiration is for a fairer, more equal and empathetic country, but that aspiration is shared across the UK. Labour opposed the Government’s plans to end the universal credit uplift, slashing £20 a week from the people who need it most and undermining demand in the economy. Everybody recognises the hurt that that will do to struggling families just as we enter the economic uncertainty of the post-furlough era. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation states that the withdrawal of the uplift will risk bringing 700,000 more people, including 300,000 more children, into poverty. It could also bring 500,000 more people into deep poverty.”
“It is a privilege to serve under your chairship, Ms Bardell. I congratulate the hon. Member for East Renfrewshire (Kirsten Oswald) on securing this debate, which has clearly been an opportunity for the Scottish National party to put its case on the record. I cannot blame constituents in Scotland—or in England, Wales or Northern Ireland—who are appalled at the Conservative Government’s failures over our social security system and employment law and want something better. That is perfectly understandable, and we agree with them, as I will set out. That does not mean, however, that we accept the SNP’s desire to break up the United Kingdom to achieve the changes needed. The hon.”
“It is a toxic policy that has hit some of Scotland’s most vulnerable families the hardest, and it is inexplicable that the SNP has not sought to scrap it.”
“I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. She refers to the commission’s report being on decisions to be taken in the here and now, but as I outlined, the Scottish Government have been offered those powers and chosen not to use them. They could be making things better for people in Scotland in the here and now, despite the fact that they are still waiting for further devolution from the UK Government, which my party and the hon. Lady’s can agree is an utterly inadequate Government in all parts of the UK. What about the small policies that have a big impact? Scottish Labour has repeatedly called on the SNP to mitigate the two-child benefit limit, but it has refused. It would cost just £69 million, or 0.2% of the Scottish Government’s total 2019 budget spending.”
“The London School of Economics reports that the combination of separation and Brexit would reduce Scotland’s income per capita by between 6.3% and 8.7% in the long run, equivalent to a loss of income of between £2,000 and £2,800 per person every year. The SNP’s blueprint for independence, the Sustainable Growth Commission, proposes a five-to-10-year timeframe to cut Scotland’s deficit to 3%, meaning that a separate Scotland would face many years of austerity. If that happened, it would be cutting social security, not extending it.”
“I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention and refer her to my previous answer: we both agree that this is an utterly inadequate Government in all parts of the UK, but that does not mean that the Scottish Government could not be doing more to mitigate the effects of the UK Government, as has taken place with regional devolution in other parts of England. Why has the SNP chosen instead to talk up the findings of the Social Justice and Fairness Commission—a commission made up of SNP politicians? Presumably because it is easier to condemn than to construct with the powers available, and certainly easier to make utopian promises about the future. We know that the SNP’s economic forecasts do not stack up.”