Affordable and Safe Housing for All
Alyn Smith Excerpts(3 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Alyn Smith (Stirling) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to contribute to this debate on the Gracious Speech.
Ensuring affordable housing for all really is a case of a tale of two Governments. It is not a competition—I wish the Minister and the UK Government well in tackling the housing crisis in England—but the Scottish Government can be judged on our actions and successes, and I suggest that there are some examples to take on in tackling common endeavours.
Since 2007, we have put housing and homelessness at the heart of policy. There is much to do, but much has been achieved. On buying, our first home fund has helped 11,000 homes to be sold and our open market shared equity scheme and our new supply shared equity scheme have helped thousands more to buy their first home. Since 2007, we have delivered 96,750 affordable homes, and we have just been re-elected on a manifesto to build 100,000 more by 2032.
During covid, we have proven to the citizens we all serve that homelessness need not exist. It is a question of political priorities and funding them properly. Since August 2018, the Housing First initiative in Scotland has helped 832 people to access permanent housing. It is a wonderful scheme, which I commend to the House.
But it is poverty that drives homelessness, and the Gracious Speech makes it clear that the UK Government are more interested in fighting culture wars than in fighting poverty. Poverty drives homelessness. Poverty drives precarious employment. Poverty blights the lives of millions across these islands, and this Government also can be judged by their actions. Freezing local housing allowance and continuing the bedroom tax will hurt the poorest hardest. The Resolution Foundation has found that 450,000 households are in rent arrears because of covid. This Gracious Speech offers them nothing in their continuing plight.
The Scottish Government can do much and have done much, but they can only do so much when 85% of welfare expenditure is controlled by this place. We want those powers and we want those budgets. We want all the powers of independence, not for the flags and the anthems, the old songs and the old stories, but because of what we will do with those powers. My party has concluded that independence within the European Union offers our best future, and we have just been re-elected as the national Government of Scotland with 85% of the constituency first-past-the-post seats. The fact that we have a mandate for an independence referendum is undeniable. The people of Scotland will get to make their choice between two Unions, and I am confident about standing on the SNP’s record of achievement and our aspirations for the future.
Levelling Up
Alyn Smith Excerpts(3 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Alyn Smith (Stirling) (SNP) [V]
Can the Minister tell us how much less money will come to Scotland under this scheme than we would have received under the EU funding scheme? If he will not commit to sending this lesser sum of money to Holyrood and leaving it at that, how can we view this as anything other than a power grab from Scotland, for less money than we would get if we were independent in Europe?
Eddie Hughes
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will understand that I mean him no ill when I say that I suspect the good people of Stirling will soon come to realise that they were better represented by their previous MP, my dear friend Stephen Kerr. However, I would imagine that the hon. Gentleman’s local authority will be delighted that this Government are providing £125,000 to help it work up a high-quality bid so that it can draw more funding to Stirling.
United Kingdom Internal Market Bill
Alyn Smith Excerpts(4 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Cherilyn Mackrory
I am going to make some progress and will draw my remarks to a conclusion quickly.
The reason we are here today and why this Bill is having to be put through Parliament is because of negotiating in bad faith at the joint committee. I was so pleased to hear the Prime Minister’s remarks yesterday that if the treaties come into conflict, Her Majesty’s Government will ask for arbitration—I was reassured by that. These are all things that have to happen, have to be said and have to be set into domestic law in order for us to proceed at these negotiations. That is the only reason why we are debating this Bill today.
Alyn Smith (Stirling) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Graham. This Bill is difficult for the Scottish National party. It is offensive to our values, it is not our world view, and it is being introduced in pursuit of a project that Scotland comprehensively rejected. We are engaging in good faith, but we do not consent to this project. Scotland does not consent to the way the Bill is drafted.
However, I was not sent by the people of Stirling to showboat and walk away, or to grandstand and not try to find solutions. As is typical of all our amendments, we have tabled amendments 28 and 29 in good faith, and to insert into this dreadful Bill the principle of consent from the Scottish Parliament and other devolved Administrations. If we cannot do that, we seek to exempt Scotland from this madness. We are engaging in this process in good faith. We are working within the constitutional reality of the United Kingdom, and by rejecting the amendments, this House will prove, in full view of the people of Scotland, that the constitutional reality of the United Kingdom does not work for us.
I was sent here to try to find solutions, and amendments 28 and 29 do that. We believe that decisions for Scotland should be made in Scotland. It is a fundamental principle of devolution that, unless reserved to this place, decisions should be made by the democratically elected Parliament of Scotland. That principle was endorsed by the people of Scotland with 74% of the vote in 1997, and those Government Members who are keen on referendums should be aware that they are up-ending a deeply held principle of the people of Scotland.
As I have said, this Bill is a poor piece of legislation, and it did not need to be this way—that is what I find so frustrating. It is offensive morally, politically, even intellectually, but it did not need to be that way. We are open to negotiation and to frameworks. We respect the fact that we have left the European Union—we regret it deeply, but it has happened. As a solicitor by trade, I accept that a domestic legal construct is needed to replace the single market legislation of the European Union, but it does not need to be this abomination. We could do this better. Our amendments seek to make this bad Bill better. We will still not be keen or in favour of it, but it does not need to be the naked power-grab that it is.
Part 4 of the Bill seeks to replace 60 years of juris- prudence from the European Court of Justice and the European Commission, democratically overseen by democratically elected Members of the European Parliament, and member state Governments who are themselves democratically elected—60 years of expertise on how the single market and internal competition works.
Joy Morrissey
I’m back. To clarify that point, it is actually the European Commission that oversees the single market, and it is that unelected body that oversees and creates the market framework—[Interruption.]
Alyn Smith
I thank the hon. Lady for that point. In my 15 years at the European Parliament I was always struck by how many unelected bureaucrats had been democratically elected by the people they served. It is great to engage with something that does not quite exist, such as the European Commission that the hon. Lady wishes did exist.
For those who are against unelected bureaucrats, I suggest only that they consider the reality of the Bill. The Bill replaces 60 years of jurisprudence, overseen by experts in the European Commission and the Court of Justice—be they democratically elected MEPs or democratically elected member state Governments—with a group of people who will be unelected. They will be appointed, but they have not been appointed yet. We do not know who they are. They will be operating a competition policy that has not as yet been revealed by this Government, who are so desperately negotiating with themselves that they cannot tell our European partners what they are trying to do. Those people will be operating with a budget that has not yet been shown to us, and with jurisprudence that does not yet exist. It takes a heroically Panglossian approach to think that that can be created in a matter of months.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
Could the hon. Member clarify for me how he thinks replacing 60 years of jurisprudence will be terribly difficult, yet replacing 300 years—[Interruption]—will be simple?
The Temporary Chair (Sir Graham Brady)
Order. Stick to the point of the amendments.
Alyn Smith
Sir Graham, I will try to stick to the amendments. I was hoping for a point of consensus with the hon. Lady, but the lady is not for turning. I will stick to the matter at hand, if I may.
This chimera, this shibboleth is going to be created by this Bill. I have already explained the reality of how devolution works: unless reserved to this place, decisions should be made in Scotland. This shibboleth—with people not yet appointed, operating to a policy not yet decided, to a budget that has not been agreed, with a jurisprudence that does not exist—will sit above, as a politically appointed death panel, every single decision of every single public authority in Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and, indeed, England. Every decision involving public expenditure will be gainsaid by this unelected quango that does not yet exist, and we do not know what it is.
From our perspective, this is replacing a system that we are comfortable with. We respect the fact that we have left the European Union; we do not like it, but we have. A system that works tolerably well is going to be replaced with a system that does not exist. It is politically motivated, ideologically driven and owes nothing to the creation of jobs or safeguarding of jobs or standards. It is entirely a political project to get as much power to this place as possible against the objections of the Senedd in Wales.
Stephen Doughty
Does the hon. Member suspect, as I do, that appointed to this unelected body might be more chums of the Prime Minister of the likes of Tony Abbott—a disgraced former Prime Minister of Australia, a political appointment and totally unsuitable for the role, yet appointed because he shares the same political views as the Prime Minister?
Alyn Smith
I am very grateful for the point, and I very strongly agree. We do not know who these people are going to be. We do not know how they are going to be appointed and, forgive me, but from the track record of the Government thus far, I have little faith in who they are going to be and what their agendas will be in practice. Our concern is about the lack of power that the people of Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and, indeed, England will have over that process—and, indeed, this Parliament. The oversight that this Parliament will have over this process under the very text of the Bill, which is a wider discussion than these amendments, is appalling, but it did not need to be this way.
We heard earlier in the debate from some Conservative Members that there should be uniform standards across the UK. It is a superficially appealing point as superficial arguments go, which seem to be what Conservative Members deal in, but the single market within the European Union operates very successfully with different standards. The whole point of devolution is that different places are empowered to make different decisions, so there may well be different standards, different practices, different expectations or different rules in different parts of the four home nations. That is the point. This Bill is a mechanism—a political mechanism—to override and destroy that democratic diversity and replace it with devolution as power retained. It is a naked power-grab for all to see, and I would urge people outside this House to read the Bill carefully, because it makes the case for independence for Scotland all the stronger.
Cherilyn Mackrory
Talking about standards, the British should be very proud of their standards in animal welfare and particularly in farming—I am certainly proud of our Cornish farmers—and we have done that while we have been part of the European Union. Our standards are higher than many of our counterparts in the European Union. Having a single internal market does not mean that we will lower standards. If anything, we can learn from each other and keep our higher standards in all parts of the United Kingdom.
Alyn Smith
In which case, I do hope the hon. Lady is going to be supporting our new clause 5, which would make it explicit in the Bill that there will be no cutting of standards. That is not under consideration today, but it is there in black and white. It was curious to see Conservative Members refuse to support a previous reasoned amendment from a former MEP colleague of mine, who put forward precisely that on a previous piece of legislation and it was rejected. This is a Government who are so desperate not to tie their hands with such considerations as lowering standards, because that may well be what needs to be traded away in future trade deals.
Drew Hendry
Was it not just this Sunday that a UK Government Minister refused to rule out our having to import and sell chlorinated chicken? The product is chlorinated due to the filth of animals living in the cage among pests.
Alyn Smith
Absolutely. We are deeply concerned on behalf of Scotland’s farmers—and, indeed, everybody else’s—that trade deals could see a lowering of standards. Mutual recognition of the UK internal market could undermine the capacity of the different authorities to have those rules.
Alan Brown
On that concern about the lowering of standards, the International Trade Secretary said previously that consumers would choose what products they wanted on the shelves. Does that not indicate that the Bill is a Trojan horse for a lowering of standards that would affect Scottish farming?
Alyn Smith
Exactly. I fully agree with my hon. Friend, who has been fighting for farmers in his constituency for many years. New clause 5, for which I hope we have some support from those on the Opposition Benches, is specifically about the maintenance of minimum standards, so I hope that when the House comes to consider it, there will be support for it. If we are scaremongering about lowering standards, then Members can support the amendments to make it explicit in the Bill that standards will not be lowered. Prove us wrong. By refusing to back the amendments, we will be proven right.
Aaron Bell (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman is making a very cogent speech in favour of independence, basically. I thank him for his lectures on constitutional history and I thank the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry) for her lectures on the Sewel convention, but those predate us getting into the internal market in the first place. The Bill seeks to restore the status quo ante in this country, which is an internal market. It is not a power grab. The amendments are a grab for independence, and I understand why they have been tabled, but that is what is going on here. The hon. Gentleman is trying to further independence through these amendments. I completely understand that, but that is why we will reject them.
Alyn Smith
I take the point that the hon. Gentleman makes. He accuses me of promoting the case for independence and, indeed, I do promote the case for independence, but Government Members need to be in no doubt that a substantial element of the population of Scotland is deeply disgusted by this process. They are frustrated by the disrespect that Scotland has been shown since the EU referendum, where we rejected Brexit significantly, but were told to shut up and get back in our box. Just after the 2014 referendum, we were told we were a partnership of equals, but we were then told immediately afterwards that we are part of the United Kingdom, not a partner in it. The Bill makes that explicit in the eyes of the people of Scotland.
I won Stirling from the Conservatives with 51% of the vote precisely because I am in favour of the rule of law and international solidarity, as demonstrated by the multilateral, binding, voluntary solidarity of the European Union. That is a structure we are comfortable with and a structure we are very comfortable with Scotland fitting into in the future. Dare I say it, but Scotland has a far sharper sense of its place in the world than the UK does right now.
This Bill seeks to cement power in the hands of the unelected, aided and abetted by people who—with good intentions, I do not doubt—are facilitating that power grab, but in so doing are upending the principle of devolution that is dear to the hearts of the people of Scotland and Wales and is deeply sensitive in Northern Ireland. When the hon. Gentleman says I am promoting the cause of independence, damn right I am, but I am also defending constitutional probity in the rule of law within the United Kingdom. Perhaps Government Members need to think a little harder about what they are being whipped through the Lobby to support.
To conclude, our amendments seek in good faith to insert into this package, which we dislike so much, the principle of consent of the Scottish Parliament and the devolved Administrations. Failing that, we seek to exempt Scotland from this madness. I urge Members to support the rule of law and democracy within these islands.
Alexander Stafford (Rother Valley) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Graham. I do not think I have spoken under you before. My constituents in Rother Valley and fellow Members of this House will be aware of my deep and unwavering commitment to the Union. I am an avowed Conservative and Unionist, and I never pass up an opportunity to celebrate the success of our British family. As such, it is a privilege to promote our Union and this Bill, unamended, which promises to protect the jobs and safeguard the unity of our nation.
As I said last night on Second Reading, we are one family. The Bill strengthens the familial ties between the four countries of our family, but I fear that the amendments—particularly amendments 28 and 29— weaken those ties and fundamentally undermine the purpose of the Bill. The Bill binds us ever closer together. It provides that any goods that are legally sold in one part of UK must also be freely sold in any other part of the UK—equality.
Alexander Stafford
I do believe in respect, and I do believe in recognition. I also believe in respecting the will of the people. I think it is disgraceful that Members on the other side of the House come here and talk about respect when, over and over again, they have tried to thwart the will of the people on Brexit. I will take no lectures from such a party talking about recognition.
Alexander Stafford
I have taken a huge amount of interventions already, so I will make some progress.
This body, fundamentally, is at last going to look after Britain and British interests, and that to me, is vitally important. Moving on to the main clauses of the Bill, clause 28 as it stands will allow the OIM to monitor the internal market, which is another example of how we have taken back control of Britain’s future. We are looking after our own markets at last. Clause 29 states that the CMA will be able to conduct research of its own volition in addition to research requested by political parties, the devolved Administrations and legislatures and, of course, the UK Government. It will regulate cross-border competition, cross-border investments and the levels of trade between the different parts of the UK. This will be great for the levelling-up agenda, because the CMA will look at all aspects across the borders.
Clause 30 will make the system more transparent. The CMA will have to share all reports commissioned with all national authorities—including the Scottish Parliament—after 15 days, regardless of who requests the report, in order to be compliant. All parties should welcome this level of transparency and openness in politics. In other words, if one body asks for it, everyone gets to see it. There is no cloak and dagger; everyone is involved and treated equally. Clause 32 states that the CMA will be able to report on the economic impacts of the Bills passed into law. It is fantastic to have objective-free reporting, without party-political goggles or restraints. This will allow us to have an objective-free, open way of looking at things.
Clause 34 will allow the CMA, at its own discretion, to exclude particular categories of information from its reports, where they are judged to be significantly harmful to UK business interests. That puts our economy first, which is exactly what the body ought to do. It is not a political body, and it is not a Parliament making political points. It is trying to say, “We are here for business”, because this is a business Bill to promote British business and our British trade. It is not about independence. Is not about a so-called power grab. It is about promoting trade, and nothing more. It is about making things better for everyone—for the people of Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and England.
Clause 36 grants the CMA information-gathering powers, and states that no information can be requested if it cannot be compelled to be given in the course of civil judicial proceedings before a court. This gives a level of protection against invasive Governments of all colours, whether in England, Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland, because this party backs business. Despite what the SNP is telling us about a so-called unelected cabal of people being in control, that is simply not the case. This body is about business. We have had many interventions in the debate, but now that I am talking about the clauses and about business, how many times have SNP Members intervened to talk about the nub of the Bill rather than going on about independence? The Bill is not a power grab. It is about business and the economy.
Clause 47 sets out conditions on non-compliance. The CMA will be able to decide whether information requests have been supplied to a satisfactory level, and non-compliance will be punishable with a financial penalty. Dispute resolution will ultimately be a matter for the courts, and the Government will be kept out of it. Once more, we are talking the language of business. We are not doing this in a party political way; we are doing it in a business way. As anyone who has worked in a business or run a business will know, we do not want politicians sticking their noses in business. We actually want a fair way to get through things.
Alyn Smith
As an utterly pro-business but also pro-democracy party, we would contend that the Parliament of Scotland is best placed to look after jobs and work in Scotland, so will the hon. Gentleman condemn the Prime Minister’s earlier comment when he used a four-letter expletive about business?
Alexander Stafford
I am not sure what word the hon. Gentleman refers to, I will be honest. There are lots of great words for business. “Great” business? That is five letters.
We can all talk about business, but all I know is that this Government are pro-business and always have been; we are the business party, because only through business can we get prosperity. I know that the SNP is not pro-business—it is a sort of left-wing socialist party that wants to stamp down on free trade—but the Conservative party wants businesses to be managed and to operate properly and to get the Government off businesses so that they can do what they do, which is to thrive and create jobs. That is what the Bill is about.
Owen Thompson
There are many things wrong with the Bill. Today, we are focused on the creation of yet another unelected body with the monitoring responsibilities to investigate devolved decisions. The current Government seem very keen on creating record numbers of unelected roles. They threatened to abolish the Electoral Commission, so we know that they do not like oversight. But yet another bureaucratic body to investigate and veto what elected politicians decide in the devolved Administrations —is that really what we need? Just because the Prime Minister, and perhaps his Government, are averse to democracy and oversight does not mean that the rest of us are.
Perhaps, if I might be so bold, this is more about the fact that the Conservative party has been unable to win an election in Scotland or Wales since 1957, yet it wants to implement its own policies in disregard of the elected wishes of the Scottish people, who democratically elect the Parliament at Holyrood. Perhaps that is what the Bill is about. Perhaps the Conservative party has taken lessons from some of the donors in the Kremlin.
This unnecessary new body will decide whether a Bill meets the new test for the internal market, putting permanent constraints on the devolved competencies of the Scottish and Welsh Parliaments and the Northern Ireland Assembly. We cannot support such an anti-democratic move in either principle or practice. The amendments seek to remove the Bill’s remit from Scotland. The Office for the Internal Market should not be given powers to monitor the regulatory provisions that apply in Scotland but in not the whole UK. This is nothing short of a threat to Scottish democracy.
How will the OIM’s decisions be scrutinised? Yes, a report must be lodged annually in this place, but nothing tells us at what point that will appear before Members. Will it be like an estimates day? By what process can hon. Members genuinely scrutinise the OIM’s decisions? We need to know. How can we possibly have any clarity about how this will work if we do not know the process of simple oversight and scrutiny?
The regulations proposed to set up this body are unwarranted and lack the necessary clarity about the extent of its remit, how the CMA will receive and consider proposals for investigations and essential mechanisms for democratic scrutiny of the membership and dispute resolution. At very least, it should be essential for all four Administrations to agree at every stage. As the Royal Society of Edinburgh said, the use of this authority against the wishes of the devolved Administrations constitutes a failure of intergovernmental relations.
What happened to the respect agenda? We were told we were in a Union of equals and that we were to “lead not leave”. Where has that gone? Let us make this simple: scrutiny of Bills passed at Holyrood should be undertaken in Holyrood. Transparent, proportionate processes are in place to scrutinise Bills in the Scottish Parliament and consider the input of key stakeholders, including business, public authorities and the public. Replacing that with an unelected body and an unclear process is a retrograde step for transparency in our democracy. It could result in vested interests with financial clout having undue influence, or in regulators challenging the decisions of our elected representatives.
We hear a lot about unelected bureaucrats—we had a lesson from my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Alyn Smith), who highlighted that some of the so-called unelected bureaucrats are in fact elected—but this is a genuinely unelected quango. There is no need for the creation of a new body that could scupper much of the excellent evidence-based policy work that has served Scotland so well. Policies such as the minimum unit pricing of alcohol and maintaining free higher education pose no threat to the integrity of the Union, but could fall foul of the rules for this new internal market.
Alyn Smith
I commend my hon. Friend on a powerful speech. Does he share my concern that as well as the general structure of this body, it is beyond ludicrous that at this late stage, we still do not know who these individuals will be, how they will be appointed, who they will serve and what policy they will implement?
Owen Thompson
Indeed. Hon. Members could be forgiven for thinking that the Bill was being rushed through without a huge amount of thought behind it—not that I would ever suggest any such thing.
The premise of the internal market on which the Bill is based is false. It seems to regard differences in policy decisions taken across different parts of the countries and nations as somehow a bad thing or an irritating bump in the road that somehow has to be smoothed out. That is devolution. The point and principle of devolution is that decisions can be made in a devolved Administration. It was designed to respect localised democracy and better meet differing priorities in different parts of the United Kingdom. Instead, under the Bill, the centralising tendencies of this unequal Union are being put into overdrive.
The Scottish Government have always recognised the importance of free trade across the isles. We have a system in place to govern trading arrangements across the UK, consisting of reserved and devolved competences. Where work is at an intersection of EU law, the four Governments can and should work jointly through the common framework process, although that involves concepts that might be difficult for Government Members to grasp: mutual trust, respect and constructive dialogue, none of which are evident in this Bill. These processes are already there to ensure the continued frictionless trade across the UK that we all want to see, and the Scottish Government happily signed up to this process—it is the correct way to proceed.
The Bill is a political move to curb the power of the devolved Administration, and if this Government continue to seek to guarantee the controlled right of UK companies to trade unhindered in every part of the UK, they should get on with it and use the processes that are already there. The processes in this Bill mean that private health companies or private water companies operating in other parts of the country could soon have a guarantee to work in Scotland, where these things are run by public companies. This is a constitutional and legislative mess.
The Bill is a blatant political move to scupper those rebellious Scots, who just do not seem to fall for the Prime Minister’s charms. He is throwing his toys out of the pram, taking a huff and saying, “It’s ma baw and ye cannae have it.” The Prime Minister had the brass neck to pretend yesterday that each devolved Administration will be “fully and equally involved” in monitoring the internal market, despite sovereignty resting wholly with the Westminster Government. If he is speaking in good faith—it could happen—Conservative Members will back our amendments tonight. They would at least require the approval of devolved Administrations, bringing at least a degree of democracy and accountability to what is, in effect, an unelected body. Surely, that has to be a simple thing to support.
Christine Jardine
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Graham. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse), I rise to speak to amendment 21, and new clauses 1 and 4. Ironically, I do so on the International Day of Democracy—a day when the people of this country might expect their elected representatives to be pondering the importance of listening, consultation and the rule of law. To be fair, in a way we are, but not in any way that fills me with pride or a feeling of hope for our future and for the United Kingdom. No, we are standing here in the mother of Parliaments discussing a Bill that is undoubtedly necessary to smooth trade within the United Kingdom, and I find that we are faced with a Bill—and this part in particular—which shows scant regard to several vital pillars of our democracy.
Where is the respect both for elected representatives here and the devolved authorities across the UK? Where is the respect for the need to consult, listen and produce a coherent, consistent and consensual approach with the other elected authorities? Perhaps amendment 21 would deal with that. Most importantly, where is the respect for the rule of law—a principle without which it is difficult for any democracy to work effectively for its people?
We have heard much over the past few days about the potential impact of the Bill on this country’s international reputation, but today I am concerned about, and would like to concentrate on, its impact on the Government’s reputation and on the future of the country. There are reports that the Prime Minister and his team are confident that the general population will not be too bothered about the Bill. I have to tell the Government that they have political opponents all over the country and in this House who will spend every waking moment, every hour, making sure that the electorate are entirely aware of their perception that this Bill is damaging to the devolved nations and how they operate, and they will use it to promote their own separatist agenda to split up not the European Union, but the United Kingdom. I take great offence at the suggestion earlier that I might be a nationalist simply because I am concerned about the impact of that argument. It is precisely because I believe in the United Kingdom that I want us to pay attention to the dangers in what this Government are saying.
Alyn Smith
I commend the hon. Lady on her Unionism and respect it absolutely. Edinburgh West is a place I know well from my own background. Will she agree that there is not a single thing about independence in the amendments my party has tabled—they are about protecting the devolution settlement—and will she be supporting them as well as her own amendments?
Christine Jardine
Yes, I support the devolution amendment, and yes I believe, as I will come on to explain, that this is all about the devolution settlement, which is a very different thing from independence.
How often did right hon. and hon. Members listen to me and my colleagues warn the Government they were heading to exactly where we are now? As I said earlier, I fully accept we need a framework by which the powers that were vested in Brussels and are now returning to the UK will work for every part of this country. We need a Bill that does precisely that, but, Sir Graham, this ain’t it.
I cannot understand why the Government, in forming this Bill, did not stop for a minute and listen to the many voices urging them to be more conciliatory—to look, for example, at measures such as those that my Liberal Democrat colleagues and I have proposed: to appoint Ministers from the devolved nations to the CMA and be inclusive. But the Government did not listen to us, especially when we warned about the dangers of the withdrawal agreement to the Good Friday agreement, which everyone in the House should regret. Please listen to us now when we say that this approach—this Bill, these steps—do not respect the spirit of that agreement or the devolution settlement.
I appreciate, possibly more than many, that the devolution settlement is something that Conservative Members, particularly those from Scotland, were not comfortable with 20 years ago, but even they have surely learned to love the enthusiasm, commitment and benefits we have seen in Scotland, and I am sure in Wales, and the great changes brought about in Northern Ireland by devolution, and in London. We have come so far since the turn of this new century in devolving power in this country closer to the people most affected by it. It would be dreadful if this Bill—this attempt to allow us to trade more smoothly—were to undermine it, but I fear that that is exactly what it will do.
In supporting amendments tonight, I appeal to Government Members, many of whom have sat—and one or two of whom are aiming to sit once again—at Holyrood. I am confident that they cherish as much as I do what we have achieved for Scotland in Scotland as part of the United Kingdom, in Wales and, most importantly, in Northern Ireland, where we have peace for the first time in my lifetime. I disagree fundamentally with my colleagues on the SNP Benches about independence and where Scotland should be heading, but I cannot disagree with their anger at the lack of respect for ourselves, our Parliament and others across the United Kingdom.
I do not believe that that is what the Conservative and Unionist party truly believes or wants. I want to believe it was not what it intended when it opened this constitutional and legal can of worms, but we need more than words and platitudes about how it will be fine and it is all about trade. We need Conservative Members to stand with us and say to the Government: please respect our Parliaments, the will of the people across the country and the rule of law. If they will not abandon the Bill, I ask them please to accept the amendments, because that is the only way to respect and protect the United Kingdom.
Oral Answers to Questions
Alyn Smith Excerpts(4 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Neale Hanvey (Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Alyn Smith (Stirling) (SNP)
Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)
Mr Clarke
The 2019 Conservative party manifesto committed at a minimum to matching the size of EU structural funds in each nation. It is very important that we get these decisions right. This is, after all, an enormous sum of money—our money—sent formally to the EU and then top-sliced and sent back to us with conditions. I very much look forward to controlling it for ourselves.
Alyn Smith
It is not just the Scottish Government who are looking for clarity on this. Just last week, the Institute for Fiscal Studies published a report that said that, four years after the Brexit vote, it is “high time” we had some idea of where the Government are going. Does the Minister agree with me, the Scottish Government, the Welsh Assembly Government and the Northern Ireland Assembly Government that it is high time we had clarity on these schemes?
Oral Answers to Questions
Alyn Smith Excerpts(4 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Alyn Smith (Stirling) (SNP)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Luke Hall)
Supporting the national and local response to covid-19 has been our top priority since March. We are giving councils the resources they need to respond and have injected £3.2 billion of new grant funding. This includes support for vulnerable people such as rough sleepers, where we have taken unprecedented action. Nearly 15,000 people have been housed in emergency accommodation, including hotels, since the start of the lockdown period.
Alyn Smith [V]
I am grateful for that answer. In a consensual spirit, because this challenge affects everybody everywhere, can we recognise the remarkable achievement, proving what we can do when there is political will, of bringing rough sleeping all but to zero? However, we need to build on that and take it forward. What plans does the Minister have to work across the House to make sure that we can build on that success and end rough sleeping altogether?
Luke Hall
I thank the hon. Gentleman for the way that he asked his question. We have seen a remarkable effort from local authorities, volunteers, the homelessness sector and councils of all party political persuasions, who have worked together to bring so many rough sleepers and people in danger of sleeping rough off the streets to give them the support they need. We are of course working with local authorities across the spectrum to put plans in place to support people into longer-term accommodation. Alongside that, we have announced £433 million to deliver 6,000 units of new move-on accommodation and personalised, wraparound support. I am always very happy to meet the hon. Gentleman to discuss this further.
Horizon: Sub-Postmaster Convictions
Alyn Smith Excerpts(4 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Paul Scully
My hon. Friend and I spoke about this earlier. As he says, the Post Office decides its own legal advisers. As far as I understand it, the Post Office changed its advisers to Herbert Smith Freehills in the latter stages of the litigation, which resulted in the settlement, good progress in resolving outstanding claimant issues and a successful launch of the historical shortfall scheme.
Alyn Smith (Stirling) (SNP) [V]
Happy birthday from me also, Mr Speaker.
We have seen some movement today from the Government, and I do welcome that as far as it goes, but like the Equitable Life scandal, this is an ongoing deep injustice, as is the plight of people currently suffering under the loan charge. There is a consensus across the House that this just does not go far enough. Could I urge the Minister to build on the progress he has announced today and accept the will of the House that we need a judge-led inquiry to properly ventilate all the issues?
Paul Scully
As I have said, the terms of reference of this review are deep enough to get to the bottom of exactly what has happened. The fact that the chairman, who will be appointed, is independent of Government, independent of Post Office Ltd, and will have the freedom to be able to go and find evidence to complement the evidence that has already been published by Mr Justice Fraser in his judgment means that there will be plenty to draw on in order to come to conclusions and recommendations.