Support for Ukraine and Countering Threats from Russia

Debate between Lord Beamish and Stewart Malcolm McDonald

Wednesday 2nd March 2022 Commons Chamber

[Stewart Malcolm McDonald (Glasgow South) (SNP)]

I thank the shadow Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey), for his fine speech and the Minister for his fine response to it. As I am sure others will do as the debate goes on, I thank the Government for the genuine openness that they have shown to Members of the House as the situation has developed. It has made a huge difference to all Members to have that level of access and detail from the Department.

We all look on in horror at what we see on our TV screens with the train stations of a major European capital city and cities across that country filling up with refugees. We thought, did we not, that we had left such scenes behind in our history, but they are back with us once again. Cluster bombs are being used on cities like Kharkiv, a city I visited and know well. It breaks my heart to see what is happening to people in Ukraine: war crimes—war crimes—being committed in 2022 on the continent of Europe. We even have a situation where towns and villages are being surrounded by Russian troops to starve the local population of food, water and other supplies they need to survive. That takes on a particular resonance in a country that in its past suffered, almost 100 years ago, a famine genocide organised by Stalin that killed many millions of Ukrainians and is still very much alive in the minds of Ukrainians to this day. One of the most horrifying things we saw yesterday was the bombing of a holocaust memorial in the capital city of Kyiv. So terrible is it that it puts to bed the utter lie of Putin’s claim to be denazifying Ukraine. Ukraine has denazified itself in the past and will continue to do so in its future.

Like others, I want to pay tribute to the heroism of President Zelensky, the Ukrainian armed forces and the Ukrainian people themselves. I have been in daily contact with friends, MPs and others who I have gotten to know over my many trips there over the years and they still show the incredible resolve, generosity and kindness that we all know them for. They have their own family members and their own safety to worry about, but still they are helping Members of this House to get their constituents to safe places. Some of them are still keeping up their spirits with a sense of humour. Kira Rudyk, leader of the Opposition Holos party, was on UK news this afternoon. It was put to her that she, like every other Member of the Verkhovna Rada, is on Putin’s kill list. She responded by reminding everyone that she is also on the top 10 bachelorette list in Ukraine, so she hopes that that somewhat balances out. To maintain that level of generous spirit and maintain that level of dignity and resolve that we have seen in these circumstances? I suppose we could all hope that we would do the same, but I am not so sure that many of us would.

My party and I have supported the Government over their actions in Ukraine. We have ensured that they get the support from the SNP Benches for the defensive equipment, economic support, and political and diplomatic support they have given to Ukraine, and we will keep doing that. Indeed, like others and, I suspect, the Minister himself, we always want to see the Government go further. That is the job, I think, of the Opposition here. Yes, we are united, but we always want to push the Government to go further where they should.

There are two areas where the Government should. First, on sanctions, it is the case that we are behind other international actors and we want the screws to be turned and turned quickly. Like the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), we agree that there are almost certainly legitimate reasons why we have not done that, but we need to do what we can to fix it. Secondly, on refugees, the Minister is right. Most people will want to stay in a country close to Ukraine, because they want to return to Ukraine. I well understand why people will want to get back there and rebuild their country—it is a proud country and a proud democracy—but we do stand alone in putting in front of people fleeing war crimes all the unnecessary bureaucracy that does not need to be there. I plead with the Government to change that stance and be more open and welcoming, and at least match the offer of EU member states.

It cannot be said enough that our conflict or disagreement is not with the citizens of Russia itself. It is a proud country and it has made incredible contributions over the years to science, innovation, arts, culture and much else. Indeed, Scotland and Russia have shared many connections, not least militarily, over the years. The Russian people, as we are starting to see, are victims of a sort in this conflict as well. As the sanctions start to bite, there will be consequences for them. Indeed, they are already starting to feel it. This war is over one man’s imperial hubris that started not last week, but in 2014. It has already seen the deaths of around 15,000 Ukrainians, and that is before we count the Russian dead. It has displaced about 2 million Ukrainians in their own land.

It is worth taking ourselves back to how this started. It was nothing to do with NATO or the west; it was all because Ukrainians decided that they wanted a European, Euro-Atlantic future, and they wanted Putin’s boot off their neck. Ukraine threatened no one, and remains a threat to no one.

In time—today is not the day for it—we will have to consider exactly what has happened and how the European security architecture has been thrown up in the air like a kaleidoscope. The Minister and the shadow Defence Secretary rightly mentioned the change in German policy. We all watched with our jaws open as the Chancellor reversed 30 years of energy policy and 70 years of defence policy on Sunday. The European Union is now a much stronger military alliance than we ever thought it would be. If someone had told me that that was where it was going two weeks ago, I would not have taken them seriously. That is something for us all to take the time to think about. The integrated review will need to be revisited; only a fool would think otherwise. I was always sceptical of the Indo-Pacific tilt. This is not a time for I-told-you-sos—most definitely not—but all of us in this country and in other countries around Europe will need to rethink defence and security postures going forward.

We are the custodians of the treaties and institutions that were set up to maintain peace and security across Europe, and we need to ask ourselves what we need to do to fix them, because they are more than creaking at the seams right now. How have we got ourselves into a situation where we are seriously contemplating a Government who are accused of committing a genocide against their people—China and the Uyghurs—presiding over peace talks about war crimes carried out by their ally in Moscow against people in Ukraine? I am not sure it could be argued that we have been very good custodians of those treaties and institutions, which have so far by and large held up, but are creaking in a massively unprecedented way.

There will be time to debate those things in the future. Today we must focus on Ukraine, Ukrainians and the war criminals who are carrying out this horror in that nation. For me—if you will indulge me, Madam Deputy Speaker—this is personal, having taken many trips back and forward, like many other Members of the House. We have friends in common, actually. I have phoned friends whose children I can hear in the background being loaded into cars to flee cities—cities in which I have enjoyed meals with their families. I was in Kyiv this time last month. Even then, it did not feel like a city that was on the brink of war. I have been on the phone to friends and heard shells going off in the background—the calls cut off as they have to run. Then there is always that hellish thought when I call someone or text them and for hours do not hear back, and do not know whether they are safe.

It is personal for me, and for many of us in this House. I enjoyed nothing more than welcoming friends from Ukraine to Glasgow for COP26. I had hoped that they would be in my constituency for the Scotland-Ukraine match, although I am not sure what it would have done for our reputation if we had beaten them.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

No chance of that.

[Stewart Malcolm McDonald]

Well, a boy can dream. That now will not happen, but Ukraine is a democracy and the Ukrainians are a free people. They need and deserve our support and focus, and the unity of this House—today, tomorrow and going forward. I am sorry to say that the Minister is almost certainly correct that this will get worse before it gets better, so let us focus on how we make it better. It will require some big, bold thinking—a Marshall plan to rebuild that country from the destruction caused and the destruction yet to come.

In that, we must maintain unity. Where we push the Government to go further and faster, it is not because we want to be oppositionist for opposition’s sake—that is in nobody’s interest. Let us keep to the unity that Ukrainians need, because it is not just us watching the war in their country; we should ask ourselves what we want them to see when they read our newspapers or scroll through our social media accounts. I want them to see common cause to end the war, support Ukrainians and ensure that Ukraine’s democratic future, which they took a stand on in 2013 and into 2014, is still there. Ukrainians today are the real leaders of the free world, and they deserve nothing less.

Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Bill

Debate between Lord Beamish and Stewart Malcolm McDonald

Report stage & 3rd reading & 3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Tuesday 3rd November 2020 Commons Chamber

[Stewart Malcolm McDonald]

Well, we will go through some of that evidence, shall we? We will go through some of the comments made by senior military, legal and political opinion that make it quite clear that what I have said is correct. I accept, of course, that there are differences of opinion within those fields, but it is the case, I am afraid to say to the hon. Gentleman and to the Minister chuntering at me from the sidelines, that senior military, legal and political opinion believes that the Bill is farcical in several respects. I will go through them in turn.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

We cannot get more distinguished than the Judge Advocate General, Judge Blackett, who was firmly of that opinion. The Minister did not perhaps listen, but the judge made his position about the Bill very clear.

Overseas Operations (Service Personnel And Veterans) Bill

Debate between Lord Beamish and Stewart Malcolm McDonald

2nd reading & 2nd reading: House of Commons
Wednesday 23rd September 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)]

I have been in the House for nearly 20 years, and I have always prided myself on being a strong advocate for defence and the support of our servicemen and women, both from the Back Benches and as a Minister. I am also no friend of unscrupulous lawyers. Older Members of the House will remember my campaign of the early 2000s against unscrupulous lawyers who defrauded my constituents who were claiming miners’ compensation. That led to the instigation of the Solicitors Regulation Authority, which took the disciplining of lawyers away from the Law Society. I am also, though, a strong supporter of the legal system and of the military justice system. I have served on the last three armed forces Bills as either a Minister or a Back Bencher, and I think I understand the system well and respect it.

Unfortunately, though, this Bill does not pass the Ronseal test: it does not say what it does on the tin. It excludes completely the arguments, with which I have a lot of sympathy, about prosecutions of those in Northern Ireland. The other issue is the need for the Bill. Its promoters give the impression that there is an army of vexatious lawyers out there who are pursuing veterans. I asked, in a parliamentary question, for numbers. I was told that they were not kept by the Department centrally. The explanatory notes say that there were 900 cases for Afghanistan and Iraq between 2003 and 2009; the impact assessment says the number is 1,000, but what they do not explain is the nature of those cases. How many were brought by vexatious lawyers? How many were compensation cases rightly brought by members of the armed forces or their families?

I accept the issues around the case of Phil Shiner. That individual was disgraceful, but I have to say that the Solicitors Regulation Authority, which was put in place by the last Labour Government, sorted that problem out. On the other main thing that has been raised today, I was a Minister in the Department at the time, and the problem was the way in which cases were investigated. The Bill will not address that.

The other point that I would like to address is my fear that the presumption, as outlined in the Bill at the moment, that prosecutions will not go forward outside a certain timescale will lead to members of our armed forces going before the International Criminal Court. That cannot be acceptable. If we had that presumption against prosecution, the court would perhaps conclude that the UK was either unwilling or unable to initiate a prosecution. I do not want to see that, and I do not think the Minister does either, but it is an unintended consequence of the Bill and it has to be changed.

I also have problems with clause 3, which says that prosecutors should take into account “exceptional demands and stresses” in cases after five years. If it is good enough after five years, why not before? There is no need for the clause, because that is already taken into account. The Judge Advocate General, in his letter to the Defence Secretary, outlined the case of Marine A, where evidence of unique circumstances taken at the first court martial and then at the appeal meant that the sentence was reduced to manslaughter.

[Stewart Malcolm McDonald]

Does the right hon. Member not agree that it diminishes the Government’s standing when they come to the House and cast to one side all these concerns from experts such as those he mentions, when there probably is a reasonable Bill that the House could gather around?

[Mr Jones]

I think there is, but I also say that people should talk to those in the service justice system, because they do this every day of the week. They are an independent judiciary—that is recognised internationally. They do a job in ensuring that people get justice and I think that this Bill will complicate that. One of my fears is that this will undermine the military justice system, of which I am a passionate supporter. I know that some people want to do away with it, but I certainly do not. I also agree with the points that have been raised by the Royal British Legion and my right hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey) concerning conditions around the ability of veterans to make compensation claims later.

I will not vote against the Bill tonight, because I think it can be improved. However, I will also not fall into the political trap that has been set, where it will be said that if someone is against the Bill or criticises it in any way, they favour ambulance-chasing lawyers over our armed forces. I am sorry but I take great exception to that, and I am in good company, along with a lot of other people, such as Field Marshal Lord Guthrie, Nick Parker, whom I have huge respect for—I worked with him in the Ministry of Defence—and the Judge Advocate General.

Britain's Place in the World

Debate between Lord Beamish and Stewart Malcolm McDonald

Tuesday 15th October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)]

This debate is titled “Britain’s place in the world”. I would argue that our armed forces in the UK are a cornerstone in defining our place in the world. I put on record my thanks, and I think the thanks of the House, to the men and women who serve in our armed forces to keep us safe 24 hours a day, 365 days a year.

It was quite surprising that there was very little about defence in the Gracious Speech. There was a single line —that the

“Government will continue to invest in our gallant Armed Forces”—

and yesterday, the Prime Minister re-announced the £2.2 billion that was announced a few weeks ago in the spending review. Our armed forces and our defence budget face a financial crisis. There is a morale crisis among members of our armed forces, and a strategic drift on the way forward for them. That should have been addressed in the Queen’s Speech, but it was not.

Since 2010, the coalition Government and the Conservative Government have cut the defence budget by between 16% and 22%. That has led to aircraft carriers without aircraft and no, or little, capability for anti-submarine warfare, for example. We have an Army of 72,000—the smallest since 1850—and a Navy that has been cut to 30,000 personnel. We have ships that can no longer take to sea because of a lack of personnel. We are told that that £2.2 billion will somehow fund our future needs, but if we look at that announcement, we see that £700 million of it goes straight away on under- funded pension contributions and that a large chunk of it is the drawdown that was already there for the nuclear deterrent, so it does not really address the financial crisis that we face.

We can add to that the National Audit Office report from November last year, which said that the equipment plan is unaffordable by £7 billion over the next 10 years, rising to £14.8 billion if the funding is not brought forward. More importantly, 84% of the identified challenge with the equipment plan falls within the next four years.

[Stewart Malcolm McDonald]

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree—I think he does—that it is about time that the Ministry of Defence and the Treasury switched to multi-year defence agreements?

[Mr Jones]

We were promised that but it has not happened, and that needs to be looked at. The real issue, which I will come to, is our ability not only to afford this, but to know where we are going.

Added to that is the crisis in our defence procurement. In reaction to limited budgets, we are now buying off the shelf from abroad—mainly from the United States—which is not only leading to a hollowing-out of technology and jobs that could be in the UK, but adding to costs. I did not want to mention Brexit in this debate but I have to, because it has a direct effect on the equipment budget. The MOD has contract liability of some $35 billion. Last year, exchange rate losses cost it £620 million, and that could rise to some £800 million or £900 million a year. Buying off the shelf might seem very cheap for the Treasury, but it has long-term implications for the hollowing out of our defence industries, and the foreign exchange risk means that we are spending a huge amount of money that could train, for example, some 9,000 soldiers a year or fund a main frontline frigate in our Royal Navy.

We then have the ludicrous situation, still ongoing, whereby the MOD is continuing this nonsense of putting the fleet solid support vessel out to international tender—it is currently under tender—and arguing that that will somehow be in the interests of not only the taxpayer but UK plc. That dangerous trend is having an effect not only on our sovereign capability to provide these pieces of equipment for our armed forces, but on jobs and technology. It makes common sense to invest in UK plc. The fleet solid support vessel contract could sustain jobs in the UK, if there was the commitment to do that. It is no good trying to hide behind EU procurement rules, as the Government try to do, because no other European nation seems to do it.

This crisis seems to have been completely ignored in the Gracious Speech. Without some fundamental thinking about the equipment plan and what we want to do in defence as a nation, the crisis will continue, and so too will the pressure on individual members of the armed forces. Instead of this smoke-and-mirrors approach to defence funding, it would have been nice to see a full commitment in the Gracious Speech to a fundamental defence and security review. That would mean making some hard choices, but it would not only be better for the industry and members of our armed forces to have some certainty about the future; it would help to define our role in the world—what we can do, what we want to do and what we should do.

Continuous At-Sea Deterrent

Debate between Lord Beamish and Stewart Malcolm McDonald

Wednesday 10th April 2019 Commons Chamber

[Stewart Malcolm McDonald (Glasgow South) (SNP)]

It is always a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis), the Chair of the Defence Committee, despite agreeing with almost none of what he had to say. He is always unfailingly courteous to my hon. Friend the Member for West Dunbartonshire (Martin Docherty-Hughes) on that Committee, and it is always a pleasure to hear what he has to say.

I will start, as the Secretary of State did, by sending our best wishes to those based at Barrow, given this afternoon’s bomb scare. Despite our disagreement, which I am sure we will get into, the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (John Woodcock) should be under no illusion that folk there have the best wishes of the Scottish National party. The same is true of all those who serve in the armed forces, including on the frontline and in the Royal Navy. The Secretary of State mentioned the submariners, and I will mention one former submariner by name. Feargal Dalton is, of course, the husband of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North West (Carol Monaghan) and an Irishman who now serves as a Scottish National party councillor in Glasgow. We send our best wishes to all those who serve, including civilian staff and the Ministry of Defence police.

Our disagreement and quarrel is not with them, but with the political decisions taken in this Chamber. Only in this House of Commons, at this time, against the backdrop of a major constitutional crisis, where each day is worse than the last, could it be thought of as a good use of our time to backslap each other on the UK being 50 years as a marine nuclear power. Anyone who thinks that is a good use of our time right now is, frankly, off their head. But it should come as no surprise, as the Prime Minister is out in Brussels with the begging bowl right now, that those on the Benches that represent this crumbling relic of a Government—there is no doubt more to come from the Labour Benches as well—want to hark back to the symbols of power, stature and glory as they diminish Britain’s standing in the world. Indeed, Max Hastings, the military historian, put it best in The Times last year when he said that Trident renewal was a “big willy gesture” of a small willy nation. I could not have put it better had I tried. The Scottish National party’s opposition to the nuclear project is well known and well documented, but given the opportunity this afternoon—

[Mr Kevan Jones]

rose—

[Stewart Malcolm McDonald]

I will give way in time.

Given the opportunity that we have to discuss the matter this afternoon, we will take the unusual step of dividing the House this evening to show our opposition to the Trident renewal programme.

I intend to set out three clear arguments as succinctly as possible for why there is no military case for the continuous at-sea deterrent—there is certainly no economic case for it—and indeed how we can come to the conclusion, given last week’s National Audit Office report on the failure of this Government and former Labour Governments properly to decommission nuclear submarines, that the United Kingdom is now an irresponsible nuclear power.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stewart Malcolm McDonald]

I should just point out to the hon. Lady, for whom I have bucketloads of respect as she does a fine job in her position, that most members of NATO are not nuclear-armed countries.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

rose—

[Stewart Malcolm McDonald]

I will give way to the right hon. Gentleman in time.

In opposing the renewal programme this afternoon, we intend to give voice to the millions outside this Chamber who do not back the iron-clad consensus that exists between the Conservative and Labour parties on wasting billions of pounds on nuclear weapons.

On the fact that there is no military case, I want to turn to the recent modernising defence programme, which represents a missed opportunity to do things a bit differently. I had hopes that the much vaunted reforming zeal of the Secretary of State when he first came to office would actually be shown to be true, but those hopes were sadly misplaced on my part. Indeed, the MDP, which represented an opportunity to do things differently, has, rather perversely, actually contributed to the miasma of despair and chaos that hangs over the Department over which he now presides. The armed forces remain as small as they were when Napoleon was on his horse. The Government are woefully off target—the target that was set in their own manifesto for the size of the armed forces. Furthermore, the promises that were made to the people of Scotland in 2014 on the size of the armed forces are going one way, and it is not north. Staggeringly, this Government continue to employ Capita—

[Mr Jones]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Stewart Malcolm McDonald]

I will give way to the right hon. Gentleman in time. He does not need to keep shouting at me. I know he is there—I will give way to him, as I always do, and he knows that.

Staggeringly, despite the recruitment problems, this Government continue to spend millions of pounds on Capita and its deeply flawed recruitment programme.

[Stewart Malcolm McDonald]

If a motion came to the House today to sack Capita, I would be in the Lobby with the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois), who I know has a track record of opposing Capita.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

rose—

[Stewart Malcolm McDonald]

I will give way to the right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones), then I will come back to the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford.

[Mr Jones]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. He says that he will divide the House today to vote against this motion. I understand that it is the SNP’s policy to be a member of NATO. He is right when he says that there are many nations that do not possess nuclear weapons, but as a member of NATO, a country has to agree to the nuclear doctrine and the nuclear strategy and sit on the nuclear planning group. Is he saying that if an independent Scotland joined NATO it would sometimes want to abrogate its duties, or is he advocating to vote against nuclear weapons today, but actually join a nuclear alliance?

[Stewart Malcolm McDonald]

The right hon. Gentleman does not need to explain Scottish National party policy to me. Perhaps if he listens, I can educate him. Scottish National party policy is for an independent Scotland to join NATO—everyone, including him, knows that that would be accepted, by the way—but on the contingency that Trident will be removed from Scotland’s waters. That does not prevent the United Kingdom from continuing to have a nuclear at-sea deterrent, although we think it should not and almost certainly would not.

[Stewart Malcolm McDonald]

Hon. Members are coming at me from all sides.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Stewart Malcolm McDonald]

No, no—the right hon. Gentleman asked me a question and I have not finished explaining myself to him. Even if the UK gave up its nuclear weapons tonight, there would still be other nuclear states in the NATO alliance.

[Mr Jones]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Stewart Malcolm McDonald]

No, I am not going to get into this with the right hon. Gentleman.

We are very clear in our belief that the United Kingdom should give up its nuclear weapons, because there is no economic or military case for them, and this country now behaves like an irresponsible nuclear power.

Ministry of Defence

Debate between Lord Beamish and Stewart Malcolm McDonald

Monday 26th February 2018 Commons Chamber

[Stewart Malcolm McDonald]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I would hope that such a model could avoid some of the incredibly alarming passages in the NAO report, which have been highlighted by many right hon. and hon. Members. There is a funding hole in the equipment plan of up to £20 billion. To make that clear, that means that we cannot afford to buy the equipment we say we need in order to keep us safe.

I give all the weight I can to the Ministry of Defence in trying to get it the money that it needs—if not just to stand still, then certainly to move forward—but I do have some criticisms of how the Department has managed to get into this position. Why were the exchange rate projections so badly out—by up to a quarter in some cases?

[Mr Kevan Jones]

Brexit.

[Stewart Malcolm McDonald]

I understand that that was what caused it, but how did the MOD manage to get the calculations so badly wrong? When there is a funding hole of £20 billion just in the MOD’s equipment spending—before we get to estates, personnel and all the rest of it—why is no one being hauled over the coals? I cannot think of another Minister or Department that would be allowed to get away with that, but it is due to a fundamental problem in how this Government, this Parliament and Governments over many years have decided to fund defence. It needs radical change. Even if the solution that we think might be helpful is not the perfect solution, something has to give, because the situation is unsustainable. The NAO is clear that the result is that projects must be cancelled, delayed or scaled back. I therefore ask the Minister to make it clear to the House which projects are to be cancelled, delayed or scaled back. Can we have a guarantee that not a single project in Scotland will be cancelled, delayed or scaled back, because that is the road that the NAO says the UK Government is heading down?

The situation adumbrates the need for a new SDSR—one that takes account of the change in currency fluctuations and of the fact that Britain will no longer be in the European Union. Our current security policy is based on our being members of the EU, so we need a new one that takes account of the fact that we are coming out, because that undermines operational capability.

Scotland Bill

Debate between Lord Beamish and Stewart Malcolm McDonald

Monday 8th June 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Jones]

We do. I am not holding out a great deal of hope, however, because the Government seem to think that somehow, with this power being devolved to Scotland, competition will ensue. I do not think that is going to work. I agree with my hon. Friend totally, but it goes beyond that issue. On landfill tax, a commendable initiative—the zero waste strategy, which has been much trumpeted in Scotland—aims for 70% of waste to be recycled by 2025. That is a very good policy; indeed, it is the only progressive policy I can think of that the SNP has introduced.

[Stewart McDonald]

(Glasgow South): Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Jones]

No, because I only have two or three minutes left.

If the Scottish Government choose to increase landfill tax, there will be a movement of waste across the border into England where people will be paying lower rates of landfill tax. That is already happening. In 2014, the Scottish Government introduced the Zero Waste Plan, which means that businesses and individuals now have to separate out their waste. There is clear evidence that in some cases it is not being enforced, and that some unscrupulous individuals and large companies are collecting separated waste and shipping it across the border into England where the Scottish Government have no jurisdiction. Those are just two of the practical issues that need to be considered during the passage of the Bill.

I look forward to the amendments that will be tabled by the SNP, but I have one plea. There is no difference whatever between the interests of the working people in my constituency and of those in the constituencies of SNP Members. I would just say that they should make sure that what is brought forward is not just in the interests of the constituents they represent but mine as well—they have a lot in common. We need to ensure a settlement that the people of Scotland want. They want to be part of the United Kingdom, although I accept that the SNP does not. We need a system that works not only for the benefit of the people of Scotland, but for the rest of the UK too.