Oral Answers to Questions

Alyn Smith Excerpts

Wednesday 28th February 2024 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

As my hon. Friend will know, GP leases are commercial agreements between landlords and tenants, but he is right that everything that can be done should be done to ensure that GP surgeries do not have to close. That is why, in March last year, we commissioned a review into legislation governing these leases. The review will create a new framework that will make leasing to tenants, such as GP surgeries and other groups, easier and more accessible. But I know that his local residents will want this to be sorted as soon as possible, in order to take advantage of the extra appointments that we are creating so that people can get access to the primary care they need.

[Alyn Smith (Stirling) (SNP)]

Q6. One of the few good things to come out of Wednesday’s stramash last week was that the House united around a call for an immediate ceasefire. Now, I welcome that—that is progress. The Prime Minister was just given an opportunity by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen South (Stephen Flynn) to commit to the UK’s representatives in the United Nations and elsewhere articulating that position of this House. If they are not going to do that, what will he say to those of us who say this place really is just a sick pantomime?

[The Prime Minister]

As I outlined previously, it is not right to call for an immediate ceasefire that would collapse instantly into more fighting and not do anything to get more aid into Gaza to alleviate the suffering that people are experiencing, or to make sure that we can safely remove hostages, including British hostages. That has been our consistent position. We have been calling for an immediate humanitarian ceasefire which will provide the conditions for a lasting and sustainable peace, but just calling for something that will collapse back into fighting is not in anyone’s interests. All our diplomatic efforts, at the United Nations and elsewhere, are targeted at bringing that about. I am pleased that in recent days progress has been made. We should keep pressure on all parties to come to a resolution.

Oral Answers to Questions

Alyn Smith Excerpts

Wednesday 24th January 2024 Commons Chamber

[John Lamont]

I thought that the hon. Member was going to stand up and tell me how great the House of Lords is, a bit like his colleague the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford), in a sort of pre-emptive job application.

Scotland is not Northern Ireland and does not share a land border with an EU country. It is disappointing that the SNP is seeking to play party politics with the situation in Northern Ireland, which, as the SNP well knows, has a unique place in the United Kingdom, and we will protect that.

[Alyn Smith (Stirling) (SNP)]

8. What recent discussions he has had with Cabinet colleagues on promoting Scotland overseas.

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

The UK Government work tirelessly to promote Scottish interests around the world through our extensive diplomatic network, forging business links and generating trade and investment. Our response to the Scottish Affairs Committee’s recent inquiry on Scotland’s international position highlights the extensive efforts we undertake to achieve this.

[Alyn Smith]

I am afraid that I do not share the Minister’s Panglossian view of this issue. Does he share my concern about recently published figures that show that, in the years 2019 to 2021, Scottish exports to the EU fell from £16.95 billion to £14.97 billion? Whatever the UK Government are doing, it is not working, so the Scottish Government have a pressing need to promote ourselves overseas for the sake of our economy and our society. Does the Minister agree that now is the time to increase that overseas promotion, not cut it back due to domestic wrangles?

[John Lamont]

Given the hon. Member’s interest in this area, perhaps he could speak with his SNP colleagues in the Scottish Parliament. They are cutting funding to South of Scotland Enterprise, which will mean less support for businesses in the south of Scotland to grow, innovate and export. Perhaps he could tell the First Minister of Scotland that promoting Scotland overseas begins with supporting businesses at home in Scotland.

Northern Ireland Protocol

Alyn Smith Excerpts

Monday 27th February 2023 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

This is incredibly important. What we should be focused on is Stormont being up and running. The people of Northern Ireland need and deserve their institutions to be functioning for them. I think it is entirely right that we have vested this power—this sovereignty—in the institution that represents them and do not exercise it on their behalf. Instead our priorities should be getting the institutions back up and running so that sovereignty is restored and the people of Northern Ireland are in control of their destiny.

[Alyn Smith (Stirling) (SNP)]

We welcome this, and I commend the achievement that helping mitigate the disaster has represented, but can I dig into the Stormont backstop? I am concerned that in fixing one problem, there is a recipe for further instability going forward. If the petition of concern is the model for what the Stormont backstop is going to be and, as we all admit, there are concerns about the petition of concern, what scope is there going to be for the Secretary of State, going forward, to rule on the—let us be blunt—reasonableness of any such petition? Then, when it gets to the joint committee, in what scenario can that joint committee overrule the petition? If the petition is, at either stage, seen to be politically or legally automatic, surely that cements more problems into this than we are solving tonight.

[The Prime Minister]

I just assure the hon. Gentleman that there is a well-defined process for the exercise of the Stormont brake. He is right: there should be, because it is a very serious step. It is a serious and powerful mechanism; it should not be exercised for trivial reasons. It is there to deal with new or amended laws that provide significant and lasting change and impact on the people and communities of Northern Ireland. That is a test that rightly should be met, and there is a defined process for how that has to happen, with consultation that rightly should take place. But ultimately, if that petition of concern mechanism is used—and again, I believe that is the right mechanism to use; it is a Good Friday agreement framework that provides for cross-community safeguards —then the UK Government will have a veto. I believe that as the hon. Gentleman engages with the detail of how that mechanism works, he will see that we have struck the right balance between having something very powerful, but making sure that there is a well-defined and appropriate process leading up to that point.

Oral Answers to Questions

Alyn Smith Excerpts

Wednesday 26th October 2022 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend knows this subject very well from her own experience, and I thank her for the work that she did in the Health and Social Care Department. She is absolutely right about the challenge that confronts us. That is why we have put billions of pounds into busting the backlogs and the elective recovery fund and are delivering funding and staffing to do that. I look forward to working with her to deliver what we said in our manifesto: a far stronger NHS.

[Alyn Smith (Stirling) (SNP)]

Q5.   I add my congratulations on the Prime Minister’s appointment; we might not agree on everything, but I think we can all agree that a more diverse politics can only be to the good. We on the Scottish National party Benches believe that Scotland’s best future is independence in Europe—[Interruption.] Keep it coming. I really would urge Government Members to show a little more respect, because it is not just the SNP—[Interruption.] I will not be shouted down. It is not just the SNP; in the last opinion poll, 72% of the people of Scotland wanted back into the European Union. If the Prime Minister is to maintain any credibility in the eyes of the people of Scotland, how long does he think he can deny Scotland’s democracy?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind words. He talked about respect, and I gently urge him to respect the result of the referendum that we had on this topic. While we will disagree on that issue, I remain committed to working constructively in partnership with the Scottish Government to deliver for the people of Scotland.

Sanctions

Alyn Smith Excerpts

Tuesday 1st March 2022 Commons Chamber

[Alyn Smith (Stirling) (SNP)]

Let me start on a note of consensus. The Scottish National party supports these statutory instruments. We have already expressed that support, and called for many of the measures that have been included. Although I am instinctively uncomfortable with any Government—I include the Scottish Government in that—having this degree of power with an unlimited timescale, I think needs must and we should not pretend there is division where there is none. We support these measures.

I propose to offer a general critique of the UK’s more general approach, and then some ideas for future work on sanctions. As other Members have said, I am concerned that the UK’s general approach is reinventing the wheel and duplicating effort, particularly on naming individuals who are subject to sanction. The EU response in scale, scope and ambition—I am talking particularly about the civil protection mechanism, the European Peace Facility and the general response to the asylum situation—simply dwarfs the UK’s efforts in every possible way, and I would like the UK to co-ordinate far more closely with the EU’s efforts than it has done.

The EU has named a lot more individuals, on a different legal basis—I am a solicitor by trade, and appreciate that this needs to be done properly—and there is surely an opportunity for greater complementarity between the UK’s efforts and those of the EU on this. I would include sanctions due diligence in that, and I would like a reassurance that those talks are under way and that efforts are being co-ordinated. There is surely scope for doing this faster. This point has already been made, but effectively giving people three weeks’ notice that they are going to be sanctioned is surely the worst possible way to do it. We need to do this faster and better, and the EU can offer some assistance with that.

I appreciate that this point on refugees is outwith the scope of the SIs, but it is a point worth making, particularly after the lamentable statement that we heard from the Home Secretary earlier. All 27 states of the EU have granted all Ukrainian nationals a three-year visa waiver. They are not guddling about developing a new complicated scheme with new paperwork, rules and restrictions. They have said, “If you are in trouble and you need to get out, come on over and we will sort out the paperwork later.” That is the approach the UK Government should be taking. That would be clear, easy to understand, ambitious and it would be kind. I suspect that it would also be a damn sight more workable than the effort the Home Office has come up with to date, which I fear will not be sufficient for the needs ahead.

The UK needs to waive visas not wave flags—I have made that point before, and I will continue to make it until the UK Government take this seriously. We have not seen anything like the ambition that we need. Even William Hague in The Times today praised the EU’s decision on this issue, and criticised the UK Government. In an opinion poll yesterday, 77% of the UK population who responded to the survey were in favour of Ukrainians coming here without visas, and only 12% opposed that. The UK Government are out of step with the people of the UK on this, and I urge a change of heart.

That said, I have something of a shopping list on future sanctions activity. I am conscious that some of this is in train, some of it is not, and some of it is in places that we are not quite sure where they are. In no particular order—all of this needs to be done concurrently—we want to see an increased speed in sanctioning particularly Russian Defence Minister Sergei Shoigu and other military chiefs, as the EU has done. We want to see seizure of sanctioned individuals and companies’ UK real estate and assets. If people are to be sanctioned, they need to lose the use of their assets, not just suffer greater inconvenience.

I would like to hear a response from the Minister on extending the full sanctions package. For maximum deterrence impact, it needs to cover the overseas dependencies and territories—the British Virgin Islands in particular. I would be grateful for a reassurance beyond what I have seen in the statutory instruments that the overseas dependencies will be brought into those efforts, because I think that they are very important loopholes.

We need sanctions to be imposed on all the companies that Mr Putin or his family members are the owner or board member of, listed on the London Stock Exchange. That information should be publicly available, and it should be easily enough done. We want sanctions to be imposed on the family members of the oligarchs targeted, not just the oligarchs themselves. Often family members are used to hide or obscure where wealth actually is. When I was in Kyiv with colleagues a few weeks back, that was mentioned as a particularly effective way for pressure to be brought. We want to see all Russian banks removed from the SWIFT payment system, not just the ones that have been mentioned. I appreciate the work that has been done, but it needs to go further. We would also like to see greater effort and focus on Belarus and President Lukashenko particularly, and his family members.

We would like to see equivalent sanctions imposed on the Belarusian economy as have been on Russia, because they are a joint enterprise. Belarus is a client state of the Kremlin, and has demonstrated that it is every bit as culpable in this as Russia itself. We want to see sanctions on all oil, gas and extracted mineral imports to the UK, including delisting Rosneft from the London Stock Exchange. We want to ban payments from UK customers and registered companies to Gazprom in particular and other state-owned energy corporations. We want to see the sanctions imposed remain in place—this is the point that I made earlier about the time limit on them—until every centimetre of Ukrainian territory is back in Ukrainian hands. This needs to be a long-term commitment, as has been said by others, that cannot just be allowed to wither within a few months.

We want to trace all the connections between Russian companies and banks and Russian military-industrial companies. We want to see their assets frozen and to prohibit all transactions. As was said in last week’s emergency debate, the actions of the Kremlin in Ukraine are supported by not just a state apparatus but a deeply shadowy, complex, black-grey-opaque network of criminality around the world. It will take an international effort to track it down and unpack it, but we want to see efforts towards that. I would be grateful for an assurance that that is under way in a concrete sense, because it will be a long-term effort. We would also like to see work with other countries to eliminate the loopholes of sanctions policies. Again, it has been mentioned before that there are countries that may well work to undermine the sanctions. They need to be called out, and be aware that they cannot be allowed to be on the wrong side of history.

Finally, I would like to hear more about financial support for UK companies and individuals who will be impacted by this. UK individuals and companies that, through no fault of their own, have been conducting legal trade with Russian entities will suffer financial hardship because of this. It is right that if the state is banning that activity, and I certainly think that we should, there should be at least some financial consideration of the domestic impact of that on our companies and individuals.

We support the measures. We want to see more of them. We want to see more ambition, more connection to the EU’s efforts, more scale and, above all else, more speed. The Minister has an almost unique opportunity, given the cross-party unity in the House on this. I urge him to not let that moment pass. If we need to do something differently, we can do it differently. There is a willingness across the House to act. I hope that he rises to this occasion.

Ukraine

Alyn Smith Excerpts

Tuesday 25th January 2022 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

Yes, the UK has been at this for a long time now. It was an important signal, which I hope my hon. Friend will take back to his constituents, that we stuck up for Ukrainian rights of navigation when we sent HMS Defender through that route. If hon. Members remember, the Government came under pressure from people for taking what was described as a “provocative” route, but all we were doing was sticking up for the rights of freedom of navigation for the Ukrainians.

[Alyn Smith (Stirling) (SNP)]

The Russian regime is a clear and present danger to the rules-based international order, so the SNP will be part of the coalition in Ukraine’s defence. In that spirit, does the Prime Minister accept that the real frustration of Opposition Members is that his credibility and the credibility of his Government and of us all has been undermined by continued inaction in implementing the “Moscow’s Gold” report and the Russia report? We would support the legislation to strengthen his credibility, so let us get on with it.

[The Prime Minister]

I do not think that is fair. The Government have been absolutely ruthless in applying Magnitsky sanctions, which the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford) helped to promote. My right hon. Friend the Lord Chancellor produced them and they are a great thing. We have targeted people involved in the poisoning of Alexei Navalny and we will use direct targeted sanctions now against the Putin regime.

International Aid: Treasury Update

Alyn Smith Excerpts

Programme motion
Tuesday 13th July 2021 Commons Chamber

[Alyn Smith (Stirling) (SNP)]

The Scottish National party opposes these cuts, as my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee West (Chris Law) eloquently outlined. We are committed to our 0.7% manifesto commitment. Some 98.2% of the votes cast in the Sterling election in 2019 went to parties committed to the 0.7%, so I am representing my party and my constituency in the stance we have taken.

I pay tribute to and warmly praise a number of Members on the Government Benches; we have heard some refreshing blasts of integrity throughout this discussion. This is too important for Punch and Judy politics.

There are just three points I would make, because this is a well-trodden path at this point in the debate. First, the 0.7% figure is a Government manifesto commitment made barely 18 months ago. Secondly, yes, covid has changed everything of course, but it has changed everything for everybody else as well, and to use covid as a pretext for this cut when the developing world is also dealing with covid and the effects of the economic impact is reprehensible.

Thirdly, the cut is out of step with the rest of the world. The UK is the outlier in this; other countries are increasing, not decreasing, their aid spending. The UK remains, as we have heard, a significant donor of international aid—I applaud that, I welcome that, I acknowledge that—but this is a broken promise to the poorest people in the world at the worst possible time, and it flies in the face of the global consensus. Canada is increasing its spend by 28% while the UK is decreasing its by 25%, and France is increasing its spend by 36%, Italy by 13%, the US by 39.4% and Germany by 6%. It is the UK that is out of step.

Global Britain is clearly not the SNP’s project, but we are engaged in this because we do not want to see the poorest in the world let down. We want to try to rectify a mistake and to see Scottish taxes—or, more realistically, Scottish debt—go to effective purposes rather than where this Government might take them. We are entirely unconvinced by the Government’s compromise proposal; we think that to present this as an arithmetic formula is to misrepresent this issue entirely. Estimates and numbers are arguable of course, but, as has been acknowledged throughout this debate, only once in the last 20 years have the criteria foreseen within the Government’s mechanism been met. We fear this is a formula to entrench the cuts, not to bring the spending back.

Now, of course the books need to be balanced, and I feel for the Government in that task, but the difference between 0.5% and 0.7% is barely 1% of the global sum. For a Government who have spent money on increasing defence spending and nuclear capacity, blown £1.3 billion on a needless stamp duty freeze and yet—worse—are talking about a royal yacht, I think the priorities are wrong. I do hope that a significant number of Conservative Members will join the coalition to put this right.

Oral Answers to Questions

Alyn Smith Excerpts

Wednesday 10th March 2021 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I am very happy to support my hon. Friend’s initiative, and I understand that Golborne, which he represents, was the sight of the world’s first railway junction.

[Alyn Smith (Stirling) (SNP) [V]]

Anthony Jones, a ferociously bright student at Stirling University, was looking to do a master’s degree in Amsterdam. Pre- Brexit, the course fees were £2,168. Post Brexit, the fees are £14,600. The Turing scheme will not touch the sides of what is necessary. Would the Prime Minister like to apologise to Anthony and countless hundreds of thousands of students like him for limiting their life horizons against their will?

[The Prime Minister]

No, because I think that the Turing scheme is fairer and will enable students on lower incomes to have access to great courses around the world. I believe it is a highly beneficial reform of the way we do this, and it is truly global in its ambitions.

Covid-19

Alyn Smith Excerpts

Wednesday 6th January 2021 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to highlight what is going on in Somerset. The county obviously has a duty to use covid grants for that purpose and not for any other. I thank him for drawing attention to what is going on.

[Alyn Smith (Stirling) (SNP) [V]]

Happy new year, Mr Speaker. To govern is to choose. A lot of tough decisions have been made by the UK Government and we have supported a number of the business support mechanisms that have been announced. However, according to the House of Commons Library this afternoon, the UK Government have chosen to spend £3.3 billion of borrowed money on the stamp duty freeze, which is a vast subsidy to the middle classes who are buying and selling domestic property, who do not need subsidy. Does the Prime Minister regret prioritising that and excluding so many people, small companies and freelancers in the productive economy who really do need support?

[The Prime Minister]

That is entirely upside down and misrepresents what the package of support has done. The £260 million is overwhelmingly progressive and goes disproportionately to support the poorest and neediest in society, which is what I think this House and this country would expect.

United Kingdom Internal Market Bill

Alyn Smith Excerpts

2nd reading & 2nd reading: House of Commons & Money resolution & Money resolution: House of Commons & Programme motion & Programme motion: House of Commons
Monday 14th September 2020 Commons Chamber

[Alyn Smith (Stirling) (SNP)]

I am appalled by this Bill, and I have been trying to think why. The conclusion that I have reached is that we have two genuinely opposing world views conflicting tonight. From the perspective of the SNP, on behalf of Scotland’s interests, we have a fundamentally different view from the Members on the Government Benches—not illegitimate but different. We are two nations going in two different directions with different ambitions, and this Bill cuts across deep visceral principles of my party. We believe in the rule of law. We are a constitutional party. We believe in a multilateral, rules-based order. We have a clear vision of how we want Scotland to fit into that organised, binding international solidarity. We believe that agreements should be honoured. I would not have thought that that was a controversial statement, but it is in the face of this Bill, and it shames this House that we are even considering it.

We believe that the people best placed to make decisions for Scotland are the people who live in Scotland. In 1997, by 74%, the people of Scotland endorsed that principle, and endorsed the model of devolution that said that, unless specifically reserved to this place, decisions should be made in Scotland by our democratic authority. It is that principle that this Bill undermines.

Members should be in no doubt: the operation of this Bill is a wholesale, calculated, deliberate reversal of the devolution principle. There is no amount of bluster that will distract from that—not that we have heard much of it; they have all gone quiet. It is there in the Bill for all to see. In clause 46, there is an explicit assumption of budgets in Scotland, without Scotland’s consent. In clause 48, a power of subsidy is explicitly assumed, again without Scotland’s consent. In part 1, on the mutual recognition rules, it is clear that the operation of the UK internal market will undermine out of existence the competence and capacity of the Scottish authorities to make different decisions.

The most egregious part for me is part 4, on the role of the Competition and Markets Authority. For people who talked about unelected bureaucrats, here are unelected bureaucrats on steroids: people who will sit above each and every public organisation and authority in Scotland and gainsay every budget and every decision going forward—a politically appointed death panel that will sit above every democratic decision of every organisation in Scotland. We reject it. It is not in Scotland’s name.

This is a bad Bill. It undermines devolution. It actually strengthens the case for independence, if Conservative Members really want to have some pause. This House should reject this appalling piece of legislation.