Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill

Debate between Drew Hendry and Brendan O'Hara

2nd reading
Tuesday 25th October 2022 Commons Chamber

[Brendan O’Hara]

The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that Scotland, exactly the same as Northern Ireland, voted to remain in the European Union. What the Scottish people decide to do with our sovereignty is entirely our own decision. If we decide to pool and share that sovereignty with our European neighbours and friends, that is what we will do. He is asking me to accede to this Government, a Government we have never elected, riding roughshod over Scottish domestic policy in areas that are wholly devolved.

[Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)]

My hon. Friend is making a terrific point. Is it not a fact that, if we were a member of the European Union, the European Union would not seek to take away our powers without consent? What is happening here, at every stage, is an attempt to take powers away from the Scottish Parliament without consent.

[Brendan O’Hara]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. This is about consent, because the Scottish Parliament has never agreed to this. I am sure I speak for future Scottish Parliaments, while the SNP are in government, when I say that we will never consent to having our rights taken away by a Government we did not elect.

Economic Responsibility and a Plan for Growth

Debate between Drew Hendry and Brendan O'Hara

Wednesday 19th October 2022 Commons Chamber

[Brendan O'Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)]

My hon. Friend will be aware that even on the Government’s own estimates heating oil has gone up by 147% since January, and in constituencies such as ours it is costing more than £1,200 to fill a tank, and sometimes this is with a minimum delivery of 500 litres. Does he share my concern that in these colder, rural and more economically fragile areas of the UK not everyone has £500 to replenish their oil tank? This will not be a choice of turning their heating on or not; they simply will not have the choice, because they will not have the oil or the means to replenish the tank when they need it. This is a crisis.

[Drew Hendry]

My hon. Friend is completely right and he represents a constituency with many off gas grid constituents, as I do. He makes a telling point about the cost of that. What support are the UK Government giving to these people who face twice the bills that other people will? They are giving a measly £100.

Appointment of Lord Lebedev

Debate between Drew Hendry and Brendan O'Hara

Tuesday 29th March 2022 Commons Chamber

[Brendan O’Hara]

The hon. Member is absolutely right. This is about why the Prime Minister chose to ignore the advice of the security services, but there is also a hugely important back story about what got us into the position where he did so, and the implications of that.

[Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)]

My point is a rather similar one: if there was no problem with Lebedev being appointed as a peer and if the guidance from the security services was benign, what is the problem with scrutiny of that advice, which would put to rest all the concerns that people have?

[Brendan O’Hara]

That is right. A theme appears to be emerging on this side of the House. All we want to do is see what was there. All we want is to be reassured that the advice of the security services was not ignored, and that the appointment of Lord Lebedev was above board and beyond reproach. I do not think that, in a democratic system, that is too much for the House to ask.

As Putin’s army continues to commit its war crimes in Ukraine, we have to get to the bottom of how a man with such close connections to the Kremlin was parachuted into this Parliament. We have to establish exactly what advice was given to the Prime Minister by the security and intelligence services in the summer of 2020, and whether or not he chose to overrule that advice, or sought to alter it in any way, in order to get the outcome that he required.

We know that this was not a straightforward appointment. It could not possibly have been, particularly since, almost a decade ago, the head of MI6, Sir John Sawers, made it clear that he did not consider it at all appropriate for Mr Lebedev, then the owner of the Evening Standard and The Independent, to join him at MI6 headquarters for lunch. Advisers to the Prime Minister would have known for years of those security service concerns, and one would have hoped that an aspiring politician—or an aspiring Prime Minister—might be wary of becoming too close to Mr Lebedev, but that was not the case. It would appear that in return for favourable headlines in the Evening Standard, Mr Lebedev gained access to the centre of power in the Conservative party, and, particularly after 2019, the centre of the UK Government itself.

Surely Mr Lebedev’s very public utterings about the illegal annexation of Crimea should have set alarm bells ringing in the Conservative party. Did no one in the Conservative party hear or take notice of him calling on western Governments to “stop cold war rhetoric” when they condemned Russia for its aggression in Crimea? Did no one notice his justification that because Crimea had been Russian “for many years”, this was not something to get overly upset about? Did his claim in 2014 that Russia would not be making

“any further incursions into any land”

fall on deaf ears?

The clues were all there, if people chose to look for them. On Syria, Mr Lebedev said that Putin had “shown leadership” in the conflict, and urged the west to accept his offer of a coalition. He followed that up by saying, “Let us keep Assad in power”, because it would be the least worst option, and he doubled down on that by saying:

“On this point I am emphatically with Putin.”

The list is endless. Where was the condemnation of the events surrounding the poisoning of Sergei Skripal, and how in the name of the wee man did our Prime Minister end up having an off-the-record talk with Lord Lebedev—or Evgeny Lebedev, as he was then—48 hours after the Skripal poisonings?

Elections Bill

Debate between Drew Hendry and Brendan O'Hara

2nd reading
Tuesday 7th September 2021 Commons Chamber

[Brendan O’Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)]

Fundamentally, this Bill is an attack on democracy that will disenfranchise millions, entrench more powers with the Executive, and remove the power of the Electoral Commission to scrutinise. Like many others, I urge Members not to look at the Bill in isolation but to view it in the wider context of the other legislation going through the House at the moment with respect to the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011, citizens’ right to peacefully protest, and even the proposed privatisation of Channel 4. That paints a very bleak picture for our democracy.

When the Bill first appeared, in the Queen’s Speech earlier this year, the headline-grabbing proposal was voter ID, whereby photographic evidence would be required before an individual was allowed to cast their vote. However, as we have heard from many others this afternoon, voter fraud at polling stations barely reaches the height of minuscule, and the evidence that we have heard from those on the Government Benches has been based on personal anecdote. We have to ask: what is the problem they are seeking to solve?

Seeing a Government introduce such radical policy changes without a shred of evidence to support those changes sets alarm bells ringing among those of us who believe that every Government should be trying to remove barriers that prevent participation in the democratic process, rather than raising them.

[Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful point about not taking the Bill in isolation and looking at the cumulative effect. Does he agree that it is definitive of a Government that have lost any confidence in their ability to outrun their outrageous false claims, their untruths and their broken promises that they have to bring this measure in to try to gerrymander the system?

[Brendan O'Hara]

I could not agree more, and I will elaborate on that as I go through my speech.

In all the debate and discussion that have followed the Queen’s Speech in May, the Government have had ample opportunity to produce the evidence that these proposals are a proportionate measure to deal with an identified problem, and they have not. The reason they have not is that there is absolutely no evidence for them to produce. As one leading, albeit unelected, Scottish politician recently said:

“They can’t cite any evidence of it because I don’t think there’s any evidence to cite. In terms of this particular part of the Queen’s Speech, I think it’s total bollocks, and I think it’s trying to give a solution to a problem that doesn’t exist, and that makes it politics as performance.”

It is not often that I agree with the former Scottish Conservative leader, Baroness Davidson, or whatever her title is at the moment, but on this occasion she was absolutely spot on.

In the absence of any evidence that voter ID is the answer to an identified problem, we can only conclude that, for the Conservative party, the problem is not folk turning up at polling stations without photographic ID, but that certain folk turn up at polling stations at all.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Drew Hendry and Brendan O'Hara

Wednesday 8th May 2019 Commons Chamber

[Brendan O’Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)]

10. What recent discussions his Department has had with the Scottish Government on the potential effect on the devolution settlement of the UK leaving the EU.

[Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)]

11. What recent discussions his Department has had with the Scottish Government on the potential effect on the devolution settlement of the UK leaving the EU.

Post Office Network

Debate between Drew Hendry and Brendan O'Hara

Thursday 25th April 2019 Westminster Hall

[Drew Hendry]

I do not intend to go too far off track, but I must respond. It is absolutely typical of the Tories to say that we have to fix every mess and failure at the expense of the Scottish public and services in Scotland. That is a ridiculous proposition.

Returning to the core debate, there was enormous consensus among hon Members. My hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson) pointed out that businesses across communities lose money if post offices close. She said that people are cynical about the politics of the Westminster Government, who make no commitment to post offices and then wring their hands at the consequences. She talked about hand-counting thousands daily, and everything that involves. She talked about the post office being the last place for face-to-face contact in communities. It is more than just a commercial entity, and older and more vulnerable people are the most affected by closures.

It is telling that Later Life Ambitions, a pensioners’ organisation, points out that the post office is important in day-to-day life, because older people, who are often the most vulnerable people in society, rely on post offices. They are a lifeline; they offer access to pensions and benefits, and let people pay bills, get advice and even socialise. Does the Minister acknowledge that this is a social issue, too? For those who do not or cannot communicate digitally, post offices are very important. They are used by 42% of consumers over 65, and 31% of disabled consumers.

The hon. Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Hugh Gaffney) talked about working with my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell and Wishaw, and about post offices needing to be run in the interests of people. That is absolutely correct. In talking about franchising policy, he highlighted that WHSmith has been voted worst retailer. It is notable that the jobs it advertises are particularly low-paying.

In a very telling speech that hit home with me as a fellow MP representing a rural community in the highlands and islands, my hon. Friend the Member for Argyll and Bute (Brendan O’Hara) shared concerns that post offices are being run down and prepared for privatisation. He talked about the catastrophic effect that can have on rural communities, particularly in the highlands and islands, where often there are huge distances between the services that people rely on. My hon. Friend talked about the stability policy of the UK Government; Argyll and Bute has lost 20% of its post offices, with six post office closures in the last two years. The drastically reduced funding has put post offices in a very vulnerable place, and the public have no faith in the UK Government protecting rural post office services. He was also right to point out the success of Cairndow, and to congratulate those people on taking matters positively into their own hands to try to do something for their communities.

My hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands) talked about the transaction charges, and so he should, because his work should be commended. I congratulate him on forcing action, not only through his Adjournment debate, but through continued pressure and engagement. He talked about the impact of the systemic degradation of services in towns and villages and, importantly, the issue of community designation. It is a good thing to have community designation, but the problem is that rural and semi-rural post offices are losing out, while cities can gain. The criteria are too black and white, especially the three-mile rule.

The hon. Member for Glasgow North East (Mr Sweeney) talked about the unsustainable model imposed on the post office network, and shared his concerns about franchising. When there are bank closures in our communities, we have all been told, “Don’t worry; the post office network will pick up the slack.” He also talked about the toxic conditions for the people who run post offices, many of whom got into the job because they thought it was a great thing to do for their communities, a proper career and a valued position in the community. My goodness, how they have been let down by how they have been treated. He predicted a massive failure over the next five years if there is no action.

[Philip Davies in the Chair]

Post offices are not just business; they are focal points for many communities. This issue is about communities and their health and wellbeing, as well as the national and local economic impact. For many, the shiniest jewel in the crown has been prised out and cut up for the profit of those who do not rely on or even need a post office. In 2017, Citizens Advice found that people valued their community post office more than a local pub, a bank branch or a library. Does the Minister acknowledge that importance? In rural areas, 36% of businesses use post offices at least weekly, and 62% of small businesses use them at least once a month. Over 500,000 businesses are registered in rural areas—that is one in four companies—and they contribute more than £200 billion to the economy. These people are creatives and innovators who use post offices to send goods and pay bills. According to Citizens Advice, eight out of 10 of them will lose money if local post offices are closed. Will the Minister take notice of that?

We in the SNP—and others, as we have heard—are clear that we want our Post Office to remain robust, and to serve our businesses and communities, but that is not a priority under the UK Government’s management. Consequently, the Government should devolve power to us to ensure that the Post Office is protected. Under the current policy, there has been a mass exodus of postmasters, often leaving communities branchless. My hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell and Wishaw should be commended for arguing for fair hourly rates for postmasters, but the Minister must undertake to commission independent analysis and answer the big questions about fairness.

As we have heard, pay levels are leading to a major exodus of postmasters. Rather than watch the Post Office crumble, the UK Government should support postmasters and ensure fair remuneration. As was pointed out, the publicly owned Post Office’s North Star initiative is aiming for a £100 million profit by 2021. That is all very good, but postmasters’ pay has declined by £107 million since 2012. The majority of postmasters now earn less than the minimum wage. In many cases, they cannot even get out; their businesses are now too unattractive to sell.

The National Federation of SubPostmasters has raised the issue of sub-post office closures with the UK Government and the Government-owned Post Office Ltd. The federation’s spokesperson said:

“Our records show around two-thirds of closures are due to the resignation of the sub-postmaster— and a survey of our members conducted earlier this year gives an insight into why sub-postmasters are resigning. Income is dropping over time, the majority earn less than the national minimum wage for running their post office—and therefore earn less per hour than their staff—and as many as a third took no time off last year.

We agree with Marion Fellows that Scotland has been hit hard by sub-post office closures. This is a particular problem for rural areas in Scotland, as well as across the UK, where people rely on their local post office for vital postal and banking services.”

Action on transaction charges is welcome, but why wait? Why not give the same rates to local branches and main post offices? Around 90% of post offices in the highlands and islands are local branches, not main post offices. Will the Minister challenge that with the Post Office? As my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell and Wishaw pointed out, there must be a vision for the post bank, and it should be properly funded.

There is more pressure on post offices than ever, given the loss of local banks through short-sighted closures by the Royal Bank of Scotland, Halifax Bank of Scotland and others. Now we find that TSB is starting the process of shortening hours, which is always the cynical first move in reducing a branch’s viability to the point where its closure can be justified. As we heard, all those banks say, “It’s okay, you can use the post office,” but we cannot if they have gone.

Even where post offices remain, Robert Cockburn, a constituent of mine who runs the post office in Drumnadrochit, says the workload is absolutely punishing. He often has to run his business as a single-manned operation, so while he goes behind the screen for the time it takes to deal with a transaction, he loses out on custom from people who come to his business and might have bought goods to help sustain him.

[Brendan O'Hara]

While we have been sitting here, I have received an email informing me that yet another bank branch in Argyll and Bute is planning to cut its numbers ahead, I believe, of closure. The TSB branch in Dunoon now says its customers have to travel what it calls 7 miles to their nearest branch, seemingly unaware that that journey involves a ferry and a bus. Yet again, it is death by 1,000 cuts to financial services in rural Scotland. Will my hon. Friend join me in utterly condemning that latest move.

[Drew Hendry]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I join him very robustly in condemning that move. As I said a moment ago, shortening hours is the first step towards making a branch unviable so it can no longer do business. The call then goes out, “Don’t worry, the post office will pick up the slack.” As we know, that is not always the case.

My constituent Mr Cockburn says it is punishing to run his post office. He told me:

“It is a combination of everything. The work that we have is onerous and does not pay enough money to cover your time. The business banking, for example, we get paid 23p per £1,000 that we count. That’s nothing. You think, on minimum wage, how long it takes you to count £1,000. If you make a mistake or”—

more commonly—

“if the customer’s made a mistake you have to double check it. We get paid for taking a parcel over the counter, but the Post Office took 6% away from us on that because they gave us a faster printer and said we could print labels faster. It’s ridiculous.”

A rural post office gets to print a label faster, and the Post Office cuts its money for doing so. That is ridiculous.

The UK Government must ensure that there are more incentives for new and existing postmasters to maintain and open post offices. Union officials rightly have been clear about the folly of closing Crown offices and franchising the service. As we have heard, franchises often advertise jobs at a lower rate than the Post Office pays. As the all-party parliamentary group on post offices found, the Post Office has no back-up plan in the event of WHSmith failing to deliver the service.

I hope the Minister has taken clear cognisance of what has been said during the debate by people representing their constituencies and communities, the vulnerable people who need these services most, and the postmasters who are being forced into subsistence living and locked into a business they simply cannot afford to get out of. This is a matter of having a social conscience and ensuring that communities have something they can rely on, not just now but into the future. If post offices are going to have to pick up the slack of bank closures and other things, they should be allowed to become sustainable in order to do that job.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Drew Hendry and Brendan O'Hara

Monday 18th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Brendan O’Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)]

8. What recent assessment she has made of the effect of her Department’s policies on levels of poverty.

[Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)]

19. What recent assessment she has made of the effect of her Department’s policies on levels of poverty.

RBS Closures (Argyll and Bute)

Debate between Drew Hendry and Brendan O'Hara

Wednesday 24th January 2018 Westminster Hall

[Brendan O'Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered RBS branch closures in Argyll and Bute.

It is a pleasure, as always, to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Henry. The Royal Bank of Scotland’s decision to close 62 of its branches in Scotland—a decision that will leave 13 towns in rural Scotland without a single bank—is, in short, a disgrace, and will inflict further long-lasting reputational damage on the Royal Bank of Scotland. For it to have announced the decision to close almost one third of its branch network so callously, without even the courtesy of a consultation period with the communities involved, is quite frankly appalling. For a Royal Bank of Scotland spokesperson to respond, when asked why it did not consult before announcing the closure plan, that “we are not required to consult communities in advance” just shows the contempt in which we customers are held.

One would have thought, hoped and certainly expected that having been bailed out by the public purse to the tune of £45 billion, the Royal Bank of Scotland would have exercised a degree of humility before steaming full speed ahead with a closure plan on this scale. One would have thought, hoped and certainly expected that, being 73% owned by the public purse, the Royal Bank of Scotland would have consulted its largest shareholder before making this shameful announcement, which will cause long-lasting damage to communities across Scotland, both urban and rural.

I would be interested to learn from the Minister if Royal Bank of Scotland management ever consulted the UK Government ahead of the announcement. If it did, what advice did the UK Government give the Royal Bank of Scotland regarding its bank closure programme?

[Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)]

My constituency faces the loss of four branches, not only in Inverness but in the thriving tourist towns of Grantown, Aviemore and Nairn. Does my hon. Friend agree with me and the Federation of Small Businesses, which has said that this is bitterly disappointing news for not only people, but businesses in the highlands that will now have difficulties with cash transactions?

[Brendan O'Hara]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is a point that I will come to with some vigour later. The decision of the Royal Bank of Scotland to turn its back on so many of our communities, particularly those where it is the last bank in town, despite an earlier promise not to do such a thing, is a scandalous abdication of its social responsibility to rural Scotland, and to those people who were forced to keep it afloat when it threatened to sink without trace during the financial crisis a decade ago.

--- Later in debate ---

[Brendan O'Hara]

I absolutely agree. It is a double whammy for so many of our rural communities. Whether RBS likes it or not, there are still plenty of people who rely on a local, accessible bank in their town or village: the elderly, who still depend on an over-the-counter banking facility; people with learning difficulties, who have built a relationship with bank staff and trust them to help with their banking needs; small shops and businesses—of which we have an abundance in Argyll and Bute—that still primarily use cash; and, of course, foreign tourists, of whom we have a plentiful supply in Argyll and Bute, looking for a cash machine or the ability to change currency, for which a local bank is essential. Moreover, as the hon. Lady said, people do not yet always have sufficiently reliable broadband to bank online, and let us not forget that some people still do not want to bank online. Every one of those groups will be affected.

[Drew Hendry]

I thank my hon. Friend for giving way once again; he is being very generous. He makes the point very powerfully about access for people in rural communities, and for those who are disadvantaged in different ways. Online banking just does not cut it. For example, people cannot get cash from their computer, and when the branches go, so do the cash machines, which further disadvantages businesses and people in our communities. Does he agree?

[Brendan O'Hara]

I absolutely agree, and I find it utterly bewildering that the work was not done—or, if the work was done, that the Royal Bank of Scotland did not reach that very obvious conclusion.

Let me be clear: I have no doubt that the number of people accessing their local branch is falling, but I question the way in which RBS has collated the numbers. It is twisting and manipulating them to make them justify a predetermined case for branch closures. The Royal Bank of Scotland appears to have a pretty unique way of calculating the number of customers accessing its branches. My right hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford) said in the main Chamber just before Christmas that

“RBS is trying to create a picture of these branches as a relic of the past”—[Official Report, 18 December 2017; Vol. 633, c. 883.]

RBS is saying that “demand for branch banking” has declined to such an extent that customers are abandoning branches in their droves.

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Debate between Drew Hendry and Brendan O'Hara

Committee: 4th sitting: House of Commons
Monday 4th December 2017 Commons Chamber

[Drew Hendry]

My hon. Friend has made a good point. It is important for us to be aware that there are forces that would like power to be taken away from Scotland.

Clause 11 was drafted by people with no understanding of devolution law. It is a midden in its current form. There are questions about the mechanisms that will result from it. Surely, if the Prime Minister’s “union of equals” statement is correct, frameworks should be agreed, not imposed. If, as the Minister said earlier, this is a temporary situation, why should it not lie with the Scottish Government to take that power temporarily until the frameworks are agreed? Our amendment 72 ensures that the devolved legislature would give consent to those appropriate areas in clause 11 before it comes into effect.

As we have heard, the fact that there are 111 powers demonstrates the scowth of the issues at stake. As things stand, however, UK Ministers could simply make changes to important policy areas without the formal consent of the Scottish Government or the Welsh Government, or the Scottish Parliament or the Welsh Assembly.

We are told to trust that a deal will be done—that we can expect this to happen—but I think people were expecting something to happen today, yet that deal did not happen. How can we have confidence that things will be done and a deal will be delivered when Arlene Foster can just pick up the phone and say, “No, we don’t like that”?

There are 111 areas covering a massive range of Scottish life: fishing, farming, law, data sharing, aircraft noise, pesticides, fracking, flooding, water quality, food, forestry, organs, blood safety—as my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East (Tommy Sheppard) pointed out earlier—land use, railways, renewables and victims’ rights.

It is clear that those at the top of the profession in legal circles believe clause 11 is drafted without an understanding of devolution law. As Professor Alan Page put it:

“Not only does the Bill propose a massive increase in the power of UK Ministers to legislate in the devolved areas, it also proposes that their exercise should not be subject to any form of Scottish parliamentary oversight or control. What is proposed therefore is a law-making system fundamentally at odds with two of the key principles on which the devolution settlement is based.”

He was not the only one. Professor Rick Rawlings noted:

“The sooner clause 11 of the Withdrawal Bill is cast aside, the better. Constitutionally maladroit, it warps the dialogue about the role and place of the domestic market concept post-Brexit.”

On clause 11, even the Law Society of England and Wales has called for discussions about where the common frameworks will remain and their scrutiny. Professor Alan Page said that

“the real purpose of Clause 11 is not to secure legal continuity but to strip the devolved institutions of any bargaining power that they might have when it comes to the discussion of common frameworks and all the rest.”

We welcome the fact that there will be discussion over devolved areas of responsibility; consultation, however, does not satisfy the needs of devolution, and the UK Government should seek consent from the Scottish Government before exercising delegated powers in devolved areas, and the same goes for Wales and Northern Ireland. People’s jobs, businesses and farms, their environment at sea, in the air, above ground and below ground, virtual lives and literal lives, justice we depend on, and even the blood in our veins: tonight we must vote to uphold the rights of people across the nations and ensure that power is not taken from them.

[Brendan O'Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)]

I begin by echoing the words of my right hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford), because clause 11 is an unashamed power grab; it is undermining the devolution settlement, and it drives a coach and horses through devolution across these islands. In the time that I have to speak, I will talk about the impact it will have on farming, particularly in my Argyll and Bute community.

It is generally accepted that Scottish farmers, particularly farmers and crofters working the land on the west coast, face vastly different challenges from farmers in the rest of the UK. Not only do Scottish hill farmers toil with some of the poorest land, but they face additional challenges from climate, geography and topography, and so much so that 85% of Scottish agricultural land is classed “a less favoured area” compared with just 17% of English agricultural land.

Given that Scottish farmers face specific challenges, surely it stands to reason that they need a bespoke solution that recognises the vast differences that exist across these islands. It is understandable that the Scottish Government and the Scottish farming community are demanding confirmation that all powers relating to agriculture post-Brexit will automatically be passed to the relevant legislature—in this case, the Scottish Parliament. I fear that this Government are taking us down a dangerous road. They are deliberately proposing fundamentally to alter the basic principles of devolution.

ISIL in Syria

Debate between Drew Hendry and Brendan O'Hara

Wednesday 2nd December 2015 Commons Chamber

[Brendan O'Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)]

I congratulate the Foreign Affairs Committee on producing this excellent and thoughtful report. I commend it to any hon. Member who has not had a chance to read it. I hope that the Prime Minister takes cognisance of the fact that the Committee reported last night that it was not convinced that the concerns contained in its report had been met.

Just three or four weeks ago, the Committee said that the

“extraordinary complexity of the situation on the ground”

meant that there were “few reliable counterparts”, and that

“There appeared to be little chance of a legitimate and functioning ally emerging from the chaos”

any time soon. Now, miraculously, we are expected to believe that some 70,000 “moderate” troops are ready to fight on our behalf.

[Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)]

Members on both sides of the House have rightly made much of the professionalism and dedication of our servicemen and women. Do they not have a right to know alongside whom they will be fighting in any conflict in which they are set to take part?

[Brendan O’Hara]

One can only conclude that the 70,000 figure is a convenient arithmetical creation that adds together a multitude of people from different cultures and factions and with widely differing ambitions for the future of Syria, and I agree that people should be told exactly who they are. I fear that the 70,000 claim will define this Prime Minister’s drive for military intervention in the middle east, just as the claim that we were only 45 minutes from attack defined a previous Prime Minister’s justification for earlier misadventures in the region.