Holocaust Memorial Bill

Debate between Nigel Evans and Kirsten Oswald

Committee of the whole House
Wednesday 22nd May 2024 Commons Chamber

[The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. As I said, the conclusion of the debate is at six minutes past seven. There is clearly a bit more time, so perhaps time to take interventions and so on.

[Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to speak in this debate on behalf of the SNP. It is perhaps slightly unexpected for some that I am standing here, but anyone who is aware of the areas of interest that I pursue here will be less surprised. I will go through some of the amendments and new clauses, and share some things that I think are worth pulling out. The comments made so far have been profoundly helpful in teasing out some of the details.

The hon. Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley) spoke very well about the importance of education. That is the key point of amendment 6 and something I have spoken about often in this place: the necessity of a focus on education and making sure that the testimony of survivors is captured in a way that will ensure it is available to generations who come after us. Through initiatives like Vision Schools Scotland, or working with organisations like the Anne Frank Trust or the Holocaust Educational Trust, we can see the impact of education. The necessity of marrying up education with the memorial is a profoundly helpful idea. We will not be able to take the lessons of the past, which we talk about so easily, if we do not make concrete efforts to make it a reality when we say that we never want to see it again.

Amendment 1, tabled by the hon. Member for Carlisle (John Stevenson), makes a reasonable point, which is that it would be sensible to be sure that the costs are properly accounted for and that there is an appropriate level of control. That is a key point. This is, rightly, an ambitious project, so his amendment is an interesting one. His point about potential private donations is interesting in ensuring the ability for the project to move forward in an appropriately ambitious way. I am sure the Minister will share further information on all of that.

On amendments 2, 3 and 5, the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Nickie Aiken) spoke very powerfully about her local community, as well as the Jewish community. How all those things come together is very important. She spoke very passionately and sincerely about her desire for a consultation. I understand why she is so concerned about that. My own personal concern, which weighs on me slightly, is that that would also mean more time would elapse. Her amendments made sense: she is looking to add some clarity to the specifics, such as where restrictions relating to the land might be removed—the Minister was helpful in trying to clarify that—and what the overall footprint would be. That will be allocated and it does matter, regardless of where it is going to happen.

I understand the need for clarity and reassurance for residents and other users of, for instance, Victoria Tower Gardens, and I understand why the hon. Lady wants that level of confidence to be provided for the people who live in this community. I imagine that, given the kind of memorials that are located in that particular park, people in general would want to take comfort from the fact that they could be protected in an appropriate way. Surely, though, it is possible for us to have a memorial and an education centre and to protect those existing memorials. The hon. Member for Worthing West spoke earlier about the state of repair of the Buxton Memorial Fountain. Perhaps there needs to be a bigger conversation about these issues.

As is clear from the Bill’s “Extent, commencement and short title”, it is an England and Wales Bill, which is why some people might not have expected to see me rise to speak. It concerns a planning matter that relates to a different country, from my perspective, so I will not comment on the details of, for instance, the planning and location issues raised by the hon. Member for Carlisle. What I will say is that I am here today only because I think it profoundly important for us to see concrete proposals that can be implemented as soon as possible to deliver a Holocaust memorial and learning centre. We cannot lose sight of that, and it should not be lost among the—admittedly also important—details. The territorial extent provision in clause 3 speaks for itself, so I will not go there.

The hon. Member for Carlisle talked about security. None of us need to look too far to appreciate the need for us to think seriously about the security provisions that will be necessary. The world is increasingly polarised and we need to ensure that everyone is secure, and that will be particularly important in this instance. I am not sure whether new clause 1 is flexible enough to allow for the necessary measures—which will surely change as times change—to be amended without undue delay, but no doubt the hon. Member thought about that when he tabled the new clause. I am sure that other Members share my concern about the spikes in hate crime, including the frightening spike in antisemitism incidents. We know that, regrettably, these spikes have happened in the past as well, and any security arrangements will have to be able to cope with changeable times.

As for new clause 2, tabled by the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster, we have been down this road many times, and I wonder whether the measures that she has proposed will cause further delay. Some people may say that it would not be appropriate to rush in, and of course that is true, but I do not think anyone could reasonably accuse this project of having been dealt with in a rush. Let me say, as a Scottish MP who has no jurisdiction in this geographical area, that this is a really important matter, so by all means let there be further consideration, but can we just get on with it?

[The Second Deputy Chairman]

I call the shadow Minister.

Under-age Vaping

Debate between Nigel Evans and Kirsten Oswald

Wednesday 12th July 2023 Commons Chamber

[Kirsten Oswald]

I would be equally outraged. I know how much work the hon. Lady does in this regard. I am unsurprised to find that we are both enraged by the same thing. This is really unacceptable. If we are serious about dealing with the harms to children and young people, we really should expect sports clubs to be somewhere that they can see positive imagery and have positive influences. I recently visited a vaping shop near to where I live. I know they are sold in other outlets too, in corner shops and supermarkets, on Amazon and eBay, and we have heard about them being sold in a barbershop as well. They are not difficult to find, and they are so inviting. When I went into the shop, it looked lovely: the display was beautiful, with nice colours and names and all kinds of fancy shapes that looked like highlighters or lipsticks. I have seen some online that look like brightly coloured fidget spinners. These things are quite enticing, are they not? They are very attractive, and that is obviously deliberate.

I was interested to hear about the King’s College study on plain packaging, because anything that makes vapes less attractive to young people is obviously worth considering. I say that for many reasons, one being that I heard recently about young people purchasing disposable vapes to match their outfits. I must say that that had never occurred to me before, but why not? If they are purchasing them, they might want them to match their outfits, just as they might think about what flavour they would like, such as bubblegum or grape soda. The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish talked about them looking like an old-fashioned sweet shop, and he was right about that.

Disposable vapes are designed to be enticing, to draw young people in. They are throwaway and they are affordable. The right hon. Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes) was absolutely right to describe them as pocket-money purchases. Parents will not always know what their children are purchasing with pocket money; presumably children throw disposable vapes away, as I have said, before the parents find them. As parents, we have no idea whether our children are using them. I hope mine are not, but none of us can know that, because they are so easy to find and so easy to throw away that we must be alive to the fact that we might not have the full picture.

Presumably we cannot all have the full picture, because, if we look at the statistics, in a recent YouGov/ASH survey the proportion of children aged between 11 and 17 who vape has gone up from 4% in 2020 to 7% in 2022, and the proportion of children who have tried vaping overall is now sitting at 16%. We have heard significantly higher figures than that cited in this debate.

I think it is reasonable to look for disposable vapes to be removed from sale. That is certainly what I would like to see. I am pleased to hear calls for retailers to ban single-use vapes in Scotland, where environmental and health charities have joined forces to call for an end to the sale of disposable vapes. Groups such as Keep Scotland Beautiful, ASH Scotland and the Marine Conservation Society are urging retailers to follow the good example of Waitrose, who I take my hat off to here, in banning the sale of those single-use products.

Waitrose did that because of reports suggesting that their popularity was soaring among people who had not previously smoked, as we have heard already, including the younger generation. It is really important that we examine the subject. I am pleased about the Scottish Government’s action in that regard and I echo Barry Fisher, the chief executive of Keep Scotland Beautiful, who also talks about a “litter emergency” and emphasises that the time to act is now.

The time to act is now also on the illicit vapes we have heard about already—the dodgy vapes and the chemicals within them. Lab research shows that they have up to twice the daily safe amount of lead and nine times the daily safe amount of nickel. There is also chromium in there. We do not want our children to be ingesting those substances, and those studies are based only on some vapes confiscated from a school in England, so we do not know what else is out there; we just know it should not be. Dodgy vapes have deeply concerning health impacts. In Scotland, there have been reports of illegal vapes confiscated from a school that left children coughing up blood. Which of us wants that for our children? We need to act.

It is deeply concerning—and that is before we even get into the notion of young people who have never previously smoked using disposable vapes and then graduating on to smoking cigarettes. We know that is an issue. The producers of vapes would have us believe they were intended to rectify and remedy that very problem, but it turns out to be the opposite that happens. The World Health Organisation has expressed significant concern about that, stating that children who use such products are three times more likely to use tobacco products in the future. If the Minister is looking for evidence, that is the kind of statistic he ought to bear in mind.

Huge profits are being made on the back of all those sales of vapes to children. Big business is being done here, but it is not always being done by the rules. The most popular brand for children is Elfbar, but in July an Observer investigation found that Elfbar had flouted the rules to promote its products to young people in the UK. Advertising videos and promotions on TikTok, for instance, were felt to be of concern. Some of those videos attracted hundreds of thousands of views, on a platform that is used by three quarters of 16 and 17-year-olds.

We have already heard about children’s doctors calling for a complete ban on disposable vapes. The hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson), who is herself a children’s doctor, has spoken out about that. If we will not listen to the views of children’s doctors about the impact of vapes on children’s health, who will we listen to?

I am heartened that Humza Yousaf, our First Minister, says that a ban on disposable vapes is under consideration, and by the incredible hard work being done by the campaign group ASH, which absolutely deserves our thanks. I also thank the organisers of the TRNSMT festival, which took place in Glasgow last weekend, because they did not permit disposable vapes there, and I absolutely applaud them for that.

Less positively, however, I cannot thank the administration of East Renfrewshire Council, which is where I live. The motion, which I think is a good one, includes a passage about working with councils, and that is absolutely right. Of the 32 councils in Scotland, 28 supported motions calling for a ban on disposable vapes. Regrettably, East Renfrewshire Council was not one of them. It did not support the ban, seemingly because a ban was supported by the SNP. I am really unimpressed by that. It is a poor show from that Labour Administration and their Conservative enablers that they could not bring themselves in step with the whole of the rest of the country and, I suspect, with the Members who are present in the debate. That seems somewhat ironic given the motion that is before the House. I hope that they will reflect on that and change their mind, and that we will get a full set of councils to support the ban—although the numbers so far are pretty impressive.

I hope that the Scottish Government come to the conclusion that these things are too dangerous and damaging, although I am grateful for their sterling work so far. I hope that the UK Government will listen to what is being said to them. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Angus (Dave Doogan), I was not entirely convinced that a huge degree of listening was going on, but I hope that I am wrong about that and that we will hear about a very serious focus on the matter. The industry will not take the steps that are needed; politicians need to do that. Disposable vapes are a danger to the environment and to our young people. It is high time that we took them off the shelf.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I call the Chair of the Health and Social Care Committee.

Animal Welfare

Debate between Nigel Evans and Kirsten Oswald

Thursday 25th May 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I call the SNP spokesperson.

[Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)]

I am grateful for advance sight of the statement, and I do not dispute any of the actions referred to by the Minister. We always welcome any positive progress on animal welfare measures, but that is not entirely the point. We are evidently here to listen to a rolling back. Let us not kid ourselves that this is anything apart from that. There was a commitment to a kept animals Bill, but it has now been dropped like a stone, and on the afternoon of the last day before recess. We cannot be expected to be content to progress in that way. How can we believe the UK Government on animal welfare measures if that is how they behave? I am afraid the suggestion that this is happening because of some kind of scope-creep caused by Opposition Members stands up to no scrutiny at all.

I can see why it may suit the Government to say that, rather than pursuing the kept animals Bill, they will deal with individual issues. Of course, that is the same trick they did with the employment Bill. What that meant in reality was a lowering of standards, a cherry-picking of commitments to suit their own Back Benchers and an entirely unsatisfactory situation. We have the same worries here. I am very concerned about the evident lack of will from the UK Government to act decisively to ban foie gras, for instance, despite the unforgivably cruel way in which it is produced. Why on earth will they not commit to that? They seem to be missing in action, as far as I can see, on fur. I would certainly welcome a ramping-up of progress on puppy and kitten smuggling. When will that happen? I would like to hear from the Minister on all those issues and to know when we can expect to see action.

While the UK Government have been shilly-shallying on all these issues, the Scottish Government have pushed ahead with the Hunting with Dogs (Scotland) Act 2023, which closes loopholes that had permitted illegal hunters to use trail hunts as a fig leaf for their crimes. I ask the Minister, will the UK Government follow the Scottish Government’s example and ban the loopholes that have permitted English and Welsh hunters to continue their illegal and immoral blood sports?

Illegal Migration Bill

Debate between Nigel Evans and Kirsten Oswald

2nd reading
Monday 13th March 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. I want not just temperate language but temperate behaviour.

[Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Can you advise on how we might correct the record? The perplexing and misleading statement made by the hon. Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham) is profoundly unhelpful in the context of this debate.

[Richard Graham]

Further to that point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. No one in this House wishes to cause any offence. If I have done so, of course I apologise. We have two hotels full of asylum seekers in my constituency, and I would be very interested to know how many hotels full of asylum seekers there are in the constituencies of SNP Members. [Interruption.]

Human Rights: Xinjiang

Debate between Nigel Evans and Kirsten Oswald

Thursday 22nd April 2021 Commons Chamber

[Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP) [V]]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Wealden (Ms Ghani) on bringing this debate to the House today and on continuing to stand up for what is right.

China’s modernisation and rise to being a global power has been the defining phenomenon of the last 40 years, but not all communities and peoples under the control of Beijing have benefited from that rise. The Chinese Communist party has been ruthless in response to any perceived threats to its ideology and control. The tanks in Tiananmen Square were symbolic of a process that has continued largely unnoticed until the very public crushing of Hong Kong’s defence of democracy.

Today’s debate is about the persecution of the traditionally Muslim Uyghurs of Xinjiang province. It is about a genocide taking place right now. But, as we have heard, many Members also share concerns about Chinese actions in Tibet and there are close links between the two communities in the UK.

Today, I would like to highlight, yet again, the work of a new campaign group co-founded by my constituent, Kirsty Robson. It challenges us to learn lessons from the holocaust and to break the cycle of impunity for perpetrators that allows atrocities to continue. Its work is very much needed now.

I also want to acknowledge BBC journalist John Sudworth, who was driven out of China last month by harassment following BBC coverage of China’s persecution of the Uyghurs. Thanks to John and his work and the bravery of others in speaking out, we know that 1 million or more Uyghurs are interned in detention and re-education camps in Xinjiang province—camps that are dedicated to achieving transformation through education. It is where Uyghur traditions, beliefs and language are intensively undermined and the Uyghur community as a whole is treated like a terrorist network to be squashed.

The existence of those camps is admitted by the Chinese Government, who describe them as “voluntary”. That is completely lacking in credibility, and we have heard today the horrific reality of the vast numbers of deaths and the terrible treatment in those camps. Alongside the camps there is widespread slave labour, with hundreds and thousands of Uyghurs and other minorities forced to work in vast cotton fields and factories, the produce of which is undoubtedly—and mostly unchecked—feeding through into major UK stores. I am confident that consumers would be appalled if they realised that.

When bureaucracies and armies are given free rein and there is no accountability, women and children are very often on the receiving end of atrocities. That is what has happened in Xinjiang following a visit by Xi Jinping in 2014, when he urged tough action against the Uyghur population in response to a terrorist attack. Since then there have been more reports of forced sterilisation as a means of population control, reports of systemic rape, torture of women in camps, and children being taken from their families and sent to state orphanages and boarding schools to break family and cultural ties.

Thanks to the work of Yet Again, I was able to hear the personal story of Uyghur activist Rahima Mahmut, who has lived in the UK since 2000. What she expressed was chilling. She also tells of the crushing of peaceful demonstrations in her home town of Ghulja in the 1990s, and of the pressure on the families of those who have sought refuge abroad. Her report shows that while Chinese authorities claim to target religious extremists, they really see any practising Muslim there as an enemy. Their actions make a real mockery of China’s constitutional protection of religious belief.

East Renfrewshire is home to Scotland’s largest Jewish community, and every year I join events on and around Holocaust Memorial Day, which is a privilege and always gives me significant pause for thought. That is when we reflect on that dreadful event and say “never again.” But here we are, knowing that a genocide is unfolding—let us be clear: that is what it is—and yet the UK Government seem unwilling to do anything about it beyond ritual diplomacy.

We must recognise and act on the atrocities facing the Uyghurs and other ethnic and religious minorities in China. They cannot be ignored as the UK scrambles for trade deals. To help achieve that, yet again we are partnering with the Scottish Council for Jewish Communities to hold an event for the Jewish community to find out more about what is happening to the Uyghurs. We should all, including the Chinese Communist party, take a lead from that determination to learn the lessons from history. This must stop, and it is our responsibility to stand up and be counted to make that happen now.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

While I am not introducing a time limit at this moment in time, may I ask everybody to look at about five minutes, please? Please do not exceed that, and then we can try and get everybody in.

Ministerial and other Maternity Allowances Bill

Debate between Nigel Evans and Kirsten Oswald

2nd reading & 2nd reading: House of Commons
Thursday 11th February 2021 Commons Chamber

[Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP) [V]]

I also welcome this Bill in principle and as far as it goes, which is not far enough, but perhaps it is a sign that this House and the UK Government recognise that they have some way to go to begin catching up with the world around them.

On issues of equality and of acknowledging and breaking down barriers, this House deservedly has a reputation for making progress very slowly. Today we are discussing something that should surely already be in place, not simply because elected office should not be a barrier to a family, but because attitudes and practices here have a material impact on the lack of proper treatment and the prevalence of issues such as maternity and pregnancy discrimination outside this place.

It was not until 1975 that statutory maternity leave was introduced in the UK through the Employment Protection Act 1975—later than in most countries in Europe. Indeed, with this Bill, welcome though it is, progress continues to be too slow. Here, the perplexing basis for maternity leave is that the Minister must seek permission from the Prime Minister to take such leave, the implication being that the Prime Minister retains the power to say, “No, the maternity leave is not granted.” How very Edwardian in 2021.

The rest of the world has long since moved on to the position that maternity leave should be a right rather than a discretionary benefit. How we can expect people to appreciate that and act in that way if this place is so backward-looking? It should not be necessary for women to seek the potentially grudging consent of a boss to take maternity leave.

I was fortunate when I twice took maternity leave to have a supportive and encouraging boss. It was clear to me that I had the right and, importantly, the support to take the leave that was right for me and my family. I wonder how I would have felt if the ability to grant my leave was in the gift of my boss, given that we cannot always be guaranteed the supportive boss that I had. For me, that happened well before any involvement in politics.

Our representation is clearly not reflective of who we are. We are far less diverse as a political class than those we represent, and the lack of proper provision for maternity feeds into that. We cannot expect that lack of representation to improve unless we improve the structures that we work within. I wonder whether I would have wanted to stand for election to this place as a younger woman starting a family, considering the various challenges, including gaps in provision for MPs and Ministers.

We have heard about heavily pregnant MPs being wheeled through the Lobby recently, against all logic and surely against advice, because the arcane processes of this House were simply not set up to accommodate their needs. This House can and should be better than that. We have a duty to be better. We cannot simply go along with the make-do-and-mend approach that the UK Government have had for so long.

The posts of Ministers on maternity leave have been left vacant, and their responsibilities have been carried out as best as possible by colleagues who are also carrying out their own responsibilities. The one thing that has saved all that from crumbling is that no one fulfilling a Secretary of State role in the UK Government has ever tried to take maternity leave. That fact reveals a great deal about the relative importance of the issue in the minds of those at the very top.

We have rightly heard comments about the contrast between arrangements in the House and those outside it. That is important. The contrast between the speed at which the Bill has been progressed and the shocking delays in dealing with the pressing needs of pregnant women in the pandemic is stark and just not good enough. The fact that maternity allowance is just £151.20 a week, which is about half the national minimum wage for a full-time worker, is deplorable. The fact that it will increase by only 77p a week in April is frankly an insult. Those issues must also be addressed. I realise that they are not before us today, but they all fit together into a lack of care and direction from the Government.

The mechanism that the Bill identifies for repairing the current crumbling edifice of ministerial maternity cover should be uncontroversial. Any organisation needs to provide for such events, which routinely happen, so I hope that no one would seriously suggest that, in a large ministerial team, there should not be contingencies to support maternity leave. However—I repeat myself in case we lose sight of the point—it is incredible that it has taken until 2021 for the UK Government and the House to address the matter.

The explanatory notes describe provision for maternity leave as problematic or “particularly difficult to apply” to a Minister in a very senior office, such as a Secretary of State,

“because the legal exercise of functions of such roles cannot be ‘covered’ by another Minister.”

I am afraid that I do not buy that. That is just a cop-out. It sounds like exactly the kind of excuse that has been used by backsliders on this issue ever since the idea of maternity leave in employment entered our thinking. It is followed by the statement:

“The result is that a Minister in such a role who wished to take extended maternity leave would need to resign their office.”

It is breathtaking to see that kind of language. It makes us check our calendars to make sure that we are in 2021. How can we expect improvements and proper treatment outside this place if that is how we run things here?

The explanatory notes reveal exactly the kind of thinking that we all know still goes on in recruitment to senior jobs, and that results in the glass ceiling for women in so many institutions. They display the unconscious bias that underpins so much systemic discrimination in the UK and around the world.

To signal that that kind of thinking has no place at the centre of political and economic power, the SNP has tabled an amendment to remove the notion that prime ministerial discretion should have effect in relation to maternity leave. Ministers, MPs—all of us—should feel secure in the knowledge that we work for an organisation where no guilt will be piled on us if we take time off for maternity or, in fact, for family reasons. We have to be clear that there is a need to look more broadly than this very narrow issue, that this long-awaited progress does not go far enough, and that the scope of the Bill is not great enough.

These things matter, not only because the arrangements put in place by this House for the UK Government are important for the proper operation of the Government, but because they act as a signpost to other companies and organisations in the UK as to what approach they are expected to take. We do not have to look far to see the issues out there. A survey of 20,000 women by Pregnant Then Screwed last summer found that 61% believed that their maternity leave was a factor in their redundancy decision. Given the example set by this House and the UK Government today, that is perhaps not surprising.

It is also unsurprising that the UK ranks poorly among OECD countries for how it deals with maternity. The UK has the second lowest-paying rate for maternity leave, with less than a third of gross average earnings replaced by maternity payments; despite lengthy maternity leave entitlements, full-rate equivalent paid maternity leave lasts just 12 weeks. That is why, as a statement of principle, we have tabled amendments that would extend Ministers’ maternity leave from six to 12 months.

Let me be clear that that does not mean that we support one rule for Ministers’ maternity leave and another for the general public; the amendments set out what the direction of travel must be for the whole workforce. I hope that as part of the preparation for the wider review that I talked about, including the broader area of parental support provision, the Government will look carefully at that and ensure that equalities impact assessments are carried out before this business returns—quickly—to the House, so that these things can be addressed in the round.

That should include an examination of the challenges facing Members in their constituencies and their legislative roles when they become new parents. It is interesting that the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority this morning seemed to recognise that it, too, needs to look at that. When the Minister looks further, I urge her to look at the words of the all-party parliamentary group on women in Parliament, which said:

“The lack of formal maternity and parental leave for MPs is entirely out of step with wider society and gives the impression that the work of a Parliamentarian is not appropriate for those with caring responsibilities.”

That is the crux of the issue. It is completely unacceptable that this House and the UK Government have got to 2021 without putting in order their own arrangements for properly supporting maternity leave.

On the basis that we need to make progress on this issue today, the SNP is supportive of what the Minister has brought forward, but if the Bill is to pass largely as drafted, I will be keen to hear from her significant commitments to returning to this issue before the summer to correct some of the glaring omissions and the lack of principle, so that we can fix this issue and send the important messages that we must send beyond this place.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

With a four-minute limit, I call Cherilyn Mackrory.

United Kingdom Internal Market Bill

Debate between Nigel Evans and Kirsten Oswald

Report stage & 3rd reading & 3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Tuesday 29th September 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. I wish to inform the House that I shall call the Minister at 6 pm to respond to this lengthy debate in five minutes, and then the questions will be put.

[Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)]

This Bill is shameful and the Conservative party is shameless. The Bill is misconceived, ill-advised and designed to wholly override any notion of devolution. The Welsh Government have described it as

“an affront to the people of Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, who have voted in favour of devolution on numerous occasions.”

The Bill seeks to break international law and to break devolution.

One of the many vexing things about this brazen, law-breaking, power-grab Bill is when the UK Government try to suggest it is not so or that there is nothing to be concerned about, as if we should just disregard clear, undisputable facts. Just look at clause 46: it is a mucky muckle power grab. Plainly, the UK Government either know perfectly well what they are doing and they are intent on breaking international law, undermining the Northern Ireland protocol and stripping powers away from the devolved Administrations, or they are utterly and shamefully incompetent. It has to be one of those two things, or perhaps both. What it cannot be, and what is frankly an insult to the intelligence of people watching this charade in Scotland, is the nonsense that some Conservative Members engage in when they suggest that, despite all the evidence to the contrary, their UK Government is somehow exceptionally above international law. That is the dangerous exceptionalism that sits at the heart of the Bill and that is what lies behind their plans to break international law and ride roughshod over the devolved Governments.

We will all suffer for it if the UK Government have their way, because—look at clause 48—these plans open the door to their race to the bottom, to bargain-basement Britain. That is regardless of the many voices calling for them to change tack—the Scottish Government, the Welsh Synod, the Northern Irish Assembly, the General Teaching Council for Scotland, the NFUS, the STUC, former Prime Ministers and the Chair of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee. I could go on all night. In the eyes of the UK Government, they are all wrong. I am afraid that is not credible. This Trumpian truth-twisting is all part of their plan to ride roughshod over the law, the Sewel convention and Scotland’s ability to make the decisions that are right for the people of Scotland. Of course, that holds for Wales and it holds for Northern Ireland, as we heard last week when we were discussing part 5.

I have not agreed with the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) on many occasions, but she hit the nail on the head last week when she called the UK Government out on their disregard for law and good faith. This UK Government cannot be trusted. They cannot be trusted on Scotland, on devolution, on standards and on upholding international law. In fact, the Bill shows they cannot be trusted at all. It is no wonder that the Scottish Government are unable to recommend legislative consent.

We were told that we should lead, not leave, that we are a partnership of equals. Actions speak louder than words, and the actions of this reckless UK Government speak loudly and clearly of the pressing need for Scotland to steer another course as far away from the direction of the UK Government as possible.