Oral Answers to Questions

Stephen Flynn Excerpts

Monday 21st November 2022 Commons Chamber

[Lee Rowley]

My hon. Friend’s constituency is an excellent example of the transformation that is happening as a result of the support that the Department is giving. Although I cannot speak for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, I am sure that one of us will be very happy to come to Great Grimsby to support the work that she is doing.

[Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)]

The Minister and the Secretary of State will be familiar with the fact that council leaders in Aberdeen are fairly supportive of the north-east of Scotland’s green freeport bid. Yet despite the bid being launched five months ago, we have had no decision whatever from the UK Government and, indeed, no indication of when that decision will be taken. Can the Minister provide clarity on that, and if he is unable to do so, will he and the Secretary of State meet me to discuss it?

[Lee Rowley]

We know that freeports have the opportunity to be transformative for many areas that are ultimately successful in their bids. We know that so many places, including those in Scotland, are looking forward to taking part in UK Government-led activities such as this. The hon. Gentleman has made a strong case for the north-east of Scotland, and I wish him well. We will make announcements in due course.

Royal Mail

Stephen Flynn Excerpts

Thursday 17th June 2021 Westminster Hall

[Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms McDonagh. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Wantage (David Johnston) for securing this important debate. He certainly got his points across to the Minister, and I certainly hope that the Minister will respond to them in full. Indeed, the points raised by all three speakers have been clear and substantive, and they have outlined the concerns that they and their constituents most definitely have in relation to the performance of Royal Mail.

I had a discussion last night with a colleague in and around the Royal Mail. It is not often that, as nationalists, we talk about British institutions that are perhaps more favourable in our eyes. Of course, in that regard, the Royal Mail is something that the public loves and has loved for many decades, if not centuries, in its previous guises. I think we actually compared it to Concorde, in terms of its being the only two British institutions that we were perhaps in favour of. That is probably the only time the Royal Mail has been compared to Concorde, but the wider point is that it is an institution that, across the UK, we all hold in extremely high regard. However, the Government betrayed that high regard in 2013 when they sought to privatise the Royal Mail—a disgraceful decision that has not, to the best of my knowledge, been mentioned in the debate so far today, which I think is remiss. In many ways, that could be the root of some of the problems for us as Members of Parliament and for the public in terms of influencing the direction of the Royal Mail’s priorities.

As we can see and as we have heard, the Royal Mail’s performance in meeting its targets for first-class deliveries, and second-class deliveries as well if I recall correctly, has not been up to scratch. The pandemic has obviously played a role, but Royal Mail was not meeting its targets in the years prior to that; it was close, but it did not meet them. We have heard the consequences of that for individual constituents from the three previous speakers. Indeed, I have been contacted by constituents as well, as I am sure all Members have, in relation to absolutely essential items that were not delivered.

Although we have seen Royal Mail struggle, we have the converse situation with its profits, which are at a record high—I believe it made a £762 million pre-tax profit, which is absolutely remarkable. The hon. Member for Wantage was absolutely right to highlight that in terms of what Royal Mail’s priority is at this time. If it is parcels, it should be clear, open and transparent about that, and the public could determine whether that is a suitable priority for the organisation. At the risk of repeating myself, it would be more beneficial if this place had more of a say in that. Of course, it does not, because of decisions taken in previous years, but we are where we are.

The issues that have been highlighted are pertinent, and it would be remiss of me as a local Member in Aberdeen not to mention the closure of post office counters. I am of course very cognisant of the fact that the Royal Mail and the Post Office are separate, although the Government do have some control in relation to the Post Office. However, I should reflect on the fact that post office counters in Aberdeen are being closed, in Torry and in Kincorth in my constituency. That is deeply, deeply frustrating and will leave those communities behind, to the detriment of the people who live in them, just as the performance of Royal Mail will be to the detriment of the constituents from across the UK we have heard about.

I will bring my remarks to a close because I am conscious that much of what can be said has already been said, but I want to finish on an important point that the hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes) made at the outset of her remarks. We must pay tribute to the staff for the work they have done over the course of the pandemic. I cannot imagine how difficult it has been for them to manage the workload, taking into account social distancing, their own pressures and the outbreaks that have undoubtedly happened in Royal Mail facilities, as they have everywhere else. I place on the record my thanks and tribute to them. I wish them well going forward.

National Security and Investment Bill

Stephen Flynn Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Monday 26th April 2021 Commons Chamber

[Dr Lewis]

If I gave an example of something that would be top secret—even if I were in a position to do so because we had started the work that we are not being allowed to start—I would then immediately be breaking the Official Secrets Act so, no, I cannot, and I would not even if I could. However, what is a certainty is that where there are circumstances where the intelligence agencies are advising on the security aspects, for example, of a potentially hostile state buying, overtly or covertly, into a strategically important asset, such as buying up a company engaged in cutting-edge technology. This unit will have to balance that against the possible commercial advantages of major investment from that other country.

The fact is that nobody on behalf of Parliament will be able to scrutinise that process unless either these amendments are accepted or the ISU—this new unit—is added to the list of units already on the memorandum of understanding. As I have said before and say again, if at any time the Minister wants to give me the assurance that it will be added, I am happy to let these amendments go from the face of the Bill.

As I explained, this is the reason that the ISC was set up as it is. If any Committee could do what the ISC does, it would not be necessary for the ISC to have all those unique facilities and arrangements. That is why paragraph 8 of the memorandum of understanding between the Government and the ISC categorically asserts:

“The ISC is the only committee of Parliament”—

I will say that again:

“the only committee of Parliament that has regular access to protectively marked information that is sensitive for national security reasons: this means that only the ISC is in a position to scrutinise effectively the work of the Agencies”—

and please listen to these next few words—

“and of those parts of Departments whose work is directly concerned with intelligence and security matters.”

A footnote to that sentence helpfully explains:

“This will not affect the wider scrutiny of departments…by other parliamentary committees. The ISC will aim to avoid any unnecessary duplication with the work of those Committees.”

With that machinery already in place, it is all the more baffling that the Government are now refusing to use the very body they created. Without including oversight by a properly structured and fully cleared security body, the Government are not placing security at the heart of the Bill.

The Government’s third and final argument is that if the ISC had a role, it would encroach on the BEIS Select Committee’s remit. This, too, is baffling and not borne out by experience. The Government’s own MOU already expressly states that the ISC scrutinises the classified parts of some Government Departments, leaving the remainder to the corresponding departmental Select Committees. That is what has always happened, perfectly harmoniously, in respect of a number of other Departments, so it is, again, bizarre that the Government now see this as a problem when they themselves have already made express provision for it.

The ISC can work seamlessly with the BEIS Select Committee on oversight of the Investment Security Unit, as it already does with other Select Committees such as the Defence Committee and the Home Affairs Committee, and in respect of the work of the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office. Far from being an “overreach” of our remit, in this particular case the ISC is trying to prevent its existing scope from being reduced. The unit that currently carries out investment security work is based in the Cabinet Office. Consequently, it is already overseen by the Intelligence and Security Committee. The ISC already scrutinises these activities in their current form in the Cabinet Office, so it cannot be “overreach” to do in future something that we already do. If the Government do not maintain this existing ISC scrutiny when the new Investment Security Unit takes over, it will be a step backwards from the current position.

If national security really is at the heart of the Bill, the ISC, as the national security oversight body, must be allowed to oversee it. The Government gave assurances to the House in 2013 that the ISC would oversee all security and intelligence matters. It is as simple as that. The sensible solution is that which was proposed and accepted in the other place—namely, the amendments that we are now being asked to reject for, as I have demonstrated, no good reason.

If, for some reason we have not been told, the Government cannot accept provision for oversight on the face of the Bill, there is the other solution that I have previously indicated. The Justice and Security Act and the memorandum of understanding linked to it set out the ISC’s role and remit, which the Government expressly told Parliament was the oversight of all intelligence and security matters across Government, now and in the future. The memorandum of understanding mechanism was rightly described by the security Minister at the time, my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (James Brokenshire), as “flexible” because

“it can be changed much more easily than primary legislation.”––[Official Report, Justice and Security Public Bill Committee, 31 January 2013; c. 98.]

The matter before us today is exactly as described in 2013: an area of Government in respect of which the ISC has oversight responsibility has been moved to a different Department. The memorandum of understanding could therefore be updated to reflect this, by way of a simple exchange of letters, to add the Investment Security Unit to the list of bodies covered by the MOU. The ISC would happily accept a commitment from the Minister to this effect tonight, in lieu of the amendment. Either method will ensure what is needed: real oversight of the national security elements of this legislation by the only body constituted and equipped to carry it out, rather than what might be described as “scrutiny in name only”.

[Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)]

I am very much of the view that, as Shakespeare said, “brevity is the soul of wit”. Notwithstanding that, the Chair of the Intelligence and Security Committee, the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis), made an incredibly professional and profound set of points that I hope the Minister listened to closely.

As the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central (Chi Onwurah), did, I welcome the Minister to his place, notwithstanding the fact that the previous Minister, the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Nadhim Zahawi), is off doing a fantastic job—I think it is fair to say—getting the entirety of the UK vaccinated, of course in partnership with our colleague in Scotland. I am sure that he regards it as a step up in terms of ministerial oversight of the Bill.

On the Bill itself, my right hon. Friend the Member for Dundee East (Stewart Hosie) spoke on Second Reading and on Report with passion and knowledge of the subject in respect of the scrutiny that should be provided by all of us when looking at such serious matters. We have tried to be constructive with the Government and to make helpful suggestions. I am pleased with many of the amendments moved by those in the other place that the Government are agreeing to—on beefing up scrutiny and perhaps offsetting some of the concerns that some of us might have had about the danger of investment chill, which was certainly real given the original nature of the Bill.

Improvements have been made, therefore, but there is still scope for further improvement. In that regard—as I said, I will be brief, Madam Deputy Speaker—I again urge the Minister to give cognisance to the wise words of the Chair of the ISC.

[Adam Holloway (Gravesham) (Con)]

I welcome the powers that the National Security and Investment Bill introduces and I am very much in favour of the amendments moved by the Government in the other place.

Those amendments temper the impact on investment of the Bill, allowing a greater proportion of transactions and investment decisions to go ahead without requiring Government approval. Furthermore, the Government’s power to intervene on their own, if needed, will be retained. That is a good compromise between the Bill’s objectives: to grant the Government the powers to defend the UK against losing companies and expertise to unfriendly competitors, without stifling the investment that we need to become the home of the industries of the future. That is vital to our national security and to our future prosperity.

We must ensure that the technologies that are so frequently developed by our brilliant scientists here in this country can also transform themselves into successful world-leading companies here. I think of the many university spin-out programmes and how often extraordinary technology is immediately shipped off somewhere else. Developing more powerful computers and software, but allowing them all to be commercialised and deployed most effectively elsewhere only makes us less secure, not more secure. They will only be commercialised and deployed here if the Government protect them from being snapped up by our competitors, thereby damaging our long-term security interests.

We have seen the impact of such problems in the past. Only last week, the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport called in the potential NVIDIA-Arm deal as representing a potential threat to our national security. If Arm, the Cambridge-based silicon fen semiconductor and software design company, can pose a threat to national security, so could the sale of other critical companies in developing industries.

Quantum computing is about to revolutionise the digital age, and the UK has some of the leading research establishments, notably in London and at the University of Bristol. However, many leading companies have moved abroad in the past. The British academics who founded PsiQuantum, the company that believes it is on track to build the world’s first usable quantum computer, moved to California some years ago. I have absolutely zero financial or other interests in that company—it is only that I wish to see the UK lead the world in quantum computing, with all the associated industry and benefits that will follow that.

The four professors from Bristol and London Universities recently made an offer to the Government to build that first usable quantum computer here in the UK, ensuring that the security offered by its cutting-edge technology is based in the UK. I think we can all agree that it would have been far easier and a lot less expensive if those academics had never left the country in the first place.

Oral Answers to Questions

Stephen Flynn Excerpts

Monday 19th April 2021 Commons Chamber

[Richard Thomson (Gordon) (SNP)]

What criteria the Government used to determine the prioritisation of areas for the allocation of levelling-up funding.

[Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)]

What criteria the Government used to determine the prioritisation of areas for the allocation of levelling-up funding.

[The Minister for Regional Growth and Local Government (Luke Hall)]

The levelling-up fund will be allocated competitively and is open to all local areas. As we set out in the prospectus published at Budget, the index used for the levelling-up fund places areas in category 1, 2 or 3 based on their need for economic recovery and growth, improved transport connectivity, and regeneration.

[Luke Hall]

It is hard to see how the £150,000 per local authority that we have already committed to is a cash grab from Scottish communities. We are investing directly in Scottish communities, with £125,000 in capacity funding already. This is a bidding process, and rightly so, but we are providing that capacity funding, and for the first round of funding at least 9% of the UK allocations will be in Scotland. As I said earlier, we are hugely excited about the opportunities we have now to work directly with communities in Scotland. We have already been in touch, of course, with Aberdeen City Council and Aberdeenshire Council to ensure that they have a good understanding of the levelling-up fund, including, importantly, securing support from Members of Parliament. I very much hope that the hon. Gentleman will play a full part in that process.

[Stephen Flynn]

I am afraid that answer simply is not good enough. Not only are the Tories seeking to bypass devolution; they are also seeking to bypass the needs of Aberdeen. One hundred and twenty-three local authorities have been placed in pot 1, yet Aberdeen has been dumped in pot 2. The consequence of that is clear for all to see: it means that we will not have access to the funding that we need at this moment in time. Aberdeen accounts for a third of all job redundancies in Scotland since the start of the pandemic. If that is not a criterion for funding, what is?

[Luke Hall]

It is published fully and frankly on the Government website. The hon. Gentleman can have a look at it; I would advise him to do so. Authorities are already receiving capacity funding, so it is not true in any way to infer that every single Scottish local authority will not receive support through this initiative. We are hugely excited about the opportunities this presents us with. We are going to be investing directly into communities. There is huge support for this funding. I strongly urge the hon. Gentleman both to read the documentation on the website and to get involved in playing a full part in the process.

Greensill Capital

Stephen Flynn Excerpts

Tuesday 13th April 2021 Commons Chamber

[Paul Scully]

I am afraid that in Government we have to deal with details, and that includes asking the right question in the first place. If a question is asked about a BEIS responsibility, I think it is fair and reasonable that a BEIS Minister should come here and answer it. However, I come back to the point that the hon. Gentleman can come up with all he likes about process, but what businesses want are outcomes, and that means capital flowing through those businesses. The outcome in this situation was that the Chancellor rejected such a proposal, but the detail that the hon. Gentleman talks about will be investigated by Nigel Boardman, and that review will be published by the end of June.

[Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)]

Just three weeks ago, I asked Ministers to back an independent investigation into the actions of crony Cameron. At that time, they refused to answer, so I welcome the U-turn that has again taken place. However, the public expect and want total accountability and transparency, so will the Minister back a wider review into the dishing out of covid contracts to Tory donors and friends?

[Paul Scully]

I am not sure I recognise the name that the hon. Gentleman calls the former Prime Minister, which I think is inappropriate. There is a review, which is investigating as we speak. With regard to covid, as I say, there are a number of things that we will look at when we are past this pandemic. We will look back at what has happened and at the support that the Government have given—the many hundreds of millions of pounds that the Government have given to small and large businesses.

Covid-19: Hospitality Industry

Stephen Flynn Excerpts

Wednesday 24th March 2021 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)]

I commend the hon. Member for North Devon (Selaine Saxby) on securing this important and topical debate. As my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) said, a vibrant city centre is very much the sum of its parts: its retail, its leisure and its hospitality. On that point, I would like briefly to reflect on the terrible news from Aberdeen today that our local John Lewis store is to close. Some 265 good jobs are currently up in the air, and my heart goes out to each and every individual who is potentially impacted. I know that, across the political divide in Aberdeen, we will all unite to try to convince the organisation to take a different path—one that retains such a vital department store in the city of Aberdeen. It is probably apt to reflect on the importance of such a story in the wider context of a city centre, because we all know that when we go to city centres to enjoy what is on offer, it is not just for the pubs, the food, the cinemas or the parks; it is also for the shops. As I say, it is a collective, and we all need to be very mindful of that.

As we have heard from numerous Members, the last year has been an extremely challenging time for those in the hospitality sector. They have had to face myriad changing circumstances, be that in relation to social distancing, opening times or what they can and cannot serve. I have a great deal of sympathy for them in that regard. They have had to put up with an incredibly difficult set of circumstances, and I know that they have diligently tried to adhere to everything that has been put in front of them. I sincerely hope that in the not- too-distant future, we can all get back to enjoying ourselves in establishments across Scotland and the UK.

For my own part, I cannot wait to get back into BrewDog and down to the Cove Bay Hotel for some food or, indeed, to North East Fife, because I have a couple of vouchers for some places in St Andrews that I am desperate to use. I was given them at Christmas in the expectation that I would be there before now. It was nice to hear the remarks from the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) about what her constituency has to offer; it is a wonderful part of the world.

We are all keen to get back out there and enjoy ourselves, because having that social contact with people in environments that we all love and enjoy is the very essence of our being. That is to come, but in the meantime, we need to reflect on the challenges that will still be there for the hospitality sector. When things open up, it will not simply be a case of “back to normal”. First, those in the sector will have to deal with the fact that restrictions are still in place, but they will also have to deal with the fact that consumer confidence is shattered. People are going to be a little bit anxious about doing what they previously did. It is incumbent on the UK Government to take cognisance of that fact, in particular in relation to VAT. The 5% cap for the hospitality sector has been a good move, but we need to see that extended until the end of the year, at least to allow businesses the certainty that they need.

That certainty is important. It was important last autumn, when businesses in Scotland tried to close due to public health reasons, and we asked the UK Government repeatedly to extend the furlough scheme. They delayed and delayed, and only at the last minute they decided to extend it on the basis of the situation in south-east England. We cannot allow that to happen again. Scotland does not have the powers that it should have in that regard. It is of much frustration to me, as I am sure the Minister will be aware, that we cannot borrow to try to fill the gap caused by the shortfalls in the UK Government’s schemes.

Of course, where we can take action, we have taken action. Scotland’s Finance Secretary delivered our Budget recently, and we went further than the UK Government on rates relief. I have heard today the frustration of several Members about business rates and the fact that in England there will be a taper of the support over the year. That is not the case in Scotland, where there will be 100% rates relief throughout the coming financial year. We are trying to provide the certainty that we can to hospitality businesses; it is time for the UK Government to step up and do likewise.

I am conscious of the time, so I will finish where I started, with some local narrative. Towards the end of last year, there was a lot of difficultly in the hospitality situation in Aberdeen and some challenges with adherence to social distancing and the like, but the hospitality sector in our city got together and created Aberdeen Hospitality Together. That re-instilled the confidence that we all needed. Dutifully led by Stuart McPhee from Siberia Bar & Hotel, people across a whole host of venues managed to put in place a format that people could believe in and trust. As we move out of lockdown in the coming weeks and months, that trust is going to be so vital. I look forward, as indeed does everyone else in the Chamber, to getting back into a pub and drinking far too many beers.

Uber: Supreme Court Ruling

Stephen Flynn Excerpts

Wednesday 24th February 2021 Commons Chamber

[Paul Scully]

My right hon. Friend talks about Uber in isolation, but clearly any number of other operators in the gig economy will be looking at the judgment, and it is important that they respond accordingly. The Government will also respond accordingly, because we always recognise the valuable contribution made by those working in the gig economy, and people do value the flexibility it offers, but we must also ensure that those workers are adequately protected.

[Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP) [V]]

I commend the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald), for securing this urgent question. In towns and cities across Scotland, the rise of the gig economy has been clear for all to see. Despite the flexibility that it offers some workers, it is nowhere near giving them the same rights and protections as others—there is no maternity leave, no holidays and no sick leave. This ruling by the Supreme Court should rightly change that, and I say “should” because, ultimately, employment law remains in the grip of the Tories at Westminster, rather than in the hands of Scotland’s Parliament.

We are all worried about a bonfire of workers’ rights in this post-Brexit world. We have all seen the Government refuse to support the Bill put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands) to end the appalling practice of fire and rehire. I heard the Minister’s warm words, but this is an easy opportunity for him to take a small step in the right direction when it comes to workers’ rights. Will he confirm that his Government fully back the Supreme Court ruling and that they will make no attempt through legislation to overturn, undermine or circumvent it?

[Paul Scully]

The Supreme Court ruling is final. We recognise the concerns about employment status and the potential for exploitation. We want to make it easier for individuals and businesses to understand what rights and tax obligations apply to them, and we are currently considering options to improve clarity around employment status. I have previously talked about the fact that ACAS was charged with considering fire and rehire and gathering evidence, and it has done so. It reported back to BEIS, and we will consider what it found.

United Kingdom Internal Market Bill

Stephen Flynn Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Tuesday 15th December 2020 Commons Chamber

[Joanna Cherry]

I support the Lords amendments because they seek to protect the devolved settlements and also policy divergence across the United Kingdom. Lord Hope’s amendment attempts to salvage the common frameworks process and to prevent this UK Government from giving themselves the power to override policy divergence in devolved areas. As Lord Hope himself said:

“It was because of devolution that the common frameworks process, and the opportunity for policy divergence, was instituted with the encouragement of the UK Government in the first place. Their support for that process must involve support for policy divergence too.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 14 December 2020; Vol. 808, c. 1446.]

He is quite right. Lord Stevenson’s amendment exempts environmental standards and public health from market access principles. In so doing, it also seeks to protect policy divergence. As Baroness Bennett pointed out in the Lords, the smaller nations of the United Kingdom have often led the way on environmental policy divergence and it would be a shame if that was to stop.

I am speaking with a sense of weariness and inevitability because we have all been here before and we all know what is going to happen today. We know that these amendments will be defeated by a Tory majority that does not represent the political reality on the ground in Scotland, or indeed Wales. Once more, the Minister will get to his feet and mouth meaningless platitudes about speaking to the devolved Administrations. Scotland did not vote for Brexit. Scotland did vote for devolution. It is anti-democratic that Brexit is being used to undermine devolution, and it is happening in breach of all the promises that were made to no voters in 2014, including the infamous vow, which included a promise from all three parties that the Scottish Parliament, as well as getting extensive new powers, would have the final say on spending in all devolved matters.

It is therefore a really sad state of affairs that the official Opposition could not field a single Back Bencher to speak up for devolution today. I know that they only have one hon. Member in Scotland, but they are not always averse to putting forward MPs from other parts of these islands to opine on Scottish affairs. Their no-show here today is not surprising, though, given that their colleagues in the Lords sat on their hands yesterday with regard to amendments seeking to keep state aid a devolved matter and Lord Thomas’s amendment challenging the Government’s clauses on direct spending in devolved areas. This is happening in direct breach of the vow that the then leader of the Labour party signed. But Labour does not care. It is happy to wheel out Gordon Brown to talk about federalism when independence is riding high, but when it comes to defending the existing devolved settlement, it is missing in action. This is a shameful state of affairs, and it falls to the SNP to defend devolution. We are doomed to fail, but that will simply further reinforce the case for independence.

[Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)]

I have to start by expressing my deepest sympathies to the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell), who has had to come to the House to try to defend the completely and utterly indefensible. [Interruption.] She says that she does not need my sympathy—well, she is getting it anyway. The reality is that the Labour party has once again turned its back on voters in Scotland. Last night Labour had the opportunity to stand up for the Scottish Parliament, to stand up for devolution and to block direct spending by this UK Government on devolved matters, and it sat on its hands. That is why there is a not a single Labour Back Bencher here in the Chamber this afternoon.

But my sympathies do not stop there: they also extend to the Minister himself. He talks about business certainty—business certainty! Four and a half years after the Brexit vote, after three Prime Ministers and two general elections, it is 17 days to the end of the transition period and the Minister could not name, in any way, shape or form, what the trade status of the United Kingdom is going to be. I pity them all. This is why the people of Scotland will choose a different path in the very near future.

Let us look at the Bill as it stands in a little more detail. It remains—it utterly remains—a blatant attack on devolution. For me, that is extremely frustrating, because, like my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow East (David Linden), I am young enough to have lived almost entirely under the Scottish Parliament. I do not remember a time when there was not a Scottish Parliament. It has been a positive, progressive force for Scotland that we are proud of. I am not going to come to this Chamber and let a party that has not won an election in Scotland since the 1950s dictate to the Scottish Parliament as to what will happen. It is a complete and utter shambles, and the Government should be utterly ashamed of that.

To finish, something that has been asked a lot in this Chamber—I have heard the shadow Scotland Office Minister say it as well—is, “Name a single power that is being grabbed. Name a single one”, but this is much bigger than that; this is a blatant, all-out attack on devolution itself. It seeks to undermine the very premise of devolution. To prove that very fact, The Press and Journal just four days ago said:

“The Secretary of State has been very clear he wants to deal direct with local authorities”—

not just going beyond the Scottish Parliament or the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, but going straight to the local authorities themselves. That is absurd and a blatant attack on devolution, and we will not stand for it.

[Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)]

I am overwhelmed by a sense of déjà vu, with the Labour Front Bench getting more grief than the Treasury Front Bench, as back in the day. I am also overwhelmed with a sense of déjà vu because I feel a great sense of this Government being in the same place—in my heart, in my mind—as the European Commission once was. Back in the days when we were not little Britain, I remember feeling enormous frustration and anger with the European Commission when it would do stupid things, in particular with agriculture, playing into the hands of separatists who only wanted the end of our relationship with the European Union.

I feel exactly the same about this Government now playing into the hands of my friends and colleagues around me on the SNP Benches—to whom this is music to their ears—by undermining the Union and being cloth-eared in the process. The Minister has had every chance to accept Lords amendments and to do what he can to stand behind the integrity of the Union and of the devolution settlement.

I have another great concern. I mentioned agriculture a minute ago, and what is critical in the race to the bottom that is built into the Bill when it comes to standards of farming, animal welfare and the environment is something that is not restricted to the Bill alone; it is something that the Government are repeating in other areas of their approach. We have seen the failure of the Government to accept proposals from my party and others that the high standards of British animal welfare and our environmental standards should be written into all new trade deals, but those were refused at every turn—clearly preparing the way to sell out farmers in all corners of the United Kingdom at the first chance the Government get in any trade deal.

At the same time, although most of us in this House agree with the Government’s direction in terms of the English changes to farm payments—from basic payments to the environmental land management scheme—the plan has been to underfund the scheme and to bodge it, getting rid of the basic payments before the new payments are in place, therefore killing off English family farms, which are the unit that allows us to have high-quality animal welfare and environmental standards. All those things together paint a picture of a Government who have lost touch with the countryside and with agriculture, and are prepared to set out a range of policies—almost a manifesto, a catalogue, of attacks on British farming—that undermine our standards, animal welfare and the quality of our produce, and to sell our farmers down the river.

I am proud of the quality of British farming, throughout these islands, and I want the standards that are the highest in any nation to be the highest across all four. I would love the Government to learn from the mistakes of the European Commission—not to play into the hands of separatists, but to make sure that they defend our Union and the devolution settlement.

Arcadia and Debenhams: Business Support and Job Retention

Stephen Flynn Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd December 2020 Commons Chamber

[Paul Scully]

I thank my hon. Friend for his work to support Workington. The stronger towns fund and the future high streets fund are two really important instruments in making sure that we have high streets up and down the country that can survive and thrive and that we can be proud of, and we will make sure that those announcements are forthcoming as soon as possible.

[Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)]

As Arcadia collapses and jobs are put on the line in Aberdeen and across the country, Amazon pays less than £300 million of tax on almost £14 billion of revenue. Does the Minister therefore agree that, in order to protect our city centres, we need a level playing field and the Government must toughen up their digital services tax?

Oral Answers to Questions

Stephen Flynn Excerpts

Monday 20th July 2020 Commons Chamber

[Alyn Smith (Stirling) (SNP)]

What recent discussions he has had with the Scottish Government on the shared prosperity fund.

[Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)]

What recent discussions he has had with the Scottish Government on the shared prosperity fund.

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Mr Simon Clarke)]

This Government believe in respecting the results of democratic referendums. Leaving the European Union has provided us with an opportunity to align the objective of the EU structural funds with domestic priorities, while continuing to support vital jobs and growth opportunities across the United Kingdom. The new UK shared prosperity fund will be our vehicle for delivering that. UK Government officials regularly speak to their counterparts in the devolved Administrations about this and other issues.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Clarke]

It is obviously importantly that we provide that clarity—I wholly agree with the hon. Gentleman—and we are going to provide that clarity after the cross-government spending review in the autumn.

[Stephen Flynn]

The report highlighted by my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Alyn Smith) did not end its criticism there. The IFS went on to say that it was “disconcerting” that the shared prosperity fund was still not finalised and suggested that

“With limited time left, one option the government could consider would be to continue with existing EU funding allocations for one more year.”

Will the Minister today commit to do just that, to protect all our communities and ensure that they are not left behind by this incompetent UK Government?

[Mr Clarke]

Obviously, I do not accept the hon. Gentleman’s characterisation of the Government. We are working very hard to ensure that we deliver on the decision to leave the European Union. We will be in a position to give full details on the UK shared prosperity fund after the cross-government spending review, which will be so important to determining many aspects of our future relationship with Europe, as well as our commitments to our own spending priorities. We will continue working closely as one United Kingdom to understand the changing needs of local and regional economies, and I am happy to meet Ministers from the Scottish Government to find an acceptable way forward.