Financial Services Bill (Eleventh sitting)

Stephen Flynn Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee Debate: 11th sitting: House of Commons
Thursday 3rd December 2020 Public Bill Committees

[Mr McFadden]

Thank you for your chairmanship, Mr Davies. I rise to speak to new clause 2, in my name and the names of my hon. Friends. We discussed equivalence when we were debating clause 24 or 25, so it might relieve the Minister and the Committee to know that I will not repeat everything I said about how we got to this position, but let us look at what the current situation is.

First, we have withdrawn from the EU, and in so doing we have withdrawn from any joint decision-making process about mutual access to financial services. Secondly, a few weeks ago the Chancellor announced a unilateral move on the UK’s part to grant equivalence recognition to EU member states and their firms. Thirdly, there is a legislative mechanism to do that in the Bill. Fourthly, we now await decisions on equivalence from the EU. Finally, in terms of the regulatory picture, we have spent a lot of legislative time in this House—probably no one more than the Minister in the past two years or so—legislating to onshore various EU directives. That is where we are.

The aim of onshoring that vast body of legislation was to have a parallel position, or as near to one as we could reach, on day one of the end of the transition period. At the same time, though, we have given our regulators powers to diverge in various ways from the terms of these directives in future. We have discussed that quite a few times in Committee, and the Minister said that the Government are not interested in diverging for the sake of divergence, but of course there are many in the Government, and in his party, for whom divergence is the whole point of the exercise, because it is all about sovereignty. Although we may be almost totally in line on day one—new year’s day—what about day 100 or day 1,000?

Nothing in new clause 2 alters the power to diverge. If the package of onshoring and granting new powers to the regulators that the Minister is taking through is there, nothing in the new clause alters that, but it asks for a report on where we have reached in that process. We know that a positive outcome of this process could have a very significant bearing on the UK financial services industry. It would mean better access for our firms than without that process. It certainly would not give them what they have at the moment, but that is water under the bridge—we debated that earlier in Committee.

The converse is also true, of course: if we do not get equivalence recognition, it would have implications for jobs, tax revenue and how the UK is viewed as a home for inward investment in the financial services industries. All that the new clause does is to ask for a report on where we have got to in the process or, alternatively, a statement on who has refused to grant equivalence of recognition.

I hope the Economic Secretary does not mind if I point out that I cannot be the only one who is struck by the clamour, particularly on the Government Benches, for economic evidence to justify covid-protective measures. Everybody wants the exact detail of how that will affect their local economies. If that is the case, it is only right that the Government report on the economic consequences of the other major process that we are going through. That is the intention behind the new clause.

The sector is hugely important for the United Kingdom, as has been mentioned many times during our debates over the last couple of weeks. All that the new clause does is to ask for a report on where we are on market access. I very much hope that we have a positive outcome on that. Some of it may be about good will, and it might depend on what is agreed in the next week or two—we do not know. It is certainly in the interests of the sector to have a positive outcome. The least we can ask is that the Government report to the House on that.

Finally, if the outcome is positive, the Government will probably want to report back anyway. If the outcome is not positive, Parliament has a right to hear about that, too.

[Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)]

Just to be clear, Mr Davies, do you wish me to speak to new clause 2 or to new clauses 28 and 36?

[The Chair]

You can speak to new clause 2 as well as to your new clauses 28 and 36.

[Stephen Flynn]

Then I will do that—thank you. It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair once again, Mr Davies. It is probably accurate and correct that the new clauses are grouped together, because they are quite similar in scope, particularly when considering the wider issue of divergence. I will come back to that.

New clause 28 seeks to provide an impact assessment before disapplying European Union rules or applying rules different from those of the EU. That is incredibly important, because it goes to the core of what the Bill is about in relation to our leaving the European Union. Only a few day ago, the Governor of the Bank of England highlighted that a no-deal Brexit could of course lead to a worse economic situation than covid. We need to be in a position to assess the reality of what the Government seek to do. That should apply in the case of no-deal, a good deal—as far as the Government see it—a bad deal or a “Boris deal”.

We should compare what we could have had with what we get. We should be open and transparent with the public about that. The Government talk about wanting to take back control and parliamentary sovereignty; let us take that back to the people as well and show them that the Government are being open and transparent with everything that is put forward. That is particularly important in a Scottish context because—lest we forget—the people of Scotland did not vote for Brexit, and they do not want it to happen, so it is incumbent on the UK Government to provide that clarity to them, particularly on such important matters.

If the Government are proud of the actions that they are taking and seek to go down a different path, they should be willing to follow up on their actions and be open and transparent, not shy away from that.

That takes me on to new clause 36, which would do something very similar to new clause 28, but rather than looking at the potential impact of future decisions, it would provide for an annual review of the decisions that had been taken. That, as the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton South East said, is, in the context of equivalence, incredibly important, particularly if we are to see the UK diverge from the European Union in any way, shape or form. As we have heard, the Chancellor has guaranteed equivalence to the European Union, so it will have access to the UK markets, but of course there is not a similar agreement in place for us. Conservative Members would, understandably, argue that that is the EU’s fault and that the EU should be delivering that for us, but, as I said on Second Reading, who can blame it when this is a Government who simply cannot be trusted, a Government—lest we forget—who are willing to break international law?

Irrespective of that, we should all be concerned about the reality of not having equivalence in place and what that could lead to. We have made and heard suggestions that it could mean, ultimately, divergence in relation to MiFID—the markets in financial instruments directive. It could mean divergence in relation to the wider insurance regulatory framework. I appreciate that there are arguments both in favour and against in that regard, but we need always to be mindful of what we are seeking to diverge from in relation to our wider relationship with the European Union. I appreciate that it will ultimately be in the gift of the Government to do these things, but they should surely have some concerns about the actions that they will be taking.

I go back to the comments that I made about new clause 28. If the Government are proud of the actions that they take and have taken, they will be willing to accept both new clause 28 and new clause 36 and to put their money where their mouth is and be open and transparent with the people of Scotland and the people of the United Kingdom that their decisions have not been ones that have had disastrous consequences for the economy of the UK. I suggest that if they do not accept the new clauses, that is because they know the damage that they are going to do.

[The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (John Glen)]

What a pleasure it is to serve under your chairmanship once again, Mr Davies. These new clauses seek to place requirements on the Government to make various reports related to the UK’s withdrawal from the EU and the subsequent evolution of our financial services regulation.

New clause 2 deals with equivalence, which is an important mechanism for managing cross-border financial services activity. I can well understand hon. Members’ interest in that. However, the obligation that the new clause would impose on the Government—essentially, to report on the status of the EU’s considerations about UK equivalence—is beyond the Government’s power and therefore not something that the Government can agree to do.

The right hon. Member for Wolverhampton South East rightly referred to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor’s speech on 9 November, in which he made clear that we have made equivalence decisions—17 of the 30 that we have to make. We have co-operated very fully with the EU in terms of a timely response to the 17 questionnaires. Again, we cannot determine how it responds. Equivalence assessments are an autonomous process, managed separately from trade negotiations. That applies in the case of the EU, and where the EU chooses to grant the UK equivalence, that will be done in accordance with its own decision-making process. EU equivalence determinations are unilateral and do not require the UK’s agreement. Those decisions will be published and readily available to all, including UK parliamentarians.

I can reiterate today the Government’s commitment to operating an open and transparent approach to equivalence as the Chancellor explained in his speech on 9 November. Our overall approach is outlined in the recently published guidance document on the UK’s equivalence framework. That document makes it very clear that transparency will be one of the key principles of our equivalence framework.

As part of this, the Treasury will provide Parliament with appropriate information about the operation of the equivalence framework. After the end of the transition period, future equivalence decisions will be made by regulations laid before Parliament, giving Members the opportunity to consider and scrutinise the Treasury’s decisions as part of the UK’s normal legislative process.

As I said, the Chancellor recently announced a package of equivalence decisions following the completion of our assessment of the EU, where we took a thorough but proportionate outcomes-based assessment against the criteria in legislation. As the EU has confirmed publicly, there are many areas where it is not prepared to assess the UK at the current time. In the absence of clarity from the EU, we have made decisions to provide clarity and stability to industry, supporting the openness of the sector and to help to deliver our goal of open, well-regulated markets.

Oral Answers to Questions

Stephen Flynn Excerpts

Tuesday 1st December 2020 Commons Chamber

[Owen Thompson (Midlothian) (SNP)]

What recent discussions he has had with his Scottish counterpart on the effect of his Department’s fiscal policy on household income in Scotland.

[Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)]

What recent discussions he has had with his Scottish counterpart on the effect of his Department’s fiscal policy on household income in Scotland.

[The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Steve Barclay)]

This year, the Government have put in place an unprecedented package of support to protect incomes and jobs right across the UK. Analysis published earlier this year shows that our interventions significantly protected people’s incomes, with the least well-off in society supported the most.

[Steve Barclay]

As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor set out a moment ago, the Financial Secretary to the Treasury will be meeting that group, but we have also targeted the support, including on those who are majority self-employed. Through that targeting, we have been able to confirm an additional £2.4 billion of support for the Scottish Government.

[Stephen Flynn]

In his spending review statement last week, the Chancellor failed even to mention Brexit, but the Office for Budget Responsibility was not quite so shy; indeed, it painted a particularly bleak picture. So can the Minister clarify this: does he accept the OBR’s findings, and if so, does he therefore agree that the Scotland’s economic future will be detrimentally impacted by any Brexit on the watch of this Tory Government?

[Steve Barclay]

What economic analysis has always shown is that Scotland’s trade with the rest of the United Kingdom is much more important than its trade with Europe. However, Government Members have always been clear that we seek a deal. The asks that the negotiating team have put forward are extremely reasonable, and Lord Frost and the team continue to work to that effect.

Financial Services Bill (Seventh sitting)

Stephen Flynn Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee Debate: 7th sitting: House of Commons
Thursday 26th November 2020 Public Bill Committees

[John Glen]

At this point I cannot give her chapter and verse on the exact attribution of resources to this measure, but I can look into that and come back to her.

[Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. I will be brief. The Minister has made a compelling case, but perhaps not as compelling as that made by the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton South East, who made illuminating remarks on the potential price of bread, although I encourage him to go to Aldi, where he will get it for a lot cheaper than £1.10.

What is proposed here is a common-sense approach that would give the wider public confidence that the Government are taking this matter seriously, notwith- standing the Minister’s remarks thus far. In general terms, I do not think there is a huge difference between the two positions, but looking at both sides, I think the common-sense approach would be to tighten this process and make it more robust; that would provide the public with the confidence they feel they need on these matters, particularly given the scale of past scandals.

[Mr McFadden]

I listened carefully to what the Minister said. I do not think anyone looking at the issue would conclude that the responsibility for these actions had been fairly allocated, so there is an issue. I am not saying we want to go around looking to put people’s heads on spikes—we do not want that sort of politics—but it does rankle with our constituents when certain types of crime that are, candidly, easier to understand are met with heavy punishments while somebody who does a very complex crime that is more difficult to understand can somehow get away with it.

Having said that, I accept that legislation for criminal offences, and particularly for custodial sentences, needs to be very carefully drafted in exactly the right way, and I cannot say that I am 100% certain that my amendment is, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Financial Services Bill (Fourth sitting)

Stephen Flynn Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee Debate: 4th sitting: House of Commons
Thursday 19th November 2020 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

Stephen Flynn, could you make your way to the mic and speak right into it? That one will work, although it has Duncan Hames’s name by it.

[Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)]

Q I am sure that Duncan would be overjoyed to be associated with me.

Thank you, Minister Isola, for presenting yourself before us today and for the information that you have provided. I would like to follow on from the shadow Minister’s questions about the competitive advantage that Gibraltar may or may not have. As I see it, the Bill seeks to create a level playing field, but it could be inferred that Gibraltar has a competitive advantage over our constituent parts of the United Kingdom—indeed, the home nations—given that it has abilities in relation to corporation tax and other forms of taxation that the home nations do not. How would you assess that? I appreciate that you sought to answer Mr McFadden in that regard, but do you feel that we could see a situation in which businesses will seek to take advantage of what is clearly a level playing field with a competitive advantage for yourselves?

Albert Isola: The simple answer is no, and I will tell you why. If you think about it, we have been setting our own tax rates for the past 20 years, during which we have had access to the United Kingdom market through the European Union single passporting system. I do not think that I have ever heard any discussion in the financial services environment about different tax rates in different member states of the European Union, let alone Gibraltar, having an impact. It is not as if an advantage were being created by the Bill that would endure to 1 January next year and beyond. Where we are today is where we have been for the past 10 or 15 years with different tax systems.

I do not think that you will find a company that—with the level of investment that it requires in terms of capitalisation, particularly with respect to insurance—will make a judgment call on a difference of 9% in corporate tax, assuming that it can make a profit. As I said to the shadow Minister, the information that I have from the firms that have come here is that that is very low on their list of priorities, if it is there at all. I do not see it having the impact that you suggest; if there were such an impact, it would already have happened a long time ago. As I mentioned, the firms that are in Gibraltar today have been here for a very long time, and as they have grown, so have we. Our market share has been 20% for the past year or two; it was a lot less before those businesses grew and became more successful.

[The Chair]

As there are no further questions, I thank you, Minister, for joining us remotely from Gibraltar as our final witness of the day. This is the end of our fourth and last evidence session.

The Committee will meet again, not here but in Committee Room 14, on Tuesday at 9.25 am—bright-eyed and bushy-tailed for our first sitting of line-by-line scrutiny.

Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(David Rutley.)

Financial Services Bill (Third sitting)

Stephen Flynn Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee Debate: 3rd sitting: House of Commons
Thursday 19th November 2020 Public Bill Committees

[John Glen]

Thank you very much. I will now let other colleagues take part.

[Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)]

Q Thank you, Dr Hawley, for the information you have shared so far. Can I refer you point 16 of your written submission? It says:

“However, there is no corporate offence in the FSA and it is therefore not clear that prosecutors would be able to hold companies to account were similar conduct to reoccur.”

I will be open and honest with you: I do not have a legal background, so perhaps you could elaborate on that further. Either there is the ability to do something or there is not. That ties in with the remarks about Barclays in point 21, which quotes remarks that it

“effectively removes companies with widely devolved management and functioning boards”.

The term “effectively” implies that it could or could not. Can I have a little more clarity on that point?

Dr Hawley: Yes, absolutely. We have checked that with lawyers, and it is the case currently under the Financial Services Act that if you wanted to bring a prosecution for misleading statements on benchmarks—let us hope that will not happen again because financial institutions have learned the lessons from last time—the only way that you could hold a company to account would be under the directing mind principle that I mentioned earlier. You would have to show that one of the directors knew and intended for this to occur. There is no comparative offence, as there is under the Bribery Act, of a failure to prevent misleading statements being made, for which there could be a corporate fine. That would be almost impossible to do if a bank were making misleading statements.

The Barclays judgment has made that even more difficult and narrower. Prosecutors and the Serious Fraud Office can no longer say, “We’ve got the evidence on the CEO and CFO, and we think we can prove it, so we will take this to court.” The court then turns round and says, “No, it’s not just that. You have to show that the board actually delegated authority to these people.” It set a whole new hurdle for how you hold corporates to account. What we are hearing from people is that this is going to lead to a massive decrease in corporate prosecutions, because the grounds for bringing a company to account are so narrow now that they are almost impossible. I cannot say that it would not happen, but I can say that it would be an extremely brave prosecutor to risk public money in the courts to try.

[Stephen Flynn]

Q Thank you for that clarity. To play devil’s advocate a little, in terms of the individual versus collective responsibility, which is effectively what is being inferred here, do you see any dangers in going down that route?

Dr Hawley: The corporate route?

[Stephen Flynn]

Yes.

Dr Hawley: We do not see any dangers, because, generally, if you can hold the company to account, you are more likely to be able to hold the individuals to account. There is some evidence from the US, where the lack of senior executives going to jail has been contentious.

I think there is a real issue around senior executive accountability. We have seen a series of acquittals in the UK courts, in the Tesco’s case and in the Barclays case. There are some quite serious issues that need to be looked at in terms of how senior executives are held to account. I could argue to bring forward an amendment to address that as well, but that is not what we have done in this written evidence. We are just focusing on the corporate offence, and we do not see any reason why it would undermine efforts to hold senior executives to account. I would be interested to hear those arguments, because I have not heard any coherent arguments about why it undermines individual accountability.

[Stephen Flynn]

Thank you.

[The Chair]

It might be helpful for colleagues and our witness to say that we have 18 minutes left and three people who want to ask questions, so people might want to be mindful of that.

North of England: Economic Support

Stephen Flynn Excerpts

Wednesday 11th November 2020 Westminster Hall

[Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. Congratulations to the hon. Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis) on securing the debate. I have listened closely, and there have been a lot of passionate voices for the north of England, which is utterly fantastic to hear. On this occasion, there is much more that unites the Members present than divides them. I certainly wish them well in trying to get the Government to keep the promises that they have made and to go further in some instances, as Members have requested.

My biggest take from the debate is that I need to get my hands on The Yorkshire Post to see what all the fuss is about.

[Holly Lynch]

You could do with a subscription!

[Stephen Flynn]

We do not have The Yorkshire Post in Aberdeen at the moment, but I will put a call in with a local corner shop to see whether I can get it.

This debate has been wide-ranging and has focused on people’s priorities: jobs, support and ensuring that they can live good lives. I will provide a little context as someone who also represents the north, but, as Member for Aberdeen South, it is the north-east of Scotland. The right hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Jake Berry) mentioned that many of his constituents have continued to work throughout the pandemic, which is also true of many of my constituents. As everyone will be aware, the oil and gas industry cannot stop. If it did, we would all be in a bit of trouble—that is for sure—so my constituents have been working incredibly hard throughout the pandemic.

When the oil price plummeted, however—it absolutely crashed in early March and into April—the Government did not lift a finger. Not a single penny of sector-specific support was put behind an industry that has given more than £350 billion to the Treasury over decades. That was a disappointment not just to me, but to each and every person in Aberdeen who has a friend or family member whose job is intrinsically linked to the success of that sector.

Beyond that, we have not seen any Government investment in what comes next. We all know that oil and gas are depleting resources, but as far as I can see, there has so far been no firm commitment to hydrogen, which has been mentioned by several Members, or to carbon capture and underground storage, which is also of keen interest to Members in the north of England. The Government have not made those commitments, whether for the north of England or the north-east of Scotland. Quite frankly, that is not good enough.

The issues do not stop there. Although we are in the midst of this pandemic, we cannot escape the fact that we are just weeks away from the end of the transition period and, potentially, from leaving the European Union without a deal. My city is projected to be the hardest hit in the UK as a result of Brexit. Where is the mitigation from the Conservative Government? There has been none to date.

Beyond that, in the last couple of weeks alone, my Aberdeen constituency has been the hardest hit in job vacancies—once again, across the entire UK—with a 75% decline. The issues in the north of England that have been spoken about are ones with which I sympathise, but they are not unique. Certainly, in the north-east of Scotland, we are bearing the brunt of the inaction of this Conservative Government, decades of inaction from UK Governments and insufficient investment in the future.

I am conscious of time, so I will bring my remarks to an end by reflecting on the wider situation in Scotland. As it stands, we have no clarity on the Scottish budget. Next year, we will have to rely on the UK Government telling us how much we will have before we can spend it on our vital public services. We have no clarity on what the shared prosperity fund will look like or whether Scotland will have additional borrowing powers.

On top of that complete and utter contempt for Scotland, the Internal Market Bill seeks to take back the devolved powers that we have. The hon. Member for Barnsley Central referred to the need for further devolution in the north of England. I commend him on those remarks and wish him good luck, but he needs to be wary of getting that devolution only for the UK Government to strip back the powers that they have given.

I appreciate that I have already said that I would make my final comment, but I have one more. [Laughter.] That is true of all of us in this House at times; repetition is something we are particularly good at. I will conclude by saying, once again, that I wish Members across the House well in their fight with the Government to get the investment that they need. Be mindful of the fact that Scotland also requires that investment, but where we differ is that we have a choice. We have another route to get what we want, which is for the people of Scotland to vote for independence.

Financial Services Bill

Stephen Flynn Excerpts

2nd reading & 2nd reading: House of Commons & Programme motion & Programme motion: House of Commons & Ways and Means resolution & Ways and Means resolution: House of Commons
Monday 9th November 2020 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake). It is safe to say, as others have done, that this is not a debate that will have folk at home sitting on the edge of their seat awfully excited, that is for sure. None the less, it is an incredibly important debate. It is an incredibly important matter for the UK economy, but also for the Scottish economy, as my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) outlined. The financial services sector in Scotland is incredibly important, and it is linked to tens of thousands of jobs across our nation. It is in that broader context that we are obviously quite content to let this Bill pass on Second Reading, bearing in mind the fact that a regulatory framework is needed at this stage. I hope the Government will be amenable to some of the amendments we will put forward. Those amendments will broadly—how shall I put it?—be borne out of frustration that perhaps the Bill does not necessarily go as far as it could or should go. I will seek to touch on a couple of those matters during my speech today.

The first one I would like to touch on is about clause 31, which is on money laundering. Clause 31 in itself appears to be one that is quite self-congratulatory in its nature. To quote, as I feel is appropriate to do on this occasion, the Government say that the Bill

“will further support the public and private sectors to efficiently and effectively target their resources towards potential criminal activity using trusts, maintaining the resilience of the UK’s defences against economic crime.”

On the face of it, that looks like a fantastic thing, but when we look a little bit more at what we on the SNP Benches have been saying for a number of years now about Scottish limited partnerships, it appears that the warm words of the Government do not actually bear fruit given the reality of the picture on the ground. It should not need to be said to Members on the Government Benches, but when we are talking about Scottish limited partnerships, we are talking about organisations through which people can access financial products without having to name who they are. If that is not an open invitation to money laundering, I do not know what is. When we look at money laundering in the context of Scottish limited partnerships and also of tax avoidance and £35 billion tax gap that exists in the UK at this moment in time, it is probably safe to say that the public are a little bit sceptical about whether the Government take this as seriously as they should.

Our frustrations do not stop there. They also relate to clause 32, on the debt respite scheme. The Government say that clause 32 will

“empower the Government to make regulations which will compel creditors to accept amended repayment terms”.

Again, on the face of it, that seems like a perfectly legitimate and correct thing to do, but does it necessarily address the situation at this moment in time, when businesses across Scotland and the UK have taken out bounce back loans and coronavirus business interruption loans that they will not be able to pay back? Does it meet the reality of the situation? I am very sceptical as to whether it does.

The Government have two options on that front. They could simply write off that debt for small to medium-sized enterprises, which are the lifeblood of our economy, or they could take strategic moves to turn some of that debt into equity stakes, where it would be appropriate to do so, to boost economic activity and perhaps gain some money back for the public purse. Unfortunately, again I am sceptical as to whether the Government will seek to do either of those things. That is not in any way a positive outcome.

Thirdly, I want to touch briefly on clauses 24 to 26, on the overseas funds regime. As my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow Central said, the ABI has expressed concerns about the potential for equivalence to be used as a political football. I think all of us have that concern. We heard warm words from the Chancellor earlier today about the fact that he would not seek to use it as a political football, but being a bit of a sceptic about this Government, I think that warm words from the Chancellor at the Dispatch Box are not quite good enough. The record of this Government when it comes to saying one thing and doing the complete opposite is all too clear for everyone to see, so I have grave concerns in that regard.

The issue of equivalence takes me on to the final point that I wish to make, which is about the ongoing shambles in relation to Brexit. The UK Government website states that the Bill will “promote financial stability”. We do not have a trade deal with the European Union, and the transition period is a matter of weeks away. We do not know whether it will be possible for our financial services to access markets in Europe uninhibited. The scale of that issue is immense, particularly when we consider the fact that the City of London alone accounts for just under a third of all capital market activity across Europe. The market that we are seeking to leave is enormous, and this Government appear to have no plan and no desire to act prudently.

We heard from the Chancellor earlier, and we will probably hear it again from Government Members, that the blame for this lies at the EU’s feet, because it is refusing to partake in discussions in a proper and appropriate way. Who can blame the EU when, as the hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine) said, this UK Government are actively seeking to break international law? Who can blame the EU for being a little bit sceptical about the intentions of this Conservative Government? The sabre rattling needs to end, and the Government need to realise that the financial services industry must have the access it needs to support the tens of thousands of jobs that are reliant upon it, not only in England but in Scotland.

To conclude, I want to once again clarify that this Bill is very much born out of necessity, and we broadly support the regulatory framework around it. However, what is clear from this Bill, from the Brexit shambles and from the fact that the UK’s credit rating once again got downgraded just three days before the Bill was published, is that this Tory Government are no longer a Government of financial stability. I long for the day when Scotland no longer has to take its decisions in this place but can take its own decisions as an independent European nation.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

I call Gareth Davies. I will give him a moment in case he is here—I should have gone to Specsavers. I call Jim Shannon.

Economy Update

Stephen Flynn Excerpts

Thursday 5th November 2020 Commons Chamber

[Rishi Sunak]

I am always happy to hear suggestions from my hon. Friend, particularly on improvements to technical language or drafting and guidance. If he has some suggestions, I look forward to receiving them soon.

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

In March, fewer than 8,000 people in Aberdeen were in receipt of universal credit; by September, the number had more than doubled to over 17,000 people. The Chancellor has made one spectacular U-turn today, so will he make another? Will he confirm that he will provide the funding necessary to maintain the £20-per-week universal credit uplift beyond the spring?

[Rishi Sunak]

Obviously, the Scottish Government are due to outline a budget at some point soon and, in respect of future tax and welfare policy, if that is something that the hon. Gentleman and the Scottish Government want to do, I am sure they have every tool and lever at their disposal to do exactly that.

Covid-19: Future UK-EU Relationship

Stephen Flynn Excerpts

Wednesday 15th July 2020 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Paul Blomfield]

I would have thought that the hon. Gentleman may want to hear my point.

[Stephen Flynn]

No, I am quite happy to intervene.

[Paul Blomfield]

Go on then.

[Stephen Flynn]

I thank the hon. Member for giving way. Does he agree that the intransigence of his party on this issue is perhaps why it received 42% of the vote in Scotland in 2010, but just 18% in the general election of 2019?

[Paul Blomfield]

The nature of these interventions indicates why it does not seem that the SNP is serious about having a debate about the actual negotiations on which the future of our country is going to be so dependent. It is all about point scoring, not protecting jobs and protecting the economy.

The Government should listen more effectively to those voices of the devolved Administrations and recognise that the Joint Ministerial Committee is not working. It needs to be put on a formal footing, with its decisions properly recorded and respected. The agreement reached with the European Union will affect the nations and regions of the UK differently, and the devolved Administrations will be on the frontline of delivering it. They must be properly consulted and proper regard must be given to their views. It is not a question of vetoes, but of respect for the devolution settlements in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland as the Government negotiate with and repatriate powers from the European Union. We need—I make this point both to the Government and to the leader of the SNP at Westminster —a spirit of constructive partnership between the four Governments of the United Kingdom, rather than division.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Bowie]

I would happily stand and debate opinion polls and their trajectory, but there is only one poll that truly matters, and that is when people get to the ballot box. I am sure the hon. Gentleman would agree that the SNP only managed to get 45% of the vote in December. That is a fantastic total and a very strong result, but it shows that 55% of the Scottish population voted for parties that want to remain in the United Kingdom—a United Kingdom that is, I am afraid, because we believe in democracy, leaving the European Union this year.

Throughout the Brexit debate, there has been a false assumption that the status quo was one of the options that remained available to us. That was never true and has never been less true that it is today. The European Union has been hit just as hard by the pandemic as the UK has, and it will have to make difficult decisions about how to respond to the economic effects, exactly as we will. Our staying in the transitional arrangements with the EU, when the EU is rightly not factoring British interests into its plans for recovery, does not make sense. We need all the flexibility available to us to respond to the economic damage caused by the pandemic, and staying inside the EU’s one-size-fits-all framework is simply not conducive to that.

We have had this debate over and over again for the past three to four years. What this country, and businesses in this country, needs is certainty, not more dither and delay. It is disappointing and of serious detriment to the interests of the people of Scotland that the SNP has not yet learned how negotiations work. If the past four years have taught us anything, it is that without firm deadlines, negotiations grind to a halt. That is precisely why deadlines exist—to ensure that important tasks are completed in a timely fashion. I am sure that Opposition Members visit schools in their constituencies from time to time, as I do. The next time they visit I invite them to ask teachers how likely it is that their students’ coursework would materialise were endless extensions on offer.

The leader of the Scottish National party in this place, the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber, spoke today about the importance of economic certainty and putting the economy first. My goodness me! It was a bigger conversion than Paul on the road to Damascus to finally hear the leader of the SNP making our arguments for us. Surely it means that the SNP has finally accepted our argument against breaking up the United Kingdom, given the huge economic cost that would bring. If the economy comes before all other concerns, the case for Scottish independence is as dead as a dodo.

[Stephen Flynn]

Parking the politics for a moment, in all honesty does the hon. Gentleman not share my concern that our part of the United Kingdom, which we both are elected to represent, is due to be the hardest hit of the entirety of the United Kingdom as a result of Brexit? Does he not have any concerns about that whatever?

[Andrew Bowie]

The hon. Member knows that I share concerns about the economic prospects of our part of the country, which we are both proud to represent, and that is why I, unlike him, welcomed the huge stimulus announced last week by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, so much of which will be going to support Scottish businesses.

[Stephen Flynn]

rose—

[Andrew Bowie]

Perhaps the hon. Member would like to stand up and welcome the Chancellor’s package of announcements that was unveiled last week.

[Stephen Flynn]

I thank the hon. Member for giving way and giving me another opportunity to reflect on the package last week, which he knows was devoid of any support whatever for Scotland’s oil and gas sector in terms of an oil and gas sector deal. I see his head go down, because he has just walked into that one, knowing exactly what I was going to say. I go back to my initial point. Does he not in all honesty have concerns that our part of Scotland will be detrimentally impacted by Brexit? Just say it.

[Andrew Bowie]

I may have walked right into that, but that is because last week Oil & Gas UK welcomed the package of support unveiled by the Chancellor. It was very welcoming of the furlough scheme that we put up and it is looking forward to working with us as we develop the oil and gas sector deal. By the way, that deal and support would not come if Scotland was not in our wider United Kingdom.

I have to say something to the hon. Member and any SNP Members. If, heaven forbid, a second independence referendum took place and, heaven forbid, the result went in their favour, we would respect the result because, after all, we are democrats. I doubt we would see SNP politicians coming back here asking for an extension to any transition period that had been agreed, but the untangling of the Union that we are going through now is nothing compared with what it would be like to untangle an economic, political and military Union that has existed for more than 300 years.

The SNP looks both ways when it comes to leaving Unions. They will find any excuse to drag out the Brexit process for as long as possible, but when it comes to independence, it is full steam ahead—no plan, no timetable, no currency, no mandate, no way. They are simply Euro-Unionists. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson) mentions the side of a bus. Earlier, we heard the leader of the Scottish National party talk about what the SNP campaigned on during the December election. Its campaign was solely about “Stop Brexit”; it was not about another Scottish independence referendum. Independence was not even mentioned for the duration of the campaign, so toxic was it to the Scottish National party’s platform. On the side of the SNP bus, in black and yellow, was “Stop Brexit”. It failed, we are leaving the European Union at the end of the year, and we will make a success of it.

[Stephen Flynn]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Andrew Bowie]

I will not because I have already taken two interventions—not even for the hon. Gentleman. SNP Members know that I campaigned and voted to remain in the European Union, but there is a certain thing called democracy, and we must abide by the results. Otherwise, everything that we stand for in this place, and out in the wider country, falls flat on its face. We fought the referendum. My side lost, the leave side won, and we must respect that, just as one day—hopefully—the Scottish National party will respect the fact that it lost in 2014, and that Scotland is staying as part of the United Kingdom.

At least the Scottish National party is consistent, and has a position on Brexit and the transition agreement, and I am sure we will debate the issue again in the months to come. Sadly, that is more than can be said for the Labour party, which is all but invisible today. I say in all candour to my friends on the Opposition Benches that it does not look likely, with the sort of actions demonstrated today, that they will get back to the position in which they need to be if they are to become a force in Scottish politics again, let alone in UK politics.

I am conscious of what you said earlier Madam Deputy Speaker, and I will draw my remarks to a close as I know that plenty of people wish to speak. This motion is not about covid, the economy, or people’s livelihoods; this motion is about the Scottish National party and its obsession with stymying the democratic role of the British people. We should be proud of voting it down this evening.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)]

As a new Member, it has been all too apparent to me that one of the hallmarks of this Chamber is repetition. I am afraid that, as I am quite far down the call list, I will repeat some of the points that have already been made, very eloquently, by my colleagues on the SNP Benches.

However, before I get to that, I want to reflect on the fact that when the whole Brexit debacle was being debated last year, I was not here. I was one of the many millions who were sitting at home watching the chaos unfold—people leaving parties; votes not happening; votes happening and the Government being defeated, and then, obviously, a general election. As I watched all that unfold, I had a sense of overriding emotion; I was dismayed and disappointed, but I was also hopeful. I will come back to hopeful, but for now I will focus on dismayed and disappointed.

Aberdeen voted 61.1% to remain in the European Union. The people of Scotland voted 62% to remain in the European Union. The city that I represent is expected to be the hardest hit by Brexit—be that a hard Brexit, a soft Brexit or whatever machination of Boris Brexit comes back later this year—but our views are not being considered by this Government. The views of the people of Scotland are being flatly ignored. We have heard Conservative Members stating passionately that their constituencies voted to leave and we therefore need to leave the European Union. I say to them: show some respect for the fact that Scotland voted overwhelmingly to remain, and show some respect for the fact that my constituency is going to be absolutely hammered by Brexit, irrespective of which study we look at.

This cuts to the heart of the debate that we are having here today, in relation to the democratic deficit that exists on these islands. In 1997, when the Scottish Parliament was voted on by the Scottish people, devolution was created. The people of Scotland were able to vote for elected Members to sit in the Scottish Parliament, who would then vote on a raft of policy proposals that would impact the people of Scotland. Subsequently, in 2016, we voted to remain in the European Union, but our views have been completely ignored and we are going to be dragged out. The powers that sit within the European Union that directly relate to devolution are not going to come to the Scottish Parliament in their totality; they are going to come to this place, to a Government that we neither support nor voted for. Where is the democracy in that? From procurement to food standards to minimum unit pricing, the policies of Scotland are different from the policies of this United Kingdom. We have taken a different path on so many issues, and the powers that the UK Government seek to take back from the European Union will put all those positive changes at risk. Irrespective of the rhetoric from Conservative Members, those are the facts in front of us.

Looking towards the Scottish Parliament elections in 2021, if we want to have a discussion about what the role of the Scottish Parliament should be, I say to Scottish Conservative Members, bring it on. The views of the people of Scotland have changed. We have seen it in opinion polls. They want a Scottish Parliament that is empowered and emboldened. This UK Government do not want to deliver that, and the Scottish Conservatives do not want to deliver that. So we are going to have a discussion about the future of the Scottish Parliament. Let’s do it. Let’s see if we want a Scottish Parliament that has the same powers or fewer powers. Or let’s have a discussion about whether we want the Scottish Parliament to have the full powers of an independent nation—a nation able to make its own policy decisions. If this UK Government continue to ignore the democratic will of the people of Scotland in relation to their views on the European Union, they will be sleepwalking into the end of their precious Union.

Economic Update

Stephen Flynn Excerpts

Wednesday 8th July 2020 Commons Chamber

[Rishi Sunak]

I thank my hon. Friend for her support. She has spent a lot of time in this place championing the futures of young people. I am pleased to tell her that the kick-start scheme will be for longer than six months. It will be open for bidding, hopefully, at the end of this month or the beginning of next month, and the first new kick-starters will start in the autumn. The scheme will run at least until the end of next year. Hopefully, if it is popular, we can get as many as hundreds of thousands of young people being part of the kick-start programme. I hope that she and her constituency can be a champion for it.

[Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)]

Three hundred and fifty billion pounds: that is how much the UK Treasury has coined from Scotland’s oil and gas sector over the past decade, so I say to the Chancellor that it is time to give back. When will his Government finally stop dithering and instead deliver on an oil and gas sector deal to protect jobs now while creating new and sustainable jobs for Aberdeen’s future?

[Rishi Sunak]

Scotland has benefited extraordinarily from the interventions that this Government have put in place during this crisis. I talked earlier about the Barnett consequentials and the billions of pounds, but more importantly about the ability for us to act as one United Kingdom. At a time like this, the importance of that has never been more to the fore. The hon. Gentleman talks about oil and gas. I am happy to acknowledge the difficulties in that sector, and I know that the Business Secretary is in talks with it. Mechanisms have been put in place before. Again, we keep all these things under review, and if we need to make more interventions in future, of course we will.