John Cooper MP: speeches

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alec. I congratulate the hon. Member for Isle of Wight West (Richard Quigley) on securing this key debate. The vital question on “Desert Island Discs” is not what luxury a person desires or which tune they would save from the waves; it is how they would cope on their own. Although we all enjoy a bit of peace and quiet now and then, we are in the end social animals, which is why isolation and loneliness, grinding day in and day out, is such torture. The Scottish household survey says that roughly one in four people suffer loneliness, with 16 to 24-year-olds and over-75s disproportionately affected. Coastal areas such as my Dumfries and Galloway constituency have many remote and rural communities, which is, in itself, a problem. A person who has £10 in their pocket in a city can do something with it; they can go somewhere or see a friend. But £10 up an isolated farm track is of little use at all. The reasons for isolation are myriad. People living longer is of course a good thing, but the harsh reality is that one half of a couple is likely to outlive the other. Although the 2022 Scottish census was utterly botched by the SNP, it indicated that single-person households were the most common, accounting for about 37.1% of all homes. Places such as pubs, which were once the wellsprings of communities, are closing in droves. Rural deprivation, especially in coastal areas, where communities are fragile because of a lack of employment and critical infrastructure, is all too real. Coastal areas are beautiful, none more so than Dumfries and Galloway, with its rocky cliffs, secluded bays, unspoilt empty beaches and rolling gentle hills, but we cannot eat the scenery or have a chat with the big sky overhead. Loneliness needs to be seen for what it is: a public health issue. Rural people, by nature, have to be resilient and self-reliant, and the fact is that no Government can do everything. I must mention the charity A Listening Ear, which in my community, movingly, has a programme called “No One Dies Alone”. That outreach is compassionate and vital, and it is critical that communities work together to tackle loneliness.

As a member of the Business and Trade Committee, it is a delight to see the fruits of Brexit being brought home. Will the Minister confirm that the deal is not contingent on us taking Swiss courts as being superior to our own? We are not aligning with their rules on angular chocolate, for instance, and I know that the Swiss do not have a large fishing fleet, so there is no impact on our fishing waters. I am struggling to understand why we are bold with this deal, but so supine when it comes to the EU.

Metal prices being what they are, if we were to take the amount of brass neck on show here today and melt it down, we could fund defence properly. The right hon. Gentleman tells us that the ship of state will sail on regardless throughout the summer, but my constituents want to know whose hand is on the tiller and what course will be set. Is that so unreasonable? If Manchesterism is so fantastic, why can the right hon. Member for Makerfield not come here and tell us all about it?

Scotland stands ready to play its full role in the defence of Britain with many fine young men and, increasingly, women in our forces. We also have a huge array of industrial companies working on defence contracts. There is a problem, however, which is the Scottish Executive. In a remarkable display of overreach, they have blundered on to the world stage and refused to put vital public funds into defence firms that have legitimate commercial relationships with our ally Israel. What can the Government do about a fifth columnist First Minister in Edinburgh, John Swinney, who is damaging British security and thereby NATO, too?

Haulage, agricultural and fisheries firms in my constituency are heavily reliant on Dover, and delays, particularly to seafood, are disastrous—the value of the cargo disappears practically overnight. I am a member of the Business and Trade Committee, and when we visited Dover I was delighted to see £40 million-worth of infrastructure on our side of the short strait. The reality is that the difficulties lie on the far side of the short strait. Is it not time that, rather than warm words about an EU reset, we had the French ambassador in for an interview sans café?

The Scottish Government famously take no lessons from anyone, but perhaps in sentencing we might learn something from them, because they are in the grip of soft-touch-justice fever. There is a warning from Scotland about rapists and sex offenders, because rapists there will be set free more than two years early under the latest expansion of that soft-touch-justice approach, as the Scottish Government fail to grip the prison places crisis. The average jail time served by people who are guilty of rape will be reduced by more than two years and four months as a result of Scottish National party proposals to automatically release long-term prisoners after only two thirds of their sentence. Rape Crisis Scotland chief executive Alev Taylor said: “Organisations like ours have fought hard to maintain the exemption of rape and sexual offenders from early release schemes, both to ensure the safety of survivors and to maintain overall confidence in the justice system.” What a searing indictment, from someone who has seen the aftermath of one of the most awful crimes that can be committed: the violation of a person’s body, which leaves physical scars and lifelong mental scars. I have visited HMP Dumfries, where the SNP’s former chief executive Peter Murrell, estranged husband of ex-First Minister Nicola Sturgeon, is beginning a five-year-and-three-month sentence for embezzling £400,000 from his party and, it is suspected, from the public purse. I do not envy him, despite headlines about the jail being “cushy”. The staff there struggle with a lack of resources in a Victorian-era prison ill-suited to the modern world. Governor Andrew Hunstone made it clear to me that the loss of liberty is a genuine and serious punishment in itself, and that is the core point of justice. Loss of liberty is what serious criminals rightly face. The public know that simple truth, and legislators should not be lily-livered about it. Politicians salami-slicing sentences is a betrayal. It is a betrayal first and foremost of victims. It is a signal of, “Yes, you have suffered, but we politicians are awfully fixated on prison numbers.” It is a betrayal of the police who work so diligently and so hard to bring criminals to justice. It is a betrayal of the courts themselves, as it ties the hands of those who pass sentences, effectively neutering them. It is also a betrayal of the public, because justice delayed is justice denied, but so too is justice watered down. Today we televise sentencing hearings while simultaneously pulling the wool over the public’s eyes, because what may sound like a hefty sentence is automatically subject to a craven rolling back or to early release. I am all for rehabilitation, and I am all for helping people who have served prison time getting back into society, but we must all be about the victims. Our constituents want custodial sentences to be real, not illusions. The public know that custodial sentences are about punishment, not revenge. They also know the deterrent effect. Legislators who are too queasy to accept that should get out of the way. A well-regulated and just society must have prisons, no matter how many so-called progressive politicians would will them away. Prison works. We should use it, and sentences should be served in full.

I’ve got it! In the modern era, that all important first job is increasingly hard to find because of the Chancellor’s jobs tax and the massive 330-page Employment Rights Act 2025. Will the Secretary of State go to the new northern powerhouse Cabinet and impress upon the Chancellor the need to save our summer jobs and cut the burden on industry?

16. What steps he is taking with Cabinet colleagues to support the creation of jobs for young people.

While still at school, I played my part in the creative industries by playing in bands with names as louche as Street Lethal and Cheap Sweeties. It was very lucrative.

The Mercure hotel in Dumfries is home to around 100 men of uncertain origin and, thanks to the good offices of the Home Office, I have been able to visit. However, I have not been able to get any clarity on the criteria for closure and certainly not on any kind of timescale for closure. Can the Minister, without recourse to saying, “We will close it in due course”—which is beginning to sound a bit like the old jibe about the first world war: “It will be over by Christmas; we just cannot tell you which Christmas”—offer us a bit more clarity on when these hotels will be closed?

In Scotland, benefit fraud has effectively been decriminalised; the number of prosecutions is vanishingly small. Given that the Department for Work and Pensions continues to have a role in Scotland—administering some benefits, despite devolution—what can the Department do to tackle fraud there? It is happening here, and we have a two-tier system in Scotland.

15. What recent estimate he has made of the level of fraud and error in the social security system.

Soft-touch fever is spreading across the land because in Scotland, the SNP Scottish Executive are about to start releasing rapists as much as 2.5 years early. Do the Ministers on the Front Bench not realise that they are so out of touch with the public on this issue that they risk the very fundamentals of the justice system?

As a former journalist, I salute the Secretary of State’s ambition to leave no one behind, but as the hon. Member for Hexham (Joe Morris) pointed out, the death of terrestrial television risks leaving a lot of people in remote and rural Scotland behind. My constituency has a lot of notspots, and terrestrial television is a key source of news and entertainment. Can I ask the Secretary of State to use her influence in the forthcoming northern powerhouse Cabinet to get broadband rolled out properly across this country?

This is a difficult question. Something like £1.25 of public money is spent in Scotland compared to £1 in England. There is tension there within that settlement. That money reflects the difficulties that Scotland faces. Delivering public services in Scotland is difficult because of geography and also because of demographics, so that settlement is designed to reflect that. On the matter of English councils, I am afraid I would defer to him on that. I am no expert in that field, I am afraid. We would all be poorer were Britain to be shattered by people who could not, to use a fine old west of Scotland idiom, run a menodge.

Thank you, Chair.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for a very important question. The GDP deflator is incredibly complex, as are all these matters. We talk about cross-Government working here, and I think there is a genuine attempt by this Government, as there was by the previous Government, to maximise the money available. The system is complex in how to measure inflation—there are many choices to be made. We are here with the GDP deflator, and that is as simple as that. We are not going to debate that today. It is an oft-repeated canard in Scotland that the so-called Scottish Executive cannot borrow. This myth is a conspiracy theory as fake as the “Capricorn One” fanciful notion of faked moon landings, but it is sometimes perpetrated not only by internet trolls but by elected Members. This matters because it is corrosive to public trust in politics and inimical to the settled will of the Scottish people so clearly expressed in their rejection of separation in the 2014 independence referendum. It would be welcome for the Secretary of State to indicate what steps this Government might take to puncture this no-borrowing fallacy, because for us to sit here silently, simply ticking off increased powers as part of a devolve-and-forget agenda, is dangerous. It gives succour to those who would break up the United Kingdom—something that would affect every one of our constituents in every part of Britain.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz. At first blush, the draft Scotland Act 1998 (Increase in Borrowing Limits) Order 2026 is, as outlined by the Secretary of State—we are honoured to have him with us, and it is the second time I have seen him today, which is twice more than the First Minister has seen him since the First Minister was reappointed, which of course is the First Minister’s loss—a relatively modest uplift to the Scottish Government’s borrowing powers to reflect inflation. As respecters of the devolution settlement, His Majesty’s loyal Opposition will not object to the order. Context, however, matters. It cannot be outwith the scope today to reflect that this change gives considerably more fiscal latitude to the governing party in Scotland, the Scottish National party, whose own finances and procedures are under intense scrutiny. Serious questions about its stewardship of public money and its tax compliance dangle unanswered.

Absolutely. I would like to clarify my point: it is not unreasonable in the context to look at this issue in the round. This is public money. The SNP wants to pretend that this is an internal matter for themselves, but question marks still hang over us about whether or not public money has been involved in what happened in Scotland. Also, there is the question of compliance with His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs.

3. What recent discussions he has had with the First Minister of Scotland on a new referendum on Scottish independence.

My constituents will be alarmed to hear that, because Labour’s “devolve and forget” approach is a huge problem. When the Secretary of State is away, the nats will play. We know that the First Minister has gone abroad using taxpayers’ money to talk about the breaking up of Britain. Should the Secretary of State not be inviting the First Minister down for a meeting—without coffee?

In January, I wrote to the Home Secretary because a whistleblower suggested that Border Force lacked sufficient personnel to cover night sailings from Belfast and Larne to Cairnryan, the main port in my constituency of Dumfries and Galloway. We have heard today that much more focus is also needed on the clearly unlocked back door to the United Kingdom between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland. What can the Government do to address that and in turn prevent the North channel between Scotland and Northern Ireland becoming a conduit for illegals and for other contraband?

I will finish. Of course, the legislation approving abortion in this country came through the private Member’s Bill route, but that was backed by the then Labour Government, who appointed a medical advisory committee that also supported its passage. That was a gold standard, against which this Bill is mere base metal. It fell—and fallen it should remain.

It is a pleasure to serve under the iron grip of your chairmanship, Sir Edward. We are here not to relitigate the substance of the assisted dying Bill, but to consider a profound change to the way we in this place carry out our duties as legislators. The petitioners seek, in short, for a failed Bill to be smashed through, as though it had not been subject to proper procedure, and for us to accept that it fell through procedural malfeasance. It is not so: this Bill failed because a gamble was taken to proceed down the private Member’s Bill route. It is well known that such Bills can run out of road due to time constraints. The emotive nature of the subject of the Bill is obvious, but just as the Commons debate was dominated by deeply moving yet ultimately anecdotal accounts of painful deaths, we cannot decide here on emotion. Bad cases do not make good laws. We must decide on cold, hard facts. It is a fact that this Bill carried a major flaw at its heart, in that it was not part of the Labour manifesto on which this Government were elected. It is also a fact that the Lords’ scrutiny role is designed to prevent the passage of poor legislation. This was flawed legislation, replete with issues unresolved at Committee, and passed to the Lords in a situation that Cabinet Office guidance warned would “likely kill the Bill”. I have seen all too often the result of a paucity of scrutiny when legislation has passed through the Scottish Parliament. Holyrood lacks a revising Chamber entirely, with its Committees expected to do the hard work of line-by-line consideration. This petition is couched in terms of fairness and democracy, but it is neither fair nor democratic to usurp our system for reasons of dogma. No matter the subject of a Bill, if it lacks a manifesto heritage, staggers through Committee amidst a welter of chops and changes, and ultimately fails on contact with the Lords, we have no place attempting to resurrect it because we admire its aims or because it is popular.

I completely agree with the hon. Gentleman that this Bill has huge difficulties, and its popularity does not capture those. The Salisbury-Addison convention that the Lords will not seek to prevent the Government from implementing manifesto pledges simply does not apply. In this case, it has not been breached. The Government made repeated declarations that they were neutral on the Bill—that it was a private Member’s Bill—and so the convention does not arise. We cannot let the emotional baggage of the assisted dying Bill override proper parliamentary procedure.

I had constituents in the Gallery today, and they will be aghast to find out that their flight back to Scotland is potentially using Russian fuel. Surely, regardless of whether that was the case before, we need to grip that issue. We also need to grip the reality of the North sea. We keep hearing that North sea oil is a declining asset, but the Norwegians do not see it that way; they are expanding their exploration of the North sea. We have untapped resources, west of Shetland. Surely we need to look again at domestic supply.

Does the shadow Minister share my astonishment that the Scottish Government refuse to talk about so-called spatial squeeze? It is a major issue for the fishing fleet, because it simply cannot trawl in between the wind turbines. The Government appear to deny the existence of the problem, but it is a massive difficulty for the fishing fleet, is it not?

T5. Happy St George’s day, Mr Speaker. We face many threats, but happily dragons are no longer one of them.The Government maintain that the messages between Morgan McSweeney and his mentor Peter Mandelson are under the aegis of the Metropolitan police and therefore cannot be released, but surely the questions are critical to our understanding of what has gone on here and should be available to the House. Will the Government at least commit to publishing the questions?

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I do not know whether to stand at the Dispatch Box or on it. For want of a horseshoe nail, the kingdom was lost. The defence of our country today rests on modern nail-makers—the small and medium-sized enterprises supplying small but vital parts for frigates and fighter jets and for our fighting men and women. The endless delay in this Labour Government’s defence investment plan means that companies have no certainty about orders, and good jobs hang in the balance, from Pembrokeshire to Prestatyn. What pressure is the Secretary of State bringing to bear on Cabinet colleagues in the Ministry of Defence and the Treasury to keep Welsh jobs, and indeed this United Kingdom, from being lost?

At an awards ceremony in Scotland last month, apprentices said time and again how they were told throughout their school careers that their grades were good enough to go to university, and that they should think again about going into an apprenticeship. Apprenticeships create not just jobs but careers, so what can the Department do to help in Scotland where the Scottish Government have wrecked so much of Scottish education? Can they be prevented from destroying apprenticeships as well?

12. What steps she is taking to promote apprenticeships as an alternative to university education.

The buzzword this morning is “bold”. Yet the reality is that, though this plan might be bolder than what went before, it remains with all the oomph of a 40W bulb. When electricity in Dumfries in my constituency is four times the price in Dumfries in Virginia, in the United States, this country has a major problem with competitiveness— I have a problem saying it. What industry in this country needs is the decommissioning—the unplugging—of the Energy Secretary and his dogmatic carbon taxes, which really lie behind the electricity prices that we face. Today’s announcement does nothing to address that.

To listen to the Minister, one might think that the DIP matters very little and that we are cracking on regardless, but the truth is that the MOD has been out-manoeuvred by the Chancellor, and the DIP is pinned down by the Treasury. The DIP matters a very great deal to industry because the demand signals that it will give allow industry to work up. From fighter jets to frigates, and from bayonets to bullets, these items cannot just be pulled off the shelves. This DIP matters rather more than the Minister is saying. Is that not the case?

It is an old quote—I am sure my hon. and gallant Friend will recognise it, given his service—that while veterans talk logistics, amateurs talk tactics. He is outlining a dire situation, because we are not gripping the logistics problem.

T8. Nith Inshore Rescue in my constituency has lost a sponsor that provided it with free fuel, because of soaring costs. Will the Secretary of State go to the Chancellor and point out that VAT and fuel costs are a matter of life and death in remote and rural Scotland?

Small boat returns run at around 6% of the total numbers arriving in this country, but the Home Secretary denies that this is anything to do with the European Convention on Human Rights. If not the ECHR, which part of the Government’s flawed policy is responsible for that feeble rate?

I think I just about am, yes. The situation we are talking about today is a shooting war, but of key interest to us is the tug of war going on between the MOD and the Treasury over the defence investment plan. We have some indication of what is going on—I think we have gathered that it will not come out this week. Can the Secretary of State give us some indication of whether the purdah period for the upcoming elections in Scotland in May will further impact the announcement of this critical plan?

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker— [ Interruption. ] Excuse me; I have swallowed a fly.

I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision about the role and functions of the Lord Advocate; and for connected purposes. Chaos and decay are priced into the lives of people in Scotland as they suffer under the yoke of the Scottish National party Administration at Holyrood. However, the latest crisis there strikes at the integrity of Scots law, and so demands action this day—and not mere indifference. The Lord Advocate is the most senior law officer in Scotland, in ultimate charge of all criminal proceedings, sitting at the pinnacle of the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service. That same Lord Advocate also sits in Cabinet as a pivotal adviser to the Scottish Executive, who style themselves the Scottish Government. Just saying it out loud is alarming: the head of criminal prosecutions sits cheek-by-jowl with the politicians who are supposed to run Scotland—she sits at the Cabinet table with the very people who appointed her. Although it is a situation created by the advent of devolution, this cannot be right, for there ought not to be even the merest suggestion of a conflict of interests. It is not the stuff of a 21st-century democracy, let alone the country of the enlightenment. “Ah,” say apologists, “the Lord Advocate simply recuses herself in certain cases and is merely the titular head of some prosecutions.” This is meant to be high-minded—an elegant solution concocted by the legal hierarchy in the salons of Edinburgh—but it is cloyingly cosy and has for years been the subject of disquiet. Now this comfortable nostrum has been shattered by recent revelations made possible only by a vigorous free press. Newspapers broke the news that the present Lord Advocate, Dorothy Bain KC, provided briefings to First Minister John Swinney about a court case involving Peter Murrell, former chief executive of the SNP and, further, the estranged husband of ex-First Minister Nicola Sturgeon. It was reported that the details and timelines for the case, none of which was public knowledge, were presented to Mr Swinney. The court case will reportedly not now come to trial before next year, conveniently after Holyrood’s elections this May. Of course, given that proceedings are active, I must be extremely circumspect about that case. Regardless, we in this place must concern ourselves with the dual role of the Lord Advocate: the twin hats of prosecutor and Government adviser on one learned head. The dual role is enshrined in the Scotland Act 1998, and so this Bill is designed to allow for the separation of roles such that the head of Scotland’s prosecution service is, in future, entirely separate from that of Government adviser. That situation is best practice in modern democracies and pertains here in England where the head of the Crown Prosecution Service sits entirely apart from the Cabinet and Government. We often discuss contentious matters in this House, but this is an issue on which there is surprising unanimity. Almost exactly a year ago, the Prime Minister agreed with me when I raised the Lord Advocate’s two jobs that it was an important matter and indicated that Scottish Labour supported splitting the roles. At the Conservative and Unionist conference in Edinburgh last month, the Leader of His Majesty’s loyal Opposition joined Scottish party leader Russell Findlay in calling for robust action in this House. Even the SNP committed in its manifesto to looking at the dual role disaster. Yet under the divisive hand of John Swinney, Scotland is a land where the inevitable never happens and the improbable always does. Mr Swinney has belatedly published a report into the mechanics of separating the Lord Advocate from the Cabinet so that Scotland can have a conspicuously independent prosecutor and the Scottish Administration can still have sound legal advice. Yet there is no indication of any move actually to separate the roles and, indeed, the Scottish Executive yesterday put out a statement lauding the “strengths” of the current arrangement. The public are entitled to question those supposed strengths and whether they are trumped by the perception of a conflict of interest when the role of legal adviser to the Scottish Government is concentrated in one person who is also chief prosecutor. Politicians legislate; lawyers enact the laws. When prosecutors are, or are even perceived to be, too close to politicians, like moths drawn too close to the flame of power, the public may rightly fear that the law is compromised, and so we must act. Some will claim that this is overweening Westminster bullying pawky Holyrood—not so. Holyrood itself could drain this quagmire now by seeking a section 30 order to vary the Scotland Act, clearing the way for separation of the Law Officers’ roles. That would be internal to the Edinburgh Parliament—a move to restore public faith in the law by its own elected Members. Albeit belated and tardy, such a move would, I contend, be welcomed as an attempt to lift the cloud that hangs over Scots law. Will Mr Swinney at this eleventh hour—and against the run of play, for he has been at the heart of every wrong-headed decision by the SNP for almost two decades—do the correct thing? That is unlikely, and so on behalf of the right-thinking public in Scotland, I commend this Bill to the House. Question put and agreed to . Ordered, That John Cooper, John Lamont, David Mundell, Harriet Cross, Andrew Bowie, David Davis, Jamie Stone, Christine Jardine, Sir Iain Duncan Smith, Elaine Stewart, Torcuil Crichton and John Grady present the Bill. John Cooper accordingly presented the Bill. Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 17 April, and to be printed (Bill 403).

In 1979 my father took me to Newton Stewart cinema to see “Monty Python’s Life of Brian”, and I recall my father being more upset by a spoof travel documentary that preceded the main film, because there was swearing in it, than he was about the supposed slights to Christianity. It was an early lesson to me that no one in this country, in a modern democracy, has the right not to be insulted or offended, so why are we in this place, the cockpit of democracy, discussing a blasphemy law by the back door?

3. What assessment he has made of trends in the level of unemployment.

Youth unemployment is, in fact, spiking at nearly 5.3%, which is heartbreaking, particularly for young people who cannot get that all-important first job. The Government like to pretend that they are a cork in a storm-tossed sea and unable to do anything about this, but they could reconsider employer national insurance contributions and the disastrous Employment Rights Act 2025, which is driving up youth unemployment.

It is a pleasure to take part in this debate, and I congratulate the right hon. Member for Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North (Liam Byrne), who chairs the Business and Trade Committee on which I serve. As Chair of such a Committee, he is that rarest of things: capable of independent thought. We know that growth is predicted to be sclerotic, and that is before global conflicts whip up the waters around us such that Labour’s Britain is but a cork in storm-tossed seas. If growth truly were the mission, then the shock troops ought to be the Department for Business and Trade. Yet the Department’s plans to cut 1,500 jobs have been branded “irrational and arbitrary” by the civil service’s biggest union, the Public and Commercial Services Union. That is despite the 17.8% increase in day-to-day funding, plus extra capital compared with the main estimates that we have heard about today. The Minister for Trade, the hon. Member for Rhondda and Ogmore (Chris Bryant), has said that “we’re going to have to achieve more with fewer people” —fine words and congratulations to the spads who crafted them, but the reality on the ground is we will inevitably get less done by fewer people. What a disaster, just as free trade agreements—the fruits of Brexit from seeds planted by previous Conservative Governments—come piling in. We should be maximising these deals given that global economic power is shifting towards a Pacific rim with a burgeoning middle class. Our far too few DBT experts will have their ranks thinned, making it tougher for British firms to tap into lucrative markets abroad. What does it say about this Government’s ambition? They would rather rush back to the skirts of nanny Europe—familiar old Europe with its feeble growth—when we could be the trading nation that Adam Smith envisaged 250 years ago with his book, “The Wealth of Nations”. We could and should be maximising the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership, or CPTPP, giving us access to a market of 12 countries worth some £12 trillion and with 500 million potential customers. Even the EU, which never saw a trade deal it liked, is interested in joining. The great prize in the much-vaunted but barely discernible “reset” with the EU is, we are told, a sanitary and phytosanitary deal supposed to smooth the way for agricultural goods, seafood and livestock into and out of Europe. It should not have taken the renegotiation of the entire deal to get—French, especially—customs to stop being le squad awkward. Worse, so-called dynamic alignment on SPS is a cage without a key, meaning that Britain will once again revert to being rule takers and not rule makers. Turning to steel, I recall being in this place on that extraordinary Saturday listening to the self-congratulatory backslapping of Labour MPs hailing the saving of the industry in what was nationalisation in all but name. It seems to me that taxpayers are keeping blast furnaces alight with bundles of £20 notes, for the supplementary estimates earmarked £300 million for steel plants with no sign of the comprehensive steel strategy. Perhaps nothing sums up more the meltdown of the sector under DBT’s yoke than the reported news that the Dalzell plate mill in Scotland lacked the cash to buy slab steel from British Steel, risking the raw material that Navantia needs for the fleet solid support ships at their Harland & Wolff yard in Belfast. Not so much for the want of a horseshoe nail the kingdom was lost, but for the lack of a cohesive DBT strategy, the steel industry and billons in cash may be lost. For the wider economy, pivotal to each and every one of our constituents, the Department for Business and Trade looks like the linchpin which holds the wheels to the axle. The question is whether that pin is too small and too brittle.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. We Scots are often portrayed as parsimonious—or, to put it another way, as tight as two coats of paint. It is a myth largely down to comedian and singer Sir Harry Lauder, who, to raise money for wounded great war veterans after the death of his son in 1917, portrayed on stage a canny Scot who regarded every penny as a prisoner. Lauder raised £1 million for charity—an astronomical sum. How ironic that such generosity birthed the legend of the tightwad Scot. Today, in straitened times, our generosity continues, with an estimated £1.2 billion donated in 2023 and 76% of Scots reporting some sort of charity donation. Another myth that persists is that deprivation and poverty are issues only in urban areas—not so. My constituency is rural and gorgeous, but people cannot eat the scenery. Rural isolation, loneliness and poverty are sadly all too real amidst the splendour of the Galloway hills. Loneliness and social isolation are profound challenges across Dumfries and Galloway. Our scattered communities, limited public transport and persistent digital exclusion—we have many notspots—leave many individuals cut off from social contact. However, the people of Dumfries and Galloway are resilient self-starters and we have a plethora of charities fighting to make lives better. Take our telephone and in-person befriending service, A Listening Ear, which is having a real impact, delivering community-led preventive solutions to mental ill health. Its modest budget provides a big bang for a small buck. Prostate Buddies is reaching out to men, urging them to get checked for what is too often a silent killer, and offering advice and support so that more men can get treatment sooner. There are dozens of similar such initiatives, often volunteer-led, that could benefit from greater support from Government. Take The Usual Place café, which is right next to my constituency office—I am a frequent flyer there. That charity takes young people with a range of mental and physical issues and teaches them catering skills, which massively boosts their chances of finding paid employment. Even with a thriving café and external catering business, The Usual Place has struggled financially, not least since the Government increased employer national insurance contributions. Small charities do mighty work, especially in rural areas such as Dumfries and Galloway. May I make a plea for them to have a seat as the Government draw up the policy table? Sir Harry Lauder sang “Stop Yer Tickling, Jock.” Perhaps we should update that to “Start Yer Listening, Minister.”

This is unquestionably a really important issue, and the petition is indicative of the public’s unhappiness with this Government. Does my hon. Friend agree that the great difficulties people have with this Government include the number of manifesto pledges that have been broken, the introduction of policies that were not in their manifesto, and their constant U-turning, which would spin heads?

I am very much looking forward to the ending of this chaos; it seems that we are completely mired in it. As a former member of the fourth estate—I was a journalist for a long time—I am always concerned when politicians blame the media. I do not think the media are creating the chaos; they are simply reporting on it.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alec. Scotland has been talked about quite a lot here today. Policing in Scotland is separate, but the proposed changes would affect Scotland, and it is worth having a look at some of the figures associated with Scotland. Figures from the British Association for Shooting and Conservation show that there are something like 68,000 active participants in shooting in Scotland, and many of them are in my Dumfries and Galloway constituency—it is not quite a gun by every fireside, but it is not far away. Much of the shooting in my area is not about toffs; it is not about people helicoptering in to shoot grouse. Obviously, there will be some people who use guns as tools of the trade, but it is mostly very much locals—locals who enjoy rough shooting, keep dogs and will go out of an afternoon in the beautiful Galloway hills and may fire off only one or two cartridges at pheasants, which are of course a non-native species. Shooting is also a great driver of tourism in my area. The area struggles, because it tends to be “go-through”—we have the port of Cairnryan, which is very close to the Northern Ireland constituency of the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon)—but we are trying to make it “go-to”, and shooting is one of the things that can help us with that. BASC puts the total economic activity in Scotland from shooting at around £760 million. That is not an inconsiderable sum considering the economy of remote and rural Scotland. It is a big number, but I like to bring it down to a smaller scale. I think of businesses such as D&W Countryways in Newton Stewart—a small shop that sells various items of clothing that people need when they are out and about, because we do occasionally get rain in Dumfries and Galloway. It also sells shotgun shells and associated items. That business would potentially disappear under this new burden, because the number of shotgun owners would reduce dramatically. That would leave a gap on the high street, and we have no end of difficulties with our high streets at the moment. We also have places such as the Penninghame estate, which, unusually, is a converted prison. It is trying to bring in high-end shooting parties. That is a great generator of the thing we lack most of all in Dumfries and Galloway: jobs. Depopulation is what kills areas like mine. When remote and rural Scotland suffers depopulation, it tends to be disastrous. Those jobs help insulate us from and protect us against that. With deference to my hon. Friend the Member for South Shropshire (Stuart Anderson), I do shoot but I have not been shot. I would like to keep it that way, if at all possible. As a schoolboy, I saved the life of someone who managed to shoot themselves—to be clear, the round that he shot himself with was stolen. The issue is that it is very difficult to legislate to prevent criminals from doing things. Obviously, they tend to ride roughshod over the law. We have heard from hon. Members that shotgun and firearms owners tend be among the most punctilious, careful and law-abiding people. They tend to avoid any involvement with the police; in fact, very often the only contact they will have with the police is when the police come to check up on their firearm certificate. As such, we are possibly looking at—to coin a phrase—the wrong target, and I wonder what problem we are trying to solve. Obviously, there are horrendous incidents, which are very difficult to prevent, and we must think about the people who are victims of those things, but we have some of the tightest regulations in the world already. I know how tight they are: when I was renewing a shotgun licence and the police came to interview me, they asked me where I kept the shotgun and I jokingly said, “Under my wife’s side of the bed, because no one ever goes there.” The officer said, “Shall I note that down?” and I said, “No, let’s not go there.” This is a really serious matter. The tone of the debate is tremendous, but let us not pretend for one second that this is a tidying-up exercise. The proposed change is really quite profound, and the move to merge sections 1 and 2 would have a deleterious effect on shooting, and thereby on the rural economy. The key message I am picking up—I hope the Minister might touch on this—is that better enforcement trumps more law for the sake of more law. There is no point in us passing laws here and saying, “Never mind the quality, feel the width.” The danger is that we pass the law that, unfortunately, we pass most often in this House: the law of unintended consequences. There are better ways to address the nut that we are trying to crack.

As a former journalist, I know that the fourth estate do not always get things right, but they are not in the habit of making things up. What, then, are we to make of reports from Dan Hodges in the Daily Mail and The Mail on Sunday that the Prime Minister is making a last-ditch attempt to limit the amount of documentation that is released under our Humble Address? There is no smoke without fire, Mr Speaker.

rose—

The position the hon. Member is putting forward is that we would somehow stop the assisted dying Bill progressing in Holyrood. That is simply not the case. I believe there is a date set for this to be further discussed in Holyrood. We are putting the cart before the horse here, because we are being asked to make provision for a Bill that may or may not see the light of day. It is a very peculiar situation. There is also the danger of the precedent that is being set; this is a Member’s Bill, and this system has never been used for one before, so a dangerous precedent could be set.

It would remiss of me not to touch on the fact that the roots of this trade deal stretch back to the previous Conservative Government, and not to mention that the then Secretary of State Alister Jack—now Lord Jack of Courance—sent an aircraft carrier stuffed with dancers and pipers from the Edinburgh military tattoo to India, to highlight the unfairness of the regime that whisky faced out there, which this deal does much to address. I have the pleasure of serving on the Business and Trade Committee, chaired adroitly by the right hon. Member for Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North (Liam Byrne). When we talk about these trade deals in the Committee, the Government figures worry me, and he touched on them himself. We have heard time and again that the expected lift in GDP from this deal is around £4.8 billion, or 0.13% of the UK’s GDP, but those figures seem incredibly low. That may be because of a lack of ambition—I hope not—or because of caution on the part of the Government, which is perfectly understandable, but it is incredible that we are expecting so little from these trade deals. We could raise those figures—they must be a floor, not a ceiling—and do much better. A difficulty that hon. Members have touched on is that the Department for Business and Trade is cutting its head count. Of course the bloated state has to be reduced, but we have to apply those cuts judiciously. It is good that the in-country team in India is staying put, but if the teams in the UK that help businesses here to export are cut, then we will have a problem, and we will kill growth. We expect modest gains from the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership, yet it offers a tremendous—an absolutely huge—market at a time when the EU’s share of GDP is drifting away. The hon. Member for Witney (Charlie Maynard) is keen on returning us to a customs union, but that customs union would commit us to applying EU-set tariffs, taking away the freedom we got from Brexit to strike out and do our own deals. The EU is potentially looking at the CPTPP, but we are already in the partnership. We have first-mover advantage. We should strike out with the confidence that Brexit gives us as a trading nation. Adam Smith literally wrote the book on free trade; this country is a trading nation—that is what built this country—and we should get back to that confidence. On agriculture, the Business and Trade Committee took written and oral evidence from Tom Bradshaw, the president of the National Farmers Union. He was concerned that while lamb exports could do well through this deal, dairying is once again left wide open to difficulties. That is an issue in my constituency of Dumfries and Galloway; we have some of the most productive grassland in the UK. We make fabulous Galloway cheddar, and I would love to see more of that exported to India. Not much paneer probably comes to this country from India at the moment, but that will change. India is moving at incredible pace. It is hard to believe that in five or 10 years’ time, the Indian dairy industry will not have moved on. The licences that the Minister talked about will be in place, and there will be a flow this way from dairying, which is a concern for that sensitive sector. The other thing that worries me on the Business and Trade Committee is the much-vaunted EU reset that the Government are seeking. Part of that is a sanitary and phytosanitary deal, which will affect agriculture in the round. Can the Minister tell us what impact that might have on future trade deals? At the moment, these trade deals are struck with the UK based on UK rules and regulations. If we accept dynamic alignment with Europe, we are no longer rule makers in this area; we are rule takers. Will those countries with whom we are striking deals have to look to the EU? Where does that leave us? Does it not hamstring us at a time when, as I say, we have this fantastic opportunity to strike our own deals and hopefully drive growth?

The Minister talks about people being better off, but my farmers are very concerned about the fertiliser impact. Four or five years ago, fertiliser was around £180 a tonne; today it is about £400 a tonne, and the introduction of CBAM might put another £100 on top of that. Farmers’ margins are so narrow that they simply have to pass that on, which will have a direct effect on food prices in this country. The Minister says that there will be talks about that. Farmers should be front and centre of those talks, because this is really worrying.

So we have a load of pollocks, yes?

I thank the hon. Lady for her interesting intervention. Her chip challenge sounds like a lot of fun, and I defer to Madam Deputy Speaker about the question of proper parliamentary language—I am sure what she said is perfectly acceptable. Fish and chip shops accounted for 60% of the fall in sales, with 36 million fewer portions of fish and chips sold in fish and chip shops in 2024 compared with 2023. Something has gone drastically wrong. Worse, it is not just one thing but a series of issues. I have some sympathy with the Minister because the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is not directly responsible for all these matters, but of all Departments, it should realise that government must not work in silos and instead should work across Whitehall.

I thank the hon. Member for his intervention—a fascinating history lesson. Staying with history, during the war fish and chips were deemed so vital to the nation’s morale that Prime Minister Winston Churchill insisted they be exempt from rationing. If the ingredients were available, fish suppers were on the menu and chip shops got extra cooking fat to keep the home friers burning.

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point, and I will touch on the question of skills in a few moments. A key reason for prices leaping like a salmon is an increase in the price of fish itself. Incredibly for an island nation, we are a net importer of fish. Previously, a high proportion of fish used in the UK was imported from Russia, though in March 2022 the Government rightly imposed a 35% tariff on Russian seafood imports following the illegal invasion of Ukraine. That invasion also hit the price of flour and sunflower oil—both major Ukrainian exports. There was also a reduction in the North sea cod quota, mentioned by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who is no longer in his place.

I certainly would not pay £6 myself for a coffee. If I can find a pint cheaper than £7, I think I will be there.

I thank my near neighbour for his intervention. He presages some of what I am going to touch on now. Today all is not well. Romano Petrucci, proprietor of the Central Café in my home town of Stranraer, is just one of many business people warning that this staple is fast becoming an unaffordable luxury. Data from the Office for National Statistics indicates that the average price of a portion of takeaway fish and chips was £10.96 in December, up from £9.99 the year before—an increase of 10%. That was higher than average price increases for other takeaway meals or carry-outs, as we call them in Scotland. Over the same period, the average price of a Chinese takeaway main course increased by 4% and an Indian takeaway main course by 3%, while a takeaway pizza increased by just 2%. That £10 barrier is hugely significant, for customers generally have a ceiling on what they regard as reasonable—perhaps £6 for a coffee or £7 for a pint of beer. Above that, sales dip, and no wonder at £40 or more for a fish dinner for a family of four, and so, sadly, it has proved: the ONS says that sales of fish and chips fell by 21% in 2024 compared with the previous year.

The hon. Member makes a very good point. Many industries are not actually treated as an industry. For example, agriculture is treated as a series of small individual businesses, and its totality is not taken into account. That is a very fair point. The truth is that Labour’s Employment Rights Act 2025 is about the clipboard class—the trade union apparatchiks —and not really about actual hard-working people. What is the point of workers’ rights if that all-important first job eludes people? Will the fish supper go the way of the red telephone box—much loved, but a relic of the past? Will the Labour party’s indifference turn a British staple into a luxury for the elite? Whether you call it a fish supper, a one-and-one, or just regular fish and chips, this Government risk frittering away a classic.

The hon. Lady makes an important point. We should of course support businesses of all kinds, and pedestrianisation can be a double-edged sword. One of the difficulties is the weather in this country, and there is nothing better than pulling up right outside the shop that you want to go to, so decisions have to be balanced. The reduction in the North sea cod quota for 2025 reduced supply, and, of course, increased prices. I am more a haddock man myself, but cod is one of the top five imported and consumed species in the UK. Labour’s failed “mackerel for missiles” deal gave the EU further rights in our waters, but did not give us access to Europe’s multibillion-pound Security Action for Europe defence fund. The EU now takes seven times more fish, by value, from our waters than we take from its waters. Fish and chip shops have also faced challenges from increased electricity prices due to the use of energy-intensive cooking appliances. Increased energy costs have also contributed to higher potato prices, with more to come as the carbon border adjustment mechanism is effectively a fertiliser tax, adding perhaps an extra £100 per tonne. Even changes to reliefs on double-cab pick-ups—the farmers’ workhorse—have increased potato prices. Let us hear no nonsense about the people behind the counter being low-skilled; today’s fish-frier could be tomorrow’s FTSE 100 chief executive officer, or the founder of a €1 billion unicorn start-up. They work with cash and high-value stock, and, crucially, learn communication skills through dealing with the public. Increases to the minimum wage, which is paid not by the Government—although Labour likes to pretend that it is—but by hard-pressed businesses, are also an issue. Add the increase in employer national insurance, which puts a bounty of about £900 on the head of each employee: no wonder youth unemployment is rising.

I feel like I am swimming upstream here, but I am happy to give way.

It is good to see so many right hon. and hon. Members in their plaice as we skate through the choppy waters that are the fish and chip sector. The chips are down for fish suppers. While the word “iconic” is overused, surely fish and chips warrant that label. At Heathrow airport, visitors are greeted with signs extolling the virtues of what is, or was, our national dish. Welcome to Britain: land of drizzle, warm beer, warm welcomes and fabulous fish suppers.

The SNP Scottish Government undertook a secretive trip to Beijing last year, and caught a case of renminbi fever while they were there. They are now blundering around on the world stage, desperate for Mingyang to put money into Ardersier. Notwithstanding the jobs issue, will the Prime Minister assure the House that he will take cognisance of national security issues? We do not want jobs at any cost, and we cannot allow wind farms to have Chinese kill switches fitted.

Has the fish supper had its chips? Fish and chips were so critical to morale during wartime that Churchill insisted they were never rationed, but now my constituent Romano Petrucci, the proprietor of the Central Café in my hometown of Stranraer, warns that this staple is becoming an unaffordable luxury. I appreciate that the Government do not set the price of fish and chips, but this is none the less a cross-cutting issue for Government, whether it be through fish quotas, energy prices or the cost of hiring. Having tried and failed to get either a Westminster Hall or an Adjournment debate on this matter, I ask for guidance on how we might air this issue here.

Is my hon. Friend surprised to hear that the SNP denies the existence of spatial squeeze, and advisers told senior figures in the Government not to talk about spatial squeeze? Spatial squeeze is real. I return to his point about Bridlington being the lobster capital of Europe. We do not have to divide on this, but I think he will find that it is, in fact, Port William.

The hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George) raised the question of the correct method of dispatch for lobster. May I counsel him against the method that I tried, which was to pop them in the freezer? By the time I opened the door, they had eaten all my ice cream and three of my Fab lollies. Even as we speak, chic Parisians are enjoying langoustines and coquille Saint-Jacques, perhaps with a crisp glass of Chablis—lucky them. That seafood almost certainly comes from the pristine waters of Scotland, but one of the difficulties we face in getting that seafood into France via Boulogne is red tape, and this is where the Government should step in. That red tape is blamed on Brexit. In fact, it comes from the far side of the short strait. This is a difficulty created by the French—perhaps because of protectionist ideas, who knows?—but it should not take an entire renegotiation of the SPS agreement to get this sorted out. We could have this changed and changed quickly. The other danger with the renegotiation of an SPS deal is that it may have an impact on the free trade agreements we are doing around the world. We have recently signed one with India, for instance. The comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership, the CPTPP—which is easy for me to say; we need a better name for this—could be imperilled by effectively reducing ourselves to rule-takers rather than rule-makers with a new SPS deal. The other issue that many of our fragile coastal communities face is that they have full employment. Going to sea is not forever. I speak as the son of a marine engineer—I, meanwhile, get seasick in the bath, so I would certainly not want to go aboard a fishing boat. As we have heard, it is an exceptionally dangerous occupation and, even at the best of times, is difficult and hard work. The Home Office has a role here because it is exceptionally difficult to fulfil the requirements to bring in from elsewhere the workers who are crucial to this industry. I wonder if the Minister might touch on this—I appreciate it is a different Department—because we need some simplification of the rules and a realisation that they are making things exceptionally difficult for sometimes long-established businesses that should have a great future. Again, touching on that red tape issue, one of the seafood producers in my constituency, West Coast Sea Products from Kirkcudbright, is facing difficulty even now with getting scallops into France—not because the quality of its product is anything less than exemplary, but, again, because of the rules and the difficulties being placed in its way, not by Brexit, as I say, but by the French themselves. Perhaps we could hear something on that, and perhaps we might be able to unblock this logjam.

Does the Secretary of State not agree with expert opinion that says that while we remain signatories to the ECHR, we will not be able to protect our veterans from vexatious litigation?

America’s Delta Force has been involved in an incredible feat of arms in Caracas over the weekend. Of course, Delta Force is based on the 22 SAS regiment. Its formation came after Charles Beckwith served with the SAS. When the SAS speaks, it is usually listened to. The Minister has told us today that he has spoken to individuals from the SAS who signed the letter saying that this Bill is not fit for purpose. Have they changed their position?

A guid new year to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and the staff of the House. The past 14 months have been hell for the farmers of Dumfries and Galloway, and the Minister has made it clear that he will not apologise for that. Will he stop fantasising, like the wealthfinder general, about the money he can take out of agriculture and instead concentrate on helping British farmers to put British food on British tables?

Merry Christmas to you, Mr Speaker, and to your tip-top team. Dumfries and Galloway is the land of milk and slurry. We lack not for grass and dairy cattle, but we do lack for people. We are heavily reliant on immigrants to milk the cattle, so the loss of occupation code 5111 from the immigration salary list is causing huge concern. Can my farmers count on the Secretary of State to speak to the Home Office and head off what appears to be a looming crisis?

It would be churlish of Opposition Members not to recognise the importance of these 500 jobs or welcome their being saved, as it would for Government Members not to acknowledge that we are seeing a sort of self-licking ice cream here—a self-perpetuating system whereby the Government have to intervene in industries that are being damaged by their own policies. Industry that is hanging on by the skin of its teeth will not take well to the news of cheaper energy prices in due course—years down the line—because it is almost at the edge of going out of business. Instead of measuring ourselves against expensive Italy and France, should we not be looking at the much cheaper prices in the United States and China?

Will the Secretary confirm whether the remedial order will have to be voted on in the other place?

St Andrew was a guest at my wedding. No, I am not that old— I just look that way. Italia ’90 will be remembered by most for “Nessun Dorma”, Totò Schillaci and—my sympathies—England going out on penalties to Germany, but for me it was not about football; it was in Italy in 1990 that, in secret, I got married. The ceremony was held in Amalfi, under a portrait of a bearded St Andrew who looked rather like Matthew Goode as Inspector Carl Morck in “Dept. Q”. Most of St Andrew’s relics reside in Amalfi, having been moved there for safekeeping after the fourth crusade and the sack of Constantinople in 1204. Some think that Andrew brought Christianity to Scotland, but that was St Ninian, whose first footfall and church were in Whithorn, in my constituency of Dumfries and Galloway. So much for history. What has Andrew done for us lately? I have often thought that St Andrew’s day suffers a bit because of the date: 30 November tends to be dreich, in the slough of despond between Halloween and Christmas. I also think that we make rather too little of it—compare it with the global Irish celebration of St Patrick’s day and, increasingly, the festivities on St George’s day. Scotland should look ahead and not back, so while we are refreshing our take on St Andrew’s day, might we also move away from the dirge that is “Flower of Scotland” as our anthem, with its maudlin fixation on days that are past and “in the past…must remain”? The SNP needs to snap out of it, too. Scotland’s wars of independence are long over, Mel Gibson’s “Braveheart” is most certainly not a documentary—that may trigger woad rage—and Scotland is no colony, but as one with Britain. However, this Labour Government need to look again at their relationship with Holyrood. The much-vaunted reset between Westminster and Holyrood is just “devolve and forget” with better PR. Money is trolleyed north with little care for what happens once it is in SNP coffers. The nationalists oppose devolution; whether it is throwing a spanner in the works of defence firms by refusing to fund ordnance or a de facto boycott of our ally Israel, they will agitate in any way they can to break up Britain. Andrew was a fisherman before becoming a disciple—he of all people knew the value of mending your nets. Is it too much to ask of this Labour Government that they tend to the fabric of the Union? This is not about putting Holyrood in its place, but about delivering on what the people of Scotland voted for in 2014: remaining part of this great United Kingdom.

Who is in charge of our national security, and who is a risk to our national security? Those are simple questions, but the answers are tough to determine. Take China, for example: this Labour Government are attempting to ride multiple horses—or should that be dragons? Whatever decision is taken on Beijing, it should be shaped here in this place, for perhaps no other foreign policy area is so delicate and holds such peril for national security. Yet blundering into the powder keg of Anglo-Sino relations comes the SNP. Despite having no remit in foreign policy, Scottish Government Minister Richard Lochhead undertook a stealthy visit to Beijing in April under the cloak of trade promotion. What occurred is hard to determine, but worryingly it has since emerged that First Minister John Swinney gave what might be loosely called a letter of comfort to Chinese firm Ming Yang as it seeks to insert itself—possible kill switches and all—into our critical energy infrastructure. Alongside fellow Scottish Conservative MPs, I have signed a letter to the Security Minister asking what effect Mr Swinney opening up this new front might have on UK national security and international trade. That is in part because the Scottish Government have a dreadful track record in this area. Embarrassingly, former First Minister Nicola Sturgeon inked a deal with Chinese firms in 2016. She boasted of a $10 billion boost, but that deal fell apart when corruption concerns emerged regarding one of the firm’s parent companies. There is more. John Swinney is just back from Dublin, where he was incorrectly hailed as the first head of a Government to meet the new President, Catherine Connolly. Although they style themselves as the Scottish Government, Holyrood are a devolved Administration—small beer, Madam Deputy Speaker, or perhaps small stout. But make no mistake: the missive from the Áras an Uachtaráin, the House of the President, cocked a snook at this House. Worse, Mr Swinney also met Sinn Féin leader Mary Lou McDonald. The Northern Ireland Secretary confirmed to me that the Windsor agreement allows for such discussions if they are confined to devolved matters, but Miss McDonald bragged, “We discussed our aims for constitutional change and will continue to work together.” As the House knows, the constitutional aims of the Shinners—so democratic that they dodge scrutiny in this place—are to damage Britain by ripping Northern Ireland out of the Union, and the constitutional aim of the SNP is to defy the 2014 Scottish independence referendum and to tear Scotland from that same Union. As Labour stands idly by, the SNP has created an effective boycott of our ally Israel. Former First Minister Humza Yousaf seems more concerned about Gaza than about Glasgow Pollok, which he is actually meant to represent as an MSP. Meanwhile, the SNP’s lack of financial support has undermined the defence industry north of the border to the extent that the Defence Secretary has called them “a threat to our security” —[ Official Report , 3 November 2025; Vol. 774, c. 620.] , so the threats to our national security are not all external. When will this Labour Government stop facilitating the Scottish Government’s damaging shadow foreign policy, show some backbone, and stop Britain being undermined by John Swinney—the pound-shop Parnell—and his fellow travellers?

Civilians talk tactics and veterans talk logistics. Although the MAN trucks might not be as sexy as Ajax, their loss, however temporary, will be keenly felt. Can the Minister outline what practical steps are being taken to make sure that the wheels are not coming off—so to speak—any other mission-critical equipment?

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. I congratulate the hon. Member for Thurrock (Jen Craft) on securing this important debate, because we are indeed a maritime nation. Sir Christopher, “I must go down to the seas again, for the call of the running tide Is a wild call and a clear call that may not be denied”— John Masefield’s poem “Sea-Fever” brilliantly captures the magnetic draw of the ocean which, as an island nation, we feel acutely. Yet to be a sailor is not for everyone. My father was a sailor all his working life—a marine engineer who qualified on steam power and ended up on jet engines. His career spanned deep-sea tankers and roll-on, roll-off ferries, and he visited much of the world—or at least sailed past it. However, the salt water in his veins was not passed down to me, for I get seasick in a bath. That does not mean that I cannot appreciate what it is to be a sailor, and I want to express how important maritime traffic is to this country. My Dumfries and Galloway constituency has the ferry port of Cairnryan, which is a vital link with our friends in Northern Ireland. Our stunning coastline is studded with harbours—Kirkcudbright, Garlieston, the Isle of Whithorn, Port William and Portpatrick—which are used for leisure craft while the working boats win a valuable harvest of seafood from our pristine waters. Yet for all its romance, the sea is a tough place to make a living and, like all coastal communities, Dumfries and Galloway knows just how steep a price it can exact. The motor vessel Princess Victoria left my hometown of Stranraer—ironically with the motto “Safe harbour”—on 31 January 1953, but it never reached Larne. The more recent losses of the trawler Mhari-L and the scallop dredger Solway Harvester, with all 12 hands, are still raw. Happily, support for our sailors comes from many sources, including the Mission to Seafarers Scotland and the Scottish Nautical Welfare Society, but I want to highlight the charity Combat Stress. As well as reaching out to veterans of the Royal Navy, it also helps with the mental health issues of former members of the merchant navy, which was Britain’s lifeline in wartime, and is very much the same today. As a journalist, I worked closely with the late Colonel Clive Fairweather, who was second in command of 22 SAS and commanding officer of the King’s Own Scottish Borderers. This tough infantryman was clear that Combat Stress’ outreach to the merchant navy was key. He would say: “Worse things do happen at sea”, acknowledging the strain that a life on the ocean waves can exert. We all, in our comfortable lives, owe a debt of gratitude to the men and, increasingly, women who sail the planet’s one great ocean for us all. They are the ones who answer the call of the sea that was captured so well by Masefield: “I must go down to the seas again, to the vagrant gypsy life, To the gull’s way and the whale’s way where the wind’s like a whetted knife”.

I started and ended my journalism career at the Stranraer and Wigtownshire Free Press , which has had a name-check, and I am delighted to report that people still queue up on a Thursday morning to buy it. It is thriving, but the BBC is a key issue, because the BBC’s website is killing local papers—it is as simple as that. People can access the local news for free, although obviously we pay the licence fee. Is there an opportunity through the new charter to address the damage the BBC is doing to local papers?

7. Whether she has had discussions with the Welsh Government on the potential impact of the proposed visitor levy on the Welsh economy.

Hospitality in Wales and across the United Kingdom is dying on its feet. It needs a shot in the arm; instead, last week’s bin-fire Budget gave it a shot in the head. This is more money coming out of businesses, is it not?

The Minister and I have clashed over Sun Tzu in the past, but at the risk of riling him again, I want to tell him that Sun Tzu said that sometimes a strategic advantage is to be had by feigning weakness. Every day we fail to add China to the enhanced tier of the foreign influence registration scheme, that is not us feigning weakness; it is weakness. Is that not the case?

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Lewell. In my short time in Parliament, perhaps the most terrifying thing I have heard so far is the evidence we took on the Business and Trade Committee that state actors are joining forces with criminal gangs to attack this country in the cyber-theatre. From his vast experience, has the right hon. Gentleman ever delivered a report quite so urgent and time-sensitive?

My hon. Friend is delivering a searing indictment of this Budget. Does he agree that the intention of the farm tax may have been to take in multimillionaire so-called “slipper farmers”, but in rural constituencies like his and mine, it is hitting tenant farmers?

On the Business and Trade Committee, we hear all the time that energy costs in this country are unaffordable, and it puts industry of every kind at a disadvantage. We are seeing the results of that today. The other issue is the perverse carbon border adjustment mechanism, which actually makes imports of ethylene cheaper. The Minister referred to imports. Is it not the case that we need to look at all these policies in the round? We are crippling British industry.

The Chinese general Sun Tzu said that “the opportunity of defeating the enemy is provided by the enemy himself.” Are we not presenting an opportunity for defeat when members of our military ride around in Chinese cars, and why on earth are this Government facilitating secretive trade trips to Beijing for members of the Scottish Government?

Since coming to this place, I have struggled to find out how much money the UK Government are putting into the A75 road, which runs right through my constituency. I was astonished to find that a Labour candidate had said on social media that the figure was £8.5 million. I asked the Secretary of State for Transport whether that figure was correct—it was not. I was also told on social media that Anas Sarwar, the leader of the Labour party in Scotland, was responsible for that figure. Can the Leader of the House help me get to the bottom of this constitutional crisis, in which someone in another Parliament pulls the strings in this one?

T5. Scotland’s First Minister John Swinney is not often right, and he is wrong again with his slavish devotion to the European convention on human rights. If this place is to update the ECHR to make it fit for the 21st century, what steps can the Justice Secretary take to ensure that soft-touch Scotland does not become a back door for article 8 applications?

It is important that we in this House remember that terrorists killed Members of this House, including Airey Neave only a few hundred yards from where we stand today. The Secretary of State on previous occasions has indicated that something like nine inquests could now restart. He has said that Loughgall, an exemplary special forces operation in which brave men stood up against terrorists and nullified them, will be one of those. He has not said which other eight will be reopened. Can he take this opportunity to do that here today?

The F-35 Lightning II aircraft is a cutting-edge system, the helmets for which come from my constituency, but the Public Accounts Committee has the MOD in missile lock over the cost of introducing the new nuclear freefall bombs with the F-35A. Can the Minister give the House some reassurance that the decision to bring in tactical nuclear weapons is not going to cost us a bomb?

The Minister will agree that the work on those trade deals was begun under the previous Administration.

I just gently point out that I think more Scots voted for Brexit than for anything else in the history of Scotland.

Sorry, but I will not give way, because I want to make some progress. John Swinney—not so much yesterday’s man as the day before yesterday’s man—is a pound-shop Parnell trying to suborn British institutions to undermine Britain. Devolution is not working, but it is not broken beyond repair. My noble Friend Lord Offord of Garvel, who sits in the other place, has challenged Holyrood to do better in a series of essays entitled “Wealthy Nation, Healthy Nation”. That is predicated on Holyrood parking its constitutional obsession to deliver what it was intended to do—to better the lives of those living in Scotland. Amen, but it will require the Scottish Government to respect democracy, not least the clearcut decision in the 2014 independence referendum to remain part of the UK, and it will take this House finding the courage to confront what the SNP Government are up to. It is not about putting them in their place or keeping them in their lane. No, it is merely about both Governments respecting the Scotland Act. If Holyrood is to have another 25 years, John Swinney needs to comport himself as First Minister, not “First Agitator”. The present Secretary for State for Scotland once told Harvard University of the need “to more closely align accountability with decision-making authority.” Hear, hear. The chink of ice in the whisky cocktails in far-flung embassies is seductive, but while the Scottish Secretary is distracted, the SNP plots, and it is our constituents who will pay the bar bill and face the hangover.

Devolution is not working. Instead of two Governments working in harness, Scotland has one in Westminster with its back turned to the one in Holyrood, which daily plots to break up Britain. Labour took power convinced that they were the grown-ups who would reset relations with the SNP at Holyrood. The harsh reality is that the SNP Government have no interest in joint working, for if devolution is a success, they lose the argument that independence is a necessity. They are aided in their mission by Labour’s “devolve and forget”. This Government trolly billions of pounds north to Edinburgh via the block grant, but what happens after it disappears into the SNP black hole, where we can see what goes in but not what comes out? Well, no one on the Government Benches seems to care overmuch. The sleekit SNP is running rings around them. The Chancellor appeared in a smart video saying that she was delivering investment in Scotland. The backdrop was Lossiemouth, a key RAF base for protecting the High North, yet the SNP actively undermines British defence. There has been ludicrous talk of deploying “Scottish forces” as peacekeepers in Ukraine. There are many Scots men and women in Britain’s forces, but there are no Scottish forces. Ironically, the SNP denies defence firms vital investment because of childish opposition to ordnance—the shells, bombs, bullets and missiles that keep us all safe in a dangerous world. That is pulling apart, not pulling together. Under the previous Administration, the Scotland Office was the guardian of devolution. The then Secretary of State for Scotland, Alister Jack, adroitly deployed section 35 of the Scotland Act to prevent the unlamented Nicola Sturgeon’s gender recognition reform from trampling on the rights of women and girls across the entire UK. That was not some assault on Holyrood’s powers, but a judicious application of the law as it stood to prevent devolution from being abused, to prevent Scotland from becoming a different country bit by bit, and to stop devolution being used as a battering ram to smash the Union. Would that happen now? Today’s Scotland Office is, we are told, “Scotland’s window on the world”. Rather than nurturing the Scotland Act, it looks increasingly like Dover House has been annexed by the Department for Business and Trade as a pop-up shop for salmon and whisky. Perhaps a bit less looking out the window and a bit more attention to what is going on at John Swinney’s Bute House is in order, for Scottish Ministers seem to have more foreign breaks than Galloway Travel Service in Stranraer, in my constituency of Dumfries and Galloway. They have gone to Malawi, Zambia, Canada and Washington DC. Despite having no role in international affairs, Scottish Ministers have racked up more air miles than Biggles, at taxpayers’ expense. What are they discussing, given that trade policy is reserved? Let us take China, for example: Scottish Business Minister Richard Lochhead sloped off on a low-key visit to Beijing, and I asked what occurred, but the Foreign Office did not have eyes on it, in another display of “devolve and forget”. There are many siren voices calling for Holyrood’s abolition as Supreme Court judgments on gender are ignored; its Committee system, as we have heard, is neutered so that genuine scrutiny is near impossible; and the First Minister spends more time pronouncing on Gaza and boycotting Israel—foreign affairs are outwith his bailiwick—while Scots’ taxes rise with no improvement in public services.

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Back to the Sabs. Will the Secretary of State review the rules around sporting and entertainment events to make sure that this Government, and any future Government, are not rendered impotent in the face of the mob?

Birmingham’s best band is, of course, Black Sabbath and it has counselled us that: “If you listen to fools, the mob rules.” This is a case of mob rule here. The Secretary of State has done a tremendous job of setting out the Government’s position. Will she review, while maintaining police independence— [ Interruption. ]

A senior Chinese Government official invited Britain to “fulfil its obligations and honour its commitments” over the so-called super-embassy, but can the Minister shed light on what those obligations and commitments were? If he is going to say that no such commitments or obligations were offered, can we file that under another threat to this country by the Chinese?

For many years, I commuted by aircraft from Scotland to Dublin—so many years, in fact, that I can still recall there are eight emergency exits on a Boeing 737-800. There are two at the front, two at the rear and four over-wing exits. What a great pity that this Bill does not have an amendment that is an escape slide. While sustainable aviation fuel sounds wonderful, it is burdened with many inconvenient facts. The first is that there is no SAF production industry at the scale required. While new clause 1 is a bold attempt to jump-start production by repurposing old facilities, it is a jumbo jet of a task. The World Economic Forum estimates that by 2030, global demand for SAF is expected to reach 70 million tonnes per annum—around 4% to 5% of total jet fuel consumption. Meeting likely demand in just five years requires an additional 5.8 million tonnes of capacity. What is the investment required to reach even that relatively modest goal? The WEF pitches it at somewhere between $19 billion and $45 billion globally. If that does not give our legislative autopilot the warning, “Terrain! Terrain! Pull up!”, then it should do. New clause 1 is unaffordable, whether backed by public or private finance, and I am afraid it is doomed to fail. It is certain that the vast input costs will result in massively higher costs for passengers and air freight. I support the vital new clause 6, which would force an assessment of the economic impact of this Bill, which I fear will be nothing short of devastating. Some might piously accept fewer flights to the Costas or a little less airfreighted Kenyan mangetout on the dinner table, but making air travel ruinously expensive will have implications for thousands of jobs—millions globally—in not only aviation, but tourism. Many flights are not indulgences, but lifelines. We are an island nation, and many communities within the UK are entirely reliant on air links. Will Britain—so long the pioneers of aviation, with a history stretching back to the first scheduled international passenger flight and the first jet airliner—be foremost in SAF? Probably not, for mandating SAF is easier than producing it, especially in a country with power prices as exorbitant as ours. Energy bills in Dumfries in my constituency are four times what they are in Dumfries in Virginia in the United States, and they are cheaper still in China. We need a lot of power to make SAF. Many question its green credentials when so much carbon is generated in its production. Amendment 10 is a bid to explore the serious issues around SAF derived from either organic or synthetic sources. Much is made of an 80% reduction in greenhouse gases using SAF sourced from waste fat and oil feedstocks, but, as we have heard, those basic building blocks are in limited supply. That issue is also addressed in, though not solved by, new clause 2. Using crops as feedstock may not reduce greenhouse gases at all, and there are huge implications of turning prime agricultural land and billions of gallons of water over to producing crops for fuel, rather than food. Again, Britain is at a disadvantage. America’s vast corn belt might get involved, but the British bioethanol industry is a warning to us, for it was not able to survive on current targets for the content in road fuel. Other amendments, including amendment 11, concern themselves with how a revenue certainty mechanism will operate. My concern is that we risk creating a self-licking ice cream—a self-perpetuating system with no purpose other than to sustain itself. This Bill could guarantee moneys that simply offset the costs of manufacturing SAF, which is itself made expensive by green levies. Would it not be better to put what money we have available into aviation excellence, driving up the efficiency of jet engines and airframes? Aviation is already playing its part in reducing its carbon footprint—according to some experts, engine efficiency is already up by as much as 83% from the early days of the de Havilland Comet jet liner. That progress can continue, although super-efficient jets need superalloys to handle the extremes of temperature in their engines, and those require the sorts of rare earths that China is hoovering up. Canada, by the way, has many of the same critical minerals; might we be better off investing in those than subsidising SAF? If we want really big carbon savings, we ought to look to the sea. Much of what we trade—in and out—goes by sea, and cargo ships are heavily reliant on bunker oil, a tar-like substance with heavy emissions. If we want novel fuels, this island nation should look once more to Tennyson’s “boundless deep”, where the salt-caked smoke stacks belch still. Meanwhile, the wild blue yonder of the skies must not be made inaccessible simply by expensive green dogma.

rose —

I thank the Minister for giving way on that point: this is about balance. We need to find a balance in the transition of people coming out of oil and gas and moving into renewables. The difficulty is that we cannot say to these highly-skilled people that there is a great job for them in renewables but it is going to be 10 years down the line. That is no use to them at all: they have bills to pay and families to feed. The balance is out of kilter, and I am afraid that the Government are getting this wrong.

Will the Minister give way on that point?

I am from the south-west of Scotland, which is as far from the north-east as one can get in Scotland. None the less, this is a huge issue for the whole country. My hon. Friend is making a point about the North sea basin being mature. We always hear that—it is mature, it is declining—but the Norwegian investment is exploiting areas of gas and oil that previously would not have been accessible. New techniques such as horizontal drilling are delivering huge benefits for the Norwegian economy; we are denying ourselves those benefits. Is that not the case?